[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) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001

                     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.

                              