[House Report 107-805]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 506
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-805
======================================================================
ACTIVITIES
of the
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
2001-2002
(Pursuant to House Rule XI, 1(d))
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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 CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JIM TURNER, Texas
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVE WELDON, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ------ ------
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (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
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 2, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: By direction of the Committee on
Government Reform, I submit herewith the committee's activities
report to the 107th Congress.
Dan Burton,
Chairman.
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Part One. Committee Organization................................. 1
I. Historical Overview..............................................1
II. Jurisdiction.....................................................4
III. Rules of the Committee on Government Reform......................7
IV. Subcommittees...................................................13
Part Two. Committee Activities................................... 15
I. Legislation.....................................................15
A. Legislation Enacted into Law.......................... 15
B. Legislation Approved by the House..................... 43
C. Legislation Reported by the Committee or Subcommittee. 61
II. Oversight Activities............................................67
A. Committee Reports..................................... 67
B. Oversight Hearings.................................... 75
Full Committee..................................... 75
Subcommittees...................................... 110
Part Three. Publications......................................... 217
I. Committee Prints...............................................217
II. Printed Hearings...............................................218
Views of the Ranking Minority Member
Views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman.................................... 227
Union Calendar No. 506
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-805
======================================================================
ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
_______
January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Burton, from the Committee on Government Reform, submitted the
following
REPORT
ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, 107TH CONGRESS,
1ST AND 2D SESSIONS, 2001 AND 2002
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 from the Hoosier State to chair a full
committee in the House since 1931. Taking seriously the
committee's mandate to uncover waste, fraud and abuse, Chairman
Burton led a series of high-profile committee oversight
investigations. Some of the most noteworthy investigations
looked into:
Illegal foreign contributions that flowed
into 1996 Presidential campaigns;
The Justice Department's flawed handling of
the Independent Counsel Act during the tenure of
Attorney General Reno;
Controversial pardons and grants of clemency
issued by President Clinton;
The misuse of mob informants by the FBI in
organized crime investigations in Boston;
The plight of American citizens kidnapped
and held against their will in Saudi Arabia; and
Vaccine safety and the controversial use of
mercury preservatives in childhood vaccines.
The Government Reform Committee had primary jurisdiction
over legislation creating the Homeland Security Department, the
first major reorganization of the executive branch since the
1970s. Under Chairman Burton's leadership, the committee
favorably reported the Homeland Security Act in July 2002. The
committee also enacted a number of other reform measures,
including the Erroneous Payments Recovery Act, the Small
Business Paperwork Reduction Act, the District of Columbia
Family Court Act, and the Long-Term Care Security Act.
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 \2\, Dan Miller, Chairman;
members: Chris Cannon, Mark E. Souder, Bob Barr, Wm.
Lacy Clay, Carolyn B. Maloney, and Danny K. Davis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Subcommittee on the Census was combined with the
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, to create a
newly named Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census and Agency
Organization.
Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census and Agency
Organization \3\, Dave Weldon, Chairman; members: Dan
Miller, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization was
combined with the Subcommittee on the Census, to create a newly named
Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census and Agency Organization.
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, Christopher Shays, 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 Sullivan, John F. Tierney, Tom Lantos,
Edolphus Towns, Dennis J. Kucinich, and Rod R.
Blagojevich.
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Stephen
Horn, Chairman; members: Ron Lewis, Doug Ose, Adam H.
Putnam, John Sullivan, 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,
and Paul E. Kanjorski.
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 U.S. Post
Office located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, NY, as the
``Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 3379, introduced by
Representative Steve Israel (NY) on November 29, 2001, was
referred to the House Committee on Government Reform. The bill
passed the House under suspension of the rules on December 18,
2001. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without
amendment, on March 22, and was signed into law on April 18,
2002, becoming Public Law 107-167.
d. Hearings.--None.
14. S. 737, introduced by Senator Harry Reid (NV), designates the
postal facility 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 postal
facility located at 811 South Main Street in Yerington, NV, as
the ``Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--The bill, introduced on April 6,
2001, was reported by the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs on August 2, 2001, and passed the Senate by Unanimous
Consent on August 3, 2001. It passed the House under suspension
of the rules on February 5, 2002, and was signed into law on
February 14, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-144.
d. Hearings.--None.
15. S. 970, introduced by Senator Susan Collins (ME), designates 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 facility of
the U.S. Postal Service located at 39 Tremont Street, Paris
Hill, ME, as the Horatio King Post Office Building.
c. Legislative status.--The bill, introduced on May 25,
2001, was reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs on
August 2, 2001, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent on
August 3, 2001. It passed the House under suspension of the
rules on February 5, 2002, by a vote of 394 to 0. It was signed
into law on February 14, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-145.
d. Hearings.--None.
16. S. 1026, introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli (NJ), designates
the postal facility 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 postal
facility located at 60 Third Avenue in Long Branch, NJ, as the
``Pat King Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--The bill, introduced on June 13,
2001, was reported by the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs on August 2, 2001, and passed the Senate by unanimous
consent on August 3, 2001. It passed the House under suspension
of the rules on February 6, 2002, and was signed into law on
February 14, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-146.
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.
18. H.R. 669, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 127 Social Street in Woonsocket, RI, as the
``Alphonse F. Auclair Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 669 would designate the
facility of the U.S. Postal Service at 127 Social Street in
Woonsocket, RI, as the ``Alphonse F. Auclair Post Office
Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 669, introduced by
Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (RI) on February 14, 2001,
was referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill
passed the House under suspension of the rules on October 10,
2002. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without
amendment, on October 17, 2002, and was signed into law on
October 30, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-261.
d. Hearings.--None.
19. H.R. 670, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 7 Commercial Street in Newport, RI, as the ``Bruce
F. Cotta Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 670 would designate the postal
facility located at 7 Commercial Street in Newport, RI, as the
``Bruce F. Cotta Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 670, introduced by
Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (RI) on February 14, 2001,
was referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill
passed the House under suspension of the rules on October 10,
2002. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without
amendment, on October 17, 2002, and was signed into law on
October 30, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-262.
d. Hearings.--None.
20. H.R. 1366, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 3101 West Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, CA,
as the ``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1366 would designate the
postal facility located at 3101 West Sunflower Avenue in Santa
Ana, CA, as the ``Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 1366, introduced by
Representative Loretta Sanchez (CA) on April 3, 2001, was
referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed
the House under suspension of the rules on April 10, 2001. It
passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without amendment, on
June 3, 2002, and was signed into law on June 18, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-190.
d. Hearings.--None.
21. H.R. 1374, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, MI, as
the ``Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1374 would designate the
postal facility located at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden,
MI, as the ``Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 1374, introduced by
Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (RI) on February 14, 2001,
was referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill
passed the House under suspension of the rules on April 16,
2002. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without
amendment, on June 3, 2002, and was signed into law on June 18,
2002, becoming Public Law 107-191.
d. Hearings.--None.
22. 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.
It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without amendment,
on March 22, 2002, and was signed into law on April 18, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-160.
d. Hearings.--None.
23. H.R. 1748, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 805 Glen Burnie Road in Richmond, VA, as the
``Tom Bliley Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1748 would designate the
facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 805 Glen Burnie
Road in Richmond, VA, as the ``Tom Bliley Post Office
Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 1748, introduced by
Representative Eric Cantor (VA) on May 8, 2001, was referred to
the Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed the House
under suspension of the rules on February 12, 2002. It passed
the Senate by unanimous consent, without amendment, on March
22, 2002, and was signed into law on April 18, 2002, becoming
Public Law 107-161.
d. Hearings.--None.
24. H.R. 1749, a bill 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 facility
of the U.S. Postal Service located at 685 Turnberry Road in
Newport News, VA, as the ``Herbert H. Bateman Post Office
Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 1749, introduced by
Representative Jo Ann Davis (VA) on May 8, 2001, was referred
to the House Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed
the House under suspension of the rules on October 9, 2001. It
passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without amendment, on
March 22, 2002, and was signed into law on April 18, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-162.
d. Hearings.--None.
25. 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.--H.R. 2577, introduced by
Representative Bart Stupak (MI) on July 19, 2001, was referred
to the Committee on Government Reform on July 19, 2001. The
bill passed the House under suspension of the rules on February
12, 2002. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without
amendment, on March 22, 2002, and was signed into law on April
18, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-163.
d. Hearings.--None.
26. H.R. 2876, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 216 2nd Street, S.W. in Harlem, MT as the ``Francis
Bardanouve U.S. 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, S.W. in Harlem, MT as the
``Francis Bardanouve U.S. Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 2577, introduced by
Representative Dennis Rehberg (MT) on September 10, 2001, was
referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed
the House under suspension of the rules on October 16, 2001. It
passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without amendment, on
March 22, 2002, and was signed into law on April 18, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-164.
d. Hearings.--None.
27. H.R. 2910, a bill 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.--H.R. 2910, introduced by
Representative Randy Forbes (VA) on September 20, 2001, was
referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed
the House under suspension of the rules on October 30, 2001. It
passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without amendment, on
March 22, 2002, and was signed into law on April 18, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-165.
d. Hearings.--None.
28. H.R. 3034, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 89 River Street in Hoboken, NJ, as the
``Frank Sinatra Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3034 would designate the
postal facility located at 89 River Street in Hoboken, NJ, as
the ``Frank Sinatra Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 3034, introduced by
Representative Robert Menendez (NJ) on October 4, 2001, was
referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed
the House under suspension of the rules on June 27, 2002. It
passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without amendment, on
October 17, 2002, and was signed into law on October 30, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-263.
d. Hearings.--None.
29. 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.--H.R. 3072, introduced by
Representative Charles Taylor (NC) on October 9, 2001, was
referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed
the House under suspension of the rules on December 18, 2001.
It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without amendment,
on March 22, 2002, and was signed into law on April 18, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-166.
d. Hearings.--None.
30. H.R. 3287, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 900 Brentwood Road, NE., in Washington, DC,
as the ``Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. Processing
and Distribution Center''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3287 would designate the
facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 900 Brentwood
Road, NE., in Washington, DC, as the ``Joseph Curseen, Jr. and
Thomas Morris, Jr. Processing and Distribution Center.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R 3287, introduced by
Representative Albert Russell Wynn (MD) on November 13, 2001,
was referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill
passed the House under suspension of the rules on September 4,
2002. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, without
amendment, on September 5, 2002, and was signed into law on
September 24, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-225.
d. Hearings.--None.
31. H.R. 3738, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1299 North 7th Street in Philadelphia, PA as the
``Herbert Arlene Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3738 designates the postal
facility located at 1299 North 7th Street in Philadelphia, PA
as the ``Herbert Arlene Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Robert
Brady (PA) on February 13, 2002. The bill passed the House
under suspension of the rules on June 11, 2002, and passed the
Senate under unanimous consent on October 17, 2002. The bill
was signed by the President on October 30, 2002, and became
Public Law 107-264.
d. Hearings.--None.
32. H.R. 3739, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 6150 North Broad Street in Philadelphia, PA as the
``Rev. Leon Sullivan Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3739 designates the postal
facility located at 6150 North Broad Street in Philadelphia, PA
as the ``Rev. Leon Sullivan Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Robert
Brady (PA) on February 13, 2002. The bill passed the House
under suspension of the rules on June 11, 2002, and passed the
Senate under unanimous consent on October 17, 2002. The bill
was signed by the President on October 30, 2002, and became
Public Law 107-265.
d. Hearings.--None.
33. H.R. 3740, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 925 Dickinson Street in Philadelphia, PA as the
``William A. Cibotti Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3740 designates the postal
facility located at 925 Dickinson Street in Philadelphia, PA as
the ``William A. Cibotti Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Robert
Brady (PA) on February 13, 2002. The bill passed the House
under suspension of the rules on June 11, 2002, and passed the
Senate under unanimous consent on October 17, 2002. The bill
was signed by the President on October 30, 2002, and became
Public Law 107-266.
d. Hearings.--None.
34. H.R. 3789, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2829 Commercial Way in Rock Springs, WY as the
``Teno Roncalio Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3789 designates the postal
facility located at 2829 Commercial Way in Rock Springs, WY as
the ``Teno Roncalio Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Barbara Cubin (WY) on February 26, 2002. The bill passed the
House under suspension of the rules on March 5, 2002, and
passed the Senate under unanimous consent on June 3, 2002. The
bill was signed by the President on June 18, 2002, and became
Public Law 107-192.
d. Hearings.--None.
35. H.R. 3960, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 3719 Highway 4 in Jay, FL as the ``Joseph W.
Westmoreland Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3960 designates the postal
facility located at 3719 Highway 4 in Jay, FL as the ``Joseph
W. Westmoreland Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Jeff
Miller (FL) on March 13, 2002. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on April 16, 2002, and passed the
Senate under unanimous consent on June 3, 2002. The bill was
signed by the President on June 18, 2002, and became Public Law
107-193.
d. Hearings.--None.
36. H.R. 4102, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 120 North Maine Street in Fallon, NV as the ``Rollan
D. Melton Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4102 designates the postal
facility located at 120 North Maine Street in Fallon, NV as the
``Rollan D. Melton Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Jim
Gibbons (NV) on April 9, 2002. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on September 17, 2002, and passed the
Senate under unanimous consent on October 17, 2002. The bill
was signed by the President on October 30, 2002, and became
Public Law 107-267.
d. Hearings.--None.
37. H.R. 4486, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1590 East Joyce Boulevard in Fayetteville, AR as the
``Clarence B. Craft Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4486 designates the postal
facility located at 1590 East Joyce Boulevard in Fayetteville,
AR as the ``Clarence B. Craft Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative John
Boozman (AR) on April 18, 2002. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on May 7, 2002, and passed the Senate
under unanimous consent on June 3, 2002. The bill was signed by
the President on June 18, 2002, and became Public Law 107-194.
d. Hearings.--None.
38. H.R. 4717, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1199 Pasadena Boulevard in Pasadena, TX as the ``Jim
Fonteno Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4717 designates the postal
facility located at 1199 Pasadena Boulevard in Pasadena, TX as
the ``Jim Fonteno Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.-- Introduced by Representative Ken
Bentsen (TX) on May 14, 2002. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on June 18, 2002, and passed the Senate
under unanimous consent on October 17, 2002. The bill was
signed by the President on October 30, 2002, and became Public
Law 107-268.
d. Hearings.--None.
39. H.R. 4755, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 204 South Broad Street in Lancaster, OH as the
``Clarence Miller Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4755 designates the postal
facility located at 204 South Broad Street in Lancaster, OH as
the ``Clarence Miller Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative David
Hobson (OH) on May 16, 2002. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on July 15, 2002, and passed the Senate
under unanimous consent on October 17, 2002. The bill was
signed by the President on October 30, 2002, and became Public
Law 107-269.
d. Hearings.--None.
40. H.R. 4794, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1895 Avenida Del Oro in Oceanside, CA as the
``Ronald C. Packard Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4794 designates the postal
facility located at 1895 Avenida Del Oro in Oceanside, CA as
the ``Ronald C. Packard Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Darrell Issa (CA) on May 22, 2002. The bill passed the House
under suspension of the rules on June 18, 2002, and passed the
Senate under unanimous consent on October 17, 2002. The bill
was signed by the President on October 30, 2002, and became
Public Law 107-270.
d. Hearings.--None.
41. H.R. 4797, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 265 South Western Avenue in Los Angeles, CA as the
``Nat King Cole Post Office''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4797 designates the postal
facility located at 265 South Western Avenue in Los Angeles, CA
as the ``Nat King Cole Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Xavier
Becerra (CA) on May 22, 2002. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on September 9, 2002, and passed the
Senate under unanimous consent on October 17, 2002. The bill
was signed by the President on October 30, 2002, and became
Public Law 107-271.
d. Hearings.--None.
42. H.R. 4851, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 6910 South Yorktown Avenue in Tulsa, OK as the
``Robert Wayne Jenkins Station''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4851 designates the postal
facility located at 6910 South Yorktown Avenue in Tulsa, OK as
the ``Robert Wayne Jenkins Station.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative John
Sullivan (OK) on May 23, 2002. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on October 1, 2002, and passed the
Senate under unanimous consent on October 17, 2002. The bill
was signed by the President on October 30, 2002, and became
Public Law 107-272.
d. Hearings.--None.
43. H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002
a. Report number and date.--House Report No. 107-609, Part
1.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5005, proposed by the
President and introduced by Majority Leader Dick Armey on June
24, 2002, would create a new Department of Homeland Security by
realigning the current patchwork of government activities into
a single department whose primary mission is to protect the
American homeland.
H.R. 5005 would create a cabinet-level Department of
Homeland Security and transfer into the Department the
functions and activities of 22 different entities that
currently have responsibility for various aspects of homeland
security. The Department would have a budget of approximately
$37 billion and 170,000 employees. Under the bill, the
Department's primary responsibilities include: (1) information
analysis and infrastructure protection; (2) chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and related countermeasures;
(3) border and transportation security; and (4) emergency
preparedness and response.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 5005 was referred to the
Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over
reorganizations of the executive branch. Sections of the bill
were also referred to numerous other committees exercising
jurisdiction over particular agencies. All standing committees
had until July 12, 2002, to report their recommendations to the
Select Ad Hoc Committee on Homeland Security, chaired by
Majority Leader Armey.
On July 11, 2002, the committee held a business meeting to
markup H.R. 5005, the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002.''
Following a marathon session lasting more than 15 hours, the
committee reported the bill to the Select Ad Hoc Committee on
Homeland Security with more than 30 amendments. The bill was
considered by the Select Committee on Homeland Security and
reported to the full House on July 24, 2002. It passed the
House with amendments on July 26, 2002 by a vote of 295 to 132.
The bill passed the Senate on November 19, 2002, by a vote of
90 to 9. The House took up the Senate amendments and agreed to
them by unanimous consent on November 22, 2002. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 was signed into law on November 25, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-296.
d. Hearings.--On June 20, 2002, the committee held a
hearing to examine the President's proposal to create a
Department of Homeland Security within the executive branch of
the Federal Government. The committee received testimony from
Governor Tom Ridge, the President's Homeland Security Advisor,
and one of the principal architects of the President's plan.
44. H.R. 5207, introduced by Congressman Jim Ramstad (MN), designates
the postal facility located at 6101 West Old Shakopee Road in
Bloomington, MN, as the ``Thomas E. Burnett, Jr. Post Office
Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5207 designates the postal
facility located at 6101 West Old Shakopee Road in Bloomington,
MN, as the ``Thomas E. Burnett, Jr. Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--The bill was introduced on July 24,
2002, and passed the House under suspension of the rules on
September 4, 2002. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous
consent without amendment on September 5, 2002, and was passed
into law on September 24, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-227.
d. Hearings.--None.
45. H.R. 5308, introduced by Congressman Bob Schaffer (CO), designates
the postal facility located at 301 South Howes Street in Fort
Collins, CO, as the ``Barney Apodaca Post Office''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5308 designates the postal
facility located at 301 South Howes Street in Fort Collins, CO,
as the ``Barney Apodaca Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--The bill introduced on July 26,
2002, passed the House under suspension of the rules on
September 4, 2002. The bill was reported by the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs without amendment on October
15, 2002, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent on October
17, 2002. The bill was signed into law on November 6, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-283.
d. Hearings.--None.
46. H.R. 5333, introduced by Congressman James McGovern (MA),
designates the postal facility located at 4 East Central Street
in Worcester, MA, as the ``Joseph D. Early Post Office
Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5333 designates the postal
facility located at 4 East Central Street in Worcester, MA, as
the ``Joseph D. Early Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--The bill was introduced on
September 4, 2002, and passed the House under suspension of the
rules on September 17, 2002, by a vote of 397 to 0. The bill
was reported by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on
October 9, 2002, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent
without amendment on October 17, 2002. It was signed into law
on November 6, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-284.
d. Hearings.--None.
47. H.R. 5336, introduced by Congressman Peter King (NY), designates
the postal facility located at 380 Main Street in Farmingdale,
NY, as the ``Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5336 designates the postal
facility located at 380 Main Street in Farmingdale, NY, as the
``Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.-- The bill, introduced on September
5, 2002, passed the House under suspension of the rules on
September 9, 2002, by voice vote. The bill was reported by the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on October 15, 2002,
and passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on
October 17, 2002. The bill was signed into law on November 6,
2002, becoming Public Law 107-285.
d. Hearings.--None.
48. H.R. 5340, introduced by Congressman Brad Sherman (CA), designates
the postal facility located at 5805 White Oak Avenue in Encino,
CA, as the ``Francis Dayle `Chick' Hearn Post Office''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5340 designates the postal
facility located at 5805 White Oak Avenue in Encino, CA, as the
``Francis Dayle `Chick' Hearn Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--The bill, introduced on September
5, 2002, passed the House under suspension of the rules on
October 7, 2002. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on
October 17, 2002, and was signed into law on November 6, 2002,
becoming Public Law 107-286.
d. Hearings.--None.
49. H.R. 5574, introduced by Congressman Jack Kingston (GA), designates
the postal facility located at 206 South Main Street in
Glennville, GA, as the ``Michael Lee Woodcock Post Office''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5574 designates the postal
facility located at 206 South Main Street in Glennville, GA, as
the ``Michael Lee Woodcock Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--The bill, introduced on October 8,
2002, passed the House by unanimous consent on October 10,
2002. It passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on October 17, 2002. It was signed into law on November
7, 2002, becoming Public Law 107-291.
d. Hearings.--None.
50. S. 2530, a bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to
establish police powers for certain Inspector General agents
engaged in official duties and provide an oversight mechanism
for the exercise of those powers, introduced by Senator Fred
Thompson (TN)
a. Report number and date.--House Report No. 107-176, filed
on June 25, 2002.
b. Summary of measure.--This bill grants law enforcement
authority (i.e., carry firearms, make arrests, and execute
warrants) to Inspectors General, Assistant Inspectors General
for Investigations, and any special agent supervised by such an
Assistant Inspector General, if the Attorney General authorizes
such authority. The Attorney General is authorized to grant
such law enforcement authority only upon an initial
determination that: (1) the affected Office of Inspector
General is significantly hampered in the performance of such
responsibilities as a result of the lack of such powers; (2)
available assistance from other law enforcement agencies is
insufficient to meet the need for exercising such powers; and
(3) adequate internal safeguards and management procedures
exist to ensure proper exercise of those powers. Specified
Offices of Inspector General are exempted from such an initial
determination of eligibility. The Attorney General could also
suspend law enforcement authority for an entire Office of
Inspector General or for individual IG agents.
c. Legislative status.--S. 2530 was introduced by Senator
Thompson on May 16, 2002 and was reported by the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs on June 25, 2002. The bill
was passed by the Senate, with an amendment, by unanimous
consent on October 17, 2002. The bill was referred to the House
Committees on Government Reform and Judiciary. The bill was
inserted in H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which
passed the House and the Senate and was signed into law on
November 25, 2002.
d. Hearings.--The Committee on Government Reform did not
hold hearings on this legislation during the 107th Congress.
Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census 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.
7. H.J. Res. 82, Recognizing the 91st Birthday of Ronald Reagan
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the 91st birthday of
Ronald Reagan.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Christopher Cox on February 5, 2002 and referred to House
Committee on Government Reform. Passed the House on February 6,
2002 under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate on February
6, 2002, without amendments, by unanimous consent. Signed by
the President on February 14, 2002. Public Law No. 107-143
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
8. H.R. 169, Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and
Retaliation Act of 2001
a. Report number and date.--House Report No. 107-101 June
14, 2001.
b. Summary of measure.--Requires that Federal agencies be
accountable for violations of antidiscrimation and
whistleblower protection laws. Requires agencies and the EEOC
to disclose certain information on their Web sites.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative James
F. Sensenbrenner, Jr., on January 3, 2001 and referred to House
Committee on Government Reform. Passed House on October 2, 2001
under suspension of the rules, as amended. Passed Senate on
April 23, 2002 with amendments by unanimous consent. On April
30, 2002, the House concurred in the Senate amendments under
suspension of the rules. Signed by the President on May 15,
2002. Public Law No. 107-174.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
9. 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.--Introduced by Representative Robert
A. Borski on June 28, 2001 and referred to House Committee on
Government Reform. Passed House on October 30, 2001 under
suspension of the rules, as amended. Passed Senate on July 9,
2002 without amendment under unanimous consent. Signed by
President on July 24, 2002. Public Law No. 107-202.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
10. H.R. 3340, To amend Title 5, United States Code, to allow certain
catch-up contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan to be made by
participants age 50 and over, to reauthorize the Merit Systems
Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel, and for
other purposes
a. Report number and date.--House Report No. 107-686,
September 25, 2002.
b. Summary of measure.--Amends Title 5, United States Code,
to allow certain catch-up contributions the Thrift Savings Plan
to be made by participants age 50 and over and reauthorizes the
Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special
Counsel.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Constance A. Morella on November 19, 2001 and referred to the
House Committee on Government Reform. Ordered reported by the
Committee on Government Reform on September 25, 2002. Passed
House under suspension of the rules, as amended, on October 7,
2002. Passed Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on
November 13, 2002. Signed by the President on November 27,
2002. Public Law No. 107-304.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
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.--House 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.
4. 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. Amended on Senate floor
and passed by Senate by unanimous consent on December 12, 2001.
House agreed to Senate amendments, with its own amendment on
March 12, 2002. Senate agreed to House amendment on March 14,
2002. Signed by President on April 4, 2002 and became Public
Law No. 107-157.
d. Hearings.--None.
5. 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
allows the CJCC to receive Federal money, and it requires the
organization 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. Reported out of
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on April 29, 2002. Passed
Senate by unanimous consent on May 7, 2002. Signed by President
on May 20, 2002 and became Public Law No. 107-180.
d. Hearings.--``Coordination of Criminal Justice Activities
in the District of Columbia,'' May 11, 2001.
6. H.R. 5205, To amend the District of Columbia Retirement Protection
Act of 1997
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--The District of Columbia Retirement
Protection Act of 1997 requires the Federal Government to
include longevity pay when it calculates the pension benefits
for retired officers of the Metropolitan Police Department or
their survivors. The Federal Government had assumed the
liability for the District of Columbia's pension system as part
of the 1997 Revitalization Act. H.R. 5205 permits the Secretary
of the Treasury to use a generalized formula to calculate these
benefits, because much of the relevant District of Columbia
data concerning longevity pay is either missing, incomplete or
difficult to access.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by subcommittee
Chairwoman Connie Morella on July 24, 2002 and referred to
House Committee on Government Reform. Forwarded by District of
Columbia Subcommittee to full committee on September 20, 2002.
Reported out of Government Reform Committee on October 9, 2002.
Approved by House of Representatives without objection on
October 10, 2002. Received in the Senate and read twice, on
October 15, 2002. Passed Senate by unanimous consent on October
17, 2002. Signed by President on November 7, 2002 and became
Public Law No. 107-290.
d. Hearings.--None.
7. H.R. 5515, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency Interstate
Supervision Act of 2002
a. Report number and date.--Senate Report No. 107-322.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5515 requires the independent
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA] to
provide for the supervision of: District of Columbia offenders
on parole, probation and supervised release who seek to reside
in jurisdictions outside the District; and offenders on parole,
probation and supervised release from other jurisdictions who
choose to reside in the District of Columbia. It authorizes the
director of CSOSA to enter interstate compacts for adult
offender supervision with any State or group of States. This
legislation is necessary to close an existing gap in interstate
offender supervision. It amends the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Act of 1997.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton on October 1, 2002 and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. An identical bill (S. 3044) was
introduced in Senate by Senator Richard J. Durbin on October 3,
2002. The Senate bill was reported out of Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee on October 9, 2002. Passed Senate under
unanimous consent on November 13, 2002. Received at the House
and held at the desk on November 14, 2002. Approved by House of
Representatives by unanimous consent on November 15, 2002 and
cleared for the White House. Signed by the President on
November 26, 2002 and became Public Law 107-302.
d. Hearings.--None.
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. It also requires
each agency to submit two reports--each with data for a 1-year
period--on enforcement actions in which a civil penalty was
assessed and the penalty amounts reduced or waived 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.--On March 15, 2001, the House passed
an amended version of H.R. 327 by a vote of 418 to 0. On
December 17th, the Senate passed its companion bill (S. 1271)
by unanimous consent. On May 22, 2002, the Senate passed a
further amended version of H.R. 327 by unanimous consent. On
June 18th, the House agreed to the Senate amendments by a vote
of 418 to 0. On June 28th, the President signed the final bill
into law as Public Law No. 107-198.
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.
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.
2. H.R. 4685, The Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4685 was introduced by
Representative Patrick Toomey from Pennsylvania on May 8, 2002.
At present, only 24 Federal cabinet departments and major
independent agencies are required to prepare annual audited
financial statements. H.R. 4685 requires executive agencies
that are not otherwise required to submit annual audited
financial statements, excluding Government corporations, to
submit such statements to Congress and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. The bill permits the
director of the OMB to exempt agencies from preparing such a
statement for any fiscal year in which the total amount of
budget authority available to the agency is less than $25
million. H.R. 4685 allows the Director of OMB to waive the
bill's requirements for a department or agency that needs
additional time to comply with the act's requirements for up to
2 fiscal years after enactment.
c. Legislative status.--On June 18, 2002, the Subcommittee
on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations approved H.R. 4685 unanimously by
voice vote and referred the legislation to the full committee.
The full committee waived the bill and referred it to the full
House. The House approved the legislation, as amended, under
suspension of the rules on October 7, 2002. The Senate passed
the bill without amendment under unanimous consent on October
17, 2002. On November 7, 2002, the President signed the bill
into law, becoming Public Law 107-289.
d. Hearings.--``H.R. 4685, the Accountability of Tax
Dollars Act of 2002,'' May 14, 2002.
3. H.R. 4878, The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002
a. Report number and date.--Senate Report 107-333, October
17, 2002, issued by Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4878 was introduced by the
subcommittee's chairman, Representative Steve Horn from
California on June 6, 2002. The bill directs each executive
agency, in accordance with OMB guidance, to review all of its
programs and activities annually, identify those that may be
susceptible to significant improper payments, estimate the
annual amount of improper payments, and submit those estimates
to Congress before March 31st of the following year. For each
program or activity with estimated improper payments exceeding
$10 million, agencies are also to provide a report on agency
actions to reduce such improper payments, which includes: 1) a
discussion of the causes of the improper payments and results
of the actions taken to address those causes; 2) a statement of
whether the agency has the information systems and other
infrastructure it needs to reduce such payments to minimal
cost-effective levels and, if not, a description of the
requested resources needed to reduce such improper payments;
and 3) a description of the steps the agency has taken to
ensure that managers are held accountable for reducing improper
payments.
c. Legislative status.--On June 18, 2002, the Subcommittee
on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations approved H.R. 4878 unanimously by
voice vote and referred the legislation to the full committee.
The full committee waived the bill to the full House. On July
9, 2002, the House passed H.R. 4878, as amended, under
suspension of the rules. On October 17, 2002, the Senate
approved the bill, with amendment, under unanimous consent. The
House suspended the rules and concurred in the Senate
amendments on November 12, 2002. On November 26, 2002, the
President signed the bill into law, becoming Public Law 107-
300.
d. Hearings.--The Subcommittee on Government Efficiency,
Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations held more
than 20 oversight hearings on financial management at Federal
agencies during the 107th Congress. The topic of improper
payments made by Federal agencies arose at each of those
hearings.
4. H.R. 5215, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical
Efficiency Act of 2002
a. Report number and date.--House Report No. 107-778,
November 13, 2002.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5215 was introduced by the
subcommittee's chairman, Representative Horn, on June 6, 2002.
The bill requires that data or information acquired by a
statistical agency under a pledge of confidentiality and for
exclusively statistical purposes be used only by the agency for
such purposes. The bill prohibits such information from being
disclosed in identifiable form for any use other than a
statistical purpose without the informed consent of the
respondent. H.R. 5215 also removes statutory barriers that
prevent the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
the Bureau of Economic Analysis from sharing and comparing
business-related statistical data. These three agencies are
referred to as designated statistical agencies in the bill.
H.R. 5215 requires these designated statistical agencies to
identify opportunities to eliminate duplication and reduce the
reporting burden and cost imposed on the public in providing
statistical information. The designated statistical agencies
are also required to enter into joint statistical projects to
improve the quality of statistical programs.
c. Legislative status.--On September 17, 2002, the
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations marked up H.R. 5215, as amended,
approving it unanimously by voice vote and referred the
legislation to the full committee. On October 9, 2002, the full
committee marked up the bill and referred it to the House. H.R.
5215 was inserted into H.R. 2458, ``The E-Government Act of
2002,'' which passed the House by unanimous consent on November
15, 2002. The Senate also approved H.R. 2458 without amendment
under unanimous consent on November 15, 2002. The bill was
signed into law on December 17, 2002, Public Law 107-347.
d. Hearings.--``H.R. 5215, the Confidential Information
Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002,'' September
17, 2002.
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.
2. H.R. 2458, the Electronic Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
347)
a. Report number and date.--The Committee on Government
Reform issued House Report No. 107-787, Part I on November 14,
2002.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2458, the bipartisan,
``Electronic Government Act of 2002,'' introduced by
Congressman Jim Turner (TX), provides a new framework for
managing the Federal Government's information resources and
increasing the availability of information to citizens through
electronic government initiatives. The bill establishes an E-
Government fund and creates a new Office of Electronic
Government in the Office of Management and Budget, which will
be led by a politically appointed E-Government Administrator.
The new office can then focus on better management of our
information resources. The act includes several provisions
intended to ensure greater citizen access to the Federal
government through the improved application of information
technology [IT]. The bill strengthens information security
government-wide and addresses the management and protection of
information collected for statistical purposes. It also
encourages contractor innovation for information technology
solutions that will enhance electronic government services and
processes, and allows for the use of share-in-savings contracts
for the procurement of information technology solutions.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 2458 passed in the House of
Representatives under unanimous consent on November 14, 2002.
The Senate passed the bill under unanimous consent on November
15, 2002. The President signed it into law on December 9, 2002.
d. Hearings.--On September 18, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Technology and Procurement Policy held a legislative hearing to
consider the legislation and S. 803, the Senate companion bill,
which was passed by the Senate under unanimous consent on June
27, 2002. The subcommittee heard testimony from Linda Koontz of
GAO; Mark Forman from the Office of Management and Budget; Pat
McGinnis from the Council of Excellence in Government; Mr. Tom
Gann, vice president of government relations for Siebel Systems
testifying on behalf of the Information Technology and Industry
Council, and Mr. Roger Baker, former Chief Information Officer
of the Department of Commerce.
On October 1, 2002, the subcommittee held a mark-up of the
bill. Subcommittee Chairman Tom Davis offered three amendments
that were accepted by voice vote. The first amendment strikes
the Senate confirmation requirement for the Administrator of
Electronic Government. The second amendment increases training
opportunities for IT managers through the creation of the
Digital Tech Corps, which will encourage the exchange of
talented mid-level staff between leading-edge private sector
organizations and governmental agencies. The third amendment
authorizes the government-wide use of share-in-savings
contracts for information technology solutions. These
amendments were incorporated into a manager's amendment in the
nature of a substitute that the subcommittee approved by voice
vote. This substitute reflected the current form of the
legislation, namely, Titles I, II, III, IV, and V. An amendment
offered by Congressman Turner inserting the text of the
Statistical Efficiency Act (H.R. 5215) was also adopted.
On October 9, 2002, the Committee on Government Reform held
a business meeting where it marked up H.R. 2458. The committee,
by voice vote, did not accept an amendment offered by
Congressman Jim Turner to reinstate Senate confirmation of the
Administrator of Electronic Government. By voice vote, the
committee then approved reporting H.R. 2458 without amendment
to the full House.
3. H.R. 3921, the ``Acquisition Streamlining Improvement Act,''
introduced by Congressman Dan Burton (IN)
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--This bill would extend until
January 1, 2005, the authority for agencies to use simplified
procedures to purchase commercial items valued in excess of the
simplified acquisition threshold. It would also require the
General Accounting Office to report on the effectiveness of
this authority.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 3921 was introduced by
Congressman Burton on March 11, 2002 and was approved by the
Committee on Government Reform on March 14, 2002. The bill
passed the House under suspension of the rules on April 9,
2002, and was not acted on by the Senate. A similar provision
extending the authority for 1 year was enacted in the Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 107-314.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation
during the 107th Congress.
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. Con. Res. 337, recognizing the teams and players of the Negro
Baseball Leagues for their achievements, dedication,
sacrifices, and contributions to baseball and the Nation
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Con. Res. 337 recognizes the
teams and players of the Negro Baseball Leagues for their
achievements, dedication, sacrifices, and contributions to
baseball and the Nation.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative J.C.
Watts (OK) on February 27, 2002, was referred to the Committee
on Government Reform. The resolution passed the House under
suspension of the rules on September 18, 2002, and is pending
before the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
3. H. Con. Res. 413, honoring the invention of modern air conditioning
by Dr. Willis H. Carrier on the occasion of its 100th
anniversary
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Con. Res. 413 honors the
invention of modern air conditioning by Dr. Willis H. Carrier
on the occasion of its 100th anniversary.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative James
Walsh (NY) on June 5, 2002, and referred to the House Committee
on Government Reform. The resolution passed the House under
suspension of the rules on July 15, 2002, and passed the Senate
under unanimous consent on July 19, 2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
4. H. Con. Res. 466, recognizing the significance of bread in American
history, culture and daily diet
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Con. Res. 466 recognizes the
significance of bread in American history, culture and daily
diet.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Jerry
Moran (KS) on September 11, 2002, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. The resolution passed the House
under unanimous consent on November 15, 2002, and is pending
before the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
5. H. Res. 377, recognizing the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and
commending the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Res. 377 recognizes the Ellis
Island Medal of Honor and commends the National Ethnic
Coalition of Organizations.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Dan
Burton (IN) on April 9, 2002 and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. The resolution passed the House
under suspension of the rules on April 9, 2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
6. H. Res. 406, commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and
sacrifice made by the men and women killed or disabled while
serving as peace officers
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Res. 406 commemorates and
acknowledges the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and
women killed or disabled while serving as peace officers.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Joel
Hefley (CO) on May 1, 2002, and passed the House under
suspension of the rules on June 11, 2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
7. H. Res. 455, honoring the life of John Francis ``Jack'' Buck
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Res. 455 honors the life of John
Francis ``Jack'' Buck.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI) on June 20, 2002, and passed the House
under suspension of the rules on July 16, 2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
8. H. Res. 482, honoring Ted Williams and extending the condolences of
the House of Representatives on his death
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Res. 482 honors Ted Williams and
extends the condolences of the House of Representatives on his
death.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Edward
Markey (MA) on July 12, 2002, and passed the House under
suspension of the rules on July 16, 2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
9. H. Res. 599, congratulating the Anaheim Angels for winning the 2002
World Series
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Res. 599 congratulates the
Anaheim Angels for winning the 2002 World Series.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Christopher Cox (CA) on November 12, 2002, and passed the House
under unanimous consent on November 15, 2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
10. H.R. 628, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 440 South Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, FL, as
the ``Arthur `Pappy' Kennedy Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 628 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 440 South Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando,
FL, as the ``Arthur `Pappy' Kennedy Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Corrine Brown (FL) on February 14, 2001. The bill passed the
House under unanimous consent on November 15, 2002, and is
pending in the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
11. H.R. 629, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located 1601-1 Main Street in Jacksonville, FL, as the ``Eddie
Mae Steward Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 629 designates the U.S. Post
Office located 1601-1 Main Street in Jacksonville, FL, as the
``Eddie Mae Steward Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Corrine Brown (FL) on February 14, 2001. The bill passed the
House under unanimous consent on November 15, 2002, and is
pending in the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
12. H.R. 2578, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, CA, as the
``Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2578 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, CA,
as the ``Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Maxine
Waters (CA) on July 19, 2001. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on October 7, 2002, and is pending in
the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
13. H.R. 3775, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1502 East Kiest Boulevard in Dallas, TX, as the
``Dr. Caesar A. W. Clark Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3775 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 1502 East Kiest Boulevard in Dallas, TX, as
the ``Dr. Caesar A. W. Clark Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Corrine Brown (FL) on February 14, 2001. The bill passed the
House under unanimous consent on November 15, 2002, and is
pending in the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
14. H.R. 5145, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 3135 First Avenue North in St. Petersburg, FL, as
the ``William C. Cramer Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5145 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 3135 First Avenue North in St. Petersburg,
FL, as the ``William C. Cramer Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Bill
Young (FL) on July 16, 2002. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on July 22, 2002, and is pending in the
Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
15. H.R. 5280, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, PA, as the
``Robert A. Borski Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5280 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, PA,
as the ``Robert A. Borski Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Chaka
Fattah (PA) on July 26, 2002. The bill passed the House under
unanimous consent on November 15, 2002, and is pending in the
Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
16. H.R. 5361, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1830 South Lake Drive in Lexington, SC, as the
``Floyd Spence Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5361 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 1830 South Lake Drive in Lexington, SC, as
the ``Floyd Spence Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Joe
Wilson (SC) on September 10, 2002. The bill passed the House
under unanimous consent on October 10, 2002, and is pending in
the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
17. H.R. 5439, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 111 West Washington Street in Bowling Green, OH, as
the ``Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5439 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 111 West Washington Street in Bowling Green,
OH, as the ``Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Paul
Gillmor (OH) on September 24, 2002. The bill passed the House
under unanimous consent on October 10, 2002, and is pending in
the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
18. H.R. 5495, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 115 West Pine Street in Hattiesburg, MS, as the
``Major Henry A. Commiskey, Sr. Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5495 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 115 West Pine Street in Hattiesburg, MS, as
the ``Major Henry A. Commiskey, Sr. Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Gene
Taylor (MS) on September 26, 2002. The bill passed the House
under unanimous consent on November 15, 2002, and is pending in
the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
19. H.R. 5586, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 141 Erie Street in Linesville, PA, as the ``James R.
Merry Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5586 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 141 Erie Street in Linesville, PA, as the
``James R. Merry Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Phil
English (PA) on October 9, 2002. The bill passed the House
under unanimous consent on November 15, 2002, and is pending in
the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
20. H.R. 5609, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 600 East 1st Street in Rome, GA, as the ``Martha
Berry Post Office''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5609 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 600 East 1st Street in Rome, GA, as the
``Martha Berry Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Bob
Barr (GA) on October 10, 2002. The bill passed the House under
unanimous consent on November 15, 2002, and is pending in the
Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
21. H.R. 5640, to amend title 5, United States Code, to ensure that the
right of Federal employees to display the flag of the United
States not be abridged
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 5640 amends title 5, United
States Code, to ensure that the right of Federal employees to
display the flag of the United States not be abridged.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Dave
Weldon (FL) on October 10, 2002. The bill passed the House
under unanimous consent on November 15, 2002, and is pending in
the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census 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. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. H. Res. 269, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
to honor the life and achievements of 19th Century Italian-
American inventor Antonio Meucci, and his work in the invention
of the telephone
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives to honor the life and achievements of 19th
Century Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci, and his work
in the invention of the telephone.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 11, 2002 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
22. H. Res. 336, Honoring the life of Rex David ``Dave'' Thomas and
expresses the deepest condolences of the House of
Representatives to his family on his death
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honors the life of Rex David
``Dave'' Thomas and expressing the deepest condolences of the
House of Representatives to his family on his death.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on January 29, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
23. H. Res. 340, Recognizing and honoring Jack Shea, Olympic gold
medalist in speed skating, for his many contributions to the
Nation and to his community throughout his life
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes and honors Jack Shea,
Olympic gold medalist in speed skating, for his many
contributions to the Nation and to his community throughout his
life.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on February 6, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
24. H. Res. 363, Congratulating the people of Utah, the Salt Lake
Organizing Committee, and the athletes of the world in a
successful and inspiring 2002 Olympic Winter Games
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates the people of Utah,
the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, and the athletes of the
world in a successful and inspiring 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on April 10, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
25. H. Res. 371, Recognizing Women's History Month and the
contributions of American women throughout history
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes Women's History Month
and the contributions of American women throughout history.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on March 20, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
26. H. Res. 384, Honoring the men and women of the U.S. Secret Service
New York field office for their extraordinary performance and
commitment to service during and immediately following the
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11,
2001
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honors the men and women of the
U.S. Secret Service New York field office for their
extraordinary performance and commitment to service during and
immediately following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center on September 11, 2001.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on April 23, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
27. H. Res. 424, Paying tribute to the workers in New York City for
their rescue, recovery, and clean-up efforts at the site of the
World Trade Center
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Pays tribute to the workers in New
York City for their rescue, recovery, and clean-up efforts at
the site of the World Trade Center.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on May 22, 2002 under
suspension of the rules and agreed to by the Yeas and Nays--
416-0.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
28. H. Res. 492, Expressing gratitude for the 10-month long World Trade
Center cleanup and recovery efforts at the Fresh Kills Landfill
on Staten Island, NY, following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Expresses gratitude for the 10-
month long World Trade Center cleanup and recovery efforts at
the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, NY, following the
terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on July 22, 2002 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
29. H. Res. 471, To recognize the significant contributions of Paul
Ecke, Jr., to the poinsettia industry, and for other purposes
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the significant
contributions of Paul Ecke, Jr., to the poinsettia industry,
and for other purposes.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on July 22, 2002 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
30. H. Res. 94, Honoring the contributions of Venus and Serena Williams
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honors the contributions of Venus
and Serena Williams.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on September 5, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
31. H. Res. 516, Congratulating the Valley Sports American Little
League baseball team from Louisville, KY for its outstanding
performance in the Little League World Series
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates the Valley Sports
American Little League baseball team from Louisville, KY for
its outstanding performance in the Little League World Series.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on September 9, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
32. H. Res. 538, Honoring Johnny Unitas and extending condolences to
his family on his passing
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honors Johnny Unitas and extends
condolences to his family on his passing.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 1, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
33. H. Res. 530, Congratulating the players, management, staff, and
fans of the Oakland Athletics organization for setting the
Major League Baseball record for the longest winning streak by
an American League baseball team
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates the players,
management, staff, and fans of the Oakland Athletics
organization for setting the Major League Baseball record for
the winning streak by an American League baseball team.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 1, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
34. H. Res. 542, Congratulating the Bryan Packers American Legion
baseball team from West Point, MS, for its outstanding
performance in winning the 2002 American Legion World Series
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates the Bryan Packers
American Legion baseball team from West Point, MS, for its
outstanding performance in winning the 2002 American Legion
World Series.
c. Legislative status.--Passed in House under unanimous
consent on October 10, 2002.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
35. H. Res. 572, Honoring the 225th anniversary of the signing of the
Articles of Confederation
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honors the 225th anniversary of the
signing of the Articles of Confederation.
c. Legislative status.--Passed in House under unanimous
consent on October 10, 2002.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
36. H. Res. 532, Congratulating the Los Angeles Sparks basketball team
for winning the 2002 Women's National Basketball Association
championship
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates the Los Angeles
Sparks basketball team for winning the 2002 Women's National
Basketball Association championship.
c. Legislative status.--Passed in House under unanimous
consent on October 10, 2002.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
37. H. Res. 571, Honoring the life of David O. ``Doc'' Cooke, the
``Mayor of the Pentagon''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honors the life of David O. ``Doc''
Cooke, the ``Mayor of the Pentagon.''
c. Legislative status.--Passed in House under unanimous
consent on October 10, 2002.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
38. H. Con. Res. 335, Recognizing the significance of Black History
Month and the contributions of Black Americans as a significant
part of the history, progress, and heritage of the United
States
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the significance of
Black History Month and the contributions of Black Americans as
a significant part of the history, progress, and heritage of
the United States.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House under unanimous
consent on February 28, 2002 and referred to Senate committee.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
39. H. Con. Res. 339, Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the
establishment of the Bureau of the Census
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Acknowledges the Census Bureau on
the 100th anniversary of its establishment.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on March 12, 2002
under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate by unanimous
consent.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
40. H. Con. Res. 340, Supporting the goals and ideals of Meningitis
Awareness Month
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Supports the goals and ideals of
Meningitis Awareness Month.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House under suspension of
the rules on June 17, 2002 and referred to Senate committee.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
41. H. Con. Res. 424, Commending the patriotic contributions of the
roofing professionals who replaced, at no cost to the Federal
Government, the section of the Pentagon's slate roof that was
destroyed as a result of the terrorist attacks against the
United States that occurred on September 11, 2001
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Commends the patriotic
contributions of the roofing professionals who replaced, at no
cost to the Federal Government, the section of the Pentagon's
slate roof that was destroyed as a result of the terrorist
attacks against the United States that occurred on September
11, 2001.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House under suspension of
the rules on June 27, 2002 and referred to Senate committee.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
42. H. Con Res. 297, Recognizing the historical significance of 100
years of Korean immigration to the United States
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the historical
significance of 100 years of Korean immigration to the United
States.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House under suspension of
the rules on September 25, 2002 and referred to Senate
committee.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
43. H. Con. Res. 458, Recognizing and commending Mary Baker Eddy's
achievements and the Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment
of Humanity
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes and commends Mary Baker
Eddy's achievements and the Mary Baker Eddy Library for the
Betterment of Humanity.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on September 24, 2002
under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate by unanimous
consent.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
44. H. Con. Res. 409, Supporting the goals and ideals of National
Community Role Models Week, and for other purposes
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Supports the goals and ideals of
National Community Role Models Week, and for other purposes.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 7, 2002
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
45. H. Con. Res. 486, Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic
Cancer Awareness Month
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Supports the goals and ideals of
Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 10, 2002
under unanimous consent.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
46. H. Con. Res. 504, Congratulating the PONY League baseball team of
Norwalk, CA, for winning the 2002 PONY League World
Championship
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates the PONY League
baseball team of Norwalk, CA, for winning the 2002 PONY League
World Championship.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 10, 2002
under unanimous consent.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
47. H. Con. Res. 499, Honoring George Rogers Clark
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honors George Rogers Clark.
c. Legislative status.--Passed in House under unanimous
consent on October 15, 2002.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
48. H.R. 5640, American Flag Pride Act
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Amends Title 5, United States Code,
to ensure that the right of Federal employees to display the
flag of the United States not be abridged.
c. Legislative status.--Passed in House under unanimous
consent on October 16, 2002.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
49. 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. Passed Senate on December 20,
2001 without amendment by unanimous consent.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this in the 107th
Congress.
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
Hon. Mark E. Souder, Chairman
1. H. Res. 569, expressing support for the President's 2002 National
Drug Control Strategy to reduce illegal drug use in the United
States
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Res. 569 expresses support for
the President's 2002 National Drug Control Strategy to reduce
illegal drug use in the United States.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Mark
Souder (IN) on October 2, 2002, and passed the House under
suspension of the rules on October 7, 2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations
Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman
1. 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.--Senate Report No. 107-160.
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. On February
2, 2002, H.R. 577 passed the House of Representatives with
amendment under suspension of the rules. On June 11, 2002, the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs favorably reported
H.R. 577 to the Senate without amendment.
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.
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy
Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Chairman
1. H.R. 3924, to authorize telecommuting for Federal contractors
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3924 is non-controversial bill
that would prohibit agencies from issuing solicitations that
would disqualify a contractor that utilizes telecommuting for
its workforce. It would also prohibit agencies from issuing
solicitations that would reduce the scoring of a potential
contractor's proposal if that contractor utilizes
telecommuting. An exception would be made if the contracting
officer certifies in writing that telecommuting would conflict
with the needs of the agency. For example, this exception may
apply if a contractor deals with classified or sensitive
information.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 3924 was introduced on March
12, 2002. It passed in the House of Representatives on March
20, 2002, by a vote of 421-0 (Roll No. 71). The bill was sent
to the Senate on March 21, 2002, where it was referred to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
d. Hearings.--The Subcommittee on Technology and
Procurement Policy held hearings on March 22, 2001, and
September 6, 2001, to examine and monitor the progress of
Federal Government agencies' efforts to develop and manage
telecommuting programs. The hearings revealed that while the
private sector is advancing with its telework policies and
reaping the benefits of increased productivity, job
satisfaction, and employee morale, Federal agencies have been
reluctant to embrace the concept. Additionally, several
barriers to telecommuting were identified, including distrust
among Federal managers who are concerned that permitting
employees to work outside of the traditional office setting
will decrease their level of productivity. This apprehension of
telecommuting programs extends to the government procurement
arena as well. Contracting officers are often reluctant to
consider contract proposals from companies that will employ
telecommuters to perform the work. As a result, Congressman Tom
Davis introduced H.R. 3924, the Freedom to Telecommute Act of
2002, to address this concern.
The Committee on Government Reform held a business meeting
on March 14, 2002 to consider H.R. 3924. The committee, by
voice vote, approved reporting H.R. 3924 without amendment to
the full House.
2. H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2002
a. Report number and date.--Report No. 107-379, Part I,
March 18, 2002.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3925, the Digital Tech Corps
Act of 2002, introduced by Congressman Tom Davis (VA), provides
for the exchange of talented mid-level staff between leading-
edge private sector organizations and government agencies
engaged in best practices. The time period for this exchange is
limited to 6 to 12 months with an optional 1-year extension
(maximum of 2 years). Federal employees participating in the
program are required to fulfill service commitments to their
agencies after participation in the program, and all
participants must adhere to strict Federal employee ethics
rules. Employees retain pay and benefits from their respective
employers while on assignment in the Digital Tech Corps. This
type of public-private exchange program will allow for greater
knowledge transfer and cross-pollination of ideas, cultures,
and processes between the public and private sectors. The act
is expected to foster greater innovation and partnership for
government and industry.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 3925 was introduced on March
12, 2002. On March 14, 2002, the Committee on Government Reform
held a business meeting and favorably reported the bill. On
April 10, 2002, H.R. 3925 passed in the House of
Representatives by voice vote. The bill was sent to the Senate
on April 11, 2002, where it was referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs. Similar provisions were included in the
E-Government Act, H.R. 2458, which was signed into law.
d. Hearings.--The Digital Tech Corps concept was first
introduced in 2001 as H.R. 2678, the Digital Tech Corps Act of
2001. On July 31, 2001, the Subcommittee on Technology and
Procurement Policy of the Committee on Government Reform held a
hearing entitled, ``Public Service for the 21st Century:
Innovative Solutions to the Federal Government's Technology
Workforce Crisis,'' which included an examination of the
potential benefits of a Digital Tech Corps program.
On March 7, 2002, the Subcommittee on Technology and
Procurement Policy held a hearing entitled, ``H.R. 3832, The
Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2002 [SARA].'' The SARA
bill's section 103 contains an exchange program for acquisition
workforce that is modeled after the Digital Tech Corps for the
IT workforce.
Finally, the committee held a business meeting on March 14,
2002, and favorably reported the Digital Tech Corps Act of
2002, H.R. 3925. Subcommittee Chairman Tom Davis authored the
legislation.
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. 1152, The Human Rights Information Act
a. Report number and date.--The Committee on Government
Reform did not issue a report. The Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee issued Senate Report 107-160 on June 11, 2002.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1152 was introduced by
Representative Tom Lantos from California on March 21, 2001.
This bill requires certain Federal agencies to identify all
human rights records for declassification and public disclosure
if the President determines an individual or entity carrying
out an official mandate to investigate a pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights has made
a bona fide request for the records. H.R. 1152 prescribes
guidelines under which the Interagency Security Classification
Appeals Panel shall review agency determinations to postpone
disclosure of any human rights record. The bill authorizes
postponement of such public disclosures on specified grounds.
Finally, H.R. 1152 requires each Federal agency to identify,
review and organize all human rights records regarding
activities that occurred in Guatemala and Honduras for
declassification and public disclosure. During the 105th
Congress, Representative Lantos introduced a similar bill, H.R.
2635, the ``Human Rights Information Act.'' The Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology, chaired by
Representative Horn, held a legislative hearing on that bill on
May 11, 1998. The hearing was entitled, ``Access to Government
Information, and H.R. 2635, The Human Rights Information Act.''
On September 28, 1998, the subcommittee approved H.R. 2635, as
amended, by a voice vote and referred the legislation to the
full committee. During the 106th Congress, Representative
Lantos introduced a similar version of the bill, H.R. 1625, the
``Human Rights Information Act.'' On April 5, 2000, the
subcommittee approved H.R. 1625 by a voice vote and referred
the legislation to the full committee.
c. Legislative status.--On September 17, 2002, the
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations approved H.R. 1152, as amended,
unanimously by voice vote and referred the legislation to the
full committee.
d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 4187, the Presidential Records Act of 2002
a. Report number and date.--House Report No. 107-790,
November 22, 2002.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 4187 would amend the
Presidential Records Act of 1978 to establish a process whereby
incumbent and former Presidents could, within specified time
limits, review records prior to their public release under the
act and determine whether to assert Constitutional privilege
claims against release of the records. The bill would supersede
Executive Order 13233, which establishes a non-statutory
process for review of Presidential records and assertion of
privilege claims.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 4187 was introduced by
Representative Steve Horn on April 11, 2002, and referred to
the House Committee on Government Reform. On October 9, 2002,
the committee approved the bill, with amendments, by voice
vote.
d. Hearings.--``The Implementation of the Presidential
Records Act of 1978,'' November 6, 2001; ``The Importance of
Access to Presidential Records: The Views of Historians,''
April 11, 2002; and, ``H.R. 4187, the Presidential Records Act
Amendments of 2002,'' April 24, 2002.
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy
Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Chairman
1. H.R. 3947, Federal Property Asset Management Reform Act of 2002
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Reforming Federal property
management is one of the key components of the President's
Freedom to Manage initiative. A number of the Administration's
property reform proposals have been incorporated into H.R.
3947, the ``Federal Property Asset Management Reform Act of
2002,'' introduced by Representative Pete Sessions (TX) and
cosponsored by Representative Tom Davis (VA) and the chairman
of the Committee on Government Reform Dan Burton (IN). The bill
would provide Federal departments and agencies with new
authorities and incentives to manage their real and personal
property assets. For example, the bill would authorize Federal
agencies to exchange or transfer property with other Federal
agencies and enter into agreements with non-Federal entities to
exchange or sell property as a means of acquiring replacement
property better suited for mission purposes. As an incentive to
better property management, agencies would be authorized to
retain proceeds from the sale of real property and use the
funds to meet their capital asset needs. In addition, the bill
would authorize agencies to sublease unexpired portions of
Government-leased property and to lease assets that must remain
in Federal ownership. The bill would also authorize Federal
agencies to enlist private sector capital and expertise in
public-private partnership ventures to develop or improve
Federal real property.
c. Legislative status.--March 12, 2002, referred to the
Committee on Government Reform. March 14, 2002, Mark-up session
held. Ordered to be reported by voice vote.
d. Hearings.--The Committee on Government Reform conducted
hearings during the 106th and 107th Congresses to examine
legislative proposals for Federal property management reform.
The following description reflects the committee's progress in
identifying the greatest obstacles facing the Federal
Government property management and the legislative actions that
have been pursued to remedy them.
107th Congress
On October 1, 2001, the committee's Subcommittee on
Technology and Procurement Policy held an oversight hearing to
examine a related proposal H.R. 2710, the ``Federal Asset
Management Improvement Act of 2001,'' also introduced by
Representative Sessions.\4\ H.R. 2710 would authorize agencies
to enter into public-private partnerships to leverage private
sector capital to redevelop or improve Federal buildings. The
subcommittee heard from a number of real estate experts from
both the Federal Government and private sector including
representatives of the General Accounting Office and General
Services Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Potential Benefits of Public-Private Partnerships as a Real
Property Management Tool, hearing of the Subcommittee on Technology and
Procurement Policy of the Committee on Government Reform, Oct. 1, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
106th Congress
During the 106th Congress, the Committee on Government
Reform's Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology chaired by Congressman Stephen Horn (CA)
conducted two hearings to assess the Government's stewardship
of real property assets and to consider legislative proposals
to improve management of the Government's real property
portfolio. On April 29, 1999, the subcommittee held a hearing
jointly with the Committee on Transportation's Public Buildings
Subcommittee entitled, ``Federal Real Property Management:
Obstacles and Innovative Approaches to Effective Property
Management.'' \5\ The subcommittees heard from witnesses who
addressed property management issues and identified the
obstacles and innovative approaches to more effective real
property management within the Federal Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Federal Real Property Management: Obstacles and Innovative
Approaches to Effective Property Management, joint hearing before the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology of
the Committee on Government Reform and the Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials and Pipeline
Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
106th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 29, 1999, Serial No. 106-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a July 12, 2000, hearing, the subcommittee examined the
merits of two legislative proposals to reform the Federal
Government's approach to property management.\6\ These
proposals contained a number provisions that are included in
H.R. 3947. One proposal contained provisions that were
developed by the General Services Administration in
collaboration with other departments and agencies. That bill
would have provided Federal departments and agencies with
incentives and flexibility to manage their real and personal
property assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Legislative Proposals to Reform the Government's Approach to
Property Management: S. 2805, the ``Federal Property Asset Management
Reform Act;'' and H.R. 3285, the ``Federal Asset Management Improvement
Act,'' hearing before the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform,
106th Cong., 2d sess., July 12, 2000, Serial No. 106-237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second proposal, H.R. 3285, the ``Asset Management
Improvement Act of 1999,'' introduced by Congressman Sessions,
would have amended the Property Act to authorize the General
Services Administration or other agencies under delegated
authority to enlist private-sector capital and expertise in
public-private partnerships to develop or improve Federal real
property.
March 14, 2002, Committee Business Meeting
The committee held a business meeting on March 14, 2002, to
consider H.R. 3947. The bill, with four amendments offered by
the committee ranking minority member, Henry Waxman (CA), was
unanimously ordered reported by a voice vote. The first
amendment offered by Congressman Waxman would require an agency
to solicit input from the local community prior to utilizing
one of the property management authorities. The second
amendment would give the Administrator of General Services the
authority to review and reject an agency's proposal for the use
of an enhanced asset management tool. The third amendment would
require agencies to comply with local and nationally recognized
building codes and zoning laws when using an enhanced asset
management tool. Congressman Waxman's fourth amendment would
prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from using an
enhanced asset management tool on or disposing of two VA
properties located in and near Los Angeles, CA.
II. Oversight Activities
A. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Full Committee
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman
1. ``Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House,''
House Report No. 107-454, May 14, 2002, Second Report by the
Committee on Government Reform, together with Minority and
Additional Views
a. Summary.--This report detailed the committee's findings
and conclusions in its investigation into President Clinton's
grant of executive clemency to, among others, fugitive
financier Marc Rich, drug dealer Carlos Vignali, and drug money
launderer Harvey Weinig. Despite the fact that the President
enjoys the Constitutional authority to grant clemency to anyone
he chooses, President Clinton's grants of clemency to these
petitioners raised serious questions. Many of these clemency
petitions related to the largest, most significant convictions
of their kind at the time. In almost every case, the Justice
Department Pardon Attorney and the U.S. Attorneys who convicted
the petitioners strenuously opposed these petitions. In all of
the cases the committee reviewed, the petitioners improperly
used individuals with close personal relationships with
President Clinton and his staff to lobby the administration
about their petitions. In some cases, those individuals misled
the administration about significant aspects of those
petitions. Also, in each of these cases, members of the First
Family, namely Roger Clinton, Hugh Rodham and Tony Rodham,
sought to gain financially by lobbying the President on behalf
of their clients. The report described the convictions
underlying each clemency petition, the process leading up to
each clemency offer, and the actual grant of clemency of each
petitioner. Some of the targets of the committee's
investigation asserted their right against self-incrimination.
The committee's investigation outlined the clemency process
generally and provided insight into these particular grants of
clemency to the American public. The committee uncovered
significant aspects of the clemency process at the end of the
Clinton administration which would have gone unreported if not
for the committee's investigation. The committee hopes that by
focusing scrutiny on these grants of clemency by President
Clinton, that the clemency process will not be abused again. In
addition, as a result of the committee's investigation,
Chairman Burton drafted and introduced the Clemency Lobbying
Disclosure Act, to require individuals lobbying for executive
clemency to register as lobbyists, and disclose their contacts
with the administration.
The committee held hearings entitled, ``The Controversial
Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich,'' Days 1 and 2,
February 8 and March 1, 2001.
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
Hon. Mark E. Souder, Chairman
1. ``Federal Law Enforcement at the Borders and Ports of Entry:
Challenges and Solutions,'' House Report No. 107-794, Eighth
Report by the Committee on Government Reform
a. Summary.--The subcommittee's preliminary report on
Northern and Southern border issues identified significant
needs for modernization, increased resources, and improved
coordination and integration among America's border agencies.
The report, which followed an extensive series of field
hearings and committee visits at ports of entry across the
Northern and Southern borders of the United States, was a
comprehensive one intended to begin a full review of all
current border management issues. Agencies involved included
the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service and Border Patrol, and the U.S. Coast Guard.
The subcommittee conducted an in-depth study of the borders
and ports of entry, the commerce and traffic through them, and
the operations of the law enforcement agencies that protect
them. In addition to providing extensive background on border
issues, the report sought to address two key questions: First,
how to balance the need for increased security against the need
to facilitate legitimate trade and travel; second, how to
allocate and organize limited law enforcement resources to
maximize border security against catastrophic terrorist attack,
illegal narcotics, and illegal aliens.
Among other issues, the report reviewed the significant
challenges posed on America's northern border, which in many
areas is virtually unguarded, problems with computer databases
in virtually all border agencies, and the implications which
changes after the September 11th attacks had on trade as well
as the workload of border inspectors. The subcommittee also
reviewed lapses in the border security network which could
currently be exploited by criminals and terrorists and the
implications of the border and increased enforcement on local
residents of border areas.
The report made the following major recommendations:
a. Combine law enforcement agencies into a new Department
of Homeland Security, but not at the expense of other vital
missions such as drug interdiction.
b. Increase the number and intensity of inspections in a
manner consistent with preserving commerce.
c. Increase the number of qualified and trained inspection
agents at the border.
d. Shift cargo inspections away from the ports of entry to
foreign points of origin.
e. Expand ``fastpass'' systems for those who frequently
cross the borders.
f. Upgrade and integrate border law enforcement databases
and automated systems.
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs
Hon. Doug Ose, Chairman
1. ``Problems with the Presidential Gifts System,'' House Report No.
107-768, October 28, 2002, Seventh Report by the Committee on
Government Reform, together with Minority and Additional Views
a. Summary.--Several laws, involving six Federal offices
and agencies, govern the current system for the receipt,
valuation, and disposition of Presidential gifts. Consequently,
no single agency is ultimately responsible for tracking
Presidential gifts.
In early 2001, there were numerous press accounts regarding
President Clinton's decision to accept close to $200,000 in
gifts during his final year in office, as revealed in his last
financial disclosure report. There was also a great deal of
press attention focused on furniture gifts returned by the
Clintons to the White House residence. To prevent future
abuses, the Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy,
Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs spent 11 months
conducting oversight and gathering empirical data. The
subcommittee investigated how the current system works and what
legislative changes, if any, are needed to prevent future
abuses of the Presidential gifts process.
In March 2001, Subcommittee Chairman Ose introduced H.R.
1081, ``Accountability for Presidential Gifts Act.'' This bill
establishes responsibility in one agency for the receipt,
valuation and disposition of Presidential gifts.
On February 12, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy Policy,
Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs held a hearing
entitled, ``Accountability for Presidential Gifts.'' At the
hearing, the subcommittee released a 55-page document
summarizing its findings. The subcommittee identified a host of
problems with the Presidential gifts system, such as
consistently undervalued gifts and questionable White House
counsel rulings. Since the current system is subject to abuse
and political interference, there is a need for centralized
accountability in one agency staffed by career employees. On
June 18, 2002, the Government Reform Subcommittee on Government
Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental
Relations held a hearing on H.R. 1081.
The House report summarizes how the current system works,
the investigation and findings, and recommendations made in
both hearings. Subheadings in the Report reveal some of the
problems with the Presidential gifts system. They include: Non-
Competitive Hiring of Political Appointee for Career Job, Some
Gifts Over the Reporting Threshold Were Not Disclosed, Some
Gifts Were Solicited, Many Gifts Were Undervalued, Some Gifts
Were Not Included in the White House Database, Some Gifts Were
Lost, Questionable White House Counsel Rulings, Some U.S.
Property Was Taken, Most Furniture Gifts Were Coordinated, Some
Gift Certificates Were Accepted, and Huge Gifts to the
Presidential Library.
The American people have the right to know what gifts were
received and retained by their President. The current system is
clearly broken and needs to be fixed. Public servants,
including the President, should not be able to enrich
themselves with lavish gifts. Donors should receive no unfair
advantage in the policymaking process or other governmental
benefits.
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations
Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman
1. ``A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the
Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government Records,'' House
Report No. 107-371, March 12, 2002. First Report by the
Committee on Government Reform
a. Summary.--The Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], enacted
in 1966, presumes that records of the executive branch of the
Federal Government are accessible to the public. The Privacy
Act of 1974, a companion to FOIA, regulates Government agency
recordkeeping and disclosure practices. FOIA provides that
citizens have access to Federal Government files with certain
restrictions. The Privacy Act provides certain privacy
safeguards over personal information collected by Federal
agencies and permits individuals to see most Federal records
that pertain to them.
``A Citizen's Guide to Using the Freedom of Information Act
and Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government Records,''
explains how to use the two laws and serves as a guide to
obtaining information from Federal agencies. The complete texts
of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552),
and the Privacy Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), are reprinted
in the committee report. Federal agencies use the Citizen's
Guide in training programs for Government employees who are
responsible for administering FOIA and the Privacy Act of 1974.
The guide enables those who are unfamiliar with the laws to
understand the process and to make requests. The Government
Printing Office and Federal agencies subject to FOIA and the
Privacy Act of 1974 distribute this report widely.
2. ``Making Federal Computers Secure: Overseeing Effective Information
Security Management,'' House Report No. 107-764, October 24,
2002. Third Report by the Committee on Government Reform
a. Summary.--Federal agencies rely extensively on
computerized systems and electronic data to support operations
that are essential to the health and well being of all
Americans. Critical Government systems, from national defense
and emergency services to tax collection and benefit payments,
rely on electronically stored information and automated
systems. Maintaining adequate security over these systems and
the electronic data stored in them is essential to maintaining
the continuity of the Government's critical operations.
Security measures must prevent data tampering, fraud, sabotage
and the inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information.
Nevertheless, independent audits and evaluations continue to
show that most Federal departments and agencies have pervasive
weaknesses in their computer security programs that pose
serious risks to these critical automated systems.
The subcommittee convened five oversight hearings to
examine the challenges and problems involved with Federal
computer security. These hearings explored the extent of
potential threats to Government operations posed by computer
viruses and worms; the likelihood of cyber attacks against the
Nation's information infrastructure; the status of efforts at
major executive branch departments and agencies to strengthen
the security of their critical computer operations and assets;
lessons learned from the Government Information Security Reform
Act of 2000; and the need to reauthorize and strengthen the
Government Information Security Reform Act.
Based on these hearings, GAO audits, Inspector General
evaluations, and OMB reports, the committee made the following
findings:
1. Agencies are not conducting periodic risk
assessments.
2. Federal computer systems have significant and
pervasive weaknesses in security controls.
3. Federal information technology systems rely on
commercial software that is vulnerable to attack.
4. Agencies' Capital Planning and Investment Control
processes do not include information technology
security.
5. Congress does not have consistent and timely
access to the information it needs to fulfill its
oversight responsibilities for Federal information
security and related budget deliberations.
The committee made the following recommendations in this
report:
1. The Government Information Security Reform Act of
2000 should be strengthened and made permanent.
2. Sustained congressional oversight is needed.
3. Agency funding should be tied to the
implementation of effective computer security plans and
procedures.
4. Congress should encourage the administration to
set minimum security standards for commercial off-the-
shelf software that is purchased by Federal agencies.
This report includes a discussion of the methodology used
for grading as well as the grades that the subcommittee issued
in its 2001 Computer Security Report Card for the Government's
24 major departments and agencies. After this report was
published, this subcommittee issued its 2002 Computer Security
Report Card. Although there was a great deal of improvement,
the overall grade for the Government was an F for the third
straight year. For information about the 2002 Computer Security
Report Card, see the summary of the subcommittee's oversight
hearing held on November 19, 2002, entitled, ``Computer
Security in the Federal Government: How Do the Agencies Rate?''
3. ``The Federal Government's Continuing Efforts To Improve Financial
Management,'' House Report No. 107-765, October 24, 2002.
Fourth Report by the Committee on Government Reform
a. Summary.--This report deals with one of the
subcommittee's key jurisdictions--the Federal Government's
continuing efforts to improve its financial management. The
report, which followed a series of hearings over the last year
on Federal financial management, identifies key areas where
agencies must improve. Agencies struggle to earn clean opinions
from their annual audited financial statements; integrate their
financial systems; and implement effective internal controls to
prevent fraud, waste and abuse. The report also includes the
subcommittee's fifth annual financial management scorecard. The
Federal Government earned an overall grade of D, with most
agencies earning a grade of ``D'' or ``F.''
Of the 24 CFO Act agencies, 18 received clean opinions on
their fiscal year 2001 annual audited financial statements, yet
the Federal Government as a whole received a ``disclaimer''
audit opinion for the 5th consecutive year, largely due to the
Department of Defense's extraordinarily poor financial
management. A significant number of material weaknesses related
to financial systems, fundamental recordkeeping and financial
reporting, and incomplete documentation is caused primarily by
the lack of sound financial systems needed to manage affairs on
a day-to-day basis, evaluate program performance and ensure
accountability.
Despite some progress, financial management improvement in
the Federal Government has a long way to go. Although the
Federal Government's financial management problems are deep-
seated and severe, they are also solvable. Congressional
oversight committees, the GAO and agency Inspectors General
have proposed hundreds of specific recommendations for
solutions. The OMB and the agencies themselves clearly
recognize the root causes of the problems and their solutions.
The current administration has demonstrated unprecedented
leadership and commitment to overcoming the Federal
Government's chronic financial management woes. Sustained
cooperation among stakeholders can resolve these long-standing
problems.
The report made the following recommendations:
1. A sustained leadership commitment and persistent
follow-up by executive branch agency heads and Congress
are needed in order to improve the Government's
financial management.
2. The administration and Congress must provide the
necessary resources to replace or re-engineer
dysfunctional financial systems.
3. Agencies should establish results-oriented and
measurable performance goals for financial management
improvements. Incentives and designation of
accountability will aid in achieving these goals.
4. Congress should approve H.R. 4878, the ``Improper
Payments Information Act of 2002,'' which requires
agencies to identify systematically areas in which they
are vulnerable to making erroneous payments and to
report on the steps they are taking to reduce these
vulnerabilities. In addition, Congress should approve
H.R. 4685, the ``Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of
2002,'' which extends the requirement for audited
annual financial statements to most executive branch
agencies.
5. The administration, the OMB and executive branch
agencies must follow through in implementing the
financial management improvement initiatives of the
President's Management Agenda. In particular, the OMB
needs to follow through on its financial management
scorecard by periodically updating its evaluations in
an objective and transparent manner, and improve its
guidance for evaluating agency compliance to the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act.
6. The GAO, Inspectors General and congressional
committees should vigorously pursue their independent
auditing and oversight of agencies' efforts to improve
financial management. This oversight should include an
examination of agencies' success in meeting the
criteria contained in the President's Management Agenda
and the OMB scorecard.
4. ``How Can the Federal Government Better Assist State and Local
Governments in Preparing for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear
Attack?'' House Report No. 107-766, October 24, 2002. Fifth
Report by the Committee on Government Reform
a. Summary.--The terrorist attacks of September 11th
clearly demonstrated the need for reliable communications
systems and the rapid deployment of well-trained, well-equipped
emergency personnel. Yet despite billions of dollars in Federal
spending toward that goal, there remain serious doubts as to
whether the Nation is adequately prepared to withstand a
massive chemical, biological or nuclear attack.
To gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of
Federal assistance to State and local governments in this
effort, the subcommittee conducted a series of 11 field
hearings in U.S. cities of varying size and demographics. The
hearings focused on the needs of first responders--the
firefighters, police officers, medical personnel and emergency
management officials who are responsible for protecting their
communities. Although many issues were raised, first responders
said that their greatest concerns involve:
1. The lack of interoperable communications systems
among local, regional and Federal agencies;
2. the inadequacy of the health care system to handle
a large influx of victims;
3. the need for fast, reliable intelligence sharing;
and
4. the need for national guidelines, standards and
best practices for emergency planning.
In addition, first responders said the Federal Government
could provide more effective assistance if: (1) there were more
flexibility built into Federal funding programs; (2) the
Federal Government had a single point of contact to apply for
Federal grants and awards and training programs; and (3) the
Federal Government encouraged more fully a regional, all-
hazards approach to emergency preparedness.
This report discusses those concerns and recommends the
following actions:
1. The Federal Government must re-examine ways to
bolster the Nation's public health system.
2. The Federal Government needs to develop emergency
management guidelines and best practices for local,
State and regional governments.
3. The Federal Government should establish a single
point of contact in the Federal system for homeland
security grants and other related funding.
4. The Federal Government should insist on working
agreements among local governments, health officials,
the Department of Defense, and the Department of
Veterans Affairs to provide additional medical
facilities in catastrophic situations.
5. The Federal Government needs to assist local and
State governments in procuring new technologies.
6. Working with State and local governments, the
Federal Government must move quickly to provide
guidance standards and best practices for emergency
management responders.
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International
Relations
Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman
1. ``Defense Security Service: The Personnel Security Investigations
Backlog Poses a Threat to National Security,'' Sixth Report
(House Report 107-767)
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight
investigation of the Defense Security Service [DSS] to
determine the reasons behind a growing personnel security
investigations [PSI] backlog. Personnel security investigations
are conducted to determine whether an individual should be
granted access to classified information. This is a critical
first step in safeguarding the Nation's secrets.
Based on the testimony and documentary record, the
subcommittee concludes lax oversight of DSS by the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence (OASD-C3I) contributed
directly to the degradation of DSS productivity and
effectiveness.
The backlog was a result in large part due to DSS
mismanagement, CCMS malfunctions, and the inability of OASD-C3I
and DSS to keep pace with changing personnel security clearance
criteria and Presidential directives.
The report contained the following findings:
1. LThe Defense Security Service cannot accurately
determine the size or forecast the elimination of the
personnel security investigations backlog.
2. LThere was a lack of management oversight of the
Defense Security Service by the Department of Defense
[DOD] that contributed to a backlog of personnel
security investigations.
3. LAcquisition of the Case Control Management System
[CCMS] and the Joint Personnel Adjudication System
[JPAS] did not comply with the requirements of the
Clinger-Cohen Act and may not provide effective
caseload management.
4. LThere are no common standards for investigating and
adjudicating a personnel security clearance in a timely
manner.
5. LDefense Security Service and the Office of
Personnel Management [OPM] personnel security clearance
investigators have difficulty accessing State and local
criminal history record information [CHRI].
Based on these findings, the report contained the following
recommendations:
1. LThe Secretary of Defense should continue to report
the personnel security investigations program including
the adjudicative process as a material weakness under
the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act to ensure
needed oversight is provided to effectively manage and
monitor the personnel security process from start to
finish.
2. LThe Secretary of Defense should set priorities and
control the flow of personnel security investigation
requests for all DOD components.
3. LThe Secretary of Defense should closely monitor the
interface between JPAS and CCMS to ensure effective
management of investigative and adjudicative cases and
avoid further backlogs.
4. LThe National Security Council should promulgate
Federal standards for investigating and adjudicating
personnel security clearances in a timely manner.
5. LThe Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General
jointly should develop a system which allows DSS and
OPM investigators access to State and local criminal
history information records [CHIR].
The subcommittee examination into the backlog of personnel
security investigations allowed senior DOD officials to focus
attention on the PSI backlog problem. As a result, DOD
developed a plan for the elimination of the backlog and set
performance expectations for the personnel security
investigative process and for the case control management
system.
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:
Refer for criminal action to any company
that sells a dietary supplement that is toxic or
unsanitary [Section 402 (a)].
Obtain an injunction against the sale of a
dietary supplement that has false or unsubstantiated
claims [Section 402(a).(r6)].
Seize dietary supplements that pose an
``unreasonable or significant risk of illness or
injury'' [Section 402(f)].
Sue any company making a claim that a
product cures or treats a disease [Section 201(g)].
Stop a new dietary ingredient from being
marketed if FDA does not receive enough safety data in
advance [Section 413].
Stop the sale of an entire class of dietary
supplements if they pose an imminent public health
hazard [Section 402(f)].
Requires 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.
22. ``The History of Congressional Access to Deliberative Justice
Department Documents,'' February 6, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing explored historical examples of
congressional access to executive branch deliberative
documents, which was necessitated by the Justice Department's
refusal to provide key documents relevant to the committee's
investigation of FBI use of informants in Boston during the
1960's and 1970's. The Justice Department's withholding of
these documents forestalled the committee from discharging its
Constitutional responsibility to conduct executive branch
oversight. Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General of the
Office of Legislative Affairs, defended the Justice
Department's claim of executive privilege over documents
containing prosecutorial advice. Bryant, however, admitted that
the Justice Department had provided deliberative documents to
Congress on numerous occasions. Catholic University Professor
Mark J. Rozell, author of a book on executive privilege,
testified that allowing the current claim of executive
privilege to stand would establish a ``terrible precedent,''
and would allow future administrations to withhold from
Congress any information it deems prosecutorial. Law professor
Charles Tiefer gave a thorough historical account of
congressional access to precisely the kind of executive branch
material subpoenaed, dating back to the 1920's. He pointed out
that there were numerous examples of Congress receiving the
type of information requested by the committee.
23. ``The California Murder Trial of Joe `The Animal' Barboza: Did the
Federal Government Support the Release of a Dangerous Mafia
Assassin?'' February 13, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on Joseph Barboza's trial
for the murder of Clay Wilson in Somona County, CA. After
testifying as a government witness in three trials, Barboza
entered the Witness Protection Program and was placed in
California under an alias. Despite the FBI's knowledge that
Barboza had murdered 26 people, no State or local law
enforcement personnel were notified that he had been relocated
to the community, according to Edwin Cameron, an investigator
for Somona County. Mr. Cameron testified that if local law
enforcement had been informed that an accomplished killer was
living in the area, authorities would have been able to connect
Barboza to the disappearance of Clay Wilson rather easily. Mr.
Cameron and Tim Brown, former detective sergeant for the Somona
County Sheriff's Office, agreed that the Boston FBI Office was
not forthcoming with information about Barboza's background.
Boston FBI agents Paul Rico and Dennis Condon failed to return
numerous phone calls requesting information about Barboza.
Marteen Miller was the public defender who represented
Barboza in the Wilson murder trial. Mr. Miller told the
committee that the FBI was ``absolutely fearful'' that Barboza
would receive the death penalty, fearing he might recant his
testimony as a government witness in past trials if sentenced
to death. To assist with Barboza's defense, Mr. Miller said
that then-U.S. Attorney Edward Harrington and FBI agents H.
Paul Rico and Dennis Condon were ``fully cooperative'' in
testifying on behalf of Barboza. Mr. Miller commented that in
his 40 years as a criminal defense attorney, Barboza was the
only individual to be convicted of second degree murder yet
only serve 4 years in prison.
24. ``The California Murder Trial of Joe `The Animal' Barboza: Did the
Federal Government Support the Release of a Dangerous Mafia
Assassin?'' February 14, 2002
a. Summary.--The second day of hearings on Joseph Barboza's
murder trial in California focused on the Justice Department
officials who handled Barboza as a cooperating witness. One of
Barboza's handlers, FBI Special Agent H. Paul Rico, invoked his
fifth amendment right to remain silent in response to committee
questions despite testifying freely in a previous committee
hearing.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward F. Harrington, who
used Barboza as a cooperating witness to convict mafia leader
Raymond L.S. Patriarca, willingly answered committee questions.
In preparation for the Patriarca trial, Harrington became aware
that Barboza received Patriarca's permission to kill Edward
Deegan. This information would have helped exculpate several
defendants wrongly convicted of the Deegan murder. Yet,
Harrington testified that he had forgotten this information by
the time the Deegan defendants were indicted 5 months later.
Mr. Harrington told the committee that he never discussed the
Deegan case with Barboza. According to Mr. Harrington, Barboza
was the original witness in the Witness Protection Program.
While in the Program, Barboza was accused of murdering Clay
Wilson. Mr. Harrington testified that the Justice Department
sent Mr. Harrington to California to determine whether the
accusation was true, and Barboza told Mr. Harrington that he
killed Mr. Wilson in self-defense. Mr. Harrington admitted that
he testified on Barboza's behalf at the murder trial. After
Barboza was convicted of the Wilson murder, Mr. Harrington
urged the parole board to release Barboza after he served only
4 years in prison.
25. ``Justice Department Misconduct in Boston: Are Legislative
Solutions Required?'' February 27, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing assessed the need for legislative
changes in the laws governing misconduct by Federal prosecutors
and law enforcement agents. Four witnesses testified and
recommended legislative action. Victor Garo, an attorney who
spent 25 years fighting for the release of a falsely imprisoned
man, testified that there should be no statute of limitations
for prosecutors and law enforcement agents who withhold
exculpatory evidence. Garo suggested that the minimum jail
sentence for such misconduct should be either the sentence the
defendant received or the sentence mandated by the statute
under which the defendant was convicted.
Austin McGuigan, the former chief prosecutor for
Connecticut's Statewide Organized Crime Task Force, suggested a
law requiring a law enforcement agency to disclose exculpatory
evidence to other law enforcement agencies involved in the
investigation, unless an independent review board provides
compelling reasons to withhold the information. Boston
University law professor Frederick Lawrence focused on the
standard for convicting prosecutors and law enforcement agents.
He argued that, rather than having to prove an official
willfully committed a crime or violated a defendant's right,
the standard should be that the official knew or should have
known a crime was being committed in bringing the case. Yale
Law School professor Stephen Duke suggested several legislative
changes, including tolling the statute of limitations until the
defendant discovers that exculpatory evidence has been
withheld, creating an independent prosecutor to handle law
enforcement misconduct cases, criminalizing the suppression of
evidence, reducing the time limits on collateral attacks, and
eliminating absolute civil prosecutorial immunity.
26. ``Quickening the Pace of Research in Protecting Against Anthrax and
Other Biological Terrorist Agents--A Look at Toxin
Interference,'' February 28, 2002
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were Dr. Robert
Smith, founder and research director, Enzyme Systems Products;
Dr. Rodney Balhorn, Research Director, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories, Department of Energy; Dr. Stephen Leppla, senior
investigator for the National Institute of Dental and Cranial
Facial Research, National Institute of Health; and Dr. Arthur
Friedlander, Senior Scientist, U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick; Gary Thomas,
senior scientist, at Vollum Institute; Dr. John Collier,
professor of microbiology and molecular genetics, Harvard
Medical School; and John A.T. Young, professor in cancer
research, McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, University of
Wisconsin. On the heels of the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, there were biological attacks on the American
populace through the postal system delivery of military grade
anthrax spores. In light of the committee's extensive history
evaluating problems with the current anthrax vaccine and its
oversight responsibilities of the U.S. Postal Service, the
committee sought testimony from leading experts on anthrax
anti-toxin. In addition to the anthrax vaccine and post-
exposure use of antibiotics, treatments are in development that
would block the release at the cellular level of anthrax's
lethal toxins. This is an important treatment in development
because of the potential to utilize as a post-exposure
treatment. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget calls for
$5.9 billion to defend against biological terrorism, $2.4
billion of which is for scientific research. This hearing
highlighted one area: a focused infusion of research funding
would likely produce significant results in 1 or 2 years rather
than the typical 12 to 15 year of product development. The
anthrax toxin consists of three proteins that the anthrax
bacterium releases into its environment. None of these three
proteins alone is toxic, but they act together to cause damage
to human cells. Two of the proteins, lethal factor and edema
factor, are enzymes that act inside cells to alter certain
aspects of one's metabolism. Alone these factors are unable to
penetrate the protective membrane barrier that surrounds cells.
Therefore, they cannot enter. They are not toxic by themselves.
The third protein, protective antigen [PA], is essential to the
potency of the other two proteins. PA assembles on the surface
of a cell into what can be thought of as a molecular syringe,
which is able to inject other two proteins through the
protective membrane barrier and into the cell. Once inside the
cell, the edema factor and lethal factor have access to their
molecular targets. They modify these molecular targets, which
disrupts one's metabolism in ways that ultimately lead to death
of the human. Several approaches to inhibiting the lethality of
an exposure were discussed including a proposal outlined by Dr.
Smith to protect against inhalation anthrax by inhibiting the
furin enzyme on the surface of cells in the lung.
27. ``The Importance of Access to Presidential Records: The Views of
Historians,'' April 11, 2002
a. Summary.--On April 11th, the committee held a hearing to
examine the impact of Executive Order 13233 on the public
release of records under the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
Before enactment of the 1978 act, the records of a President
were considered to be his personal property. The 1978 act
declared for the first time that a President's records
pertaining to his official duties belong to the American
people. The act provided for the eventual public release of a
former President's records, except for those containing
military secrets or certain other sensitive information.
Executive Order 13233, issued by President Bush on November 1,
2001, granted incumbent and former Presidents broad authority
to prevent the release of their records under the Presidential
Records Act.
At the committee's hearing, four noted historians discussed
the need for public access to Presidential records. The
witnesses included two distinguished Presidential biographers,
Robert Dallek and Richard Reeves. The committee also heard from
Stanley Kutler, a professor of law and history at the
University of Wisconsin, and Joan Huff, director of the
Contemporary History Institute at Ohio University. All of the
witnesses emphasized the importance of making Presidential
records public to the greatest extent consistent with national
security and other legitimate confidentiality protections. The
witnesses were unanimous in their view that Executive Order
13233 violated the Presidential Records Act and would do great
harm. As Mr. Dalleck observed, withholding Presidential
documents ``impoverishes our understanding of recent history.''
The witnesses supported a bill (H.R. 4187) to overturn the
Executive order and replace it with a statutory process by
which incumbent and former Presidents could review records
prior to their public release within fixed time periods. The
committee subsequently reported the bill favorably.
28. ``The Autism Epidemic: Is the NIH and CDC Response Adequate?''
April 18, 2002
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were Mr. Lee
Grossman, president, Autism Society of America; Ms. Belinda
Lerner, member of the Autism Coalition; Mr. Stephen Shore,
board member of Unlocking Autism; Doug Compton, scientific
director, Cure Autism Now Foundation; Dr. Steven Foote,
National Institute of Mental Health; Ms. Coleen Boyle,
associate director for Science and Public Health, from the
National Center on Birth Defects and Development Disabilities,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As part of the
ongoing evaluation of the autism epidemic, the committee
received testimony regarding the current state-of-the-science
in federally-funded autism research. The National Institutes of
Health [NIH] now estimates the rate of autism at 1 in 250
children--a doubling of the rate since the committee began its
investigation in the 106th Congress. The Center for Disease
Control and Prevention [CDC] has conducted two prevalence
studies. The study in Brick Township, NJ, found that 1 in 181
children between the ages of 3 and 10 were diagnosed with
autism, while 1 in 128 were diagnosed with autism spectrum
disorders. A yet unpublished study conducted in 1996 in
Atlanta, GA, found that 1 in 294 children ages 3 to 10 suffered
from autism. Boys are affected four times more often than
girls. It is likely that 1 in every 156 boys in the United
States between the ages of 1 and 10 are autistic. In the 2002
school year there were 3,789 individuals with autism in Indiana
schools, up from just 116 in 1990. The committee compared the
funding to address the autism epidemic to two other identified
epidemics, diabetes and HIV/AIDS. For fiscal year 2002, the
CDC's plans were to spend $11.3 million on autism and $10.2
million on autism for fiscal year 2003. For fiscal year 2002,
CDC planned on spending $932 million on the AIDS epidemic and
just over $62 million on diabetes. The National Institutes of
Health [NIH] has a budget of $27 billion. In fiscal year 1997,
the NIH investment in autism research was only $22 million. In
fiscal year 2001, NIH invested $56 million. During fiscal year
2001, the NIH focused over $2.2 billion in AIDS research and
$688 million on diabetes. Little of the research investment of
the government to date has focused on the clinical needs of
individuals with autism--food allergies, digestive disorders,
possible heavy metal toxicity, nutritional supplements, and
behavioral interventions. During the hearing the committee
received testimony regarding the Vaccine Safety Datalink
Project [VSD]. As a result of the committee's oversight, this
database of 10 years of medical records, including immunization
records, has been opened up for independent evaluation. It was
through the VSD, that an initial evaluation found a potential
link between thimerosal vaccines and neurological developmental
delays, speech and language delays, and attention deficit
disorders.
29. ``Examining Security at Federal Facilities: Are Atlanta's Federal
Employees at Risk?'' April 30, 2002
This hearing focused on gauging the safety of government
employees at Federal buildings in Atlanta, GA. Following the
September 11th terrorist attacks on America, the Federal
Government seeks to more effectively secure its facilities in
order to protect its employees. Due to their visibility and
accessibility, Federal buildings are among the most vulnerable
of potential targets in American society to terror attacks. The
committee wanted to learn what security measures can
simultaneously increase security at, and maintain accessibility
to, Federal buildings. The hearing featured testimony from
Ronald Malfi, Acting Managing Director of the GAO Office of
Special Investigations, and Wendell C. Shingler, Assistant
Commissioner of the GSA Office of Federal Protective Service.
30. ``Investigation of Allegations of Law Enforcement Misconduct in New
England,'' May 11, 2002
a. Summary.--On May 11, 2002, the committee held a field
hearing in Boston, MA, to explore allegations of law
enforcement misconduct in New England. This hearing focused on
the 1968 Deegan murder trial, in which Joseph Salvati and three
others were found guilty of a crime that they did not commit.
Participating witness included Jack Zalkind, former Suffolk
County prosecutor and lead prosecutor in the Deegan trial,
James M. McDonough, former legal assistant in the Suffolk
County DA's Office, and the Honorable Wendie Gershengorn,
former Massachusetts Parole Board member.
Jack Zalkind, the lead prosecutor in the case, described
himself as ``a victim'' of the FBI. He told the committee that
if the FBI had given him information in its possession, there
would have been no prosecution. ``I must tell you this, that I
was outraged--outraged--at the fact that if [the exculpatory
documents] had ever been shown to me, we wouldn't be sitting
here, because I wasn't the person that made the decisions, but
I certainly would never have allowed myself to prosecute this
case having that knowledge. No way[.] That information should
have been in my hands. It should have been in the hands of the
defense attorneys. It is outrageous, it's terrible, and that
trial shouldn't have gone forward.''
James M. McDonough, who assisted Mr. Zalkind in the Deegan
murder trial, indicated that at the time of the trial the
prosecution was in possession of a police report drafted
shortly after the Deegan murder by Lieutenant Thomas Evans of
the Chelsea Police Department. That particular report did not
mention Joseph Salvati, nor three others ultimately convicted
of the Deegan murder, and, in fact, implicated others not
prosecuted for the murder, such as FBI informant Vincent
``Jimmy'' Flemmi. McDonough further testified that the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts later ruled that police report was not
exculpatory, that it could be inferred that the defense counsel
knew all of the information in the report during the trial, and
the prosecution had no duty to disclose that report at the time
and under the circumstances revealed.
Judge Wendie Gershengorn, a former Massachusetts Parole
Board member, was questioned about a memorandum dated November
29, 1976, that was directed to her special attention from the
Parole Board's investigator Joseph Williams. The memorandum
stated that word from reputable law enforcement officers was
that Joseph Salvati was not involved in the Deegan murder and
that Salvati was just thrown in the case because the State's
main witness, Joseph ``The Animal'' Barboza, hated Salvati.
Judge Gershengorn testified that she has ``no specific memory
of doing anything as a result of this information.'' She also
pointed out that the Parole Board was statutorily prohibited
from considering guilt or innocence when contemplating a
commutation petition.
31. ``Critical Challenges Confronting National Security--Continuing
Encroachment Threatens Force Readiness,'' May 16, 2002
a. Summary.--The committee held its second hearing into
regulatory, commercial and urban encroachment on military
training affecting installations and ranges across the United
States. These encroachments threaten military readiness through
the loss of training areas and realistic training. This hearing
featured testimony from special operations personnel with
recent combat experience in Operation Enduring Freedom on the
importance of comprehensive training to success on the
battlefield. This hearing also presented the General Accounting
Office's report entitled, ``Military Training--DOD Lacks a
Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges.''
The report concluded that although the military services have
experienced loss of realistic training, the Department of
Defense has not provided adequate management to address the
challenge. A full assessment of the impact on readiness is
limited by lack of data on training requirements and inventory
of available resources. Working with the House and Senate Armed
Services Committee, legislation was passed that incorporated
the recommendations of the GAO report. The witnesses at the
hearing included: Lt. General William P. Tangney, Deputy
Commander in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command; Colonel
Thomas D. Waldhauser, Commanding Officer, 15th MEU, Special
Operations Capable, Camp Pendleton, U.S. Marine Corps; Captain
Steve Voetsch, Commander, Air Wing One, U.S.S. Theodore
Roosevelt; Lt. Commander Kerry Metz, Naval Special Warfare
Group One; Captain Jason Amerine, 5th Special Forces Group
(Airborne), Fort Campbell, KY; the Honorable Raymond DuBois,
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and the
Environment; the Honorable Paul Mayberry, Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Readiness; Mr. Barry Holman, Director,
Defense Capabilities Management, U.S. Government Accounting
Office and Dan Miller, First Assistant Attorney General,
Colorado Department of Law. Testimony was also solicited from
Vice Admiral Charles Moore, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
for Logistics and Readiness; Major General Thomas S. Jones,
Commanding General, Training and Education Command, U.S. Marine
Corps; Major General Robert Van Antwerp, Assistant Chief of
Staff of Installation Management, Department of the Army; and
Major General Randall M. Schmidt, Assistant Deputy Chief of
Staff for Air and Space Operations, U.S. Air Force. The
committee will continue to conduct oversight of encroachment
and readiness management at the Department of Defense, as well
as focusing on other Federal departments responsible for
executing regulations and laws affecting Federal land
management, including the Departments of Interior and Commerce.
32. ``Should the United States do More to Help U.S. Citizens Held
Against Their Will in Saudi Arabia?'' Wednesday, June 12, 2002
a. Summary.--The full committee held a hearing to examine
the large number of cases in which U.S. citizens are being held
in Saudi Arabia against their will with the full blessing of
the Saudi Government, often in violation of U.S. law. Witnesses
included: Patricia Roush, mother of Alia and Aisha Gheshayan;
Dria Davis, accompanied by her mother, Miriam Hernandez-Davis;
Ethel Stowers, mother of Monica Stowers, and grandmother of
Rasheed and Amjad Radwan; Hume Horan, former U.S. Ambassador to
Saudi Arabia (1987-88); Daniel Pipes, director, Middle East
Forum; Doug Bandow, senior fellow, Cato Institute; Dianne
Andruch, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizen
Services, Department of State; and Ryan Crocker, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, Department of
State.
Patrice Roush and Ethel Stowers gave compelling testimony
on how members of their families are not allowed to leave Saudi
Arabia. Dria Davis and Miriam Hernandez-Davis told the
committee about their harrowing experience getting Dria Davis
out of Saudi Arabia. Hume Horan explained his experiences with
the Saudi Government in relation to trying to facilitate the
departure of U.S. citizens from the Kingdom and allowing U.S.
citizens to visit their detained relatives. Daniel Pipes and
Doug Bandow gave the committee a broader prospective on U.S.-
Saudi relations. Diane Andruch and Ryan Crocker provided
testimony on current State Department policy on Saudi Arabia
and the child abduction issue.
33. ``The Status of Research into Vaccine Safety and Autism,'' June 19,
2002
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were Jeff
Bradstreet, M.D., F.A.A.F.P. medical director and founder, the
International Child Development Resource Center; Andrew
Wakefield, M.D., research director, International Child
Development Resource Center; Vera Stejskal, Ph.D., associated
professor of immunology, University of Stockholm and MELISA
MEDICA Foundation; Arthur Krigsman, M.D., pediatric
gastrointestinal consultant, Lenox Hill Hospital and clinical
assistant professor, Department of Pediatrics, New York
University School of Medicine; Walter Spitzer, M.D., M.P.H.,
F.R.C.P.C., emeritus professor of epidemiology, McGill
University; Roger Bernier, Ph.D., M.P.H., Associate Director
for Science, Office of the Director, Center for Disease Control
and Prevention; Robert Chen, M.D., M.A., Chief of Vaccine
Safety and Development Activity, National Immunization Program
and Associate Director for Science and Public Health, National
Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention; Frank DeStefano, M.D.
M.P.H., Medical Epidemiologist, National Center on Birth
Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Center for Disease
Control and Prevention; Stephen Foote, Ph.D., Director,
Division of Neuroscience and Basic Behavioral Science, National
Institutes of Mental Health; and William M. Egan, Ph.D., Deputy
Director, Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Centers for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration. Congressman Dave Weldon (M.D.) observed during
the hearing that Dr. Krigsman, a gastroenterologist in private
practice had managed to conduct a replication of the initial
phase of Dr. Wakefield's research in the last year, something
the NIH and CDC had failed to do in more than 4 years. Dr.
Wakefield provided the committee with an update on research
findings and provided copies of recently published research
showing the presence of measles virus RNA in the intestines of
normally developing children who became autistic after the
receipt of the MMR vaccine and who also subsequently developed
chronic irritable bowel conditions. Dr. Bradstreet provided
testimony on laboratory findings, which show measles virus
present in the cerebral spinal fluid of autistic children
previously found to have measles virus in their intestines.
These preliminary findings show a possible condition similar to
subacute sclerosing panacephilitis (measles-related
encephalitis). The committee received testimony regarding the
severe allergic response to thimerosal by as much as 35 percent
of the population. Dr. Stejskal presented testimony about the
adverse health outcomes subsequent to prolonged allergic
response to thimerosal. The committee had extensive discussion
regarding the attempt of the CDC to utilize epidemiological
studies to discredit clinical findings. It was observed during
the hearing that to date, the government has provided an
inadequate response to conduct clinical research that will
answer the numerous vaccine-autism related questions.
34. ``The Department of Homeland Security: An Overview of the
President's Proposal,'' June 20, 2002
a. Summary.--The committee held a hearing to examine the
President's proposal to create a Department of Homeland
Security within the executive branch of the Federal Government.
The committee received testimony from Governor Tom Ridge, the
President's Homeland Security Advisor, and one of the principal
architects of the President's plan.
At the hearing committee members discussed how the tragic
events of September 11, 2001, revealed the organizational gaps
that exist between all levels of government when it comes to
protecting the United States from terrorist attacks. There are
presently more than 100 different government agencies that have
some responsibilities for homeland security. And, there is no
single agency that is responsible for coordinating the
activities of these agencies. Governor Ridge discussed how a
new Department of Homeland Security would help reduce overlap,
duplication and fragmentation in Federal homeland security
activities and would improve coordination between Federal,
State and local governments on homeland security issues.
Governor Ridge testified how the President's proposal would
reorganize the Federal Government's homeland security
structure. According to Governor Ridge, the President's
proposal would pull together into a single department,
functions and activities of dozens of agencies that currently
have responsibility for aspects of homeland security. The new
department would have a budget of $37 billion and 170,000
employees, making it bigger than all other agencies besides the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Department of Homeland Security would be headed by a
Cabinet-level official whose primary mission would be to
protect the people of the United States from terrorism. The
specific missions of the department would be to: prevent
terrorist attacks within the United States; reduce America's
vulnerability to terrorism; and minimize the damage and speed
the recovery from attacks that do occur.
On July 10, 2002, the committee held a business meeting to
markup H.R. 5005, the ``Homeland Security Act of 2002.'' H.R.
5005 was referred to the Government Reform Committee, which has
jurisdiction over reorganizations of the executive branch.
Sections of the bill were also referred to numerous other
committees exercising jurisdiction over particular agencies.
Following a marathon session lasting more than 15 hours, the
committee reported the bill to the Select Ad Hoc Committee on
Homeland Security with more than 30 amendments.
35. ``Diet, Physical Activity, and Dietary Supplements--the Scientific
Basis For Improving Health, Saving Money, and Preserving
Personal Choice,'' July 25, 2002
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were Diane Ladd,
actress, film director, certified nutritional consultant; David
Seckman, executive director and CEO, National Nutritional Foods
Association; George Bray, M.D., boyd professor, Pennington
Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University; Larry
Kushi, Sc.D., associate director for Etiology and Prevention
Research, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanent; Pamela Peeke,
M.D., M.P.H., assistant clinical professor of medicine,
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Adjunct Senior
Scientist, National Institutes of Health; Timothy S. Church,
M.D., M.P.H., senior associate director, medical and laboratory
director, Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications,
the Cooper Institute; David Heber, M.d., Ph.D., F.A.C.P.,
F.A.C.N., professor of medicine and public health, founding
director of the University of California at Los Angeles, Center
for Human Nutrition and the Division of Clinical Nutrition at
the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Paul Coates,
Ph.D., Director, Office of Dietary Supplements, National
Institutes of Health; and William Dietz, M.D., Ph.D., Director,
Diversion of Nutrition and Physical Activity, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. National health expenditures
are projected to reach $2.8 trillion by the year 2011. It is
projected that in the United States, by 2011, we will be
spending 17 percent of the Gross Domestic Product [GDP] on
health care. In June 2000, the World Health Organization
published their first ever analysis of the world's health
systems. They compared 191 countries and found that the United
States ranked 37th out of 191, in spite of the fact that the
United States spends more money than any other country on
health care. It is estimated that about 85 percent of diseases
and illnesses in the United States result from lifestyle
decisions. Conversely, the adoption of healthy lifestyle
choices, including moderate physical activity, a sensible diet
and the appropriate use of dietary supplements, can improve
health. As part of the committee's investigation, it has been
learned that in addition to traditional use, there is a
scientific basis for the wise use of vitamins, minerals, and
botanicals to improve health. Through research, we are learning
which nutritional components are best obtained through diet and
which are absorbed from supplements. As part of his Healthy
U.S. Initiative, the President called for the adoption of the
following four guideposts for improved health: 1) Be physically
active every day; 2) Develop good eating habits; 3) Take
advantage of preventative screenings; and 4) Don't smoke, don't
do drugs, and don't drink excessively. The committee received
testimony regarding the lack of nutritionally focused medical
education, research regarding the benefit of a three-pronged
approach to improved health--physical activity, diet, and
nutritional supplements.
36. ``Airport Baggage Screening: Meeting Goals and Ensuring Safety--Are
We on Target?'' Atlanta, GA, August 7, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing was held to determine if the
Department of Transportation [DOT], specifically the
Transportation Security Administration [TSA], was on track to
implement the congressionally mandated changes to airport
baggage and passenger screening procedures prior to the
deadlines that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of
2001 imposed. The committee heard from DOT and TSA witnesses
who confirmed the DOT's commitment to meeting the December 31,
2002, baggage-screening requirement. Other witnesses, including
the airport manager at Atlanta's Hartsfield International
Airport, expressed some concern over potential roadblocks to
ensuring compliance, including the availability of bomb-
detecting equipment, the availability of qualified personnel to
operate the machinery and man passenger screening posts, as
well as the over-arching question of who will provide the
funding. There was no consensus on who is responsible for
providing the funding--the Federal Government, the airlines, or
the individual airport authorities. The committee will continue
to monitor the TSA's performance.
37. ``Conflict with Iraq: An Israeli Perspective,'' Thursday, September
12, 2002
a. Summary.--The full committee held a hearing to examine
the possibility of war with Iraq and how the potential for
conflict is viewed in Israel. Testifying was the former Prime
Minister of Israel, the Honorable Benjamin Netanyahu.
Former Prime Minister Netanyahu gave compelling testimony
about how the United States should meet the increasing threat
from Iraq. He also spoke eloquently on the potential impact on
Israel if America does go to war with Iraq.
38. ``Continuing Oversight of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program,'' September 18, 2002
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were Janet Zuhlke,
parent of a vaccine injured child; Ron Homer, attorney for the
Rogers family; Paul Clinton Harris, Sr., Deputy Associate
Attorney General, Department of Justice; William Hobson,
Director of the Office of Special Programs at the Health
Services Research Administration, Department of Health and
Human Services. The committee received an update on two cases
reviewed in a 2001 hearing on the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation. The chairman and the ranking minority member, as
well as over 40 Members of Congress cosponsored H.R. 3471, the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Improvement Act of
2002. Rachel Zuhlke was severely injured after she received her
pre-kindergarten vaccinations in 1990. Today, Rachel is
mentally retarded. She has periodic bouts of blindness that are
getting progressively worse. She has seizures. She is confined
to a wheelchair. She will need around the clock care for the
rest of her life. Her mother filed a vaccine injury table claim
in 1992. During the hearing, the committee learned from Mrs.
Zuhlke that more than a year after a Special Master ruled she
was entitled to compensation that she has yet to be
compensated. Table injuries are supposed to receive
compensation quickly and without opposition. Unfortunately,
Janet had to fight for 9 years to get compensation. Thad Rogers
previously testified before the committee on behalf of his
wife, Diane. Ron Homer, the family's attorney returned,
delivering a video testimony from the family because Diane was
too ill for Thad to travel to the hearing. Diane Rogers
received a routine tetanus vaccine in February 1991. She
rapidly developed MS-like symptoms. She is now bedridden. The
Special Master determined in 2001 that Mrs. Rogers is entitled
to compensation under the program. The Government prior to the
hearing had been reluctant to concede this case. The Justice
Department appealed this decision and lost. Twice the Justice
Department made motions for reconsideration and was rejected
both times. The Department of Justice had notified the courts
of its intention to appeal the case again. When the Attorney
General was notified personally of this case, it was determined
that it would be settled and that the Rogers family would
receive their compensation.
39. ``Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder--Are We Over-Medicating
Our Children?'' September 26, 2002
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were Patricia
Weathers, president, Parents for a Label and Drug Free
Education; Mary Ann Block, D.O., author, No More Ritalin and No
More ADHD, and medical director, the Block Center; Lisa Marie
Presley, national spokesperson, Citizens' Commission on Human
Rights; Bruce Wiseman, president, Citizens' Commission on Human
Rights; Richard K. Nakamura, Ph.D., Acting Director, National
Institute of Mental Health; E. Clarke Ross, chief executive
officer of CHADD-Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorder; and David Fassler, M.D.,
representative, American Psychiatric Association, and American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The committee
received testimony regarding the group of symptoms known as
attention disorders, which include attention deficit disorder
[ADD] and attention deficit hyperactive disorder. The most
common treatment for these disorders is the controversial drug
Ritalin. There has been a 500 percent increase in the use of
Ritalin in the United States since 1990. It is estimated that 4
to 6 million children in the United States takes Ritalin daily.
Ritalin is classified as a Schedule II stimulant under the
Federal Controlled Substances Act. In order for a drug to be
classified as a Schedule II it must meet three criteria: (1)
have a high potential for abuse, (2) have a currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States, and (3) show
that abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical
dependence. Supporters of Ritalin report it to be only a
``mild'' stimulant. However, research published in 2001 in the
Journal of the American Medical Association showed that Ritalin
was a more potent transport inhibitor than cocaine. The big
difference appears to be the time it takes for the drug to
reach the brain. Inhaled or injected cocaine hits the brain in
seconds, while pills of Ritalin normally consumed take about an
hour to reach the brain. Like cocaine, chronic use of Ritalin
produces psychomotor stimulant toxicity, including aggression,
agitation, and disruption of food intake, weight loss,
stereotypic movements and death. Of particular concern are
reports of teachers and other school personnel offering a
diagnosis of ADD or ADHD to parents with a suggestion or
requirement that their child be medicated with a psychotropic
drug as a condition of school attendance. Research is, as yet,
inconclusive on whether Ritalin leads to future drug abuse.
Schools often make this diagnosis because a child makes
careless mistakes on homework, does not follow through on
instructions, fails to finish schoolwork, has difficulty
organizing tasks, loses things, and is forgetful in daily
activities. The committee learned that doctors often fail to
adequately evaluate a child whose teachers submit a form
suggesting an ADD diagnosis and asking for treatment. Instead
of blood tests and a thorough medical evaluation including:
tests for thyroid disorders, heavy metal toxicity, allergies,
food sensitivities, and diet, or discussion about the child's
IQ and potential classroom boredom, physicians, pressed for
time, often simply review the teachers' comments and write a
prescription for Ritalin.
Of particular concern is the increased use of Ritalin being
prescribed to very young children. A study published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association in 2000 reported a
dramatic increase in prescribing in children ages 2 to 4 years
of age. 57 percent of 223 Michigan Medicaid enrollees younger
than 4 years of age with a diagnosis of ADHD received at least
one psychotropic medication to treat the condition during a 15-
month period in 1995-1996. Ritalin and Clonidine were
prescribed most often. Additionally, the authors found that in
the Midwestern States Medicaid population there was a three-
fold increase in total prescribing of stimulants between 1991
and 1995. There was a 3-fold increase in prescribing Ritalin, a
28-fold increase in prescribing Clonidine, and a 2.2 fold
increase in prescribing of antidepressants. The research, which
leads to the approval of these drugs, was not conducted using
children this young. It is also difficult to properly diagnose
a child with ADD or ADHD at 4 years of age. Testimony received
during the testimony was broad-based, however, everyone agreed
that the use of psychotropic drugs in children under the age of
6 was not recommended or supported in the science.
Additionally, all witnesses who support the use of Ritalin and
other drugs for ADD and ADHD verified that prescriptions are
only one part of the multi-model treatment protocol. Behavioral
and related therapies were essential as well. Dr. Mary Ann
Bloch testified about non-drug approaches to treating the
symptoms of ADD/ADHD. She reported that she consistently found
that these children do not have ADHD, but instead have
allergies, dietary problems, nutritional deficiencies, thyroid
problems and learning difficulties that are causing their
symptoms. All of these medical and educational problems can be
treated, allowing the child to be successful in school and
life, without being drugged.
40. ``Americans Kidnapped To Saudi Arabia: Is The Saudi Government
Responsible?'' Wednesday, October 2, 2002
a. Summary.--The full committee held the first day of
hearings to further review the cases in which U.S. citizens
have been kidnapped to Saudi Arabia or otherwise held against
their will in Saudi Arabia. Witnesses included: Samiah Seramur,
accompanied by her daughter, Maha Al-Rehaili; Debra Docekal,
accompanied by her son, Ramie Basrawi; Michael Rives, father of
Lilly and Sami Rives; Maureen Dabbagh, mother of Nadia Dabbagh;
Margaret McClain, mother of Heidi Al-Omary; and Joanna
Stephenson Tonetti, mother of Rosemary, Sarah, and Abdulaziz
Al-Arifi.
Samiah Seramur and her daughter Maha Al-Rehaili told the
committee about Maha's escape to the United States during a
visit to Malaysia. Debra Docekal and her son Ramie Basrawi
spoke about Ramie recent departure from Saudi Arabia and his
experiences while he was being held in the Kingdom. Samiah
Seramur and Debra Docekal also told the committee about their
other children who are still in Saudi Arabia. Michael Rives and
Maureen Dabbagh testified about their children who are being
held in Saudi Arabia despite the fact that there is apparently
no legal basis for the children to be held there. Joanna
Stephenson Tonetti and Margaret McClain explain to the
committee how their children were kidnapped from the United
States with the complicity of the Saudi Government.
41. ``Americans Kidnapped To Saudi Arabia: Is The Saudi Government
Responsible?'' Thursday, October 3, 2002
a. Summary.--The full committee held the second day of
hearings to further review the cases in which U.S. citizens
have been kidnapped to Saudi Arabia or otherwise held against
their will in Saudi Arabia. Witnesses included: Michael
Petruzzello, managing partner, Qorvis Communications; Michael
Rives, father of Lilly and Sami Rives; Maureen Dabbagh, mother
of Nadia Dabbagh, Margaret McClain, mother of Heidi Al-Omary;
Joanna Stephenson Tonetti, mother of Rosemary, Sarah, and
Abdulaziz Al-Arifi; the Honorable Raymond Mabus, former U.S.
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Ryan Crocker, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs; and Dianne
Andruch, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
Consular Affairs.
Michael Petruzzello, a paid representative of the Saudi
Government, answered questions about the work Qorvis is
performing for Saudi Arabia and the work done preparing the
Saudi response to the child abduction issue. Michael Rives,
Maureen Dabbagh, Margaret McClain, and Joanna Stephenson told
the committee about their experiences with the Saudi Government
and their representatives. Raymond Mabus testified about his
experiences while in Saudi Arabia trying to resolve these cases
and offered suggestions for future actions that may encourage
the Saudis to resolve these cases. Ryan Crocker and Dianne
Andruch addressed their efforts to secure the return of U.S.
citizens from Saudi Arabia.
42. ``The Collapse of Executive Life Insurance Company and its Impact
on Policyholders,'' October 10, 2002
The collapse of the Executive Life Insurance Co. in
California resulted in the loss of approximately $2 billion to
policyholders and taxpayers. This loss was due largely to the
fraudulent purchase of the life insurance company's assets by a
French Government owned bank, Credit Lyonnais. The committee,
after conducting an investigation in California, held a hearing
on October 10, 2002. The hearing featured testimony from
several victims of the collapse, as well as testimony from
senior officials in the California State Department of
Insurance. Currently, Credit Lyonnais is under investigation by
the Department of Justice and is undergoing a civil trial as
well.
43. ``Mercury in Dental Amalgams: An Examination of the Science,''
November 14, 2002
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were Dr. Boyd
Haley, professor and chair, Department of Chemistry, University
of Kentucky; Dr. G. Mark Richardson, director and risk
assessment specialist, Risklogic Scientific Services, Inc.; Dr.
Richard D. Fischer, on behalf of the International Academy of
Oral Medicine and Toxicology; Dr. J. Rodway Mackert, professor
of oral rehabilitation, Medical College of Georgia Dental
School, on behalf of the American Dental Association; Dr.
Gregory Stout, president, National Dental Association; Mr.
Michael Bender, director, Mercury Policy Project; Dr. Lawrence
A. Tabak, Director, National Institute of Dental and
Craniofascial Research, National Institutes of Health; Dr.
David W. Feigal, Director, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration.
This hearing continued the committee's investigation into
medical exposures to mercury. The committee continues to be
concerned that Americans continue to be needlessly exposed to
mercury through medical products, such as vaccines and dental
amalgams. Mercury in all forms is known to have an accumulative
affect, with a potential for neurological and kidney damage.
The committee received testimony from leading experts on
mercury that indicate that dental amalgams remain a major
contributing factor on the mercury body burden. Experts
testified that the National Academy of Sciences has estimated
that 60,000 children are born at risk for adverse neuro-
developmental effects each year due to their mothers' exposure
to methyl-mercury, and from a Center for Disease Control and
Prevention study that suggests that 10 percent of American
women of child-bearing age are at risk for having a baby born
with neurological problems due to the in-utero mercury
exposure, statistically representing 375,000 babies per year.
Experts testified that dental amalgams (``silver fillings'')
contribute more mercury to the body burden in humans than all
other sources (dietary, air, water, vaccines, etc.) combined.
There is no scientific debate over the following facts
regarding mercury from dental fillings: 1) Mercury is more
toxic than lead, cadmium or even arsenic; 2) Mercury escapes
from dental amalgam fillings continuously as a vapor; 3) 74-100
percent of inhaled mercury vapor is absorbed into the human
body; and 4) Inhaled mercury vapor from dental fillings
accumulates in the body to levels which cause path
physiology.'' On the converse side of the discussion, Dr.
Mackert on behalf of the American Dental Association argued,
``dental amalgams and mercury are not the same thing.'' Dr.
Stoute agreed that all dental patients deserve the right to
choose the most appropriate course of treatment. Very different
conclusions were advanced by the witnesses about the safety of
dental amalgams in the human body. The testimony about the
environmental impacts of dental mercury was not challenged. The
chairman pressed the Federal panelists to support independent
research that was recommended by Dr. Haley and received what
appeared to be reluctant support.
44. ``The Saudi Claim of Privilege: Must Saudi Lobbyists Comply With
Subpoenas in the Committee's Investigation of Child Abduction
Cases?'' Wednesday, December 4, 2002
a. Summary.--The full committee held the first day of
hearings to review the refusal to comply with the committee's
subpoenas by three firms that are representing Saudi Arabia in
the United States, and have claimed that under the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, their documents are
``documents and archives'' of the Saudi Embassy, and are thus
``inviolable.'' Witnesses included: Pat Roush, mother of Alia
and Aisha Gheshayan; Margaret McClain, mother of Heidi Al-
Omary; and Eileen Denza, visiting professor of Law, University
College London.
Pat Roush and Margaret McClain told the committee about
their experiences with and lack of cooperation from the Saudi
Arabian Government. Eileen Denza testified concerning her
expertise on the Vienna Convention, stating the three companies
did not have a valid claim. The committee sent subpoenas to
representatives from Qorvis Communications, Patton Boggs LLP,
and the Gallagher Group. However all three representatives did
not make themselves available for service, and did not appear
at this hearing.
45. ``The Justice Department's Use of Informants in New England,''
December 5, 2002
a. Summary.--The committee heard testimony from former U.S.
Attorneys for the District of Massachusetts Paul Markham and
Jeremiah O'Sullivan. Markham was the lead prosecutor in the
trial of New England Mafia head Raymond Patriarca. Markham
testified that he reviewed information revealing that Patriarca
authorized the murder of Edward Deegan. However, Markham did
not attempt to prosecute Patriarca for this crime, and he said
he did not pay attention to the Deegan case--in which innocent
men were prosecuted--because it was a State rather than Federal
prosecution. Former U.S. Attorney Jeremiah O'Sullivan also
testified. O'Sullivan led the prosecution of a horse race-
fixing case in which James ``Whitey'' Bulger and Stephen Flemmi
escaped indictment despite evidence that they were both
principals in the criminal conspiracy. O'Sullivan testified
that he knew Bulger and Flemmi were murderers but exercised
prosecutorial discretion in deciding not to indict them in the
race-fixing case. When O'Sullivan assisted with a State
investigation of Bulger and Flemmi, a senior FBI official
``vociferously upbraided'' and ``berated'' O'Sullivan because
Bulger and Flemmi were FBI informants.
The committee also heard testimony from Sergeant Michael
Huff of the Tulsa Police Department. Sergeant Huff testified
about how the FBI's relationship with informants hampered
Oklahoma law enforcement's investigation of the Roger Wheeler
murder. Finally, Roger Wheeler's son David described the effect
of his father's murder on his family, and he encouraged
Congress to continue its investigation.
46. ``The Justice Department's Use of Informants in New England,''
December 6, 2002
a. Summary.--The Committee subpoenaed the University of
Massachusetts president, William M. Bulger, to testify about
the following matters: former FBI Agent John Connolly's
involvement in Bulger's campaigns for the Massachusetts State
Senate; Connolly's involvement in investigations affecting
Bulger; Bulger's knowledge of retaliatory measures taken
against State employees; how Bulger became aware that his
telephone was wiretapped; FBI agents providing Bulger with
information about ongoing investigations; several meetings
between Bulger's brother, James ``Whitey'' Bulger, and the FBI;
whether tape recordings of meetings between James Bulger and
FBI agents exist; and questions about James Bulger's current
location. William Bulger appeared before the committee but
refused to testify, invoking his fifth amendment right against
compelled self-incrimination and other Constitutional
protections.
47. ``Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: Reviewing the Federal
Government's Track Record and Charting a Course for the
Future,'' December 10, 2002
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were David Baskin,
M.D., professor of Neurological Surgery, Baylor College of
Medicine; Mark Geier, M.D., Ph.D., Genetic Consultants of
Maryland; Walter Spitzer, M.D., M.P.H., F.R.C.P.C., emeritus
professor of epidemiology, McGill University; Karen Midthun,
M.D., Director, Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Food
and Drug Administration; Stephen Foote, Ph.D., Director,
Division of Neuroscience and Basic Behavioral Science, National
Institutes of Mental Health; Christopher Portier, Ph.D.,
Director, Environmental Toxicology Program, National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences. This hearing reviewed the
Department of Health and Human Services response to the autism
epidemic and potential links between pediatric vaccines and
late-onset or acquired autism. Autism was once a rare
condition, affecting only 1 in 10,000. This year, the National
Institutes of Health estimates that 1 in 250 children in the
Unites States is autistic. Nationwide, as many as 1.5 million
Americans are believed to have some form of autism spectrum
disorder. Based on government statistics, it's growing at a
rate of 10-17 percent per year. A study conducted in California
found that the rates of autism had tripled in 10 years. The
evidence shows that the increased rates are not due to an
expanded definition of autism, or better detection and
diagnosis. The committee received testimony from experts who
provided clear evidence that the public health response
evaluating possible vaccine ties to autism has been inadequate
and at times misguided. Two studies which have been represented
in the media and by public health officials as clear proof that
vaccines do not cause autism were discussed at lengthy. The
first, a Danish epidemiological study funded by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and published in the New England
Journal of Medicine, reviewed the medical records of 500,000
children from the 1990's to determine if there was a
correlation between the administration of the Measles, Mumps,
Rubella [MMR] vaccine and the onset of autism. The committee
learned that the study conducted in a country that stopped
using thimerosal in the early 1990's could not have addressed
the true context of a possible correlation between MMR and
acquired autism because it could not address the correlating
hypothesis that the cumulative exposure to mercury in childhood
vaccines during prior to and in conjunction with the
administration of the MMR vaccine skews the immune systems of
some young children, making them more susceptible to injury
from the measles virus in the MMR vaccine. If such interplay
does exist, the Danish study would not have captured it. To
date, HHS has failed to conduct or fund a replication of the
Wakefield clinical studies in which he found measles RNA in the
intestines of children who acquired autism after receiving the
MMR vaccine and who developed chronic bowel conditions
concomitantly. The second study discussed during the hearing
was a University of Rochester study published in the Lancet in
which they discuss the amount of mercury measured in the blood
of children who received thimerosal-containing vaccines.
Numerous methodological flaws were discussed. Concerns were
raised that this study, funded by the National Institutes of
Health, was published with out a conflict of interest
notification to the journal that the lead author has previously
disclosed financial ties to the manufacturer of thimerosal and
numerous vaccine manufacturers. Among the issues of concern is
that the study population was small, that the delay of 3 to 28
days in taking blood, stool, and urine samples would not
capture a true measure of mercury in the system. The study also
measure mercury in the tissues and was not a true
pharmacokenetic study. While it provided interesting
observations confirming that mercury in healthy children is
expelled mostly through stools, it offered no analysis of what
possible effects the thimerosal might have had on these
children or in children who do not properly excrete heavy
metals they are exposed to. The FDA witness was unable to give
an affirmative answer when asked by the chairman to confirm
that thimerosal was indisputably safe. The chairman rebuked the
Government witnesses for not adequately addressing the concerns
of families and Congress regarding the safety of thimerosal in
vaccines, for failing to require adequate safety studies prior
to increased use of thimerosal in children's vaccines, and for
not adequately addressing the needs of families of both vaccine
injured and autistic children. The chairman called on the
President to hold a White House Conference on Autism to bring
address the autism epidemic and its potential causes.
48. ``The Saudi Claim of Privilege: Must Saudi Lobbyists Comply With
Subpoenas in the Committee's Investigation of Child Abduction
Cases?'' Wednesday, December 11, 2002
a. Summary.--The full committee held the first day of
hearings to review the refusal to comply with the committee's
subpoenas by three firms that are representing Saudi Arabia in
the United States, and have claimed that under the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, their documents are
``documents and archives'' of the Saudi Embassy, and are thus
``inviolable.'' Witnesses included: Pat Roush, mother of Alia
and Aisha Gheshayan; Margaret McClain, mother of Heidi Al-
Omary; Michael Petruzzello, Qorvis Communications; Jack
Deschauer, Patton Boggs LLP; Jamie Gallagher, the Gallagher
Group; Maureen Mahoney, Latham and Watkins; and Morton
Rosenberg, Specialist in American Public Law, Congressional
Research Service.
Pat Roush and Margaret McClain told the committee about
their experiences with and lack of cooperation from the Saudi
Arabian Government. Michael Petruzzello, Jack Deschauer, and
Jamie Gallagher explained their business dealings with Saudi
Arabia concerning the child abduction issue, and why they have
not complied with the committee's subpoenas. Maureen Mahoney
and Morton Rosenberg testified on their views on the merit of
the claim of privilege under the Vienna Convention.
49. ``America's Heroin Crisis, Colombian Heroin, and How We Can Improve
Plan Colombia,'' December 12, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing was held to bring attention to
the Colombian heroin crisis in America, particularly on the
East Coast. The committee heard from officials from the
Department of State [DOS], Office on National Drug Control
Policy [ONDCP], Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], who
claim that the administration is addressing the Colombian
heroin issue. Other witnesses, including local police officers
from Pennsylvania, Maine and Maryland, confirmed there is a
Colombian heroin epidemic, and that more needs to be done to
combat the scourge. The local police all said they needed more
support, and that it would be much easier for them to do their
jobs if the Federal Government took action and eradicated opium
poppy crops in source countries before the heroin they produce
could reach American streets and schools. DOS witnesses,
including U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Anne Patterson, admitted
she had made the decision to stop spraying opium poppy in favor
of spraying coca, which is increasingly headed to Europe. DOS
witnesses confirmed their commitment to eradicate up to 10,000
hectares of opium poppy in 2003. The committee will continue to
monitor this issue to ensure that DOS fulfills its promise.
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, Census 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.
3. ``Reforming Government: Federal Sunset Act of 2001'', April 21, 2002
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the need for the periodic
review of the efficiency and public need for Federal agencies,
to establish a Commission for the purpose of reviewing the
efficiency and public need for such agencies, and to provide
for the abolishment of agencies for which public need does not
exist.
The witnesses testifying at this hearing were:
Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX); Representative Jim Turner
(D-TX); the Honorable Mark Everson, Controller, Office of
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget;
Tom Schatz, president, Citizens Against Government Waste; Chris
R. Edwards, director of fiscal policy studies, Cato Institute;
John Berthoud, president, National Taxpayers Union.
4. ``Cafeteria Benefit Plans: More Value for Federal Employees?'' May
21, 2002
a. Summary.--The hearing examined cafeteria plans as a
method to allow Federal employees to tailor benefits to their
own needs. The hearing demonstrated that cafeteria plans will
allow employees to maximize the value of the benefits offered
by the Federal Government and would enhance the Federal
Government's ability to compete for and retain well-qualified
employees.
The witnesses testifying at this hearing were: David
Wilson, president, Flex Ben Corp.; Marjorie Young,
commissioner, Georgia Merit System; Derrick Thomas, national
vice-president, 2nd District, American Federation of Government
Employees; Leslie Schneider, senior benefits consultant, the
Hay Group; the Honorable Dennis Jacobs, U.S. Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
5. ``Combating Terrorism: Improving the Federal Response,'' June 11,
2002, joint hearing with the Subcommittee on National Security,
Veterans Affairs, and International Relations
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine the
bill, H.R. 4660, the National Homeland Security and Combating
Terrorism Act of 2002, introduced to establish a Department of
Homeland Security and the National Office for Combating
Terrorism. The bill proposes to reorganize the counterterrorism
structure.
The witnesses testifying at this hearing were: the
Honorable Mac Thornberry (TX-13), the Honorable Jane Harman
(CA-36), the Honorable Jim Gibbons (NV-2), the Honorable Ellen
O. Tauscher (CA-10), the Honorable Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), the
Honorable Arlen Specter (R-PA), the Honorable Warren Rudman,
Admiral Thomas Collings, Mr. Bruce Baughman, Mr. Douglas
Browning, Mr. Robert Acord, Mr. John Tritak, and Mr. Larry
Mefford.
6. ``Homeland Security: Should Consular Affairs be Transferred to the
new Department of Homeland Security?'' June 26, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing examined one of the most vital
components of the President's Homeland Security proposal--visa
issuance and whether this function should be moved in its
entirely from the State Department to the new Department on
Homeland Security.
The witnesses testifying at this hearing were: Grant S.
Green, Jr., Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of
State; Paul Light, vice president and director of governmental
studies, the Brookings Institution; Wayne E. Merry, senior
associate, American Foreign Policy Council; Nikolai Wenzel,
director of academic programs, Atlas Economic Research
Foundation; Joel Mowbray, attorney, contributing editor,
National Review Online.
7. ``Strengthening America's Borders: Should The Issuing of Visas be
Viewed as a Diplomatic Tool or Security Measure?'' Field
hearing, Kissimmee, FL, July 15, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing was to determine whether visa
issuance should be moved from the Department of State to the
new Department of Homeland Security. It focused on the
importance of visas as the Nation's front line against
terrorism to local law enforcement and the hospitality
industry.
The witnesses testifying at this hearing were: John Klein,
deputy chief, city of Kissimmee Police Department; Lt. Ken
Glantz, Office of Homeland Security, Orange County Sheriff's
Office; Tim Hemphill, executive director, Kissimmee-St. Cloud
Convention and Visitors Bureau; Mike Horner, president,
Kissimmee/Osceola County Chamber of Commerce; John J. Tkacik,
Jr., research fellow, Asian Studies Center, the Heritage
Foundation; Carl C. Risch, Attorney and Former Foreign Service
Consular Officer.
8. ``Recent Developments in the FEHBP,'' December 11, 2002
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing is to review major
developments in the FEHBP program and to consider proposals for
reforming it, allowing the improvement of the quality and
accessibility of health benefits options for Federal workers.
The witnesses testifying at this hearing were:
Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Dan Blair, Deputy Director,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Walt Francis, economist
and author, Carroll Midgett, chief executive officer, American
Postal Worker's Union, Colleen Kelly, president, National
Treasury Employee's Union, Charles Fallis, president, National
Association of Retired Federal Employees, Bobby Harnage,
president, American Federation of Government Employees, and
Greg Scandlen, consultant.
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.
17. ``Improving Security and Facilitating Commerce at the Southern
Border,'' field hearing at San Diego, CA, January 31, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held the fourth of its
ongoing series of field hearings at the Nation's border
crossings in San Diego, CA. The subcommittee heard testimony
from representatives of the local and city government,
concerned members of the community, representatives of the
local business community, and supervisors of the Federal
agencies entrusted with protecting our Nation's border. The
subcommittee and witnesses discussed the significant issues of
illegal immigration, cross-border crime, and drug trafficking
facing the local community, as well as potential solutions.
Witnesses included Ms. Adele Fasano, District Director of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, San Diego District
Office; Mr. Rex Applegate, Assistant Director of Mission
Support and Field Operations, Southern California Customs
Management Center, U.S. Customs Service; Mr. William T. Veal,
Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol, San Diego Sector; Ms.
Dianne Jacob, San Diego County supervisor; Mr. Roger Hedgecock,
former mayor of San Diego and commentator for KOGO Radio; Ms.
Donna Tisdale, chairman, Boulevard Sponsor Group; Ms. Murial
Watson, founder, Light Up the Border; Ms. Teresa Montano, human
resources manager, Southwest Marine, U.S. and North San Diego
Division, on behalf of U.S. Marine Repair West; Ms. Berta
Alicia Gonzalez, vice president, San Ysidro Chamber of
Commerce; Ms. Viviana Ibanez, international affairs
coordinator, San Diego Chamber of Commerce; and Mr. Steve Otto,
executive director, San Ysidro Business Association.
18. ``Improving Security and Facilitating Commerce at the Southern
Border,'' field hearing at the Seaports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, February 1, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee continued its series of
hearings at the Nation's border crossings and ports of entry,
holding its first hearing at a seaport in Los Angeles/Long
Beach, CA. The subcommittee heard testimony from
representatives of the ports and the businesses which depend on
trade through the ports, as well as from the Federal agencies
entrusted with protecting the ports from terrorism, illegal
immigration, and the smuggling of contraband. The witnesses
discussed several new proposals for improving both security and
the transit of goods at the Nation's seaports.
Witnesses included Capt. John Holmes, Captain of the Port,
Los Angeles and Long Beach, U.S. Coast Guard; Ms. Audrey Adams,
Director Field Operations, South Pacific Customs Management
Center, U.S. Customs Service; Mr. Thomas J. Schiltgen, District
Director, Los Angeles District Office, Immigration and
Naturalization Service; Mr. Richard D. Steinke, executive
director, the Port of Long Beach; Mr. Larry Keller, executive
director, the Port of Los Angeles; Mr. Jay Winter, executive
director, Steamship Association of Southern California; Mr.
Dennis Heck, corporate import compliance and purchasing
manager, Yamaha Corp.; Mr. Guy Fox, chairman of the board,
Global Transportation Services; Capt. Bill Wright, senior vice
president for safety and the environment, Royal Caribbean &
Celebrity Cruise Lines; and Mr. Moises Cisneros, legislative
manager, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.
19. ``Improving Security and Facilitating Commerce at the Southern
Border,'' field hearing at Sierra Vista, AZ, February 22, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held the next of its ongoing
series of field hearings at the Nation's border crossings in
Sierra Vista, AZ. As it had in previous field hearings, the
subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of the local
and city government, concerned members of the community,
representatives of the local business community, and
supervisors of the Federal agencies entrusted with protecting
our Nation's border. The subcommittee and witnesses discussed
possible solutions to the significant and increasing problems
of illegal immigration, cross-border crime, and drug
trafficking facing the local community.
Witnesses included Ms. Donna De La Torre, Director, Field
Operations, Arizona Customs Management Center, U.S. Customs
Service; Mr. David Aguilar, Chief Patrol Agent, Tucson Sector,
U.S. Border Patrol; the Honorable Ray Borane, mayor, city of
Douglas, AZ; the Honorable Chris M. Roll, Cochise County
attorney; the Honorable Larry Dever, Cochise County sheriff;
Mr. Harlan Capin, president, Nogales Alliance and Port of the
Future; and Mr. James J. Dickson, administrator/CEO, Copper
Queen Community Hospital.
20. ``The National Drug Control Strategy for 2002,'' February 26, 2002
a. Summary.--The hearing allowed the subcommittee to review
the National Drug Control Strategy for 2002. John Walters, the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
testified to present the strategy. The 2002 Strategy focuses on
three national priorities: stopping drug use before it starts
through education and community action, healing America's drug
users by getting treatment resources where they are needed, and
disrupting the market by attacking the economic basis of the
drug trade. The hearing was the first at which Director Walters
testified after his confirmation and allowed members to enter
into a dialog on a wide range of drug control topics.
Testimony was delivered by the Honorable John Walters,
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy. He was
accompanied by Mr. David Rivat, Budget Chief, Office of
National Drug Control Policy. Mr. Rivat did not deliver a
statement.
21. ``Benefits of an Integrated Drug Demand Reduction Strategy: Effects
of Treatment Funding on Public Health and Public Safety in
Baltimore,'' March 5, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a field hearing in
Baltimore, MD, concerning the findings and ramifications of a
recent drug treatment study entitled, ``Steps to Success:
Baltimore Drug and Alcohol Treatment Outcomes Study.''
Commissioned by Baltimore Substance Abuse Systems, Inc., (BASA,
Inc.) and released January 24, 2002, the study found that
providing drug treatment on demand had measurable and lasting
beneficial effects for treatment patients, including reduced
use of alcohol, cocaine and heroin, reduced criminal behavior
and receipt of illegal income, reduced depression, increased
earned income, reduced HIV-risk behavior, and fewer emergency
room visits. The study is the largest and most rigorously
conducted treatment outcomes study to focus on a single city.
Representatives of State and local government, and treatment
providers and recipients testified concerning the results of
the study and prospects for expanding and improving drug
treatment programs.
Witnesses included the Hon. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend,
lieutenant governor of Maryland; the Hon. Martin O'Malley,
mayor of Baltimore; the Hon. Edward Norris, chief, Baltimore
Police Department; Ms. Renee Robinson, treatment and criminal
justice program manager, Washington, D.C.-Baltimore High-
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area; the Hon. Jamey Weitzman,
judge, Baltimore City Drug Court; Dr. Peter Beilenson, M.D.,
M.P.H., Baltimore City health commissioner and chairman of the
Board of BSAS, Inc.; Dr. Jeanette Johnson, Ph.D., professor of
social work, University of Buffalo and Principal Investigator
of the study; Mr. John Hickey, director, Tuerk House Drug
Treatment Center; and Ms. Elizabeth Soward, a graduate of the
Tuerk House treatment program who now serves as program
coordinator at the center.
22. ``Innovative Approaches to Preventing Crime and Rehabilitating
Youth and Adult Offenders,'' field hearing at Fort Wayne, IN,
March 22, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing highlighted innovative crime
control programs operating in Northeastern Indiana. These local
initiatives provide pre and post-adjudication services for
high-risk youth, adult and juvenile offenders. Such programs
include adult re-entry and drug courts, juvenile character
programs, alternative schools, and unique faith partnerships
located in Northeastern Indiana. Witnesses testified to the
scope and effectiveness of these programs, as well as the role
of the Federal Government in encouraging and championing
effective grassroots justice programs. Funding flows to
communities in Northeastern Indiana through a variety of
Federal grant programs, including the Department of Education's
GEAR UP program, the Corporation for National and Community
Service's Americorps program, the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
and the Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing
Services [COPs] program.
Testimony was received from Charles Curie, administrator,
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration;
the Honorable John F. Surbeck, judge, Re-Entry Court
Initiative, Allen Superior Court, Criminal Division; the
Honorable Francis C. Gull, judge, Drug Court, Allen Superior
Court, Criminal Division, the Honorable David C. Bonfiglio,
judge, Elkhart Superior Court VI; Mr. Kevin Deary, president
and executive director, Boys and Girls Club of Greater Goshen;
Ms. Alisa Stovall, education coordinator, Deer Run Academy;
Matthew P. Schomburg, Wayne Township Trustee; Mr. Mark Terrell,
CEO, Lifeline Youth and Family Services; and Glynn Hines, Fort
Wayne City councilman.
23. ``Enhancing Border Security and Law Enforcement,'' April 10, 2002
a. Summary.--As part of its ongoing study of border
security, the subcommittee held a hearing to investigate new
organizational and technological steps that can be taken to
improve law enforcement at our Nation's borders and ports of
entry. The subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of
the principal agencies entrusted with the security of our
borders, as well as their employees, as well as representatives
of the industries affected by border inspections. The
subcommittee and the witnesses discussed several new proposals
for upgrading the process of screening travelers and goods
entering the country, as well as possible reorganizations of
the Federal agencies responsible for carrying out that
screening.
Witnesses included Ms. Bonni Tischler, Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs Service;
Mr. Larry C. Johnson, CEO and founder, BERG Associates LLC; Ms.
Colleen M. Kelley, national president, National Treasury
Employees Union; Mr. T.J. Bonner, president, National Border
Patrol Council, American Federation of Government Employees;
Mr. Christopher Koch, president, World Shipping Council; Mr.
John Simpson, president, American Association of Exporters and
Importers; and Mr. Steve Russell, chairman and CEO, Celadon
Trucking Services, representing the American Trucking
Associations.
24. ``Medical Science and Bioethics: Attack of the Clones?,'' May 15,
2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined the status of on-
going efforts to clone humans, the medical dangers of cloning,
and some ethical alternatives to cloning human embryos for
research purposes. The subcommittee heard from scientific
experts and patient advocates. The purpose of the hearing was
to consider the need for Federal law in this area.
The witnesses included Dr. Anton-Lewis Usala, Brody of the
School of Medicine of East Carolina University; Dr. Bryan Cowan
from the Department of OB/GYN at the University of Mississippi
Medical Center; Dr. Panos Zavos of the Andrology Institute of
America; Mr. James Kelly, a patient advocate from Texas who is
paralyzed from a spinal cord injury; Ms. Elizabeth Howard,
esq., who's daughter has Rett Syndrome; and Ms. Judy Norsigian
of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective.
Dr. Zavos discussed his efforts to clone human embryos for
reproductive purposes. Dr. Cowan and Ms. Howard supported
cloning human embryos for medical research. Dr. Usala outlined
some of the ethical alternatives to research cloning, including
his own work that is successfully treating some patients. Mr.
Kelly testified that research involving cloning diverts limited
resources away from more promising research that could help him
and other patients. Ms. Norsigian outlined the dangers of
cloning on women's health, including how women must be
exploited to harvest massive amounts of eggs to create embryos.
Legislation introduced by subcommittee member Dr. David
Weldon of Florida to prohibit human cloning for any purpose was
overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives but was
not considered by the U.S. Senate.
25. ``Racial Disparities in Healthcare: Confronting Unequal
Treatment,'' May 21, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to review a
recent Institute of Medicine study concluding that racial and
ethnic minorities tend to receive lower quality health care
than non-minorities, even when taking into account factors such
as income and availability of health insurance. The
subcommittee heard testimony relating to the report and
reviewed the ongoing efforts and actions of Federal agencies
with respect to the report's conclusions.
Witnesses included Dr. John Ruffin, the director of the
National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Dr.
Nathan Stinson, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority
Health, HHS; Mr. Ruben King-Shaw, Jr., Deputy Administrator of
the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Dr. Carolyn
Clancy, Associate Director of the Agency for Health Care
Research and Quality; the Honorable Donna Christensen, Delegate
to the U.S. House of Representatives from the U.S. Virgin
Islands; Dr. Thomas LaVeist, associate professor of Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health; Dr. Lisa Cooper, associate
professor from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; and
Dr. Elena Rios, president of the National Hispanic Medical
Association.
26. ``Homeland Security Reorganization: What Impact on Federal Law
Enforcement and Drug Interdiction?'' June 17, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony concerning
President George W. Bush's proposal to create a Department of
Homeland Security. Specifically, the subcommittee investigated
the potential benefits and ramifications of the reorganization
for Federal law enforcement operations unrelated to terrorism
as well as on drug interdiction and border control. The
subcommittee heard testimony from several former senior Federal
officials for key departments and agencies that would be
affected by the proposal. Many witnesses expressed their
confidence that the creation of the new Department would help
reduce duplicative efforts and lack of coordination between the
principal agencies responsible for border security--namely, the
U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, the U.S. Border Patrol, and the U.S. Coast Guard--but
also warned that steps must be taken to ensure that key
missions unrelated to terrorism, such as drug interdiction, are
not neglected.
Witnesses included Admiral Robert E. Kramek (ret.), former
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard; Mr. Donnie Marshall, former
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mr. Peter K.
Nunez, former Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Treasury; Mr. Douglas M. Kruhm, former
Assistant Commissioner for the U.S. Border Patrol; Mr. Sam
Banks, former Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service; and
Mr. Stephen E. Flynn, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for
national security studies, Council on Foreign Relations.
27. ``Do We Need a National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign,'' June 25,
2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing which
demonstrated that considerable evidence exists that ad
campaigns have had a positive influence on drug using behavior
of American youth. The message resulting from the hearing is
that Congress should continue to strongly support the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, although improvements to the
campaign may be needed. Subsequent to the subcommittee's last
Media the National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA] released
preliminary data evaluating the campaign which led some critics
to complain about the campaign's effectiveness.
During this hearing, however, the Dr. Lloyd Johnston,
University of Michigan, program director of Monitoring the
Future study, testified that while drug use rose substantially
during much of the 1990s, there has been a leveling in recent
years and, among the eighth graders in particular, some
relatively steady, gradual decline in use. In other words,
there has been some recent progress among the younger teens,
who have been the primary targets of the media campaign. Also,
the witness from the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater
Cincinnati presented data demonstrating that during two time
periods, the Anti-Drug Media Campaign has been an effective
factor in reducing the regular (monthly) usage of marijuana.
Their data consistently demonstrated that the Media Campaign's
effect is meaningful but not as large as parental-driven
protective factors, as expected. Recommendations for conducting
an evaluation of the national anti-drug campaign were also
given.
Witnesses included Mr. Lloyd Johnston, distinguished
research scientist, Survey Research Center, University of
Michigan; Phillip Palmgreen, professor, Department of
Communication, University of Kentucky; Hon. Rob Portman, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio; Susan
Patrick, president, the Governor's Prevention Partnership; and
Paul J. Zimmerman, senior manager, corporate function consumer
of market knowledge, Procter and Gamble.
28. ``Impact of Potential Restrictions on Anti-Drug Media Campaign
Contractors,'' July 26, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee has held numerous oversight
hearings relating to the performance of the Media Campaign's
primary contractor, Ogilvy & Mather. Ogilvy & Mather settled a
False Claims Act suit with the Department of Justice for $1.8
million in 2001. The issues which were raised with respect to
the management of the current contract as well as market
research performed resulted in ONDCP's decision to re-bid the
contract. On October 25, 2001, the Navy issued a solicitation
for proposals. Five offerors responded and on July 3, 2002 the
Navy announced the award of the new contract to Ogilvy &
Mather. The contract is a $151,913,165 cost-plus-fixed-fee
contract to provide advertising and advertising-related
services to ONDCP. The contract contains options, which if
exercised would bring the total cumulative contract value to
$762,101,166.
The subcommittee continues to review the billing
irregularities, the bid campaign, and the overall design and
management of the program carefully in consideration of future
authorizing legislation. As a result of the award of the
contract to Ogilvy & Mather, legislative language was included
in the Treasury appropriations bill which would prohibit
Treasury-Postal Appropriations funds from being spent on the
contract awarded in the rebidding process, effectively ensuring
that no funds be given to Ogilvy & Mather.
The subcommittee heard testimony from ONDCP and other
experts regarding the practical impact of this language on the
functioning of the campaign. ONDCP testified that the language
would weaken the campaign's effectiveness. The Navy was
uncertain of whether there could be a quick award of the
contract to another vendor without litigation. The subcommittee
was also informed that the Navy would no longer perform
contract administration for ONDCP. Another advertising
executive claimed that accounts change hands all the time in
the private sector and that no gap would result from changing
contractors.
Witnesses included Mr. Christopher Marston, Deputy Chief of
Staff, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Mr. Michael
Jaggard, Executive Director for Acquisition and Business
Management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development and Acquisition, Department of the Navy;
and Mr. Al Martin, president, A.M. Martin and Associates, LTD.
29. ``The Effectiveness of Substance Abuse Education and Treatment
Programs in Preventing Crime,'' July 29, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted a field hearing in
Chicago, IL at the request of Representative Danny Davis to
examine the successes of drug treatment and education programs
in the Chicago area, as well as the effect which such programs
can have on crime reduction. The subcommittee received
testimony from organizations on successful programs, some with
new and innovative approaches, that suggested models for
techniques and broader programs nationwide.
Witnesses included the Honorable Constance Howard, Illinois
State Representative; Mr. Frank Lieggi, executive director, the
Way Back Inn; Bettie Foley, associate director, Haymarket
Center; Dr. Bradley D. Olson, Center for Community Research,
DePaul University; Mr. Dennis Deer, Deer Re Hab Services; Ms.
Terrie McDermott, Cook County Sheriff's Office; Ms. Sharron
Matthews, director of public policy and advocacy, Safety
Foundation; Mr. Tim Whitney, special counsel, TASC, Inc.; Ms.
Dorothy M. Reid, president, Oak Park NAACP Branch; and Mr.
Jesus Reyes, director, social services, Circuit Court of Cook
County.
30. ``Ecstasy: A Growing Threat to the Nation's Youth,'' September 19,
2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony concerning
the alarming growth in trafficking and abuse of the dangerous
``club drug'' ecstasy. Senior administration officials provided
testimony on the increase in ecstasy use among our Nation's
youth, the harmful effects of the drug on users and efforts to
accelerate ecstasy control efforts by law enforcement. Private
citizens also testified concerning the devastating effects of
ecstasy on users and families, as well as issues arising in
drug treatment for ecstasy users.
Witnesses included the Honorable Asa Hutchinson,
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; Dr. Glen R.
Hanson, D.D.S., Ph.D., Acting Director, National Institute on
Drug Abuse; Ms. Kate Patton, Kelley McEnery Baker Foundation;
Ms. Lynn Smith; and Dr. Terry Horton, M.D., Medical Director,
Phoenix House.
31. ``West Nile Virus: Public Health Implications and Federal
Response,'' October 3, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined the public health
implications of the West Nile virus and the Federal response to
the growing epidemic.
The witnesses included Dr. James Hughes, the Director of
National Center for Infectious Diseases at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention; Jesse L. Goodman, M.D., M.P.H.,
the Deputy Director of Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research at the Food and Drug Administration; John R. Lumpkin,
M.D., M.P.H. director, Illinois Department of Public Health;
Dr. Deborah McMahan, commissioner, Allen County Health
Department of Fort Wayne, IN; George Wichterman, chairman of
the Legislative and Regulatory Committee of the American
Mosquito Control Association; Dr. Mohammad Akhter, executive
director of the American Public Health Association.
The subcommittee was updated on the rapid spread of the
disease that was only first detected in the United States in
1999 and the challenges that have resulted. As of yet, there is
no test for West Nile virus infection. Dr. Goodman of the FDA
told the subcommittee that a test may be available by next
summer. There is no specific medication to treat West Nile
virus infection and no vaccine is available to prevent it. The
National Institutes of Health forecasts a vaccine will not be
ready for at least 3 to 5 years. The subcommittee also learned
that for the first time, West Nile virus infection has been
linked to blood and organ donations.
In response to the West Nile virus outbreak that is caused
by the bite of an infected mosquito, the House of
Representatives passed a bill authorizing $100 million in
grants for communities to develop mosquito-control programs.
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
7, 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.
11. ``Status of Construction of the New Convention Center,'' January
18, 2002
a. Summary.--Construction of the District of Columbia's new
convention center began in 1998, but a General Accounting
Office audit conducted for the subcommittee raised troubling
questions, particularly noting that a firm completion date for
the mammoth project had not been established, nor had a
guaranteed maximum price been negotiated. At 2.3 million square
feet of space, the convention center will be the second largest
building in the District, and as such is one of the most
important public works projects the city has seen in quite some
time. Its estimated cost is more than $800 million.
Chairwoman Morella, who had requested the GAO report, said
it was critically important the convention center open as
scheduled in March 2003. Events had already been booked for the
new space, and the District is counting on the center to pump
more than $650 million annually into its economy (with another
$775 million projected to be added to the economies of other
local governments).
Lewis H. Dawley III, the general manager of the Washington
Convention Center Authority, testified that the authority and
the Clark/Smoot company, which is managing construction, had
reached an agreement guaranteeing that the convention center
would be ready for exhibits by March 31, 2003 at a total cost
acceptable to both parties. Witnesses from the office of Mayor
Anthony Williams and the District's chief financial officer
testified that the opening of the convention center would serve
as a much-needed boost to the local economy, which had been
hurt severely by the September 11th terrorist attacks.
12. ``Economic Development in the District of Columbia: The Role of the
National Capital Revitalization Corporation,'' March 8, 2002
a. Summary.--The District of Columbia created the National
Capital Revitalization Corporation [NCRC] in 1998, recognizing
that the redevelopment of vacant, run-down or under-used
properties could help return the city to solid financial
footing. A year later, the Federal Government contributed $25
million in seed money for the venture, and this hearing was
held to determine what the NCRC had accomplished so far and
what it was planning to do in the future.
One of the most ambitious redevelopment projects in the
District involves the Southwest Waterfront, usually called the
Anacostia Waterfront Initiative. According to witness Elinor
Bacon, who was the then-president of the NCRC, one of the
organization's first moves was to take control of a popular
marina on the river, both to ensure that it is well managed and
to be able to play a role in pushing forward the Anacostia
redevelopment.
Other revitalization areas discussed at the hearing include
Columbia Heights, Georgia Avenue, Howard University/Shaw, the H
Street corridor and the NoMa (North of Massachusetts Ave.)
corridor. Several witnesses pointed to the success of the
Federal legislation that created the District of Columbia
Enterprise Zones, which provide tax relief for businesses that
located in certain areas. With the legislation set to expire
soon, Chairwoman Morella suggested the possibility of extending
the Enterprise Zone designation to the entire city, rather than
just select areas.
13. ``Privacy vs. Security: Electronic Surveillance in the Nation's
Capital,'' March 22, 2002
a. Summary.--In mid-February, media reports revealed that
the Metropolitan Police Department had installed 13 closed-
circuit video cameras in the downtown area as part of an
extensive surveillance network. No public discussion of these
plans took place prior to the cameras being installed or
operated. This hearing sought to examine the purpose of the
District's camera system--for example, fighting street crime or
deterring terrorism--the effectiveness of camera systems in
other cities, and what type of safeguards the District should
put into place to ensure the technology is not abused.
Witnesses from the American Bar Association, the RAND Corp.
and the American Civil Liberties Union detailed the legal and
practical issues surrounding the issue of surveillance cameras,
stressing the need for clear written guidelines about who can
operate the devices, what purposes they will be used for, what
happens to the images recorded and what disciplinary action
will be taken against violators. Witnesses from the Council of
the District of Columbia and the Police Department said the
city would be drafting such regulations, which they have been
working on for some time. However, there is now growing
opposition to the very existence of the security cameras among
members of the D.C. Council, raising the possibility that the
District may end the program altogether.
Finally, the hearing also featured testimony from John
Parsons, an associate regional director of the National Parks
Service. Parsons revealed that the Parks Service was planning
on installing surveillance cameras of its own along the
National Mall as ``part of a larger effort to increase
security'' at monuments and other potential terrorist targets.
The subcommittee then asked the National Parks Service to draft
regulations concerning the use of these cameras, and to send
these regulations to the subcommittee for review before putting
the system into operation. Parsons agreed, although the Parks
Service has in fact turned on the cameras on at least two
occasions (during the July 4th celebration and during the
October sniper attacks in the Washington region) despite only
having completed a preliminary version of those regulations.
14. ``The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority--The Impact of the
September 11th Terrorist Attacks on the Security and Operations
of Airports Serving the Nation's Capital,'' May 8, 2002
a. Summary.--Following the September 11th terrorist
attacks, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport was shut
down completely for 23 days, longer than any other commercial
airport in the Nation. Its proximity to the White House and
other key government installations caused great anxiety among
government security and transportation officials, who would
only let a small percentage of Reagan National's flights to
resume service on October 4th, with a gradual increase in
capacity planned over the coming months. However, by the time
Chairwoman Morella announced that the subcommittee would be
holding a hearing on the status of Reagan National, the airport
was still off limits to private aircraft (general aviation) and
had not yet been given permission to return to full capacity.
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta announced, shortly
before the May 8th hearing, that Reagan National would return
to full capacity within a few weeks. And there was more good
news at the hearing itself. Read Van de Water, the Assistant
Transportation Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs, said general aviation aircraft would be able to resume
using Reagan National by the end of May. Steven Brown, the
Federal Aviation Administration official in charge of air
traffic, said the agency was reviewing the limitations it had
placed on three smaller airports in Prince George's County, MD.
However, as of today, these promises have not come to fruition,
as general aviation is still banned at Reagan National and
severely restricted at the three private airports.
The other main topic of discussion at the hearing was
aircraft noise. When Reagan National first reopened, flight
paths were changed so that jets approaching or departing the
airport were generally flying over residential neighborhoods,
rather than over the Potomac River. In addition, pilots were no
longer instructed to ``throttle back'' after takeoff--that is,
reduce power for the first 10 miles to mitigate noise. James A.
Wilding, president of the authority that manages National
airport, said the airport favors both noise-control measures.
Federal aviation officials assured the subcommittee all
appropriate noise controls had been put back into place.
15. ``Oversight Hearing on the Performance of the Court of Appeals and
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,'' June 5, 2002
a. Summary.--Under the terms of the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Act of 1997, the Federal
Government assumed responsibility for the funding of the court
system of the District of Columbia. This hearing examined the
court system's spending and strategic plans, the performances
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior
Court and the courts' plans to use technology to improve
operations. It also served to review the status of the new
Family Court, created through legislation that originated with
the subcommittee in 2001.
A General Accounting Office report on the Family Court's
90-day transition plan found that it met most, but not all of
the requirements of the act. Specifically, the GAO had concerns
about the relevant experience of the 12 judges assigned to
Family Court, and whether senior judges would be permitted to
hear abuse and neglect cases. Rufus G. King III, chief judge of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and other
judicial representatives, said senior judges would only hear
Family Court cases in dire emergencies.
Other issues discussed included the court system's
Integrated Justice Information System [IJIS]. The new computer
system, which is being installed over several years, will allow
court officials and other users to track cases more easily.
This is a key improvement for a court system that has to deal
with so many different agencies, both Federal and local. The
importance of developing a strategic plan that identifies
performance goals for the courts was also noted.
16. ``Spring Valley Revisited--The Status of the Clean-up of
Contaminated Sites in Spring Valley,'' June 26, 2002
a. Summary.--About 1 year earlier, the subcommittee had
convened its first hearing into the troubling situation in the
Spring Valley area of the District of Columbia, where the U.S.
Army had tested and buried chemical weapons during World War
II. This contamination had gone undiscovered for nearly 75
years. At the time of this hearing, the District and its
Federal partners were still in the process of testing
individual properties to determine the extent of the problem.
At the time of the first hearing, Chairwoman Morella and
Ranking Member Norton requested the GAO conduct a thorough
investigation into the circumstances surrounding the
contamination. That report, presented at this hearing, still
left many questions unanswered. As such, the subcommittee
members focused on looking forward: When will the cleanup be
complete, and what assurances do citizens have that they do not
face health risks?
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, represented by Col.
Charles J. Fiala, Jr., estimated that total project costs will
be $125 million ($50 million of which had already been spent)
with completion set for fiscal year 2007. Witnesses differed on
the question of possible health risks, with some classifying
the risk as extremely small, while others (notably Dr. Bailus
Walker, Jr., chair of the Mayor's scientific advisory panel on
Spring Valley) suggested that residents take precaution because
the level of risk remains unknown at this time.
17. ``Voting Representation in Congress,'' July 19, 2002
a. Summary.--In 1978, both Houses of the U.S. Congress
approved a Constitutional Amendment granting voting
representation in the Senate and the House to the District of
Columbia, treating it as if it were a State for purposes of
representation. That amendment failed to meet the required
approval of 38 States--only 16 approved it before it expired.
This hearing was the first D.C. voting rights hearing held in
the House of Representatives since 1978.
Mayor Anthony Williams framed the issue as one of fairness,
equality and civil rights, saying the time has arrived to grant
the residents of the Nation's Capital the same representation
in Congress as the Members of the 50 States. Witnesses also
included Shadow Representative Ray Browne, who has been
traveling across the country to gain support for D.C. voting
rights.
Walter Smith, chairman of the nonprofit D.C. Appleseed
Center, testified that Congress has the power to pass
legislation granting the District voting rights in Congress, a
position supported by most other witnesses. (Legal scholars who
have studied this issue, including two who testified at a
similar Senate hearing, remain divided on this point.) Another
witness, Betsy Werronen, chair of the D.C. Republican Party,
said Congress should consider granting the District a voting
representative in the House only, as a first step toward full
voting rights. Ranking Member Norton had introduced legislation
to grant the District full voting rights. The bill was not
referred to this subcommittee, but it did receive approval from
the full Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
18. ``Clean Up of the U.S. Postal Service's Brentwood Processing and
Distribution Center,'' July 26, 2002, field hearing held on the
campus of Gallaudet University
a. Summary.--Shortly after the terrorist attacks of
September 11th, the Washington area and several other parts of
the country were faced with a new weapon of fear: anthrax sent
through the U.S. mail to politicians and members of the media.
Two of those envelopes were sorted at the Brentwood Processing
Center in the District, leading to the death of two postal
workers, Joseph Curseen, Jr., and Thomas Morris, Jr. The
Brentwood facility has been closed since October 2001, as the
Postal Service developed a plan to fumigate the building.
The subcommittee held its first field hearing at Gallaudet
University in Northeast D.C., just about a mile away from the
Brentwood plant. Chairwoman Morella and Ranking Member Norton
felt holding a field hearing would give affected residents a
better chance to attend the meeting, and to demonstrate the
fact that the Federal Government takes seriously its obligation
to ensure that the decontamination process is safe for the
public and that the Brentwood facility will be safe for postal
workers to return to work.
Thomas Day, a Postal Service vice president, led a 10-
minute multi-media presentation about the cleanup process,
which involves using chlorine dioxide gas to rid the 17.5-
million-cubic-foot building of any remaining anthrax spores.
Scientists from the Federal and District government testified
that they were working in concert with the Postal Service and
its contractors on the project, and were confident of the
safety and effectiveness of the decontamination.In response to
questioning from Ranking Member Norton, Day promised that the
Postal Service would work with the District to reimburse any
costs associated with the cleanup. After some delays, the
Postal Service began the decontamination work in mid-December.
19. ``Emergency Preparedness in the Nation's Capital,'' September 20,
2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee convened this hearing close
to the 1-year anniversary of the September 11th terrorist
attacks. Its purpose was to gauge how much progress had been
made in the region's preparedness for future emergencies and to
see what additional role, if any, the Federal Government could
play in assisting the regional response.
Chairwoman Morella noted that at the subcommittee's first
emergency preparedness hearing, 1 year earlier, the news was
not all good. On September 11th, the Emergency Broadcasting
System had not been put into use, residents of the metropolitan
area were unsure whether the Metro subway system was working,
and there was no guidance as to whether businesses should send
their employees home or keep them at the job.
In the year since, the Federal Government has developed a
color-coded warning system, Federal agencies (including the
Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency) began work on a protocol concerning when to
release Federal workers and the regional Council of
Governments, along with the District, Maryland and Virginia,
developed emergency readiness plans. Witnesses representing all
the above parties testified at the hearing, with a general
consensus that the region was well prepared to face another
catastrophic emergency, should one happen.
In addition, the panel discussed whether there should be an
Office for National Capital Region Coordination in the proposed
Homeland Security Department. The subcommittee had previously
endorsed this idea, and the office is now included in the law
creating the new cabinet department.
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,'' Part I,
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; Isaac 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.
11. ``Recognizing a Problem: A Hearing on Federal Tribal Recognition,''
February 7, 2002
a. Summary.--There are more than 550 federally recognized
tribes in the United States. These tribes come in a variety of
shapes and sizes. The task of acknowledging a new group as a
tribe is probably one of the most difficult and complicated
tasks facing the Department of the Interior [DOI]. The hearing
examined issues related to Federal tribal recognition. The
Federal recognition of an Indian tribe can have a tremendous
effect not only on the tribe but also on the surrounding
communities and the Federal Government, especially since
recognition exempts tribal land from many State and local laws,
such as sales taxes and gambling regulations.
In 1978, DOI's Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] established a
regulatory process intended to provide a uniform and objective
approach to recognizing tribes. These regulations were updated
several times since then. Despite these updates, criticism has
continued. Groups seeking recognition claim that the process
takes too long. Third-party groups claim that there is little
opportunity for public input. Both sides argue that the current
process produces inconsistent decisions. In 1999, Indian gaming
generated $9.8 billion in revenues, more than the casinos of
Las Vegas. There is little doubt that such large amounts of
money are changing both the nature and content of the debate.
Witnesses included: Representative Rob Simmons (CT-02);
Neal McCaleb, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, DOI;
Barry T. Hill, Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Division, General Accounting Office; and Tracy Toulou,
Director, Office of Tribal Justice, Department of Justice.
12. ``Accountability for Presidential Gifts,'' February 12, 2002
a. Summary.--To ensure no unfair advantage in the
policymaking process or other governmental benefits to donors,
the American people have the right to know what gifts were
received and retained by their President. Several laws,
involving six Federal offices and agencies, govern the current
system for the receipt, valuation, and disposition of
Presidential gifts. The hearing examined how the current system
works and what changes, if any, are needed to prevent future
abuses of the Presidential gifts process and to ensure
accountability.
In early 2001, there were numerous press accounts regarding
President Clinton's decision to accept close to $200,000 in
gifts (each over $260) during his final year in office, as
revealed in his last financial disclosure report. There was
also a great deal of press attention focused on 25 furniture
gifts returned by the Clintons to the White House residence. To
prevent future abuses, the Government Reform Subcommittee on
Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory began its gifts
investigation. The hearing revealed initial findings from the
subcommittee's investigation, including startling information
about retained gifts, valuation of gifts, missing gifts, legal
rulings about gifts, and other findings. Eleven charts
disclosed details of these findings.
Witnesses included: Scott Harshbarger, president and chief
executive officer, Common Cause; Paul Light, director, Center
for Public Service, the Brookings Institution; Gregory S.
Walden, former counsel, White House Counsel's Office, President
George H.W. Bush and ethics counsel for President-Elect George
W. Bush's transition; and William H. Taft IV, Legal Advisor,
DOS. Bruce R. Lindsey, former assistant to the President and
deputy counsel to the President and current designated
representative for President Clinton, declined to testify about
the Clinton administration.
13. ``California Independent System Operator: Governance and Design of
California's Electricity Market,'' February 22, 2002 (field
hearing in Sacramento, CA)
a. Summary.--In 2000 and 2001, California experienced an
energy crisis that impacted every citizen in the State. Some
Californians experienced blackouts; others were asked to
curtail energy use. All Californians saw huge increases in
their natural gas and electricity bills. However, through the
help of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's [FERC]
market mitigation plan, a cool summer, normal precipitation in
the West, and conservation efforts by individual Californians,
energy prices dropped back to expected levels.
The hearing revealed that the fundamental factors that
exacerbated the energy crisis still exist today. California
still lacks adequate energy supply, the transmission system is
old and overburdened, and the structure of the electricity
market is dysfunctional. The market suffers from inefficiencies
in terms of pricing, transparency, transmission and settlement
policies. The hearing also examined steps that California needs
to take to reform its electricity markets. This includes
restoring independence to the California Independent System
Operator [CAISO].
Witnesses included: Roderick D. Wright, chairman,
California State Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce;
Anthony Pescetti, vice chairman, California State Assembly
Committee on Utilities and Commerce; Patrick Wood III,
chairman, FERC; Terry Winter, president and chief executive
officer, CAISO; Richard A. Drom, vice president and general
counsel, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; James C. Feider,
president, California Municipal Utilities Association; Jan
Smutny-Jones, executive director, Independent Energy Producers;
and Walter P. Drabinski, president, Vantage Consulting, Inc.
14. ``Regulatory Accounting: Costs and Benefits of Federal
Regulations,'' March 12, 2002
a. Summary.--In Fall 2001, economists Mark Crain and Thomas
Hopkins estimated that, in 2000, Americans spent $843 billion
to comply with Federal regulations. Their report also found
that small businesses employing fewer than 20 employees face an
annual regulatory burden nearly 60 percent greater than a firm
employing over 500 employees.
In 1996, Congress required the Office of Management and
Budget [OMB] to submit its first regulatory accounting report.
In 1998, Congress changed the annual report's due date to
coincide with the President's Budget. This simultaneous
deadline was established so that Congress and the public could
be given an opportunity to simultaneously review both the on-
budget and off-budget costs associated with each Federal agency
imposing regulatory or paperwork burdens on the public. The law
requires OMB to estimate the total annual costs and benefits
for all Federal rules and paperwork in the aggregate, by
agency, by agency program, and by major rule. For OMB's fiscal
and paperwork budgets, OMB requires agencies to prepare
budgetary and paperwork estimates, respectively, for each
agency bureau and program. In contrast, OMB does not yet
similarly task agencies with preparing estimates of the costs
and benefits associated with the Federal regulations imposed by
each agency bureau and program.
The hearing reviewed OMB's four regulatory accounting
reports issued to date and OMB's current methodology (or lack
thereof) for ensuring future agency and program level detail.
All four reports failed to meet some or all of the statutorily-
required content requirements. Also, OMB failed to submit its
fifth report due on February 4, 2002, with the President's
budget. However, during the hearing, OMB promised to present
its sixth draft report with the President budget in early 2003.
Witnesses included: Dr. John D. Graham, Administrator,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA], OMB;
Thomas M. Sullivan, chief counsel for advocacy, Small Business
Administration; James C. Miller III, former OMB Director and
first OIRA Administrator and current counselor to Citizens for
a Sound Economy; Dr. Thomas D. Hopkins, former OIRA Deputy
Administrator and current dean, College of Business, Rochester
Institute of Technology; and Susan Dudley, deputy director,
Regulatory Studies Program, Mercatus Center, George Mason
University.
15. ``EPA Cabinet Elevation: Federal and State Agency Views,'' Part II,
March 21, 2002
a. Summary.--As indicated in hearing No. 8 above, two bills
were referred to the subcommittee to elevate EPA to a cabinet
level department. One offers no reforms to the agency and the
other offers a multitude of reforms. At the subcommittee's
September 2001 hearing, the sponsors of the elevation bills
testified. In addition, representation from academe testified
about the need for reform at EPA.
This second hearing included EPA's Inspector General and
the General Accounting Office [GAO], both of whose offices have
spent countless hours reviewing, analyzing, and auditing EPA's
programs. The hearing documented the emergence of State
agencies in protecting the environment. State agencies have
become not only the work horses of environmental protection but
also leaders in environmental innovation. Most of our major
environmental laws are delegated in some fashion to the States.
In fiscal year 2000, the States spent $13.6 billion on
environmental and natural resource protection--nearly double
the entire budget of EPA.
Witnesses included: Nikki L. Tinsley, Inspector General,
EPA; John Stephenson, Director of Natural Resources and
Environment, GAO; Karen Studders, Commissioner, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency; and Jane T. Nishid, Secretary,
Maryland Department of Environment.
16. ``Paperwork Inflation: The Growing Burden on America,'' April 11,
2002
a. Summary.--Every year at tax time, the subcommittee holds
a hearing to assess progress since last year and plans for the
current year to reduce paperwork burden (see hearing No. 3
above for a summary of the 2001 hearing). The Office of
Management and Budget [OMB] estimates the Federal paperwork
burden at nearly 7.7 billion hours, over 80 percent of which is
imposed by the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. OMB estimated
that the price tag for all paperwork imposed on the public is
$230 billion a year.
In 1980, Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act [PRA]
and established an Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
[OIRA] in OMB. By law, OIRA's principal responsibility is
paperwork reduction. In 1995, Congress passed amendments to the
PRA and set government-wide paperwork reduction goals of 10 or
5 percent per year from fiscal years 1996 to 2001. After annual
increases in paperwork, instead of decreases, in 1998, Congress
required OMB to identify specific expected reductions in fiscal
years 1999 and 2000. OMB's resulting report was unacceptable.
In 2000, Congress required OMB to evaluate major regulatory
paperwork and identify specific expected reductions in
regulatory paperwork in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Again,
OMB's resulting report was unacceptable.
The goal of the three 1995 to 2000 paperwork acts was to
reduce red tape each year. However, paperwork burdens have
increased, not decreased, in each of the last 6 years. In fact,
last year saw the largest 1-year increase in paperwork since
the 1995 law was enacted. Evidence points to OMB's continued
failure to focus on paperwork reduction. OMB has failed to
require the IRS and other Federal agencies to cut existing
paperwork. Additionally, agencies continue to levy unauthorized
paperwork burdens on the American people. OMB has allowed a
great number of outstanding violations of law to go unresolved
for years (including some in violation for many years). Lastly,
to ensure accountability to Congress and the public, it is time
for OMB to disclose its specific role in paperwork reduction.
Witnesses included: OMB's OIRA Administrator John Graham;
IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti; Vic Rezendes, Managing
Director, Strategic Issues, General Accounting Office; Thomas
Hunt Shipman, Deputy Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture; Scott
Cameron, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance and
Management, Department of the Interior; James M. Wordsworth,
president, J.R.'s Goodtimes, Inc., McLean, VA; and Kenneth A.
Buback, vice president, human resources, Sutter Health,
Sacramento, CA.
17. ``Fuel Markets: Unstable At Any Price?,'' April 23, 2002
a. Summary.--Recent years have seen dramatic price
increases in gasoline during each spring as demand increases
and refiners switch from winter to summer formulations to meet
environmental regulations. These two factors have typically led
to general increases in prices nationwide as well as regional
price spikes. In June 2001, this subcommittee held a similar
hearing (see hearing No. 5 above) as gasoline prices soared and
consumers in some areas of the country were paying more than $2
a gallon for regular unleaded gasoline.
Recent unrest in the Middle East and labor protests in
Venezuela have increased uncertainty over the supply of crude
oil. The cost of crude oil directly affects the cost of refined
gasoline products. However, it is not just crude oil markets
that affect the price of gasoline. The domestic refining
industry is struggling to meet consumer demands as well as
comply with an array of complex Federal and State regulatory
requirements. Moreover, future gasoline markets may become even
less stable as refiners deal with the effects of phasing out
the fuel additive MTBE and replacing it with ethanol. Under the
Clean Air Act, refiners selling gasoline in areas with severe
air pollution are required to add oxygenated fuel additives to
the gasoline. Currently, two additives--MTBE and ethanol--
constitute nearly all the oxygenates added to fuel.
Unfortunately, MTBE has been associated with serious
environmental side effects, most notably the pollution of
groundwater.
Witnesses included: Vicky Bailey, Assistant Secretary for
Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy [DOE];
Mary Hutlzer, Acting Administrator, Energy Information
Administration, DOE; William Kovacic, General Counsel, Federal
Trade Commission; David Montgomery, vice president, Charles
River Associates; Nicholas Economides, director, Hart
Downstream Energy Services; and Gordon Rausser, professor of
economics, University of California at Berkeley.
18. ``New Concepts in Environmental Policy,'' May 28, 2002 (field
hearing in Orange, CA)
a. Summary.--In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency
[EPA] was established to address the massive pollution problems
our country faced. Through laws, such as the Clean Air Act and
the Clean Water Act, EPA sought to reduce the biggest sources
of pollution: industry and wastewater treatment plant
emissions. EPA took a ``command and control'' approach to these
problems, setting strict emission standards and prescribing the
type of technology that industry could use to meet those
standards. Although compliance costs were high, EPA's rules did
succeed in reducing pollution from industrial sources. Today,
as a result, there is cleaner water and cleaner air.
However, the command and control approach is no longer the
most effective way to address our environmental challenges.
Many experts argue that further progress on environmental
improvement will require a different approach to environmental
regulation--to seek innovative ways to manage our environment.
New approaches will depend on government agencies fostering the
creativity and ingenuity of private individuals, organizations,
and associations.
Witnesses included: Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX; Professor A. Denny Ellerman, Center for Energy
and Environmental Policy Research, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; and Dr. Kenneth P. Green, director of environmental
program, Reason Public Policy Institute.
19. ``Energy: Maximizing Resources, Meeting Needs, Retaining Jobs,''
June 17, 2002 (field hearing in Peabody, MA)
a. Summary.--In May 2001, the Bush administration unveiled
its National Energy Policy, a comprehensive plan to address the
Nation's energy needs. The President's plan recommended
policies to increase energy supply, improve energy
infrastructure, encourage energy efficiency and renewable
energy technologies, and protect our environment. Since then,
the House and Senate have considered differing energy bills.
This field hearing examined aspects of U.S. energy policy, with
a focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
Witnesses included: Stephen Bernow, energy group director,
Tellus Institute; Byron Swift, director, Energy and Innovation
Center, Environmental Law Institute; David Fairman, vice
president, International Dispute Resolution, the Consensus
Building Institute; and Roger Little, chief executive officer,
Spire Corp.
20. ``EPA Cabinet Elevation: Agency and Stakeholder Views,'' Part III,
July 16, 2002
a. Summary.--As indicated in hearings No. 8 and No. 15
above, two bills were referred to the subcommittee to elevate
EPA to a cabinet level department. One offers no reforms to the
agency and the other offers a multitude of reforms. At the
subcommittee's September 2001 hearing, the sponsors of the
elevation bills testified. In addition, a number of
policymakers from the academic community testified about the
need for reform at EPA. At the subcommittee's March 2002
hearing, EPA's Inspector General and the General Accounting
Office testified. State environmental protection agency heads
also testified since State agencies have become not only the
work horses of environmental protection but also leaders in
environmental innovation.
The old ``command and control'' approach is inflexible and
imposes high compliance costs. Innovative ways are needed to
manage the environment while maintaining high standards of
environmental protection. There must be flexibility to meet
those standards in new ways. Government bureaucrats should not
be environmental bean counters but environmental managers. The
goal should neither be the number of permits issued nor the
amount of money spent but, rather, the ultimate result--a
cleaner environment.
Witnesses included: Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator,
EPA; James Connaughton, chairman, Council on Environmental
Quality; J. William Futrell, president, Environmental Law
Institute; and William Kovacs, vice president for environment
and regulatory affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
21. ``California Electricity Markets: The Case of Enron and Perot
Systems,'' July 22, 2002
a. Summary.--Prior to the hearing, a number of news
agencies ran stories about how companies attempted to game the
California electricity market. The hearing examined the
activities of the Perot Systems Corp., including whether it
shared confidential information with other market participants
and whether it notified the California Independent System
Operator [CAISO] or the California Power Exchange (PX) of flaws
in the design of the California electricity market. The hearing
also examined CAISO's response to the Enron Corp.'s energy
trading schemes. Expert witnesses concluded that Perot Systems
did not share confidential information about the CAISO computer
protocols. Witnesses did acknowledge that serious design flaws
in the California electricity market led to many of the
problems which California experienced during the energy crisis.
Witnesses included: Terry Winter, president, CAISO; Dr.
Charles J. Cicchetti, Jeffrey Miller Chair in Government,
Business and the Economy, University of Southern California;
George Backus, president, Policy Assessment Corp.; and Paul
Gribik, former employee of Perot Systems Corp. H. Ross Perot,
chairman, Perot Systems Corp.; and Tim Belden, a former energy
trader for the Enron Corp., declined to testify.
22. ``Agency Implementation of the SWANCC Decision,'' September 19,
2002
a. Summary.--In January 2001, the Supreme Court issued a
sweeping decision on Federal jurisdiction over wetlands,
finding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] had exceeded their
authority under the Clean Water Act. In July 2001, the
subcommittee wrote the Corps and EPA requesting that the
agencies issue clarifying guidance and initiate a rulemaking to
ensure that Federal regulations were consistent with the
Supreme Court's decision. The hearing responded to the failure
of both agencies to take even the most rudimentary steps to
ensure that their regulations are being consistently applied.
On the last day of the Clinton administration, the Corps
and EPA issued a joint memorandum to their regional offices.
However, it appears that the memorandum has done little to
clarify Federal jurisdiction; instead, it established a case-
by-case approach, which has resulted in widely varying
interpretations of the scope of jurisdiction by field offices
of both agencies. This inconsistency has led to citizens across
the country receiving unequal treatment from their government.
The current situation has created confusion and chaos not
only for the regulated community but also for the States. The
lack of action by the two Federal agencies to clarify the
current situation hinders States in their ability to implement
their own programs to protect wetlands. In addition to State
programs, there are numerous other Federal programs related to
wetlands. Until other Federal agencies understand the scope of
jurisdiction, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them
to effectively prioritize their programs.
Witnesses included: Dominic Izzo, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Civil Works, Department of the Army, Department
of Defense; Robert Fabricant, General Counsel, EPA; Thomas
Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General for Environment and
Natural Resources, Department of Justice; Virginia S. Albrecht,
Hunton and Williams; M. Reed Hopper, principal attorney,
Pacific Legal Foundation; Nancie G. Marzulla, president,
Defenders of Property Rights; and Raymond Steven Smethurst,
partner, Adkins, Potts and Smethurst.
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. ``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.
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.
26. ``The President's Management Agenda: Getting Agencies from Red to
Green'' February 15, 2002
a. Summary.--President George W. Bush issued his management
agenda in August 2001. The management agenda targets the core
management and capacity problems facing the Federal Government.
The management agenda identifies five governmentwide
initiatives that need focused attention. The initiatives
include: the hiring and retaining of a skilled, motivated
Federal workforce; eliminating the Government's pervasive
inability to properly manage its money; ensuring that Federal
programs achieve effective results from their massive
investment of tax dollars; expanding electronic government; and
increasing public-private competition for commercial-type
Federal activities. The President's budget for fiscal year 2003
contained a scorecard showing that Federal agencies rated very
poorly in each of these initiatives. The subcommittee conducted
this hearing to examine the President's initiatives and to
learn what Federal agencies need to do to improve their
performance in these areas. Representative Pete Sessions (R-
TX), chairman of the Results Caucus, testified that the Federal
Government should be held to the same strict performance
measures as private-sector businesses in order to achieve the
most effective results for its customers--the American people.
27. ``How Effectively Are Federal, State and Local Governments Working
Together to Prepare for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear
Attack?'' Nashville, TN, March 1, 2002
a. Summary.--This field hearing was the first of 11 field
hearings in which the subcommittee examined the efforts of
Federal, State and local governments in preparing for a
biological, chemical or nuclear terrorist attack. Witnesses
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the General Accounting Office [GAO]
testified at each field hearing along with representatives of
State and local governments. The subcommittee learned that
since September 11, 2001, budget constraints at all levels of
government are inhibiting local first responders in their
efforts to upgrade protective gear and equipment and increase
needed manpower. First responders and State officials
emphasized the need for the Federal Government to produce
national guidelines and criteria for an effective emergency
response effort. Witnesses also stressed the importance of
putting accountability and performance measures in place to
ensure that all citizens are adequately protected.
28. ``Lessons Learned from the Government Information Security Reform
Act of 2000,'' March 6, 2002
a. Summary.--On March 6, 2002, the subcommittee held its
fourth hearing on computer security, focusing on implementation
of the Security Act and, in particular, its effectiveness in
improving the security of Federal information systems. During
the hearing, the subcommittee examined the development and
promulgation of security standards; the development of agency
security programs; and the oversight roles of agency heads, the
Director of the OMB and the GAO. Witnesses from the GAO, the
OMB and Federal agencies all emphasized the value of the act's
reporting requirements in fostering senior management
accountability and attention to computer security issues. In
addition, witnesses said that the Security Act has established
a security baseline from which to measure future agency
progress in improving security. The GAO testified that agencies
had made a significant first step in implementing the act;
however, they had not established information security programs
consistent with the act's requirements. Significant weaknesses
still existed in the areas of providing security policy
guidance, conducting risk assessments, developing agencywide
security programs, implementing adequate security controls,
establishing security incident centers and conducting security
training. The OMB witness emphasized that the agency's
oversight role will be supported by the incorporation of
security performance measurements in the President's Management
Scorecard. Agency witnesses identified specific strategies
their agency was using to improve implementation of the act.
The strategies included reforming accreditation and
certification processes, improving information technology
investment review processes, and focusing security protections
on the highest priority assets.
29. ``The Use and Abuse of Government Purchase Cards,'' March 13, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing was one of a series of hearings
examining management oversight of the Government purchase and
travel card programs at the Department of Defense. This hearing
followed up a July 30, 2001, hearing that examined the purchase
card programs at two Navy units in San Diego, CA--the Space and
Naval Warfare Systems Center and the Navy Public Works Center.
The GAO found that although progress had been made in
strengthening internal controls, pervasive misuse of the
purchase cards continued at an alarming rate. Unit commanders
had made some improvements, including a reduction in the number
of cards being issued and an increase in the number of
approving officials. However, GAO witnesses stressed the
importance of allocating sufficient financial and human
resources to support adequate levels of management and
training, as well as the need for a sustained commitment by
senior management and base commanders to further reduce
purchase card misuse.
30. ``The National Aeronautics and Space Administration: What Went
Wrong?'' March 20, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on financial management
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]
during fiscal year 2001 and on the actions NASA was taking to
resolve its financial management problems. Until fiscal year
2001, NASA had received unqualified opinions on its financial
statements. For the previous 5 years, NASA's Office of the
Inspector General had contracted with the firm of Arthur
Andersen to audit its financial statements. During that period,
Arthur Andersen auditors consistently reported that NASA's
financial statements were fairly stated and issued unqualified
opinions. However, NASA's Office of the Inspector General
contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers to audit NASA's fiscal
year 2001 financial statements. The new auditors reported that
they were unable to determine whether the 2001 financial
statements were reliable and issued a disclaimer on these
statements because of significant internal control weaknesses.
In addition, for the past 4 years, NASA's financial management
systems were reported to have been in compliance with the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. However, this
year PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded that the agency's systems
did not comply with the act. The GAO noted that NASA's
financial management problems are not new. NASA has been on the
GAO's high-risk list for contract management since 1990. In
addition, the fiscal year 2001 audit report identified a number
of significant internal control weaknesses related to
accounting for Space Station material and equipment, and
computer security.
31. ``Oversight of the Department of Defense: What is Being Done to
Resolve Longstanding Financial Management Problems?'' March 20,
2002
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the status of
financial management at the Department of Defense and what is
being done to resolve the department's longstanding financial
problems. The Department of Defense is the largest of the 14
Cabinet-level departments. As such, it has been cited as the
largest impediment to an unqualified opinion on the
Government's consolidated financial statements. For the past 4
years, the Defense Department's Inspector General has been
unable to render an opinion on the department's financial
statements. For fiscal year 2001, the Inspector General issued
another disclaimer on the department's financial statements.
The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) has acknowledged
that the department's financial management and feeder systems
do not provide adequate evidence to support various material
amounts on the financial statements. Section 1008 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 directs
the department's Inspector General to perform only the minimum
audit procedures required by auditing standards for year-end
financial statements that management acknowledges to be
unreliable. The act also directs the Inspector General to
redirect any audit resources freed up by that limitation to
perform more useful audits, especially in the financial systems
improvement area. For fiscal year 2001, the department's
Inspector General limited its internal control reviews to
following up on the status of corrective actions relating to
material weaknesses that had been reported in prior audits. In
addition, auditors performed limited tests of the department's
compliance with laws and regulations. They did not test for
compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement
Act, but rather relied on management's acknowledgment that many
critical financial management systems do not comply with the
act. The GAO stated that the Department of Defense faces
financial management problems that are complex, long-standing
and deeply rooted in virtually all business operations of the
department. In September 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld announced a departmentwide initiative intended to
transform the full range of the department's business
processes, including decades-old financial systems that are not
integrated. In addition to its long-standing financial
management systems problems, the Department of Defense cannot
account for the billions of tax dollars it spends on its
purchase and travel card programs. The subcommittee learned
that ineffective controls and lack of oversight have resulted
in fraudulent and serious abuse in the travel and purchase
credit card programs.
32. ``How Effectively Are Federal, State and Local Governments Working
Together to Prepare for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear
Attack?'' Tempe, AZ, March 22, 2002
a. Summary.--This was the second in a series of 11 field
hearings examining national preparedness for a biological,
chemical or nuclear terrorist attack. State witnesses from the
Arizona Division of Emergency Management and the Arizona
Department of Health Services joined local utility companies,
and fire and police departments from the cities of Phoenix and
Tempe. The GAO testified that it supports the creation of a
Department of Homeland Security, stating that it is an
important first step in establishing a national preparedness
strategy. Other Federal witnesses stressed the importance of
good intergovernmental communication and emergency management.
State and local witnesses stated that they believed that a
nuclear incident was a greater threat in Arizona than a
chemical or biological incident. Thus, local agencies in
Phoenix, Glendale and Mesa have been selected for training to
respond to weapons of mass destruction. Overall, the importance
of robust Federal funding of State and local initiatives
remained a central request.
33. ``How Effectively Are Federal, State and Local Governments Working
Together to Prepare for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear
Attack?'' Albuquerque, NM, March 25, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing was the third hearing examining
Federal, State and local preparations for a potential terrorist
attack. Witnesses included representatives from the Los Alamos
and Sandia National Laboratories, the New Mexico National
Guard, and various public health and safety organizations. The
subcommittee learned that New Mexico is a particularly
attractive target because it houses the laboratories mentioned
above, the White Sands Missile Range, four Air Force bases and
the San Juan Basin Natural Gas and Production Hub. These
institutions have been tasked with terrorism detection and
prevention, and have uncovered vulnerabilities in the Nation's
water supplies, airports, subways and other public facilities.
Yet, because responding to an attack is more probable than
prevention, some worried that ``turf wars'' might arise between
Federal, State and local responders, thereby increasing the
public's vulnerability. All agreed, however, that training,
information and funding are crucial for State and local first
responders and for New Mexico's extensive laboratory
facilities.
34. ``How Effectively Are Federal, State and Local Governments Working
Together to Prepare for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear
Attack?'' Los Angeles, CA, March 28, 2002
a. Summary.--This field hearing was the fourth in a series
of hearings to assess the level of Federal, State and local
preparations for a potential terrorist attack. Witnesses from
the Long Beach Fire Department, Los Angeles Police Department,
Port of Los Angeles and various State emergency and public
health offices accompanied Federal witnesses from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
GAO. Los Angeles has a number of vulnerable public targets that
include international sporting events, high-profile
entertainment events and the largest port complex in the
Nation. In general, earthquake-prone California has a well-
organized emergency response effort. Following the 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake, the State developed the Standardized
Emergency Management System, which is a model for coordinating
all levels of government in a disaster response. Overall,
witnesses emphasized the importance of the Federal Government's
role as coordinator of information and resources for local
first responders. Similar to other field hearings, police,
medical personnel and local emergency responders discussed the
critical need during an emergency response for communications
systems that are interoperable.
35. ``How Effectively Are Federal, State and Local Governments Working
Together to Prepare for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear
Attack?'' San Francisco, CA, April 2, 2002
a. Summary.--As in previous field hearings, this hearing
examined the extent to which the Federal Government is
assisting State and local officials in preparing for a nuclear,
biological or chemical attack. Witnesses represented the San
Francisco Fire Department, Police Department and the Mayor's
Office, along with witnesses from the Governor's Office,
Department of Health Services and the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory. Witnesses confirmed that hospitals are
inadequately prepared to handle the massive influx of patients
that could result from a major attack, and discussed ways to
increase hospital capacity. In addition, witnesses discussed
technological improvements and funding for first responders.
The witness from Lawrence Livermore said that more advanced
research in detection and neutralization of biological threats
is needed. Witnesses said that the Federal Government needs to
do a better job of coordinating information and resources in
order to make the research more useful to first responders.
36. ``The Federal Government's Consolidated Financial Statements: Are
They Reliable?'' April 9, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing was the third in a series of
oversight hearings to examine financial management practices at
Federal departments and agencies. At this hearing, the
subcommittee focused on the results of the Federal Government's
fiscal year 2001 consolidated financial statements and related
problems that affect the reliability of the governmentwide
financial statements. The subcommittee also released its fiscal
year 2001 financial management report card, grading Federal
agencies on their efforts to improve their financial management
practices. Overall, the Federal Government earned a ``D'' for
fiscal year 2001. The Comptroller General of the United States,
David M. Walker, testified that the Government's consolidated
financial statements for fiscal year 2001 demonstrate the need
to accelerate Federal financial management reforms.
37. ``Oversight of the Internal Revenue Service: The Commissioner's
Final Report,'' April 15, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the progress being
made by the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] in addressing its
longstanding management and performance problems. This hearing
highlighted the need for continued involvement and commitment
by the IRS's senior management to ensure that the service
successfully addresses its serious financial management
problems. The IRS is responsible for collecting taxes,
processing tax returns, pursuing collection of amounts owed and
enforcing tax laws. In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the IRS
collected more than $2 trillion in tax payments, processed over
210 million tax returns, and paid out about $251 billion and
$194 billion, respectively, in refunds to taxpayers. For the
second consecutive year, the IRS received a ``clean'' opinion
on its fiscal year 2001 financial statements. However, as in
previous years, because of its serious systems and control
weaknesses, the IRS relied extensively on costly, time-
consuming processes; statistical projections; external
contractors; substantial adjustments; and monumental human
efforts to derive its financial statements. The GAO noted that
the IRS has corrected or mitigated many of the computer
security weaknesses cited in previous reports, and is
implementing a computer security program that should, when
fully implemented, help manage its risks in this area.
38. ``Women in Management: Are They Breaking the Glass Ceiling?'' April
22, 2002, New York City, NY
a. Summary.--This field hearing examined the results of a
GAO study on salary differentials between men and women in
full-time management positions. In addition, the GAO study
examined key characteristics of women and men in management
positions, and the representation of women managers in
particular industries. The GAO study complemented the release
of the annual Business Leadership Index, which compares women's
progress versus their male counterparts by using 10 benchmarks,
such as the number of woman-owned businesses versus men-owned
businesses. Witnesses testified that pay inequities persist
despite efforts to level the playing field between men and
women in management positions. Witnesses said that additional
steps are needed to assist women who must balance full-time
employment with the responsibilities of parenting, to encourage
men to take more responsibility for child care and home
responsibilities, and to enable women to progress at work as
far as their talents will take them. Witnesses said that these
key factors would result in more equitable pay for women.
39. ``H.R. 4187, The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2002,''
April 24, 2002
a. Summary.--This was the second subcommittee hearing held
to discuss Executive Order 13233, which established a process
for former and incumbent Presidents to review records proposed
for release under the Presidential Records Act to determine
whether to assert claims of executive privilege. At this
hearing, the subcommittee examined H.R. 4187, a bill that would
rescind Executive Order 13233 issued on November 1, 2001. H.R.
4187, introduced by Chairman Horn, would replace the Executive
order with a statutory process for reviewing records by former
and incumbent Presidents. At the hearing, witnesses discussed
the important differences between the Executive order and the
bill. Witnesses included several Constitutional law scholars
who provided their opinions on Congress's authority to override
an Executive order. Several witnesses expressed the view that
H.R. 4187 was well within Congress's authority and was
necessary to prevent Executive Order 13233 from undermining the
Presidential Records Act.
40. ``Kids in Cafeterias: How Safe are Federal School Lunches?'' April
30, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing held jointly with the Senate
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring and the District of Columbia, examined the
adequacy and efficacy of Federal oversight of the Federal
school lunch program. Witnesses discussed managerial and
organizational deficiencies at the Federal level and how they
are affecting the health of school children. The Food and
Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture [USDA]
manages the program to provide nutritionally balanced, low-cost
or free lunches to over 1 million children consuming more than
33 million meals each school day. The USDA donates about 17
percent of the food served in the National School Lunch
Program; local school officials procure the remaining 83
percent. The only guidance provided to local schools on
procuring safe foods is found in two USDA manuals. There is no
Federal agency specifically responsible for monitoring the
safety of school meals. In addition, no agency has the
authority to recall unsafe foods when they are detected;
manufacturers recall unsafe food voluntarily. Finally,
witnesses said that Federal agencies fail to communicate the
information they compile on food suppliers to other Federal
agencies and school districts. Witnesses identified several key
controls that are necessary to manage the Federal school lunch
program at the local and State levels of government. The
controls include inspection surveillance and risk assessment,
outbreak response, commodity holds and recalls, and training
and technical assistance to educate food service professionals.
41. ``H.R. 3844, The Federal Information Security Management Act of
2002,'' May 2, 2002
a. Summary.--H.R. 3844, the ``Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002,'' introduced by Representative Tom
Davis, R-VA, extends the essential provisions of the Government
Information Security Reform Act of 2000 (Security Act), which
expired on November 29, 2002. H.R. 3844 permanently authorizes
and strengthens the Federal Government's information security
program evaluation and reporting requirements. The legislation
also requires the development, promulgation and agency
compliance with minimum mandatory management controls for
securing information and information systems. In addition, the
bill requires annual agency reporting to the OMB, Congress and
the Comptroller General; establishes a Federal Information
Security Incident Center; clarifies definitions; and
establishes evaluation responsibilities for national security
systems. Witnesses from the GAO, the OMB, agency Chief
Information Officers and Inspectors General emphasized the need
to continue the security management and reporting requirements
established in the Security Act. Although the Security Act has
contributed to a substantially improved security posture,
Federal information systems are far from secure. The GAO
testified that continued authorization of Federal information
security legislation is essential if agency computer security
efforts are to be sustained.
42. ``Oversight of the Management Practices of the Office of Workers'
Compensation: Are the Complaints Justified?'' May 9, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing on
management practices and customer service issues at the Office
of Workers' Compensation Programs [OWCP]. Injured Federal
workers told the subcommittee that they continue to experience
poor customer service and lengthy delays in the appeals
process. This hearing focused on a GAO report examining OWCP's
procedures for appealing denied claims, the length of time an
appeal takes to complete, the extent to which the OWCP adheres
to the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the qualifications
of physicians employed by the program and customer satisfaction
with the program. The GAO recommended a selection of management
reforms and practices to improve the appeals process and
customer satisfaction. These improvements include moving the
appeals process from a paper-based system to an all-electronic
operation, timely decisions on cases and payment of benefits,
and surveying customers to measure satisfaction and identify
potential claimant fraud.
43. ``The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996: Are
Agencies Meeting the Challenge?'' June 6, 2002
a. Summary.--Most Federal agencies cannot produce the
financial information they need to manage their day-to-day
operations efficiently and effectively. In enacting the Chief
Financial Officers [CFO] Act in 1990 and the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of 1996 [FFMIA], Congress sought to
improve this longstanding problem. This hearing examined the
status of the 24 CFO Act agencies in implementing the FFMIA.
The hearing focused on the challenges confronting the 24 major
Federal departments and agencies in their efforts to comply
with the requirements of the act. The GAO noted that many
agencies cannot comply with the FFMIA because of the
longstanding poor condition of their financial management
systems. Most systems are antiquated and do not meet current
system requirements. As a result, these ``legacy'' systems
cannot provide reliable financial information for key
governmentwide initiatives, such as integrating budget and
performance information.
The GAO noted the following six primary reasons why
agencies are not complying with FFMIA: (1) nonintegrated
financial management systems; (2) inadequate reconciliation
procedures; (3) untimely recording of financial information;
(4) noncompliance with the Federal Government Standard General
Ledger; (5) lack of adherence to Federal accounting standards;
and (6) weak security over information systems. Even though
more agencies are receiving unqualified or ``clean'' audit
opinions, their ongoing noncompliance with FFMIA's requirements
prevent them from meeting the intent of the financial
management reform legislation--to report reliable, useful and
timely financial information. According to the GAO, these
``clean'' audit opinions are attained only by agencies
expending significant resources on extensive ad hoc procedures.
44. ``Medicaid Claims: Who's Watching the Money?'' June 13, 2002
a. Summary.--Medicaid is the third largest social program
in the Federal budget and one of the largest components of
State budgets. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
a component of the Department of Health and Human Services,
administers the Medicaid program. Although it is a Federal
program, Medicaid consists of 56 distinct programs, including
one for each State, U.S. territory, Puerto Rico and the
District of Columbia. Medicaid provides health care for 40
million low-income residents. In fiscal year 2001, the program
was projected to cost the Federal Government about $124 billion
and State governments about $95 billion in program and
administrative expenses. This hearing focused on the oversight
of Medicaid expenditures by Federal and State governments and
the actions being taken to ensure the propriety of the Medicaid
claims. The GAO testified that the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid have financial oversight weaknesses that leave the
Medicaid program vulnerable to improper payments. Last year,
the OMB reported that an estimated $12.1 billion in erroneous
payments were made in the Medicare fee-for-service program.
Currently, there is no mechanism to estimate the amount of
erroneous or improper payments that may have been made in the
Medicaid program. The Principal Deputy Inspector General noted
that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid is in the early
stages of putting together a demonstration project in nine
States to identify Medicaid improper payments.
45. ``H.R. 1081, The Accountability for Presidential Gifts Act,'' June
18, 2002
a. Summary.--At this hearing, the subcommittee examined
H.R. 1081, a bill designed to improve accountability for
Presidential gifts. Currently, six different Federal agencies
play a role in administering Presidential gifts under a variety
of statutes. H.R. 1081 would simplify this process by requiring
the National Archives and Records Administration to maintain a
central inventory of Presidential gifts (other than gifts from
foreign governments). The inventory would include certain
information about each gift, such as the donor, the estimated
value and whether the gift was intended to be a personal gift
to the President or a gift to the United States. All
information contained in the inventory would be subject to
public release. Witnesses at the hearing discussed the problems
with the current system and provided their opinions on what
reforms might be needed.
46. ``The Single Audit Act: Is it Working?'' June 26, 2002
a. Summary.--The Single Audit Act, as amended, requires
State and local governments, and nonprofit organizations that
annually expend $300,000 or more in Federal awards to have
annual audits conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-133,
``Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations.'' According to the OMB, in fiscal year 2001, the
Federal Government awarded about $325 billion to State and
local governments, and nonprofit organizations. This hearing
focused on how Federal agencies are using the results of the
single audits and the actions they are taking to ensure that
the deficiencies identified in the audits are corrected. The
GAO noted three issues that merit additional attention. These
issues involve questions about whether (1) all of the audits
are being performed, (2) the recipients perform proper
monitoring of sub-recipients, and (3) the single audits are, in
fact, quality audits. Specifically, the GAO noted that Federal
agencies are relying on an honor system for determining which
recipients are to conduct the single audits. Based on the
results of a GAO survey, no one knows the scope of this problem
or the quality of single audits. The OMB witness said that the
OMB plans to increase the single audit threshold from $300,000
to $500,000, noting that this increase reduces the burden on
small non-Federal entities and concentrates scrutiny where the
Federal risk is the greatest.
47. ``How Effectively is the Federal Government Assisting State and
Local Governments in Preparing for a Biological, Chemical or
Nuclear Attack?'' Milwaukee, WI, July 1, 2002
a. Summary.--This field hearing was the sixth in a series
examining the Federal Government's role in assisting local and
State officials as they prepare for the possibility of a
nuclear, biological or chemical attack. Federal witnesses
included the U.S. Coast Guard, the GAO, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency [FEMA] and the FBI. State and local witnesses
included Milwaukee's mayor, fire chief and police chief, and
representatives from public health and emergency management
agencies. Witnesses discussed the vulnerability of waterways to
terrorist attacks, the importance of updating public health
systems and increasing hospital capacity. Responding to
contaminated water supplies would likely be the job of the
Milwaukee Department of Public Works and the Health Department,
both of which work closely with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention [CDC]. Several witnesses recommended that the
CDC should not be included in the new Department of Homeland
Security. They were concerned that if the CDC were included in
the new department, it would no longer focus on other health-
related functions that are important to State and local
agencies. Witnesses stressed the importance of Federal funding
and training for State and local emergency management
personnel.
48. ``How Effectively is the Federal Government Assisting State and
Local Governments in Preparing for a Biological, Chemical or
Nuclear Attack?'' Chicago, IL, July 2, 2002
a. Summary.--As in previous hearings, the subcommittee
examined the Federal Government's role in assisting State and
local emergency responders prepare for a nuclear, biological or
chemical attack. Witnesses representing Federal, State and
local law enforcement agencies, public health and safety, the
medical community and the Nuclear Energy Information Service
testified at this hearing. Because of Illinois' high dependence
on nuclear energy, the need to protect nuclear power plants was
said to be especially important in that region. One witness
suggested that reactors should be designed or upgraded by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to survive the ``real-world''
threats of terrorism, including the impact of an airplane.
Witnesses also discussed the need to coordinate efforts toward
containing biological incidents.
49. ``How Effectively is the Federal Government Assisting State and
Local Governments in Preparing for a Biological, Chemical or
Nuclear Attack?'' Omaha, NE, July 3, 2002
a. Summary.--Federal witnesses at this hearing included the
GAO, the FBI, Omaha Division, and the FEMA. State and local
witnesses included Nebraska Lieutenant Governor David Heineman,
local utility companies, health departments and the Omaha
Police and Fire Departments. Local witnesses said that, because
of short shelf life for equipment and constrained State
budgets, the Federal Government could assist local first
responders by funding new equipment and training. Doctors from
the University of Nebraska Medical Center also discussed the
need to expand and update national research laboratories to aid
in the prevention of biological and chemical attacks.
Lieutenant Governor Heineman said that, although the State has
had a terrorist task force since 1999, the events of September
11, 2001, further strengthened the State's preparation efforts.
50. ``Government Purchase and Travel Card Programs at the Department of
the Army,'' July 17, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a two-part hearing to
review management oversight of the purchase and travel card
programs at the Department of the Army. Although the purchase
and travel card programs are distinctly different programs,
abuse of the programs has resulted from a common failure at the
Department of Defense: the lack of oversight and adequate
internal controls. Poor internal controls led to significant
waste, fraud and abuse in each program. As of March 31, 2002,
more than 11,000 Army travel cardholders had accumulated $8.4
million in delinquent debt. Witnesses shared a recent report
released by the Department of Defense Charge Card Task Force
that advocates sustained management and a changed
organizational culture. As well, the report stated that clear
policies and procedures are essential to any effort to reduce
credit card misuse. Although the Department of the Army and the
Department of Defense have taken steps to reduce misuse in
these programs, further preventive measures will be critical to
their long-term success, including cardholder training prior to
card issuance and restriction of cards to individuals with poor
credit.
51. ``Cyber-terrorism: Is the Nation's Critical Infrastructure
Adequately Protected,'' July 24, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the vulnerability of
the Nation's critical infrastructure to cyber attacks and the
role of Information Sharing and Analysis Centers in protecting
the infrastructure. More than 90 percent of the Nation's
critical infrastructure is owned and operated by the private
sector. The private sector is addressing vulnerabilities in the
Nation's critical infrastructure through Information Sharing
and Analysis Centers. These centers have been formed to meet
specific sector security needs. Witnesses at this hearing
discussed the increased number of cyber attacks that have
occurred, and the challenges that the private sector faces in
identifying and eradicating vulnerabilities in their systems.
Witnesses told the subcommittee that the Information Sharing
and Analysis Centers' progress in developing strategies to
protect their resources and develop contingency plans has been
uneven.
52. ``How Effectively is the Federal Government Assisting State and
Local Governments in Preparing for a Biological, Chemical or
Nuclear Attack?'' Abilene, KS, August 20, 2002
a. Summary.--Witnesses at this hearing, the ninth in a
series of field hearings to examine Federal, State and local
preparations for biological, chemical or nuclear attacks,
included the Kansas National Guard, FEMA, the Kansas Bureau of
Investigation and the GAO as well as State and local emergency
management offices and first responders. Local and State
witnesses testified that one of the key challenges in
coordinating emergency response efforts involves establishing a
leadership structure that clearly delineates roles and
responsibilities of each agency. In addition, performance
metrics must be developed and the appropriate tools to achieve
these goals need to be deployed in order to build an efficient
and effective emergency response system. Witnesses also
stressed the importance of including accountability and
performance measures in an overall national strategy.
53. ``How Effectively is the Federal Government Assisting State and
Local Governments in Preparing for a Biological, Chemical or
Nuclear Attack?'' Iowa City, IA, August 22, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing was the 10th in the
subcommittee's series of hearings examining Federal, State and
local efforts to prepare for biological, chemical or nuclear
attacks. Witnesses from the University of Iowa, the GAO, the
FEMA, and other local and State officials identified their
roles and key elements of a successful well-coordinated
emergency response effort. Local officials catalogued over
1,000 critical public and private assets that are susceptible
to attack, and have worked on measures to protect them. This
analysis was incorporated in a State Emergency Plan used for
training sessions for civic organizations, local government
officials and citizens. Witnesses stated that the agricultural
industry is among the State's key assets. A biological attack
involving this industry would affect large populations across
the Nation and have a devastating effect on Iowa's economy,
they said.
54. ``How Effectively is the Federal Government Assisting State and
Local Governments in Preparing for a Biological, Chemical or
Nuclear Attack?'' Golden, CO, August 23, 2002
a. Summary.--This was the final field hearing on Federal,
State and local efforts to prepare for a biological, chemical
or nuclear attack. Witnesses from the FBI, the National Guard
and local hospitals testified on the importance of cross-agency
partnerships to identify and respond to disasters. In addition,
they noted the importance of having well-defined roles at each
level of government and developing performance goals and
measures so that resources are properly deployed, and goals are
achieved and sustained. Witnesses stated that current funding
levels have improved since September 11th, but resources will
be quickly outpaced by needs, should a major disaster occur.
Local witnesses said that Federal support for their domestic
preparedness efforts has been relatively small and
disorganized, noting that various departments and agencies
provide money in a ``tangled web'' of grant programs. Because
responsibility for homeland security is shared among Federal,
State and local governments and the private sector, witnesses
said that the tools of the Federal Government, such as tax
incentives, regulations and grants, are essential.
55. ``Linking Program Funding to Performance Results,'' September 19,
2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a joint oversight
hearing with the Committee on Rules' Subcommittee on
Legislative and Budget Process to examine executive branch
initiatives to link program funding to performance results.
These initiatives are a central element in the President's
Management Agenda. They are being implemented through a
``Program Assessment Rating Tool'' [PART] that the Office of
Management and Budget will use to evaluate 20 percent of
Federal programs during the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle. This
hearing examined how initiatives, such as PART, can achieve
results-oriented, performance-based policymaking as envisioned
by the Government Performance and Results Act. Witnesses at the
hearing included the Director of the OMB and the Comptroller
General of the United States. Both expressed the hope that
implementation of performance-based budgeting would lead to
long-term improvements in the allocation of Federal spending
and the efficiency of Federal programs.
56. ``H.R. 2693, the Holocaust Victims Relief Act,'' September 24, 2002
a. Summary.--This bill would require insurance companies
operating in the United States to disclose information about
their Holocaust-era policies issued in Europe during the Nazi
era. When Holocaust survivors or heirs of Holocaust victims
presented claims to insurance companies after World War II,
many were rejected because the claimants did not have death
certificates or physical possession of policy documents that
had been confiscated by the Nazis. The subcommittee learned
that, in many instances, insurance company records are the only
proof that these insurance policies were in effect. Under the
bill, insurance companies operating in the United States would
be required to supply the Department of Commerce with the names
and places of birth listed on all life, dowry, education and
property insurance policies that were in effect in regions
under Nazi control between the rise of the Hitler regime in
1933 and the end of World War II in 1945. A witness from the
Department of State raised concerns that this bill could upset
international agreements between the United States and Germany,
which were intended to settle all Holocaust-era claims.
57. ``Disappearing Tax Dollars: What Changes Are Needed?'' October 3,
2002
a. Summary.--This oversight hearing was a follow up to
examinations conducted by the GAO of questionable disbursements
made by the Department of Education and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. The GAO assessed the
effectiveness of existing internal controls at these
departments to prevent or detect improper payments. The
subcommittee learned that millions of taxpayer dollars are
disappearing each year due to waste, fraud and abuse in various
programs managed by these departments. The purchase card
programs at both departments are also susceptible to improper
payments. The GAO identified payments by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to multifamily property
contractors for work that was never completed. The GAO also
discovered that the Department of Education's loan and grant
programs continue to make payments to ineligible recipients.
Finally, the GAO presented strategies that Federal agencies can
use to reduce improper payments. The Chief Financial Officers
from both departments appeared as witnesses to discuss the
steps that they are taking to improve the approval process for
payments at their departments.
58. ``The Use and Abuse of Government Credit Cards at the Department of
the Navy,'' October 8, 2002
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the GAO's audit of the
Department of the Navy's purchase and travel card programs. As
of March 31, 2002, more than 8,400 Navy travel cardholders owed
$6 million in delinquent travel card debt. The overall
delinquency and charge-off problems in the travel card program
have cost the Navy millions of dollars in higher fees and lost
rebates. The Navy has recently procured the same software used
by the GAO to conduct data mining in an effort to identify
potential inappropriate activity. The Navy is also taking steps
to strengthen internal controls of its travel card program. The
Navy's purchase card program is one of the largest purchase
card programs in the Department of Defense. GAO auditors found
that weak overall internal controls caused failures that leave
the Navy's purchase card program highly vulnerable to
fraudulent and abusive purchases as well as the theft and
misuse of Government property. Despite improvements to ensure
that purchase cards are limited to those who need them, the
Navy continues to have a weak control environment in which
approving officials have an overly broad span of control. In
both travel and purchase card programs, the Navy is reluctant
to link disciplinary actions to misuse.
59. ``Federal Debt Collection: Is the Government Making Progress?''
November 13, 2002
a. Summary.--This was a follow up to a hearing held in
December 2001, during which the subcommittee examined Federal
agencies' progress in implementing the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996 [DCIA]. A report by the GAO found that
recent actions taken by the Department of Agriculture [USDA] in
coordination with the Treasury Department have significantly
improved debt-collection efforts and lowered the amount of
delinquent debt. The USDA, the Government's largest provider of
direct credit, accounts for 35 percent of the $297 billion in
non-tax debt owed the Federal Government. A substantial
increase in the number of delinquent debt referrals from the
USDA and other agencies have produced outstanding results--
currently 93 percent of debt identified as eligible has been
referred to the Treasury Department compared to only 43 percent
in fiscal year 1999. Administrative wage garnishment shows
particular promise as a collection tool and will complement
benefit payment offsets and other tools already used to further
lower the amount of delinquent debt. Witnesses identified
sustained leadership as the key ingredient toward continued
improvement in debt collection activities.
60. ``Computer Security in the Federal Government: How Do the Agencies
Rate?'' November 19, 2002
a. Summary.--During this hearing, the subcommittee released
its third annual report card measuring the Federal Government's
progress in securing its computer systems. The grades were
based on agency reports to the OMB, which included the results
of agency program reviews by their Chief Information Officers
and independent evaluations by their Inspectors General, as
required by the Security Act. Because the OMB required agencies
to respond to specific performance measures this year, the
subcommittee had more detailed information than in previous
years on the agencies' success in developing and implementing
agencywide computer security programs. The subcommittee
determined that the Federal Government earned a failing grade
of ``F'' for its computer security efforts. Fourteen of the 24
agencies evaluated, including critical agencies, such as the
Departments of Justice, State, Transportation, Energy and
Defense, failed in their computer security efforts. Seven
agencies received a barely passing grade of ``D.'' These
included the Department of Commerce, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Department of Labor both scored
``C's.'' The Social Security Administration earned the highest
grade--a ``B-minus.'' Witnesses from the OMB, the GAO, the
Social Security Administration, the Department of
Transportation, and the CERT Coordination Center
emphasized the importance of these annual evaluations and
reports in holding agencies accountable for implementing
effective security. They noted that these mechanisms enable
Congress and the administration to monitor agency performance
and to take whatever oversight action is deemed advisable to
remedy identified problems.
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.
22. ``Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: Health of Coalition Forces,''
January 24, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to assess the
status of international cooperation with regard to
epidemiological and clinical research into illnesses reported
by the United States, United Kingdom and French veterans of the
Persian Gulf war.
The hearing examined the extent of illnesses reported by
United States, U.K. and French veterans of the Persian Gulf
war, and the factors that might account for differences in
reported illness rates between coalition forces. The hearing
also assessed the extent to which U.S. research and treatment
programs on Gulf war veterans' illnesses coordinated with U.K.
and French efforts.
The subcommittee extended the parliamentary privilege of
sitting on the dais with the members of the subcommittee to the
Honorable Bruce George, chairman of the Defense Select
Committee for the House of Commons and the Honorable Lord
Alfred Morris of Manchester, member of the House of Lords.
Witnesses included the Honorable Anthony Principi,
Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs; Dr. John Feussner,
Chief Research and Development Officer, Department of Veterans
Affairs; Dr. Mark Brown, Director, Environmental Agents
Service; Dr. Han Kang, Director, Environmental Epidemiology
Service; Dr. William Winkenwerder, Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs, Department of Defense; Dr. Nancy
Kingsbury, Director, Applied Research Methods, General
Accounting Office; Dr. Sushil Sharma, Assistant Director,
Applied Research and Methods, General Accounting Office; Dr.
Betty Ward-Zuckerman, Assistant Director, General Accounting
Office; Mr. Ross Perot, chairman, Perot Systems; Dr. Goran
Jamal, Imperial College School of Medicine, London University;
Dr. Nicola Cherry, Department of Public Health Sciences,
University of Alberta; Dr. Robert Haley, Southwestern Medical
School, University of Texas; Dr. Lea Steele, Kansas Health
Institute; Mr. James J. Tuite III, Chief Operation Officer,
Chronix BioMedical, Inc.; and Dr. Howard Urnovitz, Scientific
Director, Chronic Illness Research Foundation.
23. ``The Standard Procurement System [SPS]: Can the DOD Procurement
Process be Standardized?'' February 7, 2002
a. Summary.--The objective of a standard procurement system
is to untangle numerous legacy systems into a unified standard
procurement program. The Standard Procurement System [SPS] is
based on a commercial software package, designed to allow the
military services and other defense agencies to perform
contracting operations in a standardized way and eliminate
redundant and often incompatible systems now maintained by
individual agencies.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
implementation of the Standard Procurement System. The
subcommittee wanted to determine the program status in terms of
schedule, program risks, contract costs and the operational
benefits of a standardized procurement system.
Witnesses included Mr. Robert J. Lieberman, Deputy
Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, Department of
Defense; Mr. Randolph C. Hite, Director, Information Technology
Systems Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Cynthia
Jackson, Assistant Director Information Technology Systems
Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. Gary Thurston,
Defense Contract Management Agency, Department of Defense;
Colonel Jake Haynes, Program Manager, SPS Program Office,
Defense Contract Management Agency, Department of Defense; and
Dr. Margaret Myers, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I),
Department of Defense.
24. ``Combating Terrorism: Protecting the United States, Part I,''
March 12, 2002
a. Summary.--Many months before the catastrophic events of
September 11th, the General Accounting Office [GAO], and
several government sponsored studies such as the Report of the
National Commission on Terrorism, known as the Bremer
Commission, the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response
Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass
Destruction, known as the Gilmore Commission, and the U.S.
Commission on National Security/21st Century, known as the
Hart/Rudman Commission, identified three measures the executive
branch should implement to improve efforts to counter
terrorism: compilation of a comprehensive, and prioritized
threat and risk assessment, development of a national strategy
to counter terrorism, and establishment of a central office
with authority to ensure agency compliance with established
counterterrorism priorities.
Since September 11th, the GAO and the Heritage Foundation
identified other areas requiring priority action: enhancing the
compilation, analysis, and sharing of intelligence information
among all levels of government; facilitating the production of
new vaccines and pharmaceuticals against the toxins and agents
sought by terrorists; coordinating the planning and consequence
management actions among Federal, State, and local agencies;
improving security at airports and seaports; and strengthening
border security mechanisms.
The purpose of the hearing was to assess progress, near-
term challenges, and long-term goals of certain efforts to
protect the United States from terrorist attacks.
Witnesses included Governor Frank Keating, Governor of
Oklahoma; the Honorable Edwin Meese III, former Attorney
General, and co-chairman, Homeland Security Task Force, the
Heritage Foundation; Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, chairman,
National Commission on Terrorism, Marsh Crisis Consulting; Mr.
Randall J. Larsen, director, ANSER Institute for Homeland
Security; Mr. Joseph Cirincione, director, Nonproliferation
Project, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Mr.
Henry L. Hinton, Managing Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, General Accounting Office.
25. ``Combating Terrorism: Protecting the United States, Part II,''
March 21, 2002
a. Summary.--This was the second part of a two-part
hearing. Many months before the catastrophic events of
September 11th, the General Accounting Office [GAO], and
several government sponsored studies such as the Report of the
National Commission on Terrorism, known as the Bremer
Commission, the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response
Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass
Destruction, known as the Gilmore Commission, and the U.S.
Commission on National Security/21st Century, known as the
Hart/Rudman Commission, identified three measures the executive
branch should implement to improve efforts to counter
terrorism: compilation of a comprehensive, and prioritized
threat and risk assessment, development of a national strategy
to counter terrorism, and establishment of a central office
with authority to ensure agency compliance with established
counterterrorism priorities.
Since September 11th, the GAO and the Heritage Foundation
identified other areas requiring priority action: enhancing the
compilation, analysis, and sharing of intelligence information
among all levels of government; facilitating the production of
new vaccines and pharmaceuticals against the toxins and agents
sought by terrorists; coordinating the planning and consequence
management actions among Federal, State, and local agencies;
improving security at airports and seaports; and strengthening
border security mechanisms.
Expert witnesses at the first hearing highlighted the
challenges faced and additional steps to be taken to protect
the United States from a terrorist attack. The purpose of the
second hearing was to hear from government agency
representatives addressing similar issues.
26. ``Combating Terrorism: Axis of Evil, Multilateral Containment or
Unilateral Confrontation?'' April 16, 2002
a. Summary.--During President Bush's January 2002 State of
the Union Address he said, ``States like these [North Korea,
Iran, and Iraq], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis
of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking
weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and
growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists,
giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack
our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of
these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.''
Since January, questions have been raised in the United
States and abroad regarding the implications of the ``axis of
evil'' policy and the degree to which the United States will be
required to act alone against terrorists and States possessing
weapons of mass destruction.
Witnesses included Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick,
director of foreign and defense policy studies, American
Enterprise Institute; General Brent Scowcroft, president, the
Forum for International Policy; the Honorable Richard Perle,
resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute; and Mr. Caleb
Carr, military historian/author.
27. ``Managing Radio Frequency Spectrum: Military Readiness and
National Security,'' April 23, 2002
a. Summary.--The electromagnetic spectrum is a finite
resource. Over the years, demand for radio frequency [RF]
spectrum used for both governmental and commercial purposes has
increased significantly. Advances in wireless
telecommunications technology are converging with Internet
technology making heavy demands on spectrum bandwidth capacity.
The hearing examined Federal radio spectrum management
policies and the impact of radio frequency spectrum
encroachment on military training and readiness. The
subcommittee wanted to determine to what extent is radio
frequency spectrum needed by the Department of Defense being
taken by other Federal and commercial users.
Witnesses included Mr. Steven Price, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Spectrum and C3 Policy, Office of the Secretary
of Defense; Lieutenant General Joseph Kellogg (Army), Director,
Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4), Joint
Chiefs of Staff; Vice Admiral Richard Mayo, Director, Space,
Information Warfare, Command and Control, Chief of Naval
Operations; Lieutenant General John Woodward, Director,
Headquarters Communications and Information, U.S. Air Force;
Major General Steven W. Boutelle, Director, Information
Operations, Networks and Space, U.S. Army; Brigadier General
Robert M. Shea, Director of Command, Control, Communications,
and Computers (C4), U.S. Marine Corps; Mr. Michael Gallagher,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information
National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
Department of Commerce; Major General James D. Bryan, Deputy
Director, Defense Information Systems Agency [DISA]; Mr. Julius
Knapp, Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology,
Federal Communications Commission.
28. ``Rightsizing the U.S. Presence Abroad,'' May 1, 2002
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the processes used to
determine the appropriate size of the U.S. diplomatic and
Federal agency presence overseas.
The President's Management Agenda notes, ``the U.S.
overseas presence is costly, increasingly complex, and of
growing security concern. U.S. national security interests are
best served by deploying the right number of people at the
right posts with the right expertise.'' The process of
determining the number and type of personnel and facilities
necessary to achieve U.S. goals is called ``rightsizing.''
The hearing questioned how U.S. departments and agencies
determine overseas staffing levels to ensure mission
effectiveness and physical security requirements affect
facility design and staffing levels abroad. The hearing also
supported the administration's efforts to promote rightsizing
as critical to good governance of the U.S. overseas presence.
Witnesses included the Honorable Grant S. Green, Jr., Under
Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of State; the
Honorable Nancy P. Dorn, Deputy Director, Office of Management
and Budget; Mr. Jess T. Ford, Director, International Affairs
and Trade Division, U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. Lewis
B. Kaden, former chairman, Overseas Presence Advisory Panel;
the Honorable Ken Lawson, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement,
Department of the Treasury; the Honorable Andrew Hoehn, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Department of
Defense; and the Honorable Robert Diegelman, Acting Assistant
Attorney General for Administration, Justice Management
Division, Department of Justice. The Honorable Felix G.
Rohatyn, former U.S. Ambassador to France, submitted testimony
for the record.
29. ``VA Health Care: Structural Problems, Superficial Solutions?'' May
14, 2002
a. Summary.--The hearing examined how the Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation [VERA] system accounts for
regional differences in providing consistent care to veterans.
The hearing questioned how VERA accounts for regional
differences in patient demographics, case mix and
infrastructure costs. The hearing also examined VA efforts to
make VERA more effective in meeting the needs of veterans.
Witnesses included Dr. Robert Roswell, Under Secretary for
Health, Department of Veterans Affairs; Dr. Jeanette Chirico-
Post, Director, Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 1,
Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. James J. Farsetta,
Director, VISN 3, Department of Veterans Affairs; Ms. Cynthia
Bascetta, Director, Health Care, Veterans' Health and Benefits
Issues, General Accounting Office; Dr. James C. Musselwhite,
Jr., Assistant Director, Health Care, General Accounting
Office; Mr. Gerald Donnellan, director, Rockland County Veteran
Service Agency; Mr. John Bachman, Captain, U.S. Air Force
(retired); and Mr. Edmund Burke, co-chair, VA Connecticut
Mental Health Advisory Board.
30. ``Transforming Department of Defense Financial Management: A
Strategy for Change,'' June 4, 2002
a. Summary.--The inability to produce the data needed to
efficiently and effectively manage the day-to-day operations of
the Department of Defense [DOD] and provide accountability to
Congress has been a long-standing problem.
Since 1995, the General Accounting Office [GAO] has
designated DOD financial management a high risk because of
pervasive weaknesses in the Department's financial management
systems, operations and controls. The limited reliability of
DOD's financial information wastes resources and undermines the
Department's ability to complete its mission. Despite efforts
spanning a decade, the Department has made little progress
becoming financially accountable.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the latest
Department of Defense financial management reform initiative.
The subcommittee wanted to learn what strategy the Department
of Defense developed for producing reliable, accurate, and
timely financial management information, and how the latest
investment in financial management system ``architecture''
would improve financial business processes and systems.
Witnesses included Mr. Stephen Friedman, chairman,
Department of Defense Financial Management Study Group, Marsh &
McLennan Capital, Inc.; Mr. Lawrence J. Lanzillotta, Principal
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Management Reform, Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Department of Defense; Ms.
Tina Jonas, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Financial
Management, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), Department of Defense; Mr. Joseph E. Schmitz,
Inspector General, Department of Defense; Mr. Gregory Kutz,
Director, Financial Management and Assurance Team, U.S. General
Accounting Office; Mr. Randolph C. Hite, Director, Information
Technology Systems Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office; and
Mr. Franklin C. Spinney, Jr., Tactical Air Analyst, Office of
Program Analysis and Evaluation, Department of Defense.
31. ``Combating Terrorism: Improving the Federal Response,'' June 11,
2002
a. Summary.--The Federal Government organization to counter
terrorism is a controversial issue, and it continues to evolve.
During the Clinton administration, the organization was shaped
by several policy documents and a 5-year plan developed by the
Attorney General's office. The legacy and remnants of those
directives continue as a source of guidance for agencies until
new plans are developed. A number of government-sanctioned
studies concluded the Clinton administration's organization to
counter terrorism was fragmented, uncoordinated, and
politically unaccountable. During the Clinton administration
three different bills were introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives to reorganize the Federal counterterrorism
effort.
In May 2001, President George W. Bush spoke of the need for
a national, coordinated plan to deal with the consequences of
an attack using weapons of mass destruction. After the events
of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration established the
Office of Homeland Security ``to coordinate the executive
branch's efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect
against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within
the United States.'' A study by the Brookings Institution asks
the question, ``Did the Bush administration get it right? Or
are the critics right that bigger, bolder measures, and more
centralized Federal structures, are needed to do the job?''
In May 2002, Congressman William (Mac) Thornberry (TX-13),
Congresswoman Jane Harman (CA-36), and others, introduced H.R.
4660, the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism
Act of 2002, which proposes to reorganize the Federal
Government counterterrorism structure.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the bill, H.R.
4660, the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism
Act of 2002, introduced to establish a Department of Homeland
Security and the National Office for Combating Terrorism.
Witnesses included the Honorable Mac Thornberry (TX-13),
U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Jane Harman (CA-
36), U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Jim Gibbons
(NV-2), U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Ellen O.
Tauscher (CA-10), U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), U.S. Senate; the Honorable Arlen
Specter (R-PA), U.S. Senate; the Honorable Warren Rudman, co-
chairman, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century;
Admiral Thomas Collins, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation; Mr. Bruce Baughman, Director,
Office of National Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management
Agency; Mr. John Varrone, Assistant Commissioner, Office of
Investigations, U.S. Customs Service, Department of the
Treasury; Mr. Robert Acord, Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture; and Mr.
John Tritak, Director, Critical Infrastructure Assurance
Office, Bureau of Industry Security, Department of Commerce.
32. ``DOD Financial Management: Following One Item Through the Maze,''
June 25, 2002
a. Summary.--The Department of Defense manages and
administers very large and complex programs. Defense operations
involve over $1 trillion in assets, budget authority of about
$373 billion annually, and about 3 million military and
civilian employees. Directing the finance and accounting of DOD
operations represents one of the largest management challenges
within the Federal Government.
The General Accounting Office was requested to provide the
flow of information related to the procurement, accounting,
control, and payment processes for defense supply inventory
items. Specifically, GAO was asked to identify the key data
systems used by DOD to support the department's business
processes, identify the interrelationships between these key
data systems, and identify best supply chain management
practices of a leading retail company.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine DOD financial
management difficulties related to the procurement, accounting,
payment, and inventory control of a selected DOD unique item.
The subcommittee wanted to determine how effectively do DOD
information management systems support the procurement,
inventory control and payment processes for the Joint
Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology [JSLIST] and computer
equipment procured using the government purchase card. In
addition, the subcommittee wanted to know how effectively do
DOD business processes for procurement, inventory control and
payment compare with best practices in private industry.
Witnesses included Mr. Gregory Kutz, Director, Financial
Management and Assurance Team, U.S. General Accounting Office;
Mr. David Warren, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
Team, U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. Darby W. Smith,
Assistant Director, Financial Management and Assurance Team,
U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. John J. Ryan, Office of
Special Investigation, U.S. General Accounting Office; Dr. John
J. Coyle, Department of Business Logistics, Pennsylvania State
University; Ms. JoAnn Boutelle, Director, Commercial Pay
Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service [DFAS],
Department of Defense; Mr. Douglas Bryce, Program Manager,
Joint Service Lightweight Technology Suit [JLIST], Department
of Defense; Mr. Bruce E. Sullivan, Director, Joint Purchase
Card Program Management Office, Department of Defense.
33. ``Missile Defense: A New Organization, Evolutionary Technologies,
and Unrestricted Testing,'' July 16, 2002
a. Summary.--In January 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald
H. Rumsfeld announced the re-designation of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization [BMDO] as the Missile Defense
Agency [MDA]. The agency will focus its efforts on developing a
defense for the U.S. deployed forces, and allies and friends
from ballistic missile attack.
This missile defense program has been scrutinized and
criticized. Critics argue the MDA organization is withholding
information about missile defense testing, the missile defense
system has inherent technological flaws, and the United States
should not withdraw from treaties to pursue missile defense.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the restructured
program, the technological development of the programs, the
acquisition strategy, and the unrestricted testing environment.
Witnesses included Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish,
USAF, Director, Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense;
the Honorable Thomas Christie, Director, Office of Test and
Evaluation [OT&E], Department of Defense; Mr. Robert E. Levin,
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. General
Accounting Office, accompanied by Ms. Barbara H. Haynes,
Assistant Director; Ambassador David Smith, Chief Operating
Officer, National Institute for Public Policy; Dr. William R.
Graham, chairman and CEO, National Security Research, Inc.; and
Mr. Eric Miller, Senior Defense Investigator, the Project on
Government Oversight.
34. ``Lessons Learned: The Department of Veterans Affairs Prescription
Drug Purchasing Program,'' July 22, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a field hearing to
assess the lessons learned from the Department of Veterans
Affairs [VA] prescription drug program and the challenges that
remain in making prescription drugs more affordable.
The hearing examined how the VA is able to obtain large
discounts from drug manufacturers through the use of
formularies, and buying in bulk. These discounts enable VA to
offer veterans prescription drugs at a discounted cost. The
hearing also examined the difficulties non-veterans face in
managing increased prescription drug costs.
Witnesses included Ms. Judy Waxman, deputy executive
director, Families USA; Dr. Alan Sager, professor of health
services, director, health reform program, Boston University
School of Public Health; Ms. Cynthia Bascetta, Director, Health
Care, Veterans' Health and Benefits Issues, General Accounting
Office; Mr. John Ogden, Chief Consultant, Veterans Health
Administration, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Department of
Veterans Affairs; and Mr. William Conte, Director, Department
of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Bedford, MA.
35. ``Homeland Security: Protecting Strategic Seaports,'' July 23, 2002
a. Summary.--Public Law 105-338, the Iraq Liberation Act of
1998, declares ``it should be the policy of the United States
to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam
Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a
democratic government to replace that regime.'' President
George W. Bush has agreed and said the people of Iraq, as well
as the region, would be better off without Saddam Hussein in
charge of Iraq.
There are a number of ways to remove Hussein. He could die
of natural causes, he could voluntarily step aside, or he could
be removed from power through the action of internal or
external forces. Any external force attempting removal will
require a considerable amount of personnel and materiel. If a
decision were made by the United States to invade Iraq, our
military would be tasked with deploying, building, and
sustaining combat power into a distant theater of operations.
Ninety-five percent of all equipment and supplies needed to
sustain such an action would be carried by sea to the
battlefield.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine security
coordination measures at strategic seaports during mobilization
of military personnel and cargo.
Witnesses included Major General Kenneth L. Privratsky,
Commander, Military Traffic Management Command, Department of
Defense; Captain William G. Schubert, Maritime Administrator,
Department of Transportation; Rear Admiral Paul J. Pluta,
Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation; Mr.
Raymond Decker, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
Team, U.S. General Accounting Office; and Mr. Kenneth Goulden,
vice president, Maersk Sealand.
36. ``Homeland Security: Keeping First Responders First,'' July 30,
2002, field hearing, Norwalk, CT
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the progress of local
preparedness since September 11, 2001 and processes used to
coordinate Federal, State, and local response capabilities.
In the event of a terrorist attack, the local firefighters,
police, sheriffs, and emergency medical technicians are the
initial personnel to confront the consequences. That is why
they are called ``first responders.''
The hearing questioned what progress has been made in local
preparedness since September 11, 2001, and how Federal and
State agencies support local first responders in emergencies.
Witnesses included the Honorable Alex Knopp, mayor,
Norwalk, CT; Dr. William Schwab, president, Norwalk Community
College, Norwalk, CT; Mr. Thomas DeMartino, director of
emergency preparedness, New Canaan, CT; the Honorable Diane
Goss Farrell, first selectwoman, Westport, CT; the Honorable
Ray Baldwin, first selectman, Trumbull, CT; Police Chief James
Berry, Trumbull Police Department, Trumbull, CT; Fire Chief
Michael A. Maglione, Bridgeport Fire Department, Bridgeport,
CT; Captain Paul Newman, Stamford Fire Headquarters, Stamford,
CT; Mr. Frank Docimo, special operations officer, Turn of River
Fire Department, Stamford, CT; Mr. Paul G. Clarke, executive
director of operations, EMS Institute, Stamford Health System,
Stamford, CT; Mr. Allen Yoder, EMS coordinator, Westport EMS,
Westport, CT; Mr. Daniel A. Craig, Regional Director, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Region I, Boston, MA; Mr. Gerald
McCarty, Acting Director, Office of National Preparedness,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region II, New York, NY;
Adjutant General William A. Cugno, Connecticut Military
Department, Hartford, CT; Captain John Buturla, executive
officer, Division of Protective Services, Connecticut
Department of Public Safety, Waterbury, CT; Mr. Harry Harris,
bureau chief, Public Transportation, Connecticut Department of
Transportation, Newington, CT.
37. ``Homeland Security: Facilitating Trade and Securing Seaports,''
August 5, 2002
a. Summary.--Since September 11, 2001, an unprecedented
effort has been undertaken to secure U.S. borders--land, sea,
and air--attempting to prevent another terrorist attack on the
United States. The efforts to secure these borders present a
challenge to the economy of the United States. U.S. borders
should be safe and secure, but at the same time we must
continue to have a free and uninterrupted flow of trade to
maintain the economic viability of the United States.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine efforts to secure
seaports from terrorist attack and the impact of security
measures on the free and uninterrupted flow of trade.
Witnesses included Mr. George Williamson, port director and
CEO, Tampa Port Authority; Mr. Stephen White, president,
Maritime Security Group; Mr. Willie Tims, Jr., vice president,
IMC Phosphates MP Inc.; Mr. Thomas Hindle, president, CTL
Distribution; Mr. Arthur Savage, president, A.R. Savage and
Sons, Inc.; Ms. Janet Kovack, corporate community affairs
specialist, CF Industries; Mr. Steve Lauer, chief, Florida
Domestic Security Initiatives, Florida Department of Law
Enforcement; Commissioner Patricia Frank, Hillsborough County,
FL; Sheriff Cal Henderson, Hillsborough County, FL; Ms. JayEtta
Z. Hecker, Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, General
Accounting Office; Mr. Jack Bulger, Acting District Director,
accompanied by Mr. Ronald Johnson, Port Director, Tampa,
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Mr. Jeffrey Baldwin,
Director, North Florida Customs Management Center, accompanied
by Ms. Denise Crawford, Port Director, Tampa, U.S. Customs
Service; Captain Alan Thompson, former Captain of the Port,
Marine Safety Office, Tampa, U.S. Coast Guard; Mr. James F.
Jarboe, Special Agent in Charge, Tampa, Federal Bureau of
Investigation; Dr. James G. Butler, Deputy Under Secretary,
Marketing and Regulatory Programs, accompanied by Ms. Mary
Neal, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; Mr. Carl Davis, Director of Operations, Tampa, U.S.
Department of Agriculture; and Mr. Gary Dykstra, Southeastern
Regional Food and Drug Director, accompanied by Mr. Leon L.
Law, Supervisor, Tampa Resident Post, Food and Drug
Administration.
38. ``Combating Terrorism: Preventing Nuclear Terrorism,'' September
24, 2002
a. Summary.--Some experts note the lack of direct evidence
terrorist organizations have successfully acquired a nuclear
device. Other experts contend there is significant evidence
terrorist groups are actively seeking to acquire nuclear
materials and develop nuclear weapons.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 demonstrate the desire on
the part of the terrorists to maximize the number of casualties
inflicted during an attack. This desire coupled with statements
made by terrorist organizations that it is their duty to use
weapons of mass destruction, and documents discovered during
operations in Afghanistan, raise the level of concern that if
terrorists acquire radiological materials or nuclear weapons
they will use them against the West.
Terrorists could obtain radiological material or a nuclear
weapon from countries having such capabilities. For example,
terrorists could acquire nuclear materials from a rogue nation
such as Iraq. Terrorists could also acquire nuclear materials
or weapons from Russia, which has an abundance of such
materials left over from the cold war. There are several
documented cases of material being smuggled out of Russia, and
of Iraqi defectors providing accounts of Saddam's operatives
testing possible routes to smuggle fissile material out of
Europe.
The United States has developed a number of programs to
deter and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the
majority of which focus on deteriorating nuclear sites within
the former Soviet Union. These programs will be the subject of
future hearings.
The hearing examined the threat of nuclear terrorism and
how terrorists could acquire radiological or nuclear weapons.
Witnesses included Dr. Khidhir Hamza, president, Council on
Middle Eastern Affairs, former Director General, Iraqi Nuclear
Weapons Program; Mr. Matthew Bunn, senior research associate,
Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs, Harvard University's John F. Kennedy
School of Government; Dr. Rensslear Lee, Research Associate,
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Congressional
Research Service; Ms. Rose Gottemoeller, senior associate,
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Mr. Christopher
Paine, senior researcher, Natural Resources Defense Council;
Ms. Danielle Brian, executive director, the Project on
Government Oversight; and Dr. Amatzia Baram, professor, Middle
East History, University of Haifa.
39. ``Chemical and Biological Equipment: Preparing for a Toxic
Battlefield,'' October 1, 2002
a. Summary.--For fiscal year 2003, the Department of
Defense has requested $1.374 billion for chemical and
biological defense programs. According to DOD, the probability
of U.S. forces encountering CB agents remains high. Funding for
CBDP provides for the development and procurement of systems to
deter and defend against chemical and biological agents. In
addition, in fiscal year 2003, CBDP will be expanded to support
homeland security by providing systems necessary to defend
against and respond to acts of CB terrorism.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the status of
chemical and biological [CB] defense programs. The subcommittee
wanted to determine the status of DOD efforts to develop CB
defense program requirements, insure effective management,
proper maintenance and ready availability of appropriate
individual protective equipment [IPE], medical supplies and
other CB defense items.
Witnesses included Mr. Joseph E. Schmitz, Inspector
General, Office of the Inspector General, Department of
Defense; Mr. Donald A. Bloomer, Program Director, Readiness
Division, Office of the Inspector General, Department of
Defense; Mr. David K. Steensma, Deputy Assistant Inspector
General, Office of the Inspector General, Department of
Defense; Mr. Raymond J. Decker, Director, Defense Capabilities
and Management, U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. William W.
Cawood, Assistant Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. General Accounting Office; Dr. Anna Johnson-
Winegar, Assistant to Secretary of Defense for CBD, Department
of Defense; General Stephen Goldfein, Deputy Director, Joint
Warfighting Capability Analysis JCS, Department of Defense;
Major General William L. Bond, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (ALT), Department of Defense; Mr. Michael
A. Parker, Deputy to the Commander, U.S. Army Soldier and
Biological Chemical Command [SBCCOM], Department of Defense;
Mr. George Allen, Deputy Director, Defense Supply Center-
Philadelphia, Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense;
40. ``Are We Listening to the Arab Street?'' October 8, 2002
a. Summary.--The hearing examined changes in U.S. public
diplomacy in the Arab world since the events of September 11th.
Aspects of U.S. Middle East policy have been criticized as
tone deaf to local concerns. Critics say the United States does
not listen to or understand what is being said about America in
the Middle East region. Hence, the popular sentiment in the
Muslim world, often known as ``the Arab Street,'' dominates the
dialog and determines the region's political agenda.
The hearing questioned to what extent U.S. policy reflects
an understanding of Arab social and political thought and an
understanding of Islamic thought?
Witnesses included Ambassador Chris Ross, U.S. Department
of State; Mr. Harold C. Pachiod, chairman, U.S. Advisory
Commission on Public Diplomacy; Dr. James J. Zogby, president,
Arab American Institute; Mr. John Zogby, president/CEO, Zogby
International; Dr. Shibley Telhami, professor of government and
politics, Maryland University; Dr. Daniel Brumberg, associate
professor of government, Georgetown University; Dr. R.S.
Zaharna, assistant professor of public communication, American
University; Mr. Yigal Carmon, president, the Middle East Media
Research Institute; Mr. Laurent Murawiec, former senior
international policy analyst, RAND Corp.; and Mr. Hafez Al-
Mirazi, Washington Bureau chief, Al Jazeera Washington Office.
41. ``Research Into Persian Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses,'' October 10,
2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the
Members' participation in a June 18, 2002 meeting in London
with United Kingdom officials, researchers and Gulf war
veterans regarding research, and to incorporate the proceedings
of that meeting into the record of this hearing.
The purpose of the London meeting was to examine the status
of international cooperation with regard to epidemiological and
clinical research into illnesses reported by the United Kingdom
Veterans of the Persian Gulf war.
The subcommittee did not invite witnesses to testify,
however Mr. James H. Binns, Jr., chairman of the Department of
Veterans Affairs Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War
Veterans Illnesses was asked to submit a statement for the
record relating to the work of the committee and comments
regarding the findings of the London meeting.
42. ``VA Health Care: Access Delayed, Access Denied?'' October 15,
2002, field hearing, Garden City, ID
a. Summary.--The subcommittee hearing examined how an
increase in the number of veterans seeking VA medical services
has affected access to care and the quality of care at the
Boise VA Medical Center.
The hearing questioned if veterans seeking care at the
Boise VA Medical Center were receiving high quality, prompt and
seamless service. The hearing also examined what the VA has
done to reduce waiting times and maintain quality of care at
the Boise VA Medical Center.
Witnesses included veteran Lt. Colonel Mitchell A. Jaurena
USMC (ret); veteran Mr. E. Lee Bean; veteran Mr. William T.
Smith; Mr. Richard W. Jones, administrator, Idaho Division of
Veterans Services; Dr. Leslie Burger, Network Director,
Veterans Integrated Service Network 20, Department of Veterans
Affairs; Mr. Wayne Tippets, Director, Boise Veterans
Administration Medical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs;
and Dr. David K. Lee, Chief of Staff, Boise Veterans
Administration Medical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs.
43. ``Homeland Security: Finding the Nuclear Needle in the Cargo
Container Haystack,'' November 18, 2002
a. Summary.--Recent events at the Port of New York/New
Jersey have raised a number of questions: the ABC News
broadcast alleging that reporters smuggled 15 pounds of
depleted uranium into the Port without sparking any questions
from government officials, the delay of the freighter Palermo-
Senator, a German container ship entering the Port that raised
security concerns when low levels of radiation were detected
emanating from the ship's containers, and the most recent, the
delay of the freighter ship, the Mayview Maersk, because of
suspected explosive material on board.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine agency efforts to
screen cargo containers entering U.S. seaports and the effect
of these efforts on the free flow of trade.
Witnesses included Rear Admiral Lawrence Hereth,
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard; Mr. Jayson Ahearn, Assistant
Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service; Rear Admiral Richard
Bennis, Associate Undersecretary for Maritime and Land
Security, Transportation Security Administration; Ms. JayEtta
Z. Hecker, Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, U.S. General
Accounting Office; the Honorable James E. McGreevey, Governor
of New Jersey; Mr. Frank M. McDonough, esq., president, New
York Shipping Association, Inc.; General Charles Boyd (USAF,
Ret.), CEO and president, Business Executives for National
Security [BENS]; Mr. Brian D. Starer, partner, Holland & Knight
LLP; and Mr. John Hyde, director of security and compliance,
Maersk Inc.
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.
14. ``Helping Federal Agencies Meet Their Homeland Security Missions:
How Private Sector Policies Can Be Applied to Public Sector
Problems,'' February 26, 2002
a. Summary.--In this hearing, the subcommittee reviewed
what barriers exist in facilitating President George W. Bush's
homeland security initiatives, both in terms of agency change
management and technology acquisition. Defending America in the
new war against terrorism will require every level of
government to work together with citizens and the private
sector. Effective use of accurate information from divergent
sources is critical, for, as this hearing revealed, the
terrorists of September 11, 2001 generated transactions and
data points across numerous systems--including visas, border
crossings, traffic stops, cash deposits and withdrawals,
airline tickets, and others. The terrorists were hiding
information across a spectrum of public and private databases
and through stovepipes of government knowledge. One of the most
important lessons learned from September 11th was the need to
build trust and coordination between different agencies and
stakeholders in the fight against terrorism. This hearing also
revealed that achieving homeland security in real time suggests
that the government should consider tools already available in
the private sector, including customer relationship management
[CRM] solutions.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Pat Schambach,
Chief Information Officer of the Transportation Security
Administration [TSA], U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr.
Fernando Burbano, Chief Information Officer at the U.S.
Department of State; Mr. S.W. ``Woody'' Hall, Jr., Chief
Information Officer at the U.S. Customs Service; Mr. Ronald
Miller, Chief Information Officer at the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; Mr. Tom Siebel, Chief Executive Officer of
Siebel Systems; Mr. Alfred Mockett, Chief Executive Officer of
AMS, Inc.; Mr. Steve Rohleder, managing partner of Accenture;
Ms. Anne Altman, managing director-U.S. Federal at IBM Public
Sector; Mr. Al Edmonds, president of the Federal Information
Systems Division, EDS; and Mr. David Ferm, chief executive
officer of Business-to-Business, Primedia, Inc.
15. ``H.R. 3832, the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2002,'' March
7, 2002
a. Summary.--This legislative hearing was grounded on
others conducted during the past year on the continuing
barriers government agencies must overcome in acquiring the
goods and services necessary to meet mission objectives. The
reforms of the early to mid-nineties have resulted in
significant streamlining, cost savings, access to technological
advancements, and reduced procurement cycles. Unfortunately,
the government has not been utilizing commercial best practices
or fully realizing the importance of performance metrics in
acquisition cycles. In fact the subcommittee continued to find
that Federal agencies were failing to achieve contract
management goals and efficiency in service contracting. GAO and
other oversight agencies discovered prevailing weaknesses in
service contracting, including acquisitions that were not
competed sufficiently, and were poorly planned and managed. The
goal of the hearing was to review legislation, the Services
Acquisition Reform Act of 2002 [SARA], designed to provide the
Federal Government with an acquisition system that would
facilitate the acquisition of greater quality of products and
services by the Federal Government. SARA will assist agencies
in overcoming the remaining barriers by adopting lessons
learned from the private sector, better management approaches
and acquisition tools government-wide to facilitate the efforts
of acquisition mangers in meeting agency goals through improved
contracting, particularly for services.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. William Woods,
Director, Contracting Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office;
Mr. Stephen Perry, Administrator, U.S. General Services
Administration; Ms. Angela Styles, Administrator, Office of
Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget;
Ms. Deidre Lee, Director of Procurement, U.S. Department of
Defense; Dr. Steven Kelman, Albert J. Weatherhead III and
Richard W. Weatherhead professor of public management, Harvard
University; Professor Steven Schooner, associate professor of
law, George Washington University Law School; Mr. Scott Dever,
vice president of Global Procurement, Hasbro, Inc.; Mr. Richard
Roberts, Federal Practice, KPMG Consulting, Inc., testifying on
behalf of the Information Technology Association of America;
Ms. Roberta StandsBlack-Carver, president and CEO, Four Winds
Services, Inc., testifying on behalf of the Contract Services
Association; and Mr. Jerry S. Howe, senior vice president and
general manager, Veridian testifying on behalf of the
Professional Services Council.
The subcommittee intends to further develop and refine the
provisions of SARA during the next Congress with the aim of
introducing an enhanced version.
16. ``Turning The Tortoise Into The Hare: How The Federal Government
Can Transition From Old Economy Speed To Become A Model For
Electronic Government,'' March 21, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight
hearing to examine the electronic government initiatives that
are being developed by the Office of Management and Budget
[OMB] through the newly-created office of Associate Director of
Information Technology [IT] and E-Government, held by Mr. Mark
Forman. The subcommittee also looked at the use of enterprise
architecture [EA] by OMB and by the managing partner agencies
charged with carrying out the development and implementation of
some of those 24 e-gov initiatives approved by the President's
Management Council.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Randy C. Hite,
Director, Information Technology Systems Issues, U.S. General
Accounting Office, who was accompanied by Mr. Dave McClure,
Director, Information Technology Management Issues, U.S.
General Accounting Office; Mr. Mark Forman, Associate Director
for Information Technology and E-Government, Executive Office
of the President, Office of Management and Budget; Mr. Lee
Holcomb, Chief Information Officer, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; Ms. Debra Stouffer, Federal Enterprise
Architecture Program Manager (on detail to OMB), Deputy Chief
Information Officer for IT Reform, Department of Housing and
Urban Development (on leave); Ms. Mayi Canales, Deputy Chief
Information Officer, Department of Treasury; Dr. Laura
Callahan, Ph.D., Deputy Chief Information Officer, Information
Technology Center, Department of Labor; Ms. Janet Barnes, Chief
Information Officer, Office of Personnel Management; and Dr.
Lloyd Blanchard, Chief Operating Officer, Office of Management
and Administration, Office of the Associate Deputy
Administrator, Small Business Administration.
17. ``Making Sense of Procurement's Alphabet Soup: How Purchasing
Agencies Choose Between FSS and FSS,'' April 11, 2002
a. Summary.--As a part of the subcommittee's continuing
oversight of the government's procurement and information
technology [IT] management activities, the hearing explored the
current organization of the General Services Administration's
[GSA] Federal Supply Service [FSS] and its Federal Technology
Service [FTS]. Both the FSS and FTS buy products and services
from the private sector and resell them to agency customers.
FSS, through the Schedules program, provides government
agencies with the opportunity to quickly purchase goods and
services, including IT. FTS offers a range of IT and
telecommunications services through varied contract vehicles
including the schedules. FTS also offers consulting and more
extensive contract management solutions to assist agencies in
complex acquisitions. Concerned about the overlapping and
possibly redundant nature of the FSS/FTS structure, the
subcommittee conducted the hearing to explore issues related to
the management and structure of FSS and FTS. Additionally, the
subcommittee reviewed the impact of the existing structure on
GSA's customer agencies and the vendor community. A key element
of the hearing was centered on the progress of a study of the
FSS and FTS structure contracted for by GSA at the
subcommittee's urging. The goal was to determine whether FSS
and FTS ensure that the taxpayers receive best value when the
government acquires goods and services.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. David E.Cooper,
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. General
Accounting Office [GAO]; Mr. Stephen Perry, Administrator, GSA;
Ms. Claudia S. Knott, Executive Director, Logistics Policy and
Acquisition Management, Defense Logistics Agency; Mr. Edward
Allen, executive director, Coalition for Government
Procurement; and Mr. Dwight Hutchins, partner, USA Federal
Government Strategy Practice, Accenture.
The hearing established that while challenges remain GSA is
indeed making progress in addressing the structural and
management issues surrounding FSS and FTS and in attaining best
value for the taxpayers. Based on the information gleaned
during the hearing the subcommittee has enlisted the help of
GAO in following the progress of GSA's implementation of the
recommendations of the Accenture study and will continue
exercise vigorous oversight on these aspects of GSA's
activities.
18. ``Ensuring the Safety of our Federal Workforce: GSA's Use of
Technology to Secure Federal Buildings,'' April 25, 2002
a. Summary.--On, April 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Technology and Procurement Policy conducted an oversight
hearing to examine the General Services Administration's [GSA]
efforts to secure Federal buildings that it owns or leases
using commercially available security technologies, including
x-ray machines, access cards, and biometrics.
Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Federal
buildings have been at a heightened state of alert and agencies
have made it a priority to enhance security measures. The
attacks have led to a renewed assessment of the vulnerability
of Federal buildings and forced agencies to focus on a new
array of security threats. Technological upgrades and the
acquisition of new technologies are part of the broader efforts
to combat these threats. Therefore, the subcommittee reviewed
how technology is incorporated into the security standards that
GSA is implementing. The hearing revealed that the use of
commercially available technologies is not sufficient to ensure
the security of Federal buildings, but should be integrated
into a comprehensive risk management approach to building
security.
The following witnesses provided testimony: Mr. Keith A.
Rhodes, Chief Technologist, U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr.
F. Joseph Moravec, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service,
General Services Administration with supporting witness Mr.
Wendell Shingler, Director, Federal Protective Service; Mr.
John N. Jester, Chief, Defense Protective Service, Department
of Defense; Mr. Frank R. Abram, General Manager, Security
Systems Group, Panasonic; Mr. Roy N. Bordes, council vice
president, American Society for Industrial Security; counsel
vice president and president/CEO, the Bordes Group, Inc.
19. ``Intellectual Property and Government R&D for Homeland Security,''
May 10, 2002
a. Summary.--In this hearing, the subcommittee continued
its investigation of why intellectual property [IP] rights are
causing leading-edge companies to refuse to do government
sponsored research and development [R&D]. R&D will play a
critical role in America's ability to generate the new ideas
and innovation needed to win the war on terrorism. In an
environment where private sector R&D spending accounts for
almost three-fourths of the total spent in the United States,
the Government's role has changed to become a partner in
innovation, rather than the sole driving force. Because IP
rights are the most valued assets of companies, the Government
must ensure that its policies, procedures, and procurements
reflect this partnership for innovation.
In the government's new role as a partner in R&D
innovation, contracting officers, program managers, and agency
legal staff need training to understand how existing contract
flexibilities for the treatment of IP rights can be used to
attract and retain leading-edge companies. The subcommittee
explored the experiences of successful R&D organizations, such
as DARPA and In-Q-Tel, for lessons that can be learned and
problems that need to be addressed in the procurement of
government R&D and IT. Additionally, views were presented on
the need to make changes to the laws affecting R&D and IP.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Jack Brock,
Managing Director for Acquisition and Sourcing Management at
the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO]; Dr. Anthony J.
Tether, Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency [DARPA]; Mr. Benjamin H. Wu, Deputy Under Secretary of
Commerce for the Technology Administration at the U.S.
Department of Commerce; Mr. Gilman Louie, president and CEO of
In-Q-Tel; Mr. Richard Carroll, chairman of the Small Business
Technology Coalition and president of DSR, Inc.; Mr. Stanley
Fry, director of contracts and legal affairs at the Eastman
Kodak Co.; and Mr. Stan Soloway, president of the Professional
Services Council.
20. ``Meeting the Homeland Security Mission: Assessing Barriers to and
Technology Solutions for Robust Information Sharing,'' June 7,
2002
a. Summary.--This hearing continued the subcommittee's
oversight of efforts to improve information sharing in the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
September 11th caused a sea change in the mission of
government: the first priority of the Nation became homeland
security. More than ever before, success in the fight against
terrorism is dependant upon collecting, analyzing, and
appropriately sharing information between levels of government,
within agencies, and with the general public and private
sector.
President George W. Bush has made improved information
sharing a priority in his administration and budget. However,
when it comes to the war on terrorism, Americans are not asking
for more spending; they are asking for more spending that
works. Unfortunately, as witnesses revealed, there has not been
an organized, cohesive, and comprehensive process within the
government to evaluate private sector solutions to the problems
of information sharing and homeland security. Many technology
firms with expertise to address homeland security matters
testified that they are having a hard time gaining a real
audience for their products. Addressing the acquisition
challenges to achieving homeland security must be a priority so
that we can begin to leverage America's competitive advantage
in IT innovation for the benefit of all Americans.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Randall Yim,
Managing Director of the National Preparedness Team at the U.S.
General Accounting Office [GAO]; Mr. Mark Forman, Associate
Director of Information Technology and E-government at the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget [OMB]; Mr. Robert J. Jordan,
Director of the Information Sharing Task Force at the Federal
Bureau of Investigation [FBI]; Mr. George H. Bohlinger,
Executive Associate Commissioner for Management at the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS]; Dr. William F.
Raub, Deputy Director of the Office of Public Health
Preparedness at the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services [HHS]; Dr. Ronald D. Sugar, president and chief
operating officer of the Northrop Grumman Corp.; Mr. Leonard
Pomata, president of the Federal Group at webMethods, Inc.; Mr.
S. Daniel Johnson, executive vice president for public services
at KPMG Consulting, Inc.; and Mr. Kevin J. Fitzgerald, senior
vice president for government, education and healthcare at
Oracle Corp. Additionally, a statement for the record was
accepted from Mr. Robert Schena, president and CEO of Digital
Broadband Application Corp.
Congress's creation of the Department of Homeland Security
will address only some of the information sharing concerns
raised by the September 11th attacks. Ensuring vigorous
information sharing within each of the component agencies at
the new Department of Homeland Security, as well as between it
and the Department of Justice and the CIA, will be require
continued oversight.
21. ``Helping State and Local Governments Move at New Economy Speed:
Adding Flexibility to the Federal IT Grant Process,'' July 9,
2002
a. Summary.--This hearing continued the subcommittee's
oversight efforts to examine the issue of State and local
information technology grant management. The hearing
underscored the critical role that information technology plays
in how State and local governments deliver services to their
constituencies. Federal, State, and local governments continue
to seek out these results by investing in information
technology systems, however, in some cases, this has not
yielded the outcome they had hoped to attain.
The Federal Government provides hundreds of millions of
dollars in grants each year to support a variety of State
programs, including Medicaid, child support enforcement, food
stamps, and juvenile justice. State governments have voiced
their concerns that restrictions on how Federal funds are spent
inhibit their ability to coordinate related functions across
departments or agencies, thus, making it difficult to provide
effective service to citizens. This hearing highlighted some of
the challenges that States face in applying for and obtaining
Federal funds for information technology grants and how Federal
agencies are working with States to reduce the bureaucracy
while improving program results.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. David L. McClure,
Director, Information Technology Management Issues, U.S.
General Accounting Office; Dr. Sherri Z. Heller, Commissioner,
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; Mr. Richard Friedman, Director, Division of State
Systems, Center for Medicaid and State Operations, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Health and Human Services;
Mr. Roberto Salazar, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Ms. Aldona Valicenti, Chief
Information Officer, Commonwealth of Kentucky; Mr. Larry
Singer, Chief Information Officer, State of Georgia; and Mr.
Robert G. Stauffer, health and human service business
development manager, Deloitte Consulting.
This oversight hearing sought to determine how State and
local information technology grants are managed and if the
process is allowing States the flexibility to procure these
systems in a timely and cost-effective manner while giving the
Federal Government the proper oversight. The hearing determined
that the Federal Government should re-evaluate its role to
permit State and local governments the flexibility while
maintaining accountability standards so that they may obtain
the information technology tools they need to share information
and deploy systems to achieve this objective.
22. ``A Review of the Commercial Activities Panel Report,'' September
27, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight
hearing to examine the results and recommendations of the
Commercial Activities Panel published in their final report,
Improving the Sourcing Decisions of the Government. Congress
mandated the creation of the panel to study the policies and
procedures governing the transfer of the Federal Government's
commercial activities from government to contractor
performance. The legislation required that members of the panel
represent the interests of the Department of Defense, private
industry, Federal labor organizations, and the Office of
Management and Budget.
The panel unanimously adopted 10 sourcing principles
intended to guide the Federal Government in its sourcing
policy. Additionally, the panel's recommendations were adopted
by a supermajority (8-4). Two Federal labor union
representatives and two representatives from academia cast the
dissenting votes. The recommendations include: (1) the
implementation of an integrated competition process in which
public-private competitions would be conducted under the
Federal Acquisition Regulation \7\ with some appropriate
provisions from A-76, (2) limited changes to circular A-76, and
(3) the creation of high-performing organizations [HPO] by
management and employees; the HPO would be exempt from
competition for a particular function for a designated time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This regulation sets forth uniform policies and procedures for
the competitive acquisition system used by all executive agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In her comments to the subcommittee, OFPP Administrator
Angela Styles stated that the administration was finalizing
revisions to certain criteria used in the competitive sourcing
process. Therefore, the subcommittee recommends reviewing the
proposed modifications and their potential impact when they are
released by the administration.
The following witnesses testified before the subcommittee:
The Honorable David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S.
General Accounting Office; the Honorable Angela Styles,
Director, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of
Management and Budget; Joseph Sikes, Director for Competitive
Sourcing and Privatization, Department of Defense; Jacqueline
Simon, Director of Public Policy, American Federation of
Government Employees; Colleen M. Kelley, president, National
Treasury Employees Union; Stan Z. Soloway, president,
Professional Services Council; and Mark Wagner, Johnson
Controls World Services, Inc.
23. ``Ensuring Coordination, Reducing Redundancy: A Review of OMB's
Freeze on IT Spending at Homeland Security Agencies,'' October
1, 2002
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight
hearing on the recently announced Office of Management and
Budget [OMB] freeze on information technology [IT] spending for
projects over $500,000 for agencies that will be a part of the
new Department of Homeland Security. Currently, seven agencies
are affected by the freeze. They are the Coast Guard, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], the U.S. Customs
Service, the Transportation Security Administration [TSA], the
Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS], the Secret
Service, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[APHIS].
The subcommittee asked GAO to: (1) review and summarize the
information agencies provide to OMB on their IT infrastructure,
financial management, procurement, and human resources projects
that are subject to the spending freeze, (2) identify whether
OMB has made any exceptions to the freeze, and (3) identify
OMB's approach in implementing the spending freeze,
particularly the process it is using in reviewing the projects
subject to the freeze, the criteria that are being used to
determine which of the projects should go forward, and the
length of time that that freeze is expected to be in effect.
The subcommittee was interested in hearing additional testimony
regarding the impact that the freeze would have on existing
projects and agency budgeting for fiscal year 2004, in addition
to how agencies are reevaluating their IT needs in response to
the freeze.
The subcommittee heard from Mr. Joel Willemssen, Managing
Director of Information Technology Issues, U.S. General
Accounting Office; Mr. Mark Forman, E-Government Administrator,
Office of Management and Budget; Ms. Sandra Bates,
Commissioner, Federal Technology Service, General Services
Administration; Mr. Patrick Schambach, Chief Information
Officer, Transportation Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation; and Mr. Renny DiPentima,
president, SRA Consulting and Systems Integration testifying on
behalf of the Information Technology Association of America.
PART THREE. PUBLICATIONS
I. Committee Prints
Full Committee
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman
1. ``Rules of the Committee on Government Reform,''
February 2001.
2. ``Interim Report of the Activities of the House
Committee on Government Reform,'' March 2002.
Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census and Agency Organization
Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman
1. ``Title 5, United States Code, Government Organization
and Employees,'' May 2001.
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman
1. ``Compilation of Selected Federal Acts Relating to
Municipal Affairs of the District of Columbia,'' November 2002.
II. Printed Hearings
Full Committee
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman
1. ``The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive
Marc Rich,'' February 8 and March 1, 2001, Serial No. 107-11.
2. ``Special Education: Is IDEA Working as Congress
Intended?'' February 28, 2001, Serial No. 107-12.
3. ``Six Years After the Establishment of DSHEA: The Status
of National and International Dietary Supplement Research and
Regulation,'' March 20, 2001, Serial No. 107-26.
4. ``The U.S. Postal Service's Uncertain Financial Outlook,
Parts I and II,'' April 4 and May 16, 2001, Serial No. 107-10.
5. ``Assessing the California Energy Crisis: How Did We Get
to This Point, and Where Do We Go From Here?'' April 10, 11,
and 12, 2001, Serial No. 107-28, held jointly with the
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory
Affairs.
6. ``Autism--Why the Increased Rates? A One-Year Update,''
April 25 and 26, 2001, Serial No. 107-29.
7. ``The FBI's Controversial Handling of Organized Crime
Investigations in Boston: The Case of Joseph Salvati,'' May 3,
2001, Serial No. 107-25.
8. ``Investigation Into Allegations of Justice Department
Misconduct in New England--Volume 1,'' May 3, December 13,
2001, and February 6, 2002, Serial No. 107-56.
9. ``Challenges to National Security: Constraints on
Military Training,'' May 9, 2001, Serial No. 107-3.
10. ``The Use of Prosecutorial Power in the Investigation
of Joseph Gersten,'' June 15, 2001, Serial No. 107-27.
11. ``Compassionate Use of Investigational New Drugs: Is
the Current Process Effective?'' June 20, 2001, Serial No. 107-
34.
12. ``Federal Information Technology Modernization:
Assessing Compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination
Act,'' June 21, 2001, Serial No. 107-35.
13. ``The Benefits of Audio-Visual Technology in Addressing
Racial Profiling,'' July 19, 2001, Serial No. 107-36.
14. ``Preparing for the War on Terrorism,'' September 20,
2001, Serial No. 107-37.
15. ``Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: Ensuring the
Safety of Postal Employees and the U.S. Mail,'' October 30,
2001, Serial No. 107-43.
16. ``The National Vaccine Injury Program: Is It Working as
Congress Intended?'' November 1 and December 12, 2001, Serial
No. 107-44.
17. ``The Status of Insurance Restitution for Holocaust
Victims and Their Heirs,'' November 8, 2001, Serial No. 107-47.
18. ``Comprehensive Medical Care for Bioterrorism
Exposure--Are We Making Evidenced-Based Decisions? What are the
Research Needs?'' November 14, 2001, Serial No. 107-45.
19. ``Investigation Into Allegations of Justice Department
Misconduct in New England--Volume 2,'' February 13, 14, and 27,
2002, Serial No. 107-56.
20. ``Quickening the Pace of Research in Protecting Against
Anthrax and Other Biological Terrorist Agents: A Look At Toxin
Interference,'' February 28, 2002, Serial No. 107-64.
21. ``Hearings Regarding Executive Order 13233 and the
Presidential Records Act,'' November 6, 2001, April 11 and 24,
2002, Serial No. 107-73, held jointly with the Subcommittee on
Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations.
22. ``The Autism Epidemic--Is the NIH and CDC Response
Adequate?'' April 18, 2002, Serial No. 107-74.
23. ``Examining Security at Federal Facilities: Are
Atlanta's Federal Employees at Risk?''
24. ``Critical Challenges Confronting National Security--
Continuing Encroachment Threatens Force Readiness,'' May 16,
2002, Serial No. 107-79.
25. ``The Status of Research into Vaccine Safety and
Autism,'' June 19, 2002, Serial No. 107-121.
26. ``The Department of Homeland Security: An Overview of
the President's Proposal,'' June 20, 2002, Serial No. 107-87.
27. ``Diet, Physical Activity, Dietary Supplements,
Lifestyle and Health,'' July 25, 2002, Serial No. 107-109.
28. ``Airport Baggage Screening: Meeting Goals and Ensuring
Safety--Are We on Target?'' August 7, 2002, Serial No. 107-134.
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, Census 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
jointly with the Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee,
Governmental Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate.
2. ``Health Care Inflation and Its Impact on the Federal
Employees Health Beneftis Program,'' October 16, 2001, Serial
No. 107-63.
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, Serial No. 107-24.
2. `` `Medical' Marijuana, Federal Drug Law and the
Constitution's Supremacy Clause,'' March 27, 2001, Serial No.
107-2.
3. ``What are the Barriers to Effective Intergovernmental
Efforts to Stop the Flow of Illegal Drugs?'' April 13, 2001,
Serial No. 107-32, held jointly with the Subcommittee on
Government Effeciency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations.
4. ``The Role of Community and Faith-Based Organizations in
Providing Effective Social Services,'' April 26, 2001, Serial
No. 107-69.
5. ``U.S. Air Interdiction Efforts in South America After
the Peru Incident,'' May 1, 2001, Serial No. 107-61.
6. ``Effective Faith-Based Treatment Programs,'' May 23,
2001, Serial No. 107-48.
7. ``H.R. 2291, Reauthorization of the Drug Free
Communities Act,'' June 28, 2001, Serial No. 107-65.
8. ``Emerging Threats: Methamphetamines,'' July 12, 2001,
Serial No. 107-81.
9. ``Opportunities and Advancements in Stem Cell
Research,'' July 17, 2001, Serial No. 107-38.
10. ``National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: How to
Ensure the Program Operates Efficiently and Effectively,''
August 1, 2001, Serial No. 107-86.
11. ``Drug Trade and the Terror Network,'' October 3, 2001,
Serial No. 107-93.
12. ``Keeping a Strong Federal Law Enforcement Work
Force,'' October 17, 2001, Serial No. 107-104.
13. ``Issues at the Northern Border,'' October 28, 2001,
Serial No. 107-107.
14. ``Issues at the Northern Border,'' October 29, 2001,
Serial No. 107-108.
15. ``Law Enforcement: Are Federal, State, and Local
Agencies Working Together Effectively?'' November 13, 2001,
Serial No. 107-116, held jointly with the Subcommittee on
Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations and the Subcommittee on National
Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations.
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, held jointly with the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
Columbia, U.S. Senate.
4. ``Reform of the Family Division of the District of
Columbia Superior Court--Improving Services to Families and
Children,'' June 26, 2001, Serial No. 107-30.
5. ``Prisoner Release in the District of Columbia: The Role
of Halfway Houses and Community Supervision in Prisoner
Rehabilitation,'' July 20, 2001, Serial No. 107-23.
6. ``Spring Valley--Toxic Waste Contamination in the
Nation's Capital,'' July 27, 2001, Serial No. 107-42.
7. ``Mass Transit in the National Capital Region: Meeting
Future Capital Needs,'' September 21, 2001, Serial No. 107-89.
8. ``Emergency Preparedness in the Nation's Capital,''
November 2, 2001, Serial No. 107-112.
9. ``Emergncy Preparations in the Nation's Capital: The
Economic Impact of Terrorist Attacks,'' November 15, 2001,
Serial No. 107-117.
10. ``The District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995--
Blueprint for Educational Reform in the District of Columbia,''
December 7, 2001, Serial No. 107-128.
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, Serial No. 107-
14.
2. ``Assessing the California Energy Crisis: How Did We Get
to This Point, and Where Do We Go From Here?'' April 10, 11,
and 12, 2001, Serial No. 107-28, held jointly with the full
Committee on Government Reform.
3. ``Paperwork Inflation--Past Failures and Future Plans,''
April 24, 2001, Serial No. 107-68.
4. ``Unfunded Mandates--A Five-Year Review and
Recommendations for Change,'' May 24, 2001, Serial No. 107-19,
held jointly with the Subcommittee on Technology and the House,
Committee on Rules.
5. ``Gasoline Supply--Another Energy Crisis?'' June 14,
2001, Serial No. 107-55.
6. ``Air Transportation--Customer Problems and Solutions,''
July 31, 2001, Serial No. 107-85.
7. ``FERC: Regulators in Deregulated Electricity Markets,''
August 2, 2001, Serial No. 107-88.
8. ``EPA Elevation,'' September 21, 2001; March 21 and July
16, 2002, Serial No. 107-135.
9. ``Natural Gas Infrastructure and Capacity Constraints,''
October 16, 2001, Serial No. 107-126.
10. ``Fuel Markets: Unstable at Any Price?'' April 23,
2002, Serial No. 107-131.
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, Serial No. 107-31.
2. ``Oversight of the Internal Revenue Service,'' April 2,
2001, Serial No. 107-33.
3. ``H.R. 577, 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, Serial No.
107-67.
4. ``Regional Offices: Are They Vital in Accomplishing the
Federal Government's Mission?'' April 9, 2001, Serial No. 107-
49.
5. ``What are the Barriers to Effective Intergovernmental
Efforts to Stop the Flow of Illegal Drugs?'' April 13, 2001,
Serial No. 107-32, held jointly with the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.
6. ``The Alameda Corridor Project: Its Successes and
Challenges,'' April 16, 2001, Serial No. 107-50.
7. ``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, Serial No. 107-46.
8. ``The Department of Defense: What Must be Done to
Resolve DOD's Longstanding Financial Management Problems?'' May
8, 2001, Serial No. 107-52.
9. ``The U.S. Agency for International Development: What
Must be Done to Resolve USAID's Longstanding Financial
Management Problems?'' May 8, 2001, Serial No. 107-53.
10. ``The Department of Agriculture: What Must be Done to
Resolve USDA's Longstanding Financial Management Problems?''
May 8, 2001, Serial No. 107-54.
11. ``H.R. 866, 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, Serial No. 107-72.
12. ``How Effectively Are State and Federal Agencies
Working Together to Implement the Use of New DNA
Technologies?'' June 12, 2001, Serial No. 107-57.
13. ``The Results Act: Has it Met Congressional
Expectations?'' June 19, 2001, Serial No. 107-75.
14. ``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, Serial No. 107-59,
held jointly with the Subcommittee on National Security,
Veterans Affairs and International Relations.
15. ``The Defense Department's Illegal Manipulation of
Appropriated Funds,'' July 26, 2001, Serial No. 107-60.
16. ``The Use and Abuse of Government Purchase Cards: Is
Anyone Watching?'' July 30, 2001, Serial No. 107-62.
17. ``Local Economy, Environment, and Intergovernmental
Cooperations: What Can be Learned from Fort Ord?'' August 28,
2001, Serial No. 107-76.
18. ``What Can be Done to Reduce the Threats Posed by
Computer Viruses and Worms to the Workings of Government?''
August 29, 2001, Serial No. 107-77.
19. ``Information Technology--Essential Yet Vulnerable: How
Prepared Are We for Attacks?'' September 26, 2001, Serial No.
107-78.
20. ``The Silent War: Are Federal, State and Local
Governments Prepared for Biological and Chemical Attacks?''
October 5, 2001, Serial No. 107-95.
21. ``The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996: How Well
is it Working?'' October 10, 2001, Serial No. 107-96.
22. ``Hearings Regarding Executive Order 13233 and the
Presidential Records Act,'' November 6, 2001, April 11 and 24,
2002, Serial No. 107-73, held jointly with the full Committee
on Government Reform.
23. ``Computer Security in the Federal Government: How Do
the Agencies Rate?'' November 9, 2001, Serial No. 107-115.
24. ``Law Enforcement: Are Federal, State, and Local
Agencies Working Together Effectively?'' November 13, 2001,
Serial No. 107-116, held jointly with the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources and the
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and
International Relations.
25. ``Does America Need a National Identifier?'' November
16, 2001, Serial No. 107-118.
26. ``The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996: How Well
is it Working?'' December 5, 2001, Serial No. 107-102.
27. ``The President's Management Agenda: Getting Agencies
from Red to Green,'' February 15, 2002, Serial No. 107-119.
28. ``How Effectively are Federal State and Local
Governments Working Together to Prepare for a Biological,
Chemical or Nuclear Attack,'' March 1, 2002, Serial No. 107-
120.
29. ``Lessons Learned from the Government Information
Security Reform Act of 2000,'' March 6, 2002, Serial No. 107-
124.
30. ``Kids and Cafeterias: How Safe are Federal School
Lunches?'' April 30, 2002, Serial No. 107-112, held jointly
with the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International
Relations
Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman
1. ``Defense Security Service: Mission Degradation?'' March
2, 2001, Serial No. 107-40.
2. ``Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud, and Abuse: General
Accounting Office Views on National Defense and International
Relations Programs,'' March 7, 2001, Serial No. 107-22.
3. ``Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud, and Abuse: Inspectors
General Views on National Security, International Relations,
and Trade Programs,'' March 15, 2001, Serial No. 107-51.
4. ``Combating Terrorism: In Search of a National
Strategy,'' March 27, 2001, Serial No. 107-18.
5. ``Protecting American Interests Abroad: U.S. Citizens,
Businesses and Nongovernmental Organizations,'' April 3, 2001,
Serial No. 107-16.
6. ``Combating Terrorism: Options to Improve Federal
Response,'' April 24, 2001, Serial No. 107-58, held jointly
with the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7. ``Combating Terrorism: Management of Medical Supplies,''
May 1, 2001, Serial No. 107-17.
8. ``Rule of Law Assistance Programs,'' May 17, 2001,
Serial No. 107-66.
9. ``Aircraft Cannibalization: An Expensive Appetite?'' May
22, 2001, Serial No. 107-70.
10. ``Biological Weapons Convention Protocol: Status and
Implications,'' June 5, 2001, Serial No. 107-71.
11. ``Hepatitis C: Screening in the VA Health Care
System,'' June 14, 2001, Serial No. 107-97.
12. ``Biological Weapons Convention Protocols: Status and
Implications,'' July 10, 2001, Serial No. 107-98.
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, Serial No. 107-59,
held jointly with the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency,
Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations.
14. ``Combating Terrorism: Federal Response to a Biological
Weapons Attack,'' July 23, 2001, Serial No. 107-99.
15. ``Federal Interagency Data-Sharing and National
Security,'' July 24, 2001, Serial No. 107-100.
16. ``F-22 Cost Controls: How Realistic Are Production Cost
Reduction Plan Estimates?'' August 2, 2001, Serial No. 107-101.
17. ``Sustaining Critical Military Training Facilities:
Avon Park Air Force Range,'' August 4, 2001, Serial No. 107-
106.
18. ``Combating Terrorism: Assessing the Threat of a
Biological Weapons Attack,'' October 12, 2001, Serial No. 107-
103.
19. ``Biological Warfare Defense Vaccine Research and
Development Program,'' October 23, 2001, Serial No. 107-105.
20. ``Chemical and Biological Defense: DOD Medical
Readiness,'' November 7, 2001, Serial No. 107-114.
21. ``Law Enforcement: Are Federal, State, and Local
Agencies Working Together Effectively?'' November 13, 2001,
Serial No. 107-116, held jointly with the Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources and the
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations.
22. ``Risk Communication: National Security and Public
Health,'' November 29, 2001, Serial No. 107-122.
23. ``Managing Radio Frequency Spectrum: Military Readiness
and National Security,'' April 23, 2002, Serial No. 107-84.
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.
3. ``FTS 2001: How and Why Transition Delays Have Decreased
Competition and Increased Prices,'' April 26, 2001, Serial No.
107-21.
4. ``The Next Steps in Services Acquisition Reform:
Learning from the Past, Preparing for the Future,'' May 22,
2001, Serial No. 107-39.
5. ``Ensuring Program Goals Are Met: A Review of the
Metropolitan Area Acquisition Program,'' June 13, 2001, Serial
No. 107-41.
6. ``The Best Services at the Lowest Price: Moving Beyond a
Black and White Discussion of Outsourcing,'' June 28, 2001,
Serial No. 107-80.
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, Serial No. 107-90.
8. ``Public Service for the 21st Century: Innovative
Solutions to the Federal Government's Technology Workforce
Crisis,'' July 31, 2001, Serial No. 107-91.
9. ``Toward a Telework-Friendly Government Workplace: An
Update on Public and Private Approaches to Telecommuting,''
September 6, 2001, Serial No. 107-125.
10. ``The Use of Public-Private Partnerships as a
Management Tool for Federal Real Property,'' October 1, 2001,
Serial No. 107-92.
11. ``Transforming the IT and Acquisition Workforces,''
October 4, 2001, Serial No. 107-94.
12. ``Moving Forward with Services Acquisition Reform: A
Legislative Approach to Utilizing Commercial Best Practices,''
November 1, 2001, Serial No. 107-111.
VIEWS OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
Views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman
While I agree with elements of the chairman's report, there
are several sections that warrant a response as discussed
below.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs
``Problems with the Presidential Gifts System,'' House Report No. 107-
768, October 28, 2002, Seventh Report by the Committee on
Government Reform, together with Minority and Additional Views
Reforms to the Presidential gift process are needed.
Unfortunately, the subcommittee's report does not seriously
review the gift process for the purpose of reform. Instead, the
report is only a partisan review of gifts given to President
and Mrs. Clinton.
It is true that President and Mrs. Clinton accepted
numerous gifts. President and Mrs. Clinton accepted gifts
totaling an average of $28,093 annually, adjusted for
inflation, which is a very large amount to the average
American. But former President Bush accepted $39,614 annually--
far more than President Clinton. If the committee wanted to
conduct a fair investigation into the problem of Presidential
gifts, it would have looked at the practices of both Democratic
and Republican administrations.
This report also strikes a partisan note by singling out
President Clinton's records for disclosure. The majority chose
not to disclose the records of President George W. Bush, former
President Reagan, or former President George H.W. Bush.
Furthermore, this report scrutinizes the employment history of
one Clinton White House employee but fails to review the
resumes of Republican administration employees.
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:
he agreed with five of the substantive reasons
President Clinton had published to explain the pardon of Marc
Rich;
the 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;''
if 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;
he thought his client, Mr. Rich, was a traitor to
the United States; and
on 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.
Subcomittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs
When the minority suggests that the subcommittee invite
certain witnesses to upcoming hearings, the subcommittee
majority often agrees to invite those witnesses. However, the
subcommittee majority treats the testimony of these witnesses
differently from the testimony of the other witnesses. For
instance, the majority's activities report often lists all
witnesses who testified at the hearing except those witnesses
who were originally suggested by the minority. Furthermore, on
the official subcommittee Web site, the subcommittee majority
posts the testimony of the witnesses that testified except the
testimony of witnesses who were originally suggested by the
minority.
The following are examples of witnesses originally
suggested by the minority and who ultimately testified, yet who
were not included in the list of witnesses in the majority's
activities report:
``Regulatory Accounting: Costs and Benefits of
Federal Regulations,'' March 12, 2002 (listed in the
majority's report as number 14): Lisa Heinzerling,
professor of law, Georgetown Law Center; and Joan
Claybrook, president, Public Citizen and former
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
``Fuel Markets: Unstable at Any Price?,'' April 23,
2002 (listed as number 17): A. Blakeman Early,
environmental consultant, American Lung Association.
``EPA Cabinet Elevation: Agency and Stockholder
Views, Part III,'' July 16, 2002 (listed as number 20):
Wesley Warren, senior fellow for environmental
economics, Natural Resources Defense Council.
``Agency Implementation of the SWANCC Decision,''
September 19, 2002 (listed as number 22): Gary Guzy,
former EPA General Counsel; and Patrick Parenteau,
professor of law, Vermont Law School.
The majority's failure to include these witnesses in its
activities report and to include the witnesses' testimony on
the subcommittee's Web site is regrettable. It could result in
readers of the activities report and visitors to the Web site
mistakenly believing that they have access to a complete
witness list and all of the testimony, when in fact they have
access only to a censored version.
``Accountability for Presidential Gifts,'' February 12, 2002
The minority agrees that reviewing the Presidential gift
process is important. Unfortunately, the majority chose only a
partisan review of gifts given to President and Mrs. Clinton.
The majority seems to focus on the fact that President Clinton
accepted ``close to $200,000 in gifts . . . during his final
year in office.'' The $190,000 worth of gifts was given over
the 8 years President Clinton was in office which averages
$28,093 annually, adjusted for inflation. That is a very large
amount to the average American. But former President Bush
accepted $39,614 annually--far more than President Clinton. It
is also important to note that representatives of President
George W. Bush declined to testify about the current
administration.
``California Independent System Operator: Governance and Design of
California's Electricity Market,'' February 22, 2002
News reports and investigations by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission have found extensive manipulation of the
energy markets in California. Despite this, the majority's
activity report fails to list market manipulation as a major
factor in the electricity crisis.
``Regulatory Accounting: Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations,''
March 12, 2002
In its December 21, 2001, Regulatory Accounting Report, the
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] concluded that the
benefits of regulation outweighed their cost. It found that
``the cost of social regulation--health, safety, and
environmental regulation--ranged from approximately $150
billion to $230 billion per year. Estimates on benefits--which
are more difficult to measure--ranged from $250 billion per
year to more than $1 trillion.'' The report also estimated that
the ``annual cost of paperwork or process regulation is
approximately $195 billion--$160 billion of which is for tax
compliance.'' The report notes that these costs ``should not be
added to our estimates of the costs of regulation because it
would result in some double counting.'' It also states that
``[a]t present, we do not know how to estimate the value of the
total annual benefits to society of the information the
government collects from the public.''
``Paperwork Inflation: The Growing Burden on America,'' April 11, 2002
The majority's activities report misstates OMB's estimated
cost of all paperwork imposed on the public. OMB estimated that
the annual cost of paperwork is $195 billion, not $230 billion.
``Fuel Markets: Unstable at Any Price,'' April 23, 2002
Regulation is not the root cause of constraints in gasoline
supplies. Rather, refining capacity declined in response to low
returns on investment (due in part to excess refining
capacity). Furthermore, it is important to note that the
gasoline industry encouraged the use of boutique fuels.
``Energy: Maximizing Resources, Meeting Needs, Retaining Jobs,'' June
17, 2002
This hearing was held at the request of Representative John
Tierney in Peabody, MA. Over 85 percent of U.S. energy needs
are met by oil (40 percent), gas (23 percent), and coal (23
percent). The United States relies on renewables--such as
solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and biomass projects--
for less than 7 percent of its energy needs. Nuclear power
provides the remaining 8 percent. Instability in the Middle
East, price spikes, rolling blackouts on the West Coast, and
fossil-related pollution (which contributes to global warming
and harms the environment and public health) have led to calls
for energy efficiency, conservation, and greater
diversification of our energy resources.
Studies indicate that, if Federal and State policies are
thoughtfully developed, the United States can diversify its
energy sources, protect the environment, and simultaneously
experience growth in net employment and the economy. For
instance, in October 2001, the World Wildlife Fund [WWF]
released a report entitled, ``Clean Energy: Jobs for America's
Future,'' which analyzes the impact of implementing the
``Climate Protection Scenario'' proposed by the WWF. The
scenario included stricter environmental protections (such as a
cap on carbon emissions and greenhouse gas standards for fuels)
and energy efficiency policies (such as stricter building codes
and efficiency standards for appliances, equipment, and motor
vehicles), and a renewable portfolio standard [RPS]. The report
estimates that net annual employment would increase by over
700,000 jobs in 2010, rising to approximately 1.3 million by
2020, gross domestic product would be about $43.9 billion above
the base case in 2020, and 20 percent of the electricity
generation needed in 2020 would come from wind, solar, biomass,
and geothermal energy.
In another study, the Renewable Energy Policy Project
estimated that Nevada's RPS, which requires that 15 percent of
electricity sold in 2013 be from renewable sources, will create
over 8,000 full time installation, oversight, and management
jobs in Nevada over a 10-year period. In addition, it will
create another 19,000 manufacturing jobs over that 10-year
period. In a third study, the Energy Information Analysis
estimates that a nationwide 10 percent RPS would reduce the
national energy bill by $15 billion per year by 2020 compared
to a heavily fossil-based supply mix.
In addition to the witnesses listed in the majority's
activities report, George Sterzinger, executive director of the
Renewable Energy Policy Project, also testified.
``California Electricity Markets: The Case of Enron and Perot
Systems,'' July 22, 2002
In March 1997, Perot Systems Consulting, Inc., a Texas-
based company, was hired as a consultant on a $57 million
contract to help design the computer systems for the California
Independent Systems Operator [Cal ISO] and the California Power
Exchange [PX]. While performing the work on that contract,
Perot Systems partnered with Policy Assessment Corp., a
Colorado-based company, to market its consulting services to
help energy companies maximize profits in the California energy
market. The partnership gave marketing presentations to energy
companies including Enron Corp., Southern California Edison,
and Pacific Gas & Electric. California State Senator Joseph
Dunn (D-Santa Ana) uncovered documents indicating that Perot
Systems Consulting may have marketed inside information to
energy suppliers on how to game the California markets. Many
were concerned that Perot Systems shared confidential
information, acted in conflict with its contract with
California, or encouraged illegal gaming. It is important to
note that the expert witness mentioned in the majority's
activities report who concluded that Perot Systems did not
share confidential information was hired by Perot Systems and
only reviewed market presentation booklets. The expert witness
did not interview the meeting attendees, review emails between
Perot Systems or Policy Assessment Corp. and the market
participants, or otherwise attempt to learn what was discussed
at the meetings at issue.
``Agency Implementation of the SWANCC Decision,'' September 19, 2002
The joint memorandum from the EPA and the Corps clarifies
that the Supreme Court's finding should be read narrowly. The
Supreme Court found that Clean Water Act jurisdiction over
isolated waters cannot be based solely on the fact that the
water may be habitat for migratory birds. The Bush
administration agrees with this memorandum. Nevertheless, a few
regional offices and courts have interpreted the Supreme
Court's finding more broadly. Therefore, many have asked for
additional clarification from the Bush administration.