[Senate Report 107-20]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     107-20
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     





          ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                               __________

                                 REPORT

                                 of the

         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE

                                AND ITS

                             SUBCOMMITTEES

                                FOR THE

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS




                                     

                  June 5, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-010                     WASHINGTON : 2001

                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                  FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
           JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Ranking Member
TED STEVENS, Alaska                  CARL LEVIN, Michigan            
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii         
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            RICHARD J . DURBIN, Illinois 
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey 
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            MAX CLELAND, Georgia            
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware      
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri         
                                                  
             Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
                    Ellen B. Brown, Senior Counsel
     Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Democratic Staff Director and Counsel
                    Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk

      COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DURING THE 106TH CONGRESS

                FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware       JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 TED STEVENS, Alaska               
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii          
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois      
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey 
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            MAX CLELAND, Georgia             
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina     
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire         
            Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
      Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
                   Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk

                             _________

                  SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE 106th CONGRESS
 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING AND THE DISTRICT OF 
                                COLUMBIA

                   Mr. VOINOVICH, of Ohio, Chairman
Mr. ROTH, Jr., of Delaware              Mr. DURBIN, of Illinois      
Mr. GREGG, of New Hampshire             Mr. TORRICELLI, of New Jersey 
                  Kristine I. Simmons, Staff Director
  Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 
                     Julie L. Vincent, Chief Clerk
                               ________

      INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND FEDERAL SERVICES

                Mr. COCHRAN, of Mississippi Chairman
Mr. STEVENS, of Alaska                 Mr. AKAKA, of Hawaii           
Ms. COLLINS, of Maine                  Mr. LEVIN, of Michigan         
Mr. DOMENICI, of New Mexico            Mr. TORRICELLI, of New Jersey  
Mr. SPECTER, of Pennsylvania           Mr. CLELAND, of Georgia        
Mr. GREGG, of New Hampshire            Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina 
                                     
                      Mitchel B. Kugler, Staff Director
                Richard J. Kessler, Minority Staff Director
                       Julie A. Sander, Chief Clerk
                                _________

                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
                    Ms. COLLINS, of Maine, Chairman
Mr. ROTH, Jr. of Delaware            Mr. LEVIN, of Michigan         
Mr. STEVENS, of Alaska               Mr. AKAKA, of Hawaii           
Mr. VOINOVICH, of Ohio               Mr. DURBIN, of Illinois        
Mr. DOMENICI, of New Mexico          Mr. CLELAND, of Georgia        
Mr. COCHRAN, of Mississippi          Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina 
Mr. SPECTER, of Pennsylvania         
                                     
           K. Lee Blalack, II, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
      Linda J. Gustitus, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
                     Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Highlights of Activities........................................1
          Oversight of Agency Management.........................     2
          Management Challenges Facing the Executive Branch......     2
          Regulatory Issues......................................     2
          Government Procurement Reform..........................     3
          Counter-Intelligence Oversight.........................     3
          Security of U.S. Nuclear Secrets.......................     4
          Independent Counsel Act................................     4
          Federalism.............................................     4
          Government Information Security........................     5
          Federal Budget Process Reforms.........................     5
          Interactive Web Site...................................     6
          Inspectors General.....................................     6
          National Security Export Controls......................     7
          Improper Payments......................................     8
          Privacy................................................     8
          Information Technology Management......................     8
          Long-Term Care Security and Retirement Corrections.....     9
          Deceptive Mail Prevention..............................     9
          Breast Cancer Stamp Reauthorization....................    10
          Thrift Savings Plan Amendments.........................    10
          Decennial Census 2000..................................    10
          Oversight of Justice Department Inquiry Into               10
            Fundraising Abuses.
          Management of Classified Information...................    11
          Other Oversight........................................    11
  II. Committee Jurisdiction.........................................11
 III. Bills and Resolutions Referred and Considered..................12
  IV. Hearings.......................................................12
   V. Reports, Prints, Studies, and GAO Reports......................22
  VI. Official Communications........................................29
 VII. Legislative Actions............................................29
          Measures Enacted Into Law..............................    29
          Measures Favorably Reported by Committee and Passed by     44
            the Senate.
          Selected Measures Considered by the Committee..........    45
VIII. Presidential Nominations.......................................48
  IX. Activities of the Subcommittees................................52

      International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services 
                              Subcommittee

   I. Hearings.......................................................52
  II. Legislation....................................................54
 III. Report and GAO Reports.........................................59

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and 
                        the District of Columbia

   I. Hearings.......................................................60
  II. GAO Reports....................................................76
 III. Legislation....................................................77
  IV. Other Activities...............................................79

                Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

   I. Subcommittee Hearings During the 106th Congress................86
  II. Legislation Activities During the 106th Congress...............94
 III. Reports, Prints, and Studies...................................98
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     107-20

======================================================================



 
 ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DURING THE 106th 
                                CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

                  June 5, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

    This report reviews the legislative and oversight 
activities of the Committee on Governmental Affairs during the 
106th Congress. These activities parallel the broad scope of 
responsibilities vested in the Committee by the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, rule XXV(k) of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, and additional authorizing 
resolutions.

                      I. Highlights of Activities

    In the 106th Congress, the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee continued its pursuit of a more efficient and 
accountable government. The Committee's jurisdiction is 
extensive. This writ covers not only whether taxpayers are 
getting their money's worth on over $2 trillion in annual 
Federal expenditures, but also includes the $700 billion in 
annual regulatory expenditures, the $1 trillion government loan 
portfolio, Federal insurance programs and the impact of Federal 
mandates on State and local governments. The Committee is 
committed to effective oversight of all of these instruments 
used by the government.
    Over the years, the Committee has consistently worked to 
create a leaner, more efficient government. Legislation 
originating from the Committee established a new framework for 
government accountability. This statutory framework includes 
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 
103-62); financial management statutes, such as the Chief 
Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 103-356), the 
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1996 (Public Law 
104-208), and the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 
of 1982 (Public Law 97-255); and acquisition and information 
technology management reforms, such as the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355), the Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996 (Divisions D and E of Public Law 104-106), 
the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act (Public Law 105-
270), and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (Public Law 
105-277). These statutes will be driving Federal agencies to 
modernize and improve both performance and accountability. 
Chairman Thompson said ``Polls repeatedly show that Americans 
have little trust or confidence in the Federal Government. They 
want the Federal Government to work, but they don't think it 
does. I am convinced that given the right tools and the proper 
motivation, with Congress performing its role better, we can 
change the face of government to the lasting benefit of the 
American people.''

                     OVERSIGHT OF AGENCY MANAGEMENT

    Since enactment of the Government Performance and Results 
Act (The Results Act) several independent assessments have 
shown that government-wide implementation of the Results Act 
has been uneven. One area where there have been too few results 
is addressing major management challenges that seem to persist 
year after year at many agencies. The Committee has urged 
Federal agencies to apply the Results Act's results-oriented 
principles--goal setting, performance measurement, and 
reporting--to address these major management problems.
    In 1999, Chairman Thompson wrote individual letters to the 
heads of the 24 largest Federal agencies to request information 
on what actions they were taking to address their long-standing 
management challenges and to determine the extent to which 
agencies were using the Results Act as a means to address these 
management problems. These letters to the agencies detailed 
each agency's most serious management problems as identified by 
the General Accounting Office (GAO) and by each agency's 
Inspector General (IG). Each letter contained an analysis of 
how well each of the 24 agency's annual Results Act Performance 
Plans for Fiscal Year 2000 addressed the agency's major 
management challenges and how well the agency was responding to 
unresolved GAO and IG audit recommendations designed to remedy 
these major problems.
    Chairman Thompson issued a report detailing the results of 
this oversight effort: Major Management Challenges Facing 
Federal Departments and Agencies. (S. Prt. 106-63)

           MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FACING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

    As the 106th Congress came to a close, Chairman Thompson 
issued a series of transition reports to provide greater detail 
on some of the seemingly intractable management challenges 
facing the Executive Branch as a whole. The reports focused on 
the three core capacity problems that would face the incoming 
administration and Congress: Financial management issues, 
Federal workforce challenges, and results-oriented governance. 
The reports were intended to stimulate action on the part of 
incoming leaders and provide them a useful framework for this 
important task (see Management Challenges Facing the New 
Administration: Part 1: Financial Management Issues, Part 2: 
Federal Workforce Challenges, and Part 3: Results-Oriented 
Governance). (S. Prt. 106-62)

                           REGULATORY ISSUES

    In the 106th Congress, the Committee reported a regulatory 
reform bill that subsequently was passed by the Senate and 
enacted into law. The Truth in Regulating Act of 2000, S. 1198, 
was designed to promote congressional oversight of regulations. 
The Truth in Regulating Act establishes procedures for 
congressional committees to request that the General Accounting 
Office review the regulatory analysis underlying economically 
significant rules.
    Chairman Thompson and 14 other Senators, including Senators 
Stevens, Voinovich, Gregg, and Roth, sponsored regulatory 
accounting legislation--the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, S. 
59--to require the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget to report each year on the costs and benefits of Federal 
regulatory programs. This legislation was enacted into law in 
the form of an amendment to the conference report to the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (section 
624).
    The Committee also considered the Regulatory Improvement 
Act, S. 746, which was sponsored by Senator Levin, Chairman 
Thompson and 20 other Senators including Senators Voinovich, 
Roth, Stevens, and Cochran. S. 746, would have codified 
requirements for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of 
major rules and executive oversight of the rulemaking process. 
For major rules costing over $100 million or having other 
significant impacts, the bill would have required Federal 
agencies to do a cost-benefit analysis examining the pros and 
cons of regulatory alternatives. Major rules addressing risks 
to the environment, health and safety would be accompanied by a 
peer-reviewed risk assessment analyzing the risk reduction 
benefits of the rule. The bill also would have codified 
procedures and transparency requirements for the regulatory 
review process conducted by OMB's Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs.
    In addition, Committee members initiated GAO investigations 
of the Administration's management of the regulatory process 
and its compliance with requirements concerning regulatory 
analysis and transparency requirements.

                     GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT REFORM

    Given that the Federal Government spends about $200 billion 
annually on buying everything from weapons systems to computer 
systems to everyday commodities, the Committee's role is to 
ensure that, within that system, industry sellers and 
government buyers offer and acquire, respectively, maximum 
value for the taxpayer. Chairman Thompson and Ranking Minority 
Member Lieberman and Armed Services Committee Chairman John 
Warner (R-VA) and Ranking Minority Member Levin developed 
legislation which was added to the National Defense 
Authorization Acts for Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year 2001 
which continued past efforts to streamline complex government 
rules and regulations to make it easier for businesses to sell 
to the Federal Government, but did so in a way that carefully 
balanced affordability, accountability, and accessibility to 
make sure taxpayer dollars are protected. Chairman Thompson 
also opposed legislation and regulations which would have added 
unnecessary government-unique requirements to Federal contracts 
and increased costs to the taxpayer.

                     COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT

    In late 1995 and early 1996, U.S. Government intelligence 
and nuclear weapons experts concluded that the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) had obtained sensitive classified 
information about the W-88 thermonuclear warhead currently used 
aboard the Trident D-5 submarine launched ballistic missile--a 
cornerstone of the United States' crucial ``triad'' of nuclear 
deterrence. An investigation into this compromise of W-88 
information carried out by the Energy Department, Justice 
Department, and Federal Bureau of Investigation quickly came to 
focus upon Dr. Wen-Ho Lee, a Chinese-American nuclear weapons 
scientist working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. 
Lee later pleaded guilty to charges of mishandling classified 
information, and the criminal case against him received 
extensive public scrutiny. Through its hearings and the 
issuance of a detailed joint statement by Chairman Thompson and 
Ranking Minority Member Lieberman, the Committee contributed 
markedly to understanding the earlier, ``counter-intelligence'' 
phase of the Lee investigation and the ways in which it was 
mishandled. To date, the Thompson/Lieberman joint statement 
remains the only comprehensive official and unclassified 
account and analysis of the early stages of the espionage 
investigation into Dr. Lee.

                    SECURITY OF U.S. NUCLEAR SECRETS

    Following the release of the Cox Committee Report that 
alleged nuclear weapons secrets had been compromised to the 
People's Republic of China--apparently from Energy Department 
laboratories--the Committee co-sponsored two joint Committee 
Senate hearings into this issue. The first of these hearings, 
featuring the report of the President's Foreign Intelligence 
Advisory Board (PFIAB) into Energy Department security, 
resulted in the passage of legislation that reorganized 
America's nuclear weapons complex into a semi-autonomous 
organization within the Department of Energy, the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The second hearing 
continued the Committee's close oversight of this nuclear 
security issue, highlighting the administration's refusal at 
that point to follow the letter and intent of the NNSA 
legislation.

                        INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT

    The Committee held a series of hearings in 1999 regarding 
the Independent Counsel Act, which lapsed that year. The 
hearings sought to determine how well the Act has operated, 
whether the statue should be reauthorized with changes, whether 
an alternative should be adopted in its place, or whether the 
statute should be allowed to expire without replacement. 
Ultimately, the Committee did not reauthorize the Independent 
Counsel Act.

                               FEDERALISM

    Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate vests 
responsibility for intergovernmental relations with the 
Committee. The cornerstone of the Federal Government's 
relationship with the States is Federalism, the constitutional 
principle that the Federal Government has limited powers and 
that government closest to the people--States and localities--
plays a critical role in our governmental system.
    In the 1st Session of the 106th Congress, the Committee 
held hearings on S. 1214, the Federalism Accountability Act of 
1999, sponsored by Chairman Thompson and 13 other Senators 
including Senators Levin, Voinovich, Cochran, Roth, Domenici 
and Collins. The proposed legislation sought to impose 
accountability for Federal preemption of State and local laws. 
The Committee also held three hearings on Federalism.

                    GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SECURITY

    The Committee investigated the ability of the Federal 
Government to protect against and respond to potential cyber 
attacks. Over the years, the Committee has spent considerable 
time examining the state of Federal Government information 
systems, which included hearings and reports highlighting the 
Nation's vulnerability to domestic and international terrorism. 
Chairman Thompson, along with Ranking Minority Member 
Lieberman, found that a significant cause of information 
security weaknesses is inadequate information security program 
planning and management. Senators Thompson and Lieberman 
introduced legislation, S. 1993, the Government Information 
Security Act on November 19, 1999. A similar version of the 
legislation was enacted as part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398). 
The legislation established Federal agency accountability for 
information security, provided for the application of a logical 
set of controls to be implemented by agencies, and focused on 
the importance of training programs to strengthen security 
government-wide.

                     FEDERAL BUDGET PROCESS REFORMS

    Federal budget process reform is another priority for the 
Committee. In an effort to improve the Federal budget process, 
the Committee took a significant step by approving legislation, 
S. 92, that would convert the annual budget and appropriations 
cycle from an annual to a biennial, or 2-year, cycle. Under 
this process, the first year of the cycle would be reserved for 
budgeting and appropriations with the second year reserved for 
authorizations and oversight. The Biennial Budgeting and 
Appropriations Act is intended to increase Congressional 
control of the budget process by reducing the amount of time 
spent on planning the budget while increasing the amount of 
time Congress can spend examining how taxpayer dollars are 
actually spent. Enactment of this bill would permit agencies to 
plan for the longer term, a failure of the current annual 
process. In addition, a biennial budget would provide greater 
stability and predictability in Federal funding, benefiting 
those entities, such as State and local governments, affected 
by the Federal budget cycle.
    The Committee also approved two further legislative 
initiatives aimed at improving the Federal budget process. S. 
557 was intended to reform the budgetary treatment of emergency 
spending. Under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act, the President and Congress can designate certain 
spending or revenue changes as an ``emergency,'' thereby 
exempting them from the limits on discretionary spending and 
the pay-as-you-go rules for legislation affecting mandatory 
spending programs. To address this, S. 557 would provide a 
point of order in the Senate against any provision in any 
legislation that is designated as an emergency. If the point of 
order could be raised and sustained against a provision 
designated as an emergency, then that provision would be 
stricken from the legislation. The point of order can be waived 
in the Senate by an affirmative vote of a simple majority.
    The Committee also approved legislation, S. 558, designed 
to prevent future shut down of government agencies and 
departments. When Congress and the President fail to reach 
timely agreement on the annual appropriations bills, Federal 
Government activities dependent on such funding are threatened 
with being shut down for lack of funding. To address this, S. 
558 provided for an automatic appropriation (in the form of a 
continuing resolution) to fund government operations, thereby 
eliminating the threat of a government shutdown. Enactment of 
S. 558 would ensure that agencies continue to receive funding 
at the level of the previous year's appropriation or the amount 
contained in the President's budget request.

                          INTERACTIVE WEB SITE

    The Committee launched, under the leadership of Ranking 
Minority Member Lieberman, an experimental online, interactive 
Web site to involve the public in an electronic discussion of a 
key issue facing the Congress--e-Government--on May 18, 2000. 
Hundreds of citizens used the opportunity to provide comments 
on ways to advance the cause of digital government, promote 
innovative uses of information technology and expand citizen 
participation in government. Citizens were asked to comment on 
several key issues, including: What lessons the government 
might learn from the private sector, the need for centralized 
leadership, and the usefulness of an online portal to access 
government information and services.

                           INSPECTORS GENERAL

    Investigation involving the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. In September 1998, the Inspector General for the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Susan Gaffney, 
testified before the Committee that individuals in the 
Secretary's office at HUD had manipulated an Equal Employment 
Opportunity investigation in an ongoing effort to discredit her 
and drive her out of office. In December 1998, Chairman 
Thompson requested an investigation by GAO into the allegations 
raised by Ms. Gaffney. GAO conducted a number of interviews, 
gathered documents, and prepared a report explaining that HUD 
officials had removed an existing EEO investigator whose 
services cost approximately $2,700 and provided their own 
outside investigator at a cost of $100,000 who found against 
Ms. Gaffney. GAO also stated that they believed that those 
officials violated procurement regulations. HUD officials 
denied any wrong doing. After the Committee conducted follow-up 
interviews, Chairman Thompson released the GAO report.
    Investigation involving the Tennessee Valley Authority. On 
June 7, 1999, the Committee received a letter from the 
Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 
George Prosser, alleging that he was being forced out of TVA, 
accompanied by allegations by the TVA Board that Prosser had 
misused his TVA credit card. Upon receipt of the letter, 
Chairman Thompson requested an independent investigation by GAO 
of the cross allegations. GAO interviewed witnesses in 
Tennessee and Washington, D.C. reviewed numerous documents, 
reviewed every credit card charge made by George Prosser from 
January 1, 1998 through May 12, 1999, and issued a written 
report. GAO did not find that the credit card charges made by 
Prosser violated any TVA travel policy or rule, and found that 
TVA Chairman Craven Crowell's ``actions could be viewed as an 
attempt to undermine the IG's independence.'' (GAO Report, 
``Tennessee Valley Authority: Facts Surrounding Allegations 
Raised Against the Chairman and the IG.'') In addition, the 
Committee approved legislation, which was subsequently enacted, 
making the TVA IG a presidentially-appointed position.
    Second investigation involving the Tennessee Valley 
Authority. During its review of the allegations involving TVA 
IG, GAO uncovered investigations by the IG of allegations made 
against the TVA Board members concerning the creation and 
operation of a $30 million trust established by TVA and 
controlled by the Board. At the request of Chairman Thompson, 
GAO conducted a separate investigation of the issue. GAO 
obtained relevant documents and interviewed personnel from the 
Department of Justice, the FBI, and TVA. Committee staff 
followed up the GAO investigation with additional interviews 
and document reviews of its own. On February 29, 2000, GAO 
issued a report which laid out an effort by the Chairman of the 
TVA Board of Directors to gain considerable power over the 
Trust funded with TVA funds. GAO described allegations of 
conflict of interest raised by the U.S. Attorney's Office 
regarding the role of the Chairman in creating the Trust. It 
also explained how an officer in the Trust double-billed a 
research organization for expenses, and described DOJ's 
response to those allegations. Finally, the report described 
allegations of shortcomings in the DOJ investigation into the 
matter and described DOJ's response to those allegations.

                   NATIONAL SECURITY EXPORT CONTROLS

    The Committee devoted considerable time to exploring issues 
related to national security export controls over ``dual-use'' 
commodities--i.e., technologies that have both civilian and 
military applications. These hearings contributed in important 
ways to debates over these issues that occurred during the 
106th Congress.
    The Committee's involvement with these issues during the 
106th Congress grew out of an extensive review of the 
implementation of export control rules undertaken at the 
request of Chairman Thompson by the Inspectors General of the 
Departments of Commerce, State, Treasury, Defense, and Energy, 
and the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency 
(CIA). This six-agency study resulted in two Committee hearings 
examining the breadth of U.S. export control implementation, 
and laid the groundwork for work on Export Administration Act 
(EAA) reauthorization issues with the Armed Services, Foreign 
Relations, and Intelligence Committees in early 2000. Follow-up 
Committee hearings also examined the status and prospects of 
the Wassenaar Arrangement multilateral export control regime 
and certain aspects of export controls related to high-
performance computers--in particular, the concepts of ``mass 
market'' status and ``foreign availability,'' which were key 
components of a bill then pending in the Senate to reauthorize 
EAA.

                           IMPROPER PAYMENTS

    One direct consequence of the government's poor financial 
management is the exposure of taxpayer dollars to fraud, waste, 
and mismanagement. The work of the Committee, based on GAO and 
IG reports, documented huge losses to our citizens from 
fraudulent and other erroneous payments of taxpayer funds. 
Based on a review of improper payments that agencies disclosed 
in their own financial statements for Fiscal Year 1998, GAO 
identified $19.1 billion in improper payments for that year 
alone. This report covered only the nine agencies that 
voluntarily disclosed improper payments for 17 major programs. 
More agencies did report improper payments in Fiscal Year 1999. 
But, the problem of erroneous payments appears to be getting 
worse. When GAO updated for Fiscal Year 1999 improper payments 
disclosed in agency financial statements, the total had grown 
to $20.7 billion.
    A powerful line of attack against the massive overpayment 
problems that plague the Federal Government is to disclose 
overpayment levels in annual financial statements and combine 
that disclosure with performance goals to reduce them. Chairman 
Thompson urged the administration to do this and urged the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board to adopt standards 
that would require agencies to disclose the extent of 
overpayments in their annual financial statements. The 
Committee also reported legislation, S. 3030, which was 
intended to require agencies to identify and recover erroneous 
payments.

                                PRIVACY

    S. 3040, the Privacy Commission Act, was sponsored by 
Chairman Thompson and referred to the Committee on September 
13, 2000. This legislation would establish a 17-member 
Commission to study issues relating to the protection of 
individual privacy and to submit a report to Congress by 
December 31, 2001. Issues that the Commission would be directed 
to study include the monitoring, collection and distribution of 
personal information by private entities and by Federal, State 
and local governments; employer practices and policies with 
respect to employees' personal financial and health-related 
information; existing remedies for privacy violations and 
current legislative and self-regulatory efforts to respond to 
privacy issues; and the targeting of older or disabled 
individuals for disclosure and use of financial information.
    Further, Chairman Thompson initiated a GAO investigation on 
Federal agencies' use of information-gathering devices called 
``cookies'' on their Web sites. The investigation revealed that 
several agencies were violating administration policy by using 
``cookies'' without notifying Web site visitors.
    Finally, Chairman Thompson worked with Representative Jay 
Inslee (D-WA) to pass an amendment to require agency Inspectors 
General to report to Congress on agency information collection 
practices.

                   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

    The Committee played a large role in the passage of the 
Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA), (Divisions D and E of Public Law 104-
106), which requires agencies to make sound investment 
decisions before buying information technology systems. The CCA 
was the result of the Committee's reviews of failed computer 
system acquisitions such as the IRS's $7 billion Tax Systems 
Modernization project and the National Weather Service's nearly 
$500 million Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System.
    In October 2000, Chairman Thompson released a report 
showing that Federal agencies are not fully complying with the 
CCA. The report revealed that the administration was not 
enforcing this law that Congress passed 4 years earlier. The 
report's findings concluded that 16 Federal agencies neither 
developed nor submitted information technology management 
reports that included accomplishments, progress, and 
identification of areas requiring attention. One quarter of 
agencies have information technology projects that deviate 
significantly from cost or schedule goals. And finally, the 
report concluded that agencies are not using sound business 
procedures before investing in information technology which 
inhibits their ability to improve program performance and meet 
their mission goals.

           LONG-TERM CARE SECURITY AND RETIREMENT CORRECTIONS

    A steady increase in longevity and in the elderly 
population has led to a rise in the number of Americans likely 
to need some form of long-term care insurance. Individual 
premiums for long-term care insurance are expensive. Yet 
typically, these premiums can be purchased at reduced rates 
when coverage is obtained by way of large group rates. In an 
effort to address the growing need for long-term care insurance 
coverage, the Committee considered and oversaw the enactment of 
legislation (Public Law 106-265) sponsored by 14 Senators 
including Senators Collins, Cleland, Akaka, and Durbin which 
established a long-term care insurance program for the Federal 
Government. Establishment of this program can serve as a model 
to other employers across the country whose employees face 
similar long-term care needs. At Chairman Thompson's request, 
employees and retirees of the Tennessee Valley Authority were 
included for coverage in the legislation.
    The legislation also included language which provided for 
the correction of Federal employees who, through no fault of 
their own, found themselves enrolled in the wrong Federal 
retirement system. This measure provided long-awaited relief to 
Federal employees confronted with retirement coverage error 
through the establishment of a comprehensive legislative 
framework to address these errors.

                       DECEPTIVE MAIL PREVENTION

    With the passage of the Deceptive Mail Prevention and 
Enforcement Act (Public Law 106-168), introduced by Senator 
Collins and 41 other Senators, the Committee succeeded in 
establishing new consumer protections to shield consumers from 
falling victim to deceptive and fraudulent practices found in 
some sweepstakes and mail promotions. The law imposed new 
disclosure requirements on sweepstakes mailings, establishes 
new, stronger financial penalties, grants the Postal Service 
greater authority to investigate and stop fraudulent and 
deceptive mailings, and preserves the ability of States to 
impose stricter requirements on deceptive mailings. The bill 
was the product of an investigation commenced by the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations into deceptive mail practices.

                  BREAST CANCER STAMP REAUTHORIZATION

    The Committee also approved legislation (Public Law 106-
253) intended to aid funding for breast cancer research. This 
measure extended for an additional 2 years the authority under 
which postal patrons may contribute to funding for breast 
cancer research through the voluntary purchase of certain 
specially issued U.S. postage stamps. Funds raised through the 
sale of these stamps help fund breast cancer research conducted 
by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of 
Defense. The legislation also established a process for the 
future selection of special fundraising stamps by the Postal 
Service.

                     THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN AMENDMENTS

    Encouraging saving for one's retirement is a critical goal 
as more and more Americans reach retirement age. For Federal 
employees, a key component of their retirement savings is 
active participation in the Thrift Savings Plan. In an effort 
to improve the operation of this program, the Committee 
approved legislation (Public Law 106-361), establishing new 
incentives for employees to participate in the TSP, thus 
encouraging savings for retirement. It permitted newly hired 
Federal employees to begin making tax-advantaged contributions 
toward their own retirement earlier than under current law. 
Further, the bill allowed employees to contribute ``rollover'' 
distributions from qualified 401(k) plans and IRAs to the TSP. 
This legislation will bolster the operations of the TSP and 
help the Federal Government in its effort to recruit and retain 
a qualified workforce.

                         DECENNIAL CENSUS 2000

    The Committee monitored the operational management of the 
Census Bureau's ability to conduct an accurate 2000 decennial 
census.

    OVERSIGHT OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INQUIRY INTO FUNDRAISING ABUSES

    As follow-up to the Committee's investigation in the 105th 
Congress (Investigation of Illegal or Improper Activities in 
Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns (S. Rept. 105-
167)), the Committee closely monitored the progress of the 
Justice Department's Campaign Finance Task Force (CFTF). Among 
other things, this oversight included an investigation and 
hearing into allegations that Justice Department officials had 
inappropriately impeded the efforts of FBI agents in 1997 to 
investigate Presidential friend and Democratic National 
Committee (DNC) fundraiser Yah Lin (``Charlie'') Trie.
    By the end of 2000, the CFTF had secured 25 guilty pleas or 
convictions by individuals or corporations associated with 
various Democratic fundraising campaigns, including: Maria Hsia 
(in connection with donations to the DNC); Pauline Kanchanalak 
and Duangnet Kronenbert (in connection with donations to the 
DNC); Yogesh Gandhi (in connection with donations to the DNC); 
Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie (in connection with donations to the 
DNC); John Huang (in connection with donations to the DNC); 
Juan Ortiz (in connection with donations to the DNC); Johnny 
Chung (in connection with donations to the DNC); and Future 
Tech International (in connection with donations to the DNC). 
In addition, four individuals had pled guilty or been convicted 
of crimes arising from illegal contribution ``swaps'' involving 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters which were also 
investigated by the Committee. Additional persons stood accused 
of crimes in cases that had not yet concluded and numerous 
other individuals or organizations were the subjects of ongoing 
investigations.
    To address some of the reasons that the CFTF was not as 
effective as the Committee hoped it would be, Chairman Thompson 
and Ranking Minority Member Lieberman, along with five other 
Senators including Senator Collins, introduced a bill which 
would have (i) increased violations of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act (FECA) involving an aggregate amount of $25,000 or 
more to felonies; (ii) increased the statute of limitations for 
FECA violations from 3 to 5 years; (iii) required the 
Sentencing Commission to promulgate a guideline for FECA 
violations; (iv) banned conduit ``soft money''; and (v) banned 
foreign ``soft money.''

                  MANAGEMENT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

    Following up on hearings held on the subject during the 
105th Congress in connection with the release in 1997 of a 
comprehensive report by the Commission on Protecting and 
Reducing Government Secrecy, the Committee held a hearing on S. 
1801, the ``Public Interest Declassification Act.''

                            OTHER OVERSIGHT

    In an additional oversight investigation, the Committee 
conducted an extensive investigation into whether an FBI 
agent's notes had been inappropriately tampered with.
    Also, due in part to findings of the Department of Justice 
Inspector General relating to serious information-sharing 
problems that occurred in connection with FBI and departmental 
briefings of the Committee during its 1997 Special 
Investigation, the FBI in late 1999 began a reorganization of 
its National Security Division. The FBI expects this 
reorganization to improve the sharing of critical intelligence 
and other information between the Bureau's criminal 
investigative, counter-intelligence, and counter-terrorism 
components.
    Further, as part of the Committee's continuing oversight of 
the Inspector General community pursuant to the Committee's 
jurisdiction over the Inspector General Act, Committee 
investigators also conducted an extensive inquiry into 
allegations of misconduct by senior Defense Department 
officials relating to the mishandling of classified information 
by former CIA Director John Deutch in his previous high-ranking 
positions at the Department. This investigation involved 
extensive documentary reviews and interviews with officials at 
the Pentagon, the Office of the Defense Department Inspector 
General, and the CIA's Office of the Inspector General. (Dr. 
Deutch received a Presidential pardon in January 2001.)

                       II. Committee Jurisdiction

    In the 95th Congress, the jurisdiction and functions of the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs were substantially enlarged 
with the Senate approval of the Committee System Reorganization 
Amendments of 1977 (S. Res. 4, 95-1, February 4, 1977). S. Res. 
4 also changed the Committee's name from the Committee on 
Government Operations to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
    Rule XXV(1)(k) of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires 
reference to this Committee of all proposed legislation, and 
other matters, dealing with (1) archives of the United States; 
(2) budget and accounting measures, other than appropriations, 
except as provided in the Congressional Act of 1974; (3) census 
and collection of statistics, including social and economic 
statistics; (4) congressional organization, except for matters 
which amend the rules or orders of the Senate; (5) Federal 
civil service; (6) Government Information; (7) 
intergovernmental relations; (8) municipal affairs of the 
District of Columbia; (9) organization and management of U.S. 
nuclear export policy; (10) organization and reorganization of 
the Executive Branch of the Government; (11) Postal Service; 
and (12) status of officers and employees of the United States 
including their classification, compensation and benefits.
    The Committee is further authorized and directed to (1) 
receive and examine reports of the Controller General of the 
United States and to submit to the Senate such recommendations 
as the Committee deems advisable; (2) study the efficiency, 
economy and effectiveness of all agencies and departments of 
the government; (3) evaluate the effects of laws enacted to 
reorganize the Legislative and Executive Branches of 
government; and (4) study the intergovernmental relations 
between the United States and international organizations of 
which the United States is a member.
    In addition, the Committee has primary oversight and 
legislative jurisdiction over the GAO, the Office of Personnel 
Management, OMB, the Postal Service, and the General Service 
Administration, and processes all legislation relating to the 
disposal and the negotiated sales of Federal surplus property.

           III. Bills and Resolutions Referred and Considered

    During the 106th Congress, 167 Senate bills and 83 House 
bills were referred to the Committee for consideration. Also, 8 
Concurrent Senate Resolutions, 1 Senate Joint Resolution and 2 
House Concurrent Resolutions were referred to the Committee. Of 
the legislation received and considered, 87 bills were reported 
and 74 were enacted into law.

                              IV. Hearings

    During the 106th Congress, the Committee and its three 
Subcommittees held a total of 65 hearings on 78 days on 
legislation, a wide variety of oversight issues, and 
nominations. The Committee also held 9 business meetings. At 
the full Committee level, a number of important topics were 
examined, including:

                               FEDERALISM

    In the 106th Congress, the Committee held three hearings on 
Federalism. On May 5, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on the 
State of Federalism, followed the next day by a hearing on 
Federalism and Crime Control. The 2 days of hearings focused on 
the growing tendency toward federalization of the law and the 
unique problems posed by increased Federal involvement in 
criminal law. On July 14, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on 
the Federalism Accountability Act, S. 1214.
    Witnesses on May 5, 1999, included Michael O. Leavitt, Utah 
Governor and Vice-Chair of the National Governors' Association; 
Tommy Thompson, Wisconsin Governor and President of the Council 
of State Governments; Clarence E. Anthony, Mayor of South Bay, 
Florida, and President of National League of Cities; Daniel T. 
Blue, Jr., Majority Leader of the North Carolina House of 
Representatives and President of the National Conference of 
State Legislatures; Dr. William A. Galston, Director of the 
Institute of Philosophy and Public Policy, University of 
Maryland at College Park; Professor John O. McGinnis, Professor 
of Law, Cardozo Law School.
    Witnesses on May 6, 1999, included Edwin Meese III, Former 
Attorney General of the United States (1985-1988), Ronald 
Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy at the Heritage 
Foundation, and Chair of the ABA Task Force on the 
Federalization of Criminal Law; Gil Merritt, U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the 6th Circuit, Nashville, Tennessee; Professor 
John S. Baker, Jr., Dale E. Bennett Professor of Law, Paul M. 
Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University; John Dorso, 
Majority Leader of the North Dakota House of Representatives, 
testifying on behalf of the National Conference of State 
Legislatures; and Gerald B. Lefcourt, Immediate Past President 
and Legislative Committee Chair of the National Association of 
Criminal Defense Lawyers.
    The July 14 hearing, which consisted of three panels of 
witnesses, provided an opportunity to discuss the need for the 
Federalism Accountability Act, and to address two major issues 
raised by the administration: (1) judicial review of the 
federalism assessments of the agencies, and (2) the impact of 
the rule of construction on implied preemption. On panel 1, 
John Spotila, OIRA Administrator, and Randy Moss, Acting 
Assistant Attorney General from the Office of Legal Counsel, 
DOJ, presented their views on S. 1214. On panel 2, Thomas 
Carper, Governor of Delaware and Chairman of the National 
Governors' Association; John Dorso, Majority Leader of the 
North Dakota House of Representatives, representing the 
National Conference of State Legislatures; and Alexander G. 
Fekete, Mayor of Pembroke Pines, Florida, representing the 
National League of Cities, testified in support of S. 1214, 
offering examples of problematic Federal preemptions. Panel 3 
was composed of academics, including Ernest Gellhorn, Professor 
of Law at George Mason University; Caleb Nelson, Associate 
Professor of Law at UVA; and Rena Steinzor, Associate Professor 
at the University of Maryland Law School.

                     COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT

    In connection with an extensive investigation conducted 
jointly by the Majority and Minority staffs, the Committee held 
closed oversight hearings May 20 and June 9, 1999, entitled 
``The National Security Methods and Processes Relating to the 
Wen-Ho Lee Espionage Investigation.'' These two closed hearings 
examined the conduct of the Justice Department, Energy 
Department, and Federal Bureau of Investigation in 
investigating the compromise of certain design information from 
the W-88 nuclear warhead to the People's Republic of China 
(PRC). These hearings, which featured testimony from numerous 
witnesses and the examination of hundreds of pages of 
classified documents, focused upon the government's handling of 
the counter-intelligence phase of the investigation into Dr. 
Wen-Ho Lee of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Among 
other things, this Committee investigation examined whether 
electronic surveillance of Dr. Lee was justified under the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). (In a 
much-publicized criminal case, Dr. Lee was subsequently 
prosecuted by the Justice Department and pleaded guilty to 
mishandling classified information.)
    Witnesses on May 20, 1999 included: Neil Gallagher, 
Assistant Director, FBI National Security Division (NSD); John 
Lewis, former Assistant Director, FBI NSD; Stephen Dillard, 
Section Chief, FBI NSD; [name withheld], Unit Chief, NSD; [name 
withheld], Supervisory Special Agent, Albuquerque Division, 
FBI; Frances Fragos Townsend, Counsel for Intelligence Policy 
and Review, Department of Justice; James Baker, Deputy Counsel 
for Intelligence Operations, Department of Justice; Alan 
Kornblum, former Deputy Counsel for Intelligence Operations, 
Department of Justice; Gerald Schroeder, former Acting Counsel 
for Intelligence Policy and Review, Department of Justice; and 
Daniel Seikaly, former Director, Executive Office for National 
Security, Department of Justice.
    Witnesses on June 9, 1999 included: Neil Gallagher, 
Assistant Director, FBI NSD; [name withheld], FBI NSD; [name 
withheld], former FBI Special Agent, Albuquerque Field Office, 
FBI; Larry Parkinson, General Counsel, FBI; Frances Fragos 
Townsend, Counsel for Intelligence Policy and Review, 
Department of Justice; James Baker, Deputy Counsel for 
Intelligence Operations, Department of Justice; Allan Kornblum, 
former Deputy Counsel for Intelligence Operations, Department 
of Justice; David Ryan, attorney, Office of Intelligence Policy 
and Review, Department of Justice; Terry Craig, Los Alamos 
National Laboratory (LANL) Security Office; Larry Sanchez, head 
of Energy Department Intelligence Office; Notra Trulock, former 
head of Energy Department Intelligence Office; Robert Vroomin, 
former head of LANL Counter-Intelligence Office; R. Gary Lee, 
former team leader for computer security, Division X, LANL; and 
Robert Ayars, Computer Security Officer, LANL.
    Building upon the record established at these hearings and 
in the Committee staff's investigation, Chairman Thompson and 
Ranking Minority Member Lieberman issued a joint statement on 
August 5, 1999 spelling out the grave flaws they found in the 
conduct of the joint Justice/Energy/FBI investigation into Dr. 
Lee. This statement was the first--and remains, to date, the 
only--unclassified official U.S. Government account of the 
espionage phase of the Lee investigation.
    As a result of the Committee's inquiry, as Attorney General 
Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh subsequently 
acknowledged, the FBI in September 1999 reopened its 
investigation into the loss of the W-88 information and other 
nuclear weapons design data to China, starting its 
investigation over from scratch some 4 years after it had first 
begun. (This reopened FBI reinvestigation is still underway.) 
The Committee's work on the counter-intelligence phase of the 
Lee investigation also provided the impetus for legislative 
proposals considered by the Judiciary and the Intelligence 
Committees for reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act (FISA).

                    SECURITY OF U.S. NUCLEAR SECRETS

    The Committee's first joint hearing with the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee on Energy Department nuclear 
security issues took place on June 22, 1999, and was entitled 
``The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Report on 
DOE.'' It featured testimony from former Senator Warren Rudman, 
who then chaired the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory 
Board (PFIAB), and from Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. At 
this hearing, the PFIAB presented a highly critical indictment 
of a culture of lax security at the Energy Department--a 
culture of indifference that the Board described as 
representing ``security at its worst.'' This hearing provided 
the direct impetus for Congress' passage of legislation 
reorganizing the Energy Department to create a semi-autonomous 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
    Witnessess on June 22, 1999 included: Warren B. Rudman, 
Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and 
former U.S. Senator; and Bill Richardson, U.S. Secretary of 
Energy.
    The Committee's second joint hearing with the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee on Energy Department security 
issues took place on October 19, 1999, and was entitled 
``National Nuclear Security Administration.'' It focused upon 
the administration's implementation of the NNSA legislation. 
The hearing looked at the failure of the President and the 
Secretary of Energy to appoint a NNSA administrator and 
establish the NNSA as a semi-autonomous institution within the 
Department reporting to the Secretary. Witnesses on October 19, 
1999 included Bill Richardson, U.S. Secretary of Energy.

                          INFORMATION SECURITY

    On March 2, 2000, the Committee continued to exercise its 
oversight over a major part of its jurisdiction: Government 
information management. In particular, the Committee held a 
hearing on how people exploit government computer system 
weaknesses and what Federal agencies should be doing to 
strengthen the management of these systems. Specifically, the 
hearing addressed the lack of adequate security controls within 
the government and allowed Committee Members to receive 
comments on legislation introduced by Chairman Thompson and 
Ranking Minority Member Lieberman, S. 1993, the Government 
Information Security Act.
    Witnesses at the hearing were Kevin Mitnick, a reformed 
hacker; Jack Brock, Director, Government-wide and Defense 
Information Systems, GAO; Robert Gross, Inspector General, 
NASA; Kenneth Watson, Manager, Critical Infrastructure 
Protection, Cisco Systems, Inc.; and James Adams, Chief 
Executive Officer, Infrastructure Defense, Inc. During the 
hearing, Mr. Mitnick testified that the government should step 
up computer security oversight, as well as increase education 
and training in order to better manage its computer security. 
Mr. Brock testified that, according to various reports issued 
by GAO, the Federal Government needs a centralized, coordinated 
management approach to information security. Ms. Gross 
supported the approach to computer security taken in S. 1993, 
including its emphasis on accountability. Mr. Watson stressed 
the need for the government to improve its computer system 
security by managing security threats on a continuous basis and 
tailoring security needs to meet the agency and department 
missions. Finally, Mr. Adams strongly supported S. 1993 saying, 
``by stepping up to the plate and tackling computer security 
with an innovative, bold approach, the Thompson-Lieberman bill 
(S. 1993) significantly boosts the chances of reversing the 
current bureaucratic approach to a dynamic problem.''

                     FEDERAL BUDGET PROCESS REFORMS

    In an effort to explore reforms to the Federal budget 
process, the Committee and the Committee on the Budget held a 
joint hearing January 27, 1999, on proposed Federal budget 
process reforms. The Committee heard testimony on two 
proposals. S. 92, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations 
bill, was introduced January 19, 1999 by Senators Domenici, 
Thompson, Lieberman, Roth, Collins and 11 other Senators. This 
bill converts the annual Federal budget cycle from a 1-year to 
a 2-year, or biennial, cycle. S. 93, the Budget Enforcement Act 
of 1999, was introduced January 19, 1999 by Senators Domenici, 
Grassley, Gorton, Abraham, Frist, Grams, Gordon Smith, Thomas, 
Kyl, Mack, and Voinovich and includes the biennial budget 
proposal as well as proposals to tighten emergency spending, 
reform pay-as-you-go budget scoring, create an automatic 
continuing resolution, and streamline the debate process for 
budget bills.
    Witnesses at the hearing were: Senator John McCain (R-AZ); 
Representatives Jim Nussle (R-IA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD); Martha 
Phillips, Executive Director of the Concord Coalition; Tim 
Muris, professor of law at George Mason University; and Van 
Ooms, an economist with the Committee for Economic Development. 
Senator McCain criticized the current budget process and said 
that the Omnibus Appropriations bill enacted at the close of 
the 105th Congress made a mockery of Congress' role in fiscal 
matters. He proposed enacting an automatic continuing 
resolution, endorsed biennial budgeting, and re-establishing 
Senate Rule 16 points of order against legislation on 
appropriations bills. He also supported establishing a 60-vote 
point of order against any item in an appropriations bill which 
provides more than $1 million for any program not already 
specifically authorized in law. He also proposed adoption of a 
new privileged motion to move to proceed to any appropriations 
bill after June 30.
    Representatives Nussle and Cardin were sponsors of a 
bipartisan budget process reform bill during the 105th 
Congress. Their bill, H.R. 4837, provided for: (1) a joint 
budget resolution to be signed by the President; (2) a reserve 
fund for emergency spending; (3) procedures to curb the 
proliferation of new entitlement programs; (4) requiring all 
authorizing committees to systematically reauthorize all 
Federal spending programs at least once every 10 years; (5) an 
automatic continuing resolution at the prior year's level to 
prevent future government shutdowns; (6) the requirement that 
budget submissions, budget resolutions, appropriations reports, 
and cost estimates compare proposed spending and revenue levels 
with the actual spending levels of the prior year; (7) shifting 
to an accrual budgeting for Federal insurance programs; (8) 
reforms to pay-as-you-go budget scoring to permit tax cuts 
without offsets so long as the Federal Government is running an 
on-budget surplus; and (9) the establishment of a ``lock box'' 
to ensure that savings from floor amendments to appropriations 
bills would be used to reduce Federal Government spending.
    Representative Nussle acknowledged the difficulty in 
obtaining support for a 2-year budget bill. He also said he did 
not believe the proposal would muster a majority of support on 
the House Budget Committee.

                   NATIONAL SECURITY EXPORT CONTROLS

    During the 106th Congress, the Committee held several 
hearings, and conducted extensive investigatory work, into 
issues related to national security export controls over so-
called ``dual-use'' commodities--i.e., technologies that have 
both civilian and military applications, and for the overseas 
sale of which export licenses are required. These hearings 
contributed in important ways to public debates over these 
issues during the 106th Congress.
    The Committee's first hearing on export controls during the 
106th Congress was entitled ``Dual-Use and Munitions List 
Export Control Processes and Implementation at the Department 
of Energy,'' and took place on June 10, 1999. This hearing was 
the first product of an extensive review of the implementation 
of current U.S. export control rules undertaken at the request 
of Chairman Thompson by the Inspectors General of the 
Departments of Commerce, State, Treasury, Defense, and Energy, 
and the Inspector General of the CIA. Building upon a report 
presented to the Committee by the Energy Department Inspector 
General, this hearing examined export control implementation at 
that Department.
    Witness testimony and discussions focused in particular 
upon the Department's poor implementation of ``deemed export'' 
rules, with the effect that large numbers of foreign visitors 
given access to Energy Department laboratories--e.g., the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)--were given access to export-
controlled technology without adequate licensing approval. As a 
result of this hearing and the Inspector General's review, the 
Department undertook to improve its implementation of ``deemed 
export'' controls for its visitor system. (A subsequent review 
by the Inspector General in early 2000 revealed, however, that 
significant problems remained.)
    Witnesses on June 10, 1999 included: Gregory H. Friedman, 
Inspector General, Energy Department; Sandra L. Schneider, 
Assistant Inspector General for Inspections, Energy Department; 
and Alfred K. Walter, Office of the Inspector General, Energy 
Department.
    The Committee's second export-control hearing took place on 
June 23, 1999, and was entitled ``Interagency Inspectors 
General Report on the Export-Control Process for Dual-Use and 
Munitions List Commodities.'' This hearing presented the 
results of the six-agency Inspectors General review requested 
by Chairman Thompson, and featured testimony from 
representatives of the Offices of Inspector General at the 
Departments of Commerce, Defense, State, Treasury, and Energy, 
as well as the Inspector General of the CIA. These six agency 
Inspectors General presented their findings across a wide range 
of export control implementation subjects ranging from 
organization of the interagency export license approval process 
to the Commerce Department's conduct of post-shipment 
verification (PSV) visits for high-performance computer export 
shipments. This hearing catalogued a number of weaknesses in 
the U.S. export control system and laid the conceptual 
groundwork for the Committee's continued involvement with 
export control matters throughout the remainder of the 106th 
Congress and into the 107th--including work on Export 
Administration Act (EAA) reauthorization issues with the Armed 
Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence Committees in 
early 2000.
    Witnesses on June 23, 1999 included: Johnnie E. Frazier, 
Acting Inspector General, Department of Commerce; Gregory H. 
Friedman, Inspector General, Department of Energy; Donald 
Mancuso, Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense; John 
C. Payne, Deputy Inspector General, Department of State; 
Lawrence Rogers, Acting Inspector General, Department of 
Treasury; and L. Britt Snider, Inspector General, Central 
Intelligence Agency.
    The next Committee hearing on export controls occurred on 
April 12, 2000, and was entitled ``The Wassenaar Arrangement 
and the Future of Multilateral Export Controls.'' This hearing 
examined the United States' participation in the Wassenaar 
Arrangement, the principal remaining multilateral export 
control regime that deals with the full range of ``dual-use'' 
technologies--i.e., commodities having both civilian and 
military uses. Among other things, the hearing examined the 
difficulties of achieving international agreement upon export 
control standards and appreciation for the threats posed by 
``rogue States,'' the U.S. Government's role in dismantling the 
previous ``COCOM'' export control regime, the impact of 
unilateral U.S. computer export decontrols upon the Wassenaar 
Arrangement, and the prospects for strengthening Wassenaar 
through the addition of augmented export notification 
requirements and/or ``catch-all'' controls for ``dual-use'' 
items.
    Witnesses on April 12, 2000 included: John D. Holum, Senior 
Advisor for Arms Control and International Security, Department 
of State; William A. Reinsch, Undersecretary for Export 
Administration, Department of Commerce; Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., 
Director, Center for Security Policy; Stephen J. Hadley, former 
Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy, 
Department of Defense; and Henry D. Sokolski, Executive 
Director, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC).
    On May 26, 2000, the Committee held a hearing on ``Export 
Control Implementation Issues with respect to High Performance 
Computers.'' In particular, this hearing focused upon the ideas 
of ``mass market'' status and ``foreign availability,'' which 
were key components of a bill then pending in the Senate to 
reauthorize the EAA. Witness testimony explored the issue of 
whether high-performance computers--and other ``dual-use'' 
commodities subject to national security export controls in 
order to keep them out of the hands of potential adversaries, 
problems proliferators, and terrorists--should be freely 
exportable without a license if they meet the criteria of so-
called ``foreign availability'' or ``mass market'' status.
    Witnesses on May 26, 2000 included: Daniel Hoydysh, Co-
Chair, Computer Coalition for Responsible Exports; Harold J. 
Johnson, Associate Director for International Relations and 
Trade Issues, National Security and International Affairs 
Division, General Accounting Office; Robert Lieberman, 
Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, Department of 
Defense; and Gary Milhollin, Director, Wisconsin Project on 
Nuclear Arms Control (WPONAC).

                           REGULATORY REFORM

    The Committee held 2 days of hearings on regulatory reform 
legislation during the 106th Congress. On April 21, 1999, the 
Committee held a hearing on S. 746, the Regulatory Improvement 
Act of 1999, a bill co-sponsored by Chairman Thompson and 
Senator Levin, which would codify requirements for cost-benefit 
analysis and risk assessment of major rules and executive 
oversight of the rulemaking process. Witnesses included Greg 
Lashutka, Mayor of Columbus, Ohio; Robbie Roberts, Director of 
the Environmental Council of the States; Scott Holman, Chairman 
of the Regulatory Affairs Committee, U.S. Chamber; Professor 
Ron Cass, Dean of Boston University Law School; Dr. Lester 
Crawford, Georgetown Center for Food and Nutritional Policy; 
Dr. John Graham, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; Pat 
Kenworthy, National Environmental Trust; Frank Mirer, Health 
and Safety Department of the United Auto Workers; and David 
Vladeck, Public Citizen Litigation Group.
    On April 22, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on S. 59, 
the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act and proposed Congressional 
Office of Regulatory Analysis legislation. Witnesses included 
Don Arbuckle, Acting Administrator of OIRA; Steve Saland, New 
York State Senator, on behalf of the National Conference of 
State Legislatures; Jim Dyer, small business owner, on behalf 
of the National Association of Manufacturers; Dr. Robert Litan, 
The Brookings Institute; Dr. Murray Widenbaum, Center for the 
Study of American Business; Professor Sid Shapiro, Indiana 
University School of Law; and Gary Bass, OMB Watch.

                           INSPECTORS GENERAL

    On July 19, 2000, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
an administration proposal to provide statutory law enforcement 
authority to certain, presidentially-appointed IGs. The 
Committee learned that each of these IGs currently has law 
enforcement authority pursuant to biannual deputations. 
However, that process has administrative problems, lacks proper 
oversight, and can result in the interruption of ongoing 
criminal investigations. Following the hearing, the Committee 
reported out S. 3144 which would codify the process already in 
place, provide more oversight of the IG's law enforcement 
activities, and allow the Attorney General to retain the 
authority to grant and remove authority based on need.
    The Committee also heard testimony regarding S. 870, a bill 
sponsored by Senator Collins which amended the Inspector 
General Act.

                        INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ACT

    The first in a series of hearings on the Independent 
Counsel Act was held on February 24, 1999. Testifying before 
the Committee were former Senate Majority Leader Howard H. 
Baker, Jr.; Former Attorney General Griffin B. Bell; Arthur H. 
Christy, special prosecutor in the Hamilton Jordan 
investigation; Joseph di Genova, independent counsel in the 
Clinton passport file investigation; and Curtis Emery Von Kann, 
independent counsel in the investigation of Americorps Chief 
Eli Segal.
    At the second hearing, on March 3, 1999, the witnesses were 
Robert S. Bennett, counsel for President Bill Clinton, former 
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, and former 
counsel for former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger; 
Theodore B. Olson, former Assistant Attorney General and former 
independent counsel investigation subject; Nathan Lewin, former 
counsel for former Attorney General Edwin Meese; Henery Ruth, 
special prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force; 
George Beall, former U.S. Attorney for Maryland; and Robert 
Fiske, former regulatory independent counsel in the initial 
Whitewater investigation.
    The third hearing, on March 17, 1999, featured Attorney 
General Janet Reno; John Q. Barrett, former associate 
independent counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation; Philip B. 
Heymann, former Deputy Attorney General and former Associate 
Watergate Special Prosecutor; and Charles LaBella, former 
supervising attorney in the campaign financing task force.
    The witnesses at the fourth hearing, on March 24, 1999, 
were Lawrence E. Walsh, former Independent Counsel in the Iran-
Contra investigation; Samuel Dash, former chief counsel to the 
Senate Watergate Committee and former ethics adviser to 
Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr; Kenneth G. 
Gormley, professor of law at Duquesne University; and Julie R. 
O'Sullivan, former assistant prosecutor in the Whitewater 
investigation and professor of law at Georgetown University Law 
Center.
    The final hearing, on April 14, 1999, consisted of Kenneth 
W. Starr, Independent Counsel; Hon. David B. Sentelle, 
Presiding Judge of the Special Division of the Court of 
Appeals; Hon. Peter T. Fay, member of the Special Division of 
the Court of Appeals; and Richard D. Cudahy, member of the 
Special Division of the Court of Appeals.
    Ultimately, the Committee did not reauthorize the 
Independent Counsel Act.

                        COST OF COLLEGE TUITION

    The Committee conducted 2 days of hearings examining the 
high cost of college tuition. On February 9 and 10, 2000, 
witnesses testifed that affordability poses a growing problem 
and addressed the need for improved Federal and State aid to 
students and schools as well as efforts to help colleges and 
universities control the rate at which their tuition increases.

                               OIL PRICES

    On March 24, 2000, and June 29, 2000, the Committee held 
oversight hearings on ``Rising Oil Prices and the Efficiency 
and Effectiveness of Executive Branch Responses.'' The first 
hearing, at the request of Ranking Minority Member Lieberman, 
focused on the national security implications of the United 
States' dependence on foreign oil, the rise in home heating oil 
and gasoline prices, as well as conservation and alternative 
energy sources.
    Witnesses included David L. Goldwyn, Assistant Secretary 
for International Affairs at the U.S. Department of Energy; Dr. 
Jay E. Hakes, Administrator of the Energy Information 
Administration; Red Cavaney, President and Chief Executive 
Officer of the American Petroleum Institute; Robert E. Ebel, 
Director of the Energy and National Security Program at the 
Center for Strategic and International Studies; William M. 
Flynn, Vice President of the New York State Energy Research and 
Development Authority; Dr. Richard N. Haass, Vice President and 
Director, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution; 
Dr. John Holdren, Member of the President's Committee of 
Advisors on Science and Technology, Belfer Center for Science 
and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government; Adam 
Sieminski, Director, Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown.
    The second hearing was chaired by Senator Voinovich and 
focused on rising gasoline prices. Witnesses included Denise A. 
Bode, Vice Chairman of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Dr. 
John Cook, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department 
of Energy; Ernest Moniz, Under-Secretary of the U.S. Department 
of Energy; Robert Taft, Ohio Governor; Phyllis Apelbaum, Owner 
of Arrow Messenger Service; Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut 
Attorney General; Red Cavaney, President and Chief Executive 
Officer of the American Petroleum Institute; and J.L. Frank, 
President of Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC.

                             DOE OVERSIGHT

    On March 22, 2000, the Committee conducted a hearing on the 
plight of former employees of Department of Energy nuclear 
facilities. The Committee heard from workers who had been made 
ill by exposure to radiation, beryllium, and other toxic 
substances while working on the production of nuclear weapons. 
DOE officials also testified about recent studies of the sick 
workers as well as the current state of the nuclear plants. The 
Committee learned that many workers had been inadequately 
monitored, denied sufficient information to make workers' 
compensation claims, and, in some cases, lied to about their 
exposures over the last 50 years. That hearing led to an 
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001 which would provide restitution for thousands of 
Americans who were made sick working for their country during 
the cold war.
    The witnesses included Vikki Hatfield, daughter of a former 
nuclear plant worker, and former nuclear plant workers Mrs. Ann 
Orick, Sam Ray, and Jeff Walburn. Also testifying were Dr. 
Steven Markowitz, Professor and Director, Center for the 
Biology of Natural Systems queens College, City University of 
New York, and Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary for 
Environment, Safety, and Health, U.S. Department of Energy.

    OVERSIGHT OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INQUIRY INTO FUNDRAISING ABUSES

    Throughout the 106th Congress, the Committee closely 
monitored the progress of the Justice Department's Campaign 
Finance Task Force (CFTF). During this period, the CFTF 
obtained a number of guilty pleas from and convictions of 
individuals identified in the Committee's 1998 Special 
Investigation report on campaign funding abuses during the 1996 
Presidential campaign.
    In undertaking oversight of the Justice Department's 
efforts to pursue campaign finance abusers from the 1996 
Presidential elections, the Committee held a hearing on 
September 22, 1999 into allegations that Justice Department 
officials had inappropriately impeded the efforts of FBI agents 
in 1997 to investigate Presidential friend and Democratic 
National Committee (DNC) fundraiser Yah Lin (``Charlie'') Trie. 
The Committee heard testimony from four FBI agents who detailed 
their complaints that Justice attorneys placed unreasonable 
constraints upon their efforts to obtain and execute a search 
warrant of Trie's property after the agents concluded that he 
was destroying documents subpoenaed by the Committee in the 
course of its 1997 hearings (which were then underway) into 
campaign fundraising abuses by Trie and other individuals. The 
Committee also heard testimony from the two Justice Department 
officials who supervised the CFTF investigation at that time.
    Witnesses on September 22, 1999 included: Ivian C. Smith, 
former Special-Agent-in-Charge, FBI Albuquerque Field Office; 
Special Agent Roberta Parker, FBI; Special Agent Kevin 
Sheridan, FBI; Special Agent Daniel Wehr, FBI; Laura Ingersoll, 
Department of Justice; and Lee Radek, Public Integrity Section, 
Department of Justice.

                  MANAGEMENT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

    Following up on hearings held on the subject during the 
105th Congress in connection with the release in 1997 of a 
comprehensive report by the Commission on Protecting and 
Reducing Government Secrecy--which had been created by Title IX 
of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 
and Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-236)--the Committee held a 
hearing on July 26, 2000 on a legislative proposal (S. 1801) to 
help expedite reform of the cumbersome system through which the 
U.S. Government reviews and declassifies classified 
information. This proposal, the ``Public Interest 
Declassification Act,'' was a much narrower reincarnation of 
legislation reported out by the Committee in 1998, would have 
created a ``Public Interest Declassification Board'' to advise 
the government on matters related to document review and 
declassification.
    Witnesses on July 26, 2000 included: Senator Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan; Representative Porter J. Goss, Chairman, House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI); Steven 
Aftergood, Director, Project on Government Secrecy, Federation 
of American Scientists (FAS); Steven Garfinkel, Director, 
Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), National 
Archives; Dr. Warren Kimball, Rutgers University; and R. James 
Woosley, former Director of Central Intelligence.

              V. Reports, Prints, Studies, and GAO Reports

    During the 106th Congress, the Committee prepared and 
issued 42 reports, prints and studies on these topics:

    (1) Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act (S. Rept. 
106-12);
    (2) Providing Guidance for the Designation of Emergencies 
as a Part of the Budget Process (S. Rept. 106-14);
    (3) Government Shutdown Prevention Act (S. Rept. 106-15);
    (4) Congressional Award Act Amendments of 1999 (S. Rept. 
106-38);
    (5) Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act (S. Rept. 
106-102);
    (6) Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act 
of 1999 (S. Rept. 106-103);
    (7) Look, Listen, and Live Stamp Act (S. Rept. 106-104);
    (8) Centennial of Flight Corrections Act of 1999 (S. Rept. 
106-105);
    (9) Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999 (S. Rept 106-110);
    (10) Organ Donor Leave Act (S. Rept. 106-143);
    (11) District of Columbia College Access Act (S. Rept. 106-
154);
    (12) Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 (S. Rept. 106-
159);
    (13) District of Columbia Court Employees Act of 1999 (S. 
Rept. 106-167);
    (14) Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act 
(S. Rept. 106-178);
    (15) Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 1999 
(S. Rept. 106-216);
    (16) A bill to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (S. 
Rept. 106-218);
    (17) Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act Amendments 
of 1999 (S. Rept. 106-223);
    (18) Congressional Accountability for Regulatory 
Information Act of 1999 (S. Rept. 106-225);
    (19) Government Information Security Act of 1999 (S. Rept. 
106-259);
    (20) Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (S. Rept. 106-337);
    (21) Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act of 
2000 (S. Rept. 106-338);
    (22) A bill to amend the Thrift Savings Plan (S. Rept. 106-
343);
    (23) Long-Term Care Security Act (S. Rept. 106-344);
    (24) Presidential Transition Act of 2000 (S. Rept. 106-
348);
    (25) Day Trading: Case Studies and Conclusion (S. Rept. 
106-364);
    (26) Federal Courts Budget Protection Act (S. Rept. 106-
379);
    (27) Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development 
Act of 2000 (S. Rept. 106-458);
    (28) A bill to amend Title 44, United States Code, to 
Authorize Appropriations for the National Historical 
Publications and Records Commission (S. Rept. 106-466);
    (29) Amending Chapter 36 of Title 39, United States Code, 
to Modify Rates Relating to Reduced Rate Mail Matter (S. Rept. 
106-468);
    (30) Modifying the Date on Which the Mayor of the District 
of Columbia Submits a Performance Accountability Plan to 
Congress (S. Rept. 106-469);
    (31) Amending the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
App.) to Establish Police Powers for Certain Inspector General 
agents engaged in official duties and to provide an oversight 
mechanism for the exercise of those powers (S. Rept. 106-470);
    (32) Federal Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity 
Act of 1999 (S. Rept. 106-492);
    (33) District of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act 
of 2000 (S. Rept. 106-493);
    (34) To Amend Title 31, United States Code, to Provide for 
Executive Agencies to Conduct Annual Recovery Audits and 
Recovery Activities (S. Rept. 106-502);
    (35) Inspector General Act Amendments of 1999 (S. Rept. 
106-510);
    (36) Rules of Procedures (S. Prt. 106-12);
    (37) 1997 and 1998 Organization of Federal Executive 
Departments and Agencies (S. Prt. 106-27);
    (38) Witness Deposition Testimony--Investigation of Illegal 
or Improper Activities in Connection With 1996 Federal Election 
Campaigns--Parts I-X (S. Prt. 106-30);
    (39) Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book) (S. Prt. 
106-54;
    (40) Management Challenges Facing the New Administration 
(S. Prt. 106-62);
    (41) Major Management Challenges Facing Federal Departments 
and Agencies (S. Prt. 106-63); and
    (42) Federal Agency Compliance With the Clinger-Cohen Act 
(S. Prt. 106-64).

    Also during the 106th Congress, 98 reports were issued by 
the General Accounting Office at the request of the Committee:

    (1) Acquisition Reform: NASA's Internet Service Improves 
Access to Contracting Information, NSIAD-99-37 (February 9, 
1999);
    (2) Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That 
Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers, GGD/AIMD-99-69 
(February 26, 1999);
    (3) Financial Audit: Independent Counsel Expenditures for 
the Six Months Ended September 30, 1998, AIMD-99-105 (March 31, 
1999);
    (4) Performance Budgeting: Initial Experiences Under the 
Results Act in Linking Plans with Budgets, AIMD/GGD-99-67 
(April 12, 1999);
    (5) Federal Lobbying: Differences in Lobbying Definitions 
and Their Impact, GGD-99-38 (April 15, 1999);
    (6) Regulatory Accounting: Analysis of OMB's Reports on the 
Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulation, GGD-99-59 (April 20, 
1999);
    (7) Regulatory Reform: Comments on S. 746--The Regulatory 
Improvement Act of 1999, T-GGD/RCED-99-163 (April 21, 1999);
    (8) The Results Act: Observations on the Postal Service's 
Preliminary Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000, GGD-99-72R 
(April 30, 1999);
    (9) Federalism: Implementation of Executive Order 12612 in 
the Rulemaking Process, T-GGD-99-93 (May 5, 1999);
    (10) Results Act: Observations on the Department of 
Transportation's Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, RCED-99-153 
(May 7, 1999);
    (11) Information Security: Many NASA Missions-Critical 
Systems Face Serious Risks, AIMD-99-47 (May 20, 1999);
    (12) Independent Counsels: GAO Audit Responsibilities After 
OIC Termination, AIMD-99-164R (June 4, 1999);
    (13) Results Act: Observations on the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, RCED-99-187 
(June 7, 1999);
    (14) Defense Modernization Account: Operations and 
Benefits, NSIAD-99-134 (June 11, 1999);
    (15) Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--the Federalism 
Accountability Act of 1999, T-GGD-99-143 (July 14, 1999);
    (16) National Archives: Preserving Electronic Records in 
the Era of Rapidly Changing Technology, GGD-99-94 (July 19, 
1999);
    (17) Observations on the Department of Justice's Fiscal 
Year 2000 Performance Plan, GGD-99-111R (July 20, 1999);
    (18) Observations on the National Aeronautical and Space 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, NSIAD-99-
186R (July 20, 1999);
    (19) Observations on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 
Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, RCED-99-213R (July 20, 
1999);
    (20) Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued 
Improvements in Agencies' Performance Plans, GGD/AIMD-99-215 
(July 20, 1999);
    (21) Observations on the General Services Administration's 
Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, GGD-99-113R (July 20, 1999);
    (22) Observations on the Department of the Treasury's 
Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, GGD-99-114R (July 20, 1999);
    (23) Observations on the Department of Commerce's Fiscal 
Year 2000 Performance Plan, GGD-99-117R (July 20, 1999);
    (24) Observations on the Department of Education's Fiscal 
Year 2000 Performance Plan, HEHS-99-136R (July 20, 1999);
    (25) Observations on the Department of Veterans' Affairs' 
Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, HEHS-99-138R (July 20, 
1999);
    (26) Observations on the Department of Health and Human 
Services' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, HEHS-99-149R (July 
20, 1999);
    (27) Observations on the Department of Labor's Fiscal Year 
2000 Performance Plan, HEHS-99-152R, (July 20, 1999);
    (28) Observations on the Social Security Administration's 
Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, HEHS-99-162R (July 20, 
1999);
    (29) Observations on the Department of Defense's Fiscal 
Year 2000 Performance Plan, NSIAD-99-178R (July 20, 1999);
    (30) Observations on the Department of State's Fiscal Year 
2000 Performance Plan, NSIAD-99-183R (July 20, 1999);
    (31) Observations on the U.S. Agency for International 
Development's Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, NSIAD-99-188R 
(July 20, 1999);
    (32) Observations on the National Science Foundation's 
Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, RCED-99-206R (July 20, 
1999);
    (33) Observations on the Department of the Interior's 
Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, RCED-99-207R (July 20, 
1999);
    (34) Observations on the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's Fiscal Year 200 Performance Plan, RCED-99-208R 
(July 20, 1999);
    (35) Observations on the Small Business Administration's 
Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, RCED-99-211R (July 20, 
1999);
    (36) Observations on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 
2000 Performance Plan, RCED-99-218R (July 20, 1999);
    (37) Observations on the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, RCED-99-226R (July 
20, 1999);
    (38) Observations on the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan, RCED-99-237R (July 20, 
1999);
    (39) Department of Defense, General Services 
Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration: Federal Acquisition Regulation--Reform of 
Affirmative Action in Federal Procurement, OGC-99-55 (July 29, 
1999);
    (40) Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: 
Implementation Status of Open Recommendations, OCG-99-28 (July 
30, 1999);
    (41) Performance Budgeting: Fiscal Year 2000 Progress in 
Linking Plans with Budgets, AIMD-99-239R (July 30, 1999);
    (42) Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for 
Verification and Validation of Agency Performance Information, 
GGD-99-139 (July 30, 1999);
    (43) Federal Workforce: Payroll and Human Capital Changes 
During Downsizing, GGD-99-57 (August 13, 1999);
    (44) HUD EEO Investigation: Contracting and Process 
Irregularities in HUD's Investigation of the IG, OSI-99-6 
(August 8, 1999);
    (45) Tennessee Valley Authority: Facts Surrounding 
Allegations Raised Against the Chairman and the IG, OSI-99-20 
(September 15, 1999);
    (46) Financial Audit: Independent Counsel Expenditures for 
the Six Months Ended March 31, 1999, AIMD-99-292 (September 30, 
1999);
    (47) Financial Management: Federal Financial Management 
Improvement Act Results for Fiscal Year 1998, AIMD-00-3 
(October 1, 1999);
    (48) Federal Statutes and Executive Orders Applicable to 
the Public Building Service's Leasing Program, GGD-00-27R 
(October 18, 1999);
    (49) Financial Management: Increased Attention Needed to 
Prevent Billions in Improper Payments, AIMD-00-10 (October 29, 
1999);
    (50) Pesticides: Use, Effects, and Alternatives to 
Pesticides in Schools, RCED-00-17 (November 29, 1999);
    (51) Financial Management: Information on Agencies' Fiscal 
Years 1997 and 1998 FFMIA Remediation Plans, AIMD-00-65R 
(January 27, 2000);
    (52) Human Capital: Key Principles from Nine Private Sector 
Organizations, GGD-00-28 (January 31, 2000);
    (53) Managing for Results: Challenges Agencies Face in 
Producing Credible Performance Information, GGD-00-52 (February 
4, 2000);
    (54) Tennessee Valley Authority: Problems with Irrevocable 
Trust Raise Need for Additional Oversight, OSI-00-6 (February 
29, 2000);
    (55) Information on Security: Comments on Proposed 
Government Information Act of 1999, T-AIMD-00-107 (March 2, 
2000);
    (56) Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency 
Coordination, GGD-00-106 (March 29, 2000);
    (57) Managing in the New Millennium: Shaping a More 
Efficient and Effective Government for the 21st Century, T-OCG-
00-9 (March 29, 2000);
    (58) Financial Audit: Independent Counsel Expenditures for 
the Six Months Ended September 30, 1999, AIMD-00-120 (March 31, 
2000);
    (59) General Services Administration: Leasing Practices in 
Selected Regions, GGD-00-88 (April 14, 2000);
    (60) Bid Protests: Characteristics of Cases Filed in 
Federal Courts, GGD/OGC-00-72 (April 17, 2000);
    (61) Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems 
Requires Coordinated Federal Effort, HEHS-00-48 (April 27, 
2000);
    (62) Export Controls: Challenges and Changes for Controls 
on Computer Exports, T-NSAID-00-187 (May 26, 2000);
    (63) Observations on the Department of the Interior's 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, RCED-00-204R (June 1, 2000);
    (64) Observations on the National Science Foundation's 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, RCED-00-205R (June 1, 2000);
    (65) Observations on the Department of Commerce's Fiscal 
Year 1999 Annual Program Performance Report and Fiscal Year 
2001 Annual Performance Plan, GGD-00-152R (June 30, 2000);
    (66) Federal Rulemaking: Agencies' Use of Information 
Technology to Facilitate Public Participation, GGD-00-135R 
(June 30, 2000);
    (67) Observations on the Department of Justice's Fiscal 
Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Plan, GGD-00-155R (June 30, 2000);
    (68) Observations on the Office of Personnel Management's 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, GGD-00-156R (June 30, 2000);
    (69) Observations on the Department of Veterans' Affairs' 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, HEHS-00-124R (June 30, 2000);
    (70) Observations on the Department of Labor's Fiscal Year 
1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan, 
HEHS-00-125R (June 30, 2000);
    (71) Observations on the Social Security Administration's 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, HEHS-00-126R (June 30, 2000);
    (72) Observations on the Department of Health and Human 
Services' Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 
2001 Performance Plan, HEHS-00-127R (June 30, 2000);
    (73) Observations on the Department of Education's Fiscal 
Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Plan, HEHS-00-128R (June 30, 2000);
    (74) Observations on the Department of Defense's Fiscal 
Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance 
Plan, NSIAD-00-188R (June 30, 2000);
    (75) Observations on the Department of State's Fiscal Year 
1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan, 
NSIAD-00-189R (June 30, 2000);
    (76) Observations on the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal 
Year 2001 Performance Plan, NSIAD-00-192R (June 30, 2000);
    (77) Observations on the Agency for International 
Development's Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal 
Years 2000 and 2001 Performance Plans, NSIAD-00-195R (June 30, 
2000);
    (78) Observations on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, RCED-00-200R (June 30, 2000);
    (79) Observations on the Department of Transportation's 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, RCED-00-201R (June 30, 2000);
    (80) Observations on the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, RCED-00-203R (June 30, 2000);
    (81) Observations on the Small Business Administration's 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, RCED-00-207R (June 30, 2000);
    (82) Observations on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 
1999 Accountability Report and Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 
Performance Plans, RCED-00-209R (June 30, 2000);
    (83) Observations on the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 
2001 Performance Plan, RCED-00-210R (June 30, 2000);
    (84) Observations on the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal 
Year 2001 Performance Plan, RCED-00-211R (June 30, 2000);
    (85) Observations on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 
Performance Plan, RCED-00-212R (June 30, 2000);
    (86) Financial Management: Improper Payments Reported in 
Fiscal Year 1999 Financial Statements, AIMD-00-261R (July 27, 
2000);
    (87) Office of Personnel Management: Health Insurance 
Premium Conversion, OGC-00-53 (August 7, 2000);
    (88) Internet Privacy: Agencies' Efforts to Implement OMB's 
Privacy Policy, GGD-00-191 (September 5, 2000);
    (89) Benefit and Loan Programs: Improved Data Sharing Could 
Enhance Program Integrity, HEHS-00-119 (September 13, 2000);
    (90) Electronic Government: Government Paperwork 
Elimination Act Presents Challenges for Agencies, AIMD-00-282 
(September 15, 2000);
    (91) Financial Audit: Independent and Special Counsel 
Expenditures for the Six Months Ended March 31, 2000, AIMD-00-
310 (September 29, 2000);
    (92) Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or 
Explain Program Performance, GGD-00-204 (September 29, 2000);
    (93) Financial Management: Federal Financial Management 
Improvement Act Results for Fiscal Year 1999, AIMD-00-307 
(September 29, 2000);
    (94) Implementation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 
1998, GGD-00-210R (September 29, 2000);
    (95) Facility Relocation: NRC Based Its Decision to Move 
Its Technical Training Center on Perceived Benefits--Not Costs, 
GAO-01-54 (October 19, 2000);
    (96) Internet Privacy: Federal Agency Use of Cookies, GAO-
01-147R (October 20, 2000);
    (97) The Challenge of Data Sharing: Results of a GAO-
Sponsored Symposium on Benefit and Loan Programs, GAO-01-67 
(October 20, 2000); and
    (98) Financial Management: Billions in Improper Payments to 
Continue to Require Attention, GAO-01-44 (October 27, 2000).

                      VI. Official Communications

    During the 106th Congress, 1,394 official communications 
were submitted to the Committee. Of these, 1,361 were Executive 
Communications, 23 were Petitions or Memorials, and 10 were 
Presidential Messages. Two hundred ninety of the official 
communications were reports on District of Columbia 
legislation. The remainder were reports to advise Congress and 
mandated annual or semi-annual agency budget and activity 
summaries.

                        VII. Legislative Actions

    The Committee was highly productive in the 106th Congress. 
Important legislation was reported by the Committee, approved 
by Congress and signed by the President in a variety of areas 
within the Committee's jurisdiction. The following are brief 
legislative histories of measures referred to the Committee or 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee, and in some cases, 
drafted by the Committee, which (1) became public law; (2) were 
favorably reported from the Committee and passed by the Senate; 
and (3) were favorably reported from the Committee but were not 
subject to further action. For information not included in this 
section, please refer to the Committee's Legislative Calendar.

                       MEASURES ENACTED INTO LAW

S. 59--Regulatory Right-to-Know Act (Public Law 106-554)

    This bill provides government-wide accounting of regulatory 
costs and benefits by requiring the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget to submit to Congress an accounting 
statement that estimates the costs and corresponding benefits 
of Federal regulatory programs and program elements. The 
statement also must include analysis of the impact of Federal 
rules on small businesses, the private sector, government, 
wages and economic growth, as well as recommendations for 
improving the Federal programs.
    The Regulatory Right-to-Know Act was introduced by Chairman 
Thompson on January 19, 1999. It was passed by both houses of 
Congress as an amendment to the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. It was enacted as part 
of the conference report to the Consolidated Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2001 (section 624) which was signed by the 
President on December 21, 2000. The amendment, which was 
included as a temporary measure in the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act for the last 2 years, builds on, 
strengthens, and makes permanent the original regulatory 
accounting provisions sponsored by Senator Stevens in 1996 and 
in 1997.

S. 335--Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act (Public Law 106-
        168)

    This legislation establishes new consumer protections to 
shield consumers from falling victim to deceptive and 
fraudulent practices found in some sweepstakes and mail 
promotions. The law imposes new disclosure requirements on 
sweepstakes mailings, establishes new, stronger financial 
penalties, grants the Postal Service greater authority to 
investigate and stop fraudulent and deceptive mailings, and 
preserves the ability of States to impose stricter requirements 
on deceptive mailings.
    On February 3, 1999, S. 335 was introduced by Senators 
Collins, Cochran, Levin, Durbin and Burns. On March 8 and 9, 
1999, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a 
hearing (S. Hrg. 106-71) on the problem of deceptive mailings 
with respect to sweepstakes, lotteries, and skill games. On May 
20, 1999, the Committee ordered S. 353 to be reported favorably 
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. On July 1, 
1999, the Committee reported S. 335 to the Senate with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute (S. Rept. 106-102). On 
August 2, 1999, S. 335 passed the Senate with an amendment and 
an amendment to the Title by a vote of 93-0. The bill passed 
the House with amendment under suspension of the rules on 
November 9, 1999. On November 19, 1999, the Senate agreed to 
the House amendment by unanimous consent. The President signed 
the bill on December 12, 1999.

S. 380--Congressional Award Act Amendments of 1999 (Public Law 106-63)

    S. 380 reauthorizes the Congressional Award Act. The 
Congressional Award was established in 1979 as a noncompetitive 
award earned by youth who achieve certain goals in various 
areas such as public service, physical fitness, and expedition.
    S. 380 was introduced by Senator Larry E. Craig (R-ID) on 
February 4, 1999 and referred to the Committee. On March 4, 
1999, the Committee ordered S. 380 to be favorably reported to 
the Senate by voice vote. The Committee reported S. 380 to the 
Senate on March 26, 1999. On April 13, 1999, the Senate passed 
S. 380 by unanimous consent and on September 13, 1999, the 
House passed S. 380 by voice vote under suspension of the 
rules. S. 380 was signed into law by the President on October 
1, 1999.

S. 1072--To make certain technical and other corrections relating to 
        the Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act (Public Law 106-68)

    S. 1072 amends the Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act 
by changing the Act with respect to alternate members on the 
Commission and Advisory Board, repealing the Commission's duty 
to represent the United States and take a leadership role with 
other nations, requiring the Commission to provide 
recommendations and advice to the President, Congress, and 
Federal agencies on the most effective ways to carry out such 
duties, and changing the Commission's procurement authority. 
The Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act, enacted in the 
105th Congress, established a temporary Commission and Advisory 
Board to help in the commemoration of the centennial of the 
first flight by the Wright Brothers.
    S. 1072 was introduced by Senator Michael DeWine (R-OH) on 
May 18, 1999 and referred to the Committee. On May 20, 1999, 
the Committee ordered S. 1072 to be favorably reported to the 
Senate. The Committee reported S. 1072 to the Senate on July 8, 
1999 (S. Rept. 106-105). On August 5, 1999, the Senate passed 
S. 1072 with amendments offered by Senator Helms (R-NC) and 
Senator DeWine (R-OH). The House passed S. 1072 by voice vote 
under suspension of the rules on September 27, 1999, and it was 
signed into law by the President on October 6, 1999.

S. 1198--Truth in Regulating Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-312)

    This law establishes a 3-year pilot project to support 
Congressional oversight to ensure that important regulatory 
decisions are efficient, effective and fair. Under the pilot 
project, the chairman or ranking member of a committee of 
jurisdiction of either House of Congress may request the 
General Accounting Office to review a proposed economically 
significant regulation. GAO then has 180 calendar days to 
submit to the requesting committee a report evaluating the 
agency's cost-benefit and regulatory analyses of the 
regulation. This report will help Congress to engage in 
oversight of the regulation.
    Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) originally introduced the 
Congressional Accountability for Regulatory Information Act of 
1999. Chairman Thompson introduced S. 1244, the Truth in 
Regulating Act of 1999. These two similar bills were 
synthesized along with changes made in collaboration with 
Ranking Minority Member Lieberman. The resulting bill, S. 1198, 
the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000, was reported by the 
Committee by voice vote on November 3, 1999. On May 9, 2000, S. 
1198, the Truth in Regulating Act of 2000, passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent. The House of Representatives passed the same 
legislation under suspension of the rules on October 3, 2000. 
The President signed the bill on October 17, 2000.

S. 1334/H.R. 457--Organ Donor Leave Act (Public Law 106-56)

    This law provides Federal employees with paid leave not 
exceeding 30 days in any calendar year to serve as an organ 
donor and paid leave not exceeding 7 days to serve as a bone 
marrow transplant.
    H.R. 457 was introduced in the House on February 2, 1999. 
On May 19, 1999, the Committee on Government Reform ordered 
reported H.R. 457 by voice vote. The bill was passed by voice 
vote under suspension of the rules in the House on July 26, 
1999. On July 27, 1999, the bill was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
    S. 1334 was introduced on July 1, 1999 by Senators Akaka, 
Edwards, Frist, Stevens, Levin, Durbin, Sarbanes, Cochran, 
Collins, Lieberman, Santorum and DeWine. It was referred to the 
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on July 1, 1999 and to 
the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and 
Federal Services on July 15, 1999. It was unanimously reported 
by polling letter from the Subcommittee on July 23, 1999.
    The Committee considered S. 1334 and H.R. 457 on August 3, 
1999. The Committee voted to order both bills reported by voice 
vote. On August 27, 1999, Chairman Thompson reported H.R. 457 
to the Senate (S. Rept. 106-143). The Senate passed H.R. 457 by 
unanimous consent on September 8, 1999, and it was signed by 
the President on September 24, 1999.

S. 1438--To establish the National Law Enforcement Museum on Federal 
        Land in the District of Columbia (Public Law 106-492)

    This legislation authorizes the National Law Enforcement 
Officers Memorial Fund to construct a National Law Enforcement 
Museum in the District of Columbia.
    S. 1438 was introduced by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell 
(R-CO) on July 27, 1999 and referred to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources. On June 7, 2000, the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources ordered favorably reported S. 1438 with 
amendments and reported S. 1438 to the Senate on July 10, 2000. 
Senator Thompson, as Chairman of the Committee, along with 
Senator Durbin, Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the 
District of Columbia asserted the jurisdiction of the Committee 
over the bill. The Museum proposed by the bill would not be 
situated on purely Federal land in the District of Columbia, 
but rather land transferred to D.C. by the Federal Government. 
Further, the District of Columbia courts were utilized the 
proposed Museum site and intended to expand an existing 
Historic courthouse building into the site.
    Senators Thompson and Durbin worked with Senator Campbell, 
interested Members in the House, the Museum Fund, and the 
District of Columbia courts to resolve this conflict. On 
September 28, 2000, Senators Thompson and Durbin offered an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1438 which 
reflected the negotiated agreement between all interested 
parties. On that same day, the Senate agreed to the substitute 
amendment and passed S. 1438 by unanimous consent. The House 
passed S. 1438 by voice under suspension of the rules on 
October 24, 2000, and it was signed into law by the President 
on November 9, 2000.

S. 1688/H.R. 2842--Federal Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity 
        Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-394)

    This bill amends current law to allow an agency to enforce 
compliance with a child support order to provide health 
insurance for an employee's children.
    S. 1688 was introduced by Senators Levin and Akaka on 
October 5, 1999, and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs. On November 7, 1999, the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and 
Federal Services. On September 27, 2000, the Committee ordered 
S. 1688 to be reported favorably by voice vote. On October 6, 
2000, the Committee reported the bill (S. Rept. 106-492) to the 
Senate.
     A House companion bill, H.R. 2842, introduced on September 
13, 1999, was passed by the House under suspension of the rules 
on September 19, 2000. It was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on September 20, 2000. On October 13, 
2000, the Committee was discharged by unanimous consent, and 
H.R. 2842 passed the Senate without amendment. The bill was 
signed by the President on October 30, 2000.

S. 1707--To make the TVA Inspector General a presidentially-appointed 
        position and to authorize an inspector general training academy 
        and forensic laboratory (Public Law 106-422)

    Currently there are 29 Federal ``establishment agencies'' 
whose inspectors general are appointed by the President and 30 
``designated Federal entities,'' whose inspectors general are 
appointed (and removed) by the agency head. The duty of an IG 
is to ferret out fraud, waste and abuse within Federal 
agencies. To properly carry out their mission, they must 
maintain independence from their agency. Although most 
inspectors general enjoy a cooperative relationship with their 
agency head, there have been several examples over the years of 
problems, including attempts by agency heads to harass or 
intimidate their IG.
    In response to a Committee investigation into allegations 
involving the Inspector General of the Tennessee Valley 
Authority and the TVA Board, Chairman Thompson and Ranking 
Minority Member Lieberman introduced S. 1707 to help ensure the 
independence of the TVA IG. Prior to the enactment of S. 1707, 
the TVA IG was appointed by the TVA Board. S. 1707 elevated the 
TVA IG to a presidentially-appointed position. In addition, S. 
1707 authorized a criminal investigation academy and forensic 
laboratory for the inspector general community.
    The Committee reported S. 1707 with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute on November 8, 1999 (S. Rept. 106-218). 
On November 19, 1999, S. 1707, as amended, passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent. On October 17, 2000, S. 1707 was passed by 
the House by voice vote. On November 1, 2000, S. 1707 was 
signed into law by the President.

S. 1993--Government Information Security Act (Public Law 106-398)

    After holding numerous hearings and receiving a number of 
independent reports outlining pervasive, government-wide 
problems with executive agencies' handling of sensitive 
taxpayer information, veterans medical records, and law 
enforcement documents, Chairman Thompson, along with Ranking 
Minority Member Lieberman, introduced S. 1993 on November 19, 
1999, to provide Federal agencies with a management framework 
intended to increase the protection of this critical 
information. A hearing was held on S. 1993 on March 2, 2000 and 
was ordered reported favorably with an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute on March 23, 2000. On April 10, 2000, S. 1993 
was reported to the Senate with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and placed on the Senate Calendar. On June 19, 2000, 
the Senate adopted a version of S. 1993 as an amendment to the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The 
conferees agreed to include the Thompson-Lieberman language in 
the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001 (subtitle G of title 10). The conference 
report was passed by the House on October 11, 2000, passed by 
the Senate on October 12, 2000, and signed into law by the 
President on October 30, 2000.

S. 2386/H.R. 4437--Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act of 
        2000 (Public Law 106-253)

    This legislation extends the authorization for the Breast 
Cancer Research Stamp until July 29, 2002. In 1997, Congress 
directed the Postal Service to issue a special fundraising 
stamp with the net proceeds from the sale of the stamp 
earmarked for breast cancer research. To date, more than $15 
million has been raised for research, with funds going to the 
National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. 
The legislation also establishes a framework for the Postal 
Service to issue and sell future special fundraising stamps.
    S. 2386 was introduced on April 11, 2000 by Senator 
Feinstein and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs. S. 2386 was then referred to the Subcommittee on 
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services on 
May 1, 2000. While the Subcommittee on International Security, 
Proliferation, and Federal Services did not hold a hearing to 
specifically address S. 2386, a broader based hearing on the 
subject of semipostal stamps entitled ``The Issuance of 
Semipostal Stamps by the U.S. Postal Service'' was held on May 
25, 2000 (S. Hrg. 106-674). The Subcommittee subsequently 
reported the legislation by polling letter to the Committee on 
June 9, 2000. The Committee ordered S. 2386 to be reported 
favorably without amendment by a voice vote. The Committee 
reported S. 2386 to the Senate without amendment on July 13, 
2000 (S. Rept. 106-338). On September 6, 2000, the legislation 
was received in the House and referred to the Committee on 
Government Reform and the Committee on Rules on September 12, 
2000.
    H.R. 4437 was introduced on May 11, 2000. H.R. 4437 was 
ordered to be reported by the Committee on Government Reform on 
July 17, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-734). The legislation passed the 
House by voice vote under suspension of the rules on July 17, 
2000. The bill was received in the Senate on July 18, 2000. It 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 26, 2000 and was 
signed by the President on July 28, 2000.

S. 2686--Legislation amending the ratemaking procedures for nonprofit 
        mail (Public Law 106-384)

    This legislation is designed to address technical problems 
in the ratesetting structure for nonprofit mailers. If current 
law had not been revised, nonprofit rates would have been 
increased at a rate higher than their corresponding commercial 
mail rate when the new postal rates go into effect in 2001. To 
address this problem, S. 2686 is designed to lock in the 
current rate relationship between nonprofit and commercial rate 
mail.
    On June 7, 2000, S. 2686 was introduced by Senators Cochran 
and Akaka and referred to the Committee. On June 20, 2000, the 
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on International 
Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services. On September 8, 
2000, the Subcommittee favorably reported S. 2686 by polling 
letter to the Committee. No hearings were held on the bill. On 
September 27, 2000, the Committee ordered S. 2686 to be 
reported (S. Rept. 106-468) without amendment favorably by 
voice vote. On October 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bill with 
an amendment by unanimous consent. On October 11, 1999, the 
House passed S. 2686 by unanimous consent. The President signed 
the bill on October 27, 1999.

S. 3062--District of Columbia Performance Accountability Plan 
        Amendments Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-449)

    This legislation streamlines some of the performance plan 
requirements of the District of Columbia to help facilitate 
better management of the D.C. programs.
    S. 3062 was introduced by Senator Voinovich on September 
18, 2000 and referred to the Committee. Prior to the 
introduction of the bill, on May 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the 
District of Columbia held a hearing on the progress of 
performance management in the District of Columbia at which 
Mayor Anthony Williams of the District of Columbia recommended 
the streamlining accomplished by S. 3062 (S. Hrg. 106-598). S. 
3062 was ordered reported by the Committee on September 27, 
2000. The Committee reported S. 3062 on October 3, 2000 (S. 
Rept. 106-469). On October 6, 2000, the Senate passed S. 3062 
by unanimous consent. The House passed S. 3062 by unanimous 
consent on October 19, 2000, and the President signed it into 
law on November 6, 2000.

Federal Procurement Issues--National Defense Authorization Act for 
        Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) and the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398)

    As part of both laws, language offered by Chairman Thompson 
and Ranking Minority Member Lieberman, along with Chairman John 
Warner (R-VA) and Ranking Minority Member Levin of the 
Committee on Armed Services, was enacted to further streamline 
and simplify the government-wide procurement system. Provisions 
were included which simplified Federal accounting standards, 
permitted additional services performed for the government to 
be considered commercial services, established a preference for 
performance-based contracts, and eliminated mandatory minimum 
education requirements included in information technology 
service contracts.

Government Privacy Policy (Public Law 106-554)

    Chairman Thompson worked with Representative Jay Inslee (D-
WA) on legislation which requires the Inspector General of each 
Federal agency to conduct an independent report on the agency's 
information collection practices, particularly regarding 
personal information of those individuals who browse Federal 
Web sites. The language was adopted as part of the conference 
report to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2001 which was signed by the President on December 21, 2000.

National Security Export Controls (Public Law 106-346 and Public Law 
        106-554)

    Given the Committee's jurisdiction over nonproliferation, 
which includes export controls on ``dual-use'' technologies--
items that have both military and commercial application that 
can aid rogue states and others in the development of weapons 
of mass destruction and the means to deliver them--Chairman 
Thompson developed legislation that strengthened congressional 
oversight over U.S. export control policies. This legislation 
specifically sought to improve the exporting license process 
for high-performance computers by requiring the GAO to 
undertake an assessment of the national security implications 
of computer decontrol decisions. The language was included in 
the conference report for the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies for Fiscal Year 2001 and the conference report 
to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, 
which was signed by the President on December 21, 2000.

Sunset of Federal employee retirement contribution increase (Public Law 
        106-346)

    The Committee worked with the Committee on Appropriations 
to incorporate this provision in the conference report for the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies for Fiscal 
Year 2001 (section 505). Congress and the administration, as 
part of the deficit reduction budget package in 1997, increased 
Federal employee retirement contributions by 0.5 percent. This 
increase was scheduled to remain in effect until December 31, 
2001. The conference report sunsets the increase, effective 
December 31, 2000.

H.R. 207--Federal Physicians Comparability Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
        571)

    H.R. 207 made permanent the authority to offer the 
Physicians Comparability Allowance to Federal physicians. This 
allowance is intended to help the Federal Government in its 
efforts to recruit and retain physicians. Further, the 
legislation permitted the allowance to be included as part of 
basic pay for Federal retirement calculations. H.R. 207 was 
introduced on January 6, 1999. It was approved by the House of 
Representatives under suspension of the rules on October 31, 
2000. By request of Chairman Thompson, the bill, which was held 
at the desk, was approved by the Senate by unanimous consent on 
December 15, 2000 and signed by the President on December 28, 
2000.

H.R. 208--Legislation strengthening the operation of the Thrift Savings 
        Plan for Federal employees (Public Law 106-361)

    The legislation encourages new incentives for employees to 
participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), thus encouraging 
savings for retirement. It permits newly hired Federal 
employees to begin making tax-advantaged contributions toward 
their own retirement earlier than under current law. Further, 
the bill allows employees to contribute ``rollover'' 
distributions from qualified 401(k) plans and IRAs to the TSP. 
This legislation will bolster the operations of the TSP and 
help the Federal Government in its effort to recruit and retain 
a qualified workforce.
    H.R. 208 was received by the Senate on April 21, 1999 and 
referred to the Committee. The legislation was referred to the 
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and 
Federal Services from which it was reported by polling letter 
on May 13, 2000. No hearings were held.
    On June 14, 2000, the Committee considered H.R. 208. 
Senator Akaka offered an amendment to strike section 3 of the 
bill and insert an alternative financing mechanism to offset 
the lost tax revenues incurred as a result of immediate new 
employee participation in the TSP. Section 3 of the House-
passed bill required agencies to increase their FERS 
contributions to the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund by 
0.01 percent to offset the costs of the bill. The Akaka 
amendment replaced this financing mechanism. This provision 
generates savings by allowing the Office of Personnel 
Management to recognize court orders to retain funds in the 
Civil Service Retirement Trust, which otherwise might be 
withdrawn or paid out in an annuity, during the pendency of a 
divorce or until a court resolves the divorce and property 
settlement issues before it. The amendment was adopted by voice 
vote.
    On July 13, 2000, the Committee reported the bill (S. Rept. 
106-343) to the Senate with an amendment. The bill, as amended, 
was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent. The House 
suspended the rules and agreed to the Senate amendments by 
voice vote on October 10, 2000. The legislation was signed by 
the President on October 27, 2000.

H.R. 915--Legislation revising Federal law regarding the pay of 
        administrative law judges (Public Law 106-97)

    This legislation sets six rates of basic pay within level 
AL-3, which may not be less than 65 percent of the rate of 
basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule. It limits the 
rate of basic pay for AL-1 to the rate for level IV of such 
Schedule. It also requires the basic pay rates for 
administrative law judges to be adjusted by an appropriate 
amount, as determined by the President, effective at the 
beginning of the first pay period commencing after General 
Schedule pay rates are adjusted.
    H.R. 915 was introduced in the House March 2, 1999. The 
House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight approved the 
legislation, as amended, on October 18, 1999. It was passed by 
the House under a suspension of the rules on October 25, 1999. 
The legislation was received in the Senate on October 26, 1999 
and referred to the Committee. No hearings were held. On 
November 3, 1999, the legislation was approved by the Committee 
without amendments. The Committee reported H.R. 915 to the 
Senate without a written report on November 4, 1999. On 
November 8, 1999, the legislation passed the Senate under 
unanimous consent. On November 12, 1999, the President signed 
the bill into law.

H.R. 974--District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (Public Law 
        106-98)

    H.R. 974 allows District of Columbia high school graduates 
to have access to universities and colleges similar to that of 
students in the rest of the country. In other areas, students 
can choose from a network of State public colleges and 
universities and pay in-state tuition, but D.C. has only one 
such university. The Act pays the difference between in and out 
of State tuition to any public college or university a D.C. 
high school graduate is admitted. It also provides a stipend to 
those D.C. students who are admitted to a private college or 
university in the Washington, D.C. area to help cover the cost 
of tuition.
    This legislation was introduced by Representative Thomas M. 
Davis (R-VA) on March 4, 1999, and on May 24, 1999, passed the 
House by voice vote under suspension of the rules.
    On May 27, 2000, H.R. 974 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee. On June 21, 1999, H.R. 974 was 
referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia. The 
Subcommittee held a hearing regarding H.R. 974 and the Senate 
counterpart, S. 856, on June 24, 1999 (S. Hrg. 106-252).
    S. 856, a different version of the bill, was introduced by 
Senator James M. Jeffords (R-VT) on April 21, 1999, and also 
referred to the Committee. The Subcommittee recommended 
favorable reporting of H.R. 974 by the full Committee on June 
24, 1999.
    On August 3, 1999, the Committee considered H.R. 974 and 
agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
Subcommittee Chairman Voinovich. In addition, the Committee 
agreed to amendments to the substitute amendment offered by 
Senator Durbin, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, and ordered 
H.R. 974 as amended to be favorably reported to the Senate. On 
September 9, 1999, the Committee reported H.R. 974 to the 
Senate. H.R. 974 was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent 
on October 19, 1999 with a floor amendment offered by Chairman 
Thompson. H.R. 974, as amended by the Senate, was sent to the 
House on October 20, 1999. On November 1, 1999, the House 
agreed to the Senate amendments by voice vote under suspension 
of the rules. H.R. 974 was signed into law by the President on 
November 12, 1999.

H.R. 3069--Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of 
        2000 (Public Law 106-407)

    H.R. 3069 authorizes the General Services Administration to 
enter into certain agreements with private entities to help 
redevelop the Southeast Federal Center in Southeast Washington, 
D.C. The purpose of this authority is to redevelop a portion of 
the Southeast area of Washington, D.C. by encouraging business 
and commerce to locate in this area. This legislation was 
introduced in the House on October 13, 1999, and passed by the 
House by voice vote under suspension of the rules on May 8, 
2000.
    On May 9, 2000, H.R. 3069 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee. On September 27, 2000, the Committee 
ordered H.R. 3069 to be favorably reported with technical 
amendments by voice vote. On October 2, 2000, the Committee 
reported H.R. 3069 to the Senate (S. Rept. 106-458). On October 
11, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 3069 with amendments. The 
House received H.R. 3069, as amended, on October 12, 2000. On 
October 17, 2000, the House agreed to the Senate amendments by 
voice vote under suspension of the rules. H.R. 3069 was signed 
by the President on November 1, 2000.

H.R. 3995--District of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000 
        (Public Law 106-397)

    This legislation addresses serious management problems 
regarding receiverships in the District of Columbia. Over the 
previous 5 years, four D.C. agencies were placed under court-
appointed receivers. These receiverships experienced serious 
management problems sometimes worse than the problems which led 
to the appointment of a receiver. H.R. 3995 establishes 
appropriate oversight and management for these receivers.
    H.R. 3995 was introduced in the House on March 15, 2000, 
favorably reported with amendments by the Committee on 
Government Reform on June 12, 2000, and passed by the House as 
amended by voice vote under suspension of the rules.
    On June 13, 2000, the Senate received H.R. 3995 and 
referred it to the Committee. On June 20, 2000, the Committee 
referred H.R. 3995 to the Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of 
Columbia. Previously, on May 9, 2000, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing related to problems associated with the receiverships 
in the District of Columbia. On September 18, 2000, the 
Subcommittee recommended favorable reporting of H.R. 3995 to 
the Committee by unanimous consent. H.R. 3995 was ordered 
reported by the full Committee on September 27, 2000. On 
October 6, 2000, the Committee reported H.R. 3995 to the Senate 
(S. Rept. 106-493). The Senate passed H.R. 3995 by unanimous 
consent on October 12, 2000. H.R. 3995 was signed by the 
President on October 30, 2000.

H.R. 4040/S. 2420--Long-Term Care Security Act and S. 1232, Federal 
        Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act (Public Law 106-
        265)

    This legislation creates a long-term care insurance program 
for Federal civilian and military employees, retirees, and 
their families. Long-term care insurance can help Federal 
workers plan for the future and protect themselves from the 
financial risks associated with caring for oneself and family 
in the latter years of life. Employees will be responsible for 
paying 100 percent of the insurance premium, at no cost to the 
government. By virtue of the size of the group to be insured, 
premiums are expected to be up to 20 percent less than if 
employees purchased the insurance on their own. At Chairman 
Thompson's request, employees and retirees of the Tennessee 
Valley Authority were included in the legislation.
    The legislation also included the provisions of S. 1232, 
legislation providing for the correction of Federal employees 
who, through no fault of their own, found themselves enrolled 
in the wrong Federal retirement system. This legislation 
provided long-awaited relief to Federal employees confronted 
with retirement coverage error through the establishment of a 
comprehensive legislative framework to address these errors. 
Many of these retirement coverage errors occurred between 1984, 
when the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) was closed to 
new entrants, and 1987, when the Federal Employees' Retirement 
System (FERS) was created. S. 1232 was introduced by Senator 
Cochran and Senator Akaka on June 17, 1999, and was referred to 
the Committee. On June 21, 1999, the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and 
Federal Services. The Committee ordered S. 1232 reported 
favorably without amendment on August 3, 1999. A written report 
was filed on October 8, 1999 (S. Rept. 106-178). The bill was 
placed on the Senate legislative calendar on October 8, 1999, 
and passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent on 
November 3, 1999. Major provisions of S. 1232 were included as 
part of S. 2420 as it was reported by the Committee.
    H.R. 4040 was introduced in the House on March 21, 2000. 
The bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight on March 30, 2000, and on May 9, 2000, the 
House approved H.R. 4040 by voice vote under a suspension of 
the rules.
    On May 10, 2000, the bill was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee. On July 25, 2000, the Committee was 
discharged by unanimous consent, and the bill was laid before 
the Senate. The Senate amended H.R. 4040 to include S. 2420, as 
amended, and passed H.R. 4040 on July 25, 2000. The House 
passed H.R. 4040, as amended, by voice vote under suspension of 
the rules, and the Senate then agreed to the House amendments 
to the Senate amendments by unanimous consent. The President 
signed the bill on September 19, 2000.

H.R. 4110--National Historical Publications and Records Commission 
        Authorization Act (Public Law 106-410)

    The Committee worked toward enactment of legislation to 
provide the National Historical Publications and Records 
Commission with the ability to provide archivists, historians, 
State and local governments, and non-Federal agencies and 
institutions with grants to work on vital American documents. 
The legislation includes an authorization in the amount of $10 
million over 4 years. The bill passed the House on July 24, 
2000 and passed the Senate on October 19, 2000. It was signed 
by the President on November 1, 2000.

H.R. 4542--To designate the Washington Opera in Washington, D.C., as 
        the National Opera (Public Law 106-219)

    This legislation renames the Washington Opera in the 
District of Columbia as the National Opera.
    H.R. 4542 was introduced in the House on May 25, 2000. On 
that same day, a companion bill, S. 2667 was introduced in the 
Senate by Senator Warner and referred to the Committee. On June 
6, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4542 by voice vote under 
suspension of the rules. On June 7, 2000, H.R. 4542 was 
received in the Senate and passed by unanimous consent. On June 
20, 2000, the President signed H.R. 4542 into law.

H.R. 4931--Presidential Transition Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-293)

    This legislation is designed to help prepare newly elected 
Presidents and their appointees for service in the Executive 
Branch. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Minority Member Lieberman, 
and Senators Akaka, Collins, Durbin, Levin and Voinovich 
introduced S. 2705, the Presidential Transition Act of 2000, on 
June 8. 2000. H.R. 4931 was introduced by Representative Steve 
Horn (R-CA) on July 24, 2000. Both bills provide briefings and 
orientations for political appointees, create a ``transitions'' 
directory with important agency and administrative information, 
and require the Office of Government Ethics to report on 
burdensome disclosure requirements for appointees. The 
legislation amends the Presidential transition Act of 1963.
    S. 2705 was reported by the Committee on July 18, 2000 (S. 
Rept. 106-348). On September 13, 2000, the House adopted the 
language of S. 2705 as H.R. 4931. On September 28, 2000, the 
Senate passed H.R. 4931 by unanimous consent. It was signed by 
the President on October 12, 2000.

Private Relief/Civil Service

H.R. 660--For the private relief of Ruth Hairston by waiver of a filing 
        deadline for appeal from a ruling relating to her application 
        for a survivor annuity (Private Law 106-9)

    This legislation grants private relief to Ruth Hairston by 
waiving a 30-day statutory deadline to allow Ms. Hairston to 
petition the U.S. Court of Appeals to review the decision of 
the Merit Systems Protection Board decision denying her a 
survivor annuity.
    H.R. 660 was introduced in the House on February 9, 1999, 
and passed by the House without objection July 20, 1999.
    On July 21, 1999, H.R. 660 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee. H.R. 660 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and 
Federal Services on July 30, 1999. On October 13, 1999, Senator 
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an identical bill, S. 1720. 
S. 1720 also was referred to the Committee and then to the 
Subcommittee on November 7, 1999. On October 27, 2000, the 
Senate discharged the Committee and passed H.R. 660 by 
unanimous consent. H.R. 660 was signed by the President on 
November 9, 2000.

Postal Naming Bills

    S. 1295, a bill to designate the United States Post Office 
located at 3813 Main Street in East Chicago, Indiana, as the 
``Lance Corporal Harold Gomez Post Office'' (Public Law 106-
289).
    S. 3194, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 431 George Street in 
Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Robert S. Walker Post 
Office'' (Public Law 106-535).
    H.R. 100, a bill to establish designations for United 
States Postal Service buildings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
(Public Law 106-111).
    H.R. 197, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service at 410 North 6th Street in Garden City, 
Kansas, as the ``Clifford R. Hope Post Office'' (Public Law 
106-112).
    H.R. 642, a bill to redesignate the Federal building 
located at 701 South Santa Fe Avenue in Compton, California, 
and known as the Compton Main Post Office, as the ``Mervyn 
Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building'' (Public Law 106-231).
    H.R. 643, a bill to redesignate the Federal building 
located at 10301 South Compton Avenue, in Los Angeles, 
California, and known as the Watts Finance Office, as the 
``Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office Building'' (Public Law 106-
232).
    H.R. 1191, a bill to designate certain facilities of the 
United States Postal Service in Chicago, Illinois (Public Law 
106-123).
    H.R. 1251, a bill to designate the United States Postal 
Service building located at 8850 South 700 East, Sandy, Utah, 
as the ``Noal Cushing Bateman Post Office Building'' (Public 
Law 106-124).
    H.R. 1327, a bill to designate the United States Postal 
Service building located at 34480 Highway 101 South in 
Cloverdale, Oregon, as the ``Maurine B. Neuberger United States 
Post Office'' (Public Law 106-125).
    H.R. 1374, a bill to designate the United States Post 
Office building located at 680 U.S. Highway 130 in Hamilton, 
New Jersey, as the ``John K. Rafferty Hamilton Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-183).
    H.R. 1377, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 9308 South Chicago Avenue, 
Chicago, Illinois, as the ``John J. Buchanan Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-209).
    H.R. 1666, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service at 200 East Pinckney Street in Madison, 
Florida, as the ``Captain Colin P. Kelly, Jr. Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-233).
    H.R. 2302, a bill to designate the building of the United 
States Postal Service located at 307 Main Street in Johnson 
City, New York, as the ``James W. McCabe, Sr. Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-315).
    H.R. 2307, a bill to designate the building of the United 
States Postal Service located at 5 Cedar Street in Hopkinton, 
Massachusetts, as the ``Thomas J. Brown Post Office Building'' 
(Public Law 106-234).
    H.R. 2357, a bill to designate the United States Post 
Office located at 3675 Warrensville Center Road in Shaker 
Heights, Ohio, as the ``Louise Stokes Post Office'' (Public Law 
106-235).
    H.R. 2460, a bill to designate the United States Post 
Office located at 125 Border Avenue West in Wiggins, 
Mississippi, as the ``Jay Hanna `Dizzy' Dean Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-236).
    H.R. 2591, a bill to designate the United States Post 
Office located at 713 Elm Street in Wakefield, Kansas, as the 
``William H. Avery Post Office'' (Public Law 106-237).
    H.R. 2938, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 424 South Michigan Street in 
South Bend, Indiana, as the ``John Brademas Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-320).
    H.R. 3018, a bill to designate certain facilities of the 
United States Postal Service in South Carolina (Public Law 106-
239).
    H.R. 3030, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 757 Warren Road in Ithaca, New 
York, as the ``Matthew F. McHugh Post Office'' (Public Law 106-
321).
    H.R. 3189, a bill to designate the United States post 
office located at 14071 Peyton Drive in Chino Hills, 
California, as the ``Joseph Ileto Post Office'' (Public Law 
106-184).
    H.R. 3454, a bill to designate the United States post 
office located at 451 College Street in Macon, Georgia, as the 
``Henry McNeal Turner Post Office'' (Public Law 106-322).
    H.R. 3701, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 3118 Washington Boulevard in 
Arlington, Virginia, as the ``Joseph L. Fisher Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-241).
    H.R. 3909, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 4601 South Cottage Grove 
Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Henry W. McGee Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-325).
    H.R. 3985, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 14900 Southwest 30th Street in 
Miramar City, Florida, as the ``Vicki Coceano Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-326).
    H.R. 4157, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 600 Lincoln Avenue in 
Pasadena, California, as the ``Matthew `Mack' Robinson Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-327).
    H.R. 4169, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 2000 Vassar Street in Reno, 
Nevada, as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post Office Building'' 
(Public Law 106-328).
    H.R. 4241, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 1818 Milton Avenue in 
Janesville, Wisconsin, as the ``Les Aspin Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-242).
    H.R. 4315, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 3695 Green Road in Beachwood, 
Ohio, as the ``Larry Small Post Office Building'' (Public Law 
106-436).
    H.R. 4447, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 919 West 34th Street in 
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Samuel H. Lacy, Sr. Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-333).
    H.R. 4448, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 3500 Dolfield Avenue in 
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Judge Robert Bernard Watts, Sr. 
Post Office Building'' (Public Law 106-334).
    H.R. 4449, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 1908 North Ellamont Street in 
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Dr. Flossie McClain Dedmond Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-335).
    H.R. 4450, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 900 East Fayette Street in 
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Judge Harry Augustus Cole Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-438).
    H.R. 4451, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 1001 Frederick Road in 
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Frederick L. Dewberry, Jr. Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-439).
    H.R. 4484, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 500 North Washington Street in 
Rockville, Maryland, as the ``Everett Alvarez, Jr. Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-336).
    H.R. 4517, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 24 Tsienneto Road in Derry, 
New Hampshire, as the ``Alan B. Shepard, Jr. Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-337).
    H.R. 4534, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 114 Ridge Street in Lenoir, 
North Carolina, as the ``James T. Broyhill Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-338).
    H.R. 4554, a bill to redesignate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 1602 Frankford Avenue in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``Joseph F. Smith Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-339).
    H.R. 4615, a bill to redesignate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 3030 Meredith Avenue in Omaha, 
Nebraska, as the ``Reverend J.C. Wade Post Office'' (Public Law 
106-340).
    H.R. 4625, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 2108 East 38th Street in Erie, 
Pennsylvania, as the ``Gertrude A. Barber Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-440).
    H.R. 4658, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 301 Green Street in 
Fayetteville, North Carolina, as the ``J.L. Dawkins Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-341).
    H.R. 4786, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 110 Postal Way in Carrollton, 
Georgia, as the ``Samuel P. Roberts Post Office Building'' 
(Public Law 106-441).
    H.R. 4831, a bill to redesignate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 2339 North California Street 
in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Roberto Clemente Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-452).
    H.R. 4884, a bill to redesignate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 200 West 2nd Street in Royal 
Oak, Michigan, as the ``William S. Broomfield Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-342).
    H.R. 4975, a bill to designate the post office and 
courthouse located at 2 Federal Square, Newark, New Jersey, as 
the ``Frank R. Lautenberg Post Office and Courthouse'' (Public 
Law 106-347).
    H.R. 5210, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 200 South George Street in 
York, Pennsylvania, as the ``George Atlee Goodling Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-556).
    H.R. 5229, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 219 South Church Street in 
Odum, Georgia, as the ``Ruth Harris Coleman Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-454).

   Measures Favorably Reported by Committee and Passed by the Senate


S. 1503--Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 1999

    This bill would reauthorize the Office of Government Ethics 
(OGE) for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003. The OGE is an 
independent agency charged with directing Executive Branch 
polices to prevent conflicts of interests on the part of 
Federal officers and employees.
    S. 1503 was introduced by Chairman Thompson and Ranking 
Minority Member Lieberman on August 5, 1999, and referred to 
the Committee. No hearings were held on the legislation. On 
November 3, 1999, S. 1503 was ordered to be reported by the 
Committee by voice vote, and a written report was filed on 
November 5, 1999 (S. Rept. 106-216). The bill was then approved 
by the Senate on November 19, 1999, by unanimous consent.

H.R. 858--District of Columbia Court Employees Act of 1999

    This bill provides certain whistleblower protections for 
employees of the District of Columbia courts. Although these 
protections are important, the original House version raised 
serious concerns about local separation of powers issues and 
the setting of precedent as it relates to the Judicial Branch. 
The Committee negotiated comprise language to allow an 
appropriate level of whistleblower protection while still being 
sensitive to the special interests of the judiciary.
    H.R. 858 was introduced by Represenative Davis (R-VA) on 
February 25, 1999, and ordered to be favorably reported by 
voice vote by Committee on Government Reform on March 10, 1999. 
On March 16, 1999, the House passed H.R. 858 by voice vote 
under suspension of the rules.
    On March 17, 1999, H.R. 858 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee. On April 12, 1999, H.R. 858 was 
referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 
Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia. On May 
19, 1999, the Subcommittee agreed unanimously to an amendment 
offered by Senator Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, and 
recommended favorable reporting of H.R. 858 as amended. On May 
20, 1999, the Committee ordered favorably reported H.R. 858 
with the Voinovich amendment. On September 30, 1999, the 
Committee reported H.R. 858 as amended to the Senate. On 
October 8, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 858 as amended along 
with a floor amendment by unanimous consent. On October 12, 
1999, the House received message of the Senate amendments.

             Selected Measures Considered by the Committee


S. 92--Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act

    This legislation converts the current annual budgeting and 
appropriations process into a 2-year, or biennial, cycle. The 
legislation is intended to enhance congressional oversight of 
agency operations by reserving the first year of a Congress for 
appropriations and budget-related bills, and the second year of 
the Congress for authorization legislation and agency 
oversight.
    Senator Domenici, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Minority 
Member Lieberman introduced S. 92 on January 19, 1999. The bill 
was referred jointly to the Committee and the Committee on 
Budget. The Committees held a joint hearing (S. Hrg. 106-24) on 
January 27, 1999. S. 92 was reported with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute favorably on March 4, 1999. The 
Committee reported the bill to the Senate with an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute on March 10, 1999 (S. Rept. 106-12).

S. 557--To Provide Guidance for the Designation of Emergencies as a 
        Part of the Budget Process

    Under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act, the President and Congress can designate certain spending 
or revenue changes as an ``emergency,'' thereby exempting them 
from the limits on discretionary spending and the pay-as-you-go 
rules for legislation affecting mandatory spending programs. To 
address this, S. 557 provides a point of order in the Senate 
against any provision in any legislation that is designated as 
an emergency. If the point of order is raised and sustained 
against a provision designated as an emergency, then that 
provision would be stricken from the legislation. The point of 
order can be waived in the Senate by an affirmative vote of a 
simple majority.
    On March 8, 1999, S. 557 was ordered reported by voice vote 
as an original bill from the Committee. On March 8, 1999, it 
was filed with the Senate. On March 15, 1999, a written report, 
with Additional views, was filed (S. Rept. 106-14). S. 557 was 
the legislative vehicle for a series of votes on the Social 
Security lockbox.

S. 558--Government Shutdown Prevention Act

    When Congress and the President fail to reach timely 
agreement on the annual appropriations bills, Federal 
Government activities dependent on such funding are threatened 
with being shutdown for lack of funding. To address this, S. 
558 provides for an automatic appropriation (in the form of a 
continuing resolution) to fund government operations, thereby 
eliminating the threat of a government shutdown. Enactment of 
S. 558 would ensure that agencies continue to receive funding 
at the level of the previous year's appropriation or the amount 
contained in the President's budget request.
    On March 4, 1999, S. 558 was ordered to be reported as an 
original bill from the Committee by a vote of 6 yeas and 4 nays 
and was filed with the Senate on March 8, 1999. On March 16, 
1999, a written report, with Minority views, was filed (S. 
Rept. 106-15).

S. 712--Look, Listen, and Live Stamp Act

    The purpose of S. 712 is to direct the United States Postal 
Service to establish a specially-issued postage stamp to allow 
postal patrons the opportunity to contribute to funding for 
highway-rail grade crossing safety through the voluntary 
purchase of these stamps.
    S. 712 was introduced on March 24, 1999 by Senators Trent 
Lott (R-MS), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), John B. Breaux (R-
LA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR), and referred to the Committee. On 
April 2, 1999, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services. On 
May 10, 1999, the Subcommittee reported S. 712 to the Committee 
by polling letter. On May 20, 1999, the Committee ordered S. 
712 to be favorably reported without amendment. On July 8, 
1999, a written report, with Minority views, was filed (S. 
Rept. 106-104).

S. 746--Regulatory Improvement Act of 1999

    S. 746, the Regulatory Improvement Act, would increase 
government accountability by requiring agencies to issue 
regulatory analyses for major rules. The regulatory analyses 
would include: (1) cost-benefit analyses examining regulatory 
alternatives; (2) risk assessments; and (3) scientific 
information on substitution risks to health, safety, or the 
environment.
    S. 746 was introduced on March 25, 1999, by Senator Levin, 
Chairman Thompson, and Senators Spencer Abraham (D-MI), Breaux, 
Cochran, Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), 
Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), Senator Rod Grams (R-MN), Senator 
Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Senator Blanche L. Lincoln (R-AR), 
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Senator Chuck Robb (D-
VA), Senator John D. Rockfeller IV (D-WV), and Senators Roth, 
Stevens, and Voinovich. The Committee held a hearing on S. 746 
on April 21, 1999 (S. Hrg. 106-179), and ordered the bill 
reported favorably to the Senate on May 20, 1999. The Committee 
reported S. 746 to the Senate on July 20, 1999 (S. Rept. 106-
110).

S. 870--Inspector General Act Amendments of 2000

    S. 870 would amend the Inspector General Act to: (i) 
convert semi-annual reports to Congress to annual reports; (ii) 
establish an outside review of management practices for 
inspectors general; (iii) provide a pay increase for 
presidentially-appointed inspectors general; (iv) prohibit IGs 
from receiving cash bonuses or awards; and (v) call for a GAO 
study into possible consolidation of IGs for Designated Federal 
Entities. The Committee reported S. 870 to the Senate on 
October 27, 2000 (S. Rept. 106-510). On December 14, 2000, S. 
870, as amended, passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

S. 1214--Federalism Accountability Act of 1999

    S. 1214, the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999, would 
require the report accompanying any public bill or joint 
resolution from a Senate or House committee or conference 
report to contain an explicit statement on the extent to which 
the bill or resolution preempts State or local government law 
and the reasons for such preemption. The Act would also 
establish a rule of construction providing that courts would 
not construe a statute or regulation to preempt State or local 
law unless the statute or regulation explicitly stated that 
such preemption was intended or unless there was a direct 
conflict with State or local law.
    S. 1214 was introduced on June 10, 1999, by Chairman 
Thompson and Senators Breaux, Enzi, Lincoln, Roth, Voinovich, 
Bayh, Cochran, Levin, and Robb. On July 14, 1999, the Committee 
held a hearing on the bill (S. Hrg. 106-196). On August 3, 
1999, the Committee ordered S. 1214 to be reported favorably to 
the Senate. The Committee reported S. 1214 to the Senate on 
September 16, 1999 with Minority views. (S. Rept. 106-159).

S. 1564--Federal Courts Budget Protection Act

    S. 1564 is intended to allow the Judiciary to communicate 
directly to Congress its budget and courthouse funding 
requests. Past Presidential budget submissions have attempted 
to transfer funding requested by the Judiciary for operations 
and courthouse construction to Executive branch programs. This 
bill prohibits the President from including in the budget 
submission a ``negative allowance'' or any other device 
designed to reduce the Judicial Branch budget request. Also, S. 
1564 directs the Judiciary to include in its own budget request 
funds for courthouse construction, acquisition, and repairs.
    On August 5, 1999, S. 1564 was introduced in the Senate by 
Senators Cochran, Stevens, Roth and Collins. On June 14, 2000, 
the Committee considered S. 1564. Senator Cochran offered an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was approved by 
voice vote. The bill, as amended, was ordered to be favorably 
reported by voice vote. On August 25, 2000, the Committee 
reported S. 1564 favorably with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute (S. Rept. 106-379).

S. 3030--To provide for Executive Agencies to conduct annual recovery 
        audits and recovery activities

    Each year, the Federal Government spends hundreds of 
billions of dollars for a variety of grants, transfer payments, 
and the procurement of goods and services. The Federal 
Government must be accountable for how it spends these funds 
and for safeguarding against improper payments. The risk of 
improper payments and the government's inability to prevent 
them are significant problems. S. 3030 is intended to begin to 
address the recovery of the tens of billions of dollars in 
improper payments. S. 3030 requires Federal agencies to perform 
recovery audits if their direct purchases for goods and 
services total $500 million or more per fiscal year. Agencies 
that must undertake recovery auditing also would be required to 
institute a management improvement program to address 
underlying problems of their payment systems.
    S. 3030 was introduced by Chairman Thompson on September 
12, 2000, and referred to the Committee. On September 27, 2000, 
the Committee considered S. 3030. Chairman Thompson recognized 
that some issues still remained open and committed to working 
with the Committee to resolve them prior to bringing S. 3030 up 
for consideration by the full Senate. The Committee ordered S. 
3030 reported without amendment favorably to the full Senate by 
voice vote. On October 12, 2000, the Committee reported S. 3030 
favorably with Additional views (S. Rept. 106-502).

S. 3144--To provide statutory law enforcement authority to certain 
        Federal inspectors general

    Criminal investigators for the 23 Offices of Inspector 
General have been exercising law enforcement authorities for 
many years under designations as Special Deputy U.S. Marshals. 
Beginning in the mid-1980's, the Department of Justice approved 
these deputations on a case-by-case basis. However, as the role 
of IGs has evolved, the need for such appointments was so 
consistent and the volume of requests so large that ``blanket'' 
deputations evolved. Since 1995, virtually all criminal 
investigators in the offices of the 23 covered IGs have 
exercised law enforcement authorities in cases under office-
wide deputations. These deputations are renewed biannually. The 
blanket deputation process, however, has some drawbacks. 
Specifically, it has become a burden on the U.S. Marshals 
Service, there is a lack of sufficient oversight, and there is 
a constant threat of gaps in the deputation process at the time 
of renewal.
    Chairman Thompson introduced S. 3144 on October 2, 2000 to 
provide permanent statutory law enforcement authority for those 
IGs already covered by blanket deputations. The Attorney 
General would be charged under the bill with overseeing the 
authority and could remove it should the need for it in any 
given agency cease. The Committee reported S. 3144 to the 
Senate on October 10, 2000 (S. Rept. 106-470).

                     VIII. Presidential Nominations

    During the 106th Congress, the Committee received a total 
of 41 Presidential nominations. The following 17 were favorably 
reported by the Committee and confirmed by the Senate:

    L  Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, of the District of Columbia, to 
be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia for the term of fifteen years. (Hearing held on May 
10, 2000)

    L  Amy L. Comstock, of Maryland, to be Director of the 
Office of Government Ethics for a term of 5 years. (Hearing 
held on May 12, 2000)

    L  LeGree Sylvia Daniels, of Pennsylvania, to be a Governor 
of the United States Postal Service for a term expiring 
December 8, 2007. (Hearing held on October 21, 1999)

    L  Earl E. Devaney, of Massachusetts, to be Inspector 
General, Department of the Interior.

    L  Gerald Fisher, of the District of Columbia, to be an 
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia for the term of fifteen years. (Hearing held on 
September 13, 2000)

    L  Joshua Gotbaum, of New York, to be Controller, Office of 
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget. 
(Hearing held on October 28, 1999)

    L  Stephen H. Glickman, of the District of Columbia, to be 
an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals 
for the term of fifteen years (Hearing held on April 20, 1999)

    L  John Ramsey Johnson, of the District of Columbia, to be 
an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia for the term of fifteen years. (Hearing held on 
September 13, 2000)

    L  Alan Craig Kessler, of Pennsylvania, to be a Governor of 
the United States Postal Service for a term expiring December 
8, 2008. (Hearing held on March 30, 2000)

    L  Thomas J. Motley, of the District of Columbia, to be an 
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia for the term of fifteen years. (Hearing held on May 
10, 2000)

    L  John McAdam Mott, of the District of Columbia, to be an 
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia for the term of fifteen years. (Hearing held on May 
10, 2000)

    L  George A. Omas, of Mississippi, to be a Commissioner of 
the Postal Rate Commission for a term expiring October 14, 
2006. (Hearing held on September 19, 2000)

    L  Carol Waller Pope, of the District of Columbia, to be a 
Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority for a term 
expiring July 1, 2004. (Hearing held on March 30, 2000)

    L  Hiram E. Puig-Lugo, of the District of Columbia, to be 
an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia for the term of fifteen years. (Hearing held on April 
20, 1999)

    L  John T. Spotila, of New Jersey, to be Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget. (Hearing held on April 29, 1999)

    L  John F. Walsh, of Connecticut, to be a Governor of the 
United States Postal Service for a term expiring December 8, 
2006. (Hearing held on October 21, 1999)

    L  Eric T. Washington, of the District of Columbia, to be 
an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals 
for the term of fifteen years. (Hearing held on April 20, 1999)

    There were 11 nominations in which the Committee was 
discharged with the concurrence of the Committee and the 
nominations confirmed by the Senate. Eight of these 11 
nominations are for Inspectors General which, according to a 
Standing Order of the Senate, are sequentially referred to the 
Committee and the Committee is subsequently discharged after 20 
days:

    L  Glenn A. Fine, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, 
Department of Justice.

    L  Thomas A. Fink, of Alaska, to be a Member of the Federal 
Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term expiring October 
11, 2003. (Reappointment)

    L  Phyllis K. Fong, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, 
Small Business Administration.

    L  Johnnie E. Frazier, of Maryland, to be Inspector 
General, Department of Commerce.

    L  Don Harrell, of New York, to be a Member of the Federal 
Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term expiring 
September 25, 2002.

    L  Gordon S. Heddell, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, 
Department of Labor.

    L  James G. Huse, Jr., of Maryland, to be Inspector 
General, Social Security Administration.

    L  Lorraine Pratte Lewis, of the District of Columbia, to 
be Inspector General, Department of Education.

    L  Everett L. Mosley, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, 
Agency for International Development.

    L  Jeffrey Rush, Jr., of Virginia, to be Inspector General, 
Department of the Treasury.

    L  David C. Williams, of Maryland, to be Inspector General 
for Tax Administration, Department of the Treasury.

    There were two nominations either reported out by the 
Committee or discharged with the concurrence of the Committee 
which were not acted upon by the Senate:

    L  Sally Katzen, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy 
Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget. 
(Hearing held on September 15, 1999)

    L  Donald Mancuso, of Virginia, to be Inspector General, 
Department of Defense.

    There were two nominations which were officially withdrawn 
by the President:

    L  G. Edward DeSeve, of Pennsylvania, to be Deputy Director 
for Management, Office of Management and Budget.

    L  Myrta K. Sale, of Maryland, to be Controller, Office of 
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget.

    There was one nomination which was not acted upon by the 
Committee because notice was given by the President with his 
intent to withdraw the nomination:

    Denis J. Hauptly, of Minnesota, to be Chairman of the 
Special Panel on Appeals for a term of 6 years.

    There were eight nominations not acted upon by the 
Committee:

    L  James H. Atkins, of Arkansas, to be a Member of the 
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term expiring 
September 25, 2004. (Reappointment)

    L  Bonnie Prouty Castrey, of California, to be a Member of 
the Federal Labor Relations Authority for the term of 5 years 
expiring July 1, 2005.

    L  Andrew Fois, of the District of Columbia, to be an 
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia for a term of fifteen years.

    L  Sheryl R. Marshall, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of 
the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term 
expiring October 11, 2002. (Reappointment)

    L  Tamar Meekins, of the District of Columbia, to be an 
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia for the term of fifteen years.

    L  Barbara J. Sapin, of Maryland, to be a Member of the 
Merit Systems Protection Board for the term of 7 years expiring 
March 1, 2007.

    L  Beth Susan Slavet, of Massachusetts, to be Chairman of 
the Merit Systems Protection Board.

    L  John Train, of New York, to be a Member of the Federal 
Retirement Thrift Investment Board for a term expiring October 
11, 2003.

                  IX. ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES


      INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND FEDERAL SERVICES 
                              SUBCOMMITTEE


                         Chairman: Thad Cochran


                Ranking Minority Member: Daniel K. Akaka


                              I. Hearings

    The Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, 
and Federal Services held the following hearings during the 
106th Congress:

The Future of the ABM Treaty (April 28, 1999).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the ways in 
which the terms of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 
conflict with plans for a National Missile Defense system and 
the prospects for resolving those conflicts.
    Witnesses: Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Former U.S. Ambassador 
to the United Nations, Professor of Government at Georgetown 
University and Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise 
Institute; John Rhinelander, Senior Counsel at Shaw, Pittman 
and Former Legal Advisor to the SALT I Delegation; and 
Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, Director of the Center for Counter 
Proliferation Research at the National Defense University and 
Former U.S. Commissioner to the Standing Consultative 
Commission.

The Report of the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and 
        Military Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of 
        China (May 26, 1999).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the findings of 
the House report on threats to U.S. national security posed by 
Chinese advances in military and commercial sectors.
    Witnesses: Representative Chris Cox (R-CA), Chairman, 
Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/
Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China; and 
Representative Norman Dicks (D-WA), Ranking Member, Select 
Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial 
Concerns with the People's Republic of China.

Has the Russian Space Launch Quota Achieved Its Purpose? (July 21, 
        1999).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to explore the goals and 
implementation of the Space Launch Quota.
    Witnesses: Will Trafton, President, Lockheed Martin 
International Launch Services; Catherine Novelli, Assistant 
U.S. Trade Representative for Europe and the Mediterranean; 
Walt Slocombe, Under Secretary for Policy, Department of 
Defense; and John D. Holum, Senior Advisor for Arms Control and 
International Security, Department of State.

The Annual Report of the Postmaster General (September 16, 1999).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to examine points of 
interest in the Postmaster's Annual Report.
    Witness: Hon. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, 
U.S. Postal Service.

Guidelines for the Relocation, Closing, Consolidation or Construction 
        of Post Offices (October 7, 1999).

     The Subcommittee held a hearing to explore the change of 
status of post offices across the United States.
    Witnesses: Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator; Hon. Max 
Baucus, U.S. Senator; Rudolph Umscheld, Vice President of 
Facilities, U.S. Postal Service, accompanied by Fred Hintenach, 
U.S. Postal Service; Howard Foust, President, National 
Association of Postmasters of the United States, Retired; 
Richard Moe, President, National Trust for Historic 
Preservation; and Hon. Edward J. Derwinski, Legislative 
Consultant, National League of Postmasters.

The National Intelligence Estimate on the Ballistic Missile Threat to 
        the United States (February 9, 2000).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the findings of 
the intelligence community's study of the ballistic missile 
threat to the United States.
    Witnesses: Robert Walpole, National Intelligence Officer 
for Strategic and Nuclear Programs; Dr. William Schneider, Jr., 
Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute; and Joseph Cirincione, 
Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace.

Long-Term Care Insurance for Federal Employees (May 16, 2000).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to examine legislative 
proposals to establish a long-term care insurance program for 
Federal employees, members of the uniformed services, and both 
civilian and military retirees.
    Witnesses: Hon. Charles E. Grassley, U.S. Senator; Hon. 
Barbara A. Mikulski, U.S. Senator; and Hon. Janice Lachance, 
Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

The Issuance of Semipostal Stamps by the U.S. Postal Service (May 25, 
        2000).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to receive testimony 
regarding the issuance of semnipostal stamps by the U.S. Post 
Office and to examine and evaluate the results of the Breast 
Cancer Research stamp program.
    Witnesses: Hon. Mike DeWine, U.S. Senator; Hon. Dianne 
Feinstein, U.S. Senator; Deborah Willhite, Senior Vice 
President, Government Relations and Public Policy, U.S. Postal 
Service; and Bernard Ungar, Director, Government Business 
Operations Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office.

The Annual Report of the Postmaster General (July 13, 2000).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to receive testimony 
regarding the activities of the Postal Service in the preceding 
year.
    Witnesses: Hon. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General.

E-Commerce Activities of the U.S. Postal Service (September 7, 2000).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to explore the proposed 
activities of the Postal Service in the area of e-commerce.
    Witnesses: Hon. Charles E. Grassley, U.S. Senator; Hon. 
Barbara A. Mikulski, U.S. Senator; and Hon. Janice Lachance, 
Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

The State of Foreign Language Capabilities in National Security and the 
        Federal Government--Part I (September 14, 2000).

     The Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the current 
issues relating to the need and resources surrounding demand 
for foreign language capability by the Federal Government.
    Witnesses: Ellen Laipson, Vice Chairman, National 
Intelligence Council; Ruth Whiteside, Deputy Director, National 
Foreign Affairs Training Center, Department of State; 
Christopher Mellon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence; and David E. Alba, Assistant Director, 
Investigative Services Division, FBI.

The State of Foreign Language Capabilities in National Security and the 
        Federal Government--Part II (September 19, 2000).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the current 
issues relating to the need and resources surrounding demand 
for foreign language capability by the Federal Government.
    Witnesses: Hon. Richard W. Riley, Secretary of the 
Department of Education; Dr. Robert Slater, Director of the 
National Security Education Program; Dr. Dan Davidson, 
President of the American Councils for International Education; 
Martha Abbot, Foreign Language Coordinator for Fairfax County 
Public Schools; and Dr. Frances McLean Coleman, Teacher/
Technology Coordinator for Ackerman High School and Weir 
Attendance Center.

Iran's Ballistic Missile and Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs 
        (September 21, 2000).

    The Subcommittee held a hearing to explore the emerging 
threat of Iran's strategic weapons programs.
    Witnesses: Robert Walpole, National Intelligence Officer 
for Strategic and Nuclear Programs; A. Norman Schindler, Deputy 
Director of the Nonproliferation Center; Dr. Stephen Cambone, 
Staff Director of the Space Commission; and Michael Eisenstadt, 
Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

                            II. Legislation

    The following is a list of the measures that were 
considered by the Subcommittee on International Security, 
Proliferation, and Federal Services and became public laws:

    S. 335, a bill to amend chapter 30 of title 39, United 
States Code, to provide for the nonmailability of certain 
deceptive matter relating to games of chance, administrative 
procedures, orders, and civil penalties relating to such matter 
(Public Law 106-168).

    S. 1232, the Federal Retirement Coverage Corrections Act, 
to provide for the correction of retirement coverage errors 
under chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code 
(incorporated into H.R. 4040, Public Law 106-265).

    S. 1295, a bill designating a U.S. Post Office in East 
Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Lance Corporal Harold Gomez Post 
Office'' (Public Law 106-289).

    S. 1334, the Organ Donor Leave Act, to amend title 5, 
United States Code, to increase the amount of leave time 
available to a Federal employee in any year in connection with 
serving as an organ donor (as H.R. 457, Public Law 106-56).

    S. 1441, to amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United 
States Code, to modify employee contributions to the Civil 
Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement 
System to the percentages in effect before the statutory 
temporary increase in calendar year 1999 (incorporated into 
H.R. 4475, fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-346).

    S. 1498, to amend chapter 55 of title 5, United States 
Code, to authorize equal overtime pay provisions for all 
Federal employees engaged in wildland fire suppression 
operations (incorporated into the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act 2001, Public Law 106-554).

    S. 1688, the Health Benefits Children's Act, to allow 
Federal Government agencies to enroll an employee and his or 
her family in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program 
when a State court orders the employee to provide health 
insurance for a child of the employee but the employee fails to 
provide the coverage (as H.R. 2842, Public Law 106-394).

    S. 1846, a bill designating a Federal building in Los 
Angeles, California, as the ``Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office 
Building'' (as H.R. 643, Public Law 106-232).

    S. 1847, a bill designating a Federal building in Compton, 
California, as the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office 
Building'' (as H.R. 642, Public Law 106-231).

    S. 1884, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Hopkinton, Massachusetts, as the ``Thomas J. Brown Post Office 
Building'' (as H.R. 2307, Public Law 106-234).

    S. 1964, a bill designating a Post Office building in Chino 
Hills, California, as the ``Joseph Ileto Post Office'' (as H.R. 
3189, Public Law 106-184).

    S. 2234, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Merrifield, Virginia, as the ``Joel T. Broyhill Postal 
Building'' (as H.R. 3699, Public Law 106-240); and also 
designating a Post Office building in Arlington, Virginia, as 
the ``Joseph L. Fisher Post Office Building'' (as H.R. 3701, 
Public Law 106-241).

    S. 2303, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Miramar City, Florida, as the ``Vicki Coceano Post Office 
Building'' (as H.R. 3985, Public Law 106-326).

    S. 2386, the ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization 
Act of 2000,'' to extend the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act, and 
the sale of the semipostal stamp (as H.R. 4437, ``Semipostal 
Authorization Act,'' Public Law 106-253).

    S. 2404, to amend chapter 75 of title 5, United States 
Code, to provide that any Federal law enforcement officer who 
is convicted of a felony shall be terminated from employment 
(incorporated into the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2001, 
Public Law 106-554).

    S. 2420, the Long-Term Care Security Act, to provide for 
the establishment of a program under which long-term care 
insurance is made available to Federal employees, members of 
the uniformed services, and civilian and military retirees 
(incorporated into H.R.4040, Public Law 106-265).

    S. 2458, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Janesville, Wisconsin, as the ``Les Aspin Post Office 
Building'' (as H.R. 4241, Public Law 106-242).

    S. 2620, a bill designating a Post Office building in Reno, 
Nevada, as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post Office Building'' 
(as H.R. 4169, Public Law 106-328).

    S. 2629, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Lenoir, North Carolina, as the ``James T. Broyhill Post Office 
Building'' (as H.R. 4534, Public Law 106-338).

    S. 2686, to amend chapter 36 of title 39, United States 
Code, to modify rates relating to reduced rate mail matter 
(Public Law 106-384).

    S. 2804, a bill designating a Post Office building in South 
Bend, Indiana, as the ``John Brademas Post Office'' (as H.R. 
2938, Public Law 106-320).

    S. 2893, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Ithaca, New York, as the ``Matthew F. McHugh Post Office'' (as 
H.R. 3030, Public Law 106-321).

    S. 2895, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Reverend J.C. Wade Post Office'' (as 
H.R. 4615, Public Law 106-340).

    H.R. 100, a bill designating three Post Office buildings in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``Roxanne H. Jones Post 
Office,'' the ``Freeman Hankins Post Office,'' and the ``Max 
Weiner Post Office'' (Public Law 106-111).

    H.R. 197, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Garden City, Kansas, as the ``Clifford R. Hope Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-112).

    H.R. 208, to amend title 5, United States Code, to allow 
for the contribution of certain rollover distributions to 
accounts in the Thrift Savings Plan, to eliminate certain 
waiting-period requirements for participating in the Thrift 
Savings Plan (Public Law 106-361).

    H.R. 642, a bill redesignating a Federal building in 
Compton, California, as the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post 
Office Building'' (identical to S. 1847, Public Law 106-231).

    H.R. 643, a bill redesignating a Post Office building in 
Los Angeles, California, as the ``Augustus F. Hawkins Post 
Office Building'' (identical to S. 1846, Public Law 106-232).

    H.R. 705, to make technical corrections with respect to the 
monthly reports submitted by the Postmaster General on official 
mail of the House of Representatives (Public Law 106-19).

    H.R. 807, the ``Federal Reserve Board Retirement 
Portability Act,'' to amend title 5, United States Code, to 
provide portability of service credit for persons who leave 
employment with the Federal Reserve Board to take positions 
with other Government (incorporated into S. 335, Public Law 
106-168).

    H.R. 1191, a bill designating four Post Office buildings in 
Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Cardiss Collins Post Office,'' the 
``Otis Grant Collins Post Office,'' the ``Robert LeFlore, Jr. 
Post Office'' and the ``Mary Alice (Ma) Henry Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-123).

    H.R. 1251, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Sandy, Utah, as the ``Noal Cushing Bateman Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-124).

    H.R. 1327, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Cloverdale, Oregon, as the ``Maurine B. Neuberger United States 
Post Office'' (Public Law 106-125).

    H.R. 1374, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Hamilton, New Jersey, as the ``John K. Rafferty Hamilton Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-183).

    H.R. 1377, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Chicago, Illinois, as the ``John J. Buchanan Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-209).

     H.R. 1666, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Madison, Florida, as the ``Captain Colin P. Kelly, Jr. Post 
Office'' (Public Law 106-233).

    H.R. 2302, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Johnson City, New York, as the ``James W. McCabe, Sr. Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-315).

    H.R. 2307, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Hopkinton, Massachusetts, as the ``Thomas J. Brown Post Office 
Building'' (identical to S. 1884, Public Law 106-234).

    H.R. 2357, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Shaker Heights, Ohio, as the ``Louise Stokes Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-235).

    H.R. 2460, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Wiggins, Mississippi, as the ``Jay Hanna `Dizzy' Dean Post 
Office'' (Public Law 106-236).

    H.R. 2591, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Wakefield, Kansas, as the ``William H. Avery Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-237).

    H.R. 2952, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Greenville, South Carolina, as the ``Keith D. Oglesby Station'' 
(Public Law 106-238).

    H.R. 3018, a bill designating (1) a Post Office building in 
Eastover, North Carolina, as the ``Layford R. Johnson Post 
Office''; (2) a Post Office building in Charleston, North 
Carolina, as the ``Richard E. Fields Post Office''; (3) a Post 
Office building in Charleston, North Carolina, as the 
``Marybelle H. Howe Post Office''; and (4) a Post Office 
building in Columbia, North Carolina, as the ``Mamie G. Floyd 
Post Office'' (Public Law 106-239).

    H.R. 3030, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Ithaca, New York, as the ``Matthew F. McHugh Post Office'' 
(identical to S. 2893, Public Law 106-321).

    H.R. 3189, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Chino Hills, California, as the ``Joseph Ileto Post Office'' 
(identical to S. 1964, Public Law 106-184).

    H.R. 3454, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Macon, Georgia, as the ``Henry McNeal Turner Post Office'' 
(Public Law 106-322).

    H.R. 3699, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Merrifield, Virginia, as the ``Joel T. Broyhill Postal 
Building'' (identical to S. 2234, Public Law 106-240).

    H.R. 3701, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Arlington, Virginia, as the ``Joseph L. Fisher Post Office 
Building'' (identical to S. 2234, Public Law 106-241).

    H.R. 3909, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Henry W. McGee Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-325).

    H.R. 3985, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Miramar City, Florida, as the ``Vicki Coceano Post Office 
Building'' (identical to S. 2303, Public Law 106-326).

    H.R. 4040, the ``Long-Term Care Security Act,'' to provide 
for the establishment of a program under which long-term care 
insurance is made available to Federal employees, retirees, 
annuitants, and the members of the uniformed services; and also 
provides for the correction of retirement coverage errors for 
Federal employees (identical to S. 2420, Public Law 106-265).

    H.R. 4157, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Pasadena, California, as the ``Matthew `Mack' Robinson Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-327).

    H.R. 4169, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Reno, Nevada, as the ``Barbara F. Vucanovich Post Office 
Building'' (identical to S. 2620, Public Law 106-328).

    H.R. 4447, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Samuel H. Lacy, Sr. Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-333).

    H.R. 4448, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Judge Robert Bernard Watts, Sr. 
Post Office Building'' (Public Law 106-334).

    H.R. 4449, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Dr. Flossie McClain Dedmond Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-335).

    H.R. 4484, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Rockville, Maryland, as the ``Everett Alvarez, Jr. Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-336).

    H.R. 4517, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Derry, New Hampshire, as the ``Alan B. Shepard, Jr. Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-337).

    H.R. 4534, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Lenoir, North Carolina, as the ``James T. Broyhill Post Office 
Building'' (identical to S. 2629, Public Law 106-338).

    H.R. 4554, a bill redesignating a Post Office building in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``Joseph F. Smith Post 
Office Building'' (Public Law 106-339).

    H.R. 4615, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Omaha, Nebraska, as the ``Reverend J.C. Wade Post Office'' 
(identical to S. 2895, Public Law 106-340).

    H.R. 4658, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Fayetteville, North Carolina, as the ``J.L. Dawkins Post 
Office'' (Public Law 106-341).

    H.R. 4884, a bill redesignating a Post Office building in 
Royal Oak, Michigan, as the ``William S. Broomfield Post Office 
Building'' (Public Law 106-342).

    The following bill was reported favorably by polling letter 
from the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, 
and Federal Services, passed the Senate, but did not become 
public law:

    S. 2043, a bill designating a Post Office building in Santa 
Ana, California, as the ``Hector G. Godinez Post Office.''

    The following bill was reported favorably by polling letter 
from the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, 
and Federal Services, but withdrawn at the September 27, 2000, 
Business Meeting of the Governmental Affairs Committee:

    H.R. 4430, a bill designating a Post Office building in 
Savage, Maryland, as the ``Alfred Rascon Post Office.''
    The investigation and oversight hearings of the 
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and 
Federal Services regarding international security and 
proliferation issues contributed greatly to the development of 
the following legislative initiative: S. 257--The National 
Missile Defense Act of 1999
    This bill, introduced on January 20, 1999 by Senator 
Cochran and 52 other Senators, including Chairman Thompson and 
Senators Inouye, Hollings, Akaka, Lieberman, Lott, Thurmond, 
Stevens, Helms, Warner, Nickels, Kyl, Collins, Hutchison, 
Domenici, and Bennett, makes it ``the policy of the United 
States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an 
effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending 
the territory of the United States against limited ballistic 
missile attack, (whether accidental, unauthorized, or 
deliberate).'' It was referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services and favorably reported to the Senate without amendment 
on February 12, 1999. The Senate began consideration of the 
bill on March 11, 1999. On March 15, Senator Cochran offered an 
amendment clarifying that deployment funding was, as for all 
defense programs, subject to the annual authorization and 
appropriation process; this amendment was agreed to 99-0. An 
amendment offered by Senator Landrieu on March 16, 1999 and 
supported by Senator Cochran stated that it was ``the policy of 
the United States to seek continued negotiated reductions in 
Russian nuclear forces,'' a reiteration of long-standing U.S. 
policy. That amendment was agreed to 99-0. On March 17, the 
Senate passed S. 257, as amended, 97-3.
    On May 18, 1999, by unanimous consent the Senate passed the 
text of S. 257 as H.R. 4, and on May 20, 1999, the House of 
Representatives passed the Senate-amended H.R. 4 by 345-71. The 
National Missile Defense Act became Public Law 106-38 when it 
was signed by President Clinton on July 22, 1999.

                      III. Report and GAO Reports

    1. Stubborn Things: A Decade of Facts About Ballistic 
Missile Defense. In September, 2000, Subcommittee Chairman 
Senator Thad Cochran released a chronology of facts detailing 
the Clinton Administration's actions with respect to ballistic 
missile defense and the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction. Among the facts documented in the report, which 
was based on hearings of the Subcommittee and other work 
conducted by the Majority Staff of the Subcommittee, were the 
dramatic growth of the ballistic missile threat, the decline in 
missile defense funding under the Clinton Administration, and 
the Administration's decision to forgo the development of new 
missile defense technologies that might 1 day conflict with 
arms control agreements.
    2. The following reports were issued by the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) at the request of the Chairman and/or 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on International Security, 
Proliferation, and Federal Services:

    Breast Cancer Research Stamp: Millions Raised for Research, 
but Better Cost Recovery Criteria Needed, GAO/GGD-00-80 (April 
2000).
    U.S. Postal Service: Postal Activities and Laws Related to 
Electronic Commerce, GAO/GGD-00-188 (September 2000).
    Status of the National Missile Defense Program, GAO/NSIA-
00-131 (May 2000).
    Northern Mariana Islands Procedures for Processing Aliens 
and Merchandise, GAO/GGD-00-97 (May 2000).
      

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT


                   MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING AND THE


                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


                     Chairman: George V. Voinovich


                Ranking Minority Member: Richard Durbin


                              I. Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
Restructuring and the District of Columbia held the following 
hearings during the 106th Congress:

1. Multiple Program Coordination in Early Childhood Education (March 
        25, 1999)

    This hearing was the first of two hearings that the 
Subcommittee held which used the Results Act to highlight the 
extent to which the various agencies involved in early 
childhood education were coordinating their efforts to achieve 
maximum results.
    Witnesses: Mamie Shaul, Ph.D., Associate Director, 
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues, U.S. General 
Accounting Office (GAO). She was accompanied by Eleanor 
Johnson, Ed.D., Harriet Ganson, Ph.D., and Janet Macia, all of 
the General Accounting Office.
    In this first hearing, the Subcommittee attempted to lay a 
foundation for subsequent hearings focusing on barriers to 
coordination and improving collaborative efforts among 
agencies. GAO evaluated the Departments of Education and Health 
and Human Services' 5-year Strategic Plans, and Fiscal Year 
1999 and Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Performance Plans with regard 
to their coordination efforts. GAO found that both Departments' 
plans are not living up to their full potential. While they 
addressed the issue of coordination, the plans provided little 
detail about their intentions to implement such coordination 
efforts. The Results Act is a valuable tool to identify 
strengths and weaknesses in agency coordination and should be 
used further to evaluate agency performance.

2. Management Reform in the District of Columbia (May 3, 1999)

    This was the first in a series of hearings that reviewed 
the District Government's system for measuring the progress and 
performance of management reforms in District programs and 
agencies.
    Witnesses: Anthony Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia; 
Dr. Alice Rivlin, Chairman, District of Columbia Financial 
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority; and Linda 
Cropp, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia.
    In this first hearing, the Subcommittee attempted to lay a 
foundation for subsequent hearings focusing on benchmarking and 
measuring the health and operations of the city. Mayor Williams 
testified that his administration has made rapid and 
substantial progress in addressing the short term agenda items. 
The mayor articulated his long term strategic plan, the 
importance of setting clear expectations and benchmarking, the 
role of performance indicators, and a community scorecard. Dr. 
Rivlin testified on the recovering economy and the current 
status of local governance. Chairman Cropp testified on 
management reform and the District Government's system for 
measuring the progress and performance of management reform in 
programs and agencies.

3. Multiple Program Coordination in Early Childhood Education: The 
        Agency Perspective (May 11, 1999)

    This was the second hearing that used the Results Act to 
highlight the extent to which the various agencies involved in 
early childhood education are coordinating their efforts to 
achieve maximum results. In this second hearing, the Department 
of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education 
responded to testimony given by the General Accounting Office 
on March 25, 1999. This hearing gave both Departments the 
opportunity to comment on criticism of their Fiscal Year 2000 
Annual Performance Plans.
    Witnesses: Olivia Golden, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services; and Judith Johnson, Acting Assistant 
Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. 
Department of Education.
    Ms. Golden testified that HHS intended to achieve program 
coordination through four methods: (1) ensuring that funding 
strategies provide incentives for collaboration; (2) supporting 
collaboration through Federal policies; (3) providing technical 
assistance to remove barriers to collaboration and sharing 
successful models and strategies; and (4) convening federal, 
State, and local partners to facilitate collaboration. Ms. 
Golden further testified on the direction of the Administration 
for Children and Families. Ms. Johnson testified that her 
department intends to approach coordination through a joint 
research effort, over a number of agencies, and with program 
performance measurement.

4. HR. 974--The District of Columbia College Access Act and S 856--
        Expanded Options in Higher Education for District of Columbia 
        Students Act of 1999 (June 24, 1999)

    The purpose of the hearing was to explore the D.C. college 
tuition concept as well as the differences between the House 
and Senate bills.
    Witnesses: Panel I included the House and Senate bill 
sponsors, Senator James Jeffords (R-VT), Representative Tom 
Davis (R-VA), and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). Panel 
II included the potential administrators of the program, D.C. 
Mayor Anthony Williams and Maureen McLaughlin, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Policy, Planning and Innovation, Department of 
Education. Panel III included: Lucio Noto, Chairman and CEO, 
Mobil Corporation; Dr. Julius Nimmons, President, University of 
the District of Columbia; and Patricia McGuire, Chair of the 
Government, Relations Committee, Consortium of Universities of 
the Washington Metropolitan Area.
    During their testimony, the sponsors of the bills, Senator 
Jeffords and Reps. Davis and Norton, explained the various 
provisions of their bills and argued in favor of their 
respective approaches. Both bills would allow D.C. young people 
to attend colleges or universities outside the District of 
Columbia at the in-state tuition rate, although a number of 
policy differences were evident between the two. Mayor Williams 
articulated the city's preference for the House bill, 
reaffirmed the program's economic importance to the city, 
expressed disapproval of inclusion of a means test, and 
articulated preference for administration of the program to be 
placed in the Mayor's office. Ms. McLaughlin expressed the 
Clinton Administration's support of the Senate approach. Mobil 
Corporation is a lead sponsor of the new private sector College 
Access Program for District students, D.C.-CAP. The program is 
based on the successful and nationally recognized Cleveland 
Scholarship Program. Mr. Noto testified on the new initiative 
and on the importance of the college tuition bill concept as a 
companion program. Dr. Nimmons expressed the difficulties and 
challenges facing UDC and discussed the impact that diminished 
funding has had on the university. McGuire articulated the 
Consortium's support of the House bill.

5. Egg Safety: Are There Cracks in the Federal Food Safety System? 
        (July 1, 1999)

    This was the first Subcommittee hearing on food safety, and 
it focused on oversight of egg safety as a case study on the 
effectiveness of the Federal food safety regime. At the request 
of Senator Durbin, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) 
issued a report entitled, ``Food Safety: U.S. Lacks a 
Consistent Farm-to-Table Approach to Egg Safety,'' that was the 
subject of the hearing. The Subcommittee addressed questions 
such as: Can the egg safety system be better organized and 
managed? Do the health risks posed by Salmonella enteritidis 
(SE) in eggs warrant a substantial reorganization of the 
present system? What changes can be made to the current system 
to enhance the safety of eggs?
    Witnesses: Panel I included Larry Dyckman, Director of Food 
and Agriculture Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office. He was 
accompanied by Stephen Secrist, Senior Evaluator of Food and 
Agriculture Issues. Representing the administration were 
Margaret Glavin, Associate Administrator of Food Safety and 
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Dr. 
Morris E. Potter, Director of the Food Safety Initiative, Food 
and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services. Panel II included: Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., 
Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest; 
Jill A. Snowdon, Ph.D., Director of Food Safety Programs, Egg 
Nutrition Center; Keith Mussman, with the United Egg Producers 
and the co-owner of Mussman's Back Acres; and Harold DeVries, 
Vice President of Mallquist Butter and Egg Company.
    Mr. Dyckman and Mr. Secrist described how current Federal 
oversight of egg safety resides in three agencies of the 
Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. 
In addition, there are usually two agencies in every State, 
agriculture and health services, that have egg safety 
responsibilities. Under this fragmented regulatory structure, 
responsibility for egg safety shifts back and forth between 
various Federal and State agencies as eggs move through 
production. This framework makes it difficult to ensure that 
resources are directed to the areas of highest risk and that 
policies are effectively coordinated. Mr. Dyckman recommended 
that Congress consider consolidating responsibility for egg 
safety in a single Federal department. The report also 
contained three recommendations for the Executive Branch to 
improve egg safety, including the more widespread use of 
science-based hazard analysis and critical control point 
systems. Mr. Dyckman recommended that FDA develop a model 
prevention-based program for egg farms and processing plants 
which States can adopt to reduce Salmonella entertidis 
contamination. The USDA should develop regulations that would 
require prevention-based programs at plants where egg products 
are processed. Finally, the USDA and FDA should jointly study 
the costs and benefits of implementing rapid cooling techniques 
in egg processing and packaging operations. In addition, he 
stated that in commenting on the draft report, the USDA and FDA 
generally agreed with the recommendations made.
    Ms. Glavin and Dr. Potter stated that GAO was too critical 
of Federal egg safety efforts. They explained that their 
agencies have worked closely on a number of initiatives over 
the last decade to prevent SE and to ensure safe eggs, and that 
GAO failed to note all of the positive steps the agencies have 
taken. They point to a decline of over 40 percent in the number 
of SE cases over the past few years as proof of good 
coordination and an effective system in general. They did, 
however, concur with GAO's recommendations for improving the 
system, although they disagree with the proposal to consolidate 
oversight of egg safety into a single agency.
    Dr. Jacobson focused on the health risks of SE, asserted 
that the government did not do enough to stem its outbreak, and 
that the government lacks the organization to do so now. 
Specifically, he noted the failure of all agencies involved to 
require testing of chicken flocks for SE, and that eggs from 
flocks known to be carriers of SE either be destroyed or 
diverted to egg processing plants where egg products are 
pasteurized. He believes that eggs provide one of the best 
illustrations of the need for a centralized Federal framework 
for food safety.
    Dr. Snowdon testified that egg safety is a success story, 
and pointed to the recent decline in the number of reported SE 
cases. Ms. Snowden also discussed the efforts of industry to 
reduce the risks of SE, the challenges of making eggs more 
safe, and said that more work needed to be done by both 
government and industry.
    Mr. Mussman and Mr. DeVries discussed the egg industry's 
efforts to reduce the health threat of eggs, and emphasized 
voluntary programs and partnerships with Federal and State 
regulatory agencies as the most effective method. Mr. Mussman 
outlined the ``Five Star Total Quality Assurance Program,'' 
that was developed by the United Egg Producers to enhance egg 
safety. Mr. DeVries detailed the success of the State of 
Illinois in reducing the threat of SE in eggs. They were both 
skeptical of GAO's recommendation to consolidate Federal egg 
safety efforts, and stated that creating a new bureaucracy 
would not improve the situation.

6. Total Quality Management: State Success Stories as a Model for the 
        Federal Government (July 29, 1999)

    This was the first in a series of management oversight 
hearings. The purpose of the hearing was to define total 
quality management (TQM), learn of its successful 
implementation in the State of Ohio, and examine applying TQM 
throughout the Federal Government.
    Witnesses: Panel I included Steve Wall, Director of the 
Ohio Office of Quality Services, and Teresa Shotwell-Haddix, 
Union Quality Coordinator for the Ohio Department of 
Transportation. The Subcommittee was forced to adjourn before 
the second panel could be called, so the following witnesses' 
testimony were submitted for the record: Christopher Mihm, 
Associate Director for Federal Management and Workforce Issues, 
General Accounting Office, and Deidre Lee, Acting Deputy 
Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    Total quality management is a system that (1) focuses on 
internal and external customers; (2) establishes an environment 
which facilitates team building, employee contribution and 
responsibility, risk taking, and innovation; (3) analyzes work 
processes and systems; and (4) institutionalizes a goal of 
continuous improvement. Other important elements of TQM are 
management-union partnerships, employee training, reforming 
personnel policies, and establishing a system to measure 
program outcomes.
    Mr. Wall and Ms. Shotwell-Haddix described Ohio's version 
of total quality management, the Quality Services through 
Partnership initiative (QStP). It has emphasized customer 
focus, union-management partnerships, empowering workers 
through training and incentive/rewards programs, and a results 
orientation. They discussed how QStP was implemented, where it 
has been successful, what mistakes were made, and what was 
learned from them. QStP has made a substantial contribution to 
the reinvention of Ohio State Government.
    Due to multiple votes on the Senate floor, Mr. Mihm and Ms. 
Lee submitted their statements for the record. Mr. Mihm stated 
that if the Federal Government is to achieve major improvements 
envisioned by the Results Act, it must have management and 
process improvement initiatives that employ the principles of 
quality management. Ms. Lee stated that quality management 
principles and practices are widespread throughout the Federal 
Government. She said that Federal departments and the National 
Partnership for Reinventing Government were focused on fiscal 
discipline, downsizing, restructuring, and other initiatives to 
make government ``work better and cost less,'' while OMB has 
been focused on implementation of the Results Act, the 24 
Priority Management Objectives, and streamlining.

7. ``Overlap And Duplication in the Federal Food Safety System'' 
        (August 4, 1999)

    In this second hearing on food safety, the Subcommittee 
focused on the organization of the food safety system, which is 
composed of 10 different agencies within 4 cabinet level 
departments, as well as 2 independent agencies, with a combined 
food safety budget of over $1 billion a year. The system is 
governed by more than 35 different laws, some of which are more 
than 100 years old.
    Witnesses: Panel I included Catherine E. Woteki, Ph.D., 
Under Secretary for Food Safety at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA); Dr. Jane E. Henney, M.D., Commissioner of 
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services; Lawrence Dyckman, Director of 
Food and Agriculture Issues at the U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO). Mr. Dyckman was accompanied by Keith Oleson, who 
is an Assistant Director of Food and Agriculture Issues, GAO. 
Lastly, Carol Tucker Foreman, Distinguished Fellow and Director 
at the Food Policy Institute of the Consumer Federation of 
America (CFA). Panel II included Nancy Donley, President of 
S.T.O.P.--Safe Tables Our Priority; Caroline Smith DeWaal, 
Director of Food Safety Programs at the Center for Science in 
the Public Interest; Rhona Applebaum, Ph.D., Executive Vice 
President for Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at the National 
Food Processors Association (NFPA); and Stacy Zawel, Ph.D., 
Vice President for Scientific and Regulatory Policy of the 
Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA).
    The Subcommittee examined this organization with these 
questions in mind: If the Federal Government were to create a 
food safety system from scratch, would it resemble the current 
system? Is this the best and most logical organization for 
Federal food safety agencies? In addition, the Subcommittee 
discussed S. 1281, the ``Safe Food Act of 1999.'' This bill, 
which was introduced by Senator Durbin and referred to the 
Subcommittee, would consolidate several agencies with food 
safety jurisdiction into a single, unified food safety 
administration.
    Representing the administration were Catherine E. Woteki 
(USDA), and Dr. Jane E. Henney, M.D. (FDA). They testified that 
even though there are many agencies with jurisdiction over food 
safety, it is not a problem if efforts are properly 
coordinated. They also said that the President's Council on 
Food Safety is examining ways to make oversight of food more 
efficient and effective.
    Mr. Dyckman (GAO) outlined GAO's work in this area which 
has spanned more than two decades and included dozens of 
reports. The accounting agency has long recommended that 
Federal food safety efforts be merged into a single agency. 
They stated that the current system was fragmented and broken, 
and that even excellent coordination between the various 
agencies could not overcome serious organizational deficiencies 
which have contributed to a lack of effectiveness and 
accountability. Fundamental changes to the food safety system 
would minimize the risk of foodborne illnesses. Currently, 
there are 12 agencies involved with food safety. Such 
fragmented responsibilities can cause problems for the food 
industry because there is not completely clear, unified 
communication about the health risks associated with 
contaminated foods. He also stated that the National Academy of 
Sciences agrees that a food system must be headed by a single 
official. Regardless of where a single agency is housed, what 
is important is the adherence to four key principles. First, a 
clear commitment by the Federal Government to consumer 
protection. Second, a system that is founded on uniform laws 
that are risk-based. Third, adequate resources to carry out the 
sytem. Fourth, competent and aggressive administration of the 
laws by the responsible agency and effective oversight by 
Congress.
    Ms. Foreman (CFA) discussed her experience as an Assistant 
Secretary at USDA with responsibility for food safety. She 
described how different jurisdictions led to turf battles 
between the various agencies. She said that this is the result 
of the food safety system being developed incrementally over 
time, without any central plan, and argued that the current 
system was in need of reorganization. Ms. Foreman stated that a 
food safety system built from scratch would not resemble the 
current system. The current system is not the best or most 
logical organization for Federal food safety agencies. The 
present system does not produce an acceptable level of public 
health protection. Consolidating food safety in one agency, 
with one budget, one leader, and ultimately, one authorizing 
statute is the only way to protect public health.
    Ms. Donley (S.T.O.P.) discussed her own experience of 
losing a child to E.coli poisoning, and believes that the 
current system needs to be reorganized to make the Nation's 
food more safe. Her thoughts were echoed by Caroline Smith 
DeWaal, who believes that, even though our food supply is among 
the safest in the world, it could be even safer, and that the 
creation of a single food agency would be a step in that 
direction. The Center for Science in the Public Interest 
strongly supports the Safe Food Act of 1999. S.T.O.P. Safe 
Tables Our Priorities, strongly supports the implementation of 
a single independent food safety agency. She cited an example 
of a loophole in the current system, stating that the single 
pathogen in E. coli affects products that are regulated by the 
FDA, FSIS, and EPA. So, while FSIS was dealing with the E. coli 
problem in meat, prevention strategies were not put in place 
for other products that could be affected by the same pathogen 
and that was because no one was looking at the overall picture.
    Dr. Applebaum (NFPA), and Dr. Zawel (GMA), both testified 
that a single food agency is not necessarily the best course of 
action. They noted that the United States already has one of 
the safest food supplies in the world, and conclude that the 
current regulatory structure functions well. Furthermore, they 
assert that before the agency structure is modified, the 35 
laws that govern food safety and direct how oversight is 
conducted need to be reformed to reflect the changes in the 
food-borne. threats to humans and the significant advances in 
food safety science and technology.

8. Quality Management at the Federal Level (October 15, 1999)

    This was the second in a series of management oversight 
hearings. The purpose of the hearing was to examine Federal 
agencies which are currently in the midst of substantial 
management and organizational change. It focused on the 
Internal Revenue Service and the General Services 
Administration, both of which are in the process of adopting 
quality management principles and other best practices in their 
organizations. Officials from the Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS) and the General Services Administration (GSA) discussed 
the ongoing changes at their agencies. The Subcommittee also 
received testimony from the national presidents of the two 
largest Federal employee unions, the American Federation of 
Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Treasury Employees 
Union (NTEU), and heard their perspectives on the ongoing 
changes at these two agencies. Finally, officials from the U.S. 
General Accounting Office (GAO) discussed the elements that 
must be present for a Federal agency to successfully reform its 
operations, and the extent to which those elements are present 
at the two agencies being examined.
    Witnesses: Panel I included Hon. Charles O. Rossotti, 
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and Martha 
Johnson, Chief of Staff of the General Services Administration. 
Panel II included: Colleen M. Kelley, National President of the 
National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU); Bobby L. Harnage, 
Sr., National President of the American Federation of 
Government Employees (AFGE); J. Christopher Mihm, Associate 
Director of Federal Management and Workforce Issues, General 
Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office. Mr. Mihm 
was accompanied by James R. White, Director of Tax Policy and 
Administration Issues, General Government Division, and Bernard 
Ungar, Director of Government Business Operations Issues, 
General Government Division.
    Commissioner Rossotti (IRS) discussed how the IRS is 
changing as a result of the reorganization that was mandated by 
Congress. The agency has developed a new mission statement and 
now considers customer service, as opposed to enforcement 
actions, its highest priority. He discussed how rank and file 
employees were being involved in major decisions, and how 
important this is to a successful reorganization. He also 
discussed some of the agency's greatest challenges, such as 
replacing antiquated information and data systems. While the 
IRS has made good initial progress, the reform effort underway 
will take at least a decade.
    Ms. Johnson (GSA) discussed the changes that have been 
underway at the agency for the last several years. GSA is no 
longer a mandatory supplier for Federal agencies, and as a 
result, GSA has tried to make itself more competitive by 
leveraging technology and focusing on customer service. At the 
same time, the agency has also downsized significantly during 
the 1990's, going from roughly 20,000 employees to 14,000, and 
has been reorganized to reflect the leaner workforce.
    Ms. Kelley (NTEU) and Mr. Harnage (AFGE) testified on 
behalf of unionized Federal employees. Ms. Kelley discussed the 
involvement of NTEU members in the IRS reorganization, and on 
balance is pleased with their participation and the results to 
date. Mr. Harnage was less complimentary of GSA's management, 
saying that they were reluctant to involve employees in major 
agency decisions. He did, however, point to two other examples 
that he believes illustrate excellent management-labor 
relations: The U.S. Mint and the U.S. Navy Crane Naval Surface 
Warfare Center. He also expressed his hope that relations with 
GSA management improve in the future.
    Mr. Mihm (GAO) discussed six elements which must be present 
for government agencies to successfully undertake reforms: (1) 
a demonstrated leadership commitment and accountability for 
change; (2) the integration of management improvement 
initiatives into programmatic decision making; (3) thoughtful 
and rigorous planning to guide decisions, particularly to 
address human capital and information technology issues; (4) 
employee involvement to elicit ideas and build commitment and 
accountability; (5) organizational alignment to streamline 
operations and clarify accountability; and (6) strong and 
continuing congressional involvement.
    The auditors painted a bleak picture of the involvement of 
Federal managers in the activities of their agencies. Mr. Mihm 
testified, based on a survey conducted in late 1996 and 1997, 
that: Only one-third of non-Senior Executive Service managers 
(as opposed to nearly three-fourths of the Senior Executive 
Service managers) reported they had been involved in 
establishing long-term strategic goals for their agencies; less 
than one-third of non-Senior Executive Service managers felt 
that to a great or very great extent they had the decision-
making authority needed to accomplish strategic goals; only 
about half of the managers surveyed reported that they were 
being held accountable for program results; and only one-fourth 
of non-Senior Executive Service managers reported that to a 
great or very great extent employees received positive 
recognition from their agencies for efforts to help accomplish 
strategic goals.

9. Managing Human Capital in the Twenty-first Century (March 9, 2000)

    This hearing focused on the human capital management 
challenges that will confront the Federal Government during the 
coming decade and what should be done to meet those challenges.
    Witnesses: Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the 
United States, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), and Hon. 
Janice R. Lachance, Director, Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM).
    In his testimony, Mr. Walker (GAO) stated that he has 
worked to raise the profile of and has directed substantial GAO 
resources to human capital issues, which may be placed on GAO's 
High-Risk list starting next January. He pointed out that while 
many laws passed in the 1990's addressed financial management, 
information management, procurement reform, and performance 
measurement, no consensus has emerged on the fundamental 
structural or policy changes that may be needed to address 
agencies' management of their human capital. He said that, ``as 
the Federal performance management framework has evolved over 
the last decade, the government's human capital management has 
emerged as the missing link.'' He further stressed that ``there 
is no time to waste,'' and that Congress and the Executive 
Branch must do all they can to modernize human capital 
practices within the context of current law, while working 
together on the legislative reforms that will be needed. Mr. 
Walker stated that a human capital framework should have five 
elements: Strategic planning, organizational alignment, 
leadership, talent, and performance culture. GAO has recently 
issued two reports on human capital issues. One described the 
best practices of nine private sector companies; the other is a 
human capital self-assessment checklist for agency leaders that 
GAO hopes Federal managers will use.
    In her testimony, Ms. Lachance described the 
administration's efforts in this area. As part of this year's 
budget submission, the Office of Management and Budget's list 
of Priority Management Objectives included ``Align Federal 
human resources to support agency goals: Recognizing that 
people are critical to achieving results Americans care about, 
the Administration will undertake a strategic approach to human 
resources management.'' Under this initiative, OPM is 
developing a workforce planning model that agencies will be 
able to tailor to their particular needs. The project was 
initiated in late 1998, after analysis showed that large 
numbers of employees across all agencies would be eligible for 
retirement in the coming decade. Ms. Lachance also described 
some of the other initiatives of her office intended to improve 
the quality of the Federal workforce.

10. The Effectiveness of Federal Employee Incentive Programs (May 2, 
        2000)

    The Subcommittee examined whether current Federal 
incentives--including recruitment bonuses, flexible office 
hours, telecommuting, onsite daycare, vacation time and 
performance pay--are adequate to bring quality people into 
government service and retain the best and brightest. Most 
people who seek employment in the Federal Government are 
motivated by the desire to serve their country, but this spirit 
cannot be taken for granted when the employment opportunities 
in the private sector are more attractive than ever before 
because of the thriving economy. The Federal Government must 
act to counter this trend by offering the incentives that will 
make it a more attractive place to work.
    Witnesses: Henry Romero, Associate Director of Workforce 
Compensation and Performance Service, Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM); Hon. Roberta Gross, Inspector General of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); Colleen 
M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees 
Union (NTEU); and Michael Brostek, Associate Director, Federal 
Management and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO).
    Mr. Romero (OPM) described the various incentives that are 
available to agencies and the flexibilities that agencies have 
under the law to customize programs to meet their particular 
needs. Agencies can offer recruitment and retention bonuses, 
flexible work schedules, tuition assistance and reimbursement, 
and family and medical leave. He also stressed the importance 
of competitive pay.
    NASA Inspector General Roberta Gross explained how many 
prospective employees are discouraged by the government's slow 
hiring process. ``It is my experience that it just takes too 
long to hire staff. We have lost leading candidates . . . to 
private sector competitors because companies can hire top-
performing candidates faster than we can.'' She also stressed 
that flexibility is key to personnel management in an agency 
like NASA, and that granting greater flexibility to managers 
should be central to any reform efforts.
    Ms. Kelley (NTEU) offered the union perspective on how to 
best attract, retain and motivate Federal employees. The most 
important incentives, she said, are good pay, and retirement 
and health benefits. She argued that the Federal Employees Pay 
Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA), which was meant to close the 
gap between public and private sector pay for similar work, has 
not been followed, and that ``fully implementing FEPCA would do 
more to address recruitment and retention in the Federal 
Government than all of the remaining incentive programs in 
place today.'' Ms. Kelley observed that budget constraints 
often prevent the use of recruitment and retention bonuses. She 
also asked that Federal agencies be permanently given the 
authority to use their appropriated funds to subsidize child-
care expenses for their lower paid employees.
    Mr. Brostek (GAO) had three main points. First, Federal 
agencies have broad authority to design and implement a variety 
of incentive programs, and this is very useful because no one 
incentive program is optimal in all circumstances. Second, over 
the last 5 years, agencies have used this flexibility to 
decrease their emphasis on awards that are tied directly to 
employees' performance appraisals and to increase their 
emphasis on alternative forms of compensation, such as special 
act, service, or gainsharing awards. Third, while agencies have 
been making use of the range of incentives available to them 
and have been altering the types of awards they give, many 
agencies do not assess whether their award programs are 
effective in motivating employees.

11. Has Government Been ``Reinvented''? (May 4, 2000)

    The hearing focused on the National Partnership for 
Reinventing Government, (formerly known as the National 
Performance Review), which was part of the Office of Vice 
President Gore. As the Subcommittee is interested in ongoing 
management reforms, Chairman Voinovich thought it appropriate 
to examine the administration's major management reform 
initiative to determine what it had accomplished during the 
last 7 years.
    Witnesses: The Subcommittee chose a balanced panel of 
witnesses for the hearing, composed of a government auditor, 
scholars and representatives from think-tanks: J. Christopher 
Mihm, Associate Director of Federal Management and Workforce 
Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO); Paul Light, Vice 
President and Director of the Governmental Studies Program, The 
Brookings Institution; Donald Kettl, Professor of Political 
Science and Public Affairs, LaFollette Institute of Public 
Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Ronald C. Moe, 
Project Coordinator, Government and Finance Division, 
Congressional Research Service (CRS); and Scott Hodge, Director 
of Tax and Budget Policy, Citizens for a Sound Economy. Morley 
Winograd, Senior Advisor to Vice President Gore and Director of 
the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, declined 
the Subcommittee's invitation to testify.
    Mr. Kettl said, ``problem areas like the GAO high-risk list 
and OMB's own priority management objective list have not been 
addressed . . . in many ways these problems have gotten worse 
and not better. This is largely a product of the fact that the 
reinventing government effort has not been engaged in attacking 
these issues head-on.'' Mr. Moe believes that, ``A case can be 
made that the core [management] competencies of government have 
eroded under NPR and are likely to continue to erode.'' Mr. 
Hodge said, ``Redundancy and duplication abound, and many 
government programs have simply become immortalized in the 
Federal budget,'' and that NPR ``has tinkered with the process 
of government rather than go in and analyze and determine the 
substance of what government should and should not do.''
    For the last several years, GAO has reported that because 
agencies did not strategically assess their human resources 
requirements before downsizing was initiated, the Federal 
Government faces a skills and experience imbalance in its 
workforce. Mr. Mihm said, ``It is by no means clear that the 
current workforce is adequately balanced and positioned to 
achieve results and agency missions. This is due in part to an 
apparent lack of adequate strategic and workforce planning 
across the government.''
    Mr. Light agreed that downsizing ``has been haphazard, 
random, and there is no question that in some agencies we have 
hollowed out institutional memory, and we are on the cusp of a 
significant human capital crisis.'' In some agencies, the loss 
of middle management positions has hindered many agencies' 
ability to carry out their missions and plan for the future. 
Mr. Kettl said that, ``The primary goal [of NPR] is to try to 
reduce the workforce, to get people out the door,'' and it paid 
little attention to strategic planning to ensure that agencies 
had the right balance of skills to carry out their missions.
    Currently, the Federal Government does not have a 
comprehensive plan to address its human capital problems, and 
GAO may well include human capital in its high-risk series in 
January 2001. The panelists agreed that while NPR has been 
avidly advocating reducing the size of the bureaucracy, it has 
not seemed as concerned with addressing personnel issues. Mr. 
Light said, ``I think we have got to tackle the current 
condition of the public service. I think that is a real miss in 
reinventing government. We just have not done anything to deal 
with the human service crisis in the Federal Government.'' Mr. 
Kettl mentioned this throughout the hearing as well. He said, 
``We have no alternative but to confront the fundamental 
question of what the Federal workforce ought to look like, what 
kind of skills it ought to have to do the job that we know must 
be done, and my concern is that the first 7 years of 
reinventing government has not really addressed that 
question,'' and ``The problem is that we have increasingly 
created a gulf between the people who are in the government and 
the skills needed to run that government effectively.''
    Furthermore, for all of this downsizing, the Federal 
Government remains massive, and does not provide fewer services 
or functions. Mr. Light said, ``It is only by the most narrow 
definition of workforce [full-time equivalents] that a 
president could say the era of big government is over.'' 
Rather, as has been documented by Mr. Light, there is now a 
``shadow workforce'' of almost 13 million contractors, 
grantees, and State and local government employees complying 
with Federal mandates and working side by side with Federal 
employees.
    NPR claims approximately $137 billion in savings from its 
efforts to reinvent the Federal Government. GAO reviewed 
recommendations representing 22 percent of the total amount of 
NPR's savings claims and over two-thirds of the $44.3 billion 
in savings that NPR claimed had been achieved from its 
recommendations to individual Federal agencies. Mr. Mihm 
stated, ``that NPR claimed savings from agency-specific 
recommendations . . . could not be fully attributed to its 
efforts.''
    For example, NPR recommended that the Department of Energy 
``continue'' the reduction of funding for nuclear weapons 
production, research, testing programs, and infrastructure. Mr. 
Mihm described how the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
attributed savings associated with the downsizing of the 
nuclear weapons complex, $6.9 billion, to NPR. OMB failed to 
consider that the end of the Cold War and the Comprehensive 
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would have changed the organization of 
the weapons labs regardless of whether NPR had made the 
recommendation. GAO found similar examples with the Department 
of Agriculture and NASA. Although GAO examined only a portion 
of the total savings claimed by NPR, these points raise serious 
questions as to the validity of claimed savings overall.
    Several of the witnesses discussed NPR's positive aspects 
and achievements. NPR stressed that many of the problems of the 
government were, as Mr. Light said, the result of ``good people 
trapped in bad systems.'' Consistent with that approach, it has 
tried to improve the image of the civil service, which has been 
tarnished in recent years. Mr. Light stated that, ``I like the 
general approach [of NPR] that we have decent, hard-working 
people in government and that we need to figure out ways to 
give them the tools to do their work.''
    NPR has worked to cut red tape and remove burdensome and 
seemingly outdated regulations which hamper government 
performance. It directed that government agencies focus on 
customer service, pushed the use of innovative information 
technology in the workplace, and assisted with the 
implementation of procurement reforms passed by Congress. 
Finally, regardless of the outcome of the next presidential 
election, management improvement initiatives will have to 
continue, just as NPR itself was the continuation of previous 
reform efforts. Mr. Kettl said, ``This is an effort that 
cannot, simply will not end at the end of this administration . 
. . whoever it is who is [the next] president will have no 
alternative but to reinvent reinvention.''

12. Performance Management in the District of Columbia: A Progress 
        Report (May 9, 2000)

    This is the second in a series of hearings that monitor the 
District Government's system for measuring the progress and 
performance of management reform in District programs and 
agencies. In the first hearing, the Subcommittee attempted to 
lay a foundation for subsequent hearings focusing on 
benchmarking and measuring the health and operations of the 
city. Mayor Williams, Control Board Chair Rivlin and Council 
Chair Cropp testified at that hearing.
    Witness: Anthony Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia.
    At the second hearing, the Subcommittee invited Mayor 
Williams to report on the progress the District has made in 
establishing and monitoring performance management initiatives 
in the city. Mayor Williams testified on the success of the 
``Short-term Action Agenda'' in achieving its goals, and he 
also introduced his ``Citywide Strategic Plan.'' In addition to 
the strategic plan, the Mayor discussed the ``2000 Mayor's 
Scorecard,'' performance contracts, as well as the performance 
accountability plans and reports mandated by Congress.
    In conclusion, while the city has yet to focus in on one 
specific tool for monitoring management reform progress, it 
appears that steps have been taken in this regard.

13. Training Federal Employees to Be Their Best (May 18, 2000)

    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the Federal 
Government's commitment to train and educate its employees to 
maintain their skills, enhance their performance and ensure 
they are able to keep pace with the ever-changing needs of the 
American public. Training is a vital component in making a 
world-class civil service.
    Witnesses: Panel I included Hon. John U. Sepulveda, Deputy 
Director, Office of Personnel Management (OPM); Hon. Diane M. 
Disney, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Civilian 
Personnel Policy, Department of Defense (DOD); Michael Brostek, 
Associate Director of Federal Management and Workforce Issues, 
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Panel II included: Bobby 
L. Harnage, National President, American Federation of 
Government Employees (AFGE); Thomas J. Mosgaller, Vice 
President and Director of Organizational Development, American 
Society for Quality (ASQ); and Tina Sung, President and CEO, 
American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). The 
Office of Management and Budget was asked to provide a witness 
but declined to testify.
    Mr. Sepulveda (OPM) described actions taken by the 
administration to improve training and human capital 
management. In January 1999, the President issued Executive 
Order 13111, the purpose of which is to provide direction to 
government leaders on using technology to improve training 
opportunities for Federal employees. In the 2001 budget 
proposal, the administration added aligning human resources to 
support agency goals as one of its Priority Management 
Objectives, and tasked OPM with assisting agencies to 
accomplish this goal. Mr. Sepulveda noted that Federal agencies 
need to do a better job of aligning training and development 
initiatives, and indeed human capital management generally, 
with their strategic plans.
    Mr. Sepulveda then discussed OPM's two principal roles with 
respect to training the Federal workforce. One is to provide 
executive and managerial development for the Senior Executive 
Service (SES). The second is to set government-wide policies 
that Federal agencies use to administer their own training 
programs, and OPM is proposing or implementing new programs to 
improve training. One proposal would establish an exchange 
program for members of the SES, who would work in leading 
private sector organizations. They would bring back valuable 
contacts, experience and knowledge of private sector best 
practices that would benefit Federal agencies. OPM has also 
established an ``Individual Learning Account'' (ILA) pilot 
program in 13 agencies. ILAs allow managers to put either money 
or hours or both into an account upon which an employee can 
draw to obtain training, which can be provided by either 
government or the private sector. OPM is assessing the program 
and determining whether to authorize it government-wide.
    Dr. Disney (DOD) described how the Department of Defense 
(DOD) was changing its approach to developing its civilian 
workforce. She noted that, ``civilians are generally expected 
to bring the necessary education and training with them. As a 
result, the Department has long invested more in the military, 
whose future it controls, than in the civilians, who are part 
of the Federal-wide system. However, DOD is transforming its 
approach to civilian education and training to focus on the 
idea of investment rather than cost.'' For example, in 1997, 
DOD created the Defense Leadership and Management Program 
(DLAMP) to improve its internal management accession. The 
program is the first systematic departmentwide program to 
prepare civilians for key leadership positions. It requires 
rotational assignments, professional military education at the 
senior level, and at least 10 advanced level graduate courses 
in subjects important for defense leaders. DLAMP has heightened 
awareness of the need for similar investments in other areas.
    Mr. Brostek (GAO) stated that training and retraining 
employees is critical to achieving meaningful improvements in 
agencies' performance, and that the government needs to make 
greater investments in its employees. He then described three 
steps that high performing organizations consistently take when 
designing and implementing training and development programs. 
First, they identify the knowledge, skills, abilities, and 
behaviors that employees need to support the mission and goals 
of an organization, and they determine to what extent their 
employees possess those competencies. Second, they design 
training programs to meet any identified gaps in competencies. 
Third, they evaluate the training programs to ensure that they 
are actually increasing employees' competencies and the 
organization's performance.
    GAO has been examining training activities at several 
Federal agencies. All of the agencies reported that a lack of 
staff and resources were affecting their ability to deliver 
training that they believed was appropriate to develop and 
maintain the skills needed by their workforce. GAO believes 
that agencies need to make a business case for adequate 
training funds to Congress. Agencies have to identify what 
training is needed and how that training is likely to produce 
improved performance by both individuals and the agency. 
Furthermore, if agencies are unable to obtain what they believe 
to be adequate resources through the appropriations process, 
they may need to consider internal reallocation of resources to 
cover training requirements.
    Mr. Harnage (AFGE) said that agencies seldom ask for or 
include union participation when formulating training 
activities and budgets. He also noted that, ``the trend line 
for Federal spending on training, then, is apparently a 
downward one, even though it could be expected to be increasing 
because of the smaller Federal workforce and the increased 
demands put on each worker.'' AFGE believes that training 
budgets are often sacrificed for cost-cutting reasons, and that 
agencies still do not consider employees a resource in which to 
be invested.
    Mr. Mosgaller (ASQ) stated that much training is wasted 
because it is never used on the job. ``People go through 
expensive and time-consuming training, then go home and put the 
manuals on the shelf, never to be used again. The training has 
to be applied quickly because it is well known and documented 
that learning that is not used decays.'' The result is 
irrelevant training and a waste of the organization's 
resources. He described how the purpose of training is to 
create value for the organization. ``The only way to create 
value is to take the emphasis off of training delivery systems 
and put it on aligning the organization for performance 
excellence. Making every training activity an integral part of 
a highly focused performance improvement system. The individual 
learning must be connected to results you want to achieve.''
    Ms. Sung (ASTD) stated that, ``workplace learning is 
becoming the smartest strategic solution to the largest human 
resources challenge ever facing employers . . . for both the 
private sector and government, attracting, optimizing, and 
retaining talent will require a continuous investment in 
people.'' She pointed out that there is a strong link between 
training and retention, and that many companies have secured 
lower turnover rates and higher employee satisfaction as a 
result of employee career development initiatives. To address 
perceived shortfalls in training in the Federal Government, she 
believes that human capital issues should be aggressively 
addressed by the next administration. For training programs to 
be successful, they must be supported at the highest levels. 
``During the first 100 days of the new administration, each 
cabinet secretary should convene political appointees and staff 
in order to develop strategies for identifying skill needs, 
building worker competencies, and aligning human capital 
management policies with performance management principles.'' 
In addition, agencies should collect and widely disseminate 
data on their training investments, practices, and outcomes.

14. Assessing the Progress of Performance Management in the District of 
        Columbia (October 3, 2000)

    This was the third in a series of hearings that monitor the 
District Government's system for measuring the progress and 
performance of management reform in District programs and 
agencies.
    Witnesses: J. Christopher Mihm, Director, Strategic Issues, 
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), and Hon. Anthony A. 
Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia. Mayor Williams was 
accompanied by John Koskinen, Deputy Mayor and City 
Administrator, District of Columbia.
    At the hearing, Mayor Williams and Mr. Koskinen testified 
on the District's progress in achieving its Fiscal Year 2000 
goals, reporting progress but acknowledging that the District 
still has room for improvement. Mr. Mihm (GAO) stated that the 
District still lacks one unified strategic plan and that no 
system is currently in place to verify the District's 
performance data. The Subcommittee followed up with the Mayor's 
office to ensure that the recommendations GAO made at the 
hearing were implemented.

                            II. GAO Reports

    During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee worked in 
conjunction with the General Accounting Office on 24 reports 
and studies.
    Results Act: Using Agency Performance Plans to Oversee 
Early Childhood Programs, T-HEHS-99-93 (03/25/1999)
    Food Safety: U.S. Needs a Consistent Farm-to-Table Approach 
to Egg Safety, T-RCED-99-232 (07/01/1999)
    Management Reform: Using the Results Act and Quality 
Management to Improve Federal Performance, T-GGD-99-151 (07/29/
1999)
    Food Safety: U.S. Needs a Single Agency to Administer a 
Unified, Risk-Based Inspection System, T-RCED-99-256 (08/04/
1999)
    Managing for Results: Answers to Hearing Questions on 
Quality Management, GGD-99-181R (09/10/1999)
    Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement 
Initiatives, T-GGD-00-26 (10/15/1999)
    Human Capital: Key Principles From Nine Private Sector 
Organizations, GGD-00-28 (01/31/2000) (this report also 
addressed to Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the 
Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and 
Federal Services)
    Early Childhood Programs: Characteristics Affect the 
Availability of School Readiness Information, HEHS-00-38 (02/
28/2000)
    Evaluations of Even Start Family Literacy Program 
Effectiveness, HEHS-00-58R (03/08/2000)
    Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century, 
T-GGD-00-77 (03/09/2000)
    District of Columbia Government: Performance Report's 
Adherence to Statutory Requirements, GGD-00-107 (04/14/2000)
    Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Assess 
Crosscutting Programs, HEHS-00-78 (04/28/2000)
    Human Capital: Using Incentives to Motivate and Reward High 
Performance, T-GGD-00-118 (05/02/2000)
    Management Reform: Continuing Attention Is Needed to 
Improve Government Performance, T-GGD-00-128 (05/04/2000)
    Human Capital: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of 
Training at Selected Agencies, T-GGD-00-131 (05/18/2000)
    Sales Taxes: Electronic Commerce Growth Presents 
Challenges; Revenue Losses Are Uncertain, GGD/OCE-00-165 (06/
30/2000)
    Confirmation of Political Appointees: Eliciting Nominees 
Views on Leadership and Management Issues, GGD-00-174 (08/11/
2000)
    Title I Preschool Education: More Children Served, but 
Gauging Effect on School Readiness Difficult, HEHS-00-171 (09/
20/2000)
    Reinventing Government: Status of NPR Recommendations at 10 
Federal Agencies, GGD-00-145 (09/21/2000)
    Economic Development: Multiple Federal Programs Fund 
Similar Economic Development Activities, RCED/GGD-00-220 (09/
29/2000)
    Financial Management: Census Monitoring Board 
Disbursements, Internal Control Weaknesses, and Other Matters, 
AIMD-00-317 (09/29/2000)
    District of Columbia Government: Progress and Challenges in 
Performance Management, GAO-01-96T (10/03/2000)
    Managing for Results: Federal Managers' Views Show Need for 
Ensuring Top Leadership Skills GAO-01-127 (10/20/2000)

                            III. Legislation

    The following bills were considered by the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the 
District of Columbia during the 106th Congress:
    S. 205--This bill establishes a Federal Commission on 
Statistical Policy to study the reorganization of the Federal 
statistical system, to provide uniform safeguards for the 
confidentiality of information acquired from exclusively 
statistical purposes, and to improve the efficiency of Federal 
statistical programs and the quality of Federal statistics by 
permitting limited sharing of records among designated agencies 
for statistical purposes under strong safeguards. Cited as the 
Federal Commission on Statistical Policy Act of 1999. The bill 
was introduced on January 19, 1999, by Senator Moynihan for 
himself and Senator Kerrey.
    S. 351--This bill provides that certain Federal property 
shall be made available to States for State and local 
organization use before being made available to other entities. 
Cited as the ``Taxpayer Oversight of Surplus Property Act,'' 
the bill was introduced on February 3, 1999, by Senator Grams 
for himself and Senators Johnson, Sessions and Bennett. The 
bill requires that nonlethal excess supplies of the Department 
of Defense be made available to a State or a local government 
upon request before such supplies are made available for 
humanitarian relief purposes. Permits the President to make 
such supplies available for humanitarian purposes before they 
are made available to a State or local government in response 
to a natural disaster emergency. Amends the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961, with respect to the transfer of property for 
environmental protection in foreign countries, to prohibit such 
transfers unless the Administrator of General Services (GSA 
Administrator) determines that there are no Federal or State 
use requirements for the property under any other provision of 
law. Requires the GSA Administrator to report to the Congress 
on the effectiveness of surplus personal property donation and 
disposal programs (except for any program that grants access to 
personal property by local communities affected by the closure 
of a military base), along with recommendations for 
consolidating such programs under a single Federal authority.
    S. 468--This bill seeks to improve the effectiveness and 
performance of Federal financial assistance programs, simplify 
Federal financial assistance application and reporting 
requirements, and improve the delivery of services to the 
public. This bill was introduced on February 25, 1999, by 
Senator Voinovich for himself, Chairman Thompson, and Senators 
Lieberman and Durbin. The Subcommittee unanimously approved 
reporting favorably S. 468 to the full Committee on May 19, 
1999. S. 468 passed the Senate with amendments by unanimous 
consent on July 15, 1999. The bill passed the House on November 
2, 1999, and became Public Law 106-107 on November 20, 1999.
    S. 856--This bill directs the Secretary of Education to 
award grants to eligible institutions in Maryland or Virginia 
that enroll eligible District of Columbia students to pay the 
difference between in-State tuition and out-of-State tuition 
(with ratable reductions, if appropriations are insufficient) 
on behalf of each eligible D.C. student enrolled in the 
eligible institution. Cited as the ``Expanded Options in Higher 
Education for District of Columbia Students Act of 1999,'' the 
bill was introduced on April 21, 1999 by Senator Jeffords for 
himself and Senators Hutchison and Warner. The Subcommittee 
unanimously approved reporting favorably S. 856 to the full 
Committee on July 28, 1999.
    S. 1281--This bill establishes in the Executive Branch, an 
independent Food Safety Administration which shall administer 
and enforce the food safety laws for the protection of the 
public health. Directs the Administrator of Food Safety to 
oversee the: (1) implementation of Federal food safety 
inspection, enforcement, and research efforts, based on 
scientifically supportable assessments of risks to public 
health; (2) development of consistent and science-based 
standards for safe food; (3) coordination and prioritization of 
food safety research and education programs with other Federal 
agencies; (4) coordination of the Federal response to foodborne 
illness outbreaks with other Federal agencies and State 
agencies; and (5) integration of Federal food safety activities 
with State and local agencies. Transfers to the administration 
all functions of the following Federal agencies that relate to 
administration or enforcement of the food safety laws, as 
determined by the President: (1) the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service of the Department of Agriculture; (2) the Center for 
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition of the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA); (3) the Center for Veterinary Medicine of 
FDA; (4) the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of 
Commerce as it relates to the Seafood Inspection Program; and 
(5) such others as the President may designate by Executive 
order. This bill was introduced by Senator Durbin on June 24, 
1999 for himself and Senators Cleland, Mikulski, and 
Torricelli.
    S. 2242--This bill seeks to amend the Federal Activities 
Inventory Reform Act of 1998 to improve the process for 
identifying the functions of the Federal Government that are 
not inherently governmental functions, for determining the 
appropriate organizations for the performance of such function 
on the basis of competition. S. 2242--The Federal Activities 
Inventory Reform Act Amendments of 2000, was introduced on 
March 9, 2000 by Senator Thomas.
    H.R. 409--This bill directs each Federal agency to develop 
and implement a plan that, among other things, streamlines and 
simplifies the application, administrative, and reporting 
procedures for Federal financial assistance programs 
administered by the agency. Requires each agency to publish the 
plan in the Federal Register, receive public comment, and hold 
public forums on the plan. Requires the designated lead agency 
official to consult with the representatives of non-Federal 
entities during plan development and implementation. Cited as 
the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 
1999, the bill was introduced by Congressman Rob Portman on 
January 19, 1999. H.R. 409 passed the House on February 24, 
1999, was received in the Senate on February 25, 1999. (See S. 
468.)
    H.R. 858--This bill would amend title 11, District of 
Columbia Code, to extend coverage under the whistleblower 
protection provisions of the District of Columbia Comprehensive 
Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to personnel of the courts of the 
District of Columbia. Cited at the District of Columbia Court 
Employees Whistleblower Protection Act of 1999, this bill was 
introduced on February 25, 1999 by Representative Davis for 
himself and Representatives Morella, Moran and Norton. The 
Subcommittee unanimously approved reporting favorably H.R. 858 
to the full Committee on July 28, 1999.
    H.R. 974--This bill establishes a program to afford high 
school graduates from the District of Columbia the benefits of 
in-State tuition at State colleges and universities outside the 
District of Columbia. This bill was introduced on March 4, 
1999, by Representative Davis for himself and Representatives 
Norton, Morella, Hoyer, Wynn, Horn, Cunningham, Ehrlich, and 
Moran. The bill passed the House on May 24, 1999. The bill was 
sent to the Senate and referred to the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the 
District of Columbia. The Subcommittee held a hearing on June 
25, 1999 (S. Hrg. 105-252). The Bill passed the Senate with an 
amendment (S. Amdt. 2317) on October 19, 1999 by unanimous 
consent. It became Public Law 106-98 on November 12, 1999.
    H.R. 3995--District of Columbia Receivership Accountability 
Act of 2000--Requires each court-appointed District of Columbia 
receiver who administers departments, offices, and agencies of 
the District of Columbia Government to: (1) administer such 
entities through practices which promote the financial 
stability and management efficiency of the District Government; 
(2) ensure that the costs incurred in the administration of 
such entities (including the receiver's personnel costs) are 
consistent with applicable regional and national standards; (3) 
administer the entities by applying generally accepted 
accounting principles and fiscal management practices; (4) 
consult with the Mayor and Chief Financial Officer of the 
District in preparing the entity's annual budget for a Fiscal 
Year; and (5) prepare and submit to the Mayor, for inclusion in 
the District's annual budget, estimates of the expenditures and 
appropriations necessary for the maintenance and operation of 
such entities for the year. This bill was introduced on March 
15, 2000 by Delegate Norton for herself and Representative 
Davis. The bill passed the house on June 12, 2000, the Senate 
on October 12, 2000 by unanimous consent, and became Public Law 
106-397 on October 30, 2000.
    S.J. Res. 35--Disapproves the action of the District of 
Columbia Council on November 3, 1998, the Legalization of 
Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998, approved by 
the electors of the District of Columbia. The resolution was 
introduced on October 4, 1999 by Senator Voinovich.

                          IV. Other Activities


A. Training Survey

    The Subcommittee conducted an examination of the level of 
investment in employee training by Federal agencies as part of 
its human capital oversight agenda. Senator Voinovich is 
concerned that in general, Federal employees are not receiving 
the training they need to maintain skills, enhance performance 
or keep pace with the ever-changing needs of the American 
public. This impression was buttressed by testimony the 
Subcommittee received at its May 18, 2000, hearing on employee 
training, as well as the testimony of Comptroller General David 
Walker on March 9, 2000, who observed:

    L  In cutting back on the hiring of new staff in order to 
reduce the number of their employees, agencies also reduced the 
influx of new people with the new competencies needed to 
sustain excellence. As you are aware, little data exists on the 
overall Federal expenditures on training, but the anecdotal 
evidence is that, in trying to save on workforce-related costs, 
agencies cut back on the training investments needed if their 
smaller workforces were to make up for institutional losses in 
skills and experience.

    Neither the Office of Management and Budget nor the Office 
of Personnel Management collects agency training budgets and 
activities. Therefore, Senator Voinovich decided to ask 
selected agencies for this information directly. Through this 
survey, which included 18 questions on the agencies' workforce, 
training requirements, and actual training budgets, the 
Subcommittee has developed a more in-depth understanding of how 
training budgets are formulated. As a result of what the 
Subcommittee has learned in this survey and other activities, 
it has developed a number of recommendations to improve 
training, which are included in Chairman Voinovich's human 
capitol report.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Report to the President: The Crisis in Human Capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following 12 agencies received the survey:

     LAdministration for Children and Families, 
Department of Health and Human Services;

     LBureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State;

     LDefense Contract Audit Agency, Department of 
Defense;

     LDefense Finance and Accounting Service, 
Department of Defense;

     LEmployment and Training Administration, 
Department of Labor;

     LFood Safety and Inspection Service, Department of 
Agriculture;

     LHealth Care Financing Administration, Department 
of Health and Human Services;

     LImmigration and Naturalization Service, 
Department of Justice;

     LOccupational Safety and Health Administration, 
Department of Labor;

     LOffice of Personnel Management;

     LU.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury, 
and the U.S. Mint, Department of the Treasury.

    The staff of the Subcommittee met with officials from all 
12 agencies. The meetings allowed the Subcommittee to explain 
both the purpose of the inquiry, and collect valuable 
information from the agencies. Agency officials shared several 
observations that although not applicable to the whole 
Executive Branch, are nevertheless illuminating. Based upon 
these meetings and the review of the agency submissions,\2\ the 
Subcommittee has made the following observations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Subcommittee received official responses from only 11 of 
the 12 agencies surveyed.

     LEleven of the agencies surveyed did not have 
``training'' budgets. Only one agency had a dedicated employee 
training budget. The other agencies disperse training funds 
throughout various other accounts, such as: Agency operations 
and maintenance; compensation, travel, and purchased services; 
labor, travel, tuition and base operations; salaries and 
expenses; program management accounts; and Federal 
administration budgets. In addition, most agencies have 
decentralized training activities. Several agencies are 
centralizing their training activities to help identify 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
training requirements.

     LBecause of this decentralized dispersal, most of 
the agencies indicated that it was difficult for them to 
determine the exact size of their training budgets. It takes a 
great deal of effort for an agency to pull this information 
together from the different parts of the budget in order to 
present a complete picture of training activities. Several of 
the agencies were unable to provide information on their 
training budgets from previous years because their record 
keeping is poor or non-existent.

     LNine agencies reported the amount of their 
payroll budget that was spent on employee training from Fiscal 
Year 1997 through Fiscal Year 2000. The overall average was 
1.99 percent. One agency devoted 4.75 percent, while another 
devoted just .58 percent of its payroll to employee training. 
However, as noted above, many of the agencies noted that these 
figures might not represent the exact amount spent on employee 
training. According to the American Society for Training and 
Development, private organizations that are recognized for 
their excellence in employee training spend on average 3.6 
percent of payroll on training. The average private 
organization spends 2 percent on training, similar to what the 
surveyed agencies spend.

     LEight agencies said that their training budgets 
were adequate. Only two agencies stated that their training 
budgets were clearly inadequate for their current mission.

     LSix of the agencies said that they could make 
effective use of additional training resources. Four of the 
agencies said that they could not make effective use of 
additional training funds at this time.

     LOnly one of these agencies expressed confidence 
that additional training resources would be made available if 
they were requested from their department.

     LWhen agencies undergo budget cuts, training is 
often hit hard. Other costs funded out of the same accounts, 
such as administration, payroll, and physical plant are fixed 
and cannot be cut.

     LMost agencies said that a single line-item for 
training would be a double-edged sword. While it would raise 
the profile of training within the budget, it would leave it 
more vulnerable to reprogramming.

     LAll of the surveyed agencies said that biennial 
budgeting and appropriations would greatly assist the agency in 
formulating its training activities and policies in both the 
short and the long-term. While agency budget requests are sent 
to Congress 8 months before the start of the Fiscal Year, the 
appropriations bills are usually signed into law weeks and some 
times only days before the start of the Fiscal Year (and of 
course sometimes after the start of the Fiscal Year). It can 
take weeks for an agency to sift through its budget, determine 
how much it was actually appropriated for training, and then 
begin to implement its training plan. Furthermore, budget 
fluctuations from year to year make it difficult to establish 
continuity in training activities and develop long-term 
training plans.

     LSeveral agencies said they were incorporating 
distance learning into their training activities so as to 
lessen the reliance on and use of classroom training.

     LSome agencies found that they needed better 
management succession programs to develop future leaders.

     LThe agencies differed in the number of political 
appointees and the training those appointees receive. Two of 
the agencies had no appointees. Two of the agencies had a 
single appointee who receives no formal training or 
orientation. One agency with one appointee provided media 
training, sexual harassment prevention training, and attendance 
at a leadership conference. The appointees of another agency 
received management training from OPM and briefings on the 
administration's domestic policy and coordination between 
cabinet agencies and the White House. Another agency's training 
consisted of briefings on ethics, civil rights, and risk 
communications. (This agency also noted that its appointees are 
required by law to have expertise in their appointed area.) 
Another agency with three political appointees provides 
training in ethics, information security, and management. 
Finally, another two agencies provide their appointees with 
ethics training and distribute handbooks designed specifically 
for political appointees entitled, Surviving the Bureaucratic 
Maze.

B. Report to the President: The Crisis in Human Capital

    During his first 2 years as Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the 
District of Columbia, Senator Voinovich has focused 
considerable attention on the impending human capital crisis 
that threatens to deplete our Federal Government of vital 
expertise. This report, entitled Report to the President: The 
Crisis in Human Capital, is the formal product of the 
Subcommittee's 2-year investigation into the human capital 
crisis--the hearings, reports and findings--as well as the 
Subcommittee's recommendations to the new administration on 
empowering the Federal workforce and helping to minimize the 
human capital crisis.
    The Subcommittee crafted its investigation around two 
primary objectives: (1) identifying and addressing the 
barriers, both administrative and legislative, that hinder 
Federal employees in maximizing their potential, and (2) 
encouraging the Federal Government to invest sufficient 
resources in human capital development. Senator Voinovich 
believes that the Federal Government must do more to improve 
training and employee incentives in order to attract and retain 
the talent necessary to maintain the vitality and competence of 
our Federal workforce.
    In formulating its recommendations to reform the Federal 
Government's human resources management policies, Senator 
Voinovich held a total of six hearings to discuss topics 
ranging from State success stories in empowering public 
servants, to a critique of the effectiveness of the National 
Partnership for Reinventing Government. In addition, the 
Subcommittee tasked the U.S. General Accounting Office with 
drafting numerous reports that analyze various aspects of human 
capital management, ranging from an audit of the private 
sector's human capital best practices to an analysis of the 
effect of results-oriented management practices on human 
capital management in the Federal Government. The Subcommittee 
also conducted a survey of 12 Federal agencies to determine 
their level of investment in human capital and employee 
training.
    The findings of the Subcommittee leave little doubt that 
the Federal Government is in dire need of a unified strategy to 
rebuild the Federal workforce. Based upon the investigation, 
the Subcommittee proposes a number of recommendations to the 
next administration that should begin to address the pending 
human capital crisis. Some of the recommendations do not 
require legislative authority (i.e., the development of 
comprehensive agency workforce plans and the encouragement of 
telecommuting), while others do require new legislation (i.e., 
a more flexible pay system).
    Political appointees in the next administration must 
understand the importance of managing human capital to the 
success of Federal departments and agencies. Senator Voinovich 
looks forward to working with the appointees of the next 
administration to identify and refine the policies and 
practices that will lead to a world-class civil service, thus 
better meeting the challenges of governing in the 21st Century.

C. Summary of U.S. General Accounting Office Report Confirmation of 
        Political Appointees: Eliciting Nominees' Views on Leadership 
        and Management Issues, GAO-GGD-00-174, August 2000, requested 
        by Senator Voinovich.

    In 2001 and beyond, the Senate will consider the 
confirmation of hundreds of the next administration's nominees 
to senior positions. Nominees to political appointments should 
be highly qualified for the positions they are seeking. Years 
of inattention to human capital, the struggle to modernize 
financial and information management systems, and Congress' 
insistence that agencies measure and demonstrate results 
require new agency leaders to have a proven track record in the 
nuts and bolts of sound management and performance. At the 
Subcommittee's March 9, 2000, hearing on human capital 
management, GAO Comptroller General David Walker stated:

    L  It is clear that Federal agency leaders must create an 
integrated, strategic view of their human capital--and then 
sustain that attention to create real improvements in the way 
they manage their people. One of the emerging challenges for 
new presidential appointees will be to add to their traditional 
policy portfolios an understanding of the importance of 
performance management issues--and particularly, human capital 
issues--to the accomplishment of their agencies' policy and 
programmatic goals. Through its role in the appointment and 
confirmation process, the Senate may wish to ensure that future 
nominees to leadership roles in the Executive agencies are 
committed to sound Federal management, and in particular, to 
ensuring that their agencies recognize and enhance the value of 
their people.

    Senator Voinovich requested a management questionnaire for 
political appointees from GAO which will assist the Senate in 
its constitutional role to advise and consent on presidential 
appointments. The report was released by Senator Voinovich on 
September 7, 2000. Given the large turnover of political 
appointees that will occur in the coming months, this product 
could not be more important or timely.
    The report includes 31 questions on human capital, 
performance measurement, financial management, and other 
factors that influence the quality of Federal programs and 
services. Senator Voinovich envisions committees submitting the 
questions to nominees either before or during confirmation 
hearings. The questions are intended for those appointees who 
will have significant program management responsibilities, and 
their responses will inform the Senate of their management 
experience and preparedness for addressing the top management 
challenges facing Federal agencies. The following is a sample 
of the questions:

    L  Are you familiar with the strategic plan, annual 
performance plans, annual accountability report, and financial 
statements of your prospective agency?

    L  What do you consider to be the most important priorities 
and challenges facing the agency as it strives to achieve its 
goals?

    L  What changes, if any, do you feel might be necessary in 
these plans?

    L  How would you address a situation in which you found 
that reliable, useful, and timely financial information was not 
routinely available?

    L  Based on your experience, please explain the role 
technology should play in your agency to support mission needs?

    L  What measures would you implement to show the impact 
technology has in meeting these needs?

    L  If you have spoken with your predecessors--those who 
have held the position you now seek--about their ``lessons 
learned'' on how to manage the agency effectively, describe how 
their advice and experience has influenced your thinking and 
plans.

    L  To what extent, if any, do you believe that Federal 
employees' pay should be more closely tied to their agencies' 
strategic and annual performance goals, and why?

    Senator Voinovich does not expect any committee to ask a 
prospective nominee to answer all 31 questions, and some 
questions may not be appropriate for all nominees. Unlike the 
disclosure forms from the White House or Office of Government 
Ethics, the use of these questions is not mandatory. Rather, 
Senator Voinovich intends for this report to be a valuable tool 
in determining the qualifications of nominees. He urges his 
colleagues to use the questions in a manner they see fit, in 
conjunction with the procedures already employed by their 
committee and depending on the position to be confirmed and the 
amount of information the Committee may require.
    Senator Voinovich is cognizant that nominees for senior 
positions already face a daunting array of background 
investigations and questions regarding their suitability for 
appointment. The purpose is not to simply give prospective 
nominees additional paperwork, but to improve the quality of 
Federal programs by improving the quality of the people 
appointed to manage them. We cannot afford, nor should we 
tolerate, the waste of taxpayer dollars due to incompetent or 
ill-prepared managers. Political appointees must be prepared to 
substantively address the problems at their agencies, not just 
give policy direction to the career civil servants. The 
questionnaires convey the message that the Senate considers 
effective managerial skills to be a priority for all nominees 
to senior agency positions.
      

                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS


                       Chairman: Susan M. Collins


                  Ranking Minority Member: Carl Levin

    The following is the annual Activities Report of the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations during the 106th 
Congress:

           I. Subcommittee Hearings During the 106th Congress


A. Deceptive Mailings and Sweepstakes Promotions ((March 8 and 9, 1999)

    Following a 6-month investigation, the Subcommittee held 2 
days of hearings into the activities of sweepstakes companies. 
The investigation and hearings highlighted misleading 
sweepstakes mailings and their effect on consumers. The 
investigation produced evidence of thousands of individuals who 
purchased millions of dollars of products because they believed 
that purchases would improve their chances of winning a prize. 
The hearings presented the testimony of individuals who made a 
large number of purchases in response to sweepstakes mailings; 
a representative from a seniors citizen advocacy organization; 
and officials from the major sweepstakes firms.
    The hearings examined the practices of the four major 
sweepstakes companies: American Family Publishers, Publishers 
Clearinghouse, Time, Inc., and Readers Digest. The hearing's 
particular focus was upon whether these firms did enough to 
make it clear to consumers that no purchase was necessary to 
enter their sweepstakes, and that buying something did not 
increase consumers' chances of winning. Among other things, the 
Subcommittee heard testimony indicating that the existing 
disclaimers used by the large sweepstakes companies are of 
little value because they are deliberately obscurely worded, 
hard to locate, and often appear only in tiny print.
    Family members told of loved ones who were so convinced 
that they had won a sweepstakes that they actually refused to 
leave their homes--for fear that they would miss the arrival of 
the ``Prize Patrol.'' The Subcommittee investigated many cases 
of senior citizens who, enticed by the apparent promises of 
sweepstakes solicitations, spent their Social Security checks, 
squandered their life savings, and borrowed money to buy 
magazines and other merchandise they neither wanted nor needed, 
all in the hope of increasing their chances of winning. One of 
the witnesses, Eustace Hall, broke down in tears at the hearing 
as he recounted how he had bought $15,000 worth of products in 
an effort to win. Family members of several seniors who 
similarly fell victim to deceptive solicitations described 
sweepstakes companies bombarding elderly relatives with 
repeated mailings, and enticing elderly family members to spend 
thousands of dollars, in the vain hope that the next trinket or 
magazine subscription would be their ticket to the grand prize.
    The Subcommittee received thousands of letters in response 
to these hearings. A 74-year-old woman from New York, for 
example, wrote to Senator Collins about how sweepstakes 
purchases put her deeply into debt. Though her only source of 
income was a monthly Social Security check totaling $893, this 
woman estimated that she had spent between $10,000 and $20,000 
on sweepstakes during the previous 19 years--money borrowed in 
part from her daughter--in the mistaken belief that she was 
virtually certain to win between $1 million and $10 million. 
Sadly, this woman was far from atypical: In its hearing 
testimony, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) 
described the results of a recent survey showing that 23 
percent of senior citizens surveyed still believe that 
purchasing a product increases their chances of winning a 
sweepstakes prize. (It does not.) Another 17 percent reported 
that purchasing a product might increase their chance of 
winning, bringing to 40 percent the proportion of seniors 
surveyed who believed there to be a connection between 
purchasing and winning.
    The sweepstakes companies testified that the majority of 
individuals do not respond to sweepstakes mailings, and that of 
those who do respond, the majority do not purchase a product. 
They recognized, however, that they had problems with persons 
who did not understand sweepstakes and other contest mailings.
    Witnesses at the hearings on March 8, 1999 included a 
number of sweepstakes victims including: Eustace Hall of 
Florida, Carol Gelinas of Maine, Patti McElligott of Texas, 
Stephanie Beukema of Massachusetts, Charles Doolittle of 
Florida, and Karol Carter of Michigan. Also appearing on March 
8 were Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran, Jr., and 
Virginia Tierney of the AARP Board of Directors. Witnesses on 
March 9 included Naomi Bernstein of American Family Publishers, 
Deborah Holland of Publishers Clearing House, Peter Davenport 
of The Reader's Digest Association, and Elizabeth Valk Long of 
Time, Inc.

B. Securities Fraud on the Internet ((March 22 and 23, 1999)

    The Subcommittee's second set of hearings in March 1999 
examined common securities frauds perpetrated on the Internet, 
and explored the ways consumers can protect themselves from 
such frauds, as well as current online trading issues. 
Specifically, the hearings focused upon Federal and State 
efforts to combat securities fraud on the Internet--
particularly penny stock fraud--and on whether Federal and 
State consumer education programs designed to disseminate 
information about securities fraud on the Internet are 
adequate.
    The Subcommittee heard testimony from victims of Internet 
securities fraud, and from Federal and State regulators 
responsible for helping fight such crimes. Testimony from the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) and from the founder of a 
popular on-line financial forum also helped explain the various 
types of fraud perpetrated in cyberspace--and how this new 
electronic medium enhances the opportunities available to 
unscrupulous criminals who infiltrate on-line bulletin boards, 
chat rooms, and newsletters, and use mass E-mailings to lure 
victims. In addition to allowing traditional securities frauds 
to become even more widespread, the Subcommittee learned, the 
Internet has provided opportunities for new types of fraud. In 
response to these challenges the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC) has been taking steps both to train its 
investigatory staff in Internet-related issues and to improve 
consumer awareness of Internet fraud dangers. Nearly half of 
all State regulatory agencies have also established specific 
programs to combat Internet frauds that violate State 
securities laws. Nevertheless, as GAO pointed out, SEC and 
State regulatory agency programs to combat Internet securities 
fraud are new and face significant challenges that could limit 
their effectiveness in the long-term--e.g., by placing 
significant burdens on regulators' limited investigative staff 
resources and thereby limiting the agencies' capacity to 
respond effectively to credible fraud allegations.
    Witnesses on March 22, 1999 included fraud victims Galen 
O'Kane of Maine and Kristin Morris of Virginia, and three 
expert witnesses on the nature and scope of Internet securities 
fraud: Tom Gardner of the Motley Fool, Professor Howard 
Friedman of the University of Toledo, and GAO Associate 
Director Richard Hillman. Witnesses on March 23 included SEC 
Enforcement Director Richard Walker, Peter Hildreth of the 
North American Securities Administrators Association (NASSA), 
and Philip Rutledge of the Pennsylvania Securities Commission. 
(The GAO report commissioned by Senator Collins in connection 
with this hearing was Securities Fraud: The Internet Poses 
Challenges to Regulators and Investors, T-GD-99-34 of March 22, 
1999.)

C. Home Health Care: Will The New Payment System and Regulatory 
        Overkill Hurt Our Seniors? ((June 10, 1999)

    The Subcommittee's hearing on June 10 examined a problem in 
the government's management of Medicare programs focused upon 
home health care that had been growing for some years. By the 
mid-1990's, home health care had become the fastest-growing 
component of Medicare spending, prompting Congress to enact 
changes intended to make the program more cost-effective and 
efficient. Until this system was implemented, however, home 
health agencies were to be paid according to Medicare's Interim 
Payment System (IPS). Unfortunately, however, the IPS was 
structured in such a way as, in effect, to penalize the most 
cost-efficient agencies--and to restrict access to health care 
by the beneficiaries who need it the most--the sicker patients 
with complex chronic care needs.
    By 1999, many home health agencies across the country were 
experiencing acute financial problems due to the new IPS. These 
agencies were finding it increasingly difficult to cope with 
cash-flow problems, which in turn inhibited their ability to 
deliver care to patients. Moreover, the IPS reimbursement 
problems have been exacerbated by a number of new regulatory 
requirements imposed by the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA). Those regulations include the 
implementation of HCFA's new Outcome and Assessment Data Set 
(OASIS), sequential billing, medical review, and IPS 
overpayment recoupment. The Subcommittee's hearing examined the 
combined effect that these payment reductions--coupled with the 
multiple new regulatory requirements--have had on home health 
agencies' ability to meet the needs of beneficiaries, and 
discussed the need for HCFA expeditiously to address these 
problems.
    Witnesses at this hearing included Maryanna Arsenault of 
Maine, representing the Visiting Nurse Associations of America, 
Mary Suther of the National Association of Home Care, Rosalind 
Stock of the Visiting Nurse Association of Texas, Barbara 
Markham Smith of the Center for Health Services Research and 
Policy at George Washington University, and Kathleen Buto and 
Mary Vienna of HCFA.

D. The Hidden Operators of Deceptive Mailings (July 20, 1999)

    The Subcommittee's July 20, 1999, hearing was a 
continuation of the Subcommittee's examination of deceptive 
practices used in sweepstakes, ostensible ``skill contests,'' 
and government look-alike mailings. This hearing was prompted 
by evidence gathered by the Subcommittee after its March 1999 
hearings into deceptive mailings. Many individuals contacted 
the Subcommittee in response to these hearings, and provided 
the Subcommittee with sample mailings from smaller sweepstakes 
companies that were, indeed, quite misleading. This public 
response prompted an expansion of the Subcommittee's 
investigation into the deceptive practices of these smaller 
sweepstakes companies.
    At the hearing, an official from the United States Postal 
Inspection Service (USPIS) testified about companies that USPIS 
has investigated and acted against for sending deceptive 
sweepstakes mailings. Two industry insiders also provided 
testimony about some of the practices of smaller, less 
prominent sweepstakes companies. According to these various 
witnesses, many of the smaller companies at issue tend to be 
fly-by-night operations that use multiple trade names to hide 
their identities and to confuse consumers. In some cases, these 
firms are run by promoters for no more than a year or two 
before ceasing to operate; the owner then forms a new company 
under another name. (Company names are themselves often 
specifically chosen to lend unwarranted credibility to the 
contest or to deceive consumers.) These companies profit not 
only from their deceptive mailings, but also by reselling the 
names of their customers to other operators, who then inundate 
the unlucky consumers with further mailings.
    The Subcommittee's investigation made clear that this 
business is quite lucrative. The small companies that the 
Subcommittee investigated sent approximately 100 million 
promotional mailings in 1998, and received over 4 million 
purchases in return--which are conservatively estimated to have 
cost consumers more than $40 million. In return, most 
individuals received no more than a discount coupon book that 
was frequently followed by numerous additional mailings urging 
the unwary contestant to send more money to buy more copies of 
the same coupon book.
    Anonymity, the hearing demonstrated, is crucial to the 
success of many of these small operators. Far from being the 
widely-known entities discussed at the Subcommittee's earlier 
deceptive mailings hearings (e.g., Time, Inc. or Publishers 
Clearinghouse), these smaller firms depend on working in the 
shadows, ``underneath the radar'' of State and Federal 
regulators. Accordingly, many of these companies attempt to 
conceal their identities through multiple corporate names and 
the use of various mail drops in different States. As the 
hearings also showed, their mailings are often designed to 
deceive even the most cautious consumer. In response to 
questions from Senator Collins about the deceptive nature of 
his mailings, in fact, one operator who appeared as a hearing 
witness twice invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against 
self-incrimination.
    Witnesses at this hearing included Subcommittee Chief 
Investigator Glynna Parde, David Dobin of Lone Star Promotions, 
Anthony Kasday of Neopolitan Consultants, USPIS Chief Postal 
Inspector Kenneth Hunter, and U.S. Postal Inspector Attorney 
Robert DeMuro.

E. Day Trading: An Overview (September 16, 1999)

    The Subcommittee's September 16, 1999, hearing focused on 
the growth of day trading, which has been made possible 
technological changes allowing investors direct computerized 
access to the trading floor in ways never before possible. The 
hearing examined practices and operations of the securities day 
trading industry, examining the financial risks that day 
trading poses to the average investor, the extent of fraudulent 
and questionable practices--such as deceptive advertising--in 
the day trading industry, and the impact of day trading on the 
securities markets. Witnesses were closely questioned about the 
risks and impact of day trading in this overview hearing, which 
the Subcommittee used to set the stage for its follow-up 
hearing and report on the subject (see below).
    Witnesses at the September 16 hearing included SEC Chairman 
Arthur Levitt, Mary Schapiro of the National Association of 
Securities Dealers (NASD), Peter Hildreth of the North American 
Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), David 
Shellenberger of the Massachusetts Securities Division, and 
Saul Cohen of the Electronic Traders Association.

F. Conquering Diabetes: Are We Taking Full Advantage of the Scientific 
        Opportunities for Research? (October 14, 1999)

    This Subcommittee hearing examined the devastating impact--
in both human and economic terms--that diabetes and its 
associated complications have had on Americans of all ages. It 
focused both upon the sheet magnitude of this problem and upon 
the extraordinary scientific opportunities available today in 
diabetes research. In addition, the hearing reviewed recent 
recommendations of the congressionally-established Diabetes 
Research Working Group, and looked at the current Federal 
commitment to diabetes research in order to determine whether 
sufficient funding is being provided to take advantage of 
unprecedented opportunities better to understand and ultimately 
to conquer this disease.
    Witnesses at this hearing included Dr. Phillip Gorden of 
the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 
Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), cyclist 
Pam Fernandes, actor Gordon Jump, former football player 
William Fuller, Ryan Dinkgrave of the Juvenile Diabetes 
Foundation, Dr. Ronald Kahn of the Diabetes Research Working 
Group, Dr. Edward Leiter of the Jackson Laboratory, and Dr. 
Jeffrey Bluestone of the Ben May Institute for Cancer Research.

G. Private Banking and Money Laundering: A Case Study of Opportunities 
        and Vulnerabilities (November 9 and 10, 1999)

    The Subcommittee held 2 days of hearings on the 
vulnerabilities of U.S. private banks to money laundering, 
focusing upon the role of U.S. banks in the growing and 
competitive private banking industry, their services and 
clientele, and the adequacy of their current anti-money 
laundering efforts. Picking up in the tradition of former 
Subcommittee Chairman William Roth of Delaware--who chaired 
Subcommittee hearings in the mid-1980's on the use of offshore 
banks to launder money--this hearing was the culmination of the 
first phase of an extensive Minority investigation into money 
laundering.
    The hearings on November 9 and 10 examined how U.S. private 
banks accept clients and the extent to which they undertake 
``know your customer'' due diligence to weed out money 
launderers, how they can use shell corporations and secrecy 
jurisdictions to open accounts and move funds relatively 
anonymously around the world on behalf of their private banking 
clients, how such banks monitor their clients' transactions, 
and how they identify and respond to suspicious activity. The 
Subcommittee also examined the role of bank auditors and 
regulators in fighting money laundering through private banking 
accounts. Finally, the hearing focused on bank policies and 
procedures, discussing particular examples such as the 
questionable accounts opened and maintained at prominent U.S. 
banks for clients such as Raul Salinas--the brother of the 
former President of Mexico who transferred between $90 and $100 
million in suspicious funds out of that country--President Omar 
Bongo of Gabon, and the sons of former Nigerian dictator 
General Sani Abacha.
    Witnesses on November 9 included Subcommittee Minority 
Deputy Chief Counsel Elise Bean and Minority Counsel Robert 
Roach, Chairman John Reed of Citigroup, and Amy Elliot, Albert 
Misan, Alain Ober, Edward Montero, Todd Thomson, and Mark Musi 
of Citibank Private Bank. Witnesses on November 10 included 
convicted money laundered Antonio Giraldi, Raymond Baker of 
Tthe Brookings Institution, Ralph Sharpe of the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and Richard Small of the 
Federal Reserve.

H. Day Trading: Everyone Gambles But The House (February 24 and 25, 
        2000)

    The Subcommittee's 2 days of hearings on February 24 and 
25, 2000 were part of its continuing examination of the day 
trading industry and its practices (see above). These hearings 
centered around three case studies developed by the 
Subcommittee, examining the extent to which the growing day 
trading phenomenon poses risks to investors and to the 
stability of financial markets. In particular, the hearing 
examined the extent to which the day trading industry may 
engage in deceptive advertising, customer suitability 
requirements for the day trading industry, the propriety of 
lending programs established by some day trading firms to cover 
margin requirements for their customers and the potential for 
abuses, and the extent of third-party trading in the day 
trading industry and its potential for abuse.
    Witnesses on February 24 included Subcommittee Counsel 
Deborah Field, Alyce Wenzel (the mother of murdered day trader 
Scott Webb), attorney Steve Buchwalter, day trader Huan Van Cao 
of Providential Securities, Fred Zayas, Barry Parish, and 
Justin Hoehn of All-Tech Direct, and former All-Tech Direct 
customers Carmen Margala and Sandra Harlacher. Witnesses on 
February 25 included Harvey Houtkin of All-Tech Direct, Henry 
Fahman of Providential Securities, James Lee of Momentum 
Securities, Lori Richards of the SEC, Barry Goldsmith of NASD 
Regulation, Inc., and Deborah Bortner, of the Washington 
Department of Financial Institutions.

I. Oversight of HCFA's Settlement Policies: Did HCFA Give Three 
        Providers Special Treatment? (March 28, 2000)

    The Subcommittee's hearing on March 28, 2000 was part of 
its continuing examination of the Medicare program (see above) 
aimed at preventing waste and fraud that siphon money out of 
the Medicare trust fund--costing billions of dollars and 
jeopardizing health care for disabled and elderly Americans. 
This hearing examined settlements between the Health Care 
Financing Administration (HCFA) and certain Medicare providers, 
attempting to assess whether these settlements conformed to 
HCFA regulations.
    Specifically, the hearing reviewed settlement agreements 
between the HCFA on behalf of the Department of Health and 
Human Services--and three health care organizations: The 
Visiting Nurse Service of New York (VNSNY), the New York City 
Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC), and the County of 
Los Angeles (LA County). According to GAO, the three claims 
settled by these agreements represented two-thirds of all 
Medicare overpayments during the 8\1/2\-year period examined. 
In these settlements, however, HCFA agreed to accept payment of 
only $120 million out of the $332 million owed to the Medicare 
trust fund by these providers. Moreover, these three 
settlements--uniquely among HCFA's 96 settlement agreements 
during this period--were concluded outside normal channels, 
were never reviewed by HCFA's Office of General Counsel, were 
never approved by the Department of Justice, and contained 
strict secrecy provisions apparently intended to prevent other 
health care providers from ascertaining their terms. Moreover, 
according to GAO, then-HCFA Administrator Bruce Vladeck had 
directed his subordinates to settle these matters. GAO said 
this raised concerns about the appearance of a conflict of 
interest because Vladeck had had a professional association 
with two of the three providers just prior to his appointment 
as HCFA Administrator. The Subcommittee's hearing presented the 
results of a GAO investigation into these irregularities and 
discussed how such problems could have occurred.
    Witnesses at this hearing included Robert Hast and William 
Hamel of GAO's Office of Special Investigations (OSI), GAO 
General Counsel Robert Murphy, former HCFA Administrator Bruce 
Vladeck, and Jean Ohl, Tony Seubert, Charles Booth of HCFA. 
(The GAO report commissioned by Senator Collins in connection 
with this hearing was Health Care Financing Administration: 
Three Largest Medicare Overpayment Settlements Were Improper,  
T-OSI-00-7 of March 28, 2000.)

J. Phony IDs and Credentials Via the Internet--An Emerging Problem (May 
        19, 2000)

    This hearing was part of the Subcommittee's continuing 
examination of the extent to which fraud and criminal 
activities affect commerce on the Internet. The Subcommittee's 
6-month investigation and hearing focused on the widespread 
availability of false identification documents and credentials 
on the Internet--often through the provision of document 
computer templates that allow individuals to manufacture 
authentic-looking identification documents in the seclusion of 
their own homes--and the criminal uses to which such 
identification is too often put. The variety and seeming 
authenticity of such products is remarkable, even extending to 
the falsification of State seals, holograms, and bar codes. (As 
part of this investigation, for example, Subcommittee staff 
easily obtained false documentation that would have permitted 
Chairman Collins to pass as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, 
a reporter, a student at Boston University, and a licensed 
driver in Florida, Michigan, or Wyoming. Identification was 
also easily available that replicated Federal agency 
credentials, including those of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.)
    Testimony before the Subcommittee demonstrated that the 
availability of false identification documents from the 
Internet is a rapidly-growing problem, and that the advent of 
the Internet allows those specializing in the sale of 
counterfeit identification to reach a broader market of 
potential buyers than ever before. Little information is 
available about the size of the false identification industry, 
but Subcommittee staff found that some Web site operators 
apparently have apparently made hundreds of thousands of 
dollars through the sale of phony identification documents. 
According to a convicted felon who testified at the hearing, 
someone with modest computer experience could use widely 
available materials and false-identification Web sites to 
manufacture false identity documents--which the Director of the 
U.S. Secret Service testified are used in most financial 
crimes.
    Witnesses at this hearing included Subcommittee Chief 
Counsel and Staff Director K. Lee Blalack, David Myers of the 
Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco at the Florida 
Department of Business and Professional Regulation, convicted 
felon Thomas Seitz, and U.S. Secret Service Director Brian 
Stafford.

K. HUD's Government Insured Mortgages: The Problem of Property 
        ``Flipping'' (June 29 and 30, 2000)

    The Subcommittee's 2 days of hearings in June 2000 examined 
the nationwide crisis of mortgage fraud which is commonly known 
as ``flipping.'' Flipping is a complex phenomenon in which 
multiple parties conspire to defraud home buyers, lenders, 
and--in the case of loans insured by the Federal Housing 
Authority (FHA)--the Federal Government. The practice of 
mortgage flipping, in which individuals (``flippers'') sell 
homes at artificially inflated prices, creates the false 
illusion of a robust real estate market through the use of 
phony paperwork and deceptive sales pitches.
    The Subcommittee's investigation found that flippers have 
purchased hundreds of rundown houses and resold them--sometimes 
within hours--to unsuspecting, unsophisticated buyers. Buyers 
pay inflated prices and high mortgage payments often result in 
foreclosure, abandonment, or bankruptcy. Buyers are left with 
their credit ratings tarnished and neighborhoods are left with 
boarded-up houses. Unfortunately, the investigation also 
revealed that the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) in effect subsidizes flipping through the FHA by securing 
many of the mortgages that finance these fraudulent 
transactions. Furthermore, according to GAO, HUD's process for 
granting FHA-approved lenders direct endorsement authority--
i.e., the ability to underwrite loans and determine their 
eligibility for FHA mortgage insurance without HUD's prior 
review provides only limited assurance that lenders receiving 
this authority are qualified, and HUD officials have not 
adequately focused on monitoring the lenders and loans that 
pose the greatest insurance risks. The Subcommittee's hearing 
assessed the extent of the flipping problem and explored ways 
in which HUD can and should take action to fight it.
    Witnesses at the June 29 hearing included U.S. Senator 
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Lisa Smith of New York, Sonia 
Pratts of Florida, Stekeena Rollins of Illinois, and GAO 
Associate Director for Housing and Community Development Issues 
Stanley Czerwinski. Witnesses on June 30 included HUD Assistant 
Secretary William Apgar and HUD Inspector General Susan 
Gaffney. (The GAO report commissioned by Senator Collins in 
connection with this hearing was Single-Family Housing: 
Stronger Oversight of FHA Lenders Could Reduce HUD's Insurance 
Risk, T-RCED-00-213 of June 29, 2000.)

          II. Legislative Activities During the 106th Congress

    The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations does not have 
legislative authority, but because its investigations play an 
important role in bringing issues to the attention of Congress 
and the public, the Subcommittee's work frequently contributes 
to the development of significant legislative initiatives. The 
Subcommittee's activity during the 106th Congress was no 
exception, with Subcommittee hearings and Members playing 
prominent roles in the development of a number of legislative 
initiatives.

A. Telephone Service Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999

(S. 58--by Senators Collins, Durbin, and Jeffords)

    Senator Collins introduced this bill to improve protections 
against telephone service ''slamming,'' to provide protections 
against telephone billing ``cramming,'' and to provide the 
Federal Trade Commission jurisdiction over unfair and deceptive 
trade practices of telecommunications carriers. This bill grew 
out of the Subcommittee's 1998 investigation into American 
consumers' growing problems with telephone ``slamming''--the 
unauthorized switching of telephone service subscribers from 
one telecommunications carrier to another.
    S. 58 would establish new criminal penalties for 
intentional slamming, and would disqualify anyone convicted of 
intentional slamming from being a telecommunications service 
provider. Designed to help law enforcement officials better 
combat slamming, the bill would also reduce the financial 
incentive for companies to engage in the practice in the first 
place by allowing ``slammed'' consumers to pay their original 
carrier at their previous rate in lieu of the company that did 
the slamming. Finally, the bill would require all 
telecommunications carriers to report slamming violations to 
the FCC, on a quarterly basis. (Currently, there is no central 
repository for slamming complaints, and the FCC must rely on 
consumers to write or call the FCC to report a slamming 
incident.) No action was taken on this legislation.

B. Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Improvement Act

(S. 335--by Senators Collins, Cochran, Levin, Durbin, and Burns)

    As a result of the Subcommittee's investigation and 
hearings examining deceptive mailings, Senators Collins and 
Levin--the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Subcommittee, respectively--introduced legislation to establish 
a number of consumer safeguards for sweepstakes and other 
mailings. This legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 93-0 
on August 2, 1999, and was later signed into law on December 
12, 1999, as Public Law 106-168.
    The new law requires sweepstakes mailings clearly and 
conspicuously to display several important disclaimers and 
consumer notices, including a statement that no purchase is 
necessary to enter and a statement that such a purchase will 
not improve the contestant's chances of winning. These 
statements must appear in three places--on the order form, in 
the rules, and in the body of the mailing. In addition, 
mailings must state the odds of winning, the value and nature 
of the prize, and the name and address of the sponsor. 
Sweepstakes mailings will also be required to include all the 
rules and entry procedures for the contest, and it will be 
illegal to describe the recipient as a ``winner'' unless that 
individual has indeed won a prize. The new law also includes a 
provision drafted by Senator Edwards to require companies 
sending sweepstakes or skill contest mailings to establish a 
system that will allow consumers to have their names removed 
from sweepstakes mailing lists.
    In addition, the new law strengthens existing law 
regulating ``government look-alike'' mailings by prohibiting 
mailings that imply a connection to, approval by, or 
endorsement by the Federal Government, unless the mailings 
carry two disclaimers already contained in existing law. New 
Federal standards are also imposed on facsimile checks sent in 
any mailing: Each must bear a statement that it is non-
negotiable and has no cash value. Finally, the new law grants 
the Postal Inspection Service subpoena authority, nationwide 
``stop-mail'' authority, and the ability to impose strong civil 
penalties for the first violation.

C. Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000

(S. 2924--by Senators Collins, Durbin, and Feinstein)

    Senator Collins introduced this legislation after the 
Subcommittee's investigation and hearing into the availability 
of false identification on the Internet. The bill was approved 
by both the House and Senate on December 15, 2000, and signed 
into law on December 28, 2000 as Public Law 106-578.
    This statute strengthens Federal laws against false 
identification, making them better suited to the Internet age 
by clarifying that it is illegal to sell or distribute false 
identification documents through computer discs, files, and 
templates. It also makes it easier to prosecute criminals who 
manufacture, distribute, or sell counterfeit identification 
documents by ending the practice of allowing easily-removable 
disclaimers as ostensible parts of ``novelty'' items that 
otherwise resemble real identification. Finally, the new law 
encourages more aggressive enforcement of the laws prohibiting 
the trafficking of false identification documents by 
establishing a multi-agency coordinating committee to 
concentrate resources on investigating and prosecuting the 
creation of false identification documents.

D. Medicare Insulin Pump Coverage Act of 1999

(S. 617--by Senator Collins)

    Related to the Subcommittee's work on diabetes, this bill 
would have amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage under the medicare program of insulin 
pumps as items of durable medical equipment. (Insulin pumps 
have proven to be more effective in controlling blood glucose 
levels than conventional injection therapy for many insulin-
dependent diabetics.) This bill was referred to the Committee 
on Finance. Under pressure from Senator Collins to review and 
amend its coverage policy, however, HCFA reversed its approach 
in September 1999 to permit Medicare coverage for insulin 
infusion pumps for persons with Type I diabetes who would 
otherwise have difficulty achieving optimal control of their 
blood glucose levels.

E. Inspector General Act Amendments of 1999

(S. 870--by Senators Collins, Roth, Grassley and Bond)

    Senator Collins introduced this bill to amend the Inspector 
General Act of 1978 in order to increase the efficiency and 
accountability of Offices of Inspector General (OIGs) within 
Federal departments. (This bill was a modification of S. 2167, 
introduced by Senators Collins and Grassley during the 105th 
Congress.) Among other provisions, the bill would prohibit the 
receipt of any cash award or cash bonus by an Inspector 
General, provide for an external review of OIGs for specified 
Federal agencies at least every 3 years by the GAO or a private 
entity, modify OIG annual and semiannual reporting 
requirements, change the rate of pay of specified Inspectors 
General from Level IV to Level III of the Executive Schedule, 
and require the Comptroller General to: (1) develop criteria 
for determining whether the consolidation of Federal Inspector 
General offices would be cost-efficient and in the public 
interest; (2) study the offices using such criteria to 
determine whether any should be consolidated; and (3) report to 
Congress recommendations for legislative action based on the 
study. This bill was referred to the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and was 
referred to the House of Representatives.

E. Imported Food Safety Improvement Act

(S. 1123--by Senators Collins, Frist, Abraham, Snowe, Jeffords, and 
        Coverdell)

    This bill was the culmination of a 16-month, in-depth 
Subcommittee investigation during the 105th Congress that 
involved 5 days of hearings with 29 witnesses. This bill would 
enhance the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
to deny entry into the United States for unsafe food, to 
require the destruction of unsafe food, to ensure that food 
designated as unsafe upon arrival in fact remains outside the 
country, and to encourage foreign countries to ensure their 
food safety systems offer an equivalent level of public health 
as domestic U.S. food safety systems. The bill would also 
provide more resources for the FDA and the Centers for Disease 
Control (CDC), and would enact tougher enforcement provisions 
and penalties, by allowing repeat serious offenders of food 
safety laws to be debarred from importing food into our market, 
and establishing a ``sliding scale'' of higher bonding 
requirements for importers who have violated food safety laws. 
This bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.

F. Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 1999

(S. 1189--by Senators Collins, Cleland and Gregg)

    This bill, which grew out of the Subcommittee's work on 
securities fraud, would allow Federal securities enforcement 
actions to be predicated on State securities enforcement 
actions (so as to prevent migration of rogue securities brokers 
between and among financial services industries), authorize the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to bar individuals who 
have committed fraud in other financial sectors from entering 
the securities industry, broaden the penny stock bar to prevent 
a barred penny stock promoter from participating in a micro-cap 
offering, and broaden the statutory officer and director bar to 
include all publicly traded companies. This bill was referred 
to the Governmental Affairs Committee, where its provisions 
were replaced by an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
before being passed by the Senate and referred to the House of 
Representatives.

G. Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999

(S. 1231--by Senators Collins, Durbin and Grassley)

    Arising out of the Subcommittee's work on Medicare fraud, 
this bill would amend the Social Security Act to establish 
additional provisions to combat waste, fraud, and abuse within 
the Medicare program. It would direct the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services (HHS) to conduct additional site inspections 
in order to ensure that health care providers are in full 
compliance with all the conditions and standards of 
participation and requirements for obtaining Medicare billing 
privileges. The bill would also set forth additional rules for 
conducting background checks on any individual or entity 
applying for a Medicare provider number, require the 
registration of all applicant billing agencies, and require the 
assignment of a unique identification number to each registered 
agency.
    Among other provisions, the bill would also provide better 
access to the Health Integrity Protection Database (HIPDB), 
criminalize the misuse of HIPDB information, authorize the HHS 
Secretary to bar from participation in any Federal health care 
program any billing agency involved in fraudulent billing, and 
deny discharges in bankruptcy for: Civil monetary penalties for 
fraudulent activities by a health care provider or supplier; 
overpayments to service providers under Medicare part A and of 
benefits under Medicare part B; and past-due obligations 
arising from breach of scholarship and loan contract. Finally, 
it would authorize augmented search and arrest powers for the 
HHS Office of Inspector General. This bill was referred to the 
Committee on Finance.

H. Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1999

(S. 1310--by Senators Collins, Bond, Levin, Bennett, Santorum, 
        Hutchison, Torricelli, Lugar, Allard, Specter, Edwards, 
        Brownback, Lautenberg, Cochran, Enzi, Frist, Helms, and 
        Abraham)

    Similarly growing out of the Subcommittee's work on 
Medicare, this bill would amend the Social Security Act in 
order to eliminate the 15 percent home health services payment 
reduction which would occur if the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services did not establish a prospective payment system 
(PPS). Among other provisions, it would also exclude additional 
Medicare part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) costs from 
determination of the Medicare part B premium. This bill was 
referred to the Committee on Finance.

I. The Money Laundering Abatement Act of 1999

(S. 1920--by Senators Carl Levin and Arlen Specter)

    Senator Levin introduced this bill to strengthen anti-money 
laundering controls with respect to U.S. private banking in 
light of the Subcommittee's investigation into that activity.
    Key provisions of the bill would require that: A U.S. 
depository institution or U.S. branch of a foreign bank could 
not open or maintain an account in the United States for a 
foreign entity unless the owner of the account is identified on 
a form or record maintained in the United States and unless the 
foreign bank is subject to comprehensive supervision or 
regulation; the Secretary of the Treasury issue regulations 
ensuring that client funds flowing through a bank's 
administrative or concentration accounts (commingling funds 
from various accounts) identify each client's fund; banks 
engaged in private banking implement anti-money laundering due 
diligence procedures for their private bank clients, including 
verifying the client's identity and obtaining sufficient 
information about the client's source of funds to meet the 
bank's anti-money laundering obligations; the list of foreign 
crimes triggering a U.S. money laundering offense be expanded 
to include fraud against a foreign government, bribery of a 
foreign public official or misappropriation of a foreign 
government's funds under the laws of the country in which the 
conduct occurred or in which the public official holds office, 
misuse of IMF funds, and similar misconduct; the United States 
courts be given ``long-arm'' jurisdiction over foreign persons 
and institutions that commit money laundering offenses that 
occur in whole or in part in the United States. The bill was 
introduced and referred to the Banking committee. No action was 
taken on this legislation.

                   III. Reports, Prints, and Studies


A. Day Trading: Case Studies and Conclusions--Subcommittee Report 106-
        364 (July 27, 2000)

    On July 27, 2000, the Subcommittee issued its report on 
``Day Trading: Case Studies and Conclusions,'' which recounted 
its findings from the 8-month investigation and hearing 
described above. This report examined the state of the day 
trading industry and the consumer risks attendant thereto, 
concluding that this highly speculative activity ``can be 
fairly compared to certain types of gambling.'' As detailed in 
this study, some day trading firms do not adequately disclose 
risks in their dealings with customers, and frequently fail to 
gather information about their prospective customers necessary 
to determine whether those persons are suitable for day 
trading. (Firms that do gather such information, moreover, 
frequently accept customers outside their own suitability 
guidelines anyway.) Some day trading firms also fail to hire 
qualified personnel to manage and supervise their branch 
offices, and permit customers who cannot satisfy margin calls 
to obtain from other customers short-term loans at high 
interest rates. Finally, many firms allow individuals to day 
trade the accounts of third parties without verifying that 
these individuals are registered as investment advisors or are 
exempted from requirements that they be so registered.
    The Subcommittee found that recent rule changes by the New 
York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and National Association of 
Securities Dealers (NASD) will help combat some of the abuses 
in the day trading industry--at least, at any rate, if these 
changes are accompanied by effective enforcement measures. 
Overall, the Subcommittee determined that day trading has had 
both positive and negative effects upon the securities markets. 
These effects have been positive in that day trading has 
``democratized'' the stock market, expanded access to financial 
information, driven broker-dealers to lower commission costs, 
and increased market liquidity. These effects have been 
negative, however, insofar as day trading may be contributing 
to an increase in volatility for individual stocks and the 
market as a whole.

B. Requested and Sponsored Reports

    In connection with its investigations into the above 
topics, the Subcommittee made extensive use of the resources 
and expertise of the General Accounting Office (GAO), the 
Offices of Inspectors General (OIGs) at various Federal 
agencies, and other entities. In the process, the Subcommittee 
requested a number of reports and studies on issues of 
importance to Congress and to U.S. consumers. Among these 
reports were the following:

(1) Food Safety: Experiences of Four Countries in Consolidating Their 
        Food Safety Systems--GAO (RCED-99-80) of April 20, 1999

    This report reviewed the experiences of four foreign 
countries that are consolidating their food safety 
responsibilities, focusing upon the costs and savings, if any, 
associated with consolidation, efforts to assess the 
effectiveness of the revised food safety systems, and lessons 
that the United States may learn from these countries' 
experiences. According to GAO, the countries examined had 
consolidated their food safety systems for different reasons, 
but were all incurring short-term costs in the anticipation of 
long-term benefits in terms of money saved and improved food 
safety for the money spent. None of the countries, however, had 
yet developed performance measures and data that would permit 
an assessment of the effectiveness of their new systems. 
Nevertheless, foreign officials interviewed identified several 
common lessons from their experiences that they believed could 
be applicable to any U.S. consolidation effort.

 (2) U.S. Customs Service: Efforts to Curtail the Exportation of Stolen 
        Vehicles--GAO (OSI-99-10) of May 12, 1999

    This GAO report reviewed the efforts of the U.S. Customs 
Service to curtail the export of stolen vehicles from the 
United States, focusing upon applicable regulations, Customs 
Service policies and procedures, methods used to illegally 
export such vehicles, and improvements in operations being 
considered by Customs. According to GAO, thieves commonly use 
false documentation, altered vehicle identification numbers, 
containerized concealment spaces, and other means in order to 
circumvent Customs Service procedures designed to fight the 
export of stolen vehicles. Recent changes in Customs Service 
procedures have reduced the range of documentation acceptable 
for export purposes, and Customs officials, State and Federal 
law enforcement agencies, and the insurance industry are 
exploring methods--such as computer-assisted documentation 
checks and nonintrusive cargo container examinations--to 
further curtail the export of stolen vehicles.

(3) Medicare: Improprieties by Contractors Compromised Medicare Program 
        Integrity--GAO (OSI-99-7) of July 14, 1999

    This GAO report assessed whether Medicare contractors had 
participated in improper or questionable practices that 
contributed to fraud, waste, or abuse in the Medicare Federal 
health insurance program. According to GAO, Medicare contractor 
fraud--involving improperly handled claims, improperly 
destroyed or deleted records, failure to recoup overpayments to 
Medicare providers or collect required interest payments on 
time, falsification of documentation and reports to HCFA, and 
alteration of claims files--had become virtually a way of doing 
business for some contractors because HCFA reviews of Medicare 
contractors rely too much on information provided by 
contractors without independent verification. With such lax 
oversight, criminal and other improper activities were 
uncovered only after whistleblowers, or relators, filed qui tam 
complaints under the False Claims Act.

(4) Medicare Contractors: Despite Its Efforts, HCFA Cannot Ensure Their 
        Effectiveness or Integrity--GAO (HEHS-99-115) of July 14, 1999

    This report reviewed HCFA oversight of its claims 
administration contractors, focusing upon whether weaknesses in 
contractor oversight activities may make Medicare more 
vulnerable to fraud and what changes in HCFA's contracting 
authority may improve its ability to manage its contractors. 
According to GAO, HCFA's oversight of Medicare claims 
administration contractors has significant weaknesses that 
leave the agency without assurance that contractors are paying 
providers appropriately. Even though inadequate management 
controls and falsified data are a common theme in recent fraud 
cases, GAO found that HCFA still does not regularly check 
contractors' internal management controls, management and 
financial data, and key program safeguards to prevent payment 
errors. Furthermore, among other things, GAO found that HCFA's 
headquarters office generally did not set oversight priorities, 
leading to uneven contractor evaluations by regional reviewers 
and making it more difficult for HCFA to determine which 
contractors are performing effectively.

(5) Telecommunications: State and Federal Actions to Curb Slamming and 
        Cramming--GAO (RCED-99-193) of July 27, 1999

    This report reviewed Federal and State efforts to prevent 
telephone slamming, focusing upon the number of complaints 
about slamming and cramming received by State and Federal 
authorities, the types of protections in place to increase 
consumers' ability to protect themselves against such 
practices; and enforcement actions taken against slamming and 
cramming violations since 1996. According to GAO, slamming 
continued to be a significant--and growing--problem for 
consumers. To help protect consumers against slamming and 
cramming, most State public utilities commissions: (a) require 
telephone companies to obtain oral or written authorization 
from consumers before making changes to their service; (b) have 
procedures for resolving consumers' complaints; and (c) provide 
consumers with information on ways to prevent telephone 
slamming and cramming. At the Federal level, the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) also adopted new rules against 
slamming in December 1998 that strengthen procedures for 
verifying changes in service and absolve consumers of 
liability, within certain limits, for charges by unauthorized 
companies. The FCC also adopted new rules in April 1999 
requiring telephone companies to format their bills so that 
consumers can more easily identify any unauthorized charges.

(6) Telecommunications: FCC Does Not Know if All Required Fees Are 
        Collected--GAO (RCED-99-216) of August 31, 1999

    This GAO report assessed the effectiveness of the FCC's fee 
collection activities, focusing upon controls for ensuring that 
required regulatory and application fees are paid and the 
extent to which the FCC is collecting the civil monetary 
penalties resulting from its enforcement actions against 
entities that have violated its regulations. According to GAO, 
the FCC does not know if it is collecting all its required 
fees, and--for lack of a system to ensure that fees are being 
paid--relies heavily on the telecommunications industry to 
comply voluntarily with its fee payment schedule. Furthermore, 
the FCC does not have sufficient information to identify all 
the entities that should pay regulatory fees or determine 
whether these entities have paid the full amounts required, and 
has difficulty performing routine automated checks on whether 
all licensees have paid their regulatory fees. Both the FCC's 
Office of Managing Director and Office of Inspector General, 
however, now have begun to make efforts to improve the fee 
collection process. Nevertheless, on the basis of experience 
from prior years, about 75 percent of the outstanding proposed 
or assessed penalties may still remain uncollected.

(7) Funeral-Related Industries: Complaints and State Laws Vary, and FTC 
        Could Better Manage the Funeral Rule--GAO (GGD-99-156) of 
        September 23, 1999

    This GAO report examined various issues involving 
consumers' dealings with funeral-related (or ``death care'') 
industries, which include businesses that provide funeral and 
cemetery goods or services. The study focused upon the 
availability of information on the nature and extent of 
consumer complaints about death care industries, efforts by the 
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to ensure compliance with its 
Funeral Rule, and State governments' roles in protecting 
consumers in their death care transactions. According to GAO, 
comprehensive information on consumer complaints that would 
indicate the overall nature and extent of problems that 
consumers experienced with various aspects of death care 
industries was not available.
    The FTC's Funeral Rule requires that funeral providers give 
consumers accurate, itemized price information and various 
other disclosures about funeral goods and services, and the 
Commission has taken steps to promote compliance with the 
Funeral Rule because it was concerned about what it perceived 
as a relatively low level of compliance--about one-third--among 
funeral homes in the late 1980's. That said, the FTC does not 
have a systematic or structured process for measuring funeral 
homes' compliance so that overall conclusions can be drawn 
about their actual compliance with the Rule. GAO's analysis 
indicated that among the limited sample of homes visited, 
compliance indeed was high for the Funeral Rule's core 
requirement and somewhat lower for other elements of the Rule 
GAO reviewed.

(8) Health Care: Fraud Schemes Committed by Career Criminals and 
        Organized Criminal Groups and Impact on Consumers and 
        Legitimate Health Care Providers--GAO (OSI-00-1R) of October 5, 
        1999

    This report discussed the proliferation of Medicare, 
Medicaid, and private health insurance fraud by the part of 
criminals and organized criminal groups, focusing upon the 
makeup and prior activities of such groups, how organized 
criminal groups created medical entities or used legitimate 
medical entities or individuals in various fraud schemes, and 
the impact that such illegal activity has on consumers and 
legitimate health care providers. According to GAO, while the 
full extent of the problem remains unknown, career criminal and 
organized criminal groups are involved in Medicare, Medicaid, 
and private insurance health care fraud or alleged fraud 
throughout the country. Many group members, in fact, have prior 
criminal histories for criminal activity unrelated to health 
care fraud, indicating that they moved from one field of 
criminal activity to another. Groups studied by GAO created as 
many as 160 sham medical entities--including medical clinics, 
physician groups, diagnostic laboratories, and durable medical 
equipment companies, often using fictitious names or the names 
of others on paperwork--or used the names of uninvolved 
legitimate providers to bill for services and equipment not 
provided or not medically necessary. Such activities affect 
consumers, beneficiaries, health care providers, and law 
enforcement officials in several ways: Consumers pay increased 
health care costs in the form of taxes, because taxpayer 
contributions support Medicare and Medicaid; insured 
individuals pay increased private insurance premiums; and law 
enforcement officials find it difficult to keep up with this 
growing and widespread form of fraud and are often unable to 
seize or recoup fraudulent proceeds.

(9) Food Safety: Agencies Should Further Test Plans for Responding to 
        Deliberate Contamination--GAO (RCED-00-30) of October 27, 1999

    This GAO report the preparedness of the Federal food safety 
regulatory agencies to respond to acts or threats of deliberate 
food contamination, including those by terrorists, focusing 
upon the extent to which food has been deliberately 
contaminated with a biological agent (bacteria, virus, or 
toxin) or threatened with such contamination, and plans and 
procedures for responding to threats and acts of deliberate 
food contamination with a biological agent. According to GAO, 
threats of such contamination have been rare in the United 
States, but the FDA has written procedures for contacting key 
FDA and other Federal officials and experts in order quickly to 
develop an approach to respond to threats or acts of 
contamination. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
also has written procedures for responding to acts of 
contamination, which include conducting a preliminary 
investigation to assess health hazards and, if necessary, 
requesting a recall. The FSIS is developing a plan that will 
include coordination steps with other affected Federal agencies 
in the event of threats of contamination .

(10) Private Banking: Raul Salinas, Citibank, and Alleged Money 
        Laundering--GAO (T-OSI-00-3) of November 9, 1999

    This GAO report recounted its 1998 investigation of alleged 
illegalities involving Raul Salinas de Gotari--brother of the 
former President of Mexico, Carlos Salinas de Gotari--and a 
U.S. bank, Citibank. According to GAO, Raul Salinas was able to 
transfer $90 million to $100 million between 1992 and 1994 by 
using a private banking relationship formed by Citibank New 
York in 1992. These funds were transferred through Citibank 
Mexico and Citibank New York to private banking investment 
accounts in Citibank London and Citibank Switzerland, and 
Citibank assisted Salinas with these transfers--effectively 
disguising the funds' source and destination. In fact, Citibank 
set up an offshore private investment company to hold Mr. 
Salinas' assets, waived its own bank reference and ``know your 
customer'' (KYC) policies for Salinas, facilitated Patricia 
Paulina Salinas' use of another name to initiate fund transfers 
in Mexico, had funds wired from Citibank Mexico to a Citibank 
New York commingled account before forwarding them to offshore 
Citibank investment accounts.

(11) Money Laundering: Observations on Private Banking and Related 
        Oversight of Selected Offshore Jurisdictions--GAO (T-GGD-00-32) 
        of November 9, 1999

    This report discussed money laundering in relation to 
private banking, and highlighted some regulatory issues related 
to the vulnerability of selected offshore jurisdictions to 
money laundering, focusing upon: (1) regulators' oversight of 
private banking in general; (2) oversight of private banking in 
selected offshore jurisdictions; (3) barriers that have 
hampered oversight of offshore banking; and (4) future 
challenges that confront efforts to combat money laundering in 
offshore jurisdictions. According to GAO, Federal banking 
regulators have overseen private banking through examinations 
that, among other things, focus on banks' ``know your 
customer'' policies. In cases that involve private banking 
activities conducted by branches of U.S. banks operating in 
offshore jurisdictions, examiners rely primarily on banks' 
internal audit functions. GAO found that the key barriers to 
U.S. regulatory oversight of offshore banking activities are 
foreign bank secrecy laws that restrict access to banking 
information or that prohibit on-site examinations of U.S. bank 
branches in offshore jurisdictions.

(12) Securities Operations: Day Trading Requires Continued Oversight--
        GAO (GGD-00-61) of February 24, 2000

    This GAO report reviewed the emerging day trading indusry, 
focusing upon the nature and extent of day trading, regulatory 
actions taken to address its risks, and actions day trading 
firms have taken to address regulatory concerns. According to 
GAO, day traders, who represent less than one-tenth of 1 
percent of all individuals who bought or sold securities, 
accounted for perhaps 10 to 15 percent of Nasdaq volume. 
Approaches taken to day trading varied considerably. Some firms 
permit any individual who wants to be a day trader--and has the 
capital to begin trading--to use the firm's systems and 
facilities to trade, risking the trader's own capital. Others 
allow day trading only by people who are qualified and able to 
be professional traders, but are willing to allow such persons 
to risk the firms' capital.
    The effects of day trading on both individuals who engage 
in it and the markets as a whole are uncertain, but Federal 
regulators have taken some actions to address the risks of day 
trading. The regulatory arm of the NASD--called NASD Regulation 
(NASDR)--and the SEC have made a special effort to target their 
examination resources during the last 2 years on day trading 
firms. NASDR has also recently submitted proposed rule changes 
to SEC that would require day trading firms to assess the 
propriety of day trading for each potential customer, and fully 
to disclose the risks of day trading. NASDR and the New York 
Stock Exchange have also submitted proposed rule changes to SEC 
to tighten margin requirements. All in all, however, 
determining the adequacy and extent of oral disclosures, 
screening, and planned restrictions presents a difficult 
challenge because neither the regulators nor GAO could directly 
observe the interactions between the firms and traders or 
potential traders.

(13) HCFA: Three Largest Medicare Overpayment Settlements Were 
        Improper--GAO (OSI-00-4) of February 25, 2000

    This GAO report reviewed the application of the Federal 
Claims Collection Act to HCFA's settlement of overpayment 
matters with providers and examined specific settlements that 
may have been improper. According to GAO, HCFA acted 
inappropriately in the three largest claims settlements between 
1991 and 1999--settlements which constituted 66 percent of all 
Medicare overpayment settlements for which HCFA provided 
records. In these suspect settlements, HCFA agreed to accept 
$120 million for debts exceeding $332 million. Though HCFA's 
own regulations required any compromise of a claim over 
$100,000 to be approved by the Department of Justice, and those 
who settled the matter thought approval was necessary, HCFA 
never sought such approval.
    HCFA also appears to have disregarded the permissible 
settlement criteria established by regulation, since evidence 
suggests that the providers were all able to pay the entire 
overpayment amount, that HCFA would have prevailed if matters 
were litigated, and that the amount of recovery would have 
exceeded the cost of collecting each of these multimillion-
dollar debts. GAO's investigation revealed also that former 
HCFA Administrator Bruce Vladeck had directed subordinates to 
settle these matters and that his participation in the largest 
of these settlements raised conflict-of-interest concerns.

(14) Single-Family Housing: Stronger Oversight of FHA Lenders Could 
        Reduce HUD's Insurance Risk--GAO (RCED-00-112) of April 28, 
        2000

    This report provided information on oversight by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of lenders 
participating in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage 
insurance programs for single-family homes, focusing upon: (1) 
how HUD ensures that lenders granted direct endorsement 
authority by FHA are qualified to receive such authority; (2) 
the extent to which HUD focuses on high-risk lenders in 
monitoring the lenders participating in FHA's mortgage 
insurance programs; and (3) the extent to which HUD holding 
lenders are accountable for poor performance. According to GAO, 
HUD's process for granting FHA-approved lenders direct 
endorsement authority provides only limited assurance that 
lenders receiving this authority are qualified. Contrary to 
HUD's guidance, moreover, its homeownership centers' monitoring 
of lenders does not adequately focus on the lenders and loans 
that pose the greatest insurance risks to the Department; the 
centers often do not review the lenders that they consider to 
be the highest risk.
    GAO also found that HUD has not taken sufficient steps to 
hold lenders accountable for poor performance and program 
violations. If HUD had reviewed all of the lenders' Fiscal Year 
1999 loans, for example, GAO calculated that the percentage of 
poor ratings probably would have exceeded 30 percent. HUD's 
recent Credit Watch program--designed to terminate the loan 
origination authority of lenders with excessive defaults and 
insurance claims on FHA-insured mortgages--also had problems 
because the program's regulations pertain only to the lenders 
that originated the troubled loans and HUD does not always hold 
accountable lenders that underwrote and approved the loans.

(15) On-Line Trading: Better Investor Protection Information Needed on 
        Brokers' Web Sites--GAO (GGD-00-43) of May 9, 2000

    This GAO report discussed on-line stock trading, focusing 
upon: (1) the growth in on-line trading; (2) the extent to 
which on-line broker-dealers had experienced trading system 
delays and outages, including the causes of these problems and 
their reported effect on investors; and (3) how on-line broker-
dealers address investor protection issues related to margin, 
privacy of information, risk disclosures, best execution, 
suitability, and advertising. According to GAO, the number of 
broker-dealers offering on-line trading more than doubled from 
1997 to 1999, the number of on-line trading accounts 
established nearly tripled, and the volume of on-line trades 
increased to about 37 percent of all retail trading volume in 
equities and options. This growth has been accompanied by a 
series of delays and outages in broker-dealers' automated 
trading systems that have caused some investors to suffer 
losses or miss investment opportunities. Industry officials 
expect such delays and outages to continue because they must 
constantly upgrade their systems' services and capacity to 
remain competitive and to keep up with the growth in on-line 
trading.
    To help investors make informed decisions, the SEC and the 
securities self-regulatory organizations (SROs) require that 
broker-dealers furnish investors information relating to margin 
trading, have proposed rules concerning privacy of information, 
and recommend that broker-dealers also furnish information 
about trading risks and best execution of trades. The broker-
dealers contacted by GAO, however, did not always provide their 
customers all such information.

(16) Training at the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of 
        Inspector General--GAO (GAO-01-36R) of October 20, 2000

    In this report, GAO examined how the Office of the 
Inspector General (OIG) at the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) provided training to its staff during Fiscal Years 1998 
and 1999. GAO found that the program--which cost about $630,000 
in Fiscal Year 1998 and about $970,000 in Fiscal Year 1999--was 
part of a quality control system providing reasonable assurance 
that staff conform with professional standards.

(17) Suspicious Banking Activities--Possible Money Laundering by U.S. 
        Corporations Formed for Russian Entities--GAO (OSI-01-120) of 
        October 31, 2000

    This GAO report identified serious weaknesses in State 
incorporation procedures and corporate account opening 
practices at two U.S. banks, creating serious money laundering 
vulnerabilities. The report identified possible money 
laundering involving $1.4 billion over the last 9 years by 
foreign persons using bank accounts at Citibank New York and 
Commercial Bank of San Francisco.
    The bank accounts at issue were opened in the name of 
corporations established in Delaware by a registered agent at 
the request of Russian brokers. The GAO determined that a 
corporate registration agent was able to open bank accounts for 
236 corporations at Citibank and Commercial Bank of San 
Francisco even though he did not know the true identity of the 
owners or the business purposes of the corporations. Once the 
corporate bank accounts were established, $1.4 billion moved 
through the accounts during a 9-year period, the large majority 
of which was wired into and out of the accounts from foreign 
sources. Moreover, large amounts of funds moved through some 
accounts in a very short period of time.
    GAO also reported that some States, such as Delaware, 
require only minimal information to establish a new 
corporation. GAO reported that in Delaware there is no 
requirement that the owners or the particular purpose of the 
corporation be disclosed to the State or that the registered 
agent know the identify of the owners of the corporation; 
providing the name, address and phone number of a registered 
agent is lawfully sufficient. In most of the filings reviewed 
by GAO, an employee of the registered agent's office signed the 
incorporation document.

                                  
