[House Report 109-739]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-739
_______________________________________________________________________


                                                 Union Calendar No. 441

                               ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                  HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                       FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

                               2005-2006

                  (Pursuant to House Rule XI, 1(d)(4))

                                     


                                     

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

 December 29, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed


For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001

                     COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana                  TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California          LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada                C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia        ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina       Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania                    ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina        BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                       (Independent)
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

                      David Marin, Staff Director
                         Benjamin Chance, Clerk
          Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
?

                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                  House of Representatives,
                                 Washington, DC, December 29, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 
1(d)(4), I submit the enclosed the activities report of the 
Committee on Government Reform for the 109th Congress.
                                                 Tom Davis,
                                                          Chairman.

                                 (iii)

                                     
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
FORWARD..........................................................     1
  I. Jurisdiction and History of the Committee........................2
 II. Rules of the Committee...........................................4
III. Members and Organization........................................11
PART ONE: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES.................................    13
  I. Legislative Accomplishments.....................................13
        A. Legislation Enacted Into Law..........................    16
        B. Legislation Considered by House.......................    24
        C. Legislation Reported by Committee.....................    29
        D. Postal Facility Designations Considered by the 
            Committee or the House...............................    32
        E. Resolutions Considered by the Committee or the House..    48
 II. Legislative Hearings............................................64
PART TWO: OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES...................................    67
  I. Full Committee..................................................67
 II. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resourc98
III. Subcommittee on Energy and Resources...........................116
 IV. Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census......................138
  V. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization......154
 VI. Subcommittee on Government Management and Accountability.......165
VII. Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and 
     International Relations........................................183
VIII.Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs.............................202


                                APPENDIX

  I. Committee Prints...............................................211
 II. Investigative Reports..........................................211
III. Legislative Reports............................................211
 IV. Committee Meetings.............................................213
 1V. Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress..........................217

                                 VIEWS

Views of Ranking Minority Member Henry A. Waxman.................   250


                                                 Union Calendar No. 441
109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-739

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

 
         ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                                _______
                                

 December 29, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Davis of Virginia, from the Committee on Government Reform, 
                        submitted the following

                                 REPORT

ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, 109TH CONGRESS, 
                   1ST AND 2D SESSIONS, 2005 AND 2006

                                FORWARD

    In the 109th Congress, the committee and its seven 
subcommittees convened 256 investigative hearings on a very 
diverse portfolio of subjects, from contracting in Iraq to 
steroids in professional baseball.
    On the legislative front, the Committee on Government 
Reform was very active promoting stronger management practices 
at Federal departments and agencies and improving the 
operations and effectiveness of Federal programs. Whether 
transforming the organizational structure of the General 
Services Administration or granting the right to vote to 
citizens of the Nation's Capitol, the committee remained 
focused on making the Federal Government more responsive to the 
needs of the people it serves.
    At the committee's request, the Government Accountability 
Office [GAO] produced 359 reports, testimonies and briefings in 
support of oversight investigations and program reviews. As a 
result of the Government Reform Committees oversight, billions 
of dollars worth of outright savings, avoidable costs and 
increased revenues have been identified and captured.
    In the course of that oversight, the committee and 
subcommittees uncovered wasteful spending, mismanagement, 
ineffective policy implementation, and poor interagency 
coordination. Direct savings and other financial benefits 
identified as a result of the committee's GAO work alone now 
total $6.5 billion.\1\ Current oversight yielded savings in 
areas such as the Department of Defense excess property 
reutilization system ($42 million) and information technology 
investments at the Department of Interior ($80 million). Other 
quantifiable fiscal achievements accrued from earlier GAO 
reports to the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The total represents the net present value in fiscal year 2006 
of financial benefits identified and accrued as a result of GAO 
findings and recommendations contained in work on which the Government 
Reform Committee was a requestor. The process used to calculate and 
review savings and other financial benefits attributed to GAO 
recommendations is described at length in the Performance and 
Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2005 at http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d061sp.pdf. Accessed Oct. 10, 2006. Savings and other 
benefits may be captured over 5 fiscal years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              I. Jurisdiction and History of the Committee

    The Committee on Government Reform serves both as the House 
of Representative's government operations committee and also as 
its chief investigative and oversight body, reviewing 
allegations of waste, fraud and mismanagement across the 
Federal Government. Alone among the House committees, the 
Committee on Government Reform has legislative jurisdiction 
over the operations of all Federal agencies including, human 
resources, information technology, procurement, and financial 
and general management policy. Unlike other House committees, 
the committee has the authority to conduct oversight and 
investigations outside of its legislative jurisdiction. The 
committee's unique legislative jurisdiction and oversight 
authority make it one of the most influential committees in the 
House of Representatives.
    Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) served as the chairman of the 
committee in the 108th and 109th Congress. The ranking minority 
member was Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA).
    The Committee on Government Reform first appeared in 1927 
as the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. 
It was created by consolidating the 11 Committees on 
Expenditures previously responsible for overseeing how taxpayer 
moneys were spent at each executive branch department.
    Under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the 
committee was renamed the Committee on Government Operations. 
The name change was intended to communicate the primary 
function of the committee to study ``the operations of 
Government activities at all levels with a view to determining 
their economy and efficiency.'' The Government Operations 
Committee's oversight jurisdiction over all Federal agencies 
and departments was unprecedented in the legislative branch.
    On January 4, 1995, Republicans assumed control of the 
House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years. 
Republicans immediately implemented several internal reforms, 
including an initiative to reduce the number of standing 
committees in the House and cut committee staffs by one-third. 
The Committee on Government Reform exemplified the changes that 
took place in the House. Both the Committee on Post Office and 
Civil Service and the Committee on the District of Columbia 
were consolidated into the newly named Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee. The name change highlighted the Republican 
view that the Federal Government needed reform to ensure 
accountability. This consolidation of three committees into one 
resulted in millions of dollars in savings and a nearly 50 
percent reduction in staff. At the start of the 107th Congress, 
the committee's name was shortened to the Committee on 
Government Reform.
    House Rule X, clause 1(h) sets forth the committee's 
jurisdiction, functions, and responsibilities as follows:
    1. The Federal Civil Service, including intergovernmental 
personnel; and the status of officers and employees of the 
United States, including their compensation, classification, 
and retirement.
    2. Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia in general 
(other than appropriations).
    3. Federal paperwork reduction.
    4. Government management and accounting measures generally.
    5. Holidays and celebrations.
    6. Overall economy, efficiency, and management of 
government operations and activities, including Federal 
procurement.
    7. National Archives.
    8. Population and demography generally, including the 
Census.
    9. Postal Service generally, including transportation of 
the mails.
    10. Public information and records.
    11. Relationship of the Federal Government to the States 
and municipalities generally.
    12. Reorganizations in the executive branch of the 
Government.
    Every standing committee, including the Committee on 
Government Reform, has general oversight responsibilities 
pursuant to House Rule X, clause 2. These responsibilities 
include the analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of Federal laws 
including the necessity or desirability of enacting new or 
additional legislation. The committees are also charged with 
determining whether laws and programs are being implemented and 
carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress and 
whether they should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated. 
Each standing committee is required to review and study on a 
continuing basis the application, administration, execution, 
and effectiveness of laws and programs addressing subjects 
within its jurisdiction as well as the organization and 
operation of agencies within its jurisdiction.
    In addition to its general oversight responsibilities, the 
Committee on Government Reform has the following special and 
additional functions:

Special oversight functions, Rule X, clause 3(e)

    The Committee on Government Reform shall review and study 
on a continuing basis the operation of Government activities at 
all levels with a view to determining their economy and 
efficiency.

Additional functions of committees, Rule X clause 4(c)

    (1) The Committee on Government Reform shall--
        (A) receive and examine reports of the Comptroller 
        General of the United States and submit to the House 
        such recommendations as it considers necessary or 
        desirable in connection with the subject matter of the 
        reports;
        (B) evaluate the effects of laws enacted to reorganize 
        the legislative and executive branches of the 
        Government; and
        (C) study intergovernmental relationships between the 
        United States and the States and municipalities and 
        between the United States and international 
        organizations of which the United States is a member.
    (2) In addition to its duties under subparagraph (1), the 
Committee on Government Reform may at any time conduct 
investigations of any matter without regard to clause 1, 2, 3, 
or this clause conferring jurisdiction over the matter to 
another standing committee. The findings and recommendations of 
the committee in such an investigation shall be made available 
to any other standing committee having jurisdiction over the 
matter involved.
    In the 109th Congress, the committee was composed of 39 
members (21 Republicans, 17 Democrats and 1 Independent). The 
committee had seven subcommittees.

                       II. Rules of the Committee


                     U.S. House of Representatives


                             109th Congress

    Rule XI, clause 1(a)(1)(A) of the House of Representatives 
provides:

          The Rules of the House are the rules of its 
        committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.

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

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

    In accordance with this, the Committee on Government 
Reform, on February 9, 2005, adopted the rules of the 
committee:

                     Rule 1.--Application of Rules

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

                           Rule 2.--Meetings

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

                            Rule 3.--Quorums

    (a) A majority of the members of the committee shall form a 
quorum, except that two members shall constitute a quorum for 
taking testimony and receiving evidence, and one-third of the 
members shall form a quorum for taking any action other than 
the reporting of a measure or recommendation. If the chairman 
is not present at any meeting of the committee or subcommittee, 
the ranking member of the majority party on the committee or 
subcommittee who is present shall preside at that meeting.
    (b) The chairman of the committee may, at the request of a 
subcommittee chairman, make a temporary assignment of any 
member of the committee to such subcommittee for the purpose of 
constituting a quorum at and participating in any public 
hearing by such subcommittee to be held outside of Washington, 
DC. Members appointed to such temporary positions shall not be 
voting members. The chairman shall give reasonable notice of 
such temporary assignment to the ranking members of the 
committee and subcommittee.
        [See House Rule XI, 2(h).]

                       Rule 4.--Committee Reports

    Bills and resolutions approved by the committee shall be 
reported by the chairman following House Rule XIII, clauses 2-
4.
    A proposed report shall not be considered in subcommittee 
or full committee unless the proposed report has been available 
to the members of such subcommittee or full committee for at 
least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and 
legal holidays, unless the House is in session on such days) 
before consideration of such proposed report in subcommittee or 
full committee. Any report will be considered as read if 
available to the members at least 24 hours before 
consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays 
unless the House is in session on such days. If hearings have 
been held on the matter reported upon, every reasonable effort 
shall be made to have such hearings available to the members of 
the subcommittee or full committee before the consideration of 
the proposed report in such subcommittee or full committee. 
Every investigative report shall be approved by a majority vote 
of the committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present.
    Supplemental, minority, or additional views may be filed 
following House Rule XI, clause 2(l) and Rule XIII, clause 
3(a)(1). The time allowed for filing such views shall be three 
calendar days, beginning on the day of notice, but excluding 
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays (unless the House is in 
session on such a day), unless the committee agrees to a 
different time, but agreement on a shorter time shall require 
the concurrence of each member seeking to file such views.
    An investigative or oversight report may be filed after 
sine die adjournment of the last regular session of Congress, 
provided that if a member gives timely notice of intention to 
file supplemental, minority or additional views, that member 
shall be entitled to not less than seven calendar days in which 
to submit such views for inclusion with the report.
    Only those reports approved by a majority vote of the 
committee may be ordered printed, unless otherwise required by 
the Rules of the House of Representatives.

                          Rule 5.--Proxy Votes

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

                         Rule 6.--Record Votes

    A record vote of the members may be had upon the request of 
any member upon approval of a one-fifth vote of the members 
present.

                  Rule 7.--Record of Committee Actions

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

                   Rule 8.--Subcommittees; Referrals

    (a) There shall be seven standing subcommittees with 
appropriate party ratios. The chairman shall assign members to 
subcommittees. Minority party assignments shall be made only 
with the concurrence of the ranking minority member. The 
subcommittees shall have the following fixed jurisdictions:
          (i) Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging 
        Threats, and International Relations--All matters 
        relating to the oversight of national security, 
        emerging threats, veterans affairs, homeland security, 
        and international relations, including anti-terrorism 
        efforts, both foreign and domestic, and international 
        trade.
          (ii) Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, 
        and Human Resources--All matters relating to the 
        criminal justice system, the Nation's counter-narcotics 
        programs, both foreign and domestic, and food and drug 
        safety; all matters relating to the oversight of the 
        Judiciary, public health and welfare, education, arts, 
        the humanities, publicly sponsored media, and the 
        National Parks.
          (iii) Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance, 
        and Accountability--All matters relating to financial 
        management of executive departments and agencies, 
        excluding acquisition; all matters relating to 
        governmental accounting measures; all matters relating 
        to the overall efficiency and management of government 
        operations including program assessment and review and 
        excluding Federal property; all matters relating to 
        public records, including Presidential records, the 
        public access to records, advisory committees, and the 
        Archives; and all matters relating to the oversight of 
        financial services, government-sponsored enterprises, 
        and the Nation's economic growth.
          (iv) Subcommittee on and Regulatory Affairs--All 
        matters relating to regulatory reform, congressional 
        review, the costs of regulation, and paperwork 
        reduction measures; and all matters relating to the 
        oversight of tax policy.
          (v) Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census--All 
        matters relating to inter-governmental relations and 
        aid to the States and localities, including unfunded 
        mandates, grant management reform, brownfields clean-up 
        and redevelopment, and infrastructure; all matters 
        relating to population and demography generally, 
        including the Census, and the Bureau of Economic 
        Analysis. All matters relating to the oversight of 
        housing and urban development.
          (vi) Subcommittee on Energy and Resources--All 
        matters related to the oversight of environmental 
        policy, natural resources, and Federal land; and all 
        matters related to the oversight of energy policy, 
        commerce, housing, and urban development.
          (vii) Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and 
        Agency Organization--All matters relating to the 
        Federal Civil Service, including personnel, 
        compensation, employment benefits and employee 
        relations; all matters relating to reorganizations of 
        the executive branch including the study of redundancy; 
        and all matters relating to the oversight of workforce, 
        retirement, and health policy.
    (b) The full committee shall retain jurisdiction over 
Federal acquisition policy, Federal property, information 
management, technology policy, the Postal Service, and the 
District of Columbia.
    (c) Bills, resolutions, and other matters shall be 
expeditiously referred by the chairman to subcommittees for 
consideration or investigation in accordance with their fixed 
jurisdictions. Where the subject matter of the referral 
involves the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee or does 
not fall within any previously assigned jurisdiction, the 
chairman shall refer the matter as he may deem advisable. 
Bills, resolutions, and other matters referred to subcommittees 
may be reassigned by the chairman when, in his judgment, the 
subcommittee is not able to complete its work or cannot reach 
agreement therein. In a subcommittee having an even number of 
members, if there is a tie vote with all members voting on any 
measure, the measure shall be placed on the agenda for full 
committee consideration as if it had been ordered reported by 
the subcommittee without recommendation. This provision shall 
not preclude further action on the measure by the subcommittee.

                      Rule 9.--Ex Officio Members

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

                            Rule 10.--Staff

    Except as otherwise provided by House Rule X, clauses 6, 7 
and 9, the chairman of the full committee shall have the 
authority to hire and discharge employees of the professional 
and clerical staff of the full committee and of subcommittees.

                       Rule 11.--Staff Direction

    Except as otherwise provided by House Rule X, clauses 6, 7 
and 9, the staff of the committee shall be subject to the 
direction of the chairman of the full committee and shall 
perform such duties as he may assign.

                 Rule 12.--Hearing Dates and Witnesses

    (a) Each subcommittee of the committee is authorized to 
meet, hold hearings, receive testimony, mark up legislation, 
and report to the full committee on any measure or matter 
referred to it.
    (b) No subcommittee of the committee may meet or hold a 
hearing at the same time as a meeting or hearing of the 
committee.
    (c) The chairman of each subcommittee shall set hearing and 
meeting dates only with the approval of the chairman with a 
view toward assuring the availability of meeting rooms and 
avoiding simultaneous scheduling of committee and subcommittee 
meetings or hearings.
    (d) Each subcommittee chairman shall notify the chairman of 
any hearing plans at least two weeks before the date of 
commencement of hearings, including the date, place, subject 
matter, and the names of witnesses, willing and unwilling, who 
would be called to testify, including, to the extent he is 
advised thereof, witnesses whom the minority members may 
request.
    (e) Witnesses appearing before the committee shall so far 
as practicable, submit written statements at least 24 hours 
before their appearance and, when appearing in a non 
governmental capacity, provide a curriculum vitae and a listing 
of any Federal Government grants and contracts received in the 
previous fiscal year.
        [See House Rules XI, 2 (g)(3), (g)(4), (j) and (k).]

                        Rule 13.--Open Meetings

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

                       Rule 14.--Five-Minute Rule

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

               Rule 15.--Investigative Hearing Procedures

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

                     Rule 16.--Stenographic Record

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

      Rule 17.--Audio and Visual Coverage of Committee Proceedings

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

        Rule 18.--Additional Duties and Authorities of Chairman

    The chairman of the full committee shall:
          (a) Make available to other committees the findings 
        and recommendations resulting from the investigations 
        of the committee or its subcommittees as required by 
        House Rule X, clause 4(c)(2);
          (b) Direct such review and studies on the impact or 
        probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects 
        within the committee's jurisdiction as required by 
        House Rule X, clause 2(c);
          (c) Submit to the Committee on the Budget views and 
        estimates required by House Rule X, clause 4(f), and to 
        file reports with the House as required by the 
        Congressional Budget Act;
          (d) Authorize and issue subpoenas as provided in 
        House Rule XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any 
        investigation or activity or series of investigations 
        or activities within the jurisdiction of the committee;
          (e) Prepare, after consultation with subcommittee 
        chairmen and the minority, a budget for the committee 
        which shall include an adequate budget for the 
        subcommittees to discharge their responsibilities;
          (f) Make any necessary technical and conforming 
        changes to legislation reported by the committee upon 
        unanimous consent;
          (g) Designate a vice chairman from the majority 
        party; and
          (h) The chairman is directed to offer a motion under 
        clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of the House 
        whenever the chairman considers it appropriate.

                      Rule 19.--Subjects of Stamps

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

                    Rule 20.--Panels and Task Forces

    (a) The chairman of the committee is authorized to appoint 
panels or task forces to carry out the duties and functions of 
the committee.
    (b) The chairman and ranking minority member of the 
committee may serve as ex-officio members of each panel or task 
force.
    (c) The chairman of any panel or task force shall be 
appointed by the chairman of the committee. The ranking 
minority member shall select a ranking minority member for each 
panel or task force.
    (d) The House and committee rules applicable to 
subcommittee meetings, hearings, recommendations and reports 
shall apply to the meetings, hearings, recommendations and 
reports of panels and task forces.
    (e) No panel or task force so appointed shall continue in 
existence for more than six months. A panel or task force so 
appointed may, upon the expiration of six months, be 
reappointed by the chairman.

                     III. Members and Organization


                     ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES

    In order to perform its functions and to carry out its 
duties as fully and as effectively as possible, the committee, 
under the leadership of Chairman Tom Davis at the beginning of 
the 109th Congress, established seven standing subcommittees, 
which cover the entire field of executive expenditures and 
operations.

                      MEMBERSHIP OF SUBCOMMITTEES

    The committee appointed the chairmen and members of the 
subcommittees as follows:
    Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human 
Resources, Mark E. Souder, chairman; members: Patrick T. 
McHenry, Dan Burton, John L. Mica, Gil Gutknecht, Steven C. 
LaTourette, Chris Cannon, Candice S. Miller, Virginia Foxx, 
Jean Schmidt, Elijah E. Cummings, Bernard Sanders, Danny K. 
Davis, Diane E. Watson, Linda T. Sanchez, C.A. Dutch 
Ruppersberger, Major R. Owens, and Eleanor Holmes Norton.
    Subcommittee on Energy and Resources, Darrell E. Issa, 
chairman; members: Lynn A. Westmoreland, John M. McHugh, 
Patrick T. McHenry, Kenny Marchant, Brian P. Bilbray, Diane E. 
Watson, Brian Higgins, Tom Lantos, and Dennis J. Kucinich.
    Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census, Michael R. 
Turner, chairman; members: Charles W. Dent, Christopher Shays, 
Virginia Foxx, Brian P. Bilbray, Wm. Lacy Clay, Paul E. 
Kanjorski, and Carolyn B. Maloney.
    Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency 
Organization, John C. Porter, chairman; members: John L. Mica, 
Tom Davis, Darrell E. Issa, Kenny Marchant, Patrick T. McHenry, 
Jean Schmidt, Danny K. Davis, Major R. Owens, Eleanor Holmes 
Norton, Elijah E. Cummings, and Chris Van Hollen.
    Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance, and 
Accountability, Todd Russell Platts, chairman; members: 
Virginia Foxx, Tom Davis, Gil Gutknecht, Mark E. Souder, John 
J. Duncan, Jr., Edolphus Towns, Major R. Owens, Paul E. 
Kanjorski, and Carolyn B. Maloney.
    Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and 
International Relations, Christopher Shays, chairman; members: 
Kenny Marchant, Dan Burton, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John M. 
McHugh, Steven C. LaTourette, Todd Russell Platts, John J. 
Duncan, Jr., Michael R. Turner, Jon C. Porter, Charles W. Dent, 
Dennis J. Kucinich, Tom Lantos, Bernard Sanders, Carolyn B. 
Maloney, Chris Van Hollen, Linda T. Sanchez, C.A. Dutch 
Ruppersberger, Stephen F. Lynch, and Brian Higgins.
    Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Candice S. Miller, 
chairwoman; members: Chris Cannon, Michael R. Turner, Lynn A. 
Westmoreland, Jean Schmidt, Stephen F. Lynch, Wm. Lacy Clay, 
and Chris Van Hollen.
                    PART ONE: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

                     I. Legislative Accomplishments

    The Committee on Government Reform was very active in the 
109th Congress improving the operations and effectiveness of 
the Federal Government. Significant reforms were made to 
modernize the U.S. Postal Service, promote stronger management 
practices at Federal departments and agencies, revitalize the 
Nation's emergency response infrastructure, protect employees 
from discrimination, prevent the undue influence of outside 
interest groups in the operations of the Federal Government, 
advance our Nation's efforts to reduce the presence of illegal 
narcotics in society, improve the transportation system serving 
the Nation's Capital, and advance voting representation in the 
House of Representatives for the District of Columbia. All of 
these initiatives were crafted with an eye toward making the 
Federal Government more efficient and effective, thereby saving 
taxpayer dollars.
Modernizing the U.S. Postal Service
    H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, 
was passed by both houses of Congress on the last day of the 
109th Congress. H.R. 22, the original version of the ``Postal 
Accountability and Enhancement Act,'' passed the House in July 
2005 by a vote of 410-20, and the Senate passed its version of 
H.R. 22 by unanimous consent in February 2006. H.R. 6407 
reflects a recent bipartisan agreement between the House, 
Senate and administration on postal reform legislation. This 
landmark legislation mandates transparency in the Service's 
finances, costs, and operations; creates a modern system of 
rate regulation; establishes fair competition rules and a 
powerful new regulator to oversee operations; addresses the 
Postal Service's universal service obligation and the scope of 
the mail monopoly, and institutes improvements to the 
collective bargaining process. The U.S. Postal Service is the 
center of a $900 billion industry employing 9 million workers 
nationwide. Each year, USPS processes and delivers over 200 
billion peices of mail to more than 130 million households and 
businesses in the United States. However, the last major 
overhaul of the statutes governing the Postal Service occurred 
in 1970, before the Internet and emails, before letters became 
``snail mail,'' before the de-regulation of the airline 
industry, before competitors like FedEx even existed. Today, 
this critical component of our Nation's economy is being 
challenged by a variety of factors including decreasing volume, 
insufficient revenue, mounting debts, and new technologies such 
as Internet advertising, electronic bill payments, emails and 
faxes. As a result, the GAO has included the Postal Service on 
its ``High-Risk Series'' since 2001.
Promoting Stronger Management Practices at Federal Departments and 
        Agencies
    The committee took a proactive role in improving government 
efficiency by approving the Program Assessment and Results Act, 
the Government Efficiency Act, and the Truth in Regulating Act 
reauthorization. These measures, along with several others 
adopted by the committee, demonstrated the committee's 
commitment to championing improved management practices at 
Federal departments and agencies.
Revitalizing the Nation's Emergency Response Infrastructure
    The committee played an integral role in congressional 
efforts to establish a new, stronger Federal Emergency 
Management Agency within the Department of Homeland Security 
following the investigation conducted by the Select Bipartisan 
Committee on Katrina. As a result of those efforts, FEMA now 
has a direct line of communication to the President in the 
event of an emergency to prevent communication breakdowns at 
the Federal level in future disasters. In addition, the 
committee included in the legislation key provisions to address 
waste, fraud and mismanagement challenges that plagued the 
Department of Homeland Security in its response and recovery 
efforts after Hurricane Katrina.
Protecting Employees from Discrimination
    By a vote of 34-1, the committee adopted legislation to 
modernize, clarify and expand the Federal employee 
whistleblower protection laws. One of the most significant 
reforms included in the legislation was allowing a Federal 
employee to have his or her claim decided in Federal district 
court if the Office of Special Counsel [OSC] does not take 
action within 180 days in response to a whistleblower complaint 
filed with them. This would include a right to a jury trial. 
Under current law, the only recourse for most Federal 
whistleblowers is the Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB]. In 
addition to this structural change, the legislation includes 
provisions aimed at clarifying congressional intent in response 
to Federal court rulings regarding whistleblower claims that 
have been issued over the past decade.
Preventing the Undue Influence of Outside Interest Groups in the 
        Operations of the Federal Government
    In response to reports of undue influence by lobbyists upon 
Members of Congress and other Federal officials, the committee 
approved legislation to deny Federal pensions for Federal 
officials convicted of accepting bribes, defrauding the Federal 
Government, embezzling Federal property, or falsifying Federal 
documents. In addition, by a vote of 32-0, the committee 
approved legislation to provide enhanced transparency to the 
operations of the executive branch by ensuring that the 
behavior of our public servants is above reproach and worthy of 
the public trust. The legislation struck a balance between 
reasonable and focused rules of ethical behavior and arbitrary 
restrictions and prohibitions that hamstring our officials and 
prevent them from exercising the discretion needed to perform 
their missions on behalf of our citizens. The intent of both 
initiatives was to enhance the public's trust in our Federal 
Government.
Advance Our Nation's Efforts to Reduce the Presence of Illegal 
        Narcotics in Society
    The committee unanimously adopted legislation to 
reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy and to 
make it more efficient by reducing outdated reporting and 
structural requirements required by law. The legislation also 
improves ONDCP and its programs by enhancing effectiveness and 
accountability in drug treatment and requiring greater 
diligence in addressing our Nation's methamphetamine epidemic. 
Ultimately the legislation gave ONDCP the necessary tools to 
reduce elicit drug use, manufacturing, trafficking, drug-
related crime and violence and drug-related health 
consequences. In doing so, the legislation reaffirmed our 
Nation's commitment to continuing the war on the supply side of 
the drug equation while reaffirming our commitment to 
addressing the demand side as well.
Improving the Transportation System Serving the Nation's Capital
    The committee unanimously approved legislation to establish 
critical new oversight and accountability mechanisms for the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA], 
including an Inspector General and an increased Federal 
presence on WMATA's Board of Directors. In addition, for the 
fifth time since President Eisenhower signed the original 
legislation in 1960, the legislation reauthorizes the Federal 
Government's commitment to authorizing Federal funding for 
WMATA maintenance and operations. With over half of Metro's 
riders at peak times being Federal employees and contractors, 
and Metro's record riderships occurring during historic events 
where people from all over the country flock to the Nation's 
Capital to honor their Federal Government, it is essential that 
the Federal Government continue to contribute to the transit 
system's operations. However, unlike previous authorizations, 
this WMATA authorizes makes the Federal funds contingent upon 
the three localities of Virginia, Maryland and the District of 
Columbia matching any Federal contribution to WMATA.
Advancing Voting Representation in the House of Representatives for the 
        District of Columbia
    By a vote of 29-4, the committee approved bipartisan 
legislation to give citizens of the District of Columbia direct 
representation in the House of Representatives. The legislation 
contained two main features. First, it treated the District as 
a congressional district for the purpose of granting full House 
representation. Second, it increased the size of the House by 
two Members. In increasing the size of the House, the bill 
follows the historic House tradition of increasing 
representation in a non-partisan manner.
Strengthening Professional Sports Drug Testing Policies
    H.R. 2565, the Clean Sports Act of 2005, was approved by 
the Committee on Government Reform by unanimous consent in May 
2005. The legislation sought to strengthen the testing 
procedures and toughen the penalties for the use of 
performance-enhancing drugs in professional American sports. 
H.R. 2565 was the product of months of commitee work--three 
congressional hearings and an ongoing investigation into the 
use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. As a 
result of the pressure imposed upon the professional sports 
leagues by the committee's investigative and legislative work, 
the leagues strengthened their internal drug testing programs 
and policies. Consequently the committee decided not to pursue 
enactment of the Clean Sports Act during the 109th Congress. 
However, the committee intends to monitor the situation and may 
decide to take action in the future if necessary.
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy
    H.R. 6344, the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Reauthorization Act, was passed by both houses of Congress on 
the second to last day of the 109th Congress. H.R. 2829, the 
original version of the ``Office of National Drug Control 
Policy Reauthorization Act,'' passed the House in March 2006 by 
a vote of 399-5. H.R. 6344 reflects a recent bipartisan 
agreement between the House, Senate and administration on 
reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
[ONDCP]. The legislation makes ONDCP more efficient by reducing 
outdated reporting and structural requirements required by 
current law. The bill also improves ONDCP and its programs by 
enhancing effectiveness and accountability in drug treatment 
and requiring greater dilligence in addressing out Nation's 
methamphetamine epidemic. The legislation reforms the National 
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign--which coordinates anti-drug 
advertising--and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
program--which involves coordination among Federal, State and 
local law enforcement--to make them more effective. Both 
programs have grown in ways that were not originally intended, 
and the bill reflects the desire to ensure they remain 
accountable and dedicated to their core purposes.

                    A. LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW

1. H.R. 368: To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State 
        driver's license and identification document security standards
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 1/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--1/26/2005: Referred to the 
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned. 1/26/2005: Referred to House Committee on 
Government Reform 1/26/2005: Referred to House Committee on 
Judiciary 3/2/2005: Referred to the Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
    *Related legislation was enacted into law as Division B of 
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005REAL ID Act of 
2005. Public Law 109-13.
2. H.R. 2066: To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish a 
        Federal Acquisition Service, to replace the General Supply Fund 
        and the Information Technology Fund with an Acquisition 
        Services Fund, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 5/4/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--5/4/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 5/5/2005: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 5/5/2005: Ordered to be 
Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 5/23/2005 2:14 p.m.: Reported 
(Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-
91. 5/23/2005 2:14 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar 
No. 48. 5/23/2005 3:42 p.m.: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 5/23/2005 3:42 p.m.: 
Considered under suspension of the rules. 5/23/2005 3:52 p.m.: 
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended 
Agreed to by voice vote. 5/23/2005 3:52 p.m.: Motion to 
reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 5/24/
2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 5/2/
2006: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably. 5/25/2006: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
Reported by Senator Collins with amendments. With written 
report No. 109-257. 5/25/2006: Placed on Senate Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 449. 9/6/2006: 
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. 9/6/2006: 
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. 9/7/2006: 
Message on Senate action sent to the House. 9/25/2006 4:59 
p.m.: Mr. Davis, Tom moved that the House suspend the rules and 
agree to the Senate amendments. 9/25/2006 5:04 p.m.: On motion 
that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate 
amendments Agreed to by voice vote. 9/25/2006 5:04 p.m.: Motion 
to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 9/
25/2006: Cleared for White House. 9/29/2006: Presented to 
President. 10/6/2006: Signed by President. 10/6/2006: Became 
Public Law No: 109-313.
3. H.R. 2385: To extend by 10 years the authority of the Secretary of 
        Commerce to conduct the quarterly financial report program
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Turner, Michael R. [R-OH-3] 
(introduced 5/17/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--5/17/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 5/17/2005: Referred to the 
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census. 6/14/2005: 
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 6/14/2005: 
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by 
Unanimous Consent. 6/16/2005: Committee Consideration and Mark-
up Session Held. 6/16/2005: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by 
Voice Vote. 7/12/2005 3:13 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the 
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-164. 7/12/2005 
3:13 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 101. 7/
13/2005 11:13 a.m.: Mr. Turner moved to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, as amended. 7/13/2005 11:13 a.m.: Considered 
under suspension of the rules. 7/13/2005 11:24 a.m.: On motion 
to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by 
voice vote. 7/13/2005 11:24 a.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on 
the table Agreed to without objection. 7/13/2005 11:24 a.m.: 
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without 
objection. 7/14/2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. 7/19/2005: Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent. 7/
19/2005: Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. 7/19/2005: Senate vitiated previous 
referral and discharge by Unanimous Consent. 7/21/2005: Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged 
by Unanimous Consent. 7/21/2005: Referred to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 9/26/2005: Senate 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
discharged by Unanimous Consent. 9/26/2005: Passed Senate 
without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 9/26/2005: Cleared for 
White House. 9/27/2005: Message on Senate action sent to the 
House. 9/29/2005: Presented to President. 9/30/2005: Signed by 
President. 9/30/2005: Became Public Law No: 109-79.
4. H.R. 3508: To authorize improvements in the operation of the 
        government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 7/28/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--7/28/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 9/15/2005: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 9/15/2005: Ordered to 
be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 11/3/2005 6:30 p.m.: 
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. H. 
Rept. 109-267. 11/3/2005 6:31 p.m.: Placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 146. 12/14/2005 7:22 p.m.: Mr. Porter 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 12/
14/2005 7:23 p.m.: Considered under suspension of the rules. 
12/14/2005 7:31 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. 12/14/2005 7:31 
p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without 
objection. 12/15/2005: Received in the Senate. 1/27/2006: Read 
twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. 2/28/2006: Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District 
of Columbia. Hearings held. 3/28/2006: Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and 
the District of Columbia. 6/15/2006: Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. 7/25/
2006: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
Reported by Senator Collins with an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. Without written report. 7/25/2006: Placed on 
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 
534. 8/3/2006: Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. 
8/3/2006: The committee substitute agreed to by Unanimous 
Consent. 8/3/2006: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous 
Consent. 8/4/2006: Message on Senate action sent to the House. 
9/25/2006 5:04 p.m.: Mr. Davis, Tom moved that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. 9/25/2006 
5:08 p.m.: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree 
to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. 9/25/2006 5:08 
p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without 
objection. 9/25/2006: Cleared for White House. 10/5/2006: 
Presented to President. 10/16/2006: Signed by President. 10/16/
2006: Became Public Law No. 109-356.
5. H.R. 3699: To provide for the sale, acquisition, conveyance, and 
        exchange of certain real property in the District of Columbia 
        to facilitate the utilization, development, and redevelopment 
        of such property, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 9/8/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--9/8/2005: Referred to the 
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the 
Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned. 9/8/2005: Referred to House Government 
Reform 9/29/2005: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session 
Held. 9/29/2005: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice 
Vote. 9/8/2005: Referred to other House committees. Reported 
(Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. Placed on the 
Union Calendar, Calendar No. 200. 9/30/2006 12:33 a.m.: Mr. 
Davis, Tom asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's 
table and consider. 9/30/2006 12:33 a.m.: Considered by 
unanimous consent. 9/30/2006 12:34 a.m.: On passage Passed 
without objection. 9/30/2006 12:34 a.m.: Motion to reconsider 
laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 9/30/2006: 
Received in the Senate. 11/15/2006: Read twice and referred to 
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
11/16/2006: Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent. 11/16/
2006: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources. 11/16/2006: Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent. 11/16/2006: Passed 
Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 11/17/2006: 
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
6. H.R. 4436: To provide certain authorities for the Department of 
        State, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4] 
(introduced 12/6/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--12/6/2005: Referred to the 
Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the 
Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned. 12/6/2005: Referred to House International 
Relations 12/6/2005: Referred to House Government Reform 12/14/
2005 9:01 p.m.: Mr. Smith (NJ) moved to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, as amended. 12/14/2005 9:02 p.m.: Considered 
under suspension of the rules. 12/14/2005 9:08 p.m.: On motion 
to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by 
voice vote. 12/14/2005 9:08 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on 
the table Agreed to without objection. 12/15/2005: Received in 
the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and 
passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 12/15/2005: 
Message on Senate action sent to the House. 12/15/2005: Cleared 
for White House. 12/17/2005: Presented to President. 12/22/
2005: Signed by President. 12/22/2005: Became Public Law No. 
109-140.
7. H.R. 5316: To reestablish the Federal Emergency Management Agency as 
        a cabinet-level independent establishment in the executive 
        branch that is responsible for the Nation's preparedness for, 
        response to, recovery from, and mitigation against disasters, 
        and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Young, Don [R-AK] (introduced 
5/9/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--5/9/2006: Referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition 
to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Government Reform, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 5/9/2006: Referred 
to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 5/10/2006: 
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings and Emergency Management. 5/17/2006: Subcommittee on 
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management 
Discharged. 5/17/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up 
Session Held. 5/17/2006: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by 
Voice Vote. 5/9/2006: Referred to House Homeland Security 
Committee 5/9/2006: Referred to House Government Reform 
Committee 5/18/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up 
Session Held. 5/18/2006: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by 
Voice Vote. 6/22/2006 6:22 p.m.: Mr. Shuster asked unanimous 
consent that the Committee on Transportation have until 
midnight on June 23 to file a report on H.R. 5316. Agreed to 
without objection. 6/22/2006 6:33 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by 
the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-519, Part I.
    *Related legislation was enacted into law as Title VI, 
Subtitle A, Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act. Public Law 109-295.
8. H.R. 5877: To amend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 to 
        extend the authorities provided in such Act until September 29, 
        2006
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18] 
(introduced 7/25/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--7/25/2006: Referred to the 
Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the 
Committees on Financial Services, Ways and Means, and 
Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined 
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
concerned. 7/25/2006: Referred to House International Relations 
Committee 7/25/2006: Referred to House Financial Services 7/25/
2006: Referred to House Ways and Means 7/25/2006: Referred to 
House Government Reform 7/26/2006 10:07 p.m.: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. 7/26/2006 10:07 
p.m.: Considered under suspension of the rules. 7/26/2006 10:15 
p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed 
to by voice vote. 7/26/2006 10:15 p.m.: Motion to reconsider 
laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 7/27/2006: 
Received in the Senate, read twice. 7/31/2006: Passed Senate 
without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 7/31/2006: Cleared for 
White House. 8/1/2006: Message on Senate action sent to the 
House. 8/2/2006: Presented to President. 8/4/2006: Signed by 
President. 8/4/2006: Became Public Law No. 109-267.
9. H.R. 6344: To reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
        Act
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Souder, Mark [R-IN-3] 
(introduced 12/5/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--12/5/2006: Referred to the House 
Committees on Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, 
Judiciary, Armed Services Committee, Intelligence (Permanent 
Select). 12/7/2006 3:49 p.m.: Mr. Souder, Mark moved to suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 12/7/2006 3:50 p.m.: 
Considered under suspension of the rules. 12/7/2006 4:19 p.m.: 
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 
Agreed to by voice vote. 12/7/2006 4:19 p.m.: Motion to 
reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 12/7/
2006: Received in the Senate, read twice. 12/8/2006: Passed 
Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 12/8/2006: 
Cleared for White House.
10. H.R. 6407: To reform the postal laws of the United States
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 12/7/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--12/7/2006: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 12/8/2006 10:10 p.m.: Mr. 
Davis, Tom moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as 
amended. 12.8.2006 10:11 p.m.: Considered under suspension of 
the rules. 12/8/2006 10:33 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, as amended. Agreed to be voice vote. 12/8/
2006 10:33 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed 
to without objection. 12/8/2006: Received in the Senate, read 
twice. 12/9/2006: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous 
Consent. 12/9/2006: Cleared for White House.
11. S. 37: to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer 
        research for 2 years
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] (introduced 
1/24/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--1/24/2005: Introductory remarks on 
measure. 1/24/2005: Read twice and referred to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 6/22/2005: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably. 9/26/2005: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
Reported by Senator Collins without amendment. With written 
report No. 109-140. 9/26/2005: Placed on Senate Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 221. 9/27/2005: 
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 9/28/2005 
11:06 a.m.: Received in the House. 9/28/2005: Message on Senate 
action sent to the House. 9/28/2005: Referred to the Committee 
on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on 
Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 9/28/2005: Referred to 
House Government Reform 10/20/2005: Committee Consideration and 
Mark-up Session Held. 10/20/2005: Ordered to be Reported by 
Unanimous Consent. 9/28/2005: Referred to House Energy and 
Commerce 10/7/2005: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the chairman. 9/28/
2005: Referred to House Armed Services 10/5/2005: Referred to 
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 10/27/2005 4:26 p.m.: 
Committee on Government Reform discharged. 10/27/2005 4:26 
p.m.: Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged. 10/27/2005 
4:26 p.m.: Committee on Armed Services discharged. 10/27/2005 
4:26 p.m.: Ms. Foxx asked unanimous consent to discharge from 
committee and consider. 10/27/2005 4:26 p.m.: Considered by 
unanimous consent. 10/27/2005 4:26 p.m.: On passage Passed 
without objection. 10/27/2005 4:26 p.m.: Motion to reconsider 
laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 10/27/2005: 
Cleared for White House. 10/31/2005: Presented to President. 
11/11/2005: Signed by President. 11/11/2005: Became Public Law 
No. 109-100.
12. S. 384: A bill to extend the existence of the Nazi War Crimes and 
        Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group 
        for 2 years
    a. Sponsor.--Senator DeWine, Mike [R-OH] (introduced 2/15/
2005).
    b. Legislative History.--2/15/2005: Introduced in the 
Senate. Read twice. Ordered Placed on Senate Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 6. 2/16/2005: 
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. 2/16/2005: 
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. 2/17/2005 10:03 
a.m.: Received in the House. 2/17/2005: Message on Senate 
action sent to the House. 2/17/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 3/10/2005: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 3/10/2005: Ordered to 
be Reported. 3/14/2005 4:25 p.m.: Mr. Shays moved to suspend 
the rules and pass the bill. 3/14/2005 4:25 p.m.: Considered 
under suspension of the rules. 3/14/2005 4:41 p.m.: At the 
conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and 
ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the 
Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be 
postponed. 3/14/2005 7:03 p.m.: Considered as unfinished 
business. 3/14/2005 7:19 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 
required): 391-0. 3/14/2005 7:19 p.m.: Motion to reconsider 
laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 3/14/2005: 
Cleared for White House. 3/18/2005: Presented to President. 3/
25/2005: Signed by President. 3/25/2005: Became Public Law No. 
109-5.
13. S. 1736: A bill to provide for the participation of employees in 
        the judicial branch in the Federal leave transfer program for 
        disasters and emergencies
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] (introduced 
9/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--9/20/2005: Read twice and referred 
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
9/22/2005: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably. 9/
27/2005: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins without amendment. Without 
written report. 9/27/2005: Placed on Senate Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 227. 10/19/2005: 
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 10/20/
2005 10:00 a.m.: Received in the House. 10/20/2005: Message on 
Senate action sent to the House. 10/20/2005: Referred to the 
House Committee on Government Reform. 3/9/2006: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 3/9/2006: Ordered to be 
Reported by Voice Vote. 10/20/2005: By Senator Collins from 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs filed 
written report. Report No. 109-158. 5/2/2006 6:42 p.m.: 
Reported by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-
449. 5/2/2006 6:42 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar 
No. 251. 5/22/2006 3:07 p.m.: Mr. Shays moved to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill. 5/22/2006 3:07 p.m.: Considered under 
suspension of the rules. 5/22/2006 3:12 p.m.: On motion to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. 5/
22/2006 3:12 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table 
Agreed to without objection. 5/22/2006: Cleared for White 
House. 5/25/2006: Presented to President. 5/31/2006: Signed by 
President. 5/31/2006: Became Public Law No. 109-229.
14. S. 2146: A bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for 
        Federal employees
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] (introduced 
12/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--12/20/2005: Read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. 1/27/2006: Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District 
of Columbia. 6/15/2006: Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment 
favorably. 7/21/2006: Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins without 
amendment. With written report No. 109-289. 7/21/2006: Placed 
on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar 
No. 528. 8/1/2006: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous 
Consent. 8/2/2006 11:04 a.m.: Received in the House. 8/2/2006: 
Message on Senate action sent to the House. 8/2/2006: Referred 
to the House Committee on Government Reform. 9/28/2006 3:29 
p.m.: Mr. Westmoreland moved to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill. 9/28/2006 3:30 p.m.: Considered under suspension of the 
rules. 9/28/2006 3:33 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. 9/28/2006 3:33 p.m.: 
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without 
objection. 9/28/2006: Cleared for White House. 10/2/2006: 
Presented to President. 10/11/2006: Signed by President. 10/11/
2006: Became Public Law No. 109-325.
15. S. 2590: A bill to require full disclosure of all entities and 
        organizations receiving Federal funds
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Coburn, Tom [R-OK] (introduced 4/6/
2006).
    b. Legislative History.--4/6/2006: Introductory remarks on 
measure. 4/6/2006: Read twice and referred to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 7/18/2006: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 
Information, and International Security. Hearings held. 7/27/
2006: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute favorably. 8/2/2006: Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written 
report. 8/2/2006: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under 
General Orders. Calendar No. 576. 9/7/2006: Passed Senate with 
an amendment by Unanimous Consent. 9/8/2006: Message on Senate 
action sent to the House. 9/8/2006: By Senator Collins from 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs filed 
written report. Report No. 109-329. Additional views filed. 9/
8/2006 2:03 p.m.: Received in the House. 9/8/2006 3:42 p.m.: 
Held at the desk. 9/13/2006 7:34 p.m.: Mr. Davis, Tom moved to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill. 9/13/2006 7:34 p.m.: 
Considered under suspension of the rules. 9/13/2006 7:50 p.m.: 
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by 
voice vote. 9/13/2006 7:50 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on 
the table Agreed to without objection. 9/13/2006 7:51 p.m.: 
Pursuant to the provisions of S. Con. Res. 114, enrollment 
corrections on S. 2590 have been made. 9/13/2006: Cleared for 
White House. 9/18/2006: Presented to President. 9/26/2006: 
Signed by President. 9/26/2006: Became Public Law No. 109-282.
    *House version of legislation was H.R. 5060.

                   B. LEGISLATION CONSIDERED BY HOUSE

1. H.R. 22: To reform the postal laws of the United States
    a. Sponsor.--Representative McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23] 
(introduced 1/4/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--1/4/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 4/13/2005: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/13/2005: Ordered to 
be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 39-0. 4/28/2005 
10:23 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on 109-66, Part 
I. 4/28/2005: Referred sequentially to other House committees. 
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 55. 7/26/2005 9:52 
p.m.: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 410-20. 7/27/2005: 
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 176. 2/
9/2006: Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. 2/9/
2006: Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause and 
substituted the language of S. 662 amended. 2/9/2006: Passed 
Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. 2/9/2006: Senate 
insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints 
conferees Collins; Stevens; Voinovich; Coleman; Bennett; 
Lieberman; Akaka; Carper. 2/10/2006: Message on Senate action 
sent to the House.
2. H.R. 1817: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the 
        Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Cox, Christopher [R-CA-48] 
(introduced 4/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--4/26/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Homeland Security. 4/27/2005: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/27/2005: Ordered to 
be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 5/3/2005 9:49 p.m.: 
Reported (Amended) by the committee on 109-71, Part I. 5/3/
2005: Referred jointly and sequentially to the House Committee 
on Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than May 
13, 2005 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 
pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X. 5/11/2005: Ordered to be 
Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 5/3/2005: Referred jointly 
and sequentially to the House Committee on Government Reform 
for a period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for 
consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as 
fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to 
clause 1(h), rule X. 5/3/2005: Referred jointly and 
sequentially to the House Committee on the Judiciary for a 
period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for consideration of 
such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the 
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(l), rule X. 
5/12/2005: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 5/
12/2005: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 5/3/
2005: Referred jointly and sequentially to the House Committee 
on Science for a period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for 
consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as 
fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to 
clause 1(o), rule X. 5/3/2005: Referred jointly and 
sequentially to the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for a period ending not later than May 13, 2005 
for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment 
as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to 
clause 1(r), rule X. 5/3/2005: Referred jointly and 
sequentially to the House Committee on Ways and Means for a 
period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for consideration of 
such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the 
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(t), rule X. 
5/3/2005: Referred jointly and sequentially to the House 
Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) for a period 
ending not later than May 13, 2005 for consideration of such 
provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the 
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 11(b) of rule 
X. 5/13/2005 5:50 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 109-71, Part II. 5/13/2005 11:44 
p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. 
Rept. 109-71, Part III. 5/13/2005 11:44 p.m.: Committee on 
Government Reform discharged. 5/13/2005 11:44 p.m.: Committee 
on Science discharged. 5/13/2005 11:44 p.m.: Committee on 
Transportation discharged. 5/13/2005 11:44 p.m.: Committee on 
Ways and Means discharged. 5/13/2005 11:45 p.m.: Committee on 
Intelligence (Permanent) discharged. 5/13/2005 11:45 p.m.: 
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 40. 5/18/2005 6:47 
p.m.: The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union. 5/18/2005 7:25 p.m.: On passage Passed 
by recorded vote: 424-4 (Roll No. 189). 5/18/2005 7:25 p.m.: 
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without 
objection. 5/19/2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
3. H.R. 3496: To amend the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 
        to authorize additional Federal contributions for maintaining 
        and improving the transit system of the Washington Metropolitan 
        Area Transit Authority, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 7/28/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--7/28/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 10/20/2005: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 10/20/2005: Ordered to 
be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 4/26/2006 9:30 p.m.: 
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. 4/26/
2006 9:31 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 245. 
7/17/2006 2:25 p.m.: Mr. Davis, Tom moved to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, as amended. 7/17/2006 2:26 p.m.: Considered 
under suspension of the rules. 7/17/2006 3:09 p.m.: At the 
conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and 
ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the 
Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be 
postponed. 7/17/2006 6:56 p.m.: Considered as unfinished 
business. 7/17/2006 7:06 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 
(2/3 required): 242-120. 7/17/2006 7:06 p.m.: Motion to 
reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 7/18/
2006: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 7/19/
2006: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.
4. H.R. 4057: To provide that attorneys employed by the Department of 
        Justice shall be eligible for compensatory time off for travel 
        under section 5550b of title 5, United States Code
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Porter, Jon C. [R-NV-3] 
(introduced 10/17/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--10/17/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 10/20/2005: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 10/20/2005: Ordered to 
be Reported by Voice Vote. 3/14/2006 4:16 p.m.: Reported by the 
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-390. 3/14/2006 
4:16 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 212. 3/
28/2006 3:16 p.m.: Mr. Porter moved to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, as amended. 3/28/2006 3:16 p.m.: Considered 
under suspension of the rules. 3/28/2006 3:21 p.m.: On motion 
to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by 
voice vote. 3/28/2006 3:21 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on 
the table Agreed to without objection. 3/29/2006: Received in 
the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
5. H.R. 4416: To reauthorize permanently the use of penalty and franked 
        mail in efforts relating to the location and recovery of 
        missing children
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Millender-McDonald, Juanita [D-
CA-37] (introduced 11/18/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--11/18/2005: Referred to the 
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the 
Committee on House Administration, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 11/18/2005: Referred 
to House Government Reform 6/8/2006: Committee Consideration 
and Mark-up Session Held. 6/8/2006: Ordered to be Reported by 
Voice Vote. 11/18/2005: Referred to House Administration 6/26/
2006 6:48 p.m.: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill. 6/26/2006 6:48 p.m.: Considered under suspension 
of the rules. 6/26/2006 6:53 p.m.: On motion to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. 6/26/2006 6:53 
p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without 
objection. 6/27/2006: Received in the Senate and Read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
6. H.R. 4586: To extend the life of the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary 
        Commission
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Castle, Michael N. [R-DE] 
(introduced 12/16/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--12/16/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 3/30/2006: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 3/30/2006: Ordered to 
be Reported by Unanimous Consent. 9/20/2006 6:23 p.m.: Ms. Foxx 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 9/20/
2006 6:24 p.m.: Considered under suspension of the rules. 9/20/
2006 6:30 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. 9/20/2006 6:30 p.m.: 
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without 
objection. 9/20/2006 6:30 p.m.: The title of the measure was 
amended. Agreed to without objection. 9/21/2006: Received in 
the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
7. H.R. 4846: To authorize grants for contributions toward the 
        establishment of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6] 
(introduced 3/2/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--3/2/2006: Introductory remarks on 
measure. 3/2/2006: Referred to the House Committee on 
Government Reform. 7/20/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-
up Session Held. 7/20/2006: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous 
Consent. 9/28/2006 Mr. Westmoreland moved to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, as amended. 9/28/2006 Considered under 
suspension of the rules. 9/28/2006 On motion to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. 9/
28/2006 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to 
without objection. 9/28/2006 The title of the measure was 
amended. Agreed to without objection. 9/28/2006: Received in 
the Senate.
8. H.R. 4975: To provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying 
        activities, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Dreier, David [R-CA-26] 
(introduced 3/16/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--3/16/2006: Referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees 
on House Administration, Rules, Government Reform, and 
Standards of Official Conduct, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned. 3/16/2006: Referred to House Judiciary 4/
4/2006: Subcommittee on the Constitution Held Hearings Without 
Referral. 4/5/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session 
Held. 4/5/2006: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas 
and Nays: 18-16. 3/16/2006: Referred to House Administration 4/
6/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/6/
2006: Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 5-2. 3/16/
2006: Referred to House Rules 3/30/2006: Committee Hearings 
Held. 4/5/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session 
Held. 4/5/2006: Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote. 3/16/
2006: Referred to House Government Reform 4/6/2006: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/6/2006: Ordered to be 
Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 3/16/2006: Referred to House 
Standards of Official Conduct 4/25/2006 11:06 p.m.: Reported 
(Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-439, Part 
I. 4/25/2006 11:09 p.m.: Reported by the Committee on House 
Administration. H. Rept. 109-439, Part II. 4/25/2006 11:18 
p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Rules. H. Rept. 
109-439, Part III. 4/25/2006 11:23 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by 
the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-439, Part IV. 
4/25/2006 11:24 p.m.: Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct discharged. 4/25/2006 11:24 p.m.: Placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 244. 5/3/2006 5:31 p.m.: On passage 
Passed by recorded vote: 217-213 (Roll No. 119).
9. H.R. 5060: To amend the Federal Financial Assistance Management 
        Improvement Act of 1999 to require data with respect to Federal 
        financial assistance to be available for public access in a 
        searchable and user friendly form
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Blunt, Roy [R-MO-7] (introduced 
3/30/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--3/30/2006: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 6/21/2006 10:34 a.m.: Mr. 
Davis, Tom moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as 
amended. 6/21/2006 10:35 a.m.: Considered under suspension of 
the rules. 6/21/2006 10:57 a.m.: On motion to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. 6/21/
2006 10:57 a.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed 
to without objection. 6/22/2006: Received in the Senate and 
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs.
10. H.R. 5835: To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve 
        information management within the Department of Veterans 
        Affairs, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Buyer, Steve [R-IN-4] 
(introduced 7/19/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--7/19/2006: Referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the 
Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned. 7/19/2006: Referred to House Veterans' 
Affairs 7/19/2006: Committee Hearings Held Prior to 
Introduction and Referral (July 18, 2006). 7/20/2006: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 7/20/2006: Ordered to 
be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Voice Vote. 9/18/
2006: Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from Veterans' 
Affairs. 7/19/2006: Referred to House Government Reform 9/13/
2006 7:09 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs. H. Rept. 109-651, Part I. 9/13/2006 7:09 
p.m.: Committee on Government Reform discharged. 9/13/2006 7:09 
p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 387. 9/26/2006 
9:46 p.m.: Mr. Buyer moved to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill, as amended. 9/26/2006 9:46 p.m.: Considered under 
suspension of the rules. 9/26/2006 10:21 p.m.: On motion to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by 
voice vote. 9/26/2006 10:21 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on 
the table Agreed to without objection. 9/27/2006: Received in 
the Senate.
11. H.R. 6160: To recruit and retain Border Patrol agents
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3] 
(introduced 9/25/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--9/25/2006: Referred to the 
Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the 
Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned. 9/25/2006: Referred to House Homeland 
Security 9/26/2006: Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic 
Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity. 9/25/
2006: Referred to House Government Reform 9/26/2006 7:01 p.m.: 
Mr. Rogers (AL) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. 
9/26/2006 7:01 p.m.: Considered under suspension of the rules. 
9/26/2006 7:19 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill Agreed to by voice vote. 9/26/2006 7:19 p.m.: Motion 
to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 9/
27/2006: Received in the Senate.

                  C. LEGISLATION REPORTED BY COMMITTEE

1. H.R. 185: To require the review of Government programs at least once 
        every 5 years for purposes of evaluating their performance
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Platts, Todd Russell [R-PA-19] 
(introduced 1/4/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--1/4/2005: Introductory remarks on 
measure. 1/4/2005: Referred to the House Committee on 
Government Reform. 3/10/2005: Committee Consideration and Mark-
up Session Held. 3/10/2005: Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas 
and Nays: 19-14. 3/17/2005 6:00 p.m.: Reported by the Committee 
on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-26. 3/17/2005 6:01 p.m.: 
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 12.
2. H.R. 1167: To amend the Truth in Regulating Act to make permanent 
        the pilot project for the report on rules
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Kelly, Sue W. [R-NY-19] 
(introduced 3/8/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--3/8/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 6/8/2006: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 6/8/2006: Ordered to be 
Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 6/15/2005: Introductory 
remarks on measure. 9/13/2006 9:03 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by 
the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-652. 9/13/2006 
9:03 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 388.
3. H.R. 1317: To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which 
        disclosures of information are protected from prohibited 
        personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure 
        policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such 
        policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain 
        disclosure protections; and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Platts, Todd Russell [R-PA-19] 
(introduced 3/15/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--3/15/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 9/29/2005: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. Ordered to be Reported 
(Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 34-1. 6/29/2006 4:16 p.m.: 
Reported (Amended) by the committee on 109-544, Part I. 6/29/
2006: Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Armed 
Services for a period ending not later than September 11, 2006 
for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment 
as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to 
clause 1(c), rule X. 10/10/2006: Referred to the Subcommittee 
on Readiness. 6/29/2006: Referred sequentially to the House 
Committee on Homeland Security for a period ending not later 
than September 11, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of 
the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that 
committee pursuant to clause 1(i), rule X. 7/11/2006: Referred 
to the Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight. 
9/11/2006 6:02 p.m.: House Committee on Armed Services Granted 
an extension for further consideration ending not later than 
September 29, 2006. 9/11/2006 6:03 p.m.: House Committee on 
Homeland Security Granted an extension for further 
consideration ending not later than September 29, 2006. 9/29/
2006 8:18 p.m.: House Committee on Armed Services granted an 
extension for further consideration ending not later than 
November 17, 2006. 9/29/2006 8:18 p.m.: House Committee on 
Homeland Security Granted an extension for further 
consideration ending not later than November 17, 2006.
4. H.R. 2656: To reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
        Act and to establish minimum drug testing standards for major 
        professional sports leagues
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11].
    b. Legislative History.--5/24/2005: Referred to the 
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Education and the 
Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 5/26/
2005: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent. (No report 
filed.)
5. H.R. 3128: To affirm that Federal employees are protected from 
        discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to 
        repudiate any assertion to the contrary
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA-30] 
(introduced 6/30/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--6/30/2005: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 9/15/2005: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 9/15/2005: Ordered to 
be Reported by Voice Vote. 11/18/2005 10:05 p.m.: Reported by 
the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-313. 11/18/
2005 10:05 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 
170.
6. H.R. 4809: To amend the provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United 
        States Code, commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction 
        Act, to ensure usability and clarity of information 
        disseminated by Federal agencies, and to facilitate compliance 
        with Federal paperwork requirements
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, Candice S. [R-MI-10] 
(introduced 2/28/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--2/28/2006: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 6/8/2006: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 6/8/2006: Ordered to be 
Reported by Voice Vote. 9/14/2006 6:15 p.m.: Reported by the 
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-660. 9/14/2006 
6:16 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 393.
7. H.R. 4855: To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 
        1999 to reauthorize for 5 additional years the public and 
        private school tuition assistance programs established under 
        the Act
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 3/2/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--3/2/2006: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 3/9/2006: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 3/9/2006: Ordered to be 
Reported by Voice Vote. 7/11/2006 3:39 p.m.: Reported by the 
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-553. 7/11/2006 
3:39 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 310.
8. H.R. 5112: To provide for reform in the operations of the executive 
        branch
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 4/6/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--4/6/2006: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 4/6/2006: Committee 
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/6/2006: Ordered to be 
Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 32-0. 4/27/2006 4:58 p.m.: 
Reported by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-
445. 4/27/2006 4:59 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, 
Calendar No. 249.
9. H.R. 5711: To permit the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration 
        in the District of Columbia to establish a program of voluntary 
        separation incentive payments for nonjudicial employees of the 
        District of Columbia courts
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC] 
(introduced 6/29/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--6/29/2006: Referred to the House 
Committee on Government Reform. 6/29/2006: Ordered to be 
Reported by Unanious Consent. (No report filed.)
10. H.R. 5766: To provide for the establishment of Federal Review 
        Commissions to review and make recommendations on improving the 
        operations, effectiveness, and efficiency of Federal programs 
        and agencies, and to require a schedule for such reviews of all 
        Federal agencies and programs
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Tiahrt, Todd [R-KS-4] 
(introduced 7/12/2006)
    b. Legislative History.--7/12/2006: Referred to the 
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the 
Committees on Rules, and the Budget, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 7/12/2006: Referred to 
House Government Reform 7/19/2006: Committee Hearings Held. 7/
20/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 7/
20/2006: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 
15-12. 7/12/2006: Referred to House Rules 7/12/2006: Referred 
to House Budget 7/24/2006 7:41 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the 
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-594, Part I. 7/24/
2006 7:42 p.m.: Committee on Rules discharged. 7/24/2006 7:43 
p.m.: Committee on the Budget discharged. 7/24/2006 7:43 p.m.: 
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 344.

  D. POSTAL FACILITY DESIGNATIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE OR THE 
                                 HOUSE

1. H.R. 120: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 30777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, CA, as the 
        ``Dalip Singh Saund Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] 
(introduced 1/4/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-22.
2. H.R. 289: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, CA, as the 
        ``Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Waters, Maxine [D-CA-35] 
(introduced 1/6/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-23.
3. H.R. 324: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, FL, as the 
        ``Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Feeney, Tom [R-FL-24] 
(introduced 1/25/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-24.
4. H.R. 438: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 2000 Allston Way in Berkeley, CA, as the ``Maudelle 
        Shirek Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9] 
(introduced 2/1/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/27/2005 Failed of passage/not agreed to in 
House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 190-215 (Roll No. 
495).
5. H.R. 504: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA, 
        as the ``Ray Charles Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Watson, Diane E. [D-CA-33] 
(introduced 2/1/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-25.
6. H.R. 627: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 40 Putnam Avenue in Hamden, CT, as the ``Linda 
        White-Epps Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] 
(introduced 2/8/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-26.
7. H.R. 1001: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 301 South Heatherwilde Boulevard in Pflugerville, 
        TX, as the ``Sergeant Byron W. Norwood Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10] 
(introduced 3/1/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/21/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-36.
8. H.R. 1072: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 151 West End Street in Goliad, TX, as the ``Judge 
        Emilio Vargas Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Hinojosa, Ruben [D-TX-15] 
(introduced 3/3/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-27.
9. H.R. 1082: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 120 East Illinois Avenue in Vinita, OK, as the 
        ``Francis C. Goodpaster Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Boren, Dan [D-OK-2] (introduced 
3/3/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-28.
10. H.R. 1236: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, NV, as the ``Mayor Tony 
        Armstrong Memorial Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Gibbons, Jim [R-NV-2] 
(introduced 3/10/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-29.
11. H.R. 1287: Designating the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 312 East North Avenue in Flora, IL, as the ``Robert 
        T. Ferguson Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Shimkus, John [R-IL-19] 
(introduced 3/14/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-184.
12. H.R. 1460: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 6200 Rolling Road in Springfield, VA, as the 
        ``Captain Mark Stubenhofer Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 4/5/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-30.
13. H.R. 1472: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 167 East 124th Street in New York, NY, as the ``Tito 
        Puente Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Rangel, Charles B. [D-NY-15] 
(introduced 4/5/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
14. H.R. 1524: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, KS, as the ``Ed 
        Eilert Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Moore, Dennis [D-KS-3] 
(introduced 4/6/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-31.
15. H.R. 1542: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 695 Pleasant Street in New Bedford, MA, as the 
        ``Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Frank, Barney [D-MA-4] 
(introduced 4/12/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-32.
16. H.R. 1760: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, 
        WI, as the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI-2] 
(introduced 4/21/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 6/17/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-15.
17. H.R. 2062: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 57 West Street in Newville, PA, as the ``Randall D. 
        Shughart Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9] 
(introduced 5/3/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 12/1/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-122.
18. H.R. 2113: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 2000 McDonough Street in Joliet, IL, as the ``John 
        F. Whiteside Joliet Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Weller, Jerry [R-IL-11] 
(introduced 5/5/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-185.
19. H.R. 2183: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 567 Tompkins Avenue in Staten Island, NY, as the 
        ``Vincent Palladino Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Fossella, Vito [R-NY-13] 
(introduced 5/5/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 12/1/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-123.
20. H.R. 2326: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, NC, as the 
        ``Floyd Lupton Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3] 
(introduced 5/12/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-33.
21. H.R. 2346: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 105 NW Railroad Avenue in Hammond, LA, as the ``John 
        J. Hainkel, Jr. Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Jindal, Bobby [R-LA-1] 
(introduced 5/12/05).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-186.
22. H.R. 2413: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1202 1st Street in Humble, TX, as the ``Lillian 
        McKay Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Poe, Ted [R-TX-2] (introduced 
5/17/2005) Cosponsors: 31.
    b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government 
Reform; Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Latest Major Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-187.
23. H.R. 2490: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, PA, as the 
        ``Mayor Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Dent, Charles W. [R-PA-15] 
(introduced 5/19/2005) Cosponsors: 18.
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 11/22/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-107.
24. H.R. 2630: To redesignate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1927 Sangamon Avenue in Springfield, IL, as the 
        ``J.M. Dietrich Northeast Annex''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative LaHood, Ray [R-IL-18] 
(introduced 5/25/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-188.
25. H.R. 2894: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 102 South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, KY, as the 
        ``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Lewis, Ron [R-KY-2] (introduced 
6/14/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-189.
26. H.R. 2977: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 306 2nd Avenue in Brockway, MT, as the ``Paul Kasten 
        Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Rehberg, Dennis R. [R-MT] 
(introduced 6/17/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-252.
27. H.R. 3256: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 3038 West Liberty Avenue in Pittsburgh, PA, as the 
        ``Congressman James Grove Fulton Memorial Post Office 
        Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Murphy, Tim [R-PA-18] 
(introduced 7/12/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-190.
28. H.R. 3339: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 2061 South Park Avenue in Buffalo, NY, as the 
        ``James T. Molloy Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Higgins, Brian [D-NY-27] 
(introduced 7/19/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 11/22/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-109.
29. H.R. 3368: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 6483 Lincoln Street in Gagetown, MI, as the 
        ``Gagetown Veterans Memorial Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Kildee, Dale E. [D-MI-5] 
(introduced 7/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-191.
30. H.R. 3439: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 201 North 3rd Street in Smithfield, NC, as the ``Ava 
        Gardner Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Etheridge, Bob [D-NC-2] 
(introduced 7/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-192.
31. H.R. 3440: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 100 Avenida RL Rodriguez in Bayamon, Puerto Rico, as 
        the ``Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Fortuno, Luis G. [R-PR] 
(introduced 7/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-253.
32. H.R. 3548: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located on Franklin Avenue in Pearl River, NY, as the ``Heinz 
        Ahlmeyer, Jr. Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-17] 
(introduced 7/28/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-193.
33. H.R. 3549: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, PA, as the ``William 
        F. Clinger, Jr. Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative English, Phil [R-PA-3] 
(introduced 7/28/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-254.
34. H.R. 3667: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 200 South Barrington Street in Los Angeles, CA, as 
        the ``Karl Malden Station''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA-30] 
(introduced 9/7/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 10/4/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-84.
35. H.R. 3703: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 8501 Philatelic Drive in Spring Hill, FL, as the 
        ``Staff Sergeant Michael Schafer Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Brown-Waite, Ginny [R-FL-5] 
(introduced 9/8/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-194.
36. H.R. 3767: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 2600 Oak Street in St. Charles, IL, as the ``Jacob 
        L. Frazier Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Hastert, J. Dennis [R-IL-14] 
(introduced 9/14/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 10/4/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-85.
37. H.R. 3770: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 205 West Washington Street in Knox, IN, as the 
        ``Grant W. Green Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Chocola, Chris [R-IN-2] 
(introduced 9/14/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-195.
38. H.R. 3825: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 770 Trumbull Drive in Pittsburgh, PA, as the 
        ``Clayton J. Smith Memorial Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Murphy, Tim [R-PA-18] 
(introduced 9/19/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-196.
39. H.R. 3830: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 130 East Marion Avenue in Punta Gorda, FL, as the 
        ``U.S. Cleveland Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Foley, Mark [R-FL-16] 
(introduced 9/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-197.
40. H.R. 3853: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 208 South Main Street in Parkdale, AR, as the 
        ``Willie Vaughn Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Ross, Mike [D-AR-4] (introduced 
9/21/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 12/1/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-124.
41. H.R. 3934: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, NY, as the ``Gerard 
        A. Fiorenza Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative King, Peter T. [R-NY-3] 
(introduced 9/28/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-255.
42. H.R. 3989: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 37598 Goodhue Avenue in Dennison, MN, as the 
        ``Albert H. Quie Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Kline, John [R-MN-2] 
(introduced 10/6/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-198.
43. H.R. 4053: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 545 North Rimsdale Avenue in Covina, CA, as the 
        ``Lillian Kinkella Keil Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Sponsor: Representative Solis, Hilda L. [D-CA-
32] (introduced 10/7/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-199.
44. H.R. 4054: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa, OK, as the ``Dewey F. 
        Bartlett Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Sullivan, John [R-OK-1] 
(introduced 10/7/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/8/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received 
in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
45. H.R. 4101: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, NY, as the 
        ``Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Bishop, Timothy H. [D-NY-1] 
(introduced 10/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-256.
46. H.R. 4107: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1826 Pennsylvania Avenue in Baltimore, MD, as the 
        ``Maryland State Delegate Lena K. Lee Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7] 
(introduced 10/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-200.
47. H.R. 4108: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 3000 Homewood Avenue in Baltimore, MD, as the 
        ``State Senator Verda Welcome and Dr. Henry Welcome Post Office 
        Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7] 
(introduced 10/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-257.
48. H.R. 4109: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 6101 Liberty Road in Baltimore, MD, as the ``United 
        States Representative Parren J. Mitchell Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7] 
(introduced 10/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-327.
49. H.R. 4152: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 320 High Street in Clinton, MA, as the ``Raymond J. 
        Salmon Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative McGovern, James P. [D-MA-3] 
(introduced 10/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-201.
50. H.R. 4246: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 8135 Forest Lane in Dallas, TX, as the ``Dr. Robert 
        E. Price Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] 
(introduced 11/7/2005) Cosponsors: 29.
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 7/27/2006 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. 
Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
51. H.R. 4295: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 12760 South Park Avenue in Riverton, UT, as the 
        ``Mont and Mark Stephensen Veterans Memorial Post Office 
        Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Cannon, Chris [R-UT-3] 
(introduced 11/10/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-202.
52. H.R. 4456: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 2404 Race Street in Jonesboro, AR, as the ``Hattie 
        W. Caraway Station''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Berry, Marion [D-AR-1] 
(introduced 12/7/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-258.
53. H.R. 4515: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 4422 West Sciota Street in Scio, NY, as the 
        ``Corporal Jason L. Dunham Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Kuhl, John R. ``Randy'', Jr. 
[R-NY-29] (introduced 12/13/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 3/14/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-180.
54. H.R. 4561: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, TX, as the ``Francisco 
        `Pancho' Medrano Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Johnson, Eddie Bernice [D-TX-
30] (introduced 12/15/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-259.
55. H.R. 4646: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 7320 Reseda Boulevard in Reseda, CA, as the ``Coach 
        John Wooden Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Sherman, Brad [D-CA-27] 
(introduced 12/18/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-273.
56. H.R. 4674: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 110 North Chestnut Street in Olathe, KS, as the 
        ``Governor John Anderson, Jr. Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Moore, Dennis [D-KS-3] 
(introduced 1/31/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-328.
57. H.R. 4688: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1 Boyden Street in Badin, NC, as the ``Mayor John 
        Thompson `Tom' Garrison Memorial Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Hayes, Robin [R-NC-8] 
(introduced 2/1/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-260.
58. H.R. 4720: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 200 Gateway Drive in Lincoln, CA, as the ``Beverly 
        J. Wilson Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4] 
(introduced 2/8/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
59. H.R. 4768: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 777 Corporation Street in Beaver, PA, as the 
        ``Robert Linn Memorial Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Hart, Melissa A. [R-PA-4] 
(introduced 2/16/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 10/13/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-345.
60. H.R. 4786: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 535 Wood Street in Bethlehem, PA, as the ``H. Gordon 
        Payrow Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Dent, Charles W. [R-PA-15] 
(introduced 2/16/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-261.
61. H.R. 4805: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 105 North Quincy Street in Clinton, IL, as the 
        ``Gene Vance Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Johnson, Timothy V. [R-IL-15] 
(introduced 2/28/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 10/13/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-346.
62. H.R. 4811: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 215 West Industrial Park Road in Harrison, AR, as 
        the ``John Paul Hammerschmidt Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Boozman, John [R-AR-3] 
(introduced 2/28/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-274.
63. H.R. 4962: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 100 Pitcher Street in Utica, NY, as the ``Captain 
        George A. Wood Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Boehlert, Sherwood [R-NY-24] 
(introduced 3/15/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-275.
64. H.R. 4995: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 7 Columbus Avenue in Tuckahoe, NY, as the ``Ronald 
        Bucca Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-18] 
(introduced 3/16/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-262.
65. H.R. 5104: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1750 16th Street South in St. Petersburg, FL, as the 
        ``Morris W. Milton Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Jim [D-FL-11] 
(introduced 4/5/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-276.
66. H.R. 5107: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1400 West Jordan Street in Pensacola, FL, as the 
        ``Earl D. Hutto Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, Jeff [R-FL-1] 
(introduced 4/5/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-277.
67. H.R. 5108: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1213 East Houston Street in Cleveland, TX, as the 
        ``Lance Corporal Robert A. Martinez Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Poe, Ted [R-TX-2] (introduced 
4/5/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Received in the Senate.
68. H.R. 5169: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1310 Highway 64 NW. in Ramsey, IN, as the ``Wilfred 
        Edward `Cousin Willie' Sieg, Sr. Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Sodrel, Michael E. [R-IN-9] 
(introduced 4/25/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-278.
69. H.R. 5224: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 350 Uinta Drive in Green River, WY, as the ``Curt 
        Gowdy Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Cubin, Barbara [R-WY] 
(introduced 4/27/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-329.
70. H.R. 5245: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, VT, as the ``Matthew 
        Lyon Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] 
(introduced 4/27/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-263.
71. H.R. 5428: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 202 East Washington Street in Morris, IL, as the 
        ``Joshua A. Terando Morris Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Weller, Jerry [R-IL-11] 
(introduced 5/19/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government 
Reform; Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
Latest Major Action: 10/13/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-349.
72. H.R. 5434: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, OH, as the 
        ``Larry Cox Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Ney, Robert W. [R-OH-18] 
(introduced 5/19/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 10/13/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-350.
73. H.R. 5504: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, KS, as the ``Larry 
        Winn, Jr. Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Moore, Dennis [D-KS-3] 
(introduced 5/25/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-330.
74. H.R. 5540: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 217 Southeast 2nd Street in Dimmitt, TX, as the 
        ``Sergeant Jacob Dan Dones Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX-19] 
(introduced 6/7/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-279.
75. H.R. 5664: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 110 Cooper Street in Babylon, NY, as the ``Jacob 
        Samuel Fletcher Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative King, Peter T. [R-NY-3] 
(introduced 6/21/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 10/10/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-315.
76. H.R. 5736: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 101 Palafox Place in Pensacola, FL, as the ``Vincent 
        J. Whibbs, Sr. Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, Jeff [R-FL-1] 
(introduced 6/29/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
77. H.R. 5857: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1501 South Cherrybell Avenue in Tucson, AZ, as the 
        ``Morris K. `Mo' Udall Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-7] 
(introduced 7/20/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/26/2006 Received in the Senate.
78. H.R. 5923: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 29-50 Union Street in Flushing, NY, as the ``Dr. 
        Leonard Price Stavisky Post Office''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Ackerman, Gary L. [D-NY-5] 
(introduced 7/27/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/26/2006 Received in the Senate.
79. H.R. 5929: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, IL, as the 
        ``Katherine Dunham Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Costello, Jerry F. [D-IL-12] 
(introduced 7/27/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-333.
80. H.R. 5989: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 10240 Roosevelt Road in Westchester, IL, as the 
        ``John J. Sinde Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7] 
(introduced 7/28/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
81. H.R. 5990: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 415 South 5th Avenue in Maywood, IL, as the 
        ``Wallace W. Sykes Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7] 
(introduced 7/28/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
82. H.R. 6033: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 39-25 61st Street in Woodside, NY, as the ``Thomas 
        J. Manton Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Crowley, Joseph [D-NY-7] 
(introduced 9/6/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major 
Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-334.
83. H.R. 6075: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 101 East Gay Street in West Chester, PA, as the 
        ``Robert J. Thompson Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Pitts, Joseph R. [R-PA-16] 
(introduced 9/14/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-336.
84. H.R. 6078: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 307 West Wheat Street in Woodville, TX, as the 
        ``Chuck Fortenberry Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Brady, Kevin [R-TX-8] 
(introduced 9/14/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
85. H.R. 6102: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 200 Lawyers Road, NW in Vienna, VA, as the ``Captain 
        Christopher Petty Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 9/19/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government 
Reform. Latest Major Action: 9/26/2006 Received in the Senate.
86. H.R. 6151: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 216 Oak Street in Farmington, MN, as the ``Hamilton 
        H. Judson Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Kline, John [R-MN-2] 
(introduced 9/21/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
87. S. 571: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1915 Fulton Street in Brooklyn, NY, as the 
        ``Congresswoman Shirley A. Chisholm Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] (introduced 
3/9/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major 
Action: 8/2/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-50.
88. S. 775: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, OK, as the ``Boone 
        Pickens Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] (introduced 4/
13/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major 
Action: 8/2/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-51.
89. S. 904: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service 
        located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, NJ, as the 
        ``Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ] 
(introduced 4/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major 
Action: 8/2/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-52.
90. S. 1275: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal 
        Service located at 7172 North Tongass Highway, Ward Cove, AK, 
        as the ``Alice R. Brusich Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Stevens, Ted [R-AK] (introduced 6/21/
2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major 
Action: 10/5/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-300.
91. S. 1323: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal 
        Service located on Lindbald Avenue, Girdwood, AK, as the 
        ``Dorothy and Connie Hibbs Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Stevens, Ted [R-AK] (introduced 6/28/
2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major 
Action: 10/5/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-301.
92. S. 1445: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal 
        Service located at 520 Colorado Avenue in Arriba, CO, as the 
        ``William H. Emery Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Salazar, Ken [D-CO] (introduced 7/21/
2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major 
Action: 6/23/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-237.
93. S. 1989: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal 
        Service located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, RI, shall be 
        known and designated as the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office 
        Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Reed, Jack [D-RI] (introduced 11/10/
2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major 
Action: 2/27/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-175.
94. S. 2690: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal 
        Service located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, VA, as the 
        ``Harry J. Parrish Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Allen, George [R-VA] (introduced 5/2/
2006).
    b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform Latest Major 
Action: 10/5/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-302.
95. S. 3613: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal 
        Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, 
        NY, as the ``Major George Quamo Post Office Building''
    a. Sponsor.--Senator Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] 
(introduced 6/29/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major 
Action: 10/6/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-311.

        E. RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE OR THE HOUSE

1. H. Con. Res. 25: Recognizing the contributions of Jibreel Khazan 
        (Ezell Blair, Jr.), David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin 
        McCain, the ``Greensboro Four'', to the civil rights movement
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, Brad [D-NC-13] 
(introduced 1/25/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government 
Reform; Senate Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 2/16/2005 
Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate 
and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
2. H. Con. Res. 41: Recognizing the second century of Big Brothers Big 
        Sisters, and supporting the mission and goals of that 
        organization
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA-29] 
(introduced 2/1/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 4/29/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: 
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a 
preamble by Unanimous Consent.
3. H. Con. Res. 59: Recognizing the contributions of African-American 
        basketball teams and players for their achievements, 
        dedication, and contributions to the sport of basketball and to 
        the Nation
    a. Sponsor.--Sponsor: Representative Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. 
[D-MI-13] (introduced 2/14/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Latest Major Action: 12/
22/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed 
to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous 
Consent.
4. H. Con. Res. 71: Expressing the sense of Congress that there should 
        be established a Caribbean-American Heritage Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9] 
(introduced 2/17/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 2/14/2006 Passed/agreed to in 
Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without 
amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
5. H. Con. Res. 181: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Life 
        Insurance Awareness Month, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13] 
(introduced 6/17/2005) Cosponsors: 66.
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 7/26/2005 Referred to Senate 
committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
6. H. Con. Res. 209: Supporting the goals and ideals of Domestic 
        Violence Awareness Month and expressing the sense of Congress 
        that Congress should raise awareness of domestic violence in 
        the United States and its devastating effects on families
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Green, Al [D-TX-9] (introduced 
7/14/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/28/2005 Received in the Senate.
7. H. Con. Res. 218: Recognizing the centennial of sustained 
        immigration from the Philippines to the United States and 
        acknowledging the contributions of our Filipino-American 
        community to our country over the last century
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Case, Ed [D-HI-2] (introduced 
7/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 12/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: 
Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment by Unanimous 
Consent.
8. H. Con. Res. 222: Supporting the goals and ideals of National 
        Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Latham, Tom [R-IA-4] 
(introduced 7/27/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Received in the Senate.
9. H. Con. Res. 240: Supporting the goals and ideals of a national day 
        of prayer and remembrance for the victims of Hurricane Katrina 
        and encouraging all Americans to observe that day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5] 
(introduced 9/13/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 9/15/2005 Referred to Senate 
committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
10. H. Con. Res. 269: Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the White 
        House Fellows Program
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Barton, Joe [R-TX-6] 
(introduced 10/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 11/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in 
Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without 
amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
11. H. Con. Res. 273: Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the 
        Montgomery bus boycott
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Rogers, Mike D. (AL) [R-AL-3] 
(introduced 10/25/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 12/12/2005 Referred to Senate 
committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
12. H. Con. Res. 281: Congratulating the Chicago White Sox on winning 
        the 2005 World Series
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7] 
(introduced 10/27/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Latest Major Action: 1/
27/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
13. H. Con. Res. 289: Supporting the goal and mission of America 
        Recycles Day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Inslee, Jay [D-WA-1] 
(introduced 11/2/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 11/16/2005 House committee/subcommittee actions. 
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
14. H. Con. Res. 315: Urging the President to issue a proclamation for 
        the observance of an American Jewish History Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-
FL-20] (introduced 12/14/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government 
Reform; Senate Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 2/14/2006 
Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in 
Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
15. H. Con. Res. 383: Supporting the goals and ideals of the National 
        Arbor Day Foundation and National Arbor Day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE-1] 
(introduced 4/6/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 5/1/2006 Referred to Senate 
committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
16. H. Con. Res. 399: Recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the victory 
        of U.S. winemakers at the 1976 Paris Wine Tasting
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Thompson, Mike [D-CA-1] 
(introduced 5/3/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Latest Major Action: 8/2/
2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to 
in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous 
Consent.
17. H. Con. Res. 422: Supporting the goals and ideals of the Vigil for 
        Lost Promise day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 6/6/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Latest Major Action: 6/
7/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the 
Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
18. H. Con. Res. 449: Commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 
        historic 1946 season of Major League Baseball Hall of Fame 
        member Bob Feller and his return from military service to the 
        United States
    a. Sponsor.--Representative LaTourette, Steve C. [R-OH-14] 
(introduced 7/19/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 9/11/2006 Passed/agreed to in 
Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without 
amendment by Unanimous Consent.
19. H. Con. Res. 471: Congratulating the Professional Golfers' 
        Association of America on its 90th anniversary and commending 
        the members of the Professional Golfers' Association of America 
        and the PGA Foundation for the charitable contributions they 
        provide to the United States
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Foley, Mark [R-FL-16] 
(introduced 9/13/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/26/2006 Received in the Senate.
20. H. Con. Res. 473: Supporting the goals and ideals of Gynecologic 
        Cancer Awareness Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] 
(introduced 9/14/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Received in the Senate.
21. H. Res. 15: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Campus 
        Safety Awareness Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN-2] 
(introduced 1/4/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 10/6/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as 
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
22. H. Res. 40: Honoring the career and philanthropic contributions of 
        Johnny Carson
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE-1] 
(introduced 1/25/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 1/26/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
23. H. Res. 41: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        that a day should be established as ``National Tartan Day'' to 
        recognize the outstanding achievements and contributions made 
        by Scottish-Americans to the United States
    a. Sponsor.--Representative McIntyre, Mike [D-NC-7] 
(introduced 1/25/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 3/9/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
24. H. Res. 69: Honoring the life and accomplishments of the late Ossie 
        Davis
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [D-GA-
2] (introduced 2/8/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 2/9/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
25. H. Res. 80: Commending fire chiefs associations
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [R-VA-5] 
(introduced 2/9/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 2/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as 
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
26. H. Res. 85: Supporting the goals and ideals of ``National MPS Day''
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Kind, Ron [D-WI-3] (introduced 
2/10/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 3/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
27. H. Res. 86: Congratulating the New England Patriots for winning 
        Super Bowl XXXIX
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Frank, Barney [D-MA-4] 
(introduced 2/10/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 2/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
28. H. Res. 124: Congratulating Jewish communities on their seven year 
        completion of the 11th cycle of the daily study of the Talmud
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Weiner, Anthony D. [D-NY-9] 
(introduced 3/1/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 3/1/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
29. H. Res. 142: Supporting the goals and ideals of a ``Rotary 
        International Day'' and celebrating and honoring Rotary 
        International on the occasion of its centennial anniversary
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9] 
(introduced 3/8/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 5/10/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413-0 (Roll No. 163).
30. H. Res. 148: Supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy 
        Month, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13] 
(introduced 3/10/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 4/6/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 409-2 (Roll No. 95).
31. H. Res. 184: Recognizing a National Week of Hope in commemoration 
        of the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma 
        City
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [R-OK-5] 
(introduced 4/5/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government 
Reform. Latest Major Action: 4/20/2005 Passed/agreed to in 
House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
32. H. Res. 185: Honoring Johnnie Cochran, Jr. for his service to the 
        Nation, and expressing condolences to his family, friends, 
        colleagues, and admirers on his death
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Waters, Maxine [D-CA-35] 
(introduced 4/5/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 5/5/2005 House committee/subcommittee actions. 
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
33. H. Res. 188: Recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many 
        contributions throughout the history of the Nation
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2] 
(introduced 4/5/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 4/6/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
34. H. Res. 189: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        that a day ought to be established to bring awareness to the 
        issue of missing persons
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Sweeney, John E. [R-NY-20] 
(introduced 4/5/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/29/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions. 
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
35. H. Res. 197: Honoring Franklin Delano Roosevelt
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, George [D-CA-7] 
(introduced 4/6/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 4/13/2005 House committee/subcommittee actions. 
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
36. H. Res. 227: Recognizing and honoring the contributions of Indian 
        Americans to economic innovation and society generally
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 4/21/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 4/26/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
37. H. Res. 231: Recognizing and celebrating the life and 
        accomplishments of the great African American jockey Jimmy 
        ``Wink'' Winkfield and the significant contributions and 
        excellence of other African American jockeys and trainers in 
        the sport of horse racing and the history of the Kentucky Derby
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL-1] 
(introduced 4/21/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 5/5/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
38. H. Res. 266: Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers 
        Memorial Day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5] 
(introduced 5/5/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 5/16/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 391-0 (Roll No. 172).
39. H. Res. 276: Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer 
        Awareness Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Platts, Todd Russell [R-PA-19] 
(introduced 5/12/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 10/6/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415-0 (Roll No. 510).
40. H. Res. 280: Celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 5/17/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 5/23/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as 
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
41. H. Res. 289: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Health 
        Center Week in order to raise awareness of health services 
        provided by community, migrant, public housing, and homeless 
        health centers, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7] 
(introduced 5/19/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 7/25/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as 
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
42. H. Res. 294: Supporting the goals of ``A Day of Commemoration of 
        the Great Upheaval,'' and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [R-
LA-7] (introduced 5/24/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 7/25/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
43. H. Res. 327: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Passport 
        Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9] 
(introduced 6/16/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
44. H. Res. 329: Honoring former President William Jefferson Clinton on 
        the occasion of his 59th birthday
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-14] 
(introduced 6/17/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 7/25/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
45. H. Res. 339: Congratulating the San Antonio Spurs for winning the 
        2005 National Basketball Association Championship
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] 
(introduced 6/24/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/30/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
46. H. Res. 352: Providing that the House of Representatives will focus 
        on removing barriers to competitiveness of the U.S. economy
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Tiahrt, Todd [R-KS-4] 
(introduced 7/11/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Education and the Workforce; 
House Government Reform Latest Major Action: 7/12/2005 Failed 
of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend 
the rules and agree to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and 
Nays: (2/3 required): 242-177 (Roll No. 367).
47. H. Res. 355: Celebrating Walt Disney's contributions to our Nation
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Sanchez, Loretta [D-CA-47] 
(introduced 7/11/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 7/14/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
48. H. Res. 389: Supporting the goals and ideals of the Year of the 
        Museum
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [D-
NY-28] (introduced 7/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 2/8/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
49. H. Res. 402: Supporting the goals and ideals of Infant Mortality 
        Awareness Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26] 
(introduced 7/28/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as 
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
50. H. Res. 429: Congratulating the West Oahu Little League Baseball 
        team for winning the 2005 Little League Baseball World Series
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Abercrombie, Neil [D-HI-1] 
(introduced 9/7/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/21/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
51. H. Res. 483: Supporting the ideals of National Teen Dating Violence 
        and Prevention Week
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Millender-McDonald, Juanita [D-
CA-37] (introduced 10/6/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 12/19/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
52. H. Res. 487: Supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 10/7/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 12/13/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 405-0 (Roll No. 623).
53. H. Res. 498: Supporting the goals and ideals of School Bus Safety 
        Week
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN-2] 
(introduced 10/18/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 7/18/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424-0 (Roll No. 381).
54. H. Res. 517: Recognizing the life of Wellington Timothy Mara and 
        his outstanding contributions to the New York Giants Football 
        Club, the National Football League, and the United States
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-8] 
(introduced 10/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 3/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
55. H. Res. 518: Honoring professional surveyors and recognizing their 
        contributions to society
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Putnam, Adam H. [R-FL-12] 
(introduced 10/26/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 3/30/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions. 
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
56. H. Res. 556: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        that a National Methamphetamine Prevention Week should be 
        established to increase awareness of methamphetamine and to 
        educate the public on ways to help prevent the use of that 
        damaging narcotic
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Baird, Brian [D-WA-3] 
(introduced 11/16/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 4/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421-2 (Roll No. 98).
57. H. Res. 574: Congratulating the Los Angeles Galaxy on their victory 
        in the 2005 Major League Soccer championship
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Becerra, Xavier [D-CA-31] 
(introduced 11/18/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 12/13/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
58. H. Res. 579: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be 
        protected for those who celebrate Christmas
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Jo Ann [R-VA-1] 
(introduced 12/6/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 12/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as 
amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 401-22, 
5 Present (Roll No. 637).
59. H. Res. 586: Commemorating the life, achievements, and 
        contributions of Alan Reich
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2] 
(introduced 12/6/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 12/19/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
60. H. Res. 587: Congratulating Tony Stewart on winning the 2005 NASCAR 
        Nextel Cup Championship
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Sodrel, Michael E. [R-IN-9] 
(introduced 12/6/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 12/14/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
61. H. Res. 605: Recognizing the life of Preston Robert Tisch and his 
        outstanding contributions to New York City, the New York Giants 
        Football Club, the National Football League, and the United 
        States
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Fossella, Vito [R-NY-13] 
(introduced 12/14/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 399-0 (Roll No. 428).
62. H. Res. 626: Congratulating Albert Pujols on being named the Most 
        Valuable Player for the National League for the 2005 Major 
        League Baseball season
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Carnahan, Russ [D-MO-3] 
(introduced 12/16/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
63. H. Res. 627: Congratulating Chris Carpenter on being named the Cy 
        Young Award winner for the National League for the 2005 Major 
        League Baseball season
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Carnahan, Russ [D-MO-3] 
(introduced 12/16/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 5/9/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
64. H. Res. 629: Supporting the goals and ideals of a Day of Hearts, 
        Congenital Heart Defect Day in order to increase awareness 
        about congenital heart defects, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Price, Tom [R-GA-6] (introduced 
12/16/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 2/14/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
65. H. Res. 670: Congratulating the National Football League champion 
        Pittsburgh Steelers for winning Super Bowl XL and completing 
        one of the greatest postseason runs in professional sports 
        history
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Murphy, Tim [R-PA-18] 
(introduced 2/7/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 2/8/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 384-0, 10 Present 
(Roll No. 5).
66. H. Res. 721: Supporting the goals and ideals of a Salvadoran-
        American Day (El Dia del Salvadoreno) in recognition of all 
        Salvadoran-Americans for their hard work, dedication, and 
        contribution to the stability and well-being of the United 
        States
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Solis, Hilda L. [D-CA-32] 
(introduced 3/9/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 7/18/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
67. H. Res. 729: Supporting National Tourism Week
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Foley, Mark [R-FL-16] 
(introduced 3/16/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
68. H. Res. 737: Supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy 
        Month, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13] 
(introduced 3/28/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 4/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 423-1 (Roll No. 97).
69. H. Res. 745: Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer 
        Awareness Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Platts, Todd Russell [R-PA-19] 
(introduced 3/29/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
70. H. Res. 748: Recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and 
        French victory at Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary 
        War
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Jo Ann [R-VA-1] 
(introduced 3/30/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
71. H. Res. 752: Requesting the President to transmit to the House of 
        Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of 
        adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the 
        President relating to the receipt and consideration by the 
        Executive Office of the President of any information concerning 
        the variation between the version of S. 1932, the Deficit 
        Reduction Act of 2005, that the House of Representatives passed 
        on February 1, 2006, and the version of the bill that the 
        President signed on February 8, 2006
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA-30] 
(introduced 3/30/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. House 
Reports: 109-457. Latest Major Action: 5/9/2006 Placed on the 
House Calendar, Calendar No. 172.
72. H. Res. 753: Commending American craft brewers
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Boehlert, Sherwood [R-NY-24] 
(introduced 4/4/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
73. H. Res. 763: Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Children 
        and Families Day, in order to encourage adults in the United 
        States to support and listen to children and to help children 
        throughout the Nation achieve their hopes and dreams, and for 
        other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11] 
(introduced 4/5/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
74. H. Res. 764: Recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many 
        contributions throughout the history of the Nation
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Weldon, Curt [R-PA-7] 
(introduced 4/5/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 4/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
75. H. Res. 773: Commending the American Jewish Committee for its 
        century of leadership, and for other purposes
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] 
(introduced 4/25/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 5/4/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions. 
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
76. H. Res. 788: Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers 
        Memorial Day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5] 
(introduced 5/2/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 5/16/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
77. H. Res. 826: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        that a National Youth Sports Week should be established
    a. Sponsor.--Representative McIntyre, Mike [D-NC-7] 
(introduced 5/19/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/19/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 311-0, 1 Present (Roll 
No. 291).
78. H. Res. 867: Honoring the life and accomplishments of James Cameron
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4] 
(introduced 6/14/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/20/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as 
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
79. H. Res. 881: Congratulating the National Hockey League Champions, 
        the Carolina Hurricanes, on their victory in the 2006 Stanley 
        Cup Finals
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Price, David E. [D-NC-4] 
(introduced 6/20/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
80. H. Res. 887: Congratulating the Miami Heat for winning the 2006 NBA 
        Championship
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18] 
(introduced 6/22/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 6/26/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
81. H. Res. 901: Honoring former President William Jefferson Clinton on 
        the occasion of his 60th birthday
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-14] 
(introduced 6/29/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 7/20/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions. 
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
82. H. Res. 912: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Life 
        Insurance Awareness Month
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13] 
(introduced 7/12/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
83. H. Res. 973: Recognizing Financial Planning Week, recognizing the 
        significant impact of sound financial planning on achieving 
        life's goals, and honoring families and the financial planning 
        profession for their adherence and dedication to the financial 
        planning process
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Hinojosa, Ruben [D-TX-15] 
(introduced 7/28/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as 
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
84. H. Res. 974: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Myositis 
        Awareness Day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Israel, Steve [D-NY-2] 
(introduced 7/28/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
85. H. Res. 983: Honoring the life and accomplishments of the late 
        Robert E. O'Connor, Jr.
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Doyle, Michael F. [D-PA-14] 
(introduced 9/6/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/12/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
86. H. Res. 99: Congratulating the Columbus Northern Little League 
        Baseball Team from Columbus, GA, on its victory in the 2006 
        Little League World Series Championship games
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Westmoreland, Lynn A. [R-GA-8] 
(introduced 9/7/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed 
to by voice vote.
87. H. Res. 994: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
        on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched 
        against the United States on September 11, 2001
    a. Sponsor.--Representative King, Peter T. [R-NY-3] 
(introduced 9/12/2006).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; House 
International Relations; House Armed Services; House 
Transportation and Infrastructure; House Homeland Security; 
House Judiciary; House Intelligence (Permanent Select). Latest 
Major Action: 9/13/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On 
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 395-
22, 1 Present (Roll No. 440).
88. H.J. Res. 59: Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the 
        establishment of an appropriate day for the commemoration of 
        the women suffragists who fought for and won the right of women 
        to vote in the United States
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Berkley, Shelley [D-NV-1] 
(introduced 7/14/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest 
Major Action: 8/2/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-49.
89. H.J. Res. 61: Supporting the goals and ideals of Gold Star Mothers 
        Day
    a. Sponsor.--Representative Gutknecht, Gil [R-MN-1] 
(introduced 7/20/2005).
    b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate 
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 10/7/2005 Referred to Senate 
committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.

                        II. Legislative Hearings

1. ``Wasted Space, Wasted Dollars: The Need for Federal Real Property 
        Management Reform--Federal Real Property Disposal Pilot Program 
        and Management Improvement Act of 2005,'' June 22, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine 
legislative solutions to the challenges of vacant, 
underutilized, and deteriorating Federal real property.
    b. Witnesses.--Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for 
Management, Office of Management and Budget; and David M. 
Walker, Comptroller General of the United States.
2. ``Cutting Out the Waste: An Overview of H.R. 5766, the Government 
        Efficiency Act; and H.R. 3282, the Abolishment of Obsolete 
        Agencies and Federal Sunset Act of 2005,'' July 19, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to discuss two 
bipartisan legislative proposals intended to improve the 
operations and effectiveness of Federal programs and agencies: 
(1) H.R. 3282, the Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal 
Sunset Act of 2005, introduced by Representative Kevin Brady 
(R-TX); and (2) H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act, 
introduced by Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS).
    b. Witnesses.--Todd Tiahrt, Member of Congress; Kevin 
Brady, Member of Congress; James R. Horney, senior fellow, 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Charles M. 
Loveless, director of legislation, American Federation of 
State, County and Municipal Employees.
                     PART TWO: OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

                           I. Full Committee

1. ``Confronting Recidivism: Prisoner Re-entry Programs and a Just 
        Future for All Americans,'' February 2, 2005
    a. Summary.--The hearing provided an opportunity to discuss 
the work of organizations that help to prevent recidivism and 
similar efforts of State and local governments. This hearing 
also examined the role of the Federal Government in assisting 
State and local incarceration systems in order to reduce 
recidivism. H.R. 4676, the Second Chance Act of 2004 offered by 
Rob Portman (OH) and Danny Davis (IL), was also discussed 
during this hearing. The Second Chance Act of 2004 would 
reauthorize current Department of Justice prisoner re-entry 
projects and establish or rewrite other programs. In addition, 
the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services are required to establish 
consolidated monitoring centers and to perform greater 
oversight of cooperation with state and local authorities.
    b. Witnesses.--Representative Rob Portman; Representative 
Danny Davis; Felix Mata, Baltimore City's Ex-Offender 
Initiative, Mayor's Office of Employment Development; Reginald 
A. Wilkinson, Ed.D., Ohio Rehabilitation and Corrections 
Agency; Paul A. Quander, District of Columbia Court Services 
and Offender Supervision Agency; Jim McNeil and David Russell, 
Mentor and Protege in the InnerChange Freedom Initiative; Pat 
Nolan, Prison Fellowship; Joseph Williams, Transition of 
Prisoners; Chaplain Robert Toney, Angola Prison, Louisiana; 
Frederick A. Davie, senior vice president of public policy, 
Public/Private Ventures; Lorna Hogan, mother advocate, Rebecca 
Project for Human Rights, Washington, DC; and George A.H. 
Williams, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities, Chicago, 
IL.
2. ``The Perplexing Shift from Shortage to Surplus: Managing This 
        Season's Flu Shot Supply and Preparing For the Future,'' 
        February 10, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to consider 
how public perceptions and needs were managed and addressed for 
the remainder of the 2004-2005 flu season and to discuss what 
actions were taken to plan for the flu season. In addition, the 
committee received a status report from FDA regarding the 
implementation of Chiron's remediation plan and how it is 
worked with both British health officials and Chiron to ensure 
Chiron's capability to manufacture vaccine for the next flu 
season.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, Director, Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention; Dr. Jesse L. Goodman, 
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food 
and Drug Administration; Dr. Fay W. Boozman III, president-
elect, Association for State and Territorial Health Officials; 
Dr. Robert B. Stroube, commissioner, Virginia Department of 
Health; Dr. Walter A. Orenstein, associate director, Emory 
Vaccine Center; and Dr. Alan G. Wasserman, chairman, Department 
of Medicine, George Washington University Medical Center.
3. ``Wounded Army Guard and Reserve Forces: Increasing the Capacity to 
        Care,'' February 17, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the 
effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. Army medical 
administrative processes and procedures that govern injured 
Army Guard and Reserve soldiers. The hearing focused on: 
examining current administrative processes in medical treatment 
facilities that effect injured Guard and Reserve soldiers and 
their families; the Army's continuing challenges with 
oversight, management, infrastructure, automated system 
integration, and resources affecting the care and morale of 
injured Army Guard and Reserve; and presented GAO's findings 
and recommendations of its report: Military Pay: Gaps in Pay 
and Benefits Create Financial Hardships for Injured Army 
National Guard and Reserve Soldiers.
    b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Director, Financial 
Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office; Brigadier General Raymond C. Byrne, Jr., Acting State 
Adjutant General of Oregon; Sergeant First Class John Allen, B/
3/20th Special Forces Group, North Carolina National Guard; 
Sergeant Joseph Perez, 72nd Military Police Company, Nevada 
National Guard; Chief Warrant Officer Rodger L. Shuttleworth, 
Chief, Reserve Component Personnel Support Services Branch, 
Army Human Resources Command, Maryland National Guard; Master 
Sergeant Daniel Forney, Reserve Component Liaison, Medical 
Hold, Walter Reed Medical Center, U.S. Army Reservist from 
Pennsylvania; Specialist Brian Robinson and Mrs. Nicole 
Robinson, 72nd Military Police Company, Nevada National Guard 
(written testimony only); Ellen Embrey, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Deployment Health, U.S. Department of 
Defense; Dr. Daniel Denning, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; 
Lieutenant General Franklin L. Hagenbeck, Deputy Chief of 
Staff, G-1, U.S. Army; Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, M.D., 
U.S. Army Surgeon General; Major General Charles Wilson, Deputy 
Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Command; and Philip E. Sakowitz, 
Jr., Deputy Director, U.S. Army Installations Management 
Agency.
4. ``The Capital Region's Critical Link: Ensuring Metrorail's Future as 
        a Safe, Reliable and Affordable Transportation Option,'' 
        February 18, 2005
    a. Summary.--The Washington Metro Area Transit system has 
become a vital part of everyday life in the Nation's Capital, 
providing an indispensable commuting option for hundreds of 
thousands of the area's workers and out-of-town visitors each 
day. Given the reliance of the Federal workforce on Metro, the 
committee examined Metro's expressed needs as well as its 
operational and management performance.
    b. Witnesses.--Richard A. White, chief executive officer, 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Dana Kauffman, 
chairman of the Board, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority; William Millar, president, American Public 
Transportation Association; Mortimer L. Downey, chairman of the 
Board, PB Consult; and John J. Corbett, Jr., co-founder, 
Metroriders.org.
5. ``Making Networx Work: Countdown to the RFP for the Federal 
        Government's Telecommunications Program,'' March 3, 2005
    a. Summary.--The third in a series of oversight hearings on 
the General Services Administration's [GSA] Networx 
telecommunications program, this hearing focused on the 
acquisition strategy of the program as proposed by GSA. The 
committee was interested in whether the strategy would provide 
robust competition from the entire spectrum of the marketplace, 
including the largest industry players and smaller non-
traditional technology firms that offer innovative solutions, 
to meet the government's increasingly complex 
telecommunications requirements.
    b. Witnesses.--Stephen Perry, Administrator, GSA, 
accompanied by Barbara Shelton, Acting Commissioner, Federal 
Technology Service, and John Johnson, Assistant Commissioner 
for Service Development and Delivery, Federal Technology 
Service; Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, 
U.S. Government Accountability Office; Jerry Hogge, senior vice 
president, Level 3 Communications LLC; Robert Collet, vice 
president, engineering, AT&T Government Solutions; Shelley 
Murphy, vice president, Federal markets, Verizon; Jerry A. 
Edgerton, senior vice president, Government markets, MCI; 
Jeffery Storey, CEO, WilTel Communications; Tony D'Agata, vice 
president and general manager, Sprint GSD; Don Scott, senior 
vice president, EDS U.S. Government Solutions; David 
Bittenbender, vice president, Network Services, Computer 
Sciences Corp., Federal Sector; James Courter, CEO and vice 
chairman IDT Corp.; Mike Cook, senior vice president and 
general manager, Hughes Network Systems; Diana Gowen, 
president, Broadwing Government Solutions, Broadwing 
Communications LLC; and Gregory Baroni, president, Global 
Public Sector, Unisys Corp.
6. ``Is Uncle Sam Still Passing the Buck? The Burden of Unfunded 
        Mandates on State, County, and City Governments,'' March 8, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--The committee held a hearing to examine 
financial burdens on State, local, and tribal governments and 
private sector parties. In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The purpose of this landmark 
legislation was to promote informed decisions by the Congress 
and the executive branch about the effects of Federal mandates 
on other levels of government and the private sector. In so 
doing, the act would help ensure the Federal Government 
provided the appropriate level of funding. As State and local 
budgets have come under increasing stress in recent years, 
unfunded mandates have become increasingly burdensome. The 
committee took testimony to examine the actions of the Federal 
Government entities charged with carrying out the provisions of 
UMRA as well as the impact of Federal legislative and 
regulatory action on State and local jurisdictions since UMRA's 
passage.
    b. Witnesses.--Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director, Congressional 
Budget Office; Angelo Kyle, president, National Association of 
Counties; Gerald W. Hyland, supervisor, Fairfax County Board of 
Supervisors; John Hurson, president, National Conference of 
State Legislatures; Mick Cornett, mayor, Oklahoma City, OK; 
John D. Graham, Administrator, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; and Orice 
Williams, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office.
7. ``Getting the Lead Out: The Ongoing Quest for Safe Drinking Water in 
        the Nation's Capital,'' March 11, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this oversight hearing was to 
provide a forum for the committee to assess the coordinated 
actions of EPA, which is responsible for the Public Water 
System Supervision Program for the District of Columbia, the 
Washington Aqueduct of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which 
treats the water supplied to the District, and WASA, which 
purchases the water from the Aqueduct and distributes it to 
District residents. The committee also explored whether the 
current Safe Drinking Water program is adequate to assure safe 
drinking water for the consuming public or whether it needs to 
be changed.
    b. Witnesses.--Benjamin Grumbles, Acting Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Water, EPA, and Donald S. Welsh, 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region III; Thomas P. Jacobus, 
P.E., General Manager, Washington Aqueduct, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; Glenn S. Gerstell, chairman, D.C. WASA; Erik D. 
Olson, Sr. Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; Dr. 
Ellen K. Silbergeld, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns 
Hopkins University; and Dr. Marc Edwards, Dept. of Civil and 
Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech.
8. ``Service Oriented Streamlining: Rethinking the Way GSA Does 
        Business,'' March 16, 2005
    a. Summary.--This oversight hearing examined the possible 
restructuring of the General Services Administration's [GSA] 
operations--particularly its Federal Supply Service [FSS] and 
Federal Technology Service [FTS]--in order to meet the demands 
of the modern government market and to address GSA's management 
challenges. Out of this hearing, the committee developed H.R. 
2066, the ``General Services Administration Modernization Act 
of 2005.''
    b. Witnesses.--Stephen Perry, Administrator, GSA; Deidre 
Lee, Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, 
U.S. Department of Defense; Eugene Waszily, Assistant Inspector 
General for Auditing, U.S. General Services Administration; 
Thomas Hewitt, CEO, Global Government, on behalf of the 
Information Technology Association of America; Vic Avetissian, 
corporate director, Northrop Grumman Corp. on behalf of the 
Contract Services Association; Mike Davison, director and 
general manager, Canon Government Marketing Division on behalf 
of the Coalition on Government Procurement; Elaine Dauphin, 
vice president GSA programs, Computer Sciences Corp. on behalf 
of the Professional Services Council; and Richard Brown, 
president, National Federation of Federal Employees.
9. ``Restoring Faith in America's Pastime: Evaluating Major League 
        Baseball's Efforts to Eradicate Steroid Use,'' March 17, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing evaluated MLB's recently 
negotiated drug policy; how the testing policy would be 
implemented; how it would effectively address the use of 
prohibited drugs by players; and the larger societal and public 
health ramifications of steroid use.
    b. Witnesses.--Jim Bunning, U.S. Senator (Kentucky) and 
member of the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame; Mr. Raymond 
and Dr. Denise Garibaldi, parents of former USC baseball 
player, Rob Garibaldi, who committed suicide after steroid use; 
Donald Hooton, Sr., director, chairman, and president of Taylor 
Hooton Foundation, and father of high school baseball player, 
Taylor Hooton, who committed suicide after steroid use; Dr. 
Nora D. Volkow, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
National Institutes of Health; Dr. Gary I. Wadler, associate 
professor of clinical medicine, New York University School of 
Medicine; Dr. Kirk Brower, associate professor of psychiatry, 
University of Michigan Medical School, and executive director, 
Chelsea Arbor Addiction Treatment Center; Jose Canseco, former 
Oakland Athletic and Texas Ranger; Mark McGwire, former Oakland 
Athletic and St. Louis Cardinal; Rafael Palmeiro, current 
Baltimore Oriole and former Texas Ranger; Curt Schilling, 
current Boston Red Sox; Sammy Sosa, current Baltimore Oriole 
and former Chicago Cub; Frank Thomas, current Chicago White 
Sox, via video conference; Commissioner Allan H. Selig, Major 
League Baseball, accompanied by Robert D. Manfred, Jr., 
executive vice president labor and human resources, Major 
League Baseball; Don Fehr, executive director and general 
counsel, Major League Baseball Players Association; Sandy 
Alderson, executive vice president of baseball operations, 
Major League Baseball and former general manager, Oakland 
Athletics; and Kevin Towers, general manger, San Diego Padres.
10. ``No Computer System Left Behind: A Review of the Federal 
        Government's D+ Information Security Grade,'' April 7, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the status of the 
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 [FISMA] 
implementation and the results of the 2004 FISMA scorecards to 
help gauge Federal agencies' progress in securing their 
information systems.
    b. Witnesses.--Greg Wilshusen, Director, Information 
Security Issues, Government Accountability Office; Karen S. 
Evans, Administrator, Office of E-Government and Information 
Technology, Office of Management and Budget; Bruce N. 
Crandlemire, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, U.S. Agency 
for International Development; John Streufert, Acting Chief 
Information Officer, U.S. Agency for International Development; 
Frank Deffer, Assistant Inspector General for Information 
Technology, Department of Homeland Security; Steve Cooper, 
Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Ted 
Alves, Assistance Inspector General for IT and Financial 
Management, Department of Transportation; and Daniel Matthews, 
Chief Information Officer, Department of Transportation.
11. ``OMB Management Watch List: $65 Billion Reasons to Ensure the 
        Federal Government is Effectively Managing Information 
        Technology Investments,'' April 21, 2005
    a. Summary.--For the fiscal year 2005 budget, the Office of 
Management and Budget [OMB] developed processes and criteria 
for including information technology investments on its 
Management Watch List. This hearing examined how OMB used the 
Watch List to identify opportunities to strengthen investments 
and promote improvements in IT management, how OMB's use of the 
Watch List impacts daily operations in select agencies, and the 
efforts agencies have taken to have their projects removed from 
the Watch List.
    b. Witnesses.--Karen Evans, Administrator, Electronic 
Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and 
Budget; David Powner, Director, Information Technology 
Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; Dan 
Matthews, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of 
Transportation; Robert McFarland, Assistant Secretary for 
Information Technology, Department of Veterans Affairs; Rosita 
Parkes, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Energy; 
and Lisa Schlosser, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development.
12. ``Digging Up the Facts: Inspecting the Big Dig and the Performance 
        of Federal and State Government in Providing Oversight of 
        Federal Funds,'' April 22, 2005 (Boston, MA)
    a. Summary.--This field hearing was held in Boston, MA to 
assess the status of the Central Tunnel/Artery Project, or the 
``Big Dig,'' one of the largest and most expensive Federal 
highway projects in the United States, that began in 1980 at a 
cost of $2 billion and grew to an estimated $14.625 billion. 
The Boston project was scheduled for completion in late 2005. 
The purpose of the hearing was to assess the status of the Big 
Dig and the efforts to remedy the tunnel leaks, what has been 
learned from this mega-highway project, and implementation of 
safeguards for other federally funded projects.
    b. Witnesses.--D.J. Gribbin, Chief Counsel, Federal Highway 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; Kenneth 
Meade, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; 
Tom Reilly, attorney general, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; 
Matthew J. Amorello, chairman, Massachusetts Turnpike 
Authority; John MacDonald, chairman of the Board of Control for 
Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, accompanied by Morris Levy, 
senior vice president, Parsons Brinckerhoff, and Keith S. 
Sibley, program manager, Central Artery Tunnel Project, 
Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff; and George J. Tamaro, partner, 
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers.
13. ``Steroid Use in Sports, Part II: Examining the National Football 
        League's Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances,'' 
        April 27, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing evaluated the NFL's drug policy; 
how the testing policy was implemented; how it would 
effectively address the use of prohibited drugs by players; and 
the larger societal and public health ramifications of steroid 
use.
    b. Witnesses.--Willie Stewart, head football coach, 
Anacostia High School, Washington, DC; Dr. Linn Goldberg, 
professor of medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University; Dr. 
Gary I. Wadler, associate professor of clinical medicine, New 
York University School of Medicine; Dr. John A. Lombardo, NFL 
advisor on anabolic steroids and related substances; Dr. Bryan 
Finkle, NFL consulting toxicologist on anabolic steroids and 
related substances; Steve Courson, ex-NFL player, Pittsburgh 
Steelers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers; Paul Tagliabue, commissioner, 
National Football League; Harold Henderson, executive vice 
president, labor relations, National Football League; and Gene 
Upshaw, executive director, National Football League Players 
Association.
14. ``Who's Watching the COOP? A Re-Examination of Federal Agencies' 
        Continuity of Operations Plans,'' April 28, 2005
    a. Summary.--The hearing was a follow-up to the hearing on 
April 22, 2004 and reviewed executive branch progress since 
that hearing in developing effective continuity of operations 
plans [COOP] to ensure continuation of essential agency 
functions in the event of a disruptive disaster or attack. 
Specifically, the hearing assessed how FEMA is monitoring and 
measuring COOP readiness, the status of Federal agencies' 
compliance with COOP planning directives and whether the new 
guidance contained in FPC 65 is helping agencies clarify their 
essential functions. The committee also focused on how telework 
can be used to enhance Federal COOP readiness.
    b. Witnesses.--Reynold N. Hoover, Director, Office of 
National Security Coordination, Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Marta Brito 
Perez, Associate Director, Human Capital Leadership and Merit 
System Accountability, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; 
Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; James A. Kane, president and CEO, 
Systems and Software Consortium; and Julie Williams, director, 
Internet Business Solutions Group, Federal Civilian Agency 
Practice, Cisco Systems.
15. ``Risk and Responsibility: The Roles of FDA and Pharmaceutical 
        Companies in Ensuring the Safety of Approved Drugs, Like 
        Vioxx,'' May 5, 2005
    a. Summary.--The hearing purpose was to gain a better 
understanding of drug safety. Specifically, the committee 
examined the post approval actions taken by both the Food and 
Drug Administration and Merck and Co., Inc. as it related to 
the drug Vioxx (rofecoxib).
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Steven Galson, Director, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 
accompanied by Dr. John Jenkins, Director, Office of New Drugs, 
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Dr. Paul Seligman, Director, Office of 
Pharmacoepidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 
Food and Drug Administration and former Acting Director, Office 
of Drug Safety; Dennis M. Erb, Ph.D., vice president of global 
strategic regulatory development for Merck and Co., Inc.; John 
E. Calfee, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute; and 
Dr. Michael Wilkes, MD, PhD, vice dean for medical education 
and professor of internal medicine, University of California, 
Davis.
16. ``Securing Our Borders: What Have We Learned From Government 
        Initiatives and Citizen Patrols?'' May 12, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the Federal Government's 
ability, strategy, and tactics used to secure U.S. borders.
    b. Witnesses.--Robert C. Bonner, Commissioner, U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 
Chris Simcox, co-founder, the Minuteman Project; T.J. Bonner, 
president, National Border Patrol Council; and Janice Kephart, 
former counsel, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks 
Upon the United States.
17. ``Domestic Source Restrictions Threaten Free Trade: What is the 
        Federal Government Doing to Ensure a Level Playing Field in the 
        Global Economy?'' May 13, 2005
    a. Summary.--As the Chinese government overhauls its 
standards-setting process, there are inevitable changes to the 
country's procurement policies and regulations that may protect 
Chinese interests but are potentially burdensome to non-Chinese 
companies that wish to sell their goods and services in China. 
This hearing examined the potential impact of China's pending 
regulation as it affects the Chinese government's acquisition 
of software, the Federal Government's efforts to persuade China 
to abandon discriminatory policies, and the implications of 
this procurement regulation on U.S. companies and the U.S. 
economy as a whole.
    b. Witnesses.--Benjamin H. Wu, Assistant Secretary for 
Technology and Acting Director for National Technical 
Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce; Charles 
Freeman, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative of China Affairs, 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; Mark Bohannon, 
Software Information Industry Association; Robert Cresanti, 
vice president, Business Software Alliance; and John Frisbie, 
president, US-China Business Council.
18. ``Steroid Use in Sports Part III: Examining the National Basketball 
        Association's Steroid Testing Program,'' May 19, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing assessed the NBA's drug policy; 
how the testing policy was implemented; how effectively it 
addressed the use of prohibited drugs by players; and the 
larger societal and public health ramifications of steroid use.
    b. Witnesses.--David Stern, commissioner, National 
Basketball Association; Richard W. Buchanan, senior vice 
president and general counsel, National Basketball Association; 
William Hunter, executive director, National Basketball Players 
Association; Keith Jones, V.P. of basketball operations/
athletic trainer, Houston Rockets; and Juan Dixon, player, 
Washington Wizards.
19. ``Declaration of Education: Toward a Culture of Achievement in D.C. 
        Public Schools,'' May 20, 2005
    a. Summary.--The District of Columbia Public School system 
has been plagued by management problems, declining enrollment, 
crumbling facilities, escalating violence, and poor academic 
achievement. Witnesses testified about the collaborative effort 
among school staff, parents, policymakers, agencies, and 
organizations to improve student participation and performance. 
The committee acknowledged that the lack of performance 
improvement is a major threat to the future growth and 
stability of the city.
    b. Witnesses.--Robert C. Bobb, deputy mayor/city 
administrator, government of the District of Columbia; Kathleen 
Patterson, chairperson, Committee on Education, Libraries, and 
Recreation, Council of the District of Columbia; Clifford B. 
Janey, superintendent, District of Columbia Public Schools; 
Peggy Cooper Cafritz, president, District of Columbia Board of 
Education; Charles Ramsey, chief of police, Metropolitan Police 
Department; Brenda Donald Walker, Director, Child and Family 
Services Agency; Jason Kamras, National Teacher of the Year; 
Iris Toyer, Chair, Parents United for the District of Columbia 
Public Schools; and Carolyn Dallas, executive director, Youth 
Court.
20. ``Federal Student Loan Programs: Are They Meeting the Needs of 
        Students and Schools?'' May 26, 2005
    a. Summary.--The Federal Government operates two major 
student loan programs: the Federal Family Education Loan 
Program [FFELP] and the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program 
[FDLP]. This hearing examined the Department of Education's 
record in managing the student aid programs; its initiatives to 
enhance management and delivery of services to students, 
families, and schools; and highlighted the important role of 
competition between FFELP and FDLP in promoting better service 
to students and schools and streamlined delivery of both 
programs.
    b. Witnesses.--Theresa S. Shaw, Chief Operating Officer, 
Federal Student Aid Office, U.S. Department of Education; John 
P. Higgins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Education; Dr. Alan Merten, president, George Mason University; 
Sarah Bauder, director of student financial aid, University of 
Maryland; Natala Hart, director of student financial aid, Ohio 
State University; Cynthia Thornton, director of student 
financial aid, Dillard University; and Nancy Coolidge, 
coordinator, Federal Student Financial Support, Office of the 
President, University of California.
21. ``Assessing the Department of Homeland Security's Mission 
        Effectiveness: Is it Enough to Meet the Terrorist Threat?'' 
        June 9, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to hear the new 
Secretary of Homeland Security's assessment of the Department's 
overall effectiveness in meeting its core mission--specifically 
its operations, management, and opportunities for performance 
improvement. Implementation of specific programs was also 
addressed, including the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, US VISIT, and implementation of the Support Anti-
Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002.
    b. Witness.--Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department 
of Homeland Security.
22. ``Eradicating Steroid Use, Part IV: Examining the Use of Steroids 
        by Young Women to Enhance Athletic Performance and Body 
        Image,'' June 15, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing considered the potential health 
risks associated with illicit steroid use by females, the 
pervasiveness of this problem, and the need for prevention 
programs targeting middle and high school-aged females who 
might use steroids for purposes of athletic excellence and/or 
aesthetic enhancement.
    b. Witnesses.--Kelli White, former World Champion sprinter; 
Dr. Diane Elliot, professor of medicine, Oregon Health and 
Science University; Dr. Todd Schlifstein, clinical instructor, 
New York University School of Medicine; Dr. Harrison Pope, 
professor of psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA; Dr. 
Avery Faigenbaum, professor of health and exercise science, the 
College of New Jersey; and Dr. Charles Yesalis, professor of 
health policy and administration, the Pennsylvania State 
University.
23. ``Under Fire: Does the District of Colombia's Gun Ban Help or Hurt 
        the Fight Against Crime?'' June 28, 2005
    a. Summary.--In 1976, District of Columbia Council passed 
the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a law prohibiting 
the possession of unregistered firearms, and banned the 
registration of all handguns, as well as automatic and high-
capacity semi-automatic firearms. Witnesses were asked to 
provide testimony on the effect of the District's gun laws, the 
effect of repeal of the District's gun laws, and the legal and 
constitutional issues relating to the District of Columbia's 
gun laws.
    b. Witnesses.--John R. Lott, resident scholar, American 
Enterprise Institute; Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in 
constitutional studies, the Cato Institute; Robert Peck, 
president, Greater Washington Board of Trade; Reverend Lionel 
Edmonds, co-chair, Washington Interfaith Network; Sandra 
Seegers, District of Columbia resident; Tyrone Parker, 
executive director, Alliance of Concerned Men; and Francine 
Lowe, District of Columbia resident.
24. ``To Lead or To Follow: The Next Generation Internet and the 
        Transition to IPv6,'' June 29, 2005
    a. Summary.--The hearing provided an overview Internet 
Protocol version 6 [IPv6] and the Federal Government's 
transition to the new standard. OMB outlined its timeline for 
agency planning and transition. GAO highlighted the 
opportunities and risks that the Federal Government faces with 
the transition, and discussed the findings of its study on 
Federal agency transition efforts. In addition, the hearing 
provided a review of current transition efforts, international 
migration to the new protocol, commercial opportunities and 
challenges, and the implications of the transition for content 
and services.
    b. Witnesses.--Karen Evans, Administrator for Electronic 
Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and 
Budget; David Powner, Director of Information Technology 
Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; Keith 
Rhodes, Chief Technologist and Director, Center for Technology 
and Engineering, Government Accountability Office; George G. 
Wauer, Director, Architecture and Interoperability, Office of 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information 
Integration and Office of Chief Information Officer accompanied 
by Major General Dennis Moran, Vice Director of Command, 
Control, Communications, and Computer Systems, Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, Department of Defense; Jawad Khaki, corporate vice 
president, Microsoft Corp.; Stan Barber, vice president, NTT/
Verio Inc.; and Alex Lightman, chief executive officer, Charmed 
Technologies, Inc.
25. ``The Next Flu Pandemic: Evaluating U.S. Readiness,'' June 30, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing evaluated U.S. preparedness 
levels and the ability to respond to the global infectious 
disease threat of influenza pandemic. The past few annual 
influenza seasons, as well as recent avian flu activity in 
Asia, have raised the urgent question of whether the United 
States is prepared to deal with the threat of a flu pandemic. 
The purpose of this hearing was to assess our public health 
system's response capabilities at the Federal, State, and local 
levels, and to determine what additional measures are needed in 
order to improve preparations and reduce risks posed by an 
avian flu outbreak.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. James W. LeDuc, Director, National 
Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention; Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National Institute 
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of 
Health; Dr. Bruce Gellin, Director, National Vaccine Planning 
Office, Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Marcia 
Crosse, Director, Health Care Issues, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Mary C. Selecky, Washington State 
Secretary of Health, testifying on behalf of the Association of 
State and Territorial Health Officials; Dr. Dominick Iacuzio, 
medical director, Roche Laboratories, Inc.; Dr. Shelley A. 
Hearne, executive director, Trust for America's Health; and Dr. 
John F. Milligan, executive vice president and chief financial 
officer, Gilead Sciences, Inc.
26. ``One Year Later: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Project 
        BioShield,'' July 14, 2005
    a. Summary.--This oversight hearing assessed the 
implementation of Project BioShield thus far. The purpose of 
this hearing was to consider whether the Project BioShield 
program is being adequately implemented to accelerate the 
research, development, and purchase of effective 
countermeasures against agents of bioterrorism.
    b. Witnesses.--Stewart Simonson, Assistant Secretary for 
Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Department of Health and 
Human Services; Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National 
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services; 
Dr. John Vitko, Director, Homeland Security Science and 
Technology Advisory Committee, Department of Homeland Security; 
Robert G. Kramer, CEO, BioPort Corp.; Richard B. Hollis, CEO, 
Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals; and Gerald L. Epstein, senior 
fellow for science and security, Homeland Security Program, 
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
27. ``Controlling Restricted Airspace: An Examination of the Management 
        and Coordination of Our National Air Defense,'' July 21, 2005
    a. Summary.--Securing and defending U.S. airspace is 
critically dependent upon rapid interagency coordination and 
information sharing between the FAA, the Department of Homeland 
Security [DHS], and the Department of Defense [DOD]. 
Ineffective coordination leaves the Federal Government 
incapable of determining whether an aircraft violating 
restricted airspace presents hostile intent, resulting in 
little or no time to stop a terrorist threat. This hearing 
examined how effectively these agencies are monitoring 
restricted air space, specifically addressing coordination, 
information sharing, common protocols, procedures and 
leadership challenges since the September 11th terrorist 
attacks. The hearing also presented the unclassified version of 
the Government Accountability Office's study entitled: Homeland 
Security: Agency Resources Address Violations of Restricted 
Airspace, but Management Improvements Are Needed.
    b. Witnesses.--Davi M. D'Agostino, Director, Defense 
Capabilities and Management, Government Accountability Office; 
Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland 
Defense, Department of Defense; Major General Marvin S. Mayes, 
Commander, 1st Air Force and Continental U.S. North American 
Aerospace Defense Command Region, Department of Defense; Robert 
A. Sturgell, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation 
Administration; and Kenneth S. Kasprisin, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Department of Homeland Security.
28. ``BRAC and Beyond: An Examination of the Rationale Behind Federal 
        Security Standards for Leased Space,'' July 27, 2005
    a. Summary.--The committee reviewed the development and 
implementation of security standards for Federal leased space 
including the guidelines established by the Interagency 
Security Committee and DOD's Anti-terrorism Force Protection 
standards. The committee examined whether the DOD Anti-
terrorism Force Protection standards were improperly used as a 
de facto ninth criteria in the 2005 round of base closings 
pursuant to the Base Realignment and Closure Act.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Jim Moran, U.S. House of 
Representatives (VA-8); Dwight M. Williams, Chief Security 
Officer, Department of Homeland Security; F. Joseph Moravec, 
Commissioner of Public Buildings Service, General Services 
Administration; John Jester, Director, Pentagon Force 
Protection Agency, Department of Defense; and Get Moy, 
Director, Installation Requirements and Management, Department 
of Defense.
29. ``Keeping Metro on Track: The Federal Government's Role in 
        Balancing Investment with Accountability at Washington's 
        Transit Agency,'' July 28, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of a hearing 
held in February 2005, and will examine the role of the Federal 
Government in helping Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority 
address its funding challenges and management operations. The 
hearing also assessed whether additional oversight is needed, 
especially in light of the sizeable request Metro has made for 
Federal assistance.
    b. Witnesses.--Katherine Siggerud, Director, Physical 
Infrastructure Issues, GAO; Richard White, chief executive 
officer, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Dana 
Kauffman, chairman of the Board, Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority; William Millar, president, American Public 
Transportation Association; Robert Puentes, fellow, 
Metropolitan Policy, Brookings Institute; and Pauline 
Schneider, partner, Hunton and Williams, member, Federal City 
Council.
30. ``Part Two: Interior Department: A Culture of Managerial 
        Irresponsibility and Lack of Accountability,'' September 14, 
        1006
31. ``Back to the Drawing Board: A First Look at Lessons Learned From 
        Katrina,'' September 15, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to investigate 
the emergency plans in major cities other than New Orleans that 
are most vulnerable to natural disasters or man-made 
catastrophic events. The hearing focused on local government 
experiences and expertise in preparing for emergencies, 
developing plans, coordinating with other jurisdictions, and 
recommendations for improving emergency preparedness planning.
    b. Witnesses.--Marc Morial, president and chief executive 
officer, National Urban League, Inc.; Constance Perett, 
administrator, Office of Emergency Management, County of Los 
Angeles, CA; Ellis Stanley, manager, Emergency Preparedness 
Department, city of Los Angeles, CA; David J. Robertson, 
executive director, Metropolitan Washington Council of 
Governments; Robert C. Bobb, city administrator, District of 
Columbia; Tony Carper, director, Broward Emergency Management 
Agency, Broward County, FL; Chief Carlos Castillo, director, 
Miami-Dade Office of Emergency Management Miami-Dade County, 
FL; Dr. John R. Harrald, professor of engineering management, 
the George Washington University and director, Institute for 
Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management; and Dr. James J. 
Carafano, senior fellow for National Security and Homeland 
Security, Heritage Foundation.
32. ``The Last Frontier: Bringing the IT Revolution to Healthcare,'' 
        September 29, 2005
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the progress and 
challenges associated with the development of a national health 
IT strategy. In addition, the hearing provided a review of the 
development of standards for the collection and use of health 
information to facilitate information sharing, as well as the 
challenges to achieving interoperability among health IT 
systems.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. David Brailer, National Coordinator for 
Health Information Technology, U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services; Dr. Robert M. Kolodner, Chief Health 
Informatics Officer, Veterans Health Administration; David 
Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues, 
Government Accountability Office; Dr. Carol Diamond, managing 
director, Markle Foundation; Janet M. Marchibroda, chief 
executive officer, eHealth Initiative and Foundation; Diane M. 
Carr, associate executive director, Healthcare Information 
Systems, Queens Health Network; and Larry Blue, vice president 
and general manager, Symbol Technologies.
33. ``The Critical Role of the National Guard at Home and Abroad,'' 
        October 20, 2005
    a. Summary.--While it is clear Army and Air National Guard 
personnel are making significant contributions to the Nation's 
security, it is less certain that they will continue to be 
resourced and equipped to fulfill their massive Federal 
responsibilities, as well as the expressed needs of the States. 
This hearing examined the current National Guard equipment 
situation and how Department of Defense [DOD] and Department of 
the Army transformation policies affect the Guard's level of 
readiness to meet overseas and homeland missions. At this 
hearing, the Government Accountability Office released its 
report entitled: ``Reserve Forces: Plan Needed to Improve Army 
National Guard Equipment Readiness and Better Integrate Guard 
into Army Force Transformation Initiatives.''
    b. Witnesses.--Edward Rendell, Governor, Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania; Dirk Kempthorne, Governor, State of Idaho; David 
Walker, Comptroller General of the Unites States, accompanied 
by Janet A. St. Laurent, Director, Defense Capabilities and 
Management, Government Accountability Office; Thomas F. Hall, 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S. 
Department of Defense; Lieutenant General Davis F. Melcher, 
Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; Lieutenant General H Steven 
Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau; Major General Allen 
Tackett, State Adjutant General of West Virginia; and Major 
General Raymond Rees, State Adjutant General of Oregon.
34. ``Justice for All: An Examination of the District of Columbia 
        Juvenile Justice System,'' October 28, 2005
    a. Summary.--The Committee on Government Reform conducted a 
hearing on youth crime and efforts to reduce recidivism in the 
District of Columbia. The hearing focused on D.C.'s juvenile 
justice system, with emphasis on the Youth Rehabilitation 
Services and the agency reorganization the city is undertaking 
to comply with the requirements of the Jerry M. v. District of 
Columbia, et al. case. At the heart of the Jerry M. case is the 
effort not only to ensure the civil rights of the city's 
committed youth, but to modernize the District's approach to 
juvenile justice. The committee also examined H.R. 316, a bill 
that would provide for the disposition of land in Laurel, MD 
that is currently used by the District of Columbia to house the 
Oak Hill Youth Center, the District's secure facility for 
committed and securely detained youth.
    b. Witnesses.--Benjamin L. Cardin, Congressman from the 
State of Maryland; Steny H. Hoyer, Congressman from the State 
of Maryland; Lee F. Satterfield, presiding judge, District of 
Columbia Family Court; Eugene Hamilton, senior judge, District 
of Columbia Superior Court; Charles H. Ramsey, chief of police, 
Metropolitan Police Department; and Vincent Schiraldi, 
director, District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Services.
35. ``The National Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan: 
        Is the United States Ready for Avian Flu?'' November 4, 2005
    a. Summary.--This was the committee's second hearing of the 
year to evaluate U.S. preparedness levels and the Nation's 
ability to respond to the global infectious disease threat of 
influenza pandemic. The committee learned more about recent 
actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services 
[HHS] to prepare for the possibility of a flu pandemic, 
including the finalizing of the administration's pandemic plan, 
the procurement of additional vaccines and antivirals, and the 
promise to help develop greater vaccine manufacturing capacity 
in the United States.
    b. Witnesses.--Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, Department of 
Health and Human Services, accompanied by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, 
Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, National Institutes of Health; Dr. Bruce Gellin, 
Director, National Vaccine Planning Office, Department of 
Health and Human Services; Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Dr. William 
Raub, Science Advisor to the Secretary, Department of Health 
and Human Services.
36. ``Restoring the Public Trust: A Review of the Federal Pension 
        Forfeiture Act,'' February 1, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing considered legislation intended to 
restore the public trust in the Federal Government by ensuring 
that top policymakers in the executive and legislative branches 
are sufficiently deterred from yielding to outside influences. 
The ``Federal Pension Forfeiture Act'' would provide such a 
deterrent by denying Federal retirement benefits for Federal 
policymakers convicted of accepting bribes, defrauding the 
Federal Government, embezzling Federal property, or falsifying 
Federal documents.
    b. Witnesses.--Linda Springer, Director, Office of 
Personnel Management; Chellie Pingree, president, Common Cause; 
and Joan Claybrook, president, Public Citizen.
37. ``Sharpening Our Edge--Staying Competitive in the 21st Century 
        Marketplace,'' February 9, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing studies the challenges America 
faces in staying competitive in the 21st century global 
economy.
    b. Witnesses.--Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez; 
Hector de J. Ruiz, president and CEO of Advanced Micro Devices; 
M. Brian O'shaughnessy, president and CEO or Revere Copper 
Products; Richard S. Garnick, president, North American 
Services for Keane, Inc.; Deborah Wince-Smith, president of the 
Council on Competitiveness; and former Congressman Dave 
McCurdy, president of the Electronic Industries Alliance.
38. ``Installation of In-Line Baggage Screening Systems: Increasing 
        Safety and Efficiency for Travelers to and from our Nation's 
        Capital,'' February 17, 2006 (Dulles International Airport)
    a. Summary.--In response to the September 11th attacks, 
Congress mandated that, by December 31, 2002, all checked 
baggage would be screened using explosive detection systems 
[EDS]. EDS are most efficient when integrated ``in-line'' into 
baggage conveyor belt systems and are believed to speed up 
baggage and travel processing. To support their mandate, 
Congress authorized TSA to issue Letters of Intent [LOI] to 
financially support the acquisition and installation of in-line 
EDS, however, as at the time of the hearing, only nine LOI had 
been issued. The purpose of this hearing was to find out the 
status of acquisition and installation of in-line baggage 
screening systems at the Nation's airports, with a particular 
focus on airports serving the Nation's Capital. TSA testified 
that they are prioritizing airports to receive funding and are 
working with private industry and airports authorities to 
devise and implement creative financing options. MWAA testified 
they had offered TSA creative financing options, which TSA had 
not accepted. BWI airport discussed their experience paying for 
and installing in-line systems without any financial assistance 
from TSA and how this has increased efficiency at BWI.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Randal Null, Assistant Administrator for 
Operational Process and Technology, Transportation Security 
Administration; James E. Bennett, president and chief executive 
officer, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority; and 
Timothy L. Campbell, A.A.E., executive director, Maryland 
Aviation Administration.
39. ``The Regulation of Dietary Supplements: A Review of Consumer 
        Safeguards,'' March 9, 2006
    a. Summary.--The committee's interest in this issue stemmed 
from its investigation into the use of performance enhancing 
drugs and steroids in professional sports. An October 2005 
Washington Post article about steroids in dietary supplements 
raised concerns for the committee about FDA regulation of the 
supplement industry. The purpose of this hearing was to examine 
the Federal Government's responsibility and role in regulating 
dietary supplements, the certification programs available for 
dietary supplements, and how consumers can educate themselves 
to make responsible decisions when purchasing and consuming 
dietary supplements. Witnesses at the hearing agreed that the 
public needs to be assured of the safety of dietary supplement 
products and the reliability of their labeling.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Robert E. Brackett, Director, Center for 
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug 
Administration; Dr. Paul M. Coates, Director of Dietary 
Supplements, National Institutes of Health; C. Lee Peeler, 
Deputy Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 
Commission; Kathleen Jordan, general manager, Dietary 
Supplements and Functional Foods Program, NSF International; 
Dr. V. Srinivasan, vice president, verification program, U.S. 
Pharmacopeia; Dr. Tod Cooperman, president and founder, 
Consumerlab.com; and Janell Mayo Duncan, senior counsel, 
Consumers Union.
40. ``No Computer System Left Behind: A Review of the 2005 Federal 
        Computer Security Scorecards,'' March 16, 2006
    a. Summary.--Each year, the committee, with technical 
assistance from the Government Accountability Office, releases 
scorecards based on the information provided by agency Chief 
Information Officers and Inspectors General in their Federal 
Information Security Management Act [FISMA] reports. This year, 
the committee's analysis reveals that the scores for the 
Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, 
Justice, State, and others remained unacceptably low or dropped 
precipitously. Meanwhile, several agencies improved their 
information security or maintained a consistently high level of 
security from previous years, such as the Agency for 
International Development, Environmental Protection Agency, the 
General Services Administration, Department of Labor, Office of 
Management and Budget, and the Social Security Administration. 
The 2005 FISMA grades indicate that agencies have made 
significant improvements in developing configuration management 
plans, employee security training, developing and maintaining 
an inventory, certifying and accrediting systems, and annual 
testing. Despite these advances, there are still some areas of 
concern to the committee, including implementation of 
configuration management policies, specialized security 
training for employees with significant security 
responsibilities, inconsistent incident reporting, 
inconsistencies in contingency plan testing, annual testing of 
security controls, and agency responsibility for contractor 
systems.
    b. Witnesses.--Gregory C. Wilshusen, Director, Information 
Security Issues, Government Accountability Office; Karen S. 
Evans, Administrator, Office of E-Government and Information 
Technology, Office of Management and Budget; Patrick Pizzella, 
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, 
Department of Labor; Tom Hughes, Chief Information Officer, 
Social Security Administration; Robert F. Lentz, Director of 
Information Assurance, Department of Defense; and Scott Charbo, 
Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
41. ``The Need to Know: Information Sharing Lessons for Disaster 
        Response,'' March 30, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing addressed information sharing and 
situational awareness during the management of an emergency, 
opened public discussion and debate on barriers to information 
sharing among agencies, and highlighted best practices, 
methods, and procedures for sharing information. The committee 
examined how the lessons learned regarding information sharing 
in the context of law enforcement, counter-terrorism, and 
defense can be applied to disaster response. In particular, the 
hearing focused on the methods, policies, principles and 
techniques found to be effective in encouraging and enhancing 
information sharing among diverse entities. The hearing 
addressed ways to avoid the inadequate information sharing and 
murky situational awareness that characterized the governmental 
response to Katrina. The committee learned whether impediments 
to effective information sharing are primarily technological, 
or structural, cultural, and bureaucratic in nature.
    b. Witnesses.--Peter F. Verga, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense), U.S. Department of 
Defense; Dr. Linton Wells II, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration), 
U.S. Department of Defense; Vance Hitch, Chief Information 
Officer, U.S. Department of Justice; John Brennan, president 
and CEO, the Analysis Corp.; Dr. Donald F. Kettl, Director, 
Fels Institute of Government, University of Pennsylvania; and 
Dr. Brian A. Jackson, physical scientist, RAND Corp.
42. ``The Impact of Visa Processing Delays on the Arts, Education, and 
        American Innovation,'' April 4, 2006
    a. Summary.--While the visa review process is often the 
Nation's first line of defense, requirements implemented 
subsequent to the September 11th attacks have placed strains on 
the application and review process. The results are substantial 
delays--in some instances, more than 160 days for interviews--
and the consequences are negative for American businesses and 
cultural organization--to say nothing of the U.S. travel and 
tourism industry. The committee received testimony from the 
Department of State and from GAO about these challenges and 
some possible solutions. The committee also received testimony 
from associations unable--or, in some cases, simply no longer 
willing--to bring foreign nationals to the United States for 
trade fairs and organizational meetings because of the length 
and unpredictability of visa processing delays. The committee 
received testimony from internationally acclaimed cellist Yo-Yo 
Ma regarding his organization's difficulties in bringing 
foreign performers who simply want to share their talents with 
U.S. audiences. Subsequent to this hearing, the committee 
requested GAO study delays in processing and issuing non-
immigrant visas.
    b. Witnesses.--Tony Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Jess T. Ford, 
Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Yo-Yo Ma, artistic director, the Silk 
Road Project, Inc., accompanied by Sandra L. Gibson, president 
and CEO, Association of Performing Arts Presenters; Dennis J. 
Slater, president, Association of Equipment Manufacturers; 
Kevin Schofield, general manger, Strategy and Communications, 
Microsoft Research; and Elizabeth C. Dickson, advisor, 
Immigration Services, Ingersoll-Rand Co. and the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce.
43. ``Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth: a Post-Katrina Review of 
        International Disaster Assistance,'' April 6, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine how 
prepared the Federal Government was to accept the unprecedented 
level of aid from foreign governments after Hurricane Katrina 
and whether the ad-hoc procedures for accepting aid put in 
place after Katrina were sufficient.
    b. Witnesses.--Davi M. D'Agostino, Director, Defense 
Capabilities and Management, accompanied by McCoy Williams, 
Director, Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Deborah McCarthy, Director, Katrina 
Working Group, U.S. Department of State; Gregory Gottlieb, 
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, Bureau 
for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. 
Agency for International Development; Casey Long, Acting 
Director, Office of International Affairs, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Hudson 
La Force III, Senior Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Education; and Scott W. Rowell, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary (Strategy, Plans, and Resources) for Homeland 
Defense, U.S. Department of Defense.
44. ``Out at Home: Why Most Nats Fans Can't See Their Team on TV,'' 
        April 7, 2006
    a. Summary.--The committee held a hearing to examine the 
dispute between Comcast Corp. and the Mid-Atlantic Sports 
Network [MASN] that was preventing 75 percent of the Washington 
Nationals baseball games from being carried by Comcast in the 
Washington area. As the largest cable provider in the 
Washington region with 1.3 million subscribers, Comcast's 
failure to carry MASN prevented the majority of the Washington 
cable market from having access to their home baseball team's 
games. The committee was specifically interested in 
understanding why as many as 75 percent of the Nationals 
regular season games will not be available to customers of 
Comcast. Officials from the corporate entities involved 
appeared at the hearing to explain their position in this 
dispute. The committee also took testimony from local 
governmental officials in the Washington area, whose 
constituents were adversely affected by the standoff between 
Comcast and MASN. Following the hearing, in response to a 
letter from the chairman, the FCC ruled that MASN and Comcast 
were to submit to binding arbitration to settle their dispute. 
Less than 1 month later, on the heels of this decision, Comcast 
and MASN settled their dispute. MASN is now carried by Comcast, 
and the majority of the team's games are available in the 
Washington market.
    b. Witnesses.--Bob Dupuy, president and chief operating 
officer, Major League Baseball; Peter Angelos, chairman and 
chief executive officer, Baltimore Orioles; David L. Cohen, 
executive vice president, Comcast Corp.; Gary McCollum, vice 
president and regional manager, Cox Northern Virginia; Anthony 
Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia; Peter V.R. Franchot, 
Delegate, Maryland House of Delegates; Douglas M. Duncan, 
Montgomery County executive; Jack B. Johnson, Prince George's 
County executive; Sean Connaughton, chairman, Prince William 
County Board of Supervisors; Chris Zimmerman, chairman, 
Arlington County Board of Supervisors; and Ian Kosky, 
NationalsPride.com.
45. ``Financial Friendly Fire: A Review of Persistent Military Pay 
        Problems,'' April 27, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the 
effectiveness of the Department of Defense's management of pay 
processes and procedures that govern Army Guard and Reservists 
who are injured or wounded in action. Internal control 
weaknesses in Department processes, human capital, and the lack 
of integrated systems are causing overpayments to wounded 
soldiers through no fault of their own. Specifically, the 
committee focused on errors that have resulted in the referral 
of injured soldiers to debt collection agencies and steps the 
Department of Defense and the Department of the Army are taking 
to stop this.
    b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Director, Financial 
Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office; Lt. Colonel John M. Lovejoy, U.S. Army Reserve, 364th 
Civil Affairs Brigade, Portland, OR; Specialist Frank Mangum, 
former Alabama Army National Guard, 279th Signal Battalion, 
accompanied by his wife, Paulette Mangum; Specialist Brandy 
Taylor, former U.S. Army Reserves, 296th Transportation Co., 
Brookhaven, MI; David Patterson, Principal Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense, Office of the Comptroller; Nelson Ford, 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial 
Management and Comptroller; Zach E. Gaddy, Director, Defense 
Finance Accounting Service, U.S. Department of Defense; Mark R. 
Lewis, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, U.S. Department of 
the Army; and Colonel Mark McAlister, Finance Officer, 18th 
Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, U.S. Army.
46. ``Making the Grade? Examining District of Columbia Public Schools 
        Reform Proposals,'' April 28, 2006
    a. Summary.--District of Columbia Public Schools [DCPS] 
continues to be plagued by management problems, declining 
enrollment, crumbling facilities, escalating violence, and 
substandard academic achievement. The past decade's 
revitalization of the Nation's Capital cannot be sustained 
without a strong and healthy public school system. The 
Committee on Government Reform is committed to working with the 
District to improve the state of affairs at DCPS. Therefore, we 
conducted an oversight hearing to examine strategies to improve 
DCPS and how these plans have been implemented and how they are 
proceeding. The hearing highlighted developments that create an 
atmosphere for positive change and reform within DCPS and how 
students, teachers, administrators, parents, and elected 
officials can support the plan. In addition, the committee 
reviewed the U.S. Department of Education's recent designation 
of DCPS as a ``high-risk'' grantee. On April 21, 2006, the 
Department notified DCPS that the Department is concerned about 
DCPS's ability to use Federal funds to support teaching and 
learning in District of Columbia schools. The committee 
examined the Department's actions by exploring the 
determination process and implications of this designation.
    b. Witnesses.--Henry L. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of 
Education for Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. 
Department of Education, accompanied by Hudson La Force III, 
Senior Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of 
Education; Dr. Clifford B. Janey, superintendent, District of 
Columbia Public Schools; John Musso, chief financial officer, 
District of Columbia Public Schools; Charles J. Willoughby, 
inspector general, District of Columbia, accompanied by William 
J. DiVello, assistant inspector general for audits, Office of 
the Inspector General, District of Columbia; and Cedric 
Jennings, District of Columbia Public School graduate.
47. ``Sifting Through Katrina's Legal Debris: Contracting in the Eye of 
        the Storm,'' May 4, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the Federal Government's 
contracting policies, practices, preparations, and response to 
determine whether the proper procedures, vehicles, and 
mechanisms are in place to meet the challenges of catastrophic 
events. The hearing focused on an evaluation of: 1) the 
contracts in place prior to Katrina's landfall and planning 
efforts that took place in anticipation of a large-scale 
catastrophic event; 2) the rationale and process for awarding 
disaster relief and recovery contracts in the immediate 
aftermath of Katrina; 3) the internal controls in place to 
ensure that Federal acquisition laws were followed and that 
effective contracting practices were and are used; 4) the terms 
and performance of Katrina relief contracts; and 5) ways in 
which the management and oversight of disaster-related 
contracting could be strengthened in response to lessons 
learned after Katrina.
    b. Witnesses.--William Woods, Director, Acquisition and 
Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office; Matthew 
Jadacki, Special Inspector General for Gulf Coast Hurricane 
Recovery, Office of the Inspector General, Department of 
Homeland Security; Emily Murphy, Chief Acquisition Officer, 
General Services Administration; Maj. Gen. Don T. Riley, 
Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Elaine 
Duke, Chief Procurement Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security; Deidre Lee, Deputy Director of Operations, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency; Randall R. Perkins, CEO, AshBritt, 
Inc.; George Schnug, CEO, AmeriCold Logistics, LLC; Neal Fox, 
Member, Board of Advisors, FedBid, Inc.; and James Necaise, 
vice president, Necaise Brothers Construction.
48. ``Working Through an Outbreak: Pandemic Flu Planning and Continuity 
        of Operations,'' May 11, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to assess our 
public health system's response capabilities at the Federal, 
State, and local levels, and to determine what additional 
measures are needed in order to improve preparations and reduce 
risks posed by an avian flu outbreak. The past few annual 
influenza seasons, as well as avian flu activity in Asia, 
continued to raise the urgent question of whether the United 
States is prepared to deal with the threat of a flu pandemic 
and whether the country is capable of working through a 
pandemic.
    The committee learned more about actions taken by the 
Department of Health and Human Services and Department of 
Homeland Security to prepare for the possibility of a flu 
pandemic, including the finalizing of the administration's 
multi-agency proposal to ensure coordination among all Federal 
agency activities. Additionally, the committee sought 
information on the government's progress in developing 
Continuity of Operations plans, including telework, or 
distributed work programs, to be used during a pandemic.
    b. Witnesses.--John O. Agwunobi, M.D., Assistant Secretary 
for Health, Department of Health and Human Services; Linda 
Springer, Director, Office of Personnel Management; David M. 
Walker, Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office; 
Dr. Jeffery W. Runge, Chief Medical Officer, Department of 
Homeland Security; Dr. Alonzo Plough, Board of Directors, Trust 
for America's Health; Scott Kriens, chairman and CEO, Juniper 
Networks; and Paul B. Kurz, executive director, Cyber Security 
Industry Alliance.
49. ``Low Clearance: Why Did DOD Suddenly Stop Processing Private 
        Sector Security Clearances?'' May 17, 2006
    a. Summary.--On April 28, 2006, the committee learned that 
the Department of Defense element responsible for security 
clearance processing, the Defense Security Service [DSS], 
planned to impose a moratorium on submission of applications 
from contractors. The stoppage would prevent both submission of 
new applications and requests for required periodic 
reinvestigation of those cleared to access classified material 
in the course of their work on Defense contracts. This abrupt 
disruption in a critical national security process was not the 
first problem the committee uncovered at DSS. Previous 
inquiries, GAO reports and hearings examined a growing backlog 
of clearance cases, uneven adherence to investigative standards 
and a chronic inability to forecast the demand for 
investigations. Many of those issues were thought to have been 
addressed in 2005 when DSS transferred key investigative 
functions to the Office of Personnel Management which conducts 
background checks for many other Federal agencies. Testimony at 
this hearing described high-level management attention to DSS 
problems at both DOD and OPM. In particular, new leadership was 
installed at DSS, process improvements were implemented and 
budget resources identified within DOD to allow DSS to lift the 
moratorium on contractor clearance investigations. The 
moratorium ended in July.
    b. Witnesses.--Clay Johnson, Acting Director, U.S. Office 
of Management and Budget; Robert Rogalski, Special Assistant, 
Office of the Under Secretary (Intelligence) U.S. Department of 
Defense; Kathy Killaman, Associate Director, Federal 
Investigative Services Division, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management; Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Defense; Doug Wagoner, chairman, Intelligence 
Subcommittee, Information Technology Association of America (on 
behalf of the Security Clearance Coalition); William L. Gunst, 
vice president for business operations, Anteon International 
Corp.; and Nicholas Karangelen, president, Trident Systems, 
Inc.
50. ``Getting Ready for the 2006 Hurricane Season,'' May 24, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to assess steps 
taken by the executive branch agencies responsible for disaster 
recovery in response to the findings and recommendations by the 
House Select Committee on Katrina, the Senate Homeland Security 
Committee, the White House, GAO, Inspectors General, and others 
to make sure we will be as prepared as possible when disaster 
strikes. The Select Committee on Katrina found preparedness 
gaps and deficiencies at the Federal, State and local levels of 
government and cited inadequate preparedness as the cause of 
inexcusable weaknesses and failures in the disaster response.
    b. Witnesses.--George W. Foresman, Under Secretary for 
Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Robert 
Shea, Acting Director of Operations, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; MG 
Terry Scherling, Director, Joint Staff, National Guard Bureau; 
RADM W.C. Vanderwagen, M.D., Special Assistant to the 
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Robert 
R. Latham, chairman, Legislative Committee, National Emergency 
Management Association and director, Emergency Management 
Agency, State of Mississippi; Walter S. Dickerson, Director, 
Emergency Management Agency/Homeland Security, Mobile County, 
AL; Joe Becker, senior vice president, preparedness and 
response, American Red Cross; Maura W. Donahue, chairman, U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce; and Patricia McGinnis, president and CEO, 
the Council for Excellence in Government.
51. ``Once More Into the Data Breach: The Security of Personal 
        Information at Federal Agencies,'' June 8, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the privacy and data 
security policies of Federal agencies. The committee reviewed 
agency data security policies and procedures with respect to 
personal information, and reviewed recent data security 
breaches and incidents. In this context, the committee examined 
the adequacy of existing laws, regulations, and policies 
regarding privacy, information security, and data breach 
notification. In particular, the committee reviewed whether 
Federal agency data breach notification laws and policies are 
adequate and what, if any, revisions should be made to Federal 
information security laws, including the Federal Information 
Management Security Act. Finally, the committee heard lessons 
learned and suggestions for improving response efforts in the 
event of future information security breaches.
    b. Witnesses.--Clay Johnson, Acting Director, Office of 
Management and Budget; Linda D. Koontz, Director, Information 
Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; R. James 
Nicholson, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs; William 
E. Gray, Deputy Commissioner for Systems, Social Security 
Administration; and Daniel Galik, Chief Mission Assurance and 
Security Services, Internal Revenue Service, Department of 
Treasury.
52. ``Regional Insecurity: DHS Grants to the National Capital Area,'' 
        June 15, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to bring 
greater transparency to the homeland security grants 
administered by the Department of Homeland Security.
    b. Witnesses.--George W. Foresman, Under Secretary for 
Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Edward D. 
Reiskin, deputy mayor for public safety and justice, District 
of Columbia; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., assistant to the Governor 
for commonwealth preparedness, Commonwealth of Virginia; Dennis 
R. Schrader, director of the Governor's Office of Homeland 
Security, State of Maryland; and David J. Robertson, executive 
director, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
53. ``Disabled Services in the District of Columbia: Who Is Protecting 
        the Rights of D.C.'s Most Vulnerable Residents?'' June 16, 2006
    a. Summary.--The committee conducted a hearing on the 
status of the District of Columbia's Mental Retardation and 
Developmental Disabilities Administration [MRDDA], which is the 
subject of a 30-year lawsuit, Evans v. Williams. Decades after 
the court entered its first remedial order, problems remain 
concerning health care delivery services to class members and 
the failure to implement a meaningful quality assurance system. 
The committee held a hearing to learn about the status of 
reforms at MRDDA and throughout the D.C. government and the 
city's efforts to meet the criteria established in the 2001 
Compliance Plan. The hearing examined MRDDA's management, 
operations, policies, procedures, and the challenges the 
District must tackle to end the court case.
    b. Witnesses.--Robert C. Bobb, Deputy Mayor/city 
administrator, government of District of Columbia; Brenda 
Donald Walker, Deputy Mayor of Children, Youth, Families, and 
Elders, Government of District of Columbia; Marsha Thompson, 
former Director, Mental Retardation Development and 
Disabilities Administration; Robert M. Gettings, executive 
director, National Association of State Directors of 
Developmental Disabilities Services; and Holly Morrison, vice 
president for organizational learning, the Council on Quality 
and Leadership.
54. ``Northern Lights and Procurement Plights: The Effect of the ANC 
        Program on Federal Procurement and Alaska Native 
        Corporations,'' June 21, 2006
    a. Summary.--This joint-hearing with the Small Business 
Committee examined the award of contracts by Federal agencies 
to Alaska Native Corporations [ANC] participating in the Small 
Business Administration's [SBA] 8(a) program, as highlighted in 
a GAO report requested by the two committees. Through the 
hearing, the committees explored the impact of the special 
exemption to the standard of full and open competition granted 
ANCs on our competitive acquisition system, whether the program 
is being properly managed by SBA, and whether the Alaska Native 
people are receiving the appropriate benefits from the 
acquisition advantages they have been given.
    b. Witnesses.--Don Young, chairman, Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure; David Cooper, Director, 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability 
Office; Calvin Jenkins, Deputy Associate Deputy Administrator, 
Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, U.S. 
Small Business Administration; Frank Ramos, Department of 
Defense; Melodee Stith, Associate Director, Acquisition and 
Financial Assistance, Office of Acquisition and Property 
Management, U.S. Department of Interior; Harry Alford, 
president and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce; Ann 
Sullivan, president, Madison Services Group, Inc. on behalf of 
Women Impacting Public Policy; Chris E. McNeil, Jr., chairman, 
Native American Contractors Association and president and CEO 
Sealaska Corp.; Helvi Sandvik, president, NANA Development 
Corp.; Bart Garber, Tyonek Services Group; Julie Kitka, 
president, Alaska Federation of Natives; and Charles Totemoff, 
president and CEO, Chenega Corp.
55. ``What Price Free Speech: Whistleblowers and the Ceballos 
        Decision,'' June 29, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the 
Supreme Court's recent decision regarding whistleblowers in the 
case of Garcetti v. Ceballos.
    b. Witnesses.--Stephen M. Kohn, Chair, National 
Whistleblower Center; Roger Pilon, Ph.D., J.D., vice president 
of legal affairs, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional 
Studies, director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato 
Institute; Richard Ceballos, Deputy District Attorney, County 
of Los Angeles, CA; William L. Bransford, general counsel, 
Senior Executives Association; Mimi Dash, council president 
(retired), Fairfax Education Association; Lisa E. Soronen, 
staff attorney, National School Boards Association; Barbara 
Atkin, deputy general counsel, National Treasury Employees 
Union; Richard J. Bergstrom, partner, Morrison and Foerster, 
LLP; and Joe Goldberg, assistant general counsel for 
litigation, American Federation of Government Employees.
56. ``Can You Clear Me Now? Weighing `Foreign Influence' Factors in 
        Security Clearance Investigations,'' July 13, 2006
    a. Summary.--The current personnel security clearance 
process has come under increasing criticism since the attacks 
of September 11, 2001 created an ever-greater demand for 
security clearances and other types of background 
investigation. Investigative work by the Government 
Accountability Office in May 2004 revealed a backlog of 
investigations of private sector clearance applicants of almost 
190,000 and that the total time for these applicants to receive 
their clearance had ballooned to 375 days. To modernize the 
clearance process, provisions of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and applicable Executive 
orders directed consolidation of responsibility for security 
clearances processes and policies. In this hearing, the 
committee sought to evaluate implementation of updated criteria 
to be used in determining the security implications of foreign 
influences and contacts by clearance applicants. In particular, 
it appeared the Department of Defense had not fully implemented 
new guidance from the National Security Advisor regarding 
foreign influence factors. Variable implementation of 
investigative and adjudicative standards raises security 
concerns and impeded effort to affect inter-agency reciprocity 
regarding clearance decisions. Testimony by Department of 
Defense witnesses indicated the guidance was being implemented 
but that the process to standardize security criteria across 
Defense agencies and the military services was slow and had met 
some resistance.
    b. Witnesses.--Robert Andrews, Deputy Under Secretary for 
Counterintelligence and Security, U.S. Department of Defense, 
accompanied by Robert Rogalski, Special Assistant to the Under 
Secretary for Intelligence, U.S. Department of Defense; J. 
William Leonard, Director, Information Security Oversight 
Office, National Archives and Records Administration; Mark S. 
Zaid, esq.; Doug Wagoner, chairman, Intelligence Subcommittee, 
Information Technology Association of America (on behalf of he 
Security Clearance Coalition); and Walter S. Nagurny, Director, 
Industrial Security Office, EDS U.S. Government Solutions.
57. ``MS-13 and Counting: Gang Activity in Northern Virginia,'' July 
        14, 2006 (Fairfax, VA)
    a. Summary.--The Washington, DC region has seen a dramatic 
increase in gang incidents during the past decade, many of 
which have been attributed to the Central American gang, MS-13. 
The purpose of this hearing was to examine the relationship 
between law enforcement and public and private organizations in 
combating transnational street gangs with a particular focus on 
northern Virginia. The committee heard from the federally-
funded Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force, which brings 
to the table Federal, State, and local lawenforcement as well 
as the prevention and intervention communities about their 
successes and challenges. Many called this Task Force a model 
for the Nation. The committee also heard from Federal law 
enforcement about how the Task Force facilitates the 
transmission of intelligence. The committee heard from elected 
officials that, behind California, Virginia laws the toughest 
in the Nation for fighting gang violence. Recognizing the 
regional problem of gangs due to their transience, the 
committee also received testimony from Montgomery and Prince 
George's County, MD representatives regarding their enforcement 
and prevention programs. Subsequent to this hearing, the gang 
prevention coordinators from Maryland and Virginia met and also 
conducted reciprocal site visits, and many credit this hearing 
with strengthening their relationship and collaboration.
    b. Witnesses.--David Albo, Delegate for the 42nd District, 
State Legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Robert A. 
Bermingham, Jr., coordinator, Fairfax County Gang Prevention 
Program; Luis Cardona, Youth Violence Prevention Coordinator, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Montgomery County; 
Gerry Connolly, chairman, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; 
Marla Decker, deputy attorney general for public safety, 
Virginia Office of the Attorney General; Elizabeth Guzman, 
assistant area executive director, Boys and Girls Clubs, Prince 
William Region; Captain Milburne Lynn, commander, Violent 
Crimes Task Force/Gang Unit, Prince George's County Police 
Department; Diego G. Rodriguez, Assistant Special Agent in 
Charge, Criminal Division, Washington Field Office, Federal 
Bureau of Investigations; James Spero, Acting Assistant Special 
Agent in Charge, Special Agent in Charge Office, Washington, 
DC, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; and Chief 
Toussaint Summers, Jr., Chair, Northern Virginia Regional Gang 
Task Force, city of Herndon Police Department.
58. ``Climate Change: Understanding the Degree of the Problem,'' July 
        20, 2006
    a. Summary.--Currently, there is a growing concern that 
anthropogenic--or human--activities are affecting the heat and 
energy-exchange balance between Earth, the atmosphere, and 
space. Specifically, some scientists assert that human 
activities--most specifically the burning of fossil fuels--have 
contributed to increased levels of carbon dioxide--CO2--and 
other ``greenhouse'' gases in the atmosphere. This ``greenhouse 
effect'' is thought to be the root cause of a change in the 
Earth's climate inducing ``global warming,'' which, in turn, is 
inducing an overall ``global climate change.'' Chairman Davis 
convened this hearing to introduce Members of Congress to the 
climate change issue, including the current state of climate 
science in the United States, the administration's policies, 
and to explore the policy approaches available to policymakers.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. John R. Christy, professor and director 
of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in 
Huntsville; Jim Connaughton, chairman, Council on Environmental 
Quality; Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and 
Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology; Marshall 
Herskovitz, producer/director/writer, Television and Film; Dr. 
Thomas Karl, Director, National Climatic Data Center, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Dr. Roger A. Pielke, 
Jr., Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, 
University of Colorado at Boulder; Theodore Roosevelt IV, 
chairman, Strategies for the Global Environment/Pew Center on 
Global Climate Change; Andy Rubens, vice president of corporate 
strategy and sustainability, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
59. ``Policing Capital Sites: Improving Coordination, Training and 
        Equipment,'' July 21, 2006
    a. Summary.--The committee conducted the hearing to assess 
the levels of preparedness and coordination of Federal police 
units serving in the Nation's Capital. Members were interested 
in learning about the standards and efforts to secure and 
protect Federal sites. The committee heard from representatives 
from several Federal agencies about the current readiness, 
interoperability, adequacy of equipment and training, and the 
level of coordination in their core law enforcement missions.
    b. Witnesses.--Rear Admiral Terence McKnight, Commandant, 
Naval District Washington; Major General Guy C. Swan III, U.S. 
Army, Military District of Washington; Joseph W. Trindal, 
Regional Director, National Capital Region, Federal Protective 
Service; and Michael D. Fogarty, assistant chief of police, 
U.S. Park Police.
60. ``Code Yellow: Is the DHS Acquisition Bureaucracy a Formula for 
        Disaster?'' July 27, 2006
    a. Summary.--This oversight hearing focused on the sorely 
challenged acquisition function of the Department of Homeland 
Security [DHS]. Problems with DHS acquisitions have, over the 
last few years, been the subject of numerous reports by the 
Government Accountability Office [GAO], various Inspector 
General [IG] offices, as well as countless press reports. These 
reports all seem to tell different versions of the same sad 
story; failed programs, huge cost overruns, and little or no 
effective contract management. The hearing targeted several 
troubled acquisitions as a guide to explore the reasons behind 
the failures.
    b. Witnesses.--Mike Sullivan, Director, Acquisition 
Sourcing and Management, Government Accountability Office; 
Elaine Duke, Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland 
Security accompanied by John Ely, Chief Procurement Officer, 
Customs and Border Protection and Richard Gunderson, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Acquisition, 
Transportation Security Administration; David M. Zavada, CPA, 
Assistant Inspector General, Office of Audits, Department of 
Homeland Security; and Clark Kent Ervin, director, Homeland 
Security Initiative, the Aspen Institute.
61. ``Porous Borders and Downstream Costs: The Impact of Illegal 
        Immigration on State, County, and Local Governments,'' August 
        14, 2006 (San Diego, CA)
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to focus on the 
efficacy and efficiency of enforcement efforts at the 
``interior border'' where immigrants apply for official 
documents, employment, or public benefits. Hearing testimony 
from county and Federal law enforcement officials, the 
committee was informed of the unique law enforcement-related 
issues border regions confront. The committee heard testimony 
from San Diego-area health care professionals. The specific 
impact on communities of illegal immigration can be harshly 
felt at local hospitals. In the San Diego area, four hospitals 
have closed in recent years, in part due to the unsustainable 
burden of uncompensated care to the uninsured, a substantial 
portion of whom are undocumented aliens. The committee 
continued the important nationwide dialog about immigration 
reform. Decades-long neglect of the sovereign responsibility to 
adequately police national boundaries and enforce national laws 
has transferred immense burdens downstream to local taxpayers. 
Any serious immigration reform must take account of those 
intergovernmental impacts and protect States and localities 
from fiscal shockwaves. From that perspective, effective 
external and internal enforcement programs are essential 
prerequisites to broader immigration reforms.
    b. Witnesses.--Miguel Unzueta, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, Special Agent In Charge, San Diego; William B. 
Kolender, sheriff, San Diego County; Bill Horn, chairman, San 
Diego Board of Supervisors; Steven A. Escoboza, president and 
CEO, Hospital Association of San Diego and Imperial County; 
State Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny, 40th District, San Diego, 
CA; Bronwen Anders, MD, professor of pediatrics, University of 
California at San Diego, former president of San Diego Chapter 
of American Academy of Pediatrics.
62. ``BRAC in Northern Virginia: Base Realignment and Calamity? Review 
        of BRAC's Impact on Traffic Congestion and Quality of Life in 
        Our Region,'' August 31, 2006 (Springfield, VA)
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the 
Army's plans for implementation of the recommendations of the 
BRAC Commission and how they will affect northern Virginia, the 
Metropolitan, DC area, and the Army's ability to accomplish its 
mission.
    b. Witnesses.--Timothy M. Kaine, Governor, Commonwealth of 
Virginia; Keith Eastin, Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Installations and Management; Jeff Shane, Undersecretary of 
Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation; 
David M. Albo, 42nd District, Virginia House of Delegates; 
Gerald Hyland, member, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; 
Dana Kaufman, member, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; Dean 
Tistdat, COO and assistant superintendent for facilities and 
transportation, Fairfax County Public Schools; Kevin Kirk, 
president, West Springfield Civic Association; and Vivian 
Watts, 39th District, Virginia House of Delegates.
63. ``MS-13 and Counting: Gang Activity in Montgomery and Prince 
        George's Counties,'' September 6, 2006 (Takoma Park, MD)
    a. Summary.--The Washington, DC region has seen a dramatic 
increase in gang incidents during the past decade, many of 
which have been attributed to the Central American gang, MS-13. 
As with a similar hearing in northern Virginia, the purpose of 
this hearing was to examine the relationship between law 
enforcement and public and private organizations in combating 
transnational street gangs in suburban Maryland. The committee 
heard from elected officials and representatives from 
government agencies regarding intervention programs in schools 
and in the community. The committee also heard from the warden 
of the Montgomery County jail about their unique and successful 
youthful offender program. The committee also heard from a 
former gang member about his experience in getting out of the 
gang and the type of critical support that helped him make his 
successful transition.
    b. Witnesses.--Jack B. Johnson, county executive, Prince 
George's County, MD; George Leventhal, Chair, Montgomery County 
Council; John King, assistant chief, Montgomery County Police 
Department; Captain Milburne Lynn, commander, Violent Crimes 
Task Force/Gang Unit, Prince George's County Police Department; 
Carolyn Colvin, director of Department of Health and Human 
Services, Montgomery County, MD; Warden Robert L. Green, warden 
of Montgomery County Correctional Facility, Montgomery County, 
MD; Mike Butler, gang prevention coordinator, Prince George's 
County, MD; Luis Cardona, youth violence prevention 
coordinator, Montgomery County, MD; Daniel Arretche, director 
of development, Crossroads Youth Opportunity Center; and 
Richard Brown, small business owner.
64. ``Climate Change Technology: Do We Need a `Manhattan Project' for 
        the Environment?'' September 21, 2006
    a. Summary.--The Federal Government spends $3 billion per 
annum on climate change technology research spanning over 13 
agencies. To date, research on climate technology in the United 
States has been focused on near and mid-term technologies 
discounting ``innovative'' or long-term solutions to the global 
climate change problem. Chairman Davis convened this hearing to 
examine the need for exploratory climate technology research as 
well as discuss the potential for establishing an advanced 
research projects agency in order to facilitate such 
initiatives.
    b. Witnesses.--Stephen D. Eule, Director, Climate Change 
Technology Program; John B. Stephenson, Director, Government 
Accountability Office; Lee Lane, executive director, Climate 
Policy Center; Dr. Richard Van Atta, senior research analyst, 
Institute for Defense Analyses; Dr. Martin Hoffert, emeritus 
professor, New York University; Dr. Robert Socolow, former 
director, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, 
Princeton University; and Dr. Daniel Kammen, director, 
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of 
California at Berkeley.
65. ``CSI Washington: Does the District Need Its Own Crime Lab?'' 
        September 22, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to consider the 
creation of a full-service forensics lab in the District of 
Columbia.
    b. Witnesses.--Ken Wainstein, U.S. attorney, District of 
Colombia; Joseph A. DiZinno, Director, FBI Investigation 
Laboratory; Edward D. Reiskin, D.C. Deputy Mayor for Public 
Safety and Justice; Charles H. Ramsey, chief of police, 
Metropolitan Police Department; and Valencia Mohammed.
66. ``Medical Device Safety: How FDA Regulates the Reprocessing of 
        Supposedly Single-Use Devices,'' September 26, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to assess 
FDA's regulation of the medical device reprocessing industry 
and to determine what, if any, additional measures are needed 
to ensure reprocessed single-use devices [SUDs] are safe and 
efficacious. The witness for the original device manufacturers 
said they cannot guarantee the safety of their SUD once it is 
reprocessed and reused. Witnesses for the reprocessors, however 
argued insufficient credible data and evidence exist to 
demonstrate the use of reprocessed medical devices is riskier 
than the use of new ones. Despite concerns from other 
witnesses, FDA testified that reprocessed SUDs are 
substantially equivalent to the original device.
    Additionally, concerned about the lack of independent 
information available about the safety of reprocessing of SUDs, 
the committee asked the Government Accountability Office [GAO] 
to update its June 2000 report on SUDs. GAO's 2000 report found 
little harm from reuse but FDA oversight was warranted. Because 
FDA regulation of the industry has increased significantly 
since 2000, the committee asked GAO to examine the safety of 
SUDs reprocessing, the adequacy of FDA's oversight of 
reprocessing, and how reprocessed SUDs compared to original 
devices.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Daniel G. Schultz, Director, Center for 
Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration; 
Don Selvey, senior vice president, regulatory affairs and 
quality assurance, Ascent Healthcare Solutions, Inc.; Dennis 
Toussaint, director, regulatory affairs, SterilMed, Inc.; and 
Stephen J. Ubl, president and CEO, Advanced Medical Technology 
Association.
67. ``Acquisition Under Duress: Reconstruction Contracting in Iraq,'' 
        September 28, 2006
    a. Summary.--This oversight hearing examined the 
reconstruction contracting efforts in Iraq. The committee has 
engaged in continuous and vigorous oversight of contract 
activities in Iraq over the past 3 years. The oversight 
involved four hearings on the challenges of contracting in a 
war zone, numerous briefings from the agencies involved in the 
contracting efforts, as well as the review of thousands of 
documents the committee has requested from relevant agencies 
over the last couple of years. Those efforts were, for the most 
part, oriented toward contractor logistics support for the war 
efforts. The committee's focus in this hearing was on the 
contracting activities related to the reconstruction program in 
Iraq.
    b. Witnesses.--Katherine Schinasi, Managing Director, 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Inspector General, 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; Ambassador 
David Satterfield, Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Iraq, 
U.S. Department of State; James Bever, Deputy Assistant 
Administrator for Iraq, Bureau for Asia and the Near East, U.S. 
Agency for International Development; Tina Ballard, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Procurement, U.S. Army; 
Joseph Tyler, Chief, Programs Integration Division, Military 
Programs Directorate, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Ernest O. 
Robbins II, senior vice president and manager, International 
Division, Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group; and 
Cliff Mumm, president, Bechtel Infrastructure Corp.
68. ``Ova-Pollution in the Potomac: Egg-Bearing Male Bass and 
        Implications for Human and Ecological Health,'' October 4, 2006
    a. Summary.--Male smallmouth bass in the Potomac River--the 
drinking water source for many West Virginia, Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, Washington, DC, and Maryland communities--were 
recently reported to be bearing eggs. The cause of this 
``intersex'' phenomenon is thought to be endocrine disrupting 
chemicals in the Potomac River. Although in 1996, Congress 
mandated that EPA study endocrine disruptors, to date, testing 
has not begun. The committee convened this hearing to review 
the status of the EPA program and other federally-funded 
research and also to determine what steps government at all 
levels is taking to ensure effective protection of human and 
ecological health in the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. 
EPA reported that perceived delays in the program were due in 
large part to the complexity of this completely new field of 
science, and EPA promised it would try to accelerate this 
program. Representatives from local water utilities reported 
they continue to meet and, in many instances, exceed EPA 
standards for drinking water. Finally, NRDC stressed the 
seriousness of these endocrine disrupting chemicals.
    b. Witnesses.--Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator 
for the Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency; Mark 
Myers, Director, U.S. Geological Survey; Dr. Sue Haseltine, 
Associate Director of Biology, U.S. Geological Survey; Dr. 
Gregory Masson, Chief, Branch of Environmental Contaminants, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Andrew D. Brunhart, general 
manager, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission; Joseph 
Hoffman, executive director, Interstate Commission on the 
Potomac River Basin; Thomas Jacobus, general manger, Washington 
Aqueduct; Ed Merrifield, director, Potomac Riverkeepers; 
Charles Murray, general manager, Fairfax Water; and Erik Olson, 
attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council.

 II. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

1. ``Fiscal Year 2006 Drug Budget,'' February 10, 2005
    a. Summary.--The hearing was the first in a series of 
hearings providing oversight of the President's budget 
proposals for drug control programs, as well as for legislation 
to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This 
hearing also served as an opportunity for Members to discuss 
the policies outlined in the National Drug Control Strategy for 
2005 with Director John Walters.
    The current statutory authorization for ONDCP, enacted in 
1998, expired on September 30, 2003. In addition, statutory 
authorization for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign 
expired at the end of fiscal year 2002. As a branch of the 
Executive Office of the President, ONDCP--together with its 
programs--falls within the authorizing jurisdiction of this 
committee. This hearing launched the process of evaluating 
ONDCP and its programs for reauthorization this year.
    b. Witnesses.--John Walters, Director, Office of National 
Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President; and 
Peter Reuter, Ph.D., professor, School of Public Policy, 
University of Maryland.
2. ``Harm Reduction or Harm Maintenance: Is There Such a Thing as Safe 
        Drug Abuse?'' February 16, 2005
    a. Summary.--It is the goal of the Bush administration, as 
illustrated in the National Drug Control Strategy that we 
should all work for ``Healing America's Drug Users.'' ``Harm 
reduction,'' however, does not have the goal of getting people 
off of drugs. ``Harm reduction'' is an ideological position 
that assumes certain individuals are incapable of making 
healthy decisions. Advocates of this position hold that 
dangerous behaviors, such as drug abuse, therefore must simply 
be accepted by society and those who choose such lifestyles--or 
become trapped in them--should be enabled to continue these 
behaviors in a manner less ``harmful'' to themselves and 
others. Often, however, these lifestyles are the result of 
addiction, mental illness, or other conditions that should and 
can be treated rather than accepted as normal, healthy 
behaviors.
    The purpose of this hearing was to examine the overall 
impact of ``harm reduction'' programs such as needle exchange, 
``safe'' injection sites and heroin maintenance. This hearing 
also answered the question: ``Do these approaches reduce the 
risks associated with drug abuse or enable and condone 
addiction?''
    b. Witnesses.--Zainuddin Bahari, CEO, Humane Treatment 
Home, Malaysia; Tay Bian How, director, Drug Advisory 
Programme, the Colombo Plan Secretariat, Sri Lanka; Fadilan 
Kayong, Colombo Plan, Afghanistan; Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, Johns 
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Yunus Pathi, 
Pengasih Treatment Program, Malaysia; Robert G. Newman, MD, 
director, International Center for Advancement of Addiction 
Treatment, Continuum Health Partners, Inc.; Dr. H. Syahrizal 
Syarif, MPH, PhD, Colombo Plan, Indonesia; Robert Peterson, 
PRIDE International Youth Organization; Reverend Edwin Sanders, 
Metropolitan Interdenominational Church, member, President's 
Advisory Commission on HIV/AIDS; Peter L. Beilenson, M.D., 
commissioner, Baltimore City Department of Health; Peter 
Bensinger, president and CEO, Bensinger, Dupont and Associates; 
Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP, chairman, the Institute on Global 
Drug Policy; and Dr. Andrea Barthwell, Former Deputy Director, 
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
3. ``Fiscal Year 2006 Drug Control Budget and the Byrne Grant, HIDTA 
        and Other Law Enforcement Programs: Are We Jeopardizing 
        Federal, State and Local Cooperation?'' March 10, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the President's budget 
proposals for Federal, State, and local drug enforcement 
cooperation programs, including the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program, and the Edward Byrne 
Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (``Byrne Grants''). The 
hearing was the second in a series of hearings providing 
oversight of the President's budget proposals for drug control 
programs, as well as for legislation to reauthorize the Office 
of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP] and the HIDTA program.
    One of the most significant policies reflected in that 
budget is a sweeping proposal to scale back most Federal 
support for State and local drug enforcement. Among other 
things, the administration is proposing to eliminate the Byrne 
Grants to the States; to cut the HIDTA program by more than 50 
percent and transfer its remaining funds to the Justice 
Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 
[OCDETF] program; to cut the ``Meth Hot Spots'' program 
administered by the Justice Department's Community Oriented 
Policing Services [COPS] office by more than 60 percent; and to 
significantly reduce the funding for the Counterdrug Technology 
Assessment Center [CTAC] Technology Transfer program. The 
subcommittee shares the administration's concerns about 
excessive Federal subsidization of State and local law 
enforcement. The administration's proposed cuts, however, would 
create massive shortfalls in the budgets of State and local law 
enforcement agencies across the country. The administration 
should instead propose reforms, where needed, to some of the 
Federal Government's assistance grants.
    b. Witnesses.--Tracy A. Henke, Associate Deputy Attorney 
General, Office of Justice Programs [OJP], U.S. Department of 
Justice; Catherine M. O'Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney General 
and Director of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces 
[OCDETF], U.S. Department of Justice; John Horton, Associate 
Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs, Office of National 
Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]; Ron Brooks, president, National 
Narcotics Officer's Associations Coalition; Tom Carr, director, 
Washington-Baltimore HIDTA; Tom Donahue, director, Chicago 
HIDTA; Chief Jack Harris, Phoenix Police Department and Vice-
Chair, Southwest Border HIDTA; Leonard Hamm, acting Baltimore 
police commissioner; Mark Henry, president, Illinois Drug 
Enforcement Officer's Association; and Sheriff Jack L. Merritt, 
Greene County, MO.
4. ``The National Parks: Will They Survive for Future Generations?'' 
        March 14, 2005 (Gettysburg, PA)
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the National Park 
Service's mission of maintaining and preserving America's 
cultural and natural heritage for future generations. This 
Gettysburg hearing, set in a popular historical park, focused 
on preserving civil war-related sites, and interpreting these 
sites in a meaningful way. It also examined the role of outside 
groups acting as partners with the National Park Service. A 
component of the hearing was to address the National Park 
Service's funding of various parks and preservation efforts in 
an era of tight budgets, as well as how important adequate 
funding is for the preservation of the National Park Service 
for future generations.
    b. Witnesses.--Robert W. McIntosh, Associate Regional 
Director for Planning and Partnerships, Northeast Region, 
National Park Service; Richard Thornburgh, member, the 
Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation; David Booz, 
Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg; Joy Oakes, 
director, National Parks Conservation Association; and O. James 
Lighthizer, Civil War Preservation Trust.
5. ``Federal Health Programs and Those Who Cannot Care for Themselves: 
        What Are Their Rights, and Our Responsibilities?'' April 19, 
        2005
6. ``The National Parks: Will They Survive for Future Generations?'' 
        April 22, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the second in a series of 
hearings held to examine the state of the National Parks. The 
series is examining funding issues, preservation and 
maintenance, and law enforcement and homeland security. This 
hearing focused on these issues National Park Service-wide, 
with particular attention paid to funding, management, and 
homeland security. The homeland security component focused on 
the protection of the National Capital Area, including the 
National Mall and other important icons of the Park Service in 
the Washington, DC area.
    b. Witnesses.--Steven Martin, Deputy Director, National 
Park Service; Gretchen Long, past Chair, Board of Trustees, 
National Parks Conservation Association; Vin Cipolla, 
president, National Parks Foundation; Emily E. Wadhams, vice 
president of public policy, National Trust for Historic 
Preservation; Denis Galvin, retired Park Ranger, former 
superintendent of Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Everglades 
National Parks; and Peyton Knight, American Land Rights 
Association.
7. ``Drug Prevention Programs and the Fiscal Year 2006 Drug Control 
        Budget: Is the Federal Government Neglecting Illegal Drug Use 
        Prevention?'' April 26, 2005
8. ``How Can the Federal Government Support Local and State Initiatives 
        to Protect Citizens and Communities Against Drug-Related 
        Violence and Witness Intimidation?'' May 2, 2005 (Baltimore, 
        MD)
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to explore 
strategies to improve protection for witnesses in criminal 
cases, with an emphasis on criminal drug cases. Witnesses 
described the scope and severity of witness intimidation 
problems in Baltimore City and their impact on prosecutions and 
quality of life in the affected communities. Witnesses also 
described existing measures and resources devoted to protect 
witnesses and offered perspectives on how the Federal 
Government can work most effectively with State and local 
authorities to prevent obstruction of justice through violence 
and intimidation directed against individual witnesses and the 
community at large. The hearing included discussion of Federal 
legislation, including the Dawson Family Community Protection 
Act of 2005 (H.R. 812), introduced by Representative Cummings 
with Chairman Souder as an original cosponsor.
    b. Witnesses.--Michael S. Steele, Lt. Governor, State of 
Maryland; Martin O'Malley, mayor, city of Baltimore; Floyd O. 
Pond, assistant director, Washington-Baltimore HIDTA; Lt. Craig 
Bowers, Baltimore County Police Department; Patricia Jessamy, 
State attorney, city of Baltimore; Judge Kenneth Johnson, 
former associate judge, Baltimore City Circuit Court; David 
Wright, president, Charles Village Community Benefits District; 
and Ricky P., resident, West Baltimore.
9. ``2006 DOD Counternarcotics Budget: Does it Deliver the Necessary 
        Support?'' May 10, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the budget proposals for 
the military's contributions to the national counterdrug 
efforts. The President's Drug Strategy Budget requests nearly 
$900 million to be dispersed through the Counternarcotics 
Central Transfer Account.
    b. Witnesses.--Marybeth Long, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, Department of 
Defense; Colonel John D. Nelson, Director of Plans, Joint Task 
Force North, U.S. Northern Command; Captain Edmund Turner, 
Deputy Director for Current Operations, U.S. Southern Command; 
Captain Jim Stahlman, Assistant Operations Officer, U.S. 
Central Command; and Lennard Wolfson, Assistant Deputy 
Director, Office of Supply Reduction, Office of National Drug 
Control Policy.
10. ``Threat Convergence Along the Border: How Does Drug Trafficking 
        Impact Our Borders?'' June 14, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined how the flow of drugs 
through our borders has directly and indirectly impacted our 
ability to secure our borders. In addition to the obvious loss 
of lives and productivity to narcotic usage, smuggling 
transportation groups are capable of smuggling not only drugs, 
but also aliens, terrorists and weapons. Therefore, if we 
increase our abilities to interdict narcotics at the border we 
also increase our effectiveness at stopping the smuggling of 
aliens, terrorists and weapons.
    b. Witnesses.--Ralph Utley, Acting Director Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; 
Anthony Placido, Assistant Administrator for Intelligence, Drug 
Enforcement Administration; Gregory Passic, Director, Office of 
Drug Interdiction, Customs and Border Protection; and John P. 
Torres, Deputy Assistant Director Office of Investigations, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
11. ``H.R. 2829, The Office of National Drug Control Policy 
        Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' June 15, 2005
    a. Summary.--The bill, H.R. 2829, introduced by Chairman 
Souder and Chairman Davis, reauthorizes the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], as well as most of the programs 
administered by ONDCP, including the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program, the Counterdrug Technology 
Assessment Center [CTAC], and the National Youth Anti-Drug 
Media Campaign (the ``Media Campaign''). This hearing gave 
representatives of ONDCP and other affected organizations the 
opportunity to provide their insight into the Office, its 
programs, and the legislation.
    b. Witnesses.--John Walters, Director, Office of National 
Drug Control Policy; Tom Carr, director, Washington-Baltimore 
HIDTA, on behalf of the National HIDTA Directors' Association; 
and Stephen J. Pasierb, president and CEO, Partnership for a 
Drug-Free America [PDFA].
12. ``H.R. 1054, Authorizing Presidential Vision: Making Permanent the 
        Efforts of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative,'' June 21, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to consider 
Representative Mark Green's H.R. 1054, the Tools for Community 
Initiatives Act, which has been referred to the subcommittee. 
In addition, the subcommittee reviewed programmatic successes 
and failures of the President's Initiative and the Office's 
future plans, including State and local cooperation, legal 
barriers, data collection and other legislative priorities. 
This legislative hearing also examined H.R. 1064, the Tools for 
Community Initiatives Act, which would authorize the Federal 
agencies charged with implementing the Faith-Based and 
Community Initiative.
    b. Witnesses.--Mark Green, Member of Congress (WI); Robert 
C. Scott, Member of Congress (VA); Stanley Carlson-Thies, 
director of Social Policy Studies at the Center for Public 
Justice; David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House 
Faith-Based and Community Initiative; Bobby Polito, former-
Director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community 
Initiatives, Department of Health and Human Services; Gregg 
Petersmeyer, vice-chairman, Board of Trustees at America's 
Promise; Bob Woodson, president of the National Center for 
Neighborhood Enterprise; Dennis Griffith, director of Teen 
Challenge in Southern California; Rabbi David Saperstein, 
director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and 
Reverend C. Welton Gaddy, president, Interfaith Alliance.
13. ``Fighting Meth in America's Heartland: Assessing Federal, State, 
        and Local Efforts,'' June 27, 2005 (St. Paul, MN)
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the state of 
methamphetamine trafficking, production and abuse in Minnesota 
and the Midwest region of the United States, and how the 
Federal Government can assist State and local authorities in 
combating this growing problem through law enforcement, 
environmental clean-up, and drug treatment and prevention 
programs. This hearing provided an opportunity for 
representatives of Federal and local agencies with experience 
in fighting methamphetamine trafficking, as well as 
organizations that specialize in the environmental aspects of 
the problem, and the treatment and prevention of meth addiction 
and abuse, to discuss these issues and suggest solutions.
    b. Witnesses.--Timothy Ogden, Associate Special Agent in 
Charge, Chicago Field Division, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; Julie Rosen, Minnesota State Senator; Sheriff 
Terese Amazi, Mower County Sheriff's Office; Sheriff Brad 
Gerhardt, Martin County Sheriff's Office; Lt. Todd Hoffman, 
Wright County Sheriff's Office; Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County 
attorney; Bob Bushman, senior special agent, Minnesota Bureau 
of Criminal Apprehension and president, Minnesota State 
Association of Narcotics Investigators and president, Minnesota 
Police and Peace Officers' Association; Dennis D. Miller, drug 
court coordinator, Hennepin County Department of Community 
Corrections; Kirsten Lindbloom, social program specialist, 
Parenting Resource Center, coordinator, Mower County Chemical 
Health Coalition; and Buzz Anderson, president, Minnesota 
Retailers Association.
14. ``Interrupting Narco-terrorist Threats on the High Seas: Do We Have 
        Enough Wind in Our Sails?'' June 29, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the effectiveness of the 
U.S. drug enforcement efforts in the transit zone. In addition 
to the obvious loss of lives and productivity to narcotic 
usage, smuggling transportation groups are capable of smuggling 
not only drugs, but also aliens, terrorists, and weapons. 
Therefore, if we increase our abilities to interdict narcotics 
in the transit zone, we also increase our effectiveness at 
stopping the smuggling of aliens, terrorists and weapons.
    b. Witnesses.--Ralph Utley, Acting U.S. Interdiction 
Coordinator; Admiral Dennis Sirois, Assistant Commandant for 
Operations, U.S. Coast Guard; Admiral Jeffrey J. Hathaway, 
Director, Joint Interagency Task Force South; Charles E. 
Stallworth II, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and 
Marine Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and 
Thomas M. Harrigan, Chief of Enforcement Operations, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
15. ``Threat Convergence at the Border: How Can We Improve the Federal 
        Effort to Dismantle Criminal Smuggling Organizations?'' July 
        12, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing continued the subcommittee's 
ongoing study of how criminal smuggling organizations have 
directly and indirectly impacted our ability to secure our 
borders, and the resource, management, and legal gaps that 
frustrate our efforts to dismantle these organizations. 
Smuggling organizations are capable of transporting not only 
drugs, but also aliens, terrorists, and weapons.
    b. Witness.--Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security 
and Justice, Government Accountability Office [GAO].
16. ``Fighting Meth in America's Heartland: Assessing the Impact on 
        Local Law Enforcement and Child Welfare Agencies,'' July 26, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing continued the subcommittee's 
ongoing study of how meth is affecting our Nation. The impact 
of methamphetamine on local law enforcement agencies and 
welfare support agencies is severe and growing. The hearing 
provided an opportunity for representatives of Federal and 
local agencies with experience in fighting methamphetamine 
trafficking, as well as organizations that specialize in the 
child welfare aspects of the problem, to discuss these issues 
and suggest solutions.
    b. Witnesses.--Scott Burns, Deputy Director for State and 
Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Joseph 
Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement, Drug 
Enforcement Administration; Laura Birkmeyer, Assistant U.S. 
Attorney, San Diego, CA and chairperson, National Alliance for 
Drug Endangered Children; Nancy K. Young, Ph.D., Director, 
National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare; and 
Director, Children and Family Futures; Valerie Brown, National 
Association of Counties; Freida S. Baker, deputy director, 
Family and Children's Services, Alabama Department of Human 
Resources; Chief Deputy Phil Byers, Rutherford County Sheriff's 
Office (NC); Sylvia Deporto, deputy director, Riverside County 
Children's Services (CA); Betsy Dunn, investigator, peer 
supervisor, Tennessee Department of Children's Services, Child 
Protective Services Division; Chief Don Owens, Titusville 
Police Department (PA); and Sheriff Mark Shook, Watauga County 
Sheriff's Department (NC).
17. ``Law Enforcement and the Fight Against Methamphetamine: Improving 
        Federal, State, and Local Efforts,'' August 23, 2005 
        (Wilmington, OH)
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the state of 
methamphetamine trafficking, production and abuse in 
southwestern Ohio and the Midwest region of the United States, 
and how the Federal Government can assist State and local 
authorities in combating this growing problem. This hearing 
provided an opportunity for representatives of Federal and 
local agencies with experience in fighting methamphetamine 
trafficking and abuse, to discuss these issues and suggest 
solutions.
    b. Witnesses.--Gary W. Oetjen, Assistant Special Agent in 
Charge, Louisville, KY District Office, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; John Sommer, director, Ohio High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area [HIDTA]; Randy Riley, Clinton County 
Commissioner; Ralph Fizer, Jr., Clinton County sheriff; Tom 
Ariss, Warren County sheriff; Dave Vore, Montgomery County 
sheriff; Commander John Burke, Greater Warren County Drug Task 
Force; and Jim Grandey, esq., Highland County Prosecutor.
18. ``The National Parks: Preservation of Historic Sites and the 
        Northeast Region,'' August 24, 2005 (Boston, MA)
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the third in a series of 
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks. 
This series has examined preservation, maintenance, law 
enforcement and homeland security. This hearing focused on 
these issues in the Northeast Region, with particular attention 
to funding and management of parks in the region, and the 
preservation of historic sites under the jurisdiction of the 
National Park Service. Historic preservation is a large 
component of the NPS' mission. Maintaining and restoring 
important historical sites is often expensive. This hearing 
also examined the NPS' efforts to adequately maintain such 
important sites as Longfellow Historic Site and Adams National 
Historic Site.
    b. Witnesses.--Robert W. McIntosh, Associate Regional 
Director for Planning and Partnerships, Northeast Region, 
National Park Service; Roger Kennedy, National Council 
chairman, National Parks Conservation Association; Marilyn 
Fenollosa, National Trust for Historic Preservation; Ken Olson, 
president, Friends of Acadia National Park; and Lt. John 
McCauley, museum curator, Ancient and Honorable Artillery 
Company of Massachusetts.
19. ``Women and Cancer: Where Are We in Prevention, Early Detection and 
        Treatment of Gynecologic Cancers?'' September 7, 2005
    a. Summary.--September was ``Gynecologic Oncology Awareness 
Month.'' This hearing addressed national efforts to raise 
awareness among patient and medical communities of gynecologic 
cancers, and effectively educate relevant communities about 
gynecologic cancers, as well as address the funding path for 
innovative and cutting edge research for gynecologic cancers.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Edward L. Trimble, M.D., M.P.H., Head of 
the Surgery Section, Division of Cancer Treatment and 
Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute; Dr. Ed Thompson, M.D., 
M.P.H., Chief of Public Health Practice, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention; Dr. Richard Pazdur, MD, Director, 
Division of Oncology Drug Products, Center for Drug Evaluation 
and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Dr. Beth 
Karlan, president, Society of Gynecologic Oncologists; Dr. Mark 
Jay Rosenfeld, scientist/researcher; Sheryl Silver, sister of 
Johanna Silver; and Kolleen Stacey, ovarian cancer survivor.
20. ``National Parks in the Pacific Northwest,'' September 12, 2005 
        (Bellevue, WA)
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the fourth in a series of 
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks. 
The series examined preservation, maintenance, law enforcement 
and homeland security. This hearing focused on these issues in 
the Pacific Northwest, with particular attention to funding and 
management of parks in the region, and environmental 
stewardship. The hearing also examined partnerships between 
State park systems and the National Park Service and the U.S. 
Forest Service and the National Park Service.
    b. Witnesses.--Cicely Muldoon, Deputy Regional Director for 
Public Use, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; Rex 
Derr, director, Washington State Parks and Recreation 
Commission; Tim Wood, director, Oregon State Parks; Sally 
Jewell, trustee, National Parks Conservation Association; Russ 
Dickenson, Former Director, National Park Service; and Rod 
Fleck, city attorney/planner, Forks, WA.
21. ``Management of the National Parks and the Parks of the 
        Southwest,'' October 13, 2005 (Flagstaff, AZ)
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the fifth in a series of 
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks. 
The series will continue to examine preservation and 
maintenance, and law enforcement and homeland security. This 
hearing focused on management of the national parks with a 
special focus on the National Park Service's core operations 
analysis. The hearing also examined the parks of the American 
Southwest.
    b. Witnesses.--Richard M. Frost, Associate Regional 
Director, Communications and External Relations, Intermountain 
Region of the National Park Service; Deborah Tuck, president, 
Grand Canyon National Park Foundation; Bob Keiter, board 
member, National Parks Conservation Association; Kimberly 
Spurr, board member, Arizona Archeological Council; and Rick 
Smith, former Associate Regional Director, Natural and Cultural 
Resources, Southwest Regional Office of the National Park 
Service.
22. ``Stopping the Methamphetamine Epidemic: Lessons from the Pacific 
        Northwest,'' October 14, 2005 (Portland, OR)
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the state of 
methamphetamine trafficking, production and abuse in the States 
of Oregon and Washington, and how the Federal Government can 
assist State and local authorities in combating this growing 
problem. The hearing provided an opportunity for 
representatives of Federal and local agencies with experience 
in fighting methamphetamine trafficking and abuse, as well as 
experts in drug treatment and prevention, to discuss these 
issues and suggest solutions.
    b. Witnesses.--Rodney G. Benson, Special Agent in Charge, 
Seattle Field Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Chuck 
Karl, director, Oregon High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 
[HIDTA]; Dave Rodriguez, Director, Northwest High Intensity 
Drug Trafficking Area [HIDTA]; Karen Ashbeck, mother and 
grandmother of recovering methamphetamine addicts; Sheriff John 
Trumbo, Umatilla County Sheriff's Office; Sheriff Tim Evinger, 
Klamath County Sheriff's Office; Rick Jones, Choices Counseling 
Center; Kaleen Deatherage, director of public policy, Oregon 
Partnership, Governor's Meth Task Force; Tammy Baney, Chair, 
Deschutes County Commission on Children and Families; and Shawn 
Miller, Oregon Grocery Association.
23. ``Sick Crime: Counterfeit Drugs in the United States,'' November 1, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--Selling fake prescription drugs within the 
United States is a serious public health threat, and a growing 
problem. FDA counterfeit drug investigations rose more than 150 
percent in 2004 from the previous year. According to the World 
Health Organization, 10 percent of global pharmaceutical 
commerce this year will be counterfeit. That number is expected 
to double by the year 2010, as international criminal 
organizations become more sophisticated. This hearing 
investigated the threat of counterfeit drugs within the United 
States and measures to prevent counterfeit drug importation and 
distribution.
    b. Witnesses.--Randall W. Lutter, PhD., Acting Associate 
Commissioner for Policy and Planning, Food and Drug 
Administration; Katherine Eban, author, Dangerous Doses; Kevin 
Fagan, father of Timothy Fagan, counterfeit drug victim 
(Epogen); Max Butler, brother of Maxine Blount, counterfeit 
drug victim (Procrit); Peter Pitts, Center for Medicines in the 
Public Interest; Carmen Catizone, executive director, National 
Association of Boards of Pharmacy; Jim Dahl, former Assistant 
Director, Investigations, FDA Office of Criminal 
Investigations; and Donald deKieffer, deKieffer and Horgan.
24. ``National Parks of California,'' November 28, 2005 (San Francisco, 
        CA)
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the sixth in a series of 
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks. 
The series continued to examine preservation and maintenance, 
and law enforcement and homeland security. This hearing focused 
on the park units of California, with particular attention to 
National Recreation Areas, State and Federal management of park 
units, and Yosemite National Park.
    b. Witnesses.--Brian O'Neill, General Superintendent, 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, National Park Service; 
Theodore Jackson, Deputy Director for Park Operations, 
California State Parks; Gene Sykes, Chair, National Parks 
Conservation Association; Greg Moore, Executive Director, 
Golden Gate Conservancy; and Daphne Kwok, executive director, 
Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation.
25. ``National Parks of Hawaii,'' December 1, 2005 (Honolulu, HI)
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the seventh in a series of 
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks. 
The series examined preservation and maintenance, and law 
enforcement and homeland security. This hearing focused on the 
park units of Hawaii, with particular attention to visitor 
services and invasive species.
    b. Witnesses.--Frank Hays, Pacific Area Director, National 
Park Service; Craig Obey, vice president for government 
affairs, National Parks Conservation Association; Suzanne Case, 
executive director, the Nature Conservancy, Hawaii; George 
Sullivan, chairman, Arizona Memorial Museum Association; and 
Casey Jarman, board member, Friends of Hawaii Volcanoes 
National Park.
26. ``National Parks of Florida,'' January 11, 2006 (Miami, FL)
    a. Summary.--This hearing is the eighth in a series of 
hearings focusing on the critical issues facing the National 
Park Service, examining the preservation, maintenance, law 
enforcement, and homeland security of National Parks. This 
particular hearing focused on the park units of Florida, with 
special attention paid to Everglades National Park. The 
National Park Service is facing many challenges and problems. 
Management and funding are of constant concern to all park 
units. Underneath these issues are problems unique to each park 
unit. In Florida, environmental degradation is of particular 
concern. In addition, this hearing examined the effectiveness 
of the restoration and rehabilitation process pursued to 
counter the ecological effects of hurricanes.
    b. Witnesses.--Sherri Fields, Chief of the Natural 
Resources Division, Southeast Region, National Park Service; 
Nathaniel Reed, member of the National Council, National Parks 
Conservation Association; and Dexter Lehtinen, senior member, 
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
27. ``National Drug Control Budget for Fiscal Year 2007,'' February 16, 
        2006
    a. Summary.--This served as an oversight hearing to examine 
the administration's priorities and goals for the Federal 
Government's overall drug strategy for 2006. It also examined 
the overall Federal drug budget proposed by the administration 
for fiscal year 2007.
    b. Witnesses.--John Walters, Director, Office of National 
Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President.
28. ``Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research After Seoul: 
        Examining Exploitation, Fraud and Ethical Problems in the 
        Research,'' March 7, 2006
    a. Summary.--The scientific scandal at the World Stem Cell 
Hub in Seoul, South Korea, revealed that cloning research 
widely acclaimed by proponents of human cloning and embryonic 
stem cell research was a fraud. The scandal also brought to 
light the fact that female assistants were coerced to 
``donate'' their eggs for the stem cell and cloning research. 
In light of the scandal, this hearing addressed the ethical 
challenges resulting in potential exploitation, fraud and 
coercion in the research areas of human cloning and embryonic 
stem cell research.
    b. Witnesses.--James F. Battey, Jr., M.D., Ph.D., Chair, 
NIH Stem Cell Task Force, Director, National Institute on 
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Bernard Schwetz, 
Director, Office for Human Research Protections; Chris B. 
Pascal, Director, Office of Research Integrity; Richard A. 
Chole, M.D, Ph.D Lindberg professor and chairman, Department of 
Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. 
Louis; Judy Norsigian, executive director, Our Bodies 
Ourselves, co-author of ``Our Bodies, Ourselves''; Diane 
Beeson, M.A., PhD, professor emerita, Department of Sociology 
and Social Services, California State University, East Bay; 
Richard Doerflinger, deputy director, Secretariat for Pro-Life 
Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Debra J.H. 
Mathews, M.A., Ph.D, Assistant Director for Science Programs, 
the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute; and Joe Brown, 
Parkinson's Action Network State Coordinator, Texas.
29. ``Appalachian Ice: The Methamphetamine Epidemic in Western North 
        Carolina,'' April 11, 2006 (Lenoir, NC)
    a. Summary.--This hearing will explore the impact of the 
methamphetamine epidemic in North Carolina and the response of 
law enforcement at the Federal, State and local level to the 
trafficking and abuse of this drug.
    b. Witnesses.--John J. Emerson, Assistant Special Agent-in-
Charge, Charlotte District Office, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; James Gaither, district attorney, 25th Judicial 
District; Van Shaw, special agent, State Bureau of 
Investigation, Clandestine Labs Response Program; Sheriff Gary 
Clark, Caldwell County; Sheriff C. Phillip Byers, Rutherford 
County; and Lynne Vasquez, mother of convicted meth dealer and 
addict.
30. ``Gangs, Fraud and Sexual Predators: Struggling with the 
        Consequences of Illegal Immigration,'' April 12, 2006 (Winston-
        Salem, NC)
    a. Summary.--Inadequate vigilance against illegal 
immigration is creating opportunities for criminals to 
victimize individuals and taxpayers in general. This hearing 
will examine these problems, probe the response of Federal, 
State and local governments and solicit solutions.
    b. Witnesses.--Jeffrey S. Jordan, Special Agent, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; State Representative Dale 
Folwell; Thomas Keith, district attorney, 21st Judicial 
District; Debra Conrad-Shrader, vice-chair, Forsyth County 
Board of Commissioners; and Brandon Holland, Forsyth County 
director, Zero Armed Perpetrators [ZAP] Program.
31. ``Transit Zone Operations: Can We Sustain Record Seizures with 
        Declining Resources?'' April 26, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the effectiveness of the 
U.S. drug enforcement efforts in the transit zone. In addition 
to the obvious loss of lives and productivity to narcotic 
usage, smuggling transportation groups are capable of smuggling 
not only drugs, but also aliens, terrorists, and weapons. 
Therefore, if the United States increases its ability to 
interdict narcotics in the transit zone, we also increase our 
effectiveness at stopping the smuggling of aliens, terrorists 
and weapons.
    b. Witnesses.--James F.X. O'Gara, Deputy Director of Supply 
Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Rear Admiral 
Jeffrey Hathaway, Director, Joint Interagency Task Force, 
South; Michael Braun, Director of Operations, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; Rear Admiral Wayne Justice Assistant Commandant 
for Enforcement and Incident Management, USCG; Major General 
Michael Kostelnik, USAF (retired), Assistant Commissioner for 
Customs and Border Protection, Office of Air and Marine; and 
Rear Admiral Alvaro Echandia, Chief of Naval Intelligence, 
Colombian Navy.
32. ``RU-486: Demonstrating a Low Standard for Women's Health?'' May 
        17, 2006
    a. Summary.--The Food and Drug Administration in September 
2000 approved RU-486, aka mifepristone or Mifeprex--trade 
name--as a form of abortion through 49 days of pregnancy. Since 
its approval, at least seven women have died subsequent to 
taking RU-486; there have been at least 857 reported unique 
adverse events--as of August 2005--associated with this drug, 
at least 46 of which were life-threatening, and over 500 of 
which required surgical interventions. The risk of death using 
RU-486 is 10 times that of surgical abortion during the first 7 
weeks of pregnancy. The most recent death associated with this 
drug was reported by the FDA on March 17, 2006. This hearing 
examined the unsafe characteristics of RU-486, the reported 
maternal deaths and adverse events associated with it, and 
FDA's actions regarding the RU-486 abortion regimen since its 
approval.
    b. Witnesses.--Janet Woodcock, M.D., Deputy Commissioner 
for Operations, Food and Drug Administration [FDA]; Monty 
Patterson, father of Holly Patterson who was 18 years old when 
she died after taking RU-486; Susan Wood, Ph.D., Former FDA 
Assistant Commissioner for Women's Health; Lisa D. Rarick, 
M.D., RAR Consulting, LLC; Donna Harrison, M.D., member, 
Mifeprex Subcommittee of American Association of Prolife 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and O. Carter Snead, associate 
professor of law, University of Notre Dame, former general 
counsel for the President's Council on Bioethics.
33. ``Fiscal Year 2007 Drug Control Budget and the Byrne Grant, HIDTA, 
        and Other Law Enforcement Programs: Are We Jeopardizing 
        Federal, State and Local Cooperation?'' May 23, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the 
President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal as it relates to 
programs designed to help State and local drug enforcement, 
including the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants 
(``Byrne Grants''), the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
[HIDTA] and modifications to Office of Justice Programs [OJP] 
at the Justice Department. The subcommittee analyzed the 
strategy for Federal, State and local cooperation underlying 
these proposals.
    b. Witnesses.--Regina Schofield, Assistant Attorney 
General, Office of Justice Programs [OJP], U.S. Department of 
Justice; Stuart Nash, Associate Deputy Attorney General and 
Director, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force [OCDETF], 
U.S. Department of Justice; Scott Burns, Deputy Director for 
State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control 
Policy; Ron Brooks, president, National Narcotics Officers' 
Associations' Coalition, director, Northern California HIDTA; 
Tom Carr, director, Washington-Baltimore HIDTA; Tom Donahue, 
director, Chicago HIDTA; Abraham Azzam, director, Southeast 
Michigan HIDTA; and John Burke, director, Southwest Ohio 
Regional Drug Task Force [SWORD].
34. ``Evaluating the Synthetic Drug Control Strategy,'' June 16, 2006
    a. Summary.--The long-awaited Synthetic Drug Control 
Strategy--with an anticipated emphasis on methamphetamine--was 
due to be released by the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy on June 1st. With the near-universal recognition that 
methamphetamine addiction has become an epidemic, it was 
imperative that the Federal Government provide the best 
possible leadership and vision on this pressing social and law 
enforcement problem. This hearing sought to examine the new 
strategy and gather input on it from various Federal, State and 
private agencies who have played key roles in the fight against 
this drug.
    b. Witnesses.--Scott Burns, Deputy Director for State and 
Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Uttam 
Dhillon, Director, Office of Counter-Narcotics Enforcement, 
Department of Homeland Security; Joseph Rannazzissi, Deputy 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration; Dr. Don Young, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and 
Human Services; Eric Coleman, Oakland County commissioner (MI), 
National Association of Counties; Dr. Lewis E. Gallant, 
executive director, National Association of State Alcohol and 
Drug Abuse Directors; Sherry Green, executive director, 
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws; Sue Thau, public 
policy consultant, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; 
and Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers' 
Associations' Coalition and director of Northern California 
HIDTA.
35. ``Clinical Lab Quality: Oversight Weaknesses Undermine Federal 
        Standards,'' June 27, 2006
    a. Summary.--At the joint request of subcommittee Chairman 
Mark Souder and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, the GAO studied 
oversight of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 
1998 [CLIA] by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
[CMS].
    CLIA strengthened and extended quality requirements for 
labs that perform tests to diagnose or treat disease. About 
36,000 labs that perform certain complex tests must be surveyed 
biennially by either a State or one of six private accrediting 
organizations. CMS oversees implementation of CLIA requirements 
and the activities of survey organizations. The GAO examined 
(1) the quality of lab testing; (2) the effectiveness of 
surveys, complaint investigations, and enforcement actions in 
detecting lab problems; and (3) the adequacy of CMS oversight 
of the CLIA program. This hearing explored GAO's findings and 
recommendations.
    b. Witnesses.--Leslie Aronovitz, Director, Health Division, 
Government Accountability Office; Dr. Thomas Hamilton, 
Director, Survey and Certification Group, Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services; Dennis S. O'Leary, M.D., president, Joint Commission 
on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; Thomas Sodeman, 
M.D., president, College of American Pathologists; and Doug 
Beigel, chief executive officer, COLA.
36. ``Availability and Effectiveness of Programs to Treat Victims of 
        the Methamphetamine Epidemic,'' June 28, 2006
    a. Summary.--Methamphetamine use in the United States 
continues at epidemic levels. This highly addictive drug is 
difficult to overcome in treatment, and the relapse rate for 
meth users seeking treatment is very high. This hearing 
examined the availability and success of treatment programs 
seeking to help recovering methamphetamine addicts.
    b. Witnesses.--Bertha Madras, Deputy Director for Demand 
Reduction, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy; 
Nora D. Volkow, M.D., Director, National Institute on Drug 
Abuse, National Institutes of Health; Charles Curie, 
Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration [SAMHSA], Department of Health and Human 
Services; Russell Cronkhite, recovered meth addict; Darren and 
Aaronette Noble, recovered meth addicts, and son Joey Binkley; 
Richard A. Rawson, Ph.D., associate director, Integrated 
Substance Abuse Programs, UCLA; Leah Heaston, MSW, LCSW, ACSW, 
SAP, Noble County director, Otis R. Bowen Center for Human 
Services; Michael Harle, president and CEO, Gaudenzia, Inc.; 
and Pat Fleming, director, Salt Lake County Substance Abuse 
Services.
37. ``The Methamphetamine Epidemic in Colorado,'' July 7, 2006 
        (Loveland, CO)
    a. Summary.--This hearing, the 15th in a series of hearings 
held by the subcommittee since 2001 on methamphetamine abuse, 
continued our work on this significant and growing problem. The 
subcommittee examined the state of methamphetamine trafficking, 
production and abuse in Colorado and how the Federal Government 
can assist State and local authorities in combating this 
growing problem. The hearing provided an opportunity for 
representatives of Federal, State and local agencies with 
experience in fighting methamphetamine trafficking and abuse to 
discuss these issues and suggest solutions.
    b. Witnesses.--Jeff Sweetin, Assistant Special Agent-in-
Charge, Denver District Office, Drug Enforcement 
Administration; Larry Abrahamson, district attorney, 8th 
Judicial District; Ken Buck, district attorney, 19th Judicial 
District; John Cooke, Weld County Sheriff; Lt. Craig Dodd, 
commander, Larimer County Drug Task Force; Janet Rowland, Mesa 
County commissioner; Robert Watson, district attorney, 13th 
Judicial District; and Donita Davenport.
38. ``Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Security,'' July 11, 2006
    a. Summary.--Counterfeit prescription drugs are illegal and 
unsafe, and pose a serious threat to the public health and 
safety. Recent estimates by various researchers and the World 
Health Organization indicate counterfeit drugs represent as 
high as 50 percent of the total pharmaceutical supply. Global 
trade and the Internet have increased the international 
accessibility and movement of counterfeit drugs.
    The U.S. drug supply chain has become increasingly 
vulnerable to a variety of threats. Counterfeit drugs often 
travel through a distribution network of wholesalers, 
distributors, pharmacies, online shell companies, and criminal 
organizations buying, selling and re-selling through unofficial 
channels with little product integrity.
    There are a number of measures that can be taken to provide 
integrity to the drug supply chain. This hearing focused on the 
scope of counterfeit drugs entering the supply chain and anti-
counterfeiting measures that can be taken to eliminate the 
problem.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Randall W. Lutter, Acting Associate 
Commissioner for Policy and Planning, Food and Drug 
Administration; Kevin Delli-Colli, Deputy Assistant Director, 
Financial and Trade Investigations Division, Office of 
Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
Carmen Catizone, executive director, National Association of 
Boards of Pharmacy; Susan C. Winckler, esq., vice president, 
Policy and Communications, American Pharmacists Association; 
John M. Gray, president and CEO, Healthcare Distribution 
Management Association [HDMA]; and Rick Raber, project manager, 
Northern Apex, RFID.
39. ``Fencing the Border: Construction Options and Strategic 
        Placement,'' July 20, 2006
    a. Summary.--In light of immigration legislation passed by 
the Senate and the House, a sense has clearly developed in 
Congress that fencing along the southwest border should be 
expanded and strengthened as a means of deterring drug 
traffickers and illegal aliens. This hearing examined the 
latest proposals in light of recent experience, particularly 
regarding the fencing in the San Diego sector of the border.
    Fencing the border in precise areas proposes particular 
challenges. On December 16, 2005, the U.S. House of 
Representatives passed a new immigration bill, H.R. 4437. More 
specifically, the Hunter Amendment, H. Amdt. 648, it mandates 
the construction of 854 miles of double-layer, security-
specific fencing--not vehicle barriers--including lights and 
cameras, along the southwest border. It requires the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to provide at least two layers of 
reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical 
barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors at five 
specified locations. Moreover, on May 17, 2006, the Senate 
voted 83-16 on S. 2611 to construct, within 2 years, 370 miles 
of triple-layer fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in 
areas along the southwest border that DHS determines are most 
often used by smugglers and illegal aliens attempting to gain 
illegal entry. These proposals demand serious investigation 
into construction options and the challenges that may arise.
    b. Witnesses.--Representative Duncan Hunter; Representative 
Stevan Pearce; Representative Silvestre Reyes; Kevin Stevens of 
Customs and Border Protection; Representative Steve King of 
Iowa; Douglas Barnhart, president of Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc., 
vice-president of the Association of General Contractors; 
Carlton Mann, Chief Inspector of the Office of Inspections and 
Special Reviews of the Department of Homeland Security's Office 
of Inspector General; Art Mayne, specifications writer for 
Merchants Metals; Don Williams of Roadrunner Planning and 
Consulting, consultant for Power Contracting, Inc.; and T.J. 
Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council.
40. ``Prescription Drug Abuse: What is Being Done to Address this New 
        Drug Epidemic?'' July 26, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing addressed a very important aspect 
of drug abuse in our country: the non-medical use of 
prescription drugs as a form of drug abuse. Prescription drug 
abuse is second only to marijuana abuse. In the most recent 
Household Survey, initiations to drug abuse started with 
prescription drugs--especially pain medications--more often 
than with marijuana. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has 
emphasized the significance of the problem of prescription drug 
abuse, engaging in research to address the problem, and calling 
for development of abuse-resistant medications; the Food and 
Drug Administration and Drug Enforcement Agency have both noted 
their efforts to work together to address prescription drug 
abuse, but the practical steps taken by FDA and DEA together 
are unclear. Indirect costs associated with prescription drug 
abuse and diversion include product theft, commission of other 
crimes to support addiction, law enforcement costs, and 
encouraging the practice of defensive medicine.
    Witnesses from the Food and Drug Administration and the 
Drug Enforcement Administration discussed those agencies' 
efforts to address this growing drug epidemic. The Office of 
National Drug Control Policy also participated in the hearing 
on demand reduction and policies targeting prescription drug 
abuse. A representative from the National Institute on Drug 
Abuse discussed that Institute's research portfolio and 
initiatives in the area of prescription drug abuse. Other 
witnesses included mothers who lost their children to 
prescription drug abuse; a representative from a pharmaceutical 
company developing an abuse-resistant formulation of highly-
abused oxycodone; a representative from an interventional pain 
physicians group; and representatives from anti-drug 
organizations.
    b. Witnesses.--Bertha Madras, Deputy Director for Demand 
Reduction, White House Office of National Drug Policy; Nora D. 
Volkow, M.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
National Institutes of Health; Sandra Kweder, M.D., Deputy 
Director, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Review, Food and Drug Administration; Joe Rannazzisi, Deputy 
Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration; Misty Fetco, registered nurse who 
lost her 18-year-old son Carl to DXM and Fetanyl abuse; Linda 
Surks, lost her 19-year-old son Jason to a prescription drug 
overdose related death; Barbara van Rooyan, lost her 24-year-
old son Patrick to Oxycontin use; Mathea Falco, J.D., 
president, Drug Strategies; Stephen E. Johnson, executive 
director, commercial planning, Pain Therapeutics, Inc.; 
Laxmaiah Manchikanti, M.D., chief executive officer, American 
Society for Interventional Pain Physicians; and Steve Pasierb, 
president and CEO, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
41. ``The National Parks of Alaska,'' August 14, 2006 (Anchorage, AK)
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the ninth in a series of 
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks. 
The series examined park preservation and maintenance, as well 
as law enforcement and homeland security issues. This hearing 
focused on the park units of Alaska and the unique role and 
challenges of NPS units in Alaska.
    b. Witnesses.--Marcia Blazsak, Regional Director, Alaska 
Region, National Park Service; Michael Menge, commissioner, 
Alaska Department of Natural Resources; James Stratton, 
regional director for the Alaska Office, National Park 
Conservation Association; Ron Peck, president, Alaska Travel 
Industry Association; Rick Kenyon, publisher, Wrangell St., 
Elias News; and John Shively, vice president, government and 
community relations, Holland America.
42. ``Empowering Local Law Enforcement to Combat Illegal Immigration,'' 
        August 25, 2006 (Gastonia, NC)
    a. Summary.--This hearing explored what is needed for State 
and local law enforcement to make a greater impact on the 
problem of illegal immigration, particularly with regard to 
those aliens who are committing crimes. One promising method is 
the Sec. 287(G) training provided by Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement which, when completed, delegates authority to State 
and local officers to make administrative arrests of illegal 
aliens.
    b. Witnesses.--Kenneth A. Smith, Special Agent-in-Charge, 
Atlanta Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]; Alan 
Cloninger, sheriff of Gaston County; Michael Lands, district 
attorney of Gaston County; Jim Pendergraph, sheriff of 
Mecklenburg County; and Emily Moose.
43. ``Combating Youth Violence: What Federal, State and Local 
        Governments are Doing to Deter Youth Crime,'' October 3, 2006 
        (Los Angeles, CA)
    a. Summary.--Many of the factors that contribute to the 
rise of gang culture and youth violence are present in southern 
California, particularly in Los Angeles County. The purpose of 
this hearing was to explore what government officials at all 
levels--as well as various private entities and community 
leaders--are doing to suppress gang activity and to prevent the 
culture of gangs and violence from taking root in the hearts of 
vulnerable young people.
    b. Witnesses.--Robert B. Loosle, Special Agent in Charge, 
Criminal Division, Los Angeles FBI; John A. Torres, Special 
Agent in Charge, LA Field Division, ATF; Danny Trejo, film 
actor and former gang member; Chief Ronnie Williams, Los 
Angeles Sheriff's Department; Jerald Cavitt, former gang 
member; Captain Regina Scott Patrol Commanding Officer, 
Southwest Division, Los Angeles Police Department; Charlotte 
Jordan, CEO, Mothers on the March; Dan Isaacs, chief operating 
officer, Los Angeles Unified School District; Eddie Jones, 
president, LA Civil Rights Association; and Reverend Dr. Clyde 
W. Oden, Jr., senior pastor at Bryant Temple AME Church, board 
member of the African American Summit on Violence Prevention.

                                 OTHER

    1. Abstinence and its Critics.--First posted on our Web 
site on October 27th, this 33-page staff report is a 
comprehensive response to the so-called ``Waxman Report,'' 
which was put out by the Democrat staff of the Government 
Reform Committee in December 2004. The Waxman Report attacked 
Federal funding of abstinence-based education and sought to 
discredit the most widely-used abstinence curricula. Despite 
its shallow research and reliance on misleading or erroneous 
statements, the Waxman Report has been trumpeted as the 
definitive indictment of abstinence curricula.
    The subcommittee's report is a thorough, well-researched 
debunking of the minority effort. To enable readers to make 
their own judgment, a copy of the Waxman Report is attached as 
an appendix.
    2. FDA and RU-486: Lowering the Standards for Women's 
Health.--First posted on our Web site in October, this 40 page 
staff report is a comprehensive study of the failure of the FDA 
to apply required standards when it approved this dangerous 
abortion regimen. With meticulous research and analysis, the 
report documents the unacceptable consequences for women's 
health and demonstrates why action ought to be taken to 
withdraw FDA's hurried and ill-considered approval of this 
drug.
    3. Afghanistan and Opium: A Primer.--Posted on our Web site 
in October 2006, this 37 page staff report provides a 
comprehensive overview of opium poppy cultivation and heroin 
production in Afghanistan. The report draws on a wide range of 
resources to provide the reader with an understanding of the 
magnitude of the problem faced in Afghanistan. It includes a 
review of U.S. Government agencies and programs engaged in the 
counter-drug effort in that country, as well as a view of the 
obstacles.
    4. 2006 Congressional Drug Control Budget and Policy 
Assessment: A Review of the 2007 National Drug Control Budget 
and 2006 National Drug Control Strategy.--This 146-page report 
was approved and adopted by the full committee on March 9, 
2006. It is an exhaustive investigation of the drug control 
efforts of every Federal agency that is involved in drug 
control, with policy analysis and assessment of the National 
Drug Control Strategy.

               III. Subcommittee on Energy and Resources

1. ``Energy Demand in the 21st Century: Are Congress and the Executive 
        Branch Meeting the Challenge?'' March 16, 2005
    a. Summary.--The United States consumes 25 percent of the 
world's energy supply. Of the global supply, we consume 43 
percent of motor gasoline, 25 percent of crude petroleum, 25 
percent of natural gas, and 26 percent of electricity. Our 
appetite for energy has certainly led to a dynamic economy and 
economic growth, with suppliers eager to meet U.S. energy 
requirements. However, rapidly growing demand from the 
developing world, particularly China, has helped contribute to 
volatility in fuel prices.
    The current continuing volatility in fuel supplies and 
prices, which began in late spring of 1999, has been the fourth 
significant episode since 1973. By necessity, Americans are 
more aware of the extent to which the U.S. economy and 
lifestyle depends on inexpensive and plentiful energy. Although 
it may be accurate to view this 30-year period as one of 
general price and supply stability that is periodically broken 
by shorter periods of supply disruption and price volatility, 
further analysis reveals the current situation we are 
experiencing is substantially different from the previous 
episodes in a number of critical respects, especially taking 
into account increasing demand in the world market.
    Considering price instability and the potential for 
continued high prices in the context of the current domestic 
and international energy situation--increasing world demand and 
declining U.S. oil production--it is exceedingly important that 
Congress focus on the key energy issues confronting the United 
States. Is Congress asking the right questions, including 
whether Federal Government agencies are taking the right kind 
of actions to meet U.S. needs?
    Over the past three decades it has been difficult to 
achieve widespread consensus on national energy policy. 
Achieving a delicate balance between competing interests is a 
time consuming process. The impact of energy development on the 
environment, the structure of economic incentives for 
increasing exploration and the development of new technologies, 
and different regional interests largely account for the lack 
of an enacted energy bill in the 108th Congress, despite a 
conference report being filed for H.R. 6.
    The hearing addressed: a) whether or not Congress focused 
on the key energy issues confronting the United States at that 
time; b) whether or not Federal Government agencies took the 
right actions to meet U.S. energy requirements in the 21st 
century; c) how domestic supply and increasing international 
demand for energy were affecting the United States; d) the 
factors that contributed to volatility in fuel supply prices; 
and e) how the United States could continue to meet domestic 
demand for energy while simultaneously ensuring the future 
reliability, affordability, and sustainability of the energy 
supply.
    b. Witnesses.--Jim Wells, Director, Natural Resources and 
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO]; Guy 
Caruso, Administrator, Energy Information Administration, 
Department of Energy; and Paul Portney, president, Resources 
for the Future.
2. ``America's Energy Needs as Our National Security Policy,'' April 6, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--Miguel Unzueta, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, Special Agent in Energy is a critical driver of 
the United States and world economies. United States and global 
living standards cannot continue to rise without increasing 
energy consumption. Affordable, reliable, and sustainable 
energy supplies are essential to our national security and 
global commitments. Meeting rising energy needs is not just a 
domestic problem. It is now a global problem and issue.
    The U.S. economy is becoming more energy efficient, and 
this trend will continue. Since 1950, the amount of energy 
needed to produce each dollar of U.S. GDP has been reduced by 
48 percent. Since 1970, U.S. GDP increased 164 percent as 
energy consumption increased 42 percent. Innovation in 
developing new technologies plays a large part in both better 
efficiency and driving further energy demand as we integrate 
items such as the personal computer, new media, and better 
communications devices into our daily lives. However, since 
1970 U.S. vehicle miles traveled have increased 155 percent as 
our economy has become more dependent on energy imports.
    High demand growth for oil and natural gas in the global 
market, particularly in China, has led to a tightening of 
supplies and high prices. In March 2005, crude oil prices 
topped $57 per barrel, a 32 percent increase since the end of 
2004. At the time of this hearing, gasoline prices had 
increased 27 cents per gallon since January 1, 2005, and 33 
cents per gallon since last year at the same time. Unlike 
previous periods of price volatility, this one is demand-driven 
and not caused by supply restrictions instituted by OPEC or 
political upheaval.
    The United States now relies on oil imports for nearly 60 
percent of consumption, and this figure is expected to rise, 
with the Department of Energy forecasting imports to represent 
two-thirds of the supply needed in 2020. At the same time, 
internationally we are competing for a world commodity that 
will see ever greater growth in demand rates.
    These factors have caused a shift in energy geopolitics. 
China, now the second largest importer and consumer of oil in 
the world, has employed increasingly aggressive tactics in 
securing access to oil and natural gas, and it has not 
hesitated to seek out sources controlled by governments hostile 
to U.S. interests. China receives 15 percent of its oil from 
Iran and 6 percent from Sudan. China recently executed a number 
of agreements with Venezuela, with the goal of granting Chinese 
oil companies preferential access to oil and gas projects in 
Venezuela. In addition, China is seeking out unconventional 
opportunities, including new investment in Canadian oil sands, 
which until recently were considered not economically viable 
for production purposes.
    At the same time, national or State-owned oil companies are 
turning away from their traditionally insular roles and are 
pursuing contracting opportunities that were previously the 
reserve of international oil companies. This development is of 
particular concern since government-controlled companies 
already manage 72 percent of the world's oil reserves, 55 
percent of gas reserves, and more than half of current world 
oil production.
    Considering these developments, it is extremely important 
for Congress to reassess the role of energy in our national 
security. While the goals of energy independence and energy 
self-sufficiency have received headlines, given market 
conditions, technological advancements, and forecasts through 
2025, the ability of the United States or almost any 
industrialized country to meet 100 percent of domestic energy 
needs without imports is unrealistic.
    However, the United States must ensure it is not dependent 
on unreliable or unfriendly sources of energy to a point where 
national security interests are compromised or the economy 
experiences marked and prolonged negative effects. As noted in 
recent articles in the national press, a number of influential 
former national security officials and activists across the 
political spectrum have banded together to address U.S. oil 
consumption, energy demand, and national security. We cannot 
achieve our strategic goals without a long-term plan--a 
comprehensive national energy policy incorporating incentives 
for increased domestic production of traditional and non-
traditional resources, the development of new technologies, and 
the promotion of conservation.
    The hearing addressed: a) what could be done to ensure 
affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy for the U.S. 
economy; b) how concerned the United States should be regarding 
the growing number of bilateral agreements and alliances 
between China, Russia, and other countries; and c) how the 
global energy supply and demand situation affects the United 
States and world economies in addition to U.S. foreign policy 
options and international commitments.
    b. Witnesses.--Jeffrey Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary, 
Department of Energy; R. James Woolsey, former Director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency; Ambassador Robert Hormats, vice 
chairman, Goldman Sachs International; and Robert E. Ebel, 
chairman, Energy Program, Center for Strategic and 
International Studies.
3. ``The Role of Nuclear Power Generation in a Comprehensive National 
        Energy Policy,'' April 28, 2005
    a. Summary.--Nuclear power plants currently generate a 
significant proportion of the Nation's electricity. Projected 
growth in electricity demand, volatile fossil fuel prices, and 
environmental concerns have revitalized interest in nuclear 
generation in the United States and elsewhere in the world. 
Nuclear power is a proven, emission-free source of electricity 
that can contribute to the security of energy supplies and the 
stability of prices.
    Today's operating nuclear power plants are consistent high 
performers in the U.S. electricity generation system, 
accounting for 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. Second 
only to coal, nuclear power is a primary source of the Nation's 
baseload power--the power that electric utility companies must 
deliver all day long. 103 licensed reactors, operating at 65 
sites in 31 States, produced a record 824 billion kilowatt 
hours [kWh] of electricity in 2004--more than the Nation's 
entire electrical output in the early 1960s, when the first 
large-scale commercial reactors were ordered.
    Our Nation's electricity demand continues to grow as the 
population increases, the economy expands, and elements of our 
daily life become increasingly electrified. In 2003, the Nation 
used 3.5 billion kWh of electricity and official forecasts call 
for electricity use to increase 50 percent by 2025. The Energy 
Information Administration [EIA] attributes this growth to 
increased industrial output; an increase in residential 
electricity use for heating, cooling, and lighting as average 
home size increases; and projected increases in the amount of 
electricity used for air conditioning as the U.S. population 
shifts to warmer climates. Hundreds of new power plants of all 
types will be needed by 2025--mostly after 2010--to satisfy the 
Nation's growing appetite for electricity. EIA estimates that 
this growth in demand, coupled with the retirement of older, 
inefficient plants, means that the Nation will need 281 
gigawatts of new electrical generation capacity.
    Due in large part to fears regarding plant safety created 
by the accident at Three Mile Island, no nuclear power plants 
have been ordered in the United States since 1978 and more than 
100 reactor orders have been canceled, including all orders 
placed after 1973. Both the nuclear power industry and the 
Department of Energy project that virtually all of the 103 
commercial power plants will renew their operating licenses for 
an additional 20 years, but nuclear power is expected to 
experience a mere 9 percent growth in generating capacity--
nowhere near the 41 new 1,000 megawatt plants needed by 2025 
just to maintain nuclear power's 20 percent share of the 
Nation's electricity generation.
    Concerns regarding the security of energy supply, fossil 
fuel price volatility, and air quality have prompted renewed 
consideration of nuclear power options by utilities and 
industry observers. Considering whether and how to maintain or 
expand nuclear power's share of U.S. electricity generation in 
the coming decades, rather than allowing its share to shrink, 
is an essential component of crafting a comprehensive national 
energy policy. This hearing sought to identify the role of 
nuclear power in meeting America's electricity demand in the 
21st century, the extent of the challenges faced by the 
industry in building new nuclear power generators, thus 
determining how these issues could be addressed by a 
comprehensive energy policy.
    The hearing addressed: a) the advantages and disadvantages 
of maintaining or expanding nuclear power's role in providing 
the new electricity generation capacity required by 2025; b) 
the optimum blend of stimulus measures to encourage new 
construction of nuclear generating capacity; and c) the 
consequences of allowing the U.S. nuclear power production 
capacity to atrophy.
    b. Witnesses.--Donald Jones, vice president and senior 
economist, RCF Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc.; Marvin 
Fertel, senior vice president for business operations, Nuclear 
Energy Institute; and Patrick Moore, chairman and chief 
scientist, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.
4. ``Gasoline: What's Causing Record Prices at the Pump?'' May 9, 2005 
        (San Diego, CA )
    a. Summary.--At the date of this hearing, gasoline prices 
had been rising steadily for months. Prices had reached 
national average highs although, when adjusted for inflation, 
they were below the March 1981 inflation-adjusted peak of 
$3.10. Prices had increased 46 cents per gallon since January 
1, 2005, climbing to a peak price of $2.28 per gallon. It 
should be noted that consumers in California generally have 
higher fuel costs than the rest of the country.
    Good weather and vacations cause U.S. summer gasoline 
demand to average approximately 5 percent higher than during 
the rest of the year, and there is always concern that gasoline 
prices will continue to rise in the summer months when demand 
is greatest. Increased gasoline prices affect every sector of 
the American economy and have a dramatic impact on the 
pocketbooks of everyday families.
    Global oil demand, constraints on refinery capacity, 
petroleum infrastructure limitations and the number of 
specialized fuel blends in the United States are all 
contributing to the gasoline price problem.
    The hearing addressed: a) how fluctuations in crude oil 
prices at that time affected the price of gasoline; b) the 
potential demand-side and supply-side solutions to reduce 
gasoline prices at that time; c) policies that could 
potentially provide a more secure and affordable domestic 
supply of gasoline in the long-term; d) why refinery capacity 
has failed to keep pace with demand for gasoline; e) the 
regulatory difficulties and costs associated with building, 
expanding, and maintaining refinery facilities; and f) how 
varying fuel specifications across the country affect U.S. 
gasoline prices.
    b. Witnesses.--John Cook, Director of the Petroleum 
Division, Office of Oil and Gas, Energy Information 
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; Jim Wells, Director, 
Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Pat Perez, Transportation Energy 
Division, California Energy Commission; and Rayola Dougher, 
manager, energy market issues, American Petroleum Institute.
5. ``Ensuring the Reliability of the Nation's Electricity System,'' 
        June 8, 2005
    a. Summary.--Meeting the Nation's increasing electricity 
demand is essential to powering our economy. According to 
Energy Information Administration figures, electricity demand 
in the United States is forecast to rise 50 percent by 2025. A 
competitive electricity marketplace must ensure reliability of 
the system and reasonable prices in the wholesale and retail 
markets.
    The U.S. electricity system is considered to be among the 
most reliable in the world. Any major outage is international 
news because of the rarity of transmission problems. 
Reliability of the electric grid is defined in terms of its 
adequacy and security. Adequacy refers to the supply needed to 
meet aggregate demand at all times, and security refers to 
having a robust system able to withstand sudden disturbances or 
unanticipated loss of system elements.
    The traditional U.S. transmission system of utilities 
serving local customers in monopoly service areas was developed 
to fit the regulatory framework codified in the 1920 Federal 
Power Act. Because of unreliable service, high consumer rates, 
and unstable holding company ownership structures, the Public 
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and the 1935 Federal Power 
Act were enacted to eliminate unfair practices and other abuses 
by electricity and gas holding companies by requiring Federal 
control and regulation of interstate public utility holding 
companies. States were responsible for most regulation since 
utilities were largely limited to natural monopolies serving a 
defined customer base within a State. The Federal authority, 
now known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, was 
responsible for regulation of the transmission and sale of 
interstate, wholesale bulk power--defined as electricity 
generation and high-voltage transmission.
    In the last 30 years, the electric utility industry has 
been in a process of transformation. In the past few decades, 
the electricity marketplace has moved beyond the 1935 Federal 
legal framework that favored the legacy ``natural'' monopoly 
system. The system has been superseded by developments in 
technology and new ownership structures, which demonstrated 
that monopolies are not a requirement for efficient delivery of 
electricity.
    Since the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, new 
entities have been formed to generate and sell electricity at 
the wholesale level in a largely deregulated environment. 
However, the transmission grid infrastructure continues to be 
heavily regulated. At the State level, 24 States and the 
District of Columbia moved to increase the role of competition 
in retail markets, presumably lowering prices and offering 
customers more choice.
    In practice the results of patchwork deregulation and 
restructuring have been inconsistent. Management, investment, 
and maintenance of the electricity system have varied widely 
across geographic regions, as evidenced by the experience of 
California and the August 14, 2003, northeast-midwest blackout. 
The bulk power system is now being used in ways for which it 
was not designed. As a result of these developments, a number 
of States have halted their efforts to further deregulate and 
open up retail markets to competition.
    Ensuring the reliability of the electricity system must be 
a priority for the Nation. This hearing assessed the status of 
the system within the current regulatory environment, 
challenges to investment in transmission infrastructure and 
capacity, and how these issues must be addressed as part of a 
comprehensive energy policy.
    The hearing addressed: a) the status of the Nation's 
electricity system in terms of reliability, and what had taken 
place since the August 2003 blackout; b) how the transmission 
system could meet electricity demand under a patchwork 
regulatory regime; c) measures to ensure a robust 
infrastructure and adequate management and coordination of the 
system going forward; and d) the critical components of a 
comprehensive energy policy to meet the electricity reliability 
needs of a growing economy.
    b. Witnesses.--Pat Wood III, chairman, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission; Michehl R. Gent, president and CEO, 
North American Electric Reliability Council; and David Owens, 
executive vice president, Edison Electric Institute.
6. ``The Next Generation of Nuclear Power,'' June 29, 2005
    a. Summary.--Nuclear energy has recently been the subject 
of renewed interest due to concerns over the security of energy 
supplies, fossil fuel price volatility, and air quality, as 
well the recently articulated national goals for developing a 
hydrogen economy.
    At present, 103 licensed reactors are generating power in 
31 States. In 2004, nuclear generators produced a record 824 
billion kilowatt hours of electricity, accounting for 20 
percent of the Nation's electricity'second only to coal. 
Nuclear energy provides over three-quarters of the Nation's 
emission-free electricity. No new nuclear power plants have 
been ordered in the United States since 1978, and more than 100 
reactor orders have been canceled, including all orders placed 
since 1973.
    All existing commercial nuclear reactors operating in the 
United States are light water reactors of two types: 
pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. These 
designs have an excellent safety operating record and generate 
a reliable electricity supply, but the possibilities for the 
use of nuclear energy could be broadened by advances in nuclear 
system design. The Department of Energy is currently engaged in 
developing and demonstrating a new generation of nuclear energy 
systems built on proven fission theory that offer enhanced 
safety design and improved efficiency.
    This hearing sought to investigate these next generation 
nuclear technologies including: a) the administration's level 
of commitment to the Next Generation Nuclear Power Plant; b) 
how the government could further promote the development of 
Generative IV nuclear power technology; and c) long term 
benefits that will result from developing Generation IV nuclear 
power.
    b. Witnesses.--Robert Shane Johnson, Acting Director, 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of 
Energy; Dr. David Baldwin, senior vice president, General 
Atomics; Dr. Rowan Rowntree, independent scientist; and Dave 
Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer, Union of Concerned 
Scientists.
7. ``The Hydrogen Economy: Is it Attainable? When?'' July 27, 2005
    a. Summary.--Oil demand is increasing worldwide, the vast 
majority of proven reserves are located in increasingly 
unstable regions, prices are rising, and environmental concern 
surrounding the development and use of fossil fuels is 
increasing. As a Nation, we must reduce our dependence on 
foreign supplies of energy in a manner that is affordable and 
preserves environmental quality.
    The United States is increasingly dependent on imported 
energy sources to power the vast majority of the country's 
vehicles and drive the Nation's growing economy. Imported oil 
now accounts for nearly 60 percent of consumption, and this 
figure is expected to rise to nearly two-thirds by 2020. The 
Nation's increasing reliance on overseas oil imports acts as a 
drag on our economy. This year, high oil prices will likely 
account for more than a third of the greater than $600 billion 
annual trade deficit. Furthermore, all too often the foreign 
sources on which the United States depends for these fuels are 
located in insecure regions of the world and, in some cases, 
are under the control of nations which have proven hostile to 
U.S. interests.
    At a time when national security is at the forefront of our 
policy discussions, governments, oil companies, automobile 
manufacturers, and electric utility industries around the world 
are all starting to look toward hydrogen as the major energy 
carrier for the future. Hydrogen is the most abundant element 
in the universe and its only emission is water vapor. Hydrogen 
holds the potential to be the backbone of a safe, clean, and 
sustainable energy system for the Nation's future.
    However, clean, efficient, and cost-effective hydrogen 
production is a significant challenge. Hydrogen is not a fuel 
that exists in nature in a readily usable form, such as oil or 
coal. Rather, it more closely resembles electricity--an energy 
carrier that must be generated from another fuel source. 
Moreover, commercially viable technologies to store and 
efficiently convert hydrogen into energy appear to be years 
away.
    In 2003, the President prudently announced an ambitious 
initiative to move the Nation closer to energy independence and 
long-term energy sustainability by shifting to a hydrogen-based 
economy. The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative seeks to lay the 
foundation needed to transition to an economy powered not by 
hydrocarbons, but by hydrogen. This hearing assessed how and 
when this goal might be attained.
    The hearing addressed: a) whether or not the Department of 
Energy's timeline for transitioning to a hydrogen economy is 
attainable; b) the Department of Energy's response to the 
National Academy of Sciences' recommendations regarding the 
implementation of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative; c) how the 
Department of Energy has supported State initiatives to 
implement hydrogen programs and what more could be done; and d) 
the demonstration projects that are needed to advance the 
transition to a hydrogen economy.
    b. Witnesses.--Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Richard 
M. Russell, Associate Director for Technology, Office of 
Science and Technology Policy; Alan Lloyd, secretary, 
California Environmental Protection Agency; Dennis Campbell, 
CEO, Ballard Power Systems; Lawrence D. Burns, vice president 
of research and development, General Motors Corp.; Mujid 
Kazimi, director, Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Daniel Sperling, 
director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of 
California at Davis.
8. ``Meeting America's Natural Gas Demand: Are We in a Crisis?'' 
        September 14, 2005
    a. Summary.--Natural gas prices have been at record highs 
because of an ongoing tight supply and demand situation in the 
United States, and Hurricane Katrina has put increased pressure 
on markets. Demand has stressed the capacity of the market to 
deliver. Hurricane Katrina added a supply-side shock by 
shutting-in a significant volume of Gulf of Mexico production 
and causing pipelines to operate at reduced capacity. Natural 
gas prices rose 14 percent more than the price for crude oil in 
the immediate wake of the hurricane. According to the Energy 
Information Administration [EIA], this winter the cost to heat 
homes that use natural gas will be 52 percent higher as a 
nationwide average, with residences in the upper Midwest 
particularly hard hit as costs will increase by 71 percent.
    Natural gas is extremely important to the overall economy, 
accounting for 25 percent of total U.S. energy consumption. The 
demand for natural gas in the United States has grown fourfold 
since 1950. This rise can be greatly attributed to the 
increased use of natural-gas-fired electricity generation, 
which now constitutes almost 20 percent of the Nation's 
electricity portfolio and is 23 percent of total U.S. natural 
gas demand. According to the Energy Information Administration 
[EIA], by 2025 total U.S. natural gas consumption is expected 
to increase 40 percent from that of 2003.
    Domestically produced natural gas currently accounts for 85 
percent of gas consumed in the United States, with 15 percent 
being imported, mostly dry gas from Canada via pipeline. To 
meet increased demand, EIA predicts a greater volume of imports 
of Liquefied Natural Gas [LNG] and increased domestic 
production in the Rocky Mountain region.
    The United States is now experiencing a fifth year of a 
tightening supply and demand problem, with demand growth 
continuing to exceed the ability of the natural gas industry to 
respond. An examination of both the short and long-term supply 
and demand situation is imperative to ensure energy security 
and a growing economy.
    This hearing examined the current and future sources of 
supply for natural gas consumed in the United States, the 
impacts these choices have on the national economy, and the 
effect of regulatory policies on domestic production. Issues 
addressed included: a) how the United States would meet natural 
gas demands at a reasonable price during a crisis situation; b) 
what more Congress and the administration could do to ensure 
the security of our natural gas supplies for the foreseeable 
future; c) the consequences of relying on one geographic region 
for so much of the Nation's natural gas production and 
infrastructure; d) measures that could be taken to reduce 
reliance on natural gas; e) how international demand affects 
supply and price; f) whether or not natural gas prices would 
remain high for the foreseeable future; and g) measures to 
create flexibility of supply to meet fluctuations in demand.
    b. Witnesses.--Rebecca Watson, Assistant Secretary for Land 
and Minerals Management, Department of Interior; Guy Caruso, 
Administrator, Energy Information Administration, Department of 
Energy; Michael Zenker, senior director, North American Natural 
Gas, Cambridge Energy Research Associates; Logan Magruder, 
president, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain 
States; Tyson Slocum, research director, Energy Program, Public 
Citizen.
9. ``Petroleum Refineries: Will Record Profits Spur Investment in New 
        Capacity?'' October 19, 2005
    a. Summary.--The United States is widely recognized as 
having the largest, most sophisticated, and most productive 
petroleum refining infrastructure in the world. The 148 
refineries owned by 55 companies in 33 States are capable of 
processing about 17 million barrels of crude oil per day into a 
broad array of products. But, the United States has not built a 
new refinery in over 30 years, and more than 100 have been shut 
down in that period. Nevertheless, U.S. consumers have enjoyed 
reliable supplies of fuels at relatively stable prices during 
that time. Existing refineries have updated their technology to 
significantly improve environmental performance while 
increasing production.
    Despite the increases in overall output achieved by 
expanding existing capacity and running at very high production 
levels, the Nation's domestic refining capacity is presently in 
a very tight balance with demand. Announced plans to build new 
domestic refineries have been few, and the magnitude of the 
global need for additional capacity to keep pace with projected 
demand in the foreseeable future is not likely to be satisfied 
by the few projects currently underway to expand global 
refining capacity.
    Adequate refining capacity is essential to economic growth, 
and is a key factor in the price volatility of gasoline and 
other crude oil products. The United States needs a robust and 
flexible refined product supply system that is capable of 
adjusting to supply disturbances within a short period of time. 
However, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have laid bare the 
limitations of the current structure of the U.S. refined 
product supply system. The hurricanes dramatically upset the 
delicate balance between operable capacity to refine crude oil 
and demand for refined petroleum products. The razor-thin 
margins between supply capacity and demand allowed price spikes 
to cascade quickly through the system and reach directly into 
consumers' pocketbooks.
    This hearing addressed: a) the risks to the U.S. economy 
posed by the posture of the Nation's refining industry in a 
rapidly changing global market; b) whether or not new 
refineries will be built given the current investment climate 
and where; and c) whether or not foreign refiners have the 
processing capacity and capabilities to service the U.S. market 
with intermediate and finished products in a reliable and 
economical manner.
    b. Witnesses.--Bob Slaughter, president, National 
Petrochemical and Refiners Association; Paul Sankey, senior 
energy analyst, Deutsche Bank AG; Tom O'Connor, project 
manager, ICF Consulting; and Eric Schaeffer, director, 
Environmental Integrity Project.
10. ``Methyl Bromide: Are U.S. Interests Being Served by the Critical 
        Use Exemption Process?'' February 15, 2006
    a. Summary.--In response to emissions of certain chemicals 
which contributed to the depletion of the Earth's stratospheric 
ozone layer, the United States entered into the 1987 Montreal 
Protocol (the ``Protocol''), the aim of which was the gradual 
elimination of the use, production, and trade of so-called 
Ozone Depleting Substances. Methyl Bromide was identified as 
one such substance in 1992, and it is regulated globally under 
the Protocol, as amended in 1992 and adjusted in 1997, and 
domestically under Title VI of the U.S. Clean Air Act, as 
amended in 1993 and in 1998.
    Methyl Bromide is a widely used biocide in the U.S. 
agricultural community because of its effectiveness at killing 
insects and plant pathogens. Accounting for 40 percent of 
global usage, U.S. farmers use it extensively for pre-planting, 
post-harvest, quarantine, and pre-shipping treatments. The use 
and production for anything other than quarantine and pre-
shipment was to be completely phased-out for non-developing 
nations under the Protocol by January 1, 2005.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Developing nations are exempt from the January 1, 2005 
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was hoped that the phase-out would allow the 
agricultural industry to continue to use Methyl Bromide, while 
at the same time, force it to seek out and use suitable 
alternatives. In addition to the millions invested by the 
private sector, the U.S. Government has spent over $200 million 
in research and development in pursuit of a substitute for 
Methyl Bromide. To date, a suitable, wide-scale alternative has 
yet to emerge \3\ and the need for Methyl Bromide is as 
critical as ever. The Protocol provides for an exemption from 
the phase-out deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ There are a number of proposed alternatives, but none reaches 
the effectiveness level of Methyl Bromide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States has applied for three Critical Use 
Exemptions since 2003. The lead agencies--EPA, USDA, and the 
State Department--are somewhat comfortable with the application 
process. The private sector, on the other hand, believes that 
international parties may be using the Protocol and the 
Critical Use Exemption process as a way to gain a competitive 
edge on the U.S. agricultural industry. Both agree, however, 
that there is considerable room for improvement, especially in 
the areas of transparency, predictability, and timeliness of 
the rulemaking process.
    This hearing examined the Critical Use Exemption 
application process and whether U.S. interests were adequately 
protected. Additionally, this hearing addressed: a) whether 
U.S. interests are served by the Critical Use Exemption 
process; b) whether, through the Critical Use Exemption 
process, the Protocol itself strikes the right balance between 
safeguarding the environment and protecting the U.S. 
agricultural economy; c) whether, and to what extent, new 
legislation is necessary to facilitate the EPA rulemaking 
process; and d) whether it is possible to achieve transparency 
and predictability in the Critical Use Exemption process 
through ``multi-year'' legislation.
    b. Witnesses.--William Wehrum, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; Michelle Castellano, vice president, Mellano 
and Co. (San Luis Rey, CA); James Bair, vice president, North 
American Millers' Association; and David Doniger, senior 
attorney, National Resources Defense Council.
11. ``Natural Gas Royalties: The Facts, The Remedies'' March 1, 2006
    a. Summary.--Serious concerns have arisen regarding the 
implementation of the Federal Government's natural gas royalty 
payment program. Recent news reports suggest that the 
government may be unable to collect anywhere from $7 billion to 
$28 billion in natural gas royalties from leases of Federal 
land and waters. This is particularly troublesome at a time 
when natural gas companies are continuing to post record 
earnings. There are several areas of concern.
    The first is whether some gas companies have failed to 
fulfill their contractual obligations to make royalty payments 
to the Department of the Interior. There is confusion 
surrounding figures the industry has supplied to the Interior 
Department, the accounting methods of the Interior Department, 
and the degree of oversight provided by the Minerals Management 
Service. There is a question whether the U.S. Government may 
have been underpaid in excess of $700 million worth of 
royalties in 2005 on this basis alone.
    Second, there is concern that the United States could be 
excluded from billions of royalties resulting from the Deep 
Water Royalty Relief Act (the ``Act''). The act was enacted to 
provide an incentive to gas companies to explore and extract 
oil and natural gas from U.S. waters. This would be 
accomplished by allowing the Secretary of the Interior and oil 
and gas companies, between 1996 and 2000, to enter into leases 
with a defined volume suspension and price threshold so that 
companies would be able to recover their capital investment 
before having to pay royalties on their gross revenues. This 
came at a time when oil and gas prices were low and the 
interest in deep water drilling was lacking. However, during 
1998 and 1999, price thresholds were not included as terms of 
the leases, thereby allowing companies to recoup their capital 
investment long before the expiration of volume suspensions. As 
these wells are now beginning to reap billions in gross 
revenues because of record gas prices, the effects of the price 
threshold-free language are coming to fruition. As a result, 
the United States may be unable to claim part of the billions 
in gross revenues for the years 1998 and 1999.
    This is exacerbated by threatened litigation from Kerr-
McGee Exploration and Development, a major industry player. 
Kerr-McGee maintains that the language of the act does not 
grant the Secretary of the Interior the authority to impose 
price thresholds and that it is not required to pay any 
royalties based on price thresholds for leases entered into 
between the years 1996 and 2000. If Kerr-McGee is handed a 
favorable ruling, it could ultimately force the U.S. Government 
to refund approximately $525 million in royalties to the 
industry, and preclude it from collecting between $18 and $28 
billion over the next 5 years on leases entered into between 
1996 and 2000.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ It must be noted that Kerr-McGee does not challege the legality 
of imposed thresholds contained in the leases after 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This oversight hearing attempted to ascertain the facts and 
explore remedies to assure that the U.S. Government receives 
royalties to which it is entitled. Additionally, this hearing 
investigated: a) whether the Interior Department's accounting 
and oversight practices are adequate and transparent; b) 
whether the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act is being interpreted 
and implemented according to the policy it sought to promote; 
c) whether leases entered into during 1998 and 1999 are in 
accordance with the policy promoted by the Deep Water Royalty 
Relief Act; and d) whether, and in what amount, the U.S. 
Government is owed royalty payments from natural gas companies 
that drill pursuant to Federal land and water leases.
    b. Witness.--Walter Cruickshank, Ph.D., Deputy Director, 
Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior.
12. ``Strengthening the Nation's Water Infrastructure: The Army Corps 
        of Engineers' Planning Priorities,'' March 15, 2006
    a. Summary.--The Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) is a 
Federal agency in the Department of Defense with military and 
civilian responsibilities. At the direction of Congress, the 
Corps plans, builds, operates, and maintains a wide range of 
water resources facilities in U.S. States and territories. The 
agency's traditional civil responsibilities are creating and 
maintaining navigable channels and controlling floods. In the 
last two decades, Congress has increased the Corps' 
responsibilities in ecosystem restoration, municipal water and 
wastewater infrastructure, disaster relief, and other 
activities. Congressional direction comes primarily through 
authorization and appropriations legislation and oversight 
activities.
    The Water Resources Development Act [WRDA], a frequent 
reauthorization, is a more than $10 billion spending bill that 
authorizes many Corps infrastructure projects. The contents of 
each WRDA are cumulative and new acts do not supercede or 
replace previous acts. WRDA and the corresponding 
appropriations bill are packed with earmarks and directives 
given to the Corps on how to carry out activities. Funds 
appropriated are invariably less than authorized Corps 
projects. As a result, the Corps is challenged to meet a great 
number of competing priorities and mandates with limited funds. 
In response, the Corps has chosen to serially reprogram funds 
and move them from project to project on what may be viewed as 
either a ``just-in-time'' or ``seat-of-the-pants'' basis.
    The Corps has also been under scrutiny since 2000 due to a 
series of investigative articles by the Washington Post, an 
Army Inspector General's report, and a National Academies of 
Science study that asserted Corps' planning deficiencies and 
oversight were resulting in unjustified projects moving forward 
in the approval process. A number of Government Accountability 
Office studies have raised questions regarding Corps' planning 
processes, priority-setting, and financial management. In 
response, the Corps has recently moved forward with an 
aggressive plan to address these deficiencies, update its 
planning and business practices, be more collaborative, and 
better match its changing civil works mission.
    The Corps' challenges are extremely important to the 
strength of infrastructure of the United States. Existing water 
infrastructure is a result of the priority-setting, decisions, 
and projects constructed in decades past. For decades to come, 
infrastructure priorities set today will impact commerce, 
economic growth, electricity generation, the health of wetlands 
and ecosystems, and, most importantly, the safety of 
communities dependent on the Corps for flood protection. 
Because the level of Corps' funding is a persistent issue, it 
is all the more important that the operations of the Corps are 
efficient and result in the most benefit for every dollar 
spent.
    This hearing examined how the Corps' sets its priorities 
and seeks to improve its planning processes and economic 
analysis. A well-functioning Corps is required to ensure that 
projects are economically justified and produce their intended 
effects, and that the civil works program strengthens the 
Nation's critical infrastructure. This hearing also addressed: 
a) whether the Corps' efforts to improve its planning processes 
are adequate; b) the steps being taken to ensure there is 
effective oversight of the reprogramming of funds; c) how the 
Corps set its priorities in a challenging fiscal environment; 
and d) how Congress can better ensure that the Nation's 
critical water infrastructure needs are met.
    b. Witnesses.--Douglas W. Lamont, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Project Planning); Anu Mittal, Director, 
Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability 
Office; Steve Ellis, vice president, Taxpayers for Common 
Sense; and S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, vice president, American 
Rivers.
13. ``Conjunctive Water Management: A Solution to the West's Growing 
        Water Demand?'' April 5, 2006
    a.Summary.--Booming population growth in Western States 
during recent decades has intensified the need for a more 
efficient water supply management system. Western States have 
long suffered from water supply challenges due to their arid 
climates. In response, several methods have been employed to 
maximize water supply, such as conservation programs and the 
building of new dams and desalination plants. Despite these 
methods, water supply and infrastructure, particularly in 
California, are vulnerable to an impending crisis. The 
California Department of Water and Resources [DWR] estimates 
that if the current trend of population growth continues, 
California will need an additional 1-2 million acre-feet of 
water per year by 2030 to meet demand. There is, however, a 
management system that may provide a solution to California's 
challenges as well as those of other Western States.
    Experts propose that conjunctive water management is the 
leading and most effective method for resolving water supply 
challenges. Conjunctive water management is the method by which 
surface and ground water are stored in reservoirs and below-
ground aquifers for distribution during dry months. Though this 
method would nearly double the amount of on-demand water 
supply, the implementation of conjunctive water management 
raises several areas of concern. The first concern is whether 
existing waterways can support a switch to conjunctive water 
management. As it stands, a move to conjunctive water 
management would require a tremendous amount of investment to 
retrofit existing infrastructure and storage facilities. The 
second concern is whether the States have the necessary 
resources to build and maintain a conjunctive water management 
program. A comprehensive conjunctive water management system 
would require massive funding for maintenance and qualified 
personnel to manage and maintain the proper facilities.
    Another important concern is the environmental impact of 
implementing a conjunctive water management system. For 
instance, an aquifer could be rendered useless if the surface 
water that was pumped into it was contaminated by foreign 
molecules such as salt. Since most water used for irrigation 
purposes is not filtered, contaminated water could be 
detrimental to agriculture. Moreover, as a practical matter, 
the construction of waterways and storage facilities will 
undoubtedly disturb wildlife habitats. As such, any 
construction must conform to State, local, and Federal 
environmental laws. These concerns, taken together, raise the 
larger issue of whether, and to what extent, the Federal 
Government should be involved in the design, funding, or 
implementation of a conjunctive water management system.
    This hearing addressed: a) the conjunctive water management 
projects that are currently being implemented; b) the benefits 
and shortcomings of a conjunctive water management system; and 
c) the extent to which the Federal Government should be--or in 
the very least is compelled to be--involved in the design, 
funding or implementation of a conjunctive water management 
system.
    b. Witnesses.--Jason Peltier, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Water and Science, Department of Interior; P. Joseph 
Grindstaff, director, California Bay-Delta Authority; and 
Anthony J. Pack, general manager, Eastern Municipal Water 
District, Perris, CA.
14. ``Energy as a Weapon: Implications for U.S. Policy'' May 16, 2006
    a. Summary.--Tight global market conditions have led to 
record-high petroleum prices. The current situation is largely 
demand-driven due to economic growth and increased demand from 
Asia and the United States. There is little or no spare 
production capacity in the world market, and any event 
perceived to have an impact on the market causes extreme 
concern and high volatility in prices. As a result, the United 
States is more vulnerable to a catastrophic supply shock than 
at any time in recent memory, especially considering the 
current geopolitical environment.
    A noted expert has postulated that ``a slow-motion supply 
shock'' may already be taking place in the world system. About 
2.2 million barrels per day [mbd] is currently out of 
production due to a variety of factors in different producing 
countries. While small in terms of the 85 mbd world oil market, 
it is especially significant because of the tight global supply 
and demand balance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ David Wessell, ``Oil Shock in Slow Motion,'' Wall Street 
Journal, 5/11/06. Dr. Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy 
Research Associates, made the observation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, many countries are dependent on natural gas 
for critical industries, home heating, and electricity 
generation. Natural gas dependence and its increasing cost are 
important to the United States, of grave concern to Europe, and 
are a source of sudden consternation in South America. Unlike 
the world market for crude oil, natural gas markets are 
fragmented according to pipeline connectivity, and a truly 
global Liquefied Natural Gas spot market remains years away. 
Like the global petroleum market, regional natural gas markets 
are vulnerable to political machinations.
    There have been a number of disturbing trends shaping a new 
pattern of energy geopolitics. Chief among them is the use of 
energy as a ``weapon'' by producing countries such as Russia 
and Iran--whether as a threat or an actual cut-off in supplies 
to consuming countries. Next, the expropriation of energy 
assets or forced renegotiation of existing concessions in South 
America is likely to have wide-ranging impacts. Finally, the 
pursuit of ``mercantilist'' strategies to secure energy through 
long-term, State-to-State agreements--e.g. China--distorts 
markets and investment, and helps to create an atmosphere of 
antagonistic international competition for energy.
    This hearing assessed the implications of these 
developments and the challenges they present to the United 
States. Bearing these challenges in mind, this hearing also 
examined how U.S. policies aim to protect vital national 
interests and the security of the U.S. economy and the effects 
of using ``energy as a weapon'' on world and domestic markets. 
Further, the hearing examined: a) the effects of energy being 
used as a weapon on world and domestic markets, and how its use 
affects energy security; b) how government agencies are working 
together to meet the challenges presented by ``energy as a 
weapon,'' nationalization, and mercantilism; c) what the 
Department of State and the Department of Energy are doing to 
promote private investment and unobstructed trade in critical 
energy supplies; and the ways the United States is working with 
the international community and other countries to address a 
potentially catastrophic supply disruption.
    b. Witnesses.--Karen Harbert, Assistant Secretary for 
Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy; 
Paul Simons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, Sanctions, 
and Commodity Policy, U.S. Department of State; Dr. Daniel 
Yergin, chairman, Cambridge Energy Research Associates; 
Ambassador Keith C. Smith, senior associate, Center for 
Strategic and International Studies; and David Goldwyn, Goldwyn 
International Strategies.
15. ``Keeping the Fuel Flowing from the Gulf: Are We Prepared for the 
        Hurricane Season?'' June 7, 2006
    a. Summary.--In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita in 2005, oil and natural gas production from the Gulf of 
Mexico were ``shut-in'' or offline for months; pipelines and 
refineries were shut down; some retail gas stations ran short 
of fuel in other parts of the country due to delays and 
shortfalls in deliveries; and the prices for oil, refined 
products, and natural gas skyrocketed. Some areas of the 
country were within days of widespread supply shortages of 
refined products such as gasoline, aviation, and diesel fuel. 
It was only through great ingenuity and sacrifice by personnel 
from government and industry that significant shortages did not 
occur.
    For the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] is predicting 13 
to 16 named storms, with 8 to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which 
4 to 6 could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or 
higher. According to meteorologists at Colorado State 
University, there is an average 38 percent chance of the area 
from the Florida panhandle westward to Brownsville, TX, being 
hit by a Category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane in 2006.
    The Gulf of Mexico region is critical to the Nation's 
economic growth because it is the backbone of our energy 
infrastructure. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of 
Dallas' Houston Branch, 26.4 percent of the Nation's domestic 
crude oil production and 21.3 percent of natural gas production 
takes place in the Gulf of Mexico. Almost 40 percent of the 
Nation's crude oil refining capacity is located on the Gulf 
Coast.
    Clearly, the Federal Government and the petroleum and 
natural gas industries must apply crucial lessons learned from 
last year, and the private energy sector must be prepared to 
coordinate with the Federal and local governments in times of 
crisis. With the current U.S. average gasoline price already 
exceeding $2.90 per gallon, the implications of not meeting the 
2006 preparedness challenge would be disastrous.
    This hearing examined how industry and government were 
prepared to transport and deliver fuel supplies from the Gulf 
of Mexico to where they were needed this past hurricane season. 
Further, this hearing addressed: a) whether the government and 
the energy industry were prepared to meet the fuel supply 
challenges of the 2006 hurricane season; b) the status of fuel 
production and inventories entering the summer and hurricane 
seasons; the lessons learned from the hurricanes of 2005, and 
how they were incorporated into planning and best practices for 
2006; c) how the Federal Government and private industry are 
coordinating with each other, as well as with State and local 
governments; and d) the measures the government and industry 
are taking to address preparedness for the long-term.
    b. Witnesses.--General David L. Johnson, director, National 
Weather Service, NOAA; Guy Caruso, Administrator, Energy 
Information Administration; Admiral Thomas Barrett, 
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, Department of Transportation; Robert Greco, 
group director of upstream and industry operations, American 
Petroleum Institute; and Tyson Slocum, energy program research 
director, Public Citizen.
16. ``Deep Water Royalty Relief: Mismanagement and Cover-Ups,'' June 
        21, 2006
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee continued its investigation 
regarding the absence of price thresholds in deepwater leases 
entered into between the Department of the Interior and various 
oil and gas companies during 1998 and 1999. The Government 
Accountability Office estimates that the lack of price 
thresholds will cost the U.S. Government upwards of 
approximately $10 billion in lost revenue. Over the past few 
months, the subcommittee staff has reviewed the documentation 
surrounding nearly every aspect of the lease creation process. 
This includes an examination of the regulations, leases, lease 
sale documentation, decision memoranda, and bureaucratic 
processes. Moreover, the subcommittee staff has interviewed 
individuals intimately familiar with all levels of the lease 
sale process. What has surfaced is a trail of irresponsibility 
and gross mismanagement.
    This investigation has revealed that the problem began in 
1995 when the Interior Department promulgated inadequate 
regulations. These regulations, which delineate the lease sale 
process and royalty relief scheme, did not include price 
thresholds. Instead of correcting those regulations, the 
Department applied a series of ``bandaids'' that never stopped 
the bleeding. This irresponsible behavior may have culminated 
in a cover-up that only perpetuated the problem. The purpose of 
this hearing was to ascertain how these egregious errors 
occurred and who is responsible for them.
    b. Witnesses.--Milo Mason, Attorney, Department of the 
Interior; Geoffrey Heath, Attorney, Department of the Interior; 
Peter Schaumberg, attorney, formally with the Department of the 
Interior, now in private practice with Beveridge Diamond PC; 
Shell Oil Corporation: John Hofmeister, president of U.S. 
Operations; ConocoPhillips Co.: Randy Lindbacher, executive 
vice president, Exploration and Productions of the Americas; 
ExxonMobil Corp.: A. Tim Cejka, president of Exxon Exploration 
Co.; Kerr-McGee Oil Corp.: Greg Pilcher, senior vice president, 
general counsel, and secretary; and Chevron Corp.: Paul 
Siegele, vice president for deepwater development, Gulf of 
Mexico.
17. ``Can the U.S. Electric Grid Take Another Hot Summer?'' July 12, 
        2006
    a. Summary.--In May, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission [FERC] released its Summer Energy Market Assessment 
2006, which identified four major geographic areas with 
potentially critical supply scarcity issues. The areas are: 
Southern California; Long Island, NY; Southwest Connecticut; 
Ontario, Canada, which affects the U.S. States in the Great 
Lakes region. Each of these areas is particularly vulnerable to 
a hot summer and unplanned outages from local generators or 
import-related transmission of power from other regions. Each 
of the potential U.S. trouble spots was also identified in FERC 
summer assessments in 2004 and 2005.
    Additionally, each of these areas is managed by an 
Independent System Operator [ISO], which is an independent, 
federally regulated entity established to coordinate regional 
transmission in a non-discriminatory manner and ensure the 
safety and reliability of the electric system. ISOs also 
oversee wholesale or bulk electricity markets and are involved 
in regional planning activities.
    The potential for rolling blackouts and supply shortages in 
particular regions would have spillover effects and greater 
implications for the Nation's electricity system. Furthermore, 
supply shortages would have a significant negative economic 
impact, especially taking into account that prices for power 
are already high.
    This hearing examined FERC's summer assessment as well as 
those of the ISOs for the affected regions. The hearing 
explored the steps FERC and the ISOs took to meet the 
challenges presented last summer and what they are doing to 
address problems over the long term.
    b. Witnesses.--Joseph T. Kelliher, chairman, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission; Yakout Mansour, president and CEO, 
California Independent System Operator; Mark S. Lynch, 
president and CEO, New York Independent System Operator; Pete 
Brandien, VP of System Operations, ISO New England; and Phyllis 
Currie, general manager, Pasadena Water and Power.
18. ``Hybrid Cars: Increasing Fuel Efficiency and Reducing Oil 
        Dependence'' July 20, 2006
    a. Summary.--Record oil and gasoline prices are magnifying 
the need for more fuel efficient automobiles. U.S. dependence 
on imported oil from unstable areas of the world and reliance 
on the hurricane-prone Gulf of Mexico region for refined 
petroleum products has reinforced the need to use fuels more 
efficiently. Almost 70 percent of oil consumed in the United 
States is used by the transportation sector.
    Several technologies can help increase the fuel efficiency 
of the American auto fleet, and therefore increase energy 
security by reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil. Such 
technologies include bio-diesel fuel, hydrogen, ethanol, 
electric vehicles, and hybrid electric vehicles. However, many 
of these technologies are not yet cost effective or widely 
available. Increasing the number of hybrid electric vehicles on 
the road is one practical way to increase the fuel efficiency 
of the U.S. fleet in the near-term.
    This hearing assessed the potential for hybrid vehicles to 
increase the overall fuel efficiency of the U.S. fleet and 
lessen the Nation's dependence on imported oil, paying 
particular attention to issues regarding cost-effectiveness, 
market penetration, incentives, U.S. manufacturing capacity, 
and environmental benefits. This hearing addressed the 
following questions: a) what the potential benefits are, in 
terms of fuel consumption and emission reductions, of 
increasing the number of hybrid vehicles in the U.S. fleet; b) 
what advances in hybrid technology are expected and by when; c) 
the projected market share for hybrids in the short and long 
term; d) whether hybrid technology will become more cost 
competitive in comparison to conventional internal combustion 
technology; e) why the U.S. auto industry has lagged in 
developing hybrid cars; and f) what further actions the Federal 
and State governments can take to encourage consumers to 
purchase hybrid vehicles.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Andrew Frank, director, University of 
California-Davis Hybrid Electric Research Center; David 
Hermance, executive engineer, Toyota Motor North America; John 
German, manager, Environmental and Energy Analyses, American 
Honda Motor Co.; and Don MacKenzie, vehicles engineer, Union of 
Concerned Scientists.
19. ``Royalty Relief and Price Thresholds III,'' July 27, 2006
    a. Summary.--This subcommittee continued investigating the 
absence of price thresholds in deepwater leases between the 
Interior Department and various oil and natural gas producing 
companies during 1998 and 1999. The Government Accountability 
Office estimates that the lack of price thresholds will cost 
the U.S. Government upwards of $10 billion in lost revenue over 
the life of the leases. According to GAO, this loss is 
estimated at nearly $2 billion to date.
    Over the past 5 months, the subcommittee staff has reviewed 
documents surrounding nearly every aspect of the lease creation 
process. This includes an examination of the regulations, 
leases, lease sale documentation, decision memoranda, and 
bureaucratic processes. Moreover, the subcommittee staff has 
interviewed multiple witnesses, and Chairman Issa has conducted 
two oversight hearings at which individuals intimately familiar 
with the leasing process have supplied critical information.
    The subcommittee staff believes it has identified the 
Department employees who may have been responsible for the 
genesis of the problem, and who were in the best position to 
have done something about it. Milo Mason, a Department 
attorney, revealed himself in the June 21st hearing as the 
person responsible for dispensing arguably inadequate legal 
advice. Upon his advice, the Secretary of the Interior 
promulgated regulations that did not include price thresholds. 
Moreover, Mr. Mason found out in 1999 that the leases signed in 
1998 and 1999 did not contain price thresholds, yet he failed 
to formally notify the Department in writing or take corrective 
measures.
    The subcommittee staff has since determined that 
information supplied by Chris Oynes, Gulf of Mexico Regional 
Director, appears to be inconsistent with other evidence 
obtained by the subcommittee. Mr. Oynes, who signed 668 of the 
1,100 leases during 1998 and 1999, told subcommittee staff 
during an interview that he did not know about the missing 
price thresholds until 2000. Chevron Corp. officials informed 
the subcommittee that two of its employees notified Mr. Oynes 
and his staff of the missing price thresholds several times 
throughout 1998 and 1999. If the latter is true, Mr. Oynes and 
his staff could have saved the U.S. Government at least $5 
billion had they immediately rectified the problem.
    Accordingly, the purpose of the July 27th hearing was to 
question Mr. Oynes, his Deputy, and the two Chevron employees 
who maintain they notified the Department of the problematic 
leases. Mr. Oynes signed 668 deepwater leases during 1998 and 
1999 and was in the best position to know of the problem and 
take corrective measures. Alas, the American people are now 
unnecessarily burdened with this unprecedented $10 billion 
loss.
    b. Witnesses.--J. Keith Couvillion, deepwater land manager, 
Chevron North America Exploration and Production Co., a 
Division of Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Gordon R. Cain, deepwater 
land manager, Chevron North America Exploration and Production 
Co., a Division of Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Chris Oynes, Regional 
Director, Gulf of Mexico, Minerals Management Service; and 
Charles Shoennagel, Deputy Regional Director, Gulf of Mexico, 
Minerals Management Service.
20. ``Interior Department: A Culture of Managerial Irresponsibility and 
        Lack of Accountability?'' September 13, 2006
    a. Summary.--This subcommittee continued investigating the 
absence of price thresholds in deepwater leases between the 
Interior Department's Minerals Management Service and various 
oil and natural gas producing companies during 1998 and 1999. 
The Government Accountability Office estimates that the lack of 
price thresholds will cost the U.S. Government upwards of $10 
billion in lost revenue over the life of the leases. According 
to GAO, this loss is estimated at nearly $2 billion to date.
    Over the past 7 months, the subcommittee staff has reviewed 
documents surrounding nearly every aspect of the lease creation 
process. This includes an examination of the regulations, 
leases, lease sale documentation, decision memoranda, and 
bureaucratic processes. Moreover, the subcommittee staff has 
interviewed multiple witnesses, and Chairman Issa has conducted 
three oversight hearings at which individuals intimately 
familiar with the leasing process have supplied critical 
information.
    There is every indication that carelessness and 
irresponsibility contributed to this unprecedented loss to the 
American people. Professional negligence, however, is not 
peculiar to the Minerals Management Service.
    In addition to its investigation which mirrors the 
subcommittee's, the Interior Department's Office of the 
Inspector General has investigated numerous alleged infractions 
involving Department employees. The OIG reluctantly posits that 
the Department suffers from an institutionalized culture of 
managerial irresponsibility and a general lack of 
accountability.
    Interior Inspector General Earl E. Devaney testified about 
the results of his investigation into the missing price 
thresholds, as well as the culture that, at times, undermines 
the integrity of the Interior Department.
    This is a matter of paramount concern in light of Chevron's 
recently announced new discovery in the OCS Gulf of Mexico 
region that may include leases signed in 1998 and 1999.
    b. Witness.--Interior Department Inspector General Earl E. 
Devaney.
21. ``The Next Generation Nuclear Plant and Hydrogen Production: A 
        Critical Status Report,'' September 20, 2006
    a. Summary.--In January 2006, Chairman Issa requested that 
the Government Accountability Office complete a study to assess 
the Department of Energy's [DOE] progress in meeting its 
schedule for design and construction of the Next Generation 
Nuclear Plant [NGNP] by 2021, as well as DOE's approach to 
ensure the commercial viability of the project. An operational 
NGNP will demonstrate advanced, next generation technologies 
for generating electricity and producing hydrogen on a large-
scale for use in fuel cells for automobiles and the 
transportation sector.
    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 set additional requirements 
and milestones for completion of the NGNP, including the 
selection of design parameters in 2011. In addition, the NGNP 
will require a license for construction and operation from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and DOE and the NRC must jointly 
submit a licensing strategy to Congress in 2008. Research and 
development work on the NGNP are being conducted primarily at 
the Idaho National Laboratory.
    Of particular concern in the NGNP project is the 
development of a number of technologies that will ensure 
project milestones are met and construction will be completed 
on schedule. Meeting the timetable provides a high 
probability--but not a guarantee--that the demonstration plant 
will be of use to the private sector and not overtaken by other 
commercial technologies that may be developed sooner.
    In addition, delays in meeting milestones will call into 
question the decision for continued support of the NGNP 
considering other nuclear priorities such as the Nuclear 2010 
and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership programs that require 
considerable Federal financial support.
    This hearing coincided with the release of the GAO study 
and assessed the progress and outlook for successful completion 
of the NGNP. Issues addressed at this hearing included: a) what 
the technological challenges are to completing the NGNP; b) 
whether the Department of Energy and the Idaho National 
Laboratory can meet the completion deadline, and whether the 
plan sufficient to meet the goals of the NGNP; and c) whether 
the technologies utilized in the NGNP will be commercially 
feasible and meet the needs of the private sector.
    b. Witnesses.--Jim Wells, Director, National Resources and 
Environment, Government Accountability Office; Phil 
Hildebrandt, Idaho National Laboratory, special assistant to 
the Laboratory director; and Dr. Andrew Kadak, professor, 
Nuclear Science and Engineering Department, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology.
22. ``Rebalancing the Carbon Cycle,'' September 27, 2006
    a. Summary.--In 2004, the United States emitted about 5.7 
billion more tons of carbon dioxide than could be processed by 
natural systems, such as trees, soils, and oceans. As a result, 
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are rising, 
potentially increasing the risk of climate change. The carbon 
cycle, or the flow of carbon between the atmosphere, land, 
oceans, and plants, could be rebalanced by (1) emitting less 
carbon dioxide by burning less fossil fuels, and (2) capturing 
and storing carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. A 
diverse range of approaches are necessary to rebalance the 
carbon cycle, including improved energy efficiency and the 
production of more electricity with nuclear power and renewable 
resources.
    This hearing addressed what the Federal Government is doing 
to rebalance the carbon cycle including: a) what the Federal 
Government is doing to learn about the carbon cycle; and b) 
what the Federal Government is doing to reduce anthropogenic 
carbon emissions.
    Further, examining the carbon cycle science the hearing 
addressed: a) what we do and don't know about the carbon cycle; 
b) how the carbon cycle is changing in the United States, and 
why; and c) what is the potential significance of these 
changes? Additionally, this hearing assessed: a) what the 
strengths and weaknesses of different technologies to reduce 
carbon emissions are; and b) how Federal Government programs 
address what is and is not known about the carbon cycle.
    b. Witnesses.--John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural 
Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office; 
Dr. Roger C. Dahlman, co-chair, Interagency Carbon Cycle 
Working Group, Climate Change Science Program; Stephen D. Eule, 
director, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program; Dr. Gregg 
Marland, Ecosystems Science Group, Environmental Sciences 
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Dr. Steven C. Wofsy, 
Abbott Lawrence Rotch professor of atmospheric and 
environmental chemistry, Harvard University; and Dr. Daniel A. 
Lashof, science director, Climate Center, Natural Resources 
Defense Council.

             IV. Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census

1. ``Strengthening America's Communities: Is It the Right Step Toward 
        Greater Efficiency and Improved Accountability?'' March 1, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the first in a series on 
HUD's CDBG program. In its fiscal year 2006 Budget proposal, 
the Bush administration recommended eliminating the CDBG 
program along with 17 other direct community and economic 
development programs and merge them into a single program known 
as the Saving America's Communities Initiative [SACI]. The 
hearing provided Members the opportunity to question directly 
the principal architects of the SACI proposal as well as 
representatives from various stakeholder groups.
    b. Witnesses.--Roy Bernardi, Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development; David Sampson, 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development; Clay 
Johnson III, OMB Deputy Director for Management; Don 
Plusquellic, president, U.S. Conference of Mayors; Angelo Kyle, 
president, National Association of Counties; LaShea Smith, 
National Community Development Association and National 
Association for County Community and Economic Development; and 
James C. Hunt, second vice president, National League of 
Cities.
2. ``Lands of Lost Opportunity: What Can Be Done to Spur Redevelopment 
        at America's Brownfield Sites?'' April 5, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine the 
state of designated brownfields sites across America. According 
to the Government Accountability Office [GAO], there are an 
estimated 450,000 to 1 million abandoned or underutilized 
brownfields sites. The hearing gave Members the opportunity to 
question experts on the topic of Brownfields about the 
impediments to brownfields redevelopment. Moreover, Members 
were able to ascertain which incentives encourage redevelopment 
activity. The subcommittee also examined the possible effects 
legislation similar to H.R. 4480 from the 108th Congress would 
have on redevelopment activity.
    b. Witnesses.--Thomas Dunne, Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; John Stephenson, 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government 
Accountability Office; Don Plusquellic, president, U.S. 
Conference of Mayors; James Maurin, chairman, International 
Council of Shopping Centers; Jonathan Phillips, senior 
director, Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC; and Douglas 
Steidl, president, the American Institute on Architects.
3. ``Halfway to the 2010 Census: The Countdown and Components to a 
        Successful Decennial Census,'' April 19, 2005
    a. Summary.--At the midway point to the 2010 decennial 
census began a series of hearings to explore how the Census 
Bureau is preparing for the count. The decennial census is the 
largest peacetime mobilization of temporary workers for a 
Federal agency. The hearing provided the subcommittee with the 
opportunity to examine the three key components to the upcoming 
decennial census: the American Community Survey, the Master 
Address File/TIGER Enhancements Program, and a short-form only 
census. Members were better able to understand the role and 
importance of each for the implementation of a successful 
census.
    b. Witnesses.--Kathleen Cooper, Under Secretary for 
Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce; Charles Louis 
Kincannon, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Joan Naymark, director 
of research and planning, Target Corp.; Dr. Andrew Reamer, 
deputy director, Urban Markets Initiative, Brookings 
Institution; and Jacqueline Byers, director of research, 
National Association of Counties.
4. ``The 1970's Look: Is the Decades-Old Community Development Block 
        Grant Formula Ready for and Extreme Makeover?'' April 26, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this oversight hearing was to 
examine how CDBG funds are spent and whether Congress or HUD 
can introduce meaningful performance measures as a tool to 
promote greater accountability within the program and among its 
grantees. A primary justification citied by the administration 
for its Strengthening America's Communities Initiative [SACI] 
proposal is that CDBG and 17 other programs encompassed by SACI 
scored very low on OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool [PART]. 
Many stakeholders have argued that CDBG's low PART score can be 
attributed to the tool's lack of proper assessment matrix tools 
to score block grant programs appropriately. Stakeholders also 
have argued that it may be impossible to effectively measure 
the CDBG program because of its multifaceted nature and because 
its moneys can be spent on a wide variety of ``non-tangible'' 
benefits.
    b. Witnesses.--Roy Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Paul Posner, 
Director, Federal Budget and Intergovernmental Relations, 
Government Accountability Office; Jerry Fastrup, Assistant 
Director, Applied Research and Methods, Government 
Accountability Office; and Saul Ramirez, executive director, 
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.
5. ``Life In the Big City: What Is Census Data Telling Us About Urban 
        America? Are Policymakers Really Listening?'' May 10, 2005
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee reviewed Census data in an 
effort to understand better what that data reveals about urban 
America. Subcommittee members were able to question Census 
officials and eventual data users utilize census data when 
making on everything from resource allocation to business 
development.
    b. Witnesses.--Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, U.S. 
Census Bureau; Thomas Dowd, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of 
Labor; Marc Morial, president, National Urban League; Paul 
Farmer, executive director and CEO, American Planning 
Association/American Institute of Certified Planners; Mitchell 
Silver, deputy director, Long Range Planning, District of 
Columbia Office of Planning; and Audrey Singer, immigration 
fellow, metropolitan policy, the Brookings Institution.
6. ``The Ohio Experience: What Can Be Done to Spur Brownfield 
        Development in America's Heartland?'' May 16, 2005 (Cleveland, 
        OH)
    a. Summary.--The second in a series, the purpose of this 
oversight hearing was to examine the condition of designated 
brownfields sites in the State of Ohio. According to the 
Government Accountability Office [GAO], there are an estimated 
450,000 to 1 million abandoned or underutilized brownfields 
sites. One can find many of these sites are in States that 
manufacturing companies once dominated. A significant number of 
these are now either defunct or have been abandoned. The 
subcommittee investigated the impediments to brownfields 
redevelopment and possible incentives to encourage 
redevelopment activity. Finally, the subcommittee considered 
what the impact might be of legislation similar to H.R. 4480, 
which Representative Turner introduced in the 108th Congress.
    b. Witnesses.--Joseph Dufficy, Chief of the Brownfields and 
Early Action Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
V; Amy Yersavich, manager, Voluntary Action Program, Ohio EPA; 
Frank Sarosy, mayor, Village of Fairport Harbor, Ohio; Daniel 
Pocek, mayor, city of Bedford, OH; Tracy Nichols, assistant 
director for economic development, Cuyahoga County, OH; Casey 
Stephens, manager, public services, brownfield coordinator, 
Division of Environmental Services, city of Toledo, OH; Alex 
Machaskee, president and publisher, the Plain Dealer; Todd 
Davis, CEO, Hemisphere Development, LLC.; Thomas Stone, 
executive director, Mt. Pleasant NOW Development Corp.; Barry 
Franz, principal engineer, Civil and Environmental Consultants, 
Inc.; Craig Kasper, CEO, Hull and Associates, Inc.; Kevin 
O'Brien, executive director, Great Lakes Environmental Finance 
Center, Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, 
Cleveland State University.
7. ``Bringing Community Development Block Grant Programs Spending into 
        the 21st Century: Introducing Accountability and Meaningful 
        Performance Measures into the Decades-Old CDBG Program,'' May 
        24, 2005
    a. Summary.--Third in a series, the purpose of this 
oversight hearing was to examine how CDBG funds are spent and 
whether Congress or HUD can add meaningful performance measures 
to the program to promote greater accountability among its 
grantees. The subcommittee specifically examined: (1) how 
communities spend CDBG money (2); whether the funds are 
effectively targeted toward the needs identified in the 
program's authorizing legislation; and (3) how, if at all, 
these expenditures can be measured for effectiveness.
    b. Witnesses.--Roy Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Ron Schmitt, 
council member, city of Sparks, NV; Thomas Downs, fellow, 
National Academy of Public Administration; Lisa Patt-McDaniel, 
assistant deputy director, Community Development Division, Ohio 
Department of Development on Behalf of COSCDA; and Shelia 
Crowley, president, National Low Income Housing Coalition.
8. ``Revitalizing Communities: Are Faith-Based Organizations Getting 
        the Federal Assistance They Need?'' June 14, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this oversight hearing was to 
examine how faith-based organizations accomplish community 
revitalization. The subcommittee focused on the President's 
Faith-Based Initiative as outlined in various Executive orders. 
The subcommittee also reviewed the role Federal agencies play 
in assisting faith-based organizations. Moreover, the 
subcommittee investigated the successes and impediments to 
redevelopment of cities, via services and infrastructure 
improvements provided by faith-based organizations. Finally, 
the subcommittee reviewed past and current legislative efforts 
in this arena especially H.R. 1054, a bill by Congressman Mark 
Green, to establish an office of faith-based and community 
initiatives.
    b. Witnesses.--Ryan Streeter, Director, Office of Faith-
Based Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development; Terri Hasdorff, executive director, Alabama 
Governor's Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives; 
Thomas Knox, chairman of the Board of Directors, We Care 
America; Sister Rose Wildenhaus, St. Mary Development Corp.; 
Mark Howard, general counsel, World Vision; and Reverend 
Michael Jones, Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church, 
Robert Fulton Development, Inc.
9. ``The Pittsburgh Experience: How has the Community Development Block 
        Grant Program Shaped the Steel City?'' July 18, 2005 
        (Pittsburgh, PA)
    a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the 
subcommittees examination of the Community Development Block 
Grant Program. This field hearing explored the impact of the 
CDBG program on Pittsburgh, PA and the surrounding communities. 
The subcommittee heard from local stakeholders involved in 
administering the CDBG program as well as those who benefit 
from its uses.
    b. Witnesses.--Pamela Hughes Patenaude, Assistant 
Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Dorothy Kelly, 
councilwoman, Borough of Carnegie; Diana Irey, county 
commissioner, county of Washington; Stanley ``Lou'' Gorski, 
executive director, South Hills Area Council of Governments; 
William McGowen, executive director, Redevelopment Authority of 
the county of Washington; William Mitchell, assistant director 
of planning and development, Westmoreland County Industrial 
Development Corp.; and Diana Reitz, community development 
coordinator, city of Jeannette, PA.
10. ``The New York City Experience: How has the Community Development 
        Block Grant Program Shaped the Big Apple?'' July 25, 2005 
        (Thurgood Marshall Academy, NYC)
    a. Summary.--The final hearing in a series, the 
subcommittee examined the Community Development Block Grant 
Program and its impact on New York City. The subcommittee heard 
from local stakeholders involved in administering the CDBG 
program as well as those who benefit from its uses.
    b. Witnesses.--Michael Bloomberg, mayor, city of New York; 
F. Carlisle Towery, president, Greater Jamaica Development 
Corp.; Ronay Menschel, chair of the Board of Directors, Phipps 
Houses; Mark Willis, executive vice-president, JPMorgan Chase; 
Andrew Reicher, executive director, Urban Homesteading 
Assistance Board; Reverend Dr. Calvin O. Butts, pastor, 
Abyssinian Baptist Church; Chris Kui, executive director, Asian 
Americans for Equality; and Dr. Ingrid Gould Ellen, associate 
professor of public policy and urban planning, New York 
University Furman Center for Real Estate.
11. ``Brownfields and the 50 States: Are State Incentive Programs 
        Capable of Solving America's Brownfields Problem?'' September 
        13, 2005
    a. Summary.--The third in a series, the purpose of this 
oversight hearing was to examine how the various States handle 
the problems associated with Brownfields and whether State 
incentive programs are enough to solve the Nation's brownfields 
problem. The subcommittee further explored how well State 
incentive programs are working and what the Federal Government 
can do to augment these efforts.
    b. Witnesses.--Charles Bartsch, senior policy analyst, 
Northeast Midwest Institute; Kathleen McGinty, secretary, 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; John 
Magill, director, Office of Urban Development, Ohio Department 
of Development; Douglas Scott, director, Illinois Environmental 
Protection Agency; Andrew Hogarth, chief, Remediation and 
Redevelopment Division, Michigan Department of Environmental 
Quality; Robert Colangelo, executive director, National 
Brownfield Association; Jonathan Philips, senior director, 
Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC.; Charles Houder, director of 
acquisitions, Preferred Real Estate Investments, Inc.; and 
Kevin Matthews, director of association and government 
relations, AIG Environmental.
12. ``The Challenge of Brownfields: What are the Problems and Solutions 
        in Redeveloping Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley Communities?'' 
        October 25, 2005 (Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA)
    a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the 
subcommittee's examination of Brownfield redevelopment. This 
field hearing will explor the impact of Brownfields in the 
Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania and what State and Federal 
programs are available for redevelopment efforts. The 
subcommittee heard from Federal, State and local stakeholders 
involved in Brownfield redevelopment.
    b. Witnesses.--Abraham Ferdas, Director, Hazardous Site 
Cleanup Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
III; Eugene DePasquale, deputy secretary for community 
revitalization and local government support, Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection; Jim Seif, vice 
president, Corporate Relations, PPL Corp.; Paul Schoff, esq., 
Feinberg and Schoff, LLP., CEO of Brownfield Realty, Ltd.; 
Robert Colangelo, executive director, National Brownfield 
Association; Kerry Wrobel, president, Lehigh Valley Industrial 
Park, Inc.; Chad Paul, Jr., CEO, Ben Franklin Technology 
Partners; Ray Suhocki, president and COO, Lehigh Valley 
Economic Development Corp.; Stephen Donches, president, 
National Museum of Industrial History; and Doug Michaels, 
president and CEO, OraSure Technologies, Inc.
13. ``Historic Preservation vs. Katrina: What Role Should Federal, 
        State and Local Governments Play in Preserving Historic 
        Properties Affected by this Catastrophic Storm?'' November 1, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this policy hearing was to 
examine what roles the Federal, State and local governments 
should play in the preservation of historic properties in the 
areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. The National Trust for 
Historic Preservation has stated that the Hurricane Katrina 
impacted areas on New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast 
contain one of the largest concentrations of historic 
properties in the United States. The Congress recognized the 
historic importance of the region as recently as December 2004 
by officially designated the Mississippi gulf area as a 
National Heritage Area. It is clear that the damage to historic 
properties in the area has been massive. This hearing provided 
members of the subcommittee with a fresh perspective on the 
historic preservation challenges resulting from Hurricane 
Katrina. Moreover, Members gained a better understanding how 
Federal, State and local governments can respond to disasters 
with regard to preserving historic structures and communities.
    b. Witnesses.--Mitchell Landrieu, Lieutenant Governor, 
State of Louisiana; H.T. Holmes, director, Mississippi 
Department of Archives and History; Derrick Evans, founder and 
director, Turkey Creek Community Initiatives; Patricia Gay, 
executive director, Preservation Resource Center of New 
Orleans; David Preziosi, executive director, the Mississippi 
Heritage Trust; John Nau III, chairman, Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation; Dr. Janet Matthews, Associate Director 
for Cultural Resources, National Park Service; Richard Moe, 
president, the National Trust for Historic Preservation; and 
Norman Koonce, executive vice president and CEO, the American 
Institute of Architects.
14. ``Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens be Included in 
        Apportioning our Elected Representatives?'' December 6, 2005
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this oversight hearing was to 
examine the potential benefits and pitfalls of counting only 
U.S. citizens for purposes of determining the apportionment 
base for the U.S. House of Representatives and the Electoral 
College. The subcommittee gave specific attention to a proposed 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution introduced by Representative 
Candace Miller (H.J. Res. 53).
    b. Witnesses.--Representative Candice Miller; Clark Benson, 
consultant and publisher, Polidata Co.; Steven Camarota, 
director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies; Lawrence 
Gonzalez; Washington director, National Association of Latino 
Elected and Appointed Officials; Ken Prewitt, professor of 
public affairs, School of International and Public Affairs, 
Columbia University; Johnny Killian, Senior Specialist in 
Constitutional Law, American Law Division, Congressional 
Research Service; James Gimpel, associate professor of 
government and politics, University of Maryland; Andrew 
Spiropoulos, professor of law, Oklahoma City University School 
of Law; and Nina Perales, Southwestern Regional counsel, 
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
15. ``Living in America: Is Our Public Housing System up to the 
        Challenges of the 21st Century,'' February 15, 2006
    a. Summary.--In this oversight hearing, the subcommittee 
examined the state of public housing in the United States 
before and since the enactment of the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998 [QHWRA]. The subcommittee examined 
the factors that lead up to Congress' decision to reform the 
Nation's public housing programs in 1998. The subcommittee also 
took a broad look at how effective QHWRA's reforms have been in 
creating better, safer and more affordable housing for the 
Nation's low and moderate-income families. Finally, at this 
hearing, the subcommittee examined some of the recommendations 
made by the Millennial Housing Commission in its 2002 report 
entitled ``Meeting Our Nation's Housing Challenges.''
    b. Witnesses.--Rick A. Lazio, executive vice president, 
global government relations and public policy, JPMorgan Chase 
Bank; Henry Cisneros, chairman CityView, former Secretary of 
HUD; David G. Wood, Director, Financial Markets and Community 
Investments, Government Accountability Office; Renee L. Glover, 
president and CEO, Atlanta Housing Authority, former 
commissioner, Millennial Housing Commission; Rod Solomon, 
counsel, Hawkins Delafield and Wood, LLP, former HUD Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Policy; Conrad Egan, president, 
National Housing Conference, former executive director of the 
Millennial Housing Commission; Dr. Alexander von Hoffman, 
senior research fellow, Joint Center for Housing Studies, 
Harvard University; Dr. Edgar O. Olsen, Department of 
Economics, University of Virginia; Dr. Michael A. Stegman, 
director, Center for Community Capitalism, Kenan Institute of 
Private Enterprise, adjunct professor of entrepreneurship, 
University of North Carolina.
16. ``Apportionment in the Balance: A Look into the Progress of the 
        2010 Decennial Census,'' March 1, 2006
    a. Summary.--In this hearing, the subcommittee examined the 
status of the Census Bureau's preparations for the 2010 
Decennial Census. Since the subcommittee's April 19, 2005 
hearing entitled ``Halfway to the 2010 Census: The Countdown 
and Components to a Successful Decennial Census,'' the Census 
Bureau had achieved and was nearing completion of several key 
milestones. The Bureau had successfully carried out the 
American Community Survey for 1 full year. Additionally, the 
Master Address File and Topologically Integrated Geographic 
Encoding and Referencing Enhancement Program was nearing a 
successful completion. As the Bureau continued its preparation 
for a short-form only census, it undertook two major contracts, 
the Field Data Collection Automation program and the Decennial 
Response Integration System. These two technology contracts 
have a combined value of over $1 billion. These major contracts 
signal the first real ``hi-tech'' census, and the subcommittee 
examined how the successful implementation of these contracts 
is critical to the 2010 Decennial Census. Furthermore, the 
subcommittee explored several other issues such as the Local 
Update of Census Addresses program, intergovernmental 
partnerships, and personnel hiring challenges related to the 
successful implementation of the decennial census. The 
subcommittee also heard an assessment from the Government 
Accountability Office of the Bureau's planning for the 
decennial census and the ongoing 2006 Census Test.
    b. Witnesses.--Louis Kincannon, Director, Census Bureau; 
Brenda Farrell, Acting Director of Strategic Issues, Government 
Accountability Office; David Powner, Director, Information 
Technology Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; 
Dr. Ralph A. Rector, research fellow and project manager, 
Center for Data Analysis, the Heritage Foundation; Dr. Andrew 
Reamer, deputy director, Urban Markets Initiative, Brookings 
Institution; and Dr. Margo Anderson, professor, history and 
urban studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
17. ``The Connecticut Experience: What Can Be Done to Spur Brownfield 
        Redevelopment along America's New England Corridor?'' March 13, 
        2006 (Bridgeport, CT)
    a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the 
subcommittee's review of Brownfields redevelopment. The purpose 
of this field hearing was to determine what progress has been 
made in the State of Connecticut under the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency program and what can be done to spur 
redevelopment within the State, thereby reducing community 
blight, safeguarding the local environment, and spurring 
economic revitalization of the communities in which these 
properties exist. The subcommittee heard from Federal, State 
and local stakeholders involved in Brownfields redevelopment.
    b. Witnesses.--John Fabrizi, mayor, city of Bridgeport; 
Mary Sanderson, Chief, Remediation and Restoration II Branch, 
Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region I; Gina McCarthy, commissioner, 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; Mark 
Lauretti, mayor, city of Shelton; Elizabeth Barton, chair, 
Environmental and Land Use Department, Day, Berry and Howard, 
LLP; Joseph Carbone, president/CEO, the Workplace, Inc.; Robert 
Santy, president, Regional Growth Partnership; Stephen Soler, 
president, Georgetown Land Development Co.; and Barry Trilling, 
partner, Wiggin and Dana, LLP.
18. ``Monitoring Our Nation's Pulse: A Look at the Existing Federal, 
        State and Local Economic Development Tools and Whether They are 
        Adequate in Attracting and Keeping Businesses in America's 
        Heartland Cities?'' March 21, 2006 (Springfield, MO)
    a. Summary.--During this field hearing in Springfield, MO, 
the subcommittee examined Federal, State, and local government 
economic development initiatives and how they impact heartland 
communities. The subcommittee was interested in learning what 
opportunities exist for urban and suburban areas in the 
Nation's heartland to retain existing and to attract new 
businesses. Toward this end, the subcommittee was interested in 
hearing ideas on how local economic development practitioners 
can better work with Federal, State and other local 
governmental entities on economic development projects. 
Moreover, the subcommittee was interested in determining if 
there are better ways to use the economic development tools 
currently available and whether these tools are adequate (e.g., 
tax policy, brownfields initiatives, grants-in-aid, leveraging, 
regional cooperation, empowerment zones, etc).
    b. Witnesses.--Tom Carlson, mayor, city of Springfield; 
Diane May, executive director, Southwest Missouri Council of 
Governments; Clint Thompson, director of planning and community 
development, city of St. Joseph; Jeff Sanford, president, 
Memphis Center City Commission; and Jim Cloar, president and 
CEO, Downtown St. Louis Partnership, Inc.
19. ``Public Housing Management: Do the Public Housing Authorities have 
        the Flexibility They Need to Meet the Changing Demands of the 
        21st Century?'' May 10, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine 
whether the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] 
had appropriately implemented the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998 [QHWRA] in keeping with the spirit 
of the act's stated purpose of deregulating and decontrolling 
Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] and providing for more 
flexible use of Federal assistance. The subcommittee heard from 
several PHAs from around the Nation. The subcommittee was 
interested in hearing their views on HUD's implementation of 
QHWRA, and its new management rules. The subcommittee also 
sought the PHAs' comments on what steps HUD could take to 
further deregulate and decontrol while at the same time adding 
increased accountability.
    b. Witnesses.--Greg Johnson, executive director, Dayton 
Metropolitan Housing Authority; Terry Peterson, chief executive 
officer, Chicago Housing Authority; Doug Apple, general 
manager, New York City Housing Authority; Steve Rudman, 
executive director, Housing Authority of Portland; Betsey 
Martens, co-executive director, Boulder Housing Partners; and 
Curt Hiebert, executive director, Keene (New Hampshire) Housing 
Authority.
20. ``Public Housing in the Competitive Market Place: Do Affordable and 
        Public Housing Developments Benefit from Private Market and 
        Other Financing Tools?'' May 23, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to learn from 
the financiers and developers in the multifamily affordable 
housing industry. This was the third in a series of hearings 
concerning public and low-income housing. During this oversight 
hearing, the subcommittee examined the current and potential 
roles of the various capital sources in financing public and 
private affordable housing projects. The subcommittee reviewed 
the current statutory and regulatory structures guiding the 
financing of public-private housing development projects to 
determine whether any changes should or could be made. The 
subcommittee also explored opportunities to improve and/or 
expand financing options for private developers of low-income 
housing, as well as for Public Housing Authorities. The 
subcommittee heard from private sector parties involved in the 
development of low-income housing projects. The subcommittee 
was interested in hearing their experiences with programs such 
as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, the Public Housing 
Capital Fund and the HOPE VI program.
    b. Witnesses.--Patrick Clancy, president and chief 
executive officer, the Community Builders, Inc.; Wendy Dolber, 
managing director of tax exempt financing, Standard and Poor's 
Rating Services; and Brian Tracey, community development 
banking market executive, Atlantic Region, Bank of America 
Corp.
21. ``Poverty, Public Housing and the CRA: Have Housing and Community 
        Investment Incentives Helped Public Housing Families Achieve 
        the American Dream?'' June 20, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was twofold. 
First, the subcommittee examined whether any of the self-
sufficiency and poverty de-concentration initiatives of the 
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 [QHWRA] and 
other legislation have created incentives for public housing 
tenants to find and maintain employment. Second, the 
subcommittee reviewed the ``public policy theory'' behind 
public housing and community investment. The subcommittee heard 
from witnesses who discussed the importance of the Community 
Reinvestment Act to the underlying goals of Federal housing 
programs.
    b. Witnesses.--Jon Gutzmann, president, Public Housing 
Authorities Directors' Association, executive director, St. 
Paul Public Housing Agency; George Moses, chairman of the Board 
of Directors, National Low Income Housing Coalition; James 
Riccio, director, Low-Wage Workers and Working Communities 
Policy Area; Benson F. ``Buzz'' Roberts, senior vice president, 
policy and program development, Local Initiatives Support 
Corp.; and Judy Kennedy, president and CEO, National 
Association of Affordable Housing Lenders.
22. ``Moving the CDBG Program Forward: A Look at the Administration's 
        Reform Proposal. Where Do We Go From Here?'' June 27, 2006
    a. Summary.--On May 25, 2006, the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development delivered to the Speaker of the House a 
legislative proposal for reforming the Community Development 
Block Grant program. The purpose of this oversight hearing was 
to explore the administration's reform proposal and the 
decisionmaking process supporting its creation.
    b. Witnesses.--Pamela Hughes Patenaude, Assistant 
Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Stanley J. 
Czerwinski, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Strategic 
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Michael 
Springer, Assistant Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office.
23. ``Public Housing in the 21st Century: HUD's View on the Future of 
        Public Housing in the United States,'' July 18, 2006
    a. Summary.--This was the fifth hearing in this series of 
hearings on public housing. The purpose of this hearing was to 
explore the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] 
vision for the future of public and affordable housing. 
Additionally, the subcommittee requested HUD respond to the 
testimony and recommendations received in the four previous 
hearings.
    b. Witnesses.--Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Orlando J. 
Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
24. ``The Air Force Institute of Technology: An Intergovernmental Model 
        for Today's Military Education,'' July 29, 2006 (Dayton, OH)
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee explored the arrangement 
among the Ohio-based universities, Air Force Institute of 
Technology, and the Air Force Research Laboratory and how this 
cooperation creates a synergistic educational environment 
greater than the sum of the parts. The subcommittee also 
examined how Federal, State, and local governments support this 
cooperative effort to maximize efficiency and fully utilize 
resources and expertise. Finally, the subcommittee considered 
how this unique program enhances graduate education in the Air 
Force and in Ohio, advances Federal technology research, and 
ultimately benefits the war fighter.
    b. Witnesses.--Major General Ted Bowlds, Commander, Air 
Force Research Laboratory; Brigadier General Mark Matthews, 
Commander, Air Force Institute of Technology; Kevin DeWine, 
State representative, State of Ohio; Dr. Daniel Curran, 
president, the University of Dayton; Dr. Jay Thomas, vice 
president of research and dean of graduate studies, Wright 
State University; and Dr. Elizabeth Downie, director, the 
Dayton Area Graduate Studies Institute.
25. ``2+2 Should Never Equal 3: Getting Intercensal Population 
        Estimates Right the First Time,'' September 6, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine the 
Bureau's intercensal population estimates program. The 
subcommittee examined whether the Bureau's methodology results 
in reasonably accurate estimates and reasonably equitable 
allocation of Federal grants, whether the Bureau's challenge 
process is transparent, fair, and takes into account a 
community's ability to challenge the estimates. The 
subcommittee also examined whether the Bureau strives to 
continuously improve the estimates, the importance of accuracy, 
and opportunities for improving the estimates.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Louis Kincannon, Director, U.S. Census 
Bureau; Dr. David Swanson, Director, State Data Center of 
Mississippi; Dr. Joy E. Phillips, Associate Director, 
Washington, DC Data Center; Ken Hodges, assistant vice 
president and chief demographer, Claritas Inc.; and Dr. Warren 
A. Brown, Research Director, Cornell Institute for Social and 
Economic Research, Cornell University.
26. ``Historic Preservation and Community Development: Why Cities and 
        Towns Should Look to the Past as a Key to Their Future,'' 
        September 20, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine how 
Federal, State, and local government have supported historic 
preservation efforts through regulation, property acquisition, 
and tax incentives. The subcommittee also reviewed the 
accomplishments of various preservation organizations and 
examined how these organizations have succeeded in their 
efforts through the use of revolving funds and the acquisition 
of conservation easements on historic buildings and sites. 
Several communities across the Nation have successfully 
utilized historic preservation programs to promote neighborhood 
revitalization. The subcommittee sought to identify which 
approaches have worked, which have not, and what opportunities 
are there for improvement.
    b. Witnesses.--John Fowler, executive director, Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation; Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews, 
Associate Director for Cultural Resources, National Park 
Service, Department of the Interior; Richard Moe, president, 
the National Trust for Historic Preservation; John Leith-
Tetrault, president, National Trust Community Investment Corp.; 
Idotha Bootsie Neal, president, Wright Dunbar, Inc.; Kathleen 
H. Crowther, executive director, Cleveland Restoration Society 
and chairman of the Statewide and Local Partners Program of the 
National Trust for Historic Preservation; J. Myrick Howard, 
president, Preservation North Carolina; Edward Sanderson, 
executive director, Rhode Island Historical Preservation and 
Heritage Commission; and Ken Baumgartner, president, the Corky 
McMillin Companies.

                                 OTHER

1. Saving America's Cities Working Group--Advisory Committee Meeting, 
        June 28, 2005
    The primary purpose of the Saving America's Cities [SAC] 
Working Group is to focus on the economic development of 
American cities facing a number of challenges including waning 
revenues, shrinking populations, and aging buildings and 
infrastructure. Congressman Turner, chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census, also chairs the 
Speaker's SAC Working Group and called a meeting to develop 
recommendations to address these issues and aid cities in every 
way possible to encourage community and economic development. 
Representatives from each of our national partner organizations 
provided testimony with recommendations based on their 
different expertise and outlook.
    The SAC Working Group's national partners gave unique 
perspective on how Congress can address the problems that 
plague many cities. In addition to hearing from these 
organizations, Chairman Turner asked that members of the 
Working Group invite representatives from their districts to 
provide a greater perspective on what impact existing Federal 
policies and programs have on these organizations and what 
Congress can do to better assist cities and their partners.
    This meeting focused on the core principles that define a 
successful city and five issues regarding the revitalization of 
cities on which the Federal Government needs to take a lead: 
public housing; market rate housing; brownfields redevelopment; 
historic preservation; and Federal regulations and Federal 
programs aimed at updating relevant regulations and programs to 
address the needs of the 21st century city. This meeting served 
as the basis for the formulation of a report that the Working 
Group owed the Speaker.
    Advisory Committee Members in attendance: Jack Kemp, 
Advisory Committee Chair, Former Congressman and Secretary of 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Anthony 
Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia; Donald Plusquellic, 
mayor, city of Akron, OH; Richard Daley, mayor, city of 
Chicago, IL; Marc Morial, president and CEO, National Urban 
League; Valerie Lemmie, city manager, city of Cincinnati, OH.
    Members of the SAC Working Group in attendance: 
Representative Tom Davis, Representative Rob Bishop, 
Representative Phil English, Representative Nancy Johnson, 
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Representative Thelma 
Drake, Representative Charlie Dent, and Representative Jeff 
Fortenberry.
    Panelists: Fred Banuelos, president and CEO, Alliance for 
Building Communities; Mary Lilly Smith, economic development 
director, city of Springfield, MO; Andy Friedman, director, 
Virginia Beach Department of Housing and Neighborhood 
Preservation; Ken Wade, CEO, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp., 
National Neighborworks Association; Jerry Howard, executive 
vice president and chief executive officer, National 
Association of Home Builders; Stockton Williams, vice president 
of external affairs, the Enterprise Foundation; Sheila Crowley, 
president, National Low Income Housing Coalition; Saul Ramirez, 
Jr., executive director, National Association of Housing and 
Redevelopment Officials; Don Borut, executive director, 
National League of Cities; Pamela McKee, interim president and 
CEO, National Congress for Community Economic Development; 
Carol Coletta, president and CEO, CEOs for Cities; Tom Wolfe, 
senior director of Federal affairs, American Institute of 
Architects; Cynthia Stewart, director for local governmental 
relations, International Council of Shopping Centers; Don 
Graves, director of public policy, Business Roundtable; Jeff 
Soule, policy director, American Planning Association; Joe 
Molinaro, manager, Smart Growth Programs, National Association 
of Realtors; Benson Roberts, senior vice president for policy 
and program development, Local Initiatives Support Corp.; Pat 
Lally, director, congressional affairs, National Trust for 
Historic Preservation; Barry Tindall, director of public policy 
and international liaison, National Recreation and Parks 
Association; Eric Kassoff, principal, Wilkes Artis, Public 
Affairs Chair, Maryland/DC Chapter, National Association of 
Industrial and Office Properties; and Ed Rosado, legislative 
director, National Association of Counties.
2. Census Briefings
    In cooperation with the subcommittee, the Brookings 
Institution held two briefing on the census and offered a 
tutorial on using the Census Bureau's Fast Facts for Congress 
webpage.
            a. ``The Road to the 2010 Census: Implications for 
                    Apportionment, Redistricting, and the Economy,'' 
                    April 7, 2006
    The first briefing examined the preparations for and the 
uses of the 2010 decennial census. The briefing served to 
educate congressional staff and nongovernmental organizations 
on the importance of Census numbers. The Census Bureau's 
decennial count determines the reapportionment of House 
congressional seats and redrawn district boundaries. 
Furthermore, the decennial census data are used to allocate 
billions of Federal dollars.
    Panelists: Andrew Reamer, deputy director, Urban Markets 
Initiative, Brookings Institution; John Cuaderes, staff 
director, House Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census; Mark 
Stephenson, minority professional staff member, House Committee 
on Government Reform; Katherine Wallman, Chief Statistician, 
Statistical Policy, Office of Management and Budget; Jay Waite, 
Associate Director for the Decennial Census, U.S. Census 
Bureau; Joseph Salvo, director, Population Division, New York 
City Department of City Planning; Cathy McCully, Chief, Census 
Redistricting Data Office, U.S. Census Bureau; and Michael 
Carliner, staff vice president for economics, National 
Association of Home Builders.
            b. ``Better Data for Better Decisions: The Value of the 
                    American Community Survey to the Nation,'' June 23, 
                    2006
    The second briefing explored the private and public sector 
uses of the new American Community Survey [ACS], which provides 
a profile of the population's demographic characteristics. The 
briefing served to educate congressional Members and their 
staffs on the importance of the ACS to the Nation and how it 
benefits district constituents. Congress authorized the Census 
Bureau to replace the decennial long form with the ACS to 
provide governments and businesses with needed data every year, 
rather than once a decade.
    Panelists: Andrew Reamer, deputy director, Urban Markets 
Initiative, Brookings Institution; Ursula Wojciechowski, 
professional staff member, House Subcommittee on Federalism and 
the Census; Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff 
member, House Committee on Government Reform; Katherine 
Wallman, Chief Statistician, Statistical Policy, Office of 
Management and Budget; Jay Waite, Associate Director for the 
Decennial Census, U.S. Census Bureau; Lisa Blumerman, Deputy 
Chief, American Community Survey Office, U.S. Census Bureau; 
Dan Wiley, community coordinator, Brooklyn Heights Office, 
Office of Representative Nydia Velazquez; Chris Fulcher, 
director, Community Information Resource Center, Rural Policy 
Research Institute; Kirk Johnson, senior policy analyst, Center 
for Data Analysis, Heritage Foundation; and Bruce Fogarty, 
manager, Demographic and Economic Analysis, J.C. Penney Corp., 
Inc.
            c. ``Know Your Constituency: Congressional District and 
                    State Profiles from the 2005 American Community 
                    Survey,'' September 28 and 29, 2006
    The Brookings Institution provided four 1-hour live Web 
cast training sessions on how to use the ACS. In August of this 
year, the Census Bureau released the first annual estimates 
from the ACS for 8,000 communities, 435 congressional districts 
and 50 States. In the tutorial, Ms. Cynthia Taeuber, a former 
Census official, gave an overview of what numbers are available 
by district and State on the Census Web site, how to make sense 
and use of these figures, and what to expect from the ACS in 
the coming years. The tutorial illustrated how ACS estimates 
provide an up-to-date picture of district constituents by 
providing characteristics--such as income levels, educational 
attainment, occupation, and housing costs--of the populations.
3. H.R. 337, ``To amend title 13, United States Code, to provide that 
        the term of office of the Director of the Census shall be 5 
        years, to provide that the Director of the Census report 
        directly to the Secretary of Commerce, and for other purposes''
    The subcommittee received H.R. 337 on February 15, 2005. No 
further action was taken on this bill.
4. H.R. 4857, ``Emergency Targeted Revenue Sharing Act of 2006''
    The subcommittee received H.R. 4857 on March 21, 2006. In 
general, the bill would provide $79 billion over 3 years to 
State and local government in a manner similar to general 
revenue sharing. No further action was taken on this bill.
5. Bringing Communities into the 21st Century: A Report on Improving 
        the Community Block Grant Program
    This investigative report, adopted by the full committee, 
is based on hours of hearing testimony and research from the 
Executive branch, Government Accountability Office [GAO], 
academia, and, most importantly, the practitioners working with 
this program on a daily basis. In addition to the series of 
three Washington-based hearings, the subcommittee held field 
hearings in Pittsburgh, PA and in New York City's Borough of 
Harlem. At these field hearings, the subcommittee heard 
testimony from actual recipients of CDBG moneys and also saw 
first hand how this program makes a difference in peoples' 
lives.
    Contained in this report are 19 detailed findings and 
recommendations to improve the CDBG program and making it 
relevant to the 21st century by targeting Federal funds more 
wisely so that we build stronger, more vibrant communities.
    The committee recommends that HUD, in cooperation with the 
U.S. Census Bureau, explore opportunities for innovative 
applications of Census Bureau data to improve community 
development programs.
6. What Will it Take to Turn Lost Opportunities into America's Gain?
    This investigative report was approved by the full 
Government Reform Committee. After three hearings on the 
subject, the subcommittee discovered that in general the 2002 
Federal Brownfields Program is working. It is a key tool in the 
fight to remediate and redevelop these dangerous, blighting 
eye-sores. However, there remain areas for improvement of the 
program. Further, even if the Federal Program were perfected, 
there are too many brownfield sites across the Nation for the 
Federal Government and the States to address on their own. 
Contained in this report are 10 detailed findings and 
recommendations to improve the Brownfields Program and Federal 
efforts to encourage more aggressive redevelopment activities.
    In brief, the report finds: 1) The actual impact of the 
Brownfields Program is difficult to determine. EPA should 
revise and upgrade its tracking mechanisms and performance 
measures; 2) EPA must consider improvements to the revolving 
loan fund to increase utilization of the appropriated funds; 3) 
Congress should reauthorize the Brownfields Program beyond 
fiscal year 2006 and authorize additional program funding; 4) 
even with additional funding, there are more brownfields than 
the States and Federal Government can ever hope to address. 
Enticing private sector investment is key to more aggressive 
remediation and redevelopment but the high costs of such 
projects remains a significant barrier to private sector 
involvement. A Federal tax credit, modeled on the low-income or 
historic rehabilitation tax credits, would be the most useful 
incentive in attracting private investment; 5) liability fears 
under CERCLA, RCRA, and TSCA remain an enormous deterrent to 
private sector investment in redevelopment projects. While 
Congress provided some liability relief in the 2002 Small 
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 
further clarification of circumstances in which a party may be 
subject to future liability is necessary. Additionally, 
Congress should consider ways to incentivize responsible 
parties to participate in the remediation process. These 
parties are important because of their immediate knowledge of 
prior land-use, which contributed to present contamination; 6) 
certain activities imperative to full cleanup of brownfields 
sites are ineligible for Federal program funding. For instance, 
Federal funds may not be used for the cleanup of petroleum 
product contamination or the cleanup of building interiors. 
Congress should expand the eligibility provisions of Federal 
funds to permit the use of funds on such remediation and 
redevelopment costs; 7) environmental insurance provides key 
assurance to investors in redevelopment projects. Congress 
should expand the eligibility provisions of Federal funds to 
permit the use of funds on the cost of environmental insurance; 
8) Congress and the EPA should both look to successful existing 
State cleanup programs as models when reforming existing 
Federal programs and when establishing new programs; 9) 
administrative burdens often result in significant time delay 
in redevelopment projects. In the private sector, time is 
money. To the extent Federal administrative burdens create such 
delays, the EPA should streamline its processes and create 
administrative partnerships with other Federal agencies to 
reduce administrative burdens and delays; and finally, 10) 
Congress should explore expanding the use of existing tax 
exempt redevelopment bonds to include environmental remediation 
projects to raise additional remediation and redevelopment 
capital.

      V. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization

1. ``The Countdown to Completion: Implementing the New Department of 
        Homeland Security Personnel System,'' March 2, 2005
    a. Summary.--On February 1, 2005, DHS and OPM jointly 
published in the Federal Register the final version of the 
regulations on the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] human 
resources management system. The hearing brought together 
representatives of DHS, OPM, Federal employee unions, and other 
interested parties to examine the DHS regulations, the 
implementation plan, and other matters of concern. Witnesses 
discussed the importance of a new personnel system in relation 
to the important national security mission of DHS.
    b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Neil A.G. McPhie, chairman, U.S. Merit 
Systems Protection Board; Ronald P. Sanders, Associate Director 
for Strategic Human Resource Policy of OPM; Ronald James, Chief 
Human Capital Officer of DHS; Colleen M. Kelley, national 
president, National Treasury Employees Union; T.J. Bonner, 
council president, American Federation of Government Employees; 
and Darryl Perkinson, national vice president, Federal Managers 
Association.
2. ``Yucca Mountain Project: Have Federal Employees Falsified 
        Documents?'' April 5, 2005
    a. Summary.--The Department of Energy [DOE] announced 
Wednesday, March 16, 2005, that Federal employees of the U.S. 
Geological Survey [USGS] falsified data used in scientific 
studies at the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in 
Nevada. DOE made this discovery from emails exchanged by 
employees with the USGS dating back to 1998, which discuss 
potentially fabricated results from water and climate studies 
at Yucca Mountain. Twenty emails were reported which contained 
evidence that employees falsified their work. The purpose of 
this hearing was to examine the veracity of these 
aforementioned allegations and to probe into the extent of 
Federal employee involvement in the falsification of documents 
or records, as well as a discussion of whether sound science 
exists for the proposed project.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator; Hon. John 
Ensign, U.S. Senator; Kenny C. Guinn, Governor of Nevada; Brian 
Sandoval, attorney general of Nevada; Charles G. Groat, 
Director, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior; 
Ted Garrish, Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy; Earl E. Devaney, 
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Interior; Gregory H. 
Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy; Judy 
Treichel, executive director, Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force; 
B. John Garrick, chairman, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review 
Board; Joe Egan, esq., Nevada Attorney General's Office; and 
Bob Loux, executive director, Nevada Agency for Nuclear 
Projects.
3. ``NSPS: The New Department of Defense Civilian Personnel System--
        Reaching Readiness,'' April 12, 2005
    a. Summary.--On February 14, 2005, DOD and OPM jointly 
published the proposed regulations on the DOD National Security 
Personnel System in the Federal Register. This hearing brought 
together representatives of DOD, OPM, Federal employee unions, 
and other interested parties to amine the proposed DOD 
regulations, the DOD implementation plan, and other matters 
relating to the new personnel system.
    b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; Charles S. Abell, Principal 
Under Secretary of Defense; George Nesterczuk, Senior Policy 
Advisor on the Department of Defense, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management; Neil A.G. McPhie, chairman, U.S. Merit Systems 
Protection Board; Michael Styles, national president, Federal 
Managers Association; John Gage, national president, American 
Federation of Government Employees; and Ron Ault, president, 
Metal Trades Department.
4. ``H.R. 1578, Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITS]: Can They Improve 
        the Thrift Savings Plan?'' April 19, 2005
    a. Summary.--The Thrift Savings Plan [TSP] provides one leg 
of a three-part retirement system for Federal employees under 
the Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS]. The other two 
parts of the retirement system include a defined benefit 
annuity and Social Security. This hearing explored the 
possibility of expanding the options available to employees who 
participate in the TSP to include an option for investment in 
real estate investment trusts [REITs]. REITs have become an 
investment vehicle of choice recently for private sector 
companies when considering expansion of options available 
within 401(k) packages. As the Federal Government seeks to 
modernize its recruitment and retention tools to keep pace with 
the private sector, some have raised REITs as an option for 
achieving these goals. This hearing examined the impact upon 
the investment options available in the TSP and the future 
impact upon retirement benefits for employees.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Mark Foley, Representative from 
Florida; Hon. Richard E. Neal, Representative from 
Massachusetts; Andrew M. Saul, chairman, Federal Retirement 
Thrift Investment Board; Gary A. Amelio, executive director, 
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Steven A. Wechsler, 
president and CEO, National Association of Real Estate 
Investment Trusts; Amy Schioldager, managing director, U.S. 
Indexing Products, Barclays Global Investors; Dr. Roger G. 
Ibbotson, chairman, Ibbotson Associates; Jim Sauber, chairman, 
Employees Thrift Advisory Council; and IBM, which provided 
testimony for the record.
5. ``Question: What is More Scrambled Than an Egg? Answer: The Federal 
        Food Inspection System,'' May 17, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing followed up on a March 30, 2004, 
hearing entitled, ``A System Rued: Inspecting Food,'' in which 
the subcommittee examined problems with the organizational 
structure of the Federal food safety inspection system. 
Government Accountability Office [GAO] investigations have 
uncovered widespread overlap and duplication of effort in the 
core areas of the Federal food inspection system, including: 
inspection/enforcement, training, research, and rulemaking. 
Following the hearing, the subcommittee, in conjunction with 
the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, requested 
that GAO further investigate this problem and report: (1) where 
overlap occurs within the system; (2) the extent to which 
agencies are coordinating effort through interagency 
agreements; and (3) the views of key stakeholders regarding 
opportunities to reduce overlap and duplication. The 
subcommittee examined the findings of that report as well as 
raised the prospect of Presidential fast-track reorganization 
authority as a solution to the Federal Government's various 
organization problems, which would allow the President to offer 
a reorganization plan to the Congress for an up-or-down vote of 
the plan in its entirety.
    b. Witnesses.--Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, 
Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability 
Office; Robert Brackett, Director of Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration; Dr. 
Merle D. Pierson, Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety at the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Susan B. Hazen, Principal 
Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Prevention, 
Pesticides, and Toxics Substances of the Environmental 
Protection Agency; and Richard V. Cano, Acting Director, 
Seafood Inspection Program National Marine Fisheries Service, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
6. ``Yucca Mountain Project: Digging for the Truth?'' June 29, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing follows up on the subcommittee's 
previous hearing on April 5, 2005, ``Yucca Mountain Project: 
Have Federal Employees Falsified Documents?'' The Department of 
Energy [DOE] announced Wednesday, March 16, 2005, that Federal 
employees of the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] potentially 
falsified data used in scientific studies at the proposed Yucca 
Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada. DOE made this 
discovery from emails exchanged by employees with the USGS 
dating back to 1998, which discuss fabricated results from 
water and climate studies at Yucca Mountain. This revelation 
sparked both Inspector General investigations by the 
Departments of Energy and Interior, as well as an FBI criminal 
investigation. The purpose of this hearing was a continuation 
of the first hearing of this matter, which was held April 5, 
2005, to address the aforementioned allegations and probe into 
the extent of Federal employee involvement in the falsification 
of documents relating to the Yucca Mountain Project.
    b. Witnesses.--W. John Arthur III, Deputy Director, Office 
of Repository Development, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management [OCRWM], Department of Energy; and Joseph Hevesi, 
Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior.
7. ``Turning Bureaucrats into Plutocrats: Can Entrepreneurialism Work 
        in the Federal Government?'' July 13, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing explored the possibility of the 
Federal workforce moving at the speed of the information age. 
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich testified regarding numerous 
compelling proposals for how to propel the Federal workforce 
into the 21st century by fostering ``entrepreneurialism'' 
amongst the Government's employees. At this hearing the 
subcommittee examined both how the Federal Government today 
often limits its employees by allowing them to merely 
administer programs rather than manage for results, as well as 
how the same agencies can address this by producing 
``entrepreneurs'' instead of ``bureaucrats.''
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Newt L. Gingrich, former Speaker of the 
U.S. House of Representatives; David M. Walker, Comptroller 
General of the United States; and Maurice P. McTigue, vice 
president, Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
8. ``Is There a Doctor in the Mouse? Using Information Technology to 
        Improve Health Care,'' July 27, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing followed up on a subcommittee 
field hearing held in Pittsburgh, PA, on September 13, 2004, 
entitled, ``You Can't Always Get What You Want: What if the 
Federal Government Could Drive Improvements in Health Care?'' 
In that hearing, the subcommittee examined how the Federal 
Government could lead the health care industry in developing 
health information technology [HIT] through promoting its use 
in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program [FEHBP]. The 
purpose of this hearing was to examine the benefits and costs 
savings of health information technology [HIT] and, more 
specifically, examine ways in which the FEHBP can provide 
incentives for carriers and providers toward the adoption and 
implementation of HIT.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Patrick Kennedy, Representative from 
Rhode Island; Hon. Tim Murphy, Representative from 
Pennsylvania; Linda M. Springer, Director, Office of Personnel 
Management; Dr. David Brailer, National Health Information 
Technology Coordinator, HHS; Dr. Carolyn Clancy, Director, 
Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, HHS; Dr. Harvey 
Fineberg, president of the Institute of Medicine; David St. 
Clair, founder and CEO, MEDecision Inc.; and Dr. Jan Walker, 
RN, MBA Executive Director Center for Information Technology 
Leadership [CITL].
9. ``Tension in the Tinderbox: Finding Fairness for Federal Firefighter 
        Compensation,'' August 12, 2005
    a. Summary.--At this hearing the subcommittee examined H.R. 
408, the ``Federal Wildland Firefighter Emergency Response 
Compensation Act of 2005,'' introduced by Representative 
Richard Pombo of California. H.R. 408 addresses compensation 
and benefits issues for Federal Wildland Firefighters by 
increasing pay while in a fire emergency as well as increasing 
the amount used to calculate retirement benefits. Some claimed 
that a disparity exists between Federal Wildland Firefighters 
and private or public sector contract employees in regards to 
compensation. The subcommittee traveled to Southern Nevada to 
closely examine the issues surrounding compensation for Federal 
Firefighters, including Wildland Firefighters.
    b. Witnesses.--Bob Vaught, Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest, U.S. Forest Service; Nancy Kichak, 
Associate Director, Strategic Human Resources Policy, Office of 
Personnel Management; Ryan Beaman, president of Clark County 
Firefighters, International Association of Fire Fighters; and 
Casey Judd, business manager, Federal Wildland Fire Service 
Association.
10. ``It's Time to REACT--Reauthorizing Executive Authority to 
        Consolidate Task: Establishing Results and Sunset 
        Commissions,'' September 27, 2005
    a. Summary.--In its fiscal year 2006 budget, the Bush 
administration offered two proposals to curb the inefficiency 
and lack of accountability in many Federal programs. These 
proposals entail the creation of two commissions to assist in 
examining vast program areas for needed reforms. On July 14, 
2005, Chairman Jon Porter introduced H.R. 3276, the 
``Government Reorganization and Improvement of Performance 
Act,'' along with chief cosponsors, Chairman Tom Davis and 
Representative Kevin Brady. This bill would establish a 
commission to help make decisions about the reorganization of 
selected Federal program areas. In addition, on July 14, 
Representative Kevin Brady introduced H.R. 3277, the ``Federal 
Agency Performance Review and Sunset Act'' (Sunset Act), along 
with chief cosponsors Chairman Tom Davis and Chairman Jon 
Porter. The bill would establish a Sunset Commission to review 
the need for each Federal Agency after which it would have to 
be positively reauthorized by Congress. Without congressional 
action, any agency not reauthorized would be terminated within 
2 years of review by the Sunset Commission. At this hearing the 
subcommittee examined the need for and possible use of this 
legislation.
    b. Witnesses.--Clay Johnson, Deputy Director for 
Management, Office of Management and Budget; Dr. Paul Light, 
Paulette Goddard professor of public service, Robert Wagner 
School of Public Service, New York University; Tom Schatz, 
president, Citizens Against Government Waste; Maurice McTigue, 
vice president for Outreach, Mercatus Center; and Robert Shull, 
director of regulatory policy, OMB Watch.
11. ``Mom, Apple Pie, and Working for America: Accountability and 
        Rewards for the Federal Workforce,'' October 5, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined a Bush administration 
proposal, the Working for America Act, to make broad reforms to 
the government's personnel systems. The Working for America Act 
would create a new system of occupation classification, 
compensation, and performance management. It would also place 
all Federal employees under a pay-for-performance system. The 
hearing brought together representatives of OPM, GAO, Federal 
employee unions, and other interested parties to examine and 
discuss the proposal. Union witnesses expressed an interest in 
examining the personnel systems at the Departments of Defense 
and Homeland Security prior to moving forward, but explained 
that reform may work if properly administered and funded.
    b. Witnesses.--Linda M. Springer, Director, U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management; David M. Walker, Comptroller General, 
U.S. Government Accountability Office; Theresa S. Shaw, Chief 
Operating Officer, Office of Federal Student Aid, U.S. 
Department of Education; Max Stier, president and CEO, 
Partnership for Public Service; W. Scott Gould, vice president, 
public sector strategy and change, Business and Consulting 
Service, IBM Global Services; Michael B. Styles, national 
president, Federal Managers Association; John Gage, national 
president, American Federation of Government Employees; and 
Colleen M. Kelley, national president, National Treasury 
Employees Union.
12. ``Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: A Case for a Federal Employees 
        Appeals Court,'' November 9, 2005
    a. Summary.--The subcommittee invited representatives from 
the Office of Personnel Management [OPM], U.S. Merit Systems 
Protection Board [MSPB], the Federal Labor Relations Authority 
[FLRA], the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], and 
the Senior Executives Association to discuss how to streamline 
and improve the review procedures of the MSPB, the FLRA, and 
the EEOC. This discussion included, but was not limited to, 
consolidation of these agencies into one adjudicatory body with 
jurisdiction over employee appeals, labor-management matters, 
and equal opportunity issues. The subcommittee also examined 
how to reduce jurisdictional overlap and improve processing 
times.
    b. Witnesses.--William Bransford, general counsel, Senior 
Executives Association; Neil A.G. McPhie, chairman, Merit 
Systems Protection Board; Dale Cabaniss, chairman, Federal 
Labor Relations Authority; and Cari Dominguez, Chair, Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission.
13. ``Mitigating the Impact of High Gas Prices on the American 
        Workforce,'' November 16, 2005
    a. Summary.--With the gasoline price spikes from two 
hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast within weeks of each other, 
the subcommittee examined the impact this has had on Federal 
employees, and what the agencies they work for are doing in 
response. Employees that drive into work every day in highly 
congested cities consume large amounts of gasoline. It was 
estimated that in 2003, traffic congestion caused 3.7 billion 
hours of travel delay and 2.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel. 
At this hearing the subcommittee was interested to find whether 
agencies were promoting the benefits offered through the use of 
public transportation, telecommuting, flexiwork and any other 
programs that might allow eligible employees to work in 
economical and efficient ways.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Frank Wolf, Member of Congress, U.S. 
House of Representatives; Hon. James Moran, Member of Congress, 
U.S. House of Representatives; Dan Matthews, Chief Information 
Officer, Department of Transportation; Tom Calcagni, managing 
director for public relations, AAA; William Mularie, chief 
executive officer, Telework Consortium; Steve O'Keeffe, 
executive director, Telework Exchange; and Steve Hill, Silver 
State Material.
14. ``Healthier Feds and Families: Introducing Information Technology 
        into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program,'' March 15, 
        2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing followed on the subcommittee's 
hearing held on July 27, 2005, entitled ``Is There a Doctor in 
the Mouse? Using Information Technology to Improve Health 
Care.'' This hearing built upon the discussions in that hearing 
and also examined how H.R. 4859, the Federal Family Health 
Information Technology Act, can improve the quality and 
delivery of healthcare for the participants in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the 
House; David Powner, Director, IT Management Issues, Government 
Accountability Office; Dr. Jane Barlow, well being director, 
Health Benefits Operations, IBM; David St. Clair, Board of 
Directors member, Health Information Management Systems Society 
and founder and CEO of MEDecision Inc.; Dr. Edward F. Ewen Jr., 
director of clinical informatics, Christiana Care Health 
Services; Dr. Paul B. Handel, vice president and chief medical 
officer Texas Division, HCSC; Jeannine M. Rivet, executive vice 
president, UnitedHealth Group; and Dr. Malik M. Hasan, CEO, 
HealthView, retired CEO, Health Net.
15. `` OPM's 2007 Budget and New Strategic and Operational Plan: A 
        Discussion with the OPM Director,'' March 28, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to discuss 
OPM's fiscal year 2007 budget allocation and new Strategic and 
Operational Plan for 2006-2010. The President's Budget 
requested a budget allotment for OPM of $256 million, an 
increase of $17.2 million from OPM's fiscal year 2006 post-
recession budget allocation. In addition, the Office of 
Personnel Management issued a new Strategic and Operation Plan 
for 2006-2010. The subcommittee examined OPM's new Strategic 
and Operational Plan and program goals in connection with the 
President's Budget.
    b. Witness.--Linda Springer, Director, Office of Personnel 
Management.
16. ``Travel vs. Terrorism: Federal Workforce Issues in Managing 
        Airport Security,'' April 4, 2006
    a. Summary.--Since September 11, 2001, the security 
requirements at airports have changed significantly. For 
example, screening and background checks of the Federal and 
private sector workforces at airports have been enhanced. The 
agencies primarily responsible for these procedures are the 
Department of Homeland Security [DHS], which includes the 
Transportation Security Administration [TSA], and Customs and 
Border Protection [CBP], and the Office of Personnel 
Management, Center for Federal Investigative Services. The 
Nation relies upon these agencies and their employees for 
protection. The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and 
Agency Organization is concerned about hiring, training, 
deployment, and preparedness of Federal employees at these 
agencies. Understanding what these employees do is of paramount 
importance because employees have been entrusted with 
protecting the lives of American citizens on a day to day 
basis.
    b. Witnesses.--Cathleen Berrick, Director, Homeland 
Security and Justice, Government Accountability Office; Robert 
Jamison, Deputy Secretary for Security Operations, 
Transportation Security Administration; Kathy Dillaman, Deputy 
Associate Director for the Center for Federal Investigative 
Services, Office of Personnel Management; and Dawn E. Lucini, 
airport security administrator, McCarran International Airport, 
Las Vegas.
17. `` Yucca Mountain: Broken Management, Broken Quality Assurance, 
        Broken Project,'' April 25, 2006
    a. Summary.--Pursuant to the subcommittee's investigation 
of the Yucca Mountain Project relating to allegations that 
Federal employees falsified quality assurance records, Chairman 
Porter requested the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to 
conduct a followup study on the effectiveness of the Department 
of Energy's [DOE] quality assurance program for the Yucca 
Mountain Project. GAO has since completed its study and 
recently released a report entitled, ``Quality Assurance at 
DOE's Planned Nuclear Waste Repository Needs Increased 
Management Attention.'' The purpose of this hearing was to 
examine GAO's findings in greater detail, and bring attention 
to DOE's mismanagement of Yucca Mountain.
    b. Witnesses.--Paul M. Golan, Acting Director, Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of 
Energy; Gregory Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Energy; Margaret Federline, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission; and Jim Wells, Director, Natural Resources and 
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
18. ``Adding a Real Estate Investment Trust [REIT] Index Option to the 
        Thrift Savings Plan: Considering the Views and Advisory Role of 
        the Employee Thrift Advisory Council [ETAC],'' April 26, 2006
    a. Summary.--On April 12, 2005, Chairman Jon Porter, along 
with Representative Chris Van Hollen and full committee 
Chairman Tom Davis, introduced H.R. 1578, the ``Real Estate 
Investment Thrift Savings Act.'' There has been growing 
interest in expanding the options available to employees who 
participate in the TSP to include a fund option for investment 
in real estate investment trusts [REITs]. REITs have become an 
investment vehicle of choice recently for private sector 
companies when considering expansion of options available 
within 401(k) packages. As the Federal Government seeks to 
modernize its recruitment and retention tools to keep pace with 
the private sector, REITs can be an important tool in 
accomplishing these goals.
    This hearing, in particular, examined the substance of the 
resolution adopted by the Employee Thrift Advisory Council 
[ETAC] on March 7, 2006, opposing the addition of a Real Estate 
Investment Trust [REIT] Index Fund to the Thrift Savings Plan; 
the information and process used by the ETAC to ascertain the 
viewpoint of Federal employees, as reflected in the resolution; 
and the role of Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board 
management with regard to the ETAC's adoption of the resolution 
and its decisionmaking process.
    b. Witnesses.--Gary A. Amelio, Executive Director, Federal 
Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Thomas J. Trabucco, 
Director, External Affairs, Federal Retirement Thrift 
Investment Board; James W. Sauber, chairman, Employee Thrift 
Advisory Council; and Richard L. Strombotne, Employee Thrift 
Advisory Council member.
19. ``Fair and Balanced? The Status of Pay and Benefits for Non-Article 
        III Judges,'' May 16, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the concerns of non-
Article III Judges, with an emphasis on Administrative Law 
Judges [ALJs]. The subcommittee explored issues pertaining to 
the recruitment and retention of these judges including pay 
compression, the utility of implementing pay-for-performance 
for non-Article III judges, OPM's management of the ALJ 
program, and the alleged inequity of retirement benefits 
provided to ALJs.
    b. Witnesses.--Nancy Kichak, Associate Director, Division 
for Strategic Human Resources Policy, Office of Personnel 
Management; William Cowan, Deputy Chief Administrative Law 
Judge, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, vice president, 
Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference; Ronald G. 
Bernoski, Administrative Law Judge, Social Security 
Administration, president, Association of Administrative Law 
Judges; R. Anthony McCann, president of the Board of Contract 
Appeals Judges Association; and Denise N. Slavin, president, 
National Association of Immigration Judges.
20. ``Reauthorization of the Office of Government Ethics,'' May 23, 
        2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the reauthorization of 
the Office of Government Ethics [OGE]. The agency's current 
authorization expires at the end of the fiscal year 2006. OGE 
was seeking the passage of legislation that would extend the 
agency's authorization of appropriations through fiscal year 
2011. Marilyn Glynn, Acting Director for the Office of 
Government Ethics was called to justify the proposed 5 year 
reauthorization.
    b. Witness.--Marilyn Glynn, Acting Director, Office of 
Government Ethics.
21. ``Healthier Feds and Families: Introducing Information Technology 
        into the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, a 
        Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4859 Part II,'' June 13, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing followed a subcommittee hearing 
held on March 15, 2005, entitled, ``Healthier Feds and 
Families: Introducing Information Technology into the Federal 
Employee Health Benefits Program.'' This hearing built upon the 
discussions in that hearing and also examined how H.R. 4859, 
the Federal Family Health Information Technology Act, can 
improve the quality and delivery of healthcare for the 
participants in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay, Member of Congress, 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Federalism and the 
Census; Dan Green, Deputy Associate Director, Center for 
Employee and Family Support Policy, OPM; Charles Fallis, 
president, National Active and Retired Federal Employees 
Association; Colleen Kelley, national president, National 
Treasury Employees Union; Jacqueline Simon, director of public 
policy, American Federation of Government Employees; Archelle 
Georgion, MD, executive VP, strategic relations, Specialized 
Care Services, UnitedHealth Group; Stephen W. Gammarino, senior 
vice president, National Programs, Blue Cross and Blue Shield 
Association; and Joe Witkowski, vice president, Government 
Employees Hospital Association, Inc.
22. ``Establishing a Commission to Recommend Improvements for the 
        Federal Employees Appeals Process,'' July 11, 2006
    a. Summary.--The current Federal employee appeals and 
complaint process is complicated and heard in numerous agencies 
and forums. On November 9, 2005, the subcommittee held a 
hearing entitled, ``Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: A Case 
for a Federal Employees Appeals Court,'' to explore a proposal 
to consolidate employee appeals into one forum. At that hearing 
Mr. Niel A.G. McPhie, chairman of the U.S. Merit Systems 
Protection Board, suggested that a commission be formed to 
study the Federal employee appeals process. Chairman McPhie's 
suggestion was well-received by members of the subcommittee. 
This hearing examined the idea of creating a Federal Employees 
Appeals Commission to further study the process and to offer 
recommendations for improvement.
    b. Witnesses.--Neil A.G. McPhie, chairman, Merit Systems 
Protection Board; William (Bill) Tobey, Deputy Solicitor, 
Federal Labor Relations Authority; Cari Dominguez, Chair, Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission; Scott Bloch, Special 
Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel; Nancy H. Kichak, 
Associate Director, Strategic Human Resource Policy Division, 
Office of Personnel Management; Scot Beckenbaugh, acting deputy 
director, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; William 
Bransford, general counsel, Senior Executives Association; 
Colleen M. Kelley, national president, National Treasury 
Employees Union; John Gage, national president, American 
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; and Karen Heiser, 
vice president of FMA Chapter 88, Federal Managers Association.
23. ``Telecommuting: A 21st Century Solution to Traffic Jams and 
        Terrorism,'' July 18, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing specifically examined the need to 
increase the use of telecommuting by the Federal Government in 
the National Capitol Region to provide: continued government 
operations during an emergency or disaster situation, increased 
efficiency and productivity in the Federal Government, and an 
increase in the quality of life of Federal employees.
    b. Witnesses.--Daniel Green, Deputy Associate Director 
Center for Workforce Planning and Policy, Analysis, Strategic 
Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel 
Management; Danette Campbell, Senior Telework Advisor, the U.S. 
Patent and Trademark Office; Carl Froehlich, Chief of Agency-
Wide Shared Services, the Internal Revenue Service; Dr. William 
Mularie, CEO, Telework Consortium; Joslyn Read, assistant vice 
president, regulatory, Hughes Networks Systems LLC; and Jerry 
Edgerton, president business/Federal marketing, Verizon 
Communications.
24. ``Retirees Returning to the Rescue: Re-employing Annuitants in 
        Times of National Need,'' July 25, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the need for legislation 
to enhance flexibilities for re-employing annuitants to fill 
crucial Federal workforce shortages without the requirement 
that salary be offset by annuity. The hearing also examined how 
to quickly fill areas of need by encouraging part-time service 
both before and after retirement.
    b. Witnesses.--Nancy Kichak, Associate Director for 
Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel 
Management; Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Undersecretary of 
Defense, Civilian Personnel Policy, Department of Defense; 
Barbara Panther, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human 
Resources and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs; Dr. 
Ronald Sanders, Chief Human Capitol Officer, Office of the 
Director of National Intelligence; Charles Fallis, president, 
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association; and 
Duncan Templeton, national legislative vice president, Federal 
Law Enforcement Association.
25. ``Using Information Technology: For the Health of It,'' September 
        1, 2006 (St. Louis, MO)
    a. Summary.--This hearing followed on several subcommittee 
hearings dealing with health information technology [HIT] and 
the role the Federal Government can and should play in helping 
HIT move forward nationally. This hearing focused on current 
government progress in HIT. On August 22, 2006 the President 
signed a new Executive order, which requires insurance carriers 
that do business with the Federal Government to provide price 
transparency to their consumers. It also requires these 
carriers to adopt certain quality standards which will be 
monitored and published by the Office of Personnel Management. 
Carriers who adopt HIT will be required to use and follow 
interoperability standards that will be recognized by the 
Federal Government. The Executive order also requires plans to 
develop more consumer driven health options. This Executive 
order helps ensure that the benefits Federal employees receive 
are the best in quality and choice while preventing premium 
rates from increasing due to these changes. The government 
witnesses discussed the progress and challenges we now face in 
adopting HIT. They also testified about the new Executive order 
and what it means for Federal employees and what it means for 
the rest of the country. The witnesses from the private sector 
and from the higher educational sector discussed the progress 
and challenges we are facing in implementing full electronic 
health records.
    b. Witnesses.--Daniel Green, Deputy Associate Director, 
Employee and Family Support Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management; David Powner, Director, IT Management Issues, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; George Paz, president, CEO of 
Express Scripts Inc.; Dr. James P. Crane, associate vice 
chancellor for clinical affairs, School of Medicine, Washington 
University; and Mark A. Rothstein, director of the Institute 
for Bioethics Health Policy.
26. ``Executive and Judicial Compensation in the Federal Government 
        (Quadrennial Commission),'' September 20, 2006
    a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine the 
results of a study conducted by GAO--at the request of the 
chairman of this subcommittee--on executive and judicial 
compensation in the Federal Government, including discussion 
of: inequities in top level compensation in executive and 
judicial pay plans; the adverse impact of ``pay erosion'' and 
``pay compression'' due to inflation and the failure to keep 
pace with changing economic conditions in certain top level 
executive and judicial pay plans; and whether re-establishment 
of a commission--or some other approach--should be considered 
with respect to the possible restructuring of top level pay 
plans to maintain reasonable salary relationships across 
Federal executive and judicial level positions.
    b. Witnesses.--David Walker, Comptroller General of the 
United States; D. Brock Hornby, judge, U.S. District Court for 
the District of Maine, chairman, judicial branch, Committee of 
the Judicial Conference of the United States; Philip M. Pro, 
chief judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; 
Sean O'Keefe, chancellor, Louisiana State University and former 
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
and Dr. Gary Burtless, John C. and Nancy D. Whitehead chair in 
economic studies, the Brookings Institution.

      VI. Subcommittee on Government Management and Accountability

1. ``The Financial Report of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 
        2004,'' February 9, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the findings of the 
Government Accountability Office's audit of the fiscal year 
2004 consolidated financial statements of the U.S. Government. 
For the eighth year in a row, GAO was unable to provide 
assurance as to the reliability of the Federal Government's 
financial books, resulting in a ``disclaimer of opinion.'' The 
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] accelerated the deadline 
for submitting financial audits, and Federal agencies closed 
their books on November 15, 2004, only 45 days after the end of 
the fiscal year. This financial information was then compiled 
by the Department of the Treasury in the 2004 Financial Report 
of the U.S. Government and audited by GAO. The consolidated 
report was issued on December 15, 2004. The accelerated 
deadline was a full 3 months earlier than the deadline for the 
previous fiscal year and a significant improvement from earlier 
years when agencies took up to 5 months to close their books. 
Of the 24 major departments and agencies covered by the Chief 
Financial Officers Act, Public Law 101-576, all but two were 
able to submit audited statements within the accelerated 
timeframe. Eighteen were able to earn ``unqualified'' or 
``clean'' opinions, but auditors found that many of these 
agencies had weaknesses in management safeguards to protect 
against fraud and error--known as ``internal controls.'' The 
Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Justice, as well as NASA received 
``disclaimed'' opinions on their fiscal year 2004 financial 
statements, which means that the auditor was unable to assert 
that the information was reliable. The Small Business 
Administration improved on last year's disclaimed opinion, 
earning a ``qualified'' opinion on its fiscal year 2004 
statements. This hearing examined the consolidated financial 
statements, the reasons that GAO was unable to express an 
opinion on them, and the managerial changes that need to take 
place so that the Federal Government can produce reliable 
financial data for the Congress and the American people.
    b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; Jack Martin, Chief Financial 
Officer, U.S. Department of Education; and Donald V. Hammond, 
Fiscal Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury.
2. ``Improving Internal Controls: A Review of Changes to OMB Circular 
        A-123,'' February 16, 2005
    a. Summary.--When accounting scandals shook the U.S. 
economy early in the decade, Congress responded by placing 
stringent new accounting requirements on publicly-traded 
companies. The legislation, known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 
Public Law 107-204, put responsibility for financial 
information squarely in the hands of managers. To ensure that 
investors could rely on financial reports, Sarbanes-Oxley 
required companies to document the safeguards they have in 
place to prevent errors or fraud, commonly known as ``internal 
controls.'' Internal controls are the checks and balances that 
help managers detect and prevent problems. Internal controls 
provide a foundation for accountability, and, while they are 
important in the private sector, sound controls are imperative 
in government. Internal control problems are nothing new in the 
Federal Government. For example, the Federal Government makes 
approximately $45 billion in mistaken payments every year. When 
audits at the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] revealed 
egregious internal controls problems, the subcommittee proposed 
and successfully enacted legislation, Public Law 108-330, to 
require DHS management to take responsibility for improving 
internal controls and to have an auditor attest to those 
improvements. In light of this legislation and the new 
requirements for the private sector under Sarbanes-Oxley, the 
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] re-examined the 
requirements Federal agencies face. Using information gleaned 
from a committee of agency Chief Financial Officers and 
Inspectors General, OMB issued new guidelines, Circular A-123, 
in December 2004 that, like Sarbanes-Oxley and the requirements 
at DHS, puts more responsibility on agency management and 
clearly defines the steps that need to be taken and documented 
to ensure that internal controls are sound. This hearing 
examined the changes in Circular A-123, and the steps that will 
be taken to improve internal controls in Federal agencies as a 
result of the changes.
    b. Witnesses.--Otto J. Wolff, Chief Financial Officer and 
Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce, 
member of the Chief Financial Officers Council; Christopher B. 
Burnham, Acting Under Secretary for Management, Assistant 
Secretary for Resource Management, and Chief Financial Officer, 
U.S. Department of State, member of the Chief Financial 
Officers Council; John P. Higgins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. 
Department of Education, member of the President's Council on 
Integrity and Efficiency; and Jeffrey C. Steinhoff, Managing 
Director of Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office.
3. ``Protecting Pensions and Ensuring the Solvency of PBGC,'' March 2, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corp.'s [PBGC] financial situation. PBGC is a Federal 
agency established as an insurer in 1974 by the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act, Public Law 93-406. It was 
created to protect the pensions of participants and 
beneficiaries covered by private sector defined benefit plans. 
The PBGC runs two distinct insurance programs for single-
employer and multi-employer plans. Multi-employer plans are 
collectively bargained plans to which more than one company 
makes contributions. PBGC maintains separate reserve funds for 
each program. In 2004, it insured private pensions for 44 
million persons participating in about 30,200 plans, including 
about 1,600 multi-employer plans. In fiscal year 2004, PBGC 
paid over $3 billion in benefits to almost 520,000 people in 
about 3,500 plans. A firm must be in financial distress to end 
an underfunded plan. Recent weaknesses in the steel and airline 
industries led to large and expensive plan terminations that 
have over time left the PBGC with a deficit of over $23 
billion. This hearing examined structural changes to how the 
PBGC operates to allow the PBGC to react like a traditional 
insurance provider would to perceived risk in its 
policyholders. The subcommittee continues to monitor the PBGC's 
financial health, and at the time this summary was written, 
several legislative proposals to reform the PBGC to eliminate 
its funding shortfalls were being considered by Congress.
    b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; Brad Belt, Executive 
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.; and Doug Elliot, 
president, Center on Federal Financial Institutions.
4. ``Strengthening Travel Reimbursement Procedures for Army National 
        Guard Soldiers,'' March 16, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing was an extension of the 
subcommittee's oversight of the pay problems that have plagued 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers mobilized since 
September 11, 2001 as a part of Operations Noble Eagle, 
Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. The House Government 
Reform Committee held a hearing on January 28, 2004, to look at 
pay problems with several National Guard units, which were 
identified by GAO in a November 2003 report. The subcommittee 
then held a hearing on July 20, 2004 looking specifically at 
pay problems for Army Reserve soldiers. As a result of these 
hearings, GAO developed 50 recommendations for the Department 
of Defense [DOD] to improve its financial systems used to 
process these payments. Committee staff and DOD personnel meet 
quarterly to assess the progress in implementing those 
recommendations. At this hearing, the subcommittee examined the 
findings of GAO's report, GAO-05-79, on travel reimbursement 
procedures for National Guard troops. This report found that a 
number of deployed National Guard soldiers experienced problems 
receiving appropriate travel and per diem reimbursement. DOD 
has been very responsive to the efforts of GAO and the 
committee, and the hearing provided DOD with an opportunity to 
respond to the GAO report and discuss many of the management 
and systems improvements they have made to improve accuracy of 
the travel and per diem reimbursement processes.
    b. Witnesses.--Patrick T. Shine, Director, Military and 
Civilian Pay Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service; 
John Argodale, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial 
Operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Financial Management and Comptroller; Roy Wallace, Director of 
Plans and Resources, Department of the Army; and Gregory D. 
Kutz, Director of Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office.
5. ``Financial Management Challenges at the Department of Justice,'' 
        May 4, 2005
    a. Summary.--For fiscal year 2004, the Department of 
Justice's [DOJ] auditors were unable to express an opinion as 
to the reliability of DOJ's financial statements, and they 
rescinded the unqualified opinion rendered on DOJ's 2003 
statements. The purpose of this hearing was to examine these 
audit results, which revealed serious accounting problems that 
have impacted DOJ's ability to achieve its mission. The most 
serious problems occurred in the area of grants management, 
including the Community Oriented Policing Services Program. The 
hearing also examined DOJ's struggles with its management of 
large information technology investments, such as DOJ's 
attempts to implement a DOJ wide financial management system 
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's failed investment of 
$170 million for a system that will not work as intended. At 
the hearing, DOJ discussed its efforts to address the 
challenges identified in the audit. DOJ worked hard to address 
these issues, and for fiscal year 2005, DOJ regained its clean 
audit opinion.
    b. Witnesses.--Paul R.Corts, Assistant Attorney General for 
Administration and Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of 
Justice; and Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General, U.S. Department 
of Justice, accompanied by Marilyn A. Kessinger, Director, 
Financial Statement Audit Office, Office of the Inspector 
General, U.S. Department of Justice.
6. ``Information Policy in the 21st Century: A Review of the Freedom of 
        Information Act,'' May 11, 2005
    a. Summary.--The Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], 5 USC 
Sec. 552, was originally signed into law almost 40 years ago, 
in 1966. FOIA established a statutory right of public access to 
executive branch information in the Federal Government. FOIA 
generally provides that any person has a right, enforceable in 
Federal court, to obtain access to Federal agency records. The 
framers of FOIA, however, realized that the public's right to 
know must be balanced against the Federal Government's right to 
keep information in confidence to the extent necessary without 
permitting indiscriminate secrecy. FOIA originally included 
nine categories of information protected from disclosure. 
Congress has added additional exemptions over time. It is a 
constant struggle to maintain the appropriate balance between 
the public's need for open government while protecting 
information vital to national security and preserving the 
confidentiality of certain personal information. This hearing 
gave the subcommittee a chance to examine the security, 
information management, and resource challenges that Federal 
agencies face in the post-September 11th information age. The 
subcommittee heard testimony from the Department of Justice who 
is responsible for providing agencies with FOIA guidance and 
encouraging compliance with FOIA. Furthermore, the National 
Archives and Records Administration, who faces the huge task of 
electronically archiving millions of government documents so 
they may be available for future generations, testified on 
their experience with FOIA and meeting the challenge of 
providing ready access to public information. Finally, the 
subcommittee heard from FOIA requestors to understand the 
opportunities to improve FOIA. In part as a result of this 
hearing and the committee's oversight activities related to 
FOIA, the President signed an Executive order on December 14, 
2005 to improve the administration of FOIA to make it more 
citizen-centered and service-oriented for FOIA requestors.
    b. Witnesses.--Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United 
States, National Archives and Records Administration, 
accompanied by Dr. Michael Kurtz, Assistant Archivist for 
Records Programs, National Archives and Records Administration; 
Carl Nichols, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Federal 
Programs Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice; 
Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Jay Smith, chairman, Newspaper 
Association of America and president, Cox Newspapers Inc.; Ari 
Schwartz, associate director, Center for Democracy and 
Technology; and Mark Tapscott, director, Center for Media and 
Public Policy, the Heritage Foundation.
7. ``Business Systems Modernization at the Department of Defense,'' 
        June 8, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the 
subcommittee's oversight of the business modernization efforts 
currently underway at the Department of Defense [DOD]. 
Continual audits and investigations by GAO and DOD auditors 
confirm the existence of pervasive weaknesses in DOD's 
financial management and related business processes and 
systems. The problems have (1) resulted in a lack of reliable 
information needed to make sound decisions and report on the 
status of day-to-day activities, including accountability of 
assets, and financial and other reports to Congress and DOD 
decisionmakers, (2) hindered operational efficiency, (3) 
adversely affected mission performance, and (4) left DOD 
vulnerable to fraud and waste. Although the senior DOD 
leadership has repeatedly committed itself to transforming and 
improving the department's financial management and business 
process systems, limited progress has been made since Secretary 
Rumsfeld announced the effort in 2001. This hearing provided an 
update on the status of the Business Enterprise Architecture 
and the implementation of financial management and business 
process reforms, known as the Business Management Modernization 
Project, including reviewing suggestions for accelerating 
reforms and overcoming obstacles that hinder their 
implementation. In part as a result of the committee's 
oversight, DOD recently announced the creation of the Business 
Transformation Agency to oversee its business modernization 
efforts; the subcommittee will monitor the effect of the new 
agency.
    b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Director, Financial 
Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office, accompanied by Randy Hite, Director, Information 
Technology Architecture and Systems Issues, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Thomas Modly, Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Financial Management, Office of the Under Secretary 
of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense; and Paul A. Brinkley, 
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Business Transformation, U.S. Department of Defense.
8. ``The Evolution of Federal Financial Management: A Review of the 
        Need to Consolidate, Simplify, and Streamline,'' June 22, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing was the first in a series of 
discussions on how best to consolidate, simplify, and 
streamline the laws that govern Federal agency financial 
management. More than 800 pages of statutory text, some of 
which dates back to the 1920s, govern the daily decisions of 
Federal managers. The result is overlapping and often-obsolete 
reporting requirements and wasted effort. The right financial 
management reform will ensure that government managers are 
accountable to taxpayers in the most effective manner possible 
so that tax dollars are spent for their intended purpose, not 
to generate useless reports or pay for unneeded overhead. The 
driving force behind financial management should be 
accountability, not the generation of reports and paperwork. 
The long-term goal behind this hearing is to develop 
legislation that would simplify, streamline and enhance the 
laws governing agency financial management. The subcommittee 
has been working with an Advisory Panel from the National 
Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] composed of NAPA 
fellows with expertise in financial, budgetary, and performance 
management as well as program operations. Members of the 
Advisory Panel testified about what they see as the key issues 
for reforming Federal financial management practices. The 
subcommittee will continue working on this issue throughout the 
second session of the 109th Congress.
    b. Witnesses.--C. Morgan Kinghorn, president, National 
Academy of Public Administration; Edward DeSeve, vice chairman, 
Board of Directors, National Academy of Public Administration; 
and Edward Kearney, managing partner, Kearney and Co., 
Certified Public Accountants, accompanied by Cornelius E. 
Tierney, Kearney and Co., Certified Public Accountants.
9. ``Implementing the Improper Payments Information Act: Are We Making 
        Progress?'' July 20, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation in a series of 
hearings that the subcommittee started in the 108th Congress to 
examine executive branch efforts to measure and prevent 
improper payments. The Federal Government is currently making 
at least $45.1 billion worth of improper payments each fiscal 
year. The current administration has made the elimination of 
improper payments a major focus of the President's management 
agenda [PMA] both through the Improving Financial Performance 
initiative and the Eliminating Improper Payments program 
initiative. On November 26, 2002, the President signed into law 
the Improper Payments Information Act [IPIA] of 2002, Public 
Law 107-300. With the passage of IPIA, Congress and the 
President institutionalized Federal agency efforts to eliminate 
improper payments. This law requires Federal agencies, for the 
first time in the history of Federal spending, to annually 
estimate the amount of improper payments that agencies make. 
The purpose of IPIA is to enhance the accuracy and integrity of 
Federal payments. IPIA provides a framework for Federal 
agencies to identify the reasons behind improper payments and 
to develop solutions that will reduce and prevent improper 
payments. Federal agencies reported on their efforts to 
implement IPIA for the first time at the end of fiscal year 
2004. These agency reports represent the best information to 
date on the extent of improper payments and the critical 
challenges that must be overcome to eliminate them. Based on 
agency-established reduction targets, the Office of Management 
and Budget is working with agencies to reduce the government-
wide improper payments total for the next round of reporting in 
fiscal year 2005. This hearing provided the subcommittee with 
the opportunity to take a look at the improper payment figures 
from fiscal year 2004, the efforts to refine those figures and 
to reduce improper payments in fiscal year 2005, and the 
challenges that lay ahead to improving the accuracy and 
integrity of Federal payments.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of 
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget; 
and McCoy Williams, Director, Financial Management and 
Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
10. ``DHS in Transition: Are Financial Management Problems Hindering 
        Mission Effectiveness?'' July 27, 2005
    a. Summary.--At this hearing, the subcommittee focused on 
the financial management problems at the Department of Homeland 
Security [DHS]. Just prior to the hearing, DHS Secretary 
Michael Chertoff released the results of his Second Stage 
Review of the organization of DHS. The subcommittee was 
concerned that the recommendations did not appear to have 
placed the proper emphasis on financial accountability. This 
omission is concerning because DHS faces serious accounting 
problems, including mismanagement of large contracts at the 
Transportation Security Administration, ineffective control of 
grants processing, and budget shortfalls at the Bureau of 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For the past 3 fiscal 
years, the Department has been unable to produce audited 
financial statements, as required by law. According to the 
audit results for fiscal year 2004, the most serious weakness 
at DHS is its current financial management structure, under 
which the Department's Chief Financial Officer reports to the 
Under Secretary for Management rather than directly to the 
Secretary. Chairman Platts was the chief sponsor of the DHS 
Financial Accountability Act, Public Law 108-330, which applied 
the provisions of the Chief Financial Officers Act [CFO] of 
1990, Public Law 101-576, to DHS. Under the act, all 
Departments must have a Senate-confirmed CFO who reports 
directly to the Secretary. This hearing gave the subcommittee 
an opportunity to ask the Department of Homeland Security why 
it had not yet complied with the requirement to nominate a new 
CFO for Senate confirmation and to adjust its organizational 
structure to give the CFO direct access to the Secretary, as 
set forth in the DHS Financial Accountability Act, which was 
signed into law on October 16, 2004. As a direct result of this 
hearing, DHS changed its organizational chart to reflect the 
direct reporting relationship of the CFO to the Secretary. At 
the time of the writing of this report, DHS has yet to put 
forward a nominee to go through Senate confirmation. The 
subcommittee is continuing to monitor this situation.
    b. Witnesses.--Janet Hale, Undersecretary for Management, 
Department of Homeland Security; Andrew Maner, Chief Financial 
Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Linda Combs, 
Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of 
Management and Budget; and Richard Skinner, Acting Inspector 
General, Department of Homeland Security.
11. ``Implementing Cost Accounting at the Department of Veterans 
        Affairs and the Department of Labor,'' September 21, 2005
    a. Summary.--Reliable information on the true cost of 
Federal programs is needed to manage agency operations 
effectively and to improve mission performance. In the current 
budget environment, this information is particularly important 
as agencies try to accomplish their missions with fewer 
resources. A case in point is the recent budget crisis at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. In June 2005, the Congress 
passed legislation providing $1.5 billion in emergency funds 
for VA's health care programs in fiscal year 2005. The total 
funding increase for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 will amount to 
$2.5 billion. The Department had not anticipated the need for 
additional funding, and VA Secretary Jim Nicholson, testifying 
before the House Veterans Affairs Committee, blamed the 
failures on inaccurate data and outdated assumptions. Timely, 
accurate cost accounting data is integral to effective 
budgeting. Managerial cost accounting, often referred to as 
``cost accounting,'' is the collection and analysis of 
financial and non-financial data with the goal of understanding 
the true costs of programs on a micro-level. The subcommittee 
requested that GAO conduct a series of case studies to 
determine the extent to which Federal agencies develop cost 
information and use it for managerial decisionmaking. In its 
first study, GAO contrasted practices at VA with those at the 
Department of Labor, a leader in Federal financial management. 
The results of this case study, GAO-05-1013R, were examined at 
this hearing.
    b. Witnesses.--Samuel Mok, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. 
Department of Labor; Tim S. McClain, General Counsel and Acting 
Chief Management Officer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; 
and Robert Martin, Director, Financial Management and 
Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
12. ``Financial Services Sector Preparedness,'' September 26, 2005 
        (Brooklyn, NY)
    a. Summary.--The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 
and the destruction of the World Trade Center struck at the 
heart of the Nation's financial sector. The rapid recovery of 
the financial infrastructure inspired confidence as the U.S. 
Treasury securities market opened just 2 days later, and the 
equities market was in full operation by September 17th. Still, 
Congress, the executive branch, and industry groups realized 
that financial firms would need new contingency plans and 
stress tests to protect against more extreme situations in the 
future. The Federal Government in partnership with local 
governments and the private sector has responded to the need to 
continue to strengthen the resiliency of the Nation's financial 
infrastructure through a variety of initiatives. Many of these 
post September 11th improvements were tested during the massive 
power blackout in the northeastern United States and Canada on 
August 14, 2003. All indications after the blackout were that 
improvements put in place after September 11, 2001, helped 
mitigate the damage that could have resulted from the 
infrastructure shutdown that the blackout caused. These results 
are encouraging. The purpose of this field hearing, which was 
held in New York City, the financial capital of the world, was 
to examine the present status of financial market preparedness 
for wide-scale disasters or disruptions, including efforts 
aimed at prevention, detection, and response. The hearing 
provided local, State, and Federal Government officials and 
representatives from the private sector a chance to discuss 
accomplishments and identify areas where improvements and 
resources are still needed.
    b. Witnesses.--Raymond Kelly, police commissioner, city of 
New York; Scott Parsons, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Critical 
Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy, Department of 
the Treasury; R. James Caverly, Director, Infrastructure 
Coordination Division, Department of Homeland Security; Daniel 
Muccia, first deputy superintendent of banks, State of New York 
Banking Department; Catherine Allen, chief executive officer, 
BITS; Donald Donahue, chairman, Financial Services Sector 
Coordinating Council for Critical Infrastructure Protection and 
Homeland Security; Samuel Gaer, chief information officer, New 
York Mercantile Exchange, Inc., chief executive officer, NYMEX 
Europe Limited; and Steve Randich, executive vice president of 
operations and technology and chief information officer, the 
NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc.
13. ``Financial Management Challenges at the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration [NASA],'' October 27, 2005
    a. Summary.--At this hearing, the subcommittee examined 
financial management problems at the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration [NASA]. The hearing was conducted jointly 
with the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House 
Committee on Science, chaired by Representative Ken Calvert of 
California. Audits performed over the past several years have 
revealed serious financial management problems at NASA. Since 
fiscal year 2003, auditors have been unable to attest to the 
reliability of NASA's financial data, issuing what is known as 
a ``disclaimer of opinion'' each year on the agency's financial 
statements. Chairman Platts held an oversight hearing in May 
2004 to look at the results of the fiscal year 2003 audit and 
the implementation of a major financial system overhaul, the 
Integrated Enterprise Management Program [IEMP], which began in 
the middle of 2003. Although NASA management blamed conversion 
to the new system for its poor audit performance in both fiscal 
years 2003 and 2004, auditors also found that NASA did not 
follow proper accounting procedures, did not accurately account 
for property and equipment, and was unable to effectively 
reconcile its Treasury account--the equivalent of balancing its 
checkbook. Auditors have also expressed concerns about human 
capital management within the Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer [CFO], specifically whether the CFO at NASA 
headquarters has the appropriate authority over financial 
management at NASA's 10 independent centers. This hearing 
addressed the preliminary findings of NASA's financial audit 
for fiscal year 2004. The subcommittee also examined how NASA 
is managing the implementation of its new financial system, the 
IEMP, and how it has addressed the persistent weaknesses 
identified through successive audits.
    b. Witnesses.--Gwendolyn Sykes, Chief Financial Officer, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Patrick Ciganer, 
IEMP Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
Robert W. Cobb, Inspector General, National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration; and Greg Kutz, Director, Forensic Audit 
and Special Investigations, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office.
14. ``15 Years of the CFO Act--What is the Current State of Federal 
        Financial Management?'' November 17, 2005
    a. Summary.--November 15, 2005 marked the 15th Anniversary 
of the enactment of the Chief Financial Officers [CFO] Act, 
Public Law 101-576. This landmark legislation provided a new 
accountability framework for Federal financial management. 
First, the CFO Act centralized responsibility for financial 
management in the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. The 
CFO Act created the Offices of the Deputy Director for 
Management and Federal Financial Management within OMB along 
with the positions that head up these two offices, the Deputy 
Director for Management and the Controller, who are both 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. By 
creating these new positions in OMB, the CFO Act established a 
focal point and leadership for implementing government-wide 
financial management improvement efforts. Furthermore, by 
establishing CFOs in the largest departments and agencies with 
a direct line of reporting to the heads of those agencies, the 
act provided a new source of leadership for agency-by-agency 
financial management improvement. These CFOs coordinate with 
one another through the interagency CFO Council, which was 
established by the CFO Act as well. The act also laid the 
foundation for requiring annual financial audits of essentially 
all Federal operations. The requirement for audited financial 
statements of all agency accounts has now been in place for 10 
fiscal years, and on November 15, 2005, departments and 
agencies reported on the results of their audits for fiscal 
year 2005, just 45 days after the end of the fiscal year. 
Fifteen years ago this would have been impossible. Although 
many agencies have made steady progress in implementing the 
requirements of the CFO Act, the audit results over the past 3 
fiscal years show signs of stagnation. For the first round of 
audits of agency financial statements for fiscal year 1996, 
only 6 out of 24 CFO Act agencies were able to achieve a clean 
opinion. The number of clean opinions peaked with the audit 
results of fiscal year 2002, when 21 out of the 24 CFO Act 
agencies received clean opinions. For fiscal years 2003, 2004 
and 2005, only 18 out of 24 agencies received clean opinions, 
and over that period a total of nine different agencies have 
received less than clean opinions. For fiscal year 2005, the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration all received 
disclaimers as they did the previous two fiscal years. The 
Department of Energy and the General Services Administration 
went from clean opinions in fiscal year 2004 to disclaimers for 
fiscal year 2005. Finally, the Department of State went from a 
clean opinion in fiscal year 2004 to a qualified opinion for 
fiscal year 2005. This hearing gave the Members of the 
subcommittee the opportunity to examine how far the Federal 
Government has come in improving its financial management and 
whether agencies are able to generate the kind of complete, 
reliable, consistent, timely, and uniform financial information 
that key decisionmakers need to finance, manage, and evaluate 
Federal programs.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of 
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget; 
and Jeffrey C. Steinhoff, Managing Director, Financial 
Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office.
15. ``U.S. Fiscal Outlook and the Fiscal Year 2005 Governmentwide 
        Financial Statements,'' March 1, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed, for the fourth time 
since Representative Platts took over as chairman of the 
subcommittee, the Financial Report of the U.S. Government, 
which provides one of the best snapshots of the financial 
health of the Federal Government at the end of each fiscal 
year. The report includes the results of the Federal 
Government's financial operations, its financial condition, its 
revenues and costs, assets and liabilities, and other 
obligations and commitments. In contrast to the Federal budget, 
which uses a cash basis for reporting, the Financial Report is 
compiled on an accrual basis. This difference makes the 
Financial Report far more dynamic in contrast to the budget. 
While the budget can be used as a planning and control tool for 
the current fiscal year, the Financial Report may be used as a 
tool for analyzing longer-term obligations and spending and 
revenue trends.
    The 2005 Financial Report of the U.S. Government represents 
the ninth time that the Department of the Treasury has 
published the report in its current format. The results 
contained in the 2005 Financial Report showed that the net 
operating cost of the Federal Government, which is the excess 
of expenses over revenues, was $760 billion for fiscal year 
2005. The 2005 Financial Report contrasts this number to the 
$319 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2005, and explains 
why although the budget deficit decreased by $93 billion from 
fiscal years 2004 to 2005, the net operating cost of the 
Federal Government actually increased by $144 billion. The 2005 
Financial Report also contains an analysis of the Social 
Security and Medicare trustees' annual report on the Social 
Security and Medicare Trust funds. While the 10-year fiscal 
outlook for these funds is basically stable, the 75-year fiscal 
outlook for these funds is not nearly as good. In fact, 
according to the 2005 Financial Report, the net present value 
of the total resources needed to fund the Social Security and 
Medicare programs over the next 75 years is approximately $35.6 
trillion. This number represents the resources needed above and 
beyond the funding that these programs will receive from 
payroll taxes, benefit taxes, and premium payments.
    b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the 
United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and 
Donald V. Hammond, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department 
of the Treasury.
16. ``OMB's Financial Management Line of Business Initiative: Too Much 
        Too Soon?'' March 15, 2006
    a. Summary.--In 2004, the Office of Management and Budget 
announced the creation of its Lines of Business initiative, 
which aimed to consolidate duplicative functions across the 
Federal Government. The goal is to save taxpayer dollars by 
realizing economies of scale using a shared services model to 
provide ``back-office'' functions, such as Human Resources, 
Case Management, Grants Management, Financial Management, 
Federal Health Architecture, Information Technology Security, 
and others. A service provider could be another Federal agency 
or a private sector host.
    This hearing examined the progress made in the Financial 
Management Line of Business. In the President's Fiscal Year 
2005 Budget, four Federal agencies were designated by OMB as 
``Centers of Excellence'' and are now eligible to provide 
financial management services for other Federal agencies. OMB 
has been encouraging agencies to give serious consideration to 
either becoming or using Centers of Excellence as they make 
decisions to upgrade their financial systems. In fact, the 
initial OMB guidance required that agencies continue with 
financial management upgrades only with the approval of a 
business case--commonly known as an exhibit 300--that 
demonstrates the cost effectiveness of a system upgrade over 
use of the shared service model via a Center of Excellence.
    While the concept of a shared service model has significant 
merit, there are important considerations that need to be 
addressed as the initiative moves forward. Agencies need clear 
guidance, a realistic view of the state of Federal financial 
management, meaningful performance metrics, effective contracts 
between host and customer agencies, and better cost accounting 
in order for the concept to work as envisioned. Also, 
implementation of the concept needs to evolve at an appropriate 
pace. This hearing provided an important dialog on these and 
other topics.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of 
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget; 
Karen Evans, Administrator, Office of Electronic Government and 
Information Technology, Office of Management and Budget; Joseph 
Kull, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; John Marshall, vice 
president, CGI Federal; and Clifton A. Williams, partner, Grant 
Thornton LLP.
17. ``Department of Homeland Security Information Technology Challenges 
        and the Future of eMerge2,'' March 29, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing, held jointly with the Committee 
on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Management, Integration 
and Oversight, provided the subcommittee an opportunity to gain 
a better understanding of the Department of Homeland Security's 
information technology needs and challenges. DHS faces 
tremendous challenges as it attempts to find ways to meet its 
business objectives while leveraging the systems it inherited 
from the 22 organizations that came together to form DHS. From 
a financial management perspective, DHS appears stalled. For 
the past 3 years, DHS' auditors have not been able to give an 
audit opinion on DHS balance sheet, which is the most basic of 
financial statements. In the Auditor's Report for Fiscal Year 
2005, DHS' Inspector General stated that DHS made little or no 
progress to improve its overall financial reporting in fiscal 
year 2005. The indication for fiscal year 2006 is that things 
may actually get worse. Hopefully, the increasingly negative 
audit results are a sign that DHS and its auditors are getting 
better information about the true state of financial management 
within DHS so they can find and solve the problems. This 
hearing was crucial in providing the subcommittee's Members an 
opportunity to explore these issues and get a better sense of 
the future of financial and information technology management 
at DHS.
    b. Witnesses.--Eugene Schied, Acting Chief Financial 
Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Scott Charbo, Chief 
Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security; McCoy 
Williams, Director, Financial Management and Assurance, 
Government Accountability Office; and Randy Hite, Director, 
Information Technology Architecture and Systems, Government 
Accountability Office.
18. ``The Improper Payments Information Act--Are Agencies Meeting the 
        Requirements of the Law?'' April 5, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation in a series of 
hearings that the subcommittee started in the 108th Congress on 
the topic of reducing and eliminating improper payments in 
Federal programs. The current administration has made the 
elimination of improper payments a major focus of the 
President's management agenda both through the Improving 
Financial Performance initiative and the Eliminating Improper 
Payments program initiative. Congress and the President 
institutionalized Federal agency efforts to eliminate improper 
payments with the passage of the Improper Payments Information 
Act [IPIA] of 2002. IPIA's purpose is to enhance the accuracy 
and integrity of Federal payments by providing a framework for 
Federal agencies to identify the causes of, and solutions to, 
reducing improper payments. The Office of Management and Budget 
[OMB] issued guidance to agencies in May 2003 on implementing 
IPIA. Federal agencies reported on their efforts to implement 
IPIA for the first time in fiscal year 2004. These reports 
established a baseline number of $45.1 billion in improper 
payments reported for fiscal year 2004. For fiscal year 2005, 
agencies reported a total of approximately $38.5 billion in 
improper payments. The lower number for fiscal year 2005 is 
largely accounted for by a $9.6 billion decrease in the 
improper payments reported by the Department of Health and 
Human Services [HHS] for the Medicare program. There was 
however a $2 billion increase in the improper payments reported 
by the Social Security Administration for Old-Age and Survivors 
Insurance and Disability Insurance. Furthermore, 17 programs 
that had not reported prior to fiscal year 2005 reported new 
improper payments of $1.2 billion.
    These figures raise questions about the implementation of 
IPIA and the quality of reporting from agency to agency. First, 
there are some large programs like Medicaid, which will expend 
$340 billion in fiscal year 2006 and which definitely has 
significant improper payments, whose agencies have yet to 
figure out a way to estimate and report on improper payments 
for these programs.
    Finally, this hearing provided the subcommittee with an 
opportunity to hear a detailed assessment of how HHS was able 
to lower the error rate for Medicare so dramatically during 
fiscal year 2005, which led to the reported improper payment 
figure dropping by $7.8 billion. The subcommittee examined 
whether these improvements were the result of program 
management changes or whether the reduction in the improper 
payments number for Medicare was the result of how the 
information was gathered rather than the implementation of new 
financial controls over Medicare payments.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of 
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget; 
Charles E. Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Budget, Technology, 
and Finance, Department of Health and Human Services; Timothy 
B. Hill, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Office of 
Financial Management, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services; and McCoy Williams, Director, Financial Management 
and Assurance, Government Accountability Office.
19. ``After Katrina: The Role of the Department of Justice Katrina 
        Fraud Task Force and Agency Inspectors General in Preventing 
        Waste, Fraud, and Abuse,'' May 10, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the activities and 
effectiveness of the government-wide effort by agency 
inspectors general, as well as the DOJ Hurricane Katrina Fraud 
Task Force, to ensure accountability in the wake of Hurricane 
Katrina. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the 
Gulf Coast States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and 
Florida with torrential rains and severe winds, destroying 
thousands of square miles of residential and commercial areas, 
causing the failure of the city of New Orleans levee system, 
and leaving many areas along the Gulf Coast uninhabitable. By 
September 9, 2005, Congress had provided over $63 billion to 
DHS for disaster relief, including $15 million to the DHS 
Office of Inspector General to oversee the management and 
expenditure of these funds. The Federal Emergency Management 
Agency [FEMA] tasked other Federal departments and agencies 
through Mission Assignments, totaling over $7 billion, more 
than $6 billion of which went to the Army Corps of Engineers. 
Today, more than $100 billion has been appropriated by Congress 
to a variety of Federal agencies involved in the relief effort.
    In response to a request by Chairman Tom Davis of the House 
Government Reform Committee and Chairman Todd Platts of the 
Government Management, Finance and Accountability Subcommittee, 
the DHS OIG developed a plan for oversight of the funds to be 
spent directly by the DHS components. In addition, the dozen or 
so other Federal agencies that will play a significant role in 
the Hurricane Katrina rebuilding effort have each developed 
oversight plans for their respective agencies to ensure that 
federally appropriated funds are spent wisely.
    The overriding objective of the oversight plans developed 
by the DHS OIG and the other OIG offices involved with the 
Hurricane Katrina recovery and rebuilding is to ensure 
accountability. Therefore, the plans are focused heavily on 
pro-active, preventative measures, including reviewing and 
testing internal financial controls; monitoring and advising 
agency officials on contracts, grants and other financial 
transactions before they are approved; and meeting with 
contractors and applicants to advise them of the requirements 
and to assess their capabilities to properly account for the 
funds. In addition, the plans call for aggressive audit and 
investigative efforts designed to identify and address waste 
fraud and abuse as early as possible.
    The subcommittee made two visits to the Gulf Coast to 
review the activities of the inspector general community and to 
ensure that the accountability structure that has been put in 
place is effective and provides the best defense against waste, 
fraud, abuse and mismanagement of federally appropriated funds. 
The DHS Office of Inspector General, along with the other major 
Federal agencies involved with the Katrina recovery effort, are 
also coordinating their efforts with the Department of Justice, 
which established the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force on 
September 8, 2005, to deter, detect and prosecute individuals 
who commit fraud in the wake of this disaster. This hearing 
gave the subcommittee's members an opportunity to discuss with 
key officials plans for future oversight as well as review the 
lessons learned from the immediate aftermath of the hurricane.
    b. Witnesses.--Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Chair, Hurricane 
Katrina Fraud Task Force; Matt Jadacki, Special Inspector 
General for Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery, Department of 
Homeland Security; Ken Donohue, Inspector General, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development; Eric Thorson, Inspector 
General, Small Business Administration; and Thomas Gimble, 
Principal Deputy Inspector General, Department of Defense.
20. ``Financial Management Challenges at the General Services 
        Administration,'' June 7, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing, another in a series of hearings 
on agency-specific financial audit and management issues, 
looked at how recently uncovered financial management problems 
will impact GSA in the future, discussed recent financial audit 
findings, as well as possible implications for GSA's customer 
agencies. In addition, the hearing reviewed GSA's role in OMB's 
financial management line of business initiative.
    GSA was established through the Property and Administrative 
Services Act of 1949 to consolidate real estate, supply, and 
support functions. Today, in addition to those core functions, 
GSA also works with departments and agencies to establish 
management policies. GSA serves as the lead agency for the 
Office of Management and Budget's Financial Management Line of 
Business [FMLoB], and it is one of four designated Shared 
Services Providers. In this dual role, GSA will not only bid to 
provide financial management services for other Federal 
agencies, it will set the standards for the government-wide 
implementation of the FMLoB.
    With GSA's high-profile role in Federal financial 
management and the impact of its operations government-wide, 
the subcommittee was concerned by the results of GSA's fiscal 
year 2006 financial audit. In short, auditors were unable to 
attest to the reliability of GSA's financial statements, 
resulting in a disclaimer of opinion.
    The primary problem involved reconciliations between GSA's 
core financial system and the systems of its three 
``Services:'' the Federal Technology Service [FTS], the Federal 
Supply Service [FSS], and the Public Buildings Service [PBS]. 
Specifically, the systems at FTS, FSS, and PBS were unable to 
adequately record detailed budget transactions for customer 
agencies throughout the year. The hearing gave members an 
opportunity to hear from key GSA witnesses about the problems 
and plans to ensure that GSA financial management gets back on 
track.
    b. Witnesses.--Kathleen Turco, Chief Financial Officer, 
General Services Administration; and Eugene L. Waszily, Jr., 
Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, General Services 
Administration.
21. ``OMB's Financial Management Line of Business Initiative--Do Recent 
        Changes to the Implementation Guidance Clarify the Rules?'' 
        June 28, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing served as a follow up to the 
subcommittee's March 15th hearing on OMB's Financial Management 
Line of Business initiative [FMLoB]. After hearing from two OMB 
officials and private sector witnesses, the subcommittee 
concluded that guidance to both Federal managers and private 
sector providers was unclear and that many unanswered questions 
remained. At that hearing, OMB stated that they would be 
issuing draft guidance on March 30, 2006.
    Unfortunately, the draft guidance and the changes contained 
therein raised more questions than answers. Specifically, one 
of the biggest changes announced by OMB is the plan to utilize 
the competitive framework in Circular A-76 to guide migration. 
Previously, OMB had indicated that Federal agencies would use a 
capital asset investment business case--known as an exhibit 
300--as the primary means for analyzing the possible move to a 
shared service provider. The use of A-76 carries significant 
implications for all stakeholders--from Federal employee unions 
to private sector hosts.
    While the subcommittee acknowledges that the shared service 
model has significant merit, and it is being employed 
successfully on a small scale throughout government. The scope 
and timeline of the FMLoB, however, have garnered criticism 
from nearly all stakeholders, and there are important 
considerations that need to be addressed as the initiative 
moves forward. Many important questions from the subcommittee's 
March hearing remain unanswered--such as how competition will 
be balanced among ``franchise fund'' service providers and 
``Economy Act'' services providers. This hearing provided an 
important dialog on these and other topics and allowed the 
subcommittee's members to hear from additional stakeholders.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of 
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget; 
Mary Mitchell, Deputy Associate Administrator, General Services 
Administration; James Krouse, Acting Director, Public Sector 
Market Analysis; Jacque Simon, Public Policy Director, American 
Federation of Government Employees; and Stan Z. Soloway, 
president, Professional Services Council.
22. ``Securing Our Ports: Information Sharing is Key to Effective 
        Maritime Security,'' July 10, 2006 (Brooklyn, NY)
    a. Summary.--This hearing allowed the members of the 
subcommittee, particularly those members who serve the State of 
New York in the Congress, an opportunity to discuss an issue of 
significant regional importance. Following on the April 2005 
Government Accountability Office report entitled, Maritime 
Security: New Structures Have Improved Information Sharing, but 
Security Clearance Processing Requires Further Attention (GAO-
05-394), which examined the impact of information sharing 
between Federal, State, and local entities on overall port 
security, the hearing reviewed port security efforts in and 
around New York City with key regional stakeholders.
    Securing the Nation's ports against a potential terrorist 
attack has become one of the Nation's security priorities since 
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Given the fact 
that ports are large, sprawling enterprises that often stretch 
across jurisdictional boundaries, the need to share information 
among Federal, State, and local governments is central to 
effective prevention and response.
    The U.S. maritime system consists of more than 300 sea and 
river ports with more than 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals 
and more than 1,000 harbor channels spread across thousands of 
miles of coastline. However, a large portion of maritime cargo 
is concentrated at a few major ports--the Top 50 ports in the 
United States account for about 90 percent of all cargo 
tonnage--including those ports in the New York City 
metropolitan area.
    The U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection are 
the Federal agencies with the strongest presence in U.S. 
seaports. In response to the terrorist attacks of September 
11th, the Coast Guard created the largest port security 
operation since World War II. In addition, to raise port 
security standards, Congress passed the Maritime Transportation 
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-295).
    Despite these changes, government leaders and security 
experts continue to express concerns over the security of our 
ports. Factors that make ports vulnerable to a terrorist attack 
include their location near an urban center--such as New York; 
their inclusion of critical infrastructure and assets such as 
oil refineries and terminals; the level of port traffic; and 
their economic importance for the Nation's economy and trade.
    b. Witnesses.--Ray Kelly, police commissioner, city of New 
York; Captain Robert O'Brien, Commander, Coast Guard Sector New 
York and Captain, Port of New York and New Jersey; Bethann 
Rooney, Security Manager, Port Commerce Department, Port 
Authority of New York and New Jersey; and Stephen Caldwell, 
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office.
23. ``Implementing FOIA--Does the Bush Administration's Executive Order 
        Improve Processing?'' July 26, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing, the second FOIA hearing held by 
the subcommittee in the 109th Congress, built upon the progress 
of the subcommittee's May 2005 oversight hearing on FOIA in the 
21st century. Since that hearing, President Bush issued 
Executive Order 13392, Improving Agency Disclosure of 
Information on December 14, 2005. The Executive order requires 
agencies to review their FOIA operations, develop an agency 
specific plan, and report to the Attorney General and the OMB 
Director on their review and development and implementation of 
the agency plan by June 14, 2006. Agencies were also required 
to report on progress in implementing the Executive order in 
their annual reports for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. At this 
hearing, the subcommittee received testimony from GAO regarding 
trends and status of agency implementation of the FOIA 
Executive order, the Department of Justice regarding progress 
made in implementing the Executive order, and FOIA users 
regarding their view of the FOIA process and any improvements 
noticed as a result of the Executive order. In addition, 
Senator Cornyn, Senator Leahy, and Representative Sherman, who 
each have introduced FOIA legislation, testified.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senator from 
Vermont and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; 
Hon. John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas; Hon. Brad Sherman, 
Member of Congress from the 27th District of California; Dan 
Metcalfe, Director of DOJ's Office of Information and Privacy; 
and Linda Koontz, Director of Information Management Issues, 
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
24. ``DHS Financial Management: Evaluating Progress in Improving 
        Internal Controls,'' September 13, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the Department of 
Homeland Security's efforts to comply with the internal control 
audit requirement of the DHS Financial Accountability Act, 
which was signed into law on October 16, 2004 (Public Law 108-
330). As a result of that legislation, DHS must now comply with 
the toughest internal control standards in the Federal 
Government--tougher even than those in the newly revised OMB 
Circular A-123. Section 4 of Public Law 108-330 required DHS to 
include in its performance and accountability report for fiscal 
year 2005, an assertion of internal controls that apply to 
financial reporting by DHS. Beginning in fiscal year 2006 and 
for each year thereafter, Section 4 requires that DHS include 
an audit opinion of its internal controls over its financial 
reporting in its performance and accountability reports. This 
first-of-its-kind in the Federal Government requirement is an 
essential step to improve management operations. DHS inherited 
significant material weaknesses from its legacy agencies and if 
these deficiencies are left unresolved, they will become 
embedded in the fabric of how DHS manages its finances. The 
intent of Public Law 108-330 was to ensure that this does not 
happen, and that DHS wastes no time in tackling internal 
control issues and developing financial management systems that 
will allow it to focus resources on its critical homeland 
security mission.
    As a result of the DHS Financial Accountability Act, DHS 
established an Internal Controls Committee [ICC], published an 
internal controls implementation guide, and took aggressive 
steps to comply this section as well as the revised Circular A-
123, including developing a corrective action plan [CAP] for 
all material weaknesses and reportable conditions and beginning 
a series of performance audits, testing the quality of the 
agency's internal controls. This hearing reviewed the initial 
efforts by DHS senior management to comply with these 
provisions.
    b. Witnesses.--David Norquist, Chief Financial Officer, 
Department of Homeland Security; and David Zavada, Assistant 
Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security.
25. ``Banks in Real Estate: A Review of the Office of the Comptroller 
        of the Currency's December 2005 Rulings,'' September 27, 2006
    a. Summary.--In December 2005, the Comptroller of the 
Currency ruled to allow certain national banks to invest in 
real estate projects, including the development of office 
buildings, hotel, residential condominiums and windmill farms. 
This action is viewed by some, including the National 
Association of Realtors, as a significant departure from what 
is permitted under the National Bank Act, and previous OCC 
rulings regarding the types of activities in which national 
banks can engage. This hearing examined the December 2005 
rulings with interested individuals on both sides of the issue 
including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the 
National Association of Realtors, and the American Bankers 
Association.
    b. Witnesses.--Julie L. Williams, Chief Counsel, Office of 
the Comptroller of the Currency; Thomas M. Stevens, president, 
National Association of Realtors; Ed Yingling, president and 
CEO, American Bankers Association; and Cynthia C. Shelton, 
Director of Investment Sales, Colliers Arnold.

     VII. Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and 
                        International Relations

1. ``Emerging Threats: Overclassification and Pseudo-Classification,'' 
        March 2, 2005
    a. Summary.--Oversight of the proliferation of categories 
of information withheld from public view. The 9/11 Commission 
noted the excessive and sometimes abusive use of classification 
authorities, and subcategories of document markings such as 
``For Official Use Only'' and ``Sensitive but Unclassified.'' 
The Commission concluded these practices impeded the sharing of 
threat information. Witnesses testified on the extent and 
impact of inconsistent and unneeded classification standards 
and information access limitations.
    b. Witnesses.--J. William Leonard, Director, Information 
Security Oversight Office National Archives and Records 
Administration; RADM Christopher A. McMahon, USMS, Acting 
Director, Departmental Office of Intelligence, Security, and 
Emergency Response, Department of Transportation; Harold 
Relyea, Specialist in American National Government, 
Congressional Research Service [CRS]; Richard Ben-Veniste, 
Commissioner, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the 
United States; Thomas Blanton, executive director, National 
Security Archive, George Washington University; Harry A. 
Hammitt, editor and publisher, Access Reports: Freedom of 
Information, Lynchburg, VA; and Sibel Edmonds, former Contract 
Linguist, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
2. ``Building Iraqi Security Forces,'' March 14, 2005
    a. Summary.--The hearing assessed current strategies for 
training and equipping Iraqi security forces to counter the 
insurgency and establish conditions for political and economic 
development. Witnesses discussed the challenges transferring 
the internal security mission to Iraqi forces.
    b. Witnesses.--Joseph Christoff, Director, International 
Affairs and Trade U.S. Government Accountability Office; Peter 
W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense, International 
Security Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense; Rear Admiral 
William D. Sullivan, Vice-Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Ambassador Richard A. Jones, Senior 
Advisor to the Secretary and Coordinator for Iraq, U.S. 
Department of State; Bill Todd, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 
Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Professor 
Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy Center 
for Strategic and International Studies; and Kalev Sepp, 
professor, Naval Post Graduate School.
3. ``Assessing Anthrax Detection Methods,'' April 5, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the steps Federal 
agencies have taken to detect anthrax contamination--
particularly in Federal facilities--analyze test results, 
validate detection protocols and improve detection methodology.
    b. Witnesses.--Keith Rhodes, Chief Technologist, Center for 
Technology and Engineering, Applied Research Methods, 
Government Accountability Office; Dr. Tanja Popovic, Associate 
Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention; Dr. Klaus Schafer, Deputy Assistant to the 
Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense, 
Department of Defense; Dana Tulis, Deputy Director for the 
Office of Emergency Management Environmental Protection Agency; 
Thomas G. Day, vice president for engineering, U.S. Postal 
Service; Dr. Katherine Kelley, Association of Public Health 
Laboratories; William Burrus, president, American Postal 
Workers Union, AFL-CIO; Dr. Linda Stetzenbach, director, 
Microbiology Division, Harry Reid Center for Environmental 
Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; James H. Schwartz, 
chief, Arlington County Fire Department; Michael P. Neuhard, 
chief, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department; Phillip 
Schaenman, president, Tridata Division of System Planning 
Corp.; and John Jester, Director, Pentagon Force Protection 
Agency, Department of Defense.
4. ``The U.N. Oil-for-Food Program: The Inevitable Failure of U.N. 
        Sanctions,'' April 12, 2005
    a. Summary.--Oversight of U.N. management of the Iraq 
sanctions regime and the implications of widespread sanctions-
busting on the U.S. approach to multilateral treat enforcement. 
Witnesses from the State Department, former U.N. employees on 
the Iraq Sanctions (``661'') Committee and others testified on 
the steadily dissipating support in the Security Council for 
the comprehensive sanctions regime levied on Iraq after the 
invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Patterns of explicit and implicit 
toleration of so-called ``trade protocols,'' oil smuggling and 
other forms of sanctions-busting made the corruption of the 
Oil-for-Food Program likely if not inevitable. Minutes of the 
first 120 meetings of the 661 Committee were put on the public 
record for the fist time, bringing unprecedented--if 
unwelcome--transparency to a U.N. panel.
    b. Witnesses.--Thomas A. Schweich, Chief of Staff, U.S. 
Mission to the United Nations, Department of State; Dr. Paul 
Conlon, owner, Transjuris e.k. (munich, Germany), former Deputy 
Secretary, United Nations Security Council Iraq Sanctions 
Committee; Andrew Mack, director, Centre for Human Security, 
University of British Columbia, former Director of Strategic 
Planning, Executive Office of the United Nations Secretary-
General Kofi Annan; and Dr. Joy Gordon, associate professor of 
philosophy, Fairfield University.
5. ``Overseas Security: Hardening Soft Targets,'' May 10, 2005
    a. Summary.--Oversight of State Department implementation 
of recommendations regarding off-site security facilities and 
training for U.S. personnel stationed abroad. GAO reported new 
findings pointing to a cyclic ebb and flow of high-level 
attention to personnel security issues. State responded that 
training opportunities, duration and intensity were being 
increased.
    b. Witnesses.--Jess Ford, Director, International Affairs 
and Trade Division, Government Accountability Office; Greg 
Starr, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countermeasures, Bureau 
of Diplomatic Security and Foreign Missions, Department of 
State; Ambassador Prudence Bushnell, Dean, School of Leadership 
and Management, the George P. Schultz National Foreign Affairs 
Training Center, Department of State; Keith Miller, Director, 
Office of Overseas Schools, Department of State; Ambassador 
Wesley W. Egan, retired, chairman, 2003 Foley Accountability 
Review Board; Ambassador John W. Limbert, president, American 
Foreign Service Association; and John Petro, executive vice 
president and managing director, Citigroup Security and 
Investigative Service, Citigroup.
6. ``Fostering Democracy in the Middle East: Defeating Terrorism with 
        Ballots,'' May 17, 2005
    a. Summary.--In his second inaugural address, President 
George W. Bush said, ``The concerted effort of the free nations 
to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.'' The 
hearing examined the ``Bush Doctrine,'' and former Israeli 
Minister Natan Sharansky's book, ``The Case for Democracy: The 
Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.'' 
Additionally, Mithal A-Alusi, secretary of the Democratic Party 
of the Iraqi Nation and former director general of the interim 
government's de-Ba'athification Commission discussed the 
prospects for democracy in Iraq.
    b. Witnesses.--Former Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky, 
author of ``The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to 
Overcome Tyranny and Terror;'' Mithal Al-Alusi, Democratic 
Party of the Iraqi Nation; Elizabeth Dugan, vice president, 
International Republican Institute; Leslie Campbell, director 
for Middle East Programs, National Democratic Institute for 
International Affairs; Febe Armanios, professor for Middle 
Eastern Studies, Middlebury College; Khaled Saffuri, chairman 
of the Board, Islamic Free Market Institute; and Mona 
Yacoubian, special adviser, Muslim World Initiative, U.S. 
Institute of Peace.
7. ``DOD Excess Property: Throwing Away Millions,'' June 7, 2005
    a. Summary.--Oversight of the Defense Reutilization 
Marketing Service and management of the processes to dispose of 
excess DOD property. GAO auditors and investigators determined 
that defense agencies and military services had discounted or 
given away more than $400 million in commercial items while 
other units purchased the same material at higher acquisition 
prices. DOD agreed to recommendations to strengthen inventory 
and management controls.
    b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic 
Audits and Special Investigations, Government Accountability 
Office; Alan F. Estevez, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense (Supply Chain Integration) Department of Defense; MG 
Daniel Mongeon, Director for Logistics Operations, Defense 
Logistics Agency; and Colonel Patrick E. O'Donnell, Commander, 
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service.
8. ``Elusive Antidotes: Progress Developing Chemical, Biological, 
        Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures,'' June 14, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the interagency process 
used to develop medical countermeasures to CBRN weapons, and 
how that process is linked to validated threats. In addition, 
the hearing examined the efficiency and effectiveness of steps 
to identify, evaluate, prioritize and acquire countermeasures.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Dale Klein, Assistant to the Secretary 
of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense 
Programs, Department of Defense; Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director 
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, 
National Institute of Health; Stewart Simonson, Assistant 
Secretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Department 
of Health and Human Services; Dr. John Vitko, Jr., Director of 
Biological Countermeasures Portfolio Science and Technology 
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Ronald J. 
Saldarini, Scientific Consultant, Institute of Medicine; Dr. 
Michael G. Hanna Jr., chairman (emeritus) and chief scientific 
officer, Intracel; and Dr. James H. Davis, executive vice 
president and general counsel, Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
9. ``The Development Fund for Iraq: U.S. Management of Iraq Oil 
        Proceeds and Compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 
        1483,'' June 21, 2005
    a. Summary.--Oversight of Department of Defense [DOD], 
State and Coalition Provisional Authority [CPA] efforts to meet 
commitments to manage the DFI transparently and for the benefit 
of the Iraqi people. Witnesses described the contracting and 
audit processes used to track DFI expenditures. Discussion 
centered on the process used to provide redacted DCAA audits to 
the United Nations.
    b. Witnesses.--Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction Department of Defense; William 
Reed, Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency [DCAA], 
Department of Defense; Colonel Emmett H. Du Bose, Jr., Deputy 
Commander of the Southwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Department of the Army; Joseph A. Benkert, Deputy 
Director, Defense Reconstruction Support Office, Office of the 
Secretary of Defense; David Norquist, Under Deputy Secretary of 
Defense for Resource Planning and Management, Department of 
Defense; Stan Z. Soloway, president, Professional Service 
Council [PSC]; and Richard Garfield, Dr.PH./R.N., Columbia 
University.
10. ``Occupational and Environmental Health Surveillance of Deployed 
        Forces: Tracking Toxic Causalities,'' July 19, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined how the military 
services have implemented Department of Defense policies for 
collecting and reporting Occupational and Environmental Health 
Surveillance [OEHS] data for deployed forces and how OEHS 
reports were used to address health issues of service members.
    b. Witnesses.--Brian Scott La Morte, Company Sergeant 
Major, B Co., 3rd Battalion, 20th Special Forces Group, North 
Carolina Army National Guard; Raymond Ramos, retired Staff 
Sergeant, 442nd Military Police Co., New York National Guard; 
David Chasteen, Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, Associate 
Director of Operation Truth; Dr. Marcia Crosse, Director, 
Health Care, Government Accountability Office; Dr. Michael 
Kilpatrick, Deputy Director of the Deployment Health Support 
Directorate, Department of Defense; and Dr. Susan Mather, Chief 
Officer, Public Health and Environmental Hazards, Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
11. ``DOE/ESE Security: How Ready is the Protective Force,'' July 26, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--Oversight of the DOE Office of Energy, Science 
and Environment programs to safeguard special nuclear materials 
in non-weapons facilities. GAO reported protective forces at 
ESE facilities generally meet current standards but found it 
unlikely they would be able to meet the 2008 target to meet 
stronger security standards. DOE witnesses defended efforts to 
implement the post-September 11th safeguards standard, called 
the Design Basis Threat. Members questioned why it would take 3 
or more additional years to meet the current threat.
    b. Witnesses.--Eugene E. Aloise, Director, Natural 
Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office; 
Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General Department of Energy; 
Glenn S. Podonsky, Director, Office of Security and Safety 
Performance Assurance, Department of Energy; Dr. Lawrence 
Brede, Director, Wackenhut DOE Operations; Robert Walsh, 
Security Manager, Office of Energy, Science and Environment, 
Department of Energy; and Glenn Adler, Security Policy, Service 
Employees International Union [SEIU].
12. ``Combating Terrorism: Visas Still Vulnerable,'' September 13, 2005
    a. Summary.--Oversight of steps taken by the Departments of 
Homeland Security and State to address gaps and vulnerabilities 
in the non-immigrant visa application and screening process. 
GAO released a report requested by the subcommittee on steps 
taken to strengthen the visa process as a security tool. The 
study found some improvements but persistent problems with 
staffing, training, surge capacity and strategic direction. 
Witnesses from State, DHS, and former consular officials 
described the challenges in effectively screening non-immigrant 
visa applicants.
    b. Witnesses.--Jess Ford, Director, International Affairs 
and Trade Division, Government Accountability Office; 
Ambassador John E. Lange, Deputy Inspector General, Department 
of State; Tony Edson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Visa 
Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State; 
Elaine Dezenski, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, 
Border and Transportation Security, Department of Homeland 
Security; Clark Kent Ervin, director, Homeland Security 
Initiative, Aspen Institute; Dr. James Jay Carafano, senior 
fellow, the Heritage Foundation; Susan Ginsberg, former Senior 
Counsel, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the 
United States (``9/11 Commission''); and John Daniel Morris, 
Retired General Counsel, U.S. Mission to Beijing, China.
13. ``Iraq: Perceptions, Realities and Cost to Complete,'' October 18, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--Oversight organizations--the Government 
Accountability Office [GAO] and several Inspectors General 
[IG]--published more than 80 reports on Iraq reconstruction and 
other aspects of U.S. support for post-Saddam Iraq. Witnesses 
from GAO, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction 
and IGs from other agencies discussed their oversight findings 
and recommendations.
    b. Witnesses.--Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction; Howard J. Krongard, Inspector 
General, Department of State; Joseph Christoff, Director, 
International Trade, U.S. Government Accountability Office; 
Thomas Gimble; Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense; 
Bruce N. Crandlemire, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Agency for 
International Development; Joyce Morrow, U.S. Army Auditor 
General; Professor Mary Habeck, the Paul H. Nitze School of 
Advanced Internatioanl Studies, the John Hopkins University; 
Judy Van Rest, executive vice president, International 
Republican Institute; and Les Campbell, senior associate and 
regional director, Middle East and North Africa National 
Democratic Institute.
14. ``Homeland Security: Surveillance and Monitoring of Explosive 
        Storage Facilities, Part II,'' October 31, 2005 (San Mateo, CA)
    a. Summary.--Field Hearing in San Mateo, CA to assess 
followup activities by local, State and Federal officials after 
last year's theft of explosive from a public storage facility. 
Witnesses testified on the patchwork of security standards and 
regulatory oversight schemes that applies to public ordnance 
magazines. In contrast, private manufacture and storage 
facilities are subject to stringent security, safety and 
inspection regimes. Compliance by public facilities is 
voluntary. State and local regulation is inconsistent. A panel 
of local witnesses and industry experts testified on the 
potential threat posed by explosives magazines and what should 
be done to standardize security and limit risks.
    b. Witnesses.--Laurie E. Ekstrand, Director, Homeland 
Security and Justice Team, Government Accountability Office; 
Michael Gulledge, Director, Office of Evaluation and 
Inspections Division, Office of the Inspector General, 
Department of Justice; Lewis P. Raden, Assistant Director, 
Enforcement Programs and Services Division, Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms; Fernando Gonzalez, battalion chief, Fort 
Worth Fire Department; Dr. Tibor G. Rozgonyi, professor and 
head, Mining Engineering Department, Colorado School of Mines; 
Sgt. Stanley Mathiasen, chairman, National Bomb Squad 
Commanders Advisory Board; Dr. Vilem Petr, assistant research 
professor, Mining Engineering Department, Colorado School of 
Mines; James Christopher Ronay, president, the Institute of 
Makers of Explosives [IME]; Don Horsley, county sheriff, San 
Mateo County Sheriff's Office; and Lt. Gary Kirby, San Jose 
Police Department.
15. ``Examining VA Implementation of the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act 
        of 1998,'' November 15, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the implementation of 
the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998, specifically VA 
compliance with the statutory mandate to assess the extent and 
weight of data from animal studies in determinations of 
presumptive causality of disease not just as that data might 
suggest the plausibility of a biological mechanism.
    b. Witnesses.--Mike Woods, Gulf War veteran; Steve 
Robinson, executive director, National Gulf War Resources 
Center, Inc.; Jim Binns, chairman, Research Advisory Committee 
on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses; Dr. Rogene Henderson, senior 
scientist, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute; Dr. James 
P. O'Callaghan, Head, Molecular Neurotoxicology Laboratory and 
CDC Distinguished Consultant, Toxicology and Molecular Biology 
Branch Health Effects Laboratory Division, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention; Dr. Susan Mather, Chief Officer, Public 
Health and Environmental Agents Service, Department of Veterans 
Affairs; Dr. Lynn Goldman, professor of occupational and 
environmental health, Department of Environmental Health 
Sciences, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 
Institute of Medicine; and Dr. Sam Potolicchio, professor of 
neurology, Department of Neurology, the George Washington 
University Medical Center, Institute of Medicine.
16. ``International Maritime Security,'' December 13, 2005
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined international maritime 
security, including jurisdictional conflicts and coordination 
of assistance in the event of an attack. The hearing was 
designed to help Congress and the public understand the threat 
to shipping from pirates and terrorists, how the United States 
responds and the security and safety of passengers aboard 
foreign flagged vessels.
    b. Witnesses.--Chris Swecker, Assistant Director, Criminal 
Investigation Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Rear 
Admiral Wayne Justice, Director for Operations Policy, U.S. 
Coast Guard; Rear Admiral John Crowley Judge Advocate General, 
U.S. Coast Guard; Rear Admiral James McPherson, the Judge 
Advocate General, U.S. Navy; Michael Crye, president, 
International Council of Cruise Lines; Greg Purdy, director of 
security, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines; and Charley Mandigo, 
Holland America Lines Inc.
17. ``National Security Whistleblowers in the post-September 11th Era: 
        Lost in a Labyrinth and Facing Subtle Retaliation,'' February 
        14, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined whether whistleblower 
protections sufficiently shield government employees in 
national security agencies against certain types of 
retaliation. Revocation of an employee's national security 
clearance may be a method used for retaliation against 
government whistleblowers. The result is that an employee whose 
security clearance is revoked may be fired without recourse. No 
independent procedure for due process exists to provide a means 
for redress in cases of security clearance retaliation. There 
are currently very limited opportunities for employees of the 
CIA, DOD and DOJ [FBI], among others, to seek redress when 
their security clearance is revoked. Each department and agency 
has been left to deal with issues of security clearance 
reprisals on their own. A closer review of these efforts on the 
part of the agencies and departments will help shape 
legislation to close loopholes in the law.
    b. Witnesses.--SPC Samuel J. Provance, USA, Department of 
the Army; Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, USAR; Michael German; 
Russell Tice; Richard Levernier; Mark S. Zaid, esq.; Beth 
Daley, senior investigator, Project on Government Oversight; 
Tom Devine, legal director, Government Accountability Project; 
Dr. William G. Weaver, National Security Whistleblowers 
Coalition; James McVay, Deputy Special Counsel, U.S. Office of 
the Special Counsel; Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General, Office 
of the Inspector General, Department of Justice; Gregory H. 
Friedman, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, 
Department of Energy; Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, 
Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense; Jane 
Deese, Director, Military Reprisal Investigations, Office of 
the Inspector General, Department of Defense; and Daniel Meyer, 
Director, Civilian Reprisal Investigations, Office of the 
Inspector General, Department of Defense.
18. ``Progress Since September 11th: Protecting Public Health and 
        Safety Against Terrorist Attacks,'' February 28, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined surveillance, monitoring, 
diagnosis and treatment of illnesses related to the September 
11th attacks and assess public health and safety preparedness 
against future attacks. Though improvements have been made in 
both response programs and safety preparedness against future 
attacks, there are still steps needed to be taken to assess 
public health in the event of an attack.
    b. Witnesses.--Cynthia Bascetta, Director, Health Care, 
Government Accountability Office; Ronaldo Vega, architect, city 
of New York Department of Design and Construction [DDC]; Marvin 
Bethea, NYC paramedic; Dr. Stephen M. Levin, co-director of the 
World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening 
Program, medical director of the Mount Sinai-Selikoff Center 
for Occupational and Environmental Medicine; Dr. Kerry J. 
Kelly, FDNY chief medical officer, Bureau of Health Services, 
co-director FDNY-WTC Medical Program FDNY; Dr. John Howard, 
Director, National Institute for Occupational Health [NIOSH], 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], Department of 
Health and Human Services [HHS].
19. ``International Maritime Security II: Law Enforcement, Passenger 
        Security and Incident Investigation on Cruise Ships,'' March 7, 
        2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the effectiveness of 
current regimes governing international maritime security, 
including law enforcement, passenger security and incident 
investigation aboard cruise ships. Cruise ships are not 
mandated by law to report incidents involving U.S. citizens 
occurring on their vessels outside U.S. international waters. 
Legislation should be drafted which mandates such reporting.
    b. Witnesses.--Kendall Carver; Son Michael Pham; Deborah 
Shaffer; Janet Kelly; Ira Leonard; Brian Mulvaney; Brett 
Rivkind, Rivkind, Pedraza and Margulies, P.A; Ron Gorsline, 
Secure Ocean Service, LLC; Lawrence W. Kaye, Kaye Rose and 
Partners, LLP; Charley Mandigo, director, Fleet Security, 
Holland America Lines; Captain William S. Wright, senior vice 
president, marine operations, Royal Caribbean International; 
and Dr. James Fox, Northeastern University, the Lipman Family 
professor of criminal justice.
20. ``Drowning in a Sea of Faux Secrets: Policies on Handling of 
        Classified and Sensitive Information,'' March 14, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined current practices for 
handling sensitive information and recommendations to prevent 
the overuse of classifications and other access restrictions. 
DOE and DOD policy for designating government records Official 
Use Only [OUO] and For Official Use Only [FOUO] lacks clarity. 
DOE and DOD policy allows for inconsistent application of FOUO/
OUO designations. FOUO/OUO designations could used to cover up 
agency mismanagement. Intelligence agencies are removing and 
reclassifying government documents previously declassified and 
in the public domain.
    b. Witnesses.--Professor Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the 
United States, National Archives and Records Administration; J. 
William Leonard, Director, Information Security Oversight 
Office, National Archives and Records Administration; Davi M. 
D'Agostino, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, 
Government Accountability Office; Robert Rogalski, Acting 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and 
Security, Department of Defense; Glenn S. Podonsky, Director, 
Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance, Department 
of Energy; Thomas Blanton, executive director, National 
Security Archive, George Washington University; Dr. Anna 
Nelson, distinguished historian in residence, American 
University; and Matthew Aid.
21. ``Setting Post-September 11th Investigative Priorities at the 
        Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,'' March 28, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined how investigative 
priorities are set at the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE], given its 
various and sometimes competing missions including national 
security, financial investigations, narcotics smuggling, 
immigration affairs, and human trafficking. The Bureau of 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement requires additional 
safeguards and regulations to be sure national security 
considerations are included in decisions to allocate 
investigative resources.
    b. Witnesses.--Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland 
Security and Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office; Richard L. Skinner, Inspector General, U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security; Robert Schoch, Deputy Assistant Director, 
National Security Division, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
Office of Investigations, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 
Dr. Joseph Ryan, chair and professor of criminal justice and 
sociology, Pace University; Caroline Fredrickson, director, 
ACLU Washington Legislative Office; Joseph Webber, Special 
Agent in Charge (retired), Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Fouad 
Ajami, Director of Middle East Studies, School of Advanced 
International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Dr. James 
Fearon, professor of political science, Stanford University; 
and Dr. Peter Galbraith, National War College.
22. ``Nuclear Security: Has the NRC Strengthened Facility Standards 
        Since September 11th?'' April 4, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission [NRC] efforts to set Design Basis Threat security 
standards for nuclear power facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission [NRC] moved quickly to improve the security of 
nuclear power plants in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. 
Only one-third of the Nation's nuclear power facilities have 
undergone force-on-force exercises under the new Design Basis 
Threat [DBT]. DBT security standards should be based on 
security needs, not the financial impact on the nuclear power 
industry.
    b. Witnesses.--Jim Wells, Director, Natural Resources and 
Environment, Government Accountability Office; Nils Diaz, 
chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Gregory B. 
Jaczko, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 
Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission; Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission; Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, 
State of Connecticut; Danielle Brian, executive director, 
Project on Government Oversight; Marvin Fertel, vice president 
and chief nuclear officer, Nuclear Energy Institute; and Chris 
Crane, president and chief nuclear officer, Exelon Generation 
Co., LLC.
23. ``A New Assessment of Iraq,'' April 25, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the status of Iraq's 
reconstruction, governance and security, specifically 
addressing efforts to establish public access to essential 
services, to form a unity government and to grow the Iraqi 
security and police forces. The Government Accountability 
Office has renewed efforts to conduct on the ground assessments 
in Iraq. These assessments provide an objective explanation of 
the situation rather than the subjective perspectives provided 
by the media and the administration.
    b. Witness.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the 
United States, Government Accountability Office.
24. ``U.N. Sanctions After Oil-for-Food: Still A Viable Diplomatic 
        Tool?'' May 2, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the viability of future 
United Nations [UN] sanctions in light of the Oil-for-Food 
scandal and UN management reforms.
    Hearing Message: UN sanctions serve as a tool of statecraft 
that provides an alternative to armed conflict. During the UN 
sanctions regime in Iraq, the humanitarian Oil-for-Food program 
[OFFP], designed to ease sanctions' effects on the Iraqi 
public, lacked oversight and accountability and instead 
fostered vast corruption that arguably was responsible for 
failure of the sanctions. UN reforms currently proposed or 
underway must be implemented so that sanctions can continue to 
function as a credible and powerful diplomatic tool.
    b. Witnesses.--John R. Bolton, Ambassador, Permanent U.S. 
Representative to the United Nations; Joseph A. Christoff, 
Director, International Affairs and Trade Team, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Carne Ross, director, Independent 
Diplomat; Dr. George A. Lopez, senior fellow and professor of 
political science, the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International 
Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame.
25. ``Anthrax Protection: Progress or Problems?'' May 9, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined what has been done and 
what is left to do to protect the Nation after an anthrax 
attack. In particular, the hearing focused on the availability 
of medical countermeasures, and the government's ability to 
accurately detect anthrax inside a building. While the 
government has taken steps to protect the Nation after an 
anthrax attack by increasing research spending on 
countermeasures, purchasing antibiotics and anthrax vaccine, 
concerns remain regarding the status of anthrax vaccine 
production and the ability of the government to accurately 
detect anthrax. The Department of Homeland Security would not 
take responsibility for developing a formal strategic plan that 
would lead to the validation of the overall sampling process. 
The Department of Defense has also failed to release a RAND 
Corp. report commissioned by DOD and in draft form since 1999 
entitled, ``A Review of the Scientific Literature As It 
Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses, Volume 3: Immunizations.''
    b. Witnesses.--Keith Rhodes, Chief Technologist, Center for 
Technology and Engineering, Applied Research and Methods, 
Government Accountability Office; Ellen P. Embrey, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs for Force 
Health Protection and Readiness, Department of Defense; Jean 
Reed, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, Department of 
Defense; Dr. Gerald Parker, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Public Health Preparedness, Department of Health and Human 
Services; Dr. Richard Besser, Director Office of Terrorism 
Preparedness and Emergency Response, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention; Dr. Susan Elizabeth George, Deputy 
Director of Biological Countermeasures Portfolio, Department of 
Homeland Security; Dana Tulis, Deputy Director for the Office 
of Emergency Management, Environmental Protection Agency; and 
Mark Durno, On-Scene Coordinator [OSC] EPA Region 5, 
Environmental Protection Agency.
26. ``Energy as a Weapon: Implications for U.S. Policy,'' May 16, 2006 
        (Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Energy and Resources)
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined how global oil market 
conditions affect petroleum prices. Global oil market 
conditions are largely demand driven due to economic growth and 
increased demand from Asia and the United States. There is 
little or no spare production capacity in the world market and 
any event perceived to have an impact on the market causes 
extreme concern in high volatility in prices. As a result the 
United States is more vulnerable to a catastrophic supply 
shock, especially considering the current geopolitical 
environment.
    b. Witnesses.--Karen Harbert, Assistant Secretary for 
Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy; Paul 
Simons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, Sanctions, and 
Commodity Policy, Department of State; Dr. Daniel Yergin, 
Cambridge Energy Research Associates; Ambassador Keith C. 
Smith, senior associate, Center for Strategic and International 
Studies; and David Goldwyn, Goldwyn International Strategies.
27. ``9/11 Commission Recommendations: Balancing Civil Liberties and 
        Security,'' June 6, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the implementation status 
of 9/11 Commission recommendations, with particular focus on 
those related to the protection of civil liberties. The 
government's implementation of 41 national security 
recommendations from the 9/11 Commission is proceeding slowly 
and inadequately. This includes the establishment of a Privacy 
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, only now functioning 
nearly 2 years after its mandate and lacking the power needed 
to effectively perform its job. The progress implementing 9/11 
Commission recommendations is not sufficient, and we must 
continue to focus efforts to protect American citizens.
    b. Witnesses.--Thomas H. Kean, chair, National Commission 
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, president, THK 
Consulting; Lee H. Hamilton, vice chair, National Commission on 
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, director, the Woodrow 
Wilson International Center for Scholars; Carol E. Dinkins, 
chairman, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the 
White House; Alan Charles Raul, vice chairman, Privacy and 
Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the White House; Mary Fetchet, 
New Canaan, CT, mother of Brad, an employee of Keefe, Bruyette 
and Woods in Tower 2 of the World Trade Center; Carol Ashley, 
Rockville Centre, NY, Mother of Janice Ashley, an employee of 
Fred Alger, management in the World Trade Center; Abraham 
Scott, Springfield, VA, husband of Janice Marie Scott, an 
employee of the Pentagon; and Don Goodrich, Bennington, VT, 
father of Peter Goodrich of Boston, a passenger on board United 
Flight 175 that crashed into the World Trade Center.
28. ``Private Security Firms: Standards, Cooperation and Coordination 
        on the Battlefield,'' June 13, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the operations of private 
security firms in Iraq, the governing legal framework and the 
adequacy of coordination with the U.S.-led Coalition military 
forces in Iraq. Private security firms have been essential to 
provide security for both U.S. Government civilian agencies in 
Iraq and private companies carrying out reconstruction 
projects. Better tracking of the costs of such security needs 
to be implemented by the Executive branch, and coordination by 
private security firms with the Coalition military should be 
improved, and a training package on encounters with those firms 
for U.S. military units deploying to Iraq should be adopted.
    b. Witnesses.--William M. Solis, Director, Defense 
Capabilities and Management, Government Accountability Office; 
Shay Assad, Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition 
Policy, Department of Defense; Greg Starr, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Department of State; 
James Kundar, Assistant Administrator for the Near East and 
Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development; Chris 
Taylor, vice president, Blackwater USA; Major General Robert 
Rosenkranz (U.S. Army, retired) president, International 
Technical Service, DynCorp International; Ignacio Balderas, 
former CEO and current Board of Directors member, Triple 
Canopy; Doug Brooks, president, International Peace Operations 
Association; and Alan Chvotkin, esq., senior vice president and 
counsel, Professional Services Council.
29. ``Sexual Assault and Violence Against Women in the Military and at 
        the Academies,'' June 27, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined efforts by the Department 
of Defense to address sexual assault and violence against women 
in the military and at the academies. The military and 
respective academies have taken steps to address sexual assault 
and violence against women in the military, however challenges 
remain. DOD has also not yet appointed members to serve on the 
Task Force looking into sexual assault in the Armed Forces and 
until members are appointed the work will not be begin. The 
Coast Guard also falls under the Department of Homeland 
Security and therefore any changes in DOD sexual assault policy 
will not necessarily affect the Coast Guard.
    b. Witnesses.--Delilah Rumber, executive director, 
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, National Sexual Violence 
Resource Center; Christine Hansen, executive director, the 
Miles Foundation, Inc.; Beth Davis, former U.S. Air Force 
Academy Cadet; Dr. Kaye Whitley, Acting Director, Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office, Department of Defense; 
Vice Admiral Rodney P. Rempt, superintendent of the U.S. Naval 
Academy; Brigadier General Robert L. Caslen, Jr., commandant of 
the U.S. Military Academy; Brigadier General Susan Y. 
Desjardins, commandant of the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Rear 
Admiral Paul J. Higgins, Director of Health and Safety, U.S. 
Coast Guard.
30. ``Evolving National Security Strategy for Victory in Iraq,'' July 
        11, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined whether the National 
Strategy for Victory in Iraq contains the elements essential to 
a sound strategy. Three elements found by the GAO to be lacking 
in the November 2005 National Strategy have now been 
incorporated: costs are included in budget submissions to the 
Congress, coordination with the Iraqi Government was initiated 
with the formation of the Iraqi Government in June 2006, and 
coordination among Executive branch agencies is more detailed.
    b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the 
United States; Joseph Christoff, Director of International 
Affairs, Government Accountability Office; Ambassador James 
Jeffrey, Senior Advisor on Iraq to the Secretary of State and 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle 
East, Department of State; Brigadier General Michael Jones, 
Deputy Director for Political Military Affairs, Joint Chiefs of 
Staff; Dr. Kenneth Pollack, director of Middle Eastern policy, 
Brookings Institution; Dr. Laith Kubba, senior director for 
Middle East and North Africa, National Endowment for Democracy; 
Dr. Anthony Cordesman, Admiral Arleigh Burke chair in strategy, 
Center for Strategic and International Affairs; and Dr. Kenneth 
Katzman, specialist in Middle East affairs, Congressional 
Research Service.
31. ``Global War on Terrorism [GWOT]: Accuracy and Reliability of Cost 
        Estimates,'' July 18, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined accuracy and reliability 
of total and future costs to pay for the global war on 
terrorism using supplemental and bridge appropriations. The 
Department of Defense and the Department of State have not 
provided Congress with accurate cost projections for military 
and diplomatic operations for the Global War on Terrorism. 
Funding for the Global War on Terrorism is not requested 
through normal baseline budgets appropriated to the Departments 
of Defense and State.
    b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the 
United States Government Accountability Office; Bradford R. 
Higgins, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Bureau 
of Resource Management, Department of State; John P. Roth, 
Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget), Office of the 
Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), Department of Defense; 
James R. Kunder, Assistant Administrator for Asia and the Near 
East, U.S. Agency International Development; Donald B. Marron, 
Acting Director, Congressional Budget Office; and Amy F. 
Belasco, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, 
Defense and Trade Division, Congressional Research Service.
32. ``DOD Excess Property: Inventory Control Breakdowns Present a 
        Security Risk,'' July 25, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined whether effective 
controls are in place to prevent military equipment from 
falling into the wrong hands and whether the Defense Logistics 
Agency and the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service have 
developed effective solutions to non-integrated excess 
commodity and excess inventory systems and processes. The 
Department of Defense does not have management controls in 
place to assure that excess military inventory is reutilized to 
the maximum extent possible. The Department of Defense lacks 
Reliable inventory controls, processes and systems to account 
for excess military property. There is rampant waste and the 
potential for fraud and abuse of the Department of Defense 
[DOD] program for the reuse of excess military property.
    b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic 
Audits and Special Investigations, Government Accountability 
Office; Gayle L. Fischer, Assistant Director, Forensic Audits 
and Special Investigations, Government Accountability Office; 
John J. Ryan, Assistant Director/Special Agent, Forensic Audits 
and Special Investigations, Government Accountability Office; 
Richard C. Newbold, Special Agent, Forensic Audits and Special 
Investigations, Government Accountability Office; Alan F. 
Estevez, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Supply 
Chain Integration), Department of Defense; MG Bennie E. 
Williams, Director for Logistics Operations, Defense Logistics 
Agency; and Paul Peters, Director, Defense Reutilization and 
Marketing Service, Department of Defense.
33. ``HIV Prevention: The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,'' 
        September 6, 2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined the Prevention component 
of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief [PEPFAR], a 
$15 billion 5-year initiative to fight HIV/AIDS, in which one 
third of HIV prevention funds must by law be devoted to 
abstinence-only programming. The President's Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief [PEPFAR] represents an unparalleled commitment by 
the United States to global public health and development, but 
the program faces legitimate scrutiny for disproportionately 
devoting HIV prevention resources to abstinence-until-marriage 
programming. Ambassador Mark Dybul's participation marked his 
first time testifying before Congress following his August 2006 
Senate confirmation as Global AIDS Coordinator. Witness 
testimony and discussion at the hearing supported the 
contention that mandating one third of HIV prevention resources 
to abstinence-only programming lacks scientific basis and 
implies political motivation. This reinforced the message of an 
April 2006 GAO report entitled, ``Global Health: Spending 
Requirement Presents Challenges for Allocating Prevention 
Funding Under the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief.'' 
The hearing further informed pending legislation on the PATHWAY 
Act of 2006, which includes a provision to repeal the one-third 
earmark. The discussion also spurred continued subcommittee 
investigation on the results, monitoring and evaluation the 
Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator must present on PEPFAR 
programming.
    b. Witnesses.--Mark R. Dybul, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, 
U.S. Department of State; Kent Hill, Assistant Administrator, 
Bureau for Global Health, U.S. Agency for International 
Development; Dr. David Gootnick, Director, International 
Affairs and Trade, Government Accountability Office; Dr. Helene 
Gayle, president and chief executive officer, CARE USA; Dr. 
Lucy Sawere Nkya, member of Tanzanian Parliament (MP, Women 
Special Seats), medical chairperson, Medical Board of St. 
Mary's Hospital Morogoro, director, Faraja Trust Fund; and Dr. 
Edward C. Green, senior research scientist, Harvard Center for 
Population and Development Studies.
34. ``Progress Since September 11th: Protecting Public Health and 
        Safety of the Responders and Residents,'' September 8, 2006 
        (New York, NY)
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined federally funded programs 
that register, screen, monitor and treat individuals who were 
in the vicinity of the World Trade Center [WTC] following the 
September 11th terrorist attacks. Monitoring, treatment and 
funding for post September 11th health effects on individuals 
who responded to or lived near the World Trade Center needs 
further examination and improvements to address the health 
needs of all individuals. HHS stated that the $75 million in 
appropriations to programs providing health screening, long-
term monitoring and treatment for WTC responders would begin to 
be distributed in October 2006, rather than February 2007. 
Improvements are being made to encompass all individuals who 
were in the vicinity of the World Trade Center, including 
residents of Lower Manhattan and Federal responders.
    b. Witnesses.--Cynthia Bascetta, Director, Health Care, 
Government Accountability Office; Joseph Zadroga, Little Egg 
Harbor Township, NJ; Steven Centore, Flanders, NY; Lea Geonimo, 
New York, NY; Lawrence Provost, Virginia Beach, VA; John 
Howard, M.D., M.P.H., J.D., Director, National Institute for 
Occupational Health, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Robin 
Herbert, co-director of the World Trade Center Worker and 
Volunteer Medical Screening Program, Mt. Sinai Hospital; Thomas 
R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H, commissioner, New York City Department 
of Health and Mental Hygiene; Nicholas Scoppetta, commissioner, 
Fire Department of New York; Dr. Joan Reibman, associate 
professor of medicine, NYU Medical Center, director, Bellevue 
Hospital World Trade Center Health Impacts Clinic.
35. ``Iraq: Democracy or Civil War?'' September 11-13-15, 2006
            a. ``When Can Iraq Assume Full Internal Security 
                    Responsibilities?'' September 11, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined whether the 325,000 
personnel level for the Iraqi Security Forces [ISF] that is 
scheduled to be reached on December 31, 2006 is sufficient to 
provide internal security for Iraq. Experts testified that 
successful counter-insurgencies have historically required 20 
security personnel per 1,000 persons, which in the case of Iraq 
equates to a security force of approximately 520,000 personnel. 
Department of Defense witnesses were not able to identify the 
rationale or the factors that were analyzed to set the 325,000 
personnel level for the ISF. It is clear, based on previous 
insurgencies the 325,000 personnel level is not adequate given 
the strength of the insurgency and the complexity of the Iraq 
security situation. In a letter to the Department of Defense, 
the subcommittee recommended a reassessment of the end strength 
of the ISF to be completed as quickly as possible, including an 
assessment of whether Iraq should adopt a draft for military 
service and if ISF capabilities can be tied to U.S. troop 
drawdown.
    b. Witnesses.--Eric Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy; Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, Vice Director for 
Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
retired Army Major General William Nash, director of the Center 
for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations; Dr. 
Bruce Hoffman, professor of strategic studies at Georgetown 
University; and Alan King, who commanded a Civil Affairs 
Battalion in Iraq and was advisor for Tribal Affairs to the 
U.S. authorities.
            b. ``What Will it Take to Achieve National 
                    Reconciliation?'' September 13, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the positions of the 
Shia, Sunni and Kurds on the main issues associated with 
national reconciliation: 1) sharing oil revenue, 2) reforming 
de-Ba'athification, 3) creating autonomous regions 
(``Federalism''), and 4) controlling militias. Testimony by 
Iraqis representing the Shia, Sunni and Kurds revealed wide 
differences among them on the issues associated with national 
reconciliation, the timelines for reaching agreement on the 
issues, and a lack of political will to reach agreement. The 
subcommittee recommended timelines be set for agreement on each 
of the issues in national reconciliation, similar to the 
timelines that earlier produced agreements on elections, the 
constitution, and the formation of transitional and interim 
governments, and the current government.
    b. Witnesses.--Qubad Talabani, representative of the 
Kurdish Regional Government; Dr. Hajim Al-Hassani, former 
Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament and a Sunni Member of 
Parliament; Karim Al-Musawi, representative of the largest 
political party in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic 
Revolution in Iraq [SCIRI], a Sh'ia party; Ambassador David 
Satterfield, Senior Advisor on Iraq; and James Bever, Deputy 
Assistant Administrator, Near East and Asia, U.S. Agency for 
International Development.
            c. ``What are the Consequences of Leaving Iraq?'' September 
                    15, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the consequences for the 
United States, Iraq, and the Middle East region if the United 
States withdraws from Iraq in the event: 1) the current level 
of insurgent and sectarian violence increases, or 2) civil war 
occurs, or 3) Iraq requests the United States to withdraw. 
Experts testified a hasty United States withdrawal would likely 
open the way for increased violence and civil war in Iraq, and 
give Iran a stronger role in Iraq and the oil-rich Gulf States. 
Gradual withdrawal as Iraqi Security Forces take the lead in 
security operations, with a U.S. force remaining in the region 
to deal with any Al Qaeda threat in Iraq and as a hedge against 
Iraq neighbors was recommended.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Fouad Ajami, director of Middle East 
studies, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns 
Hopkins University; Dr. James Fearon, professor of political 
science, Stanford University; Ambassador Peter Galbraith, 
senior diplomatic fellow, Center for Arms Control and Nuclear 
Nonproliferation.
36. ``Combating Terrorism: Lessons Learned from London,'' September 19, 
        2006
    a. Summary.--This hearing sought to compare American and 
British approaches to counterterrorism following the disruption 
of an alleged terrorist airline bomb plot in London in August 
2006. Witnesses represented both American and British 
perspectives with direct experience in counterterrorism, 
legislation, and government agency work. The successful 
disruption of the August 2006 alleged London terrorist airline 
bomb plot highlights the effectiveness of the British 
counterterrorism apparatus and speaks for the value of 
international cooperation. In some circumstances, it would 
benefit the United States to consider more closely and 
potentially emulate certain elements of the British system.
    b. Witnesses.--John Rollins, Specialist in Terrorism and 
International Crime, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade 
Division, Congressional Research Service; Tom Parker, former 
British Counterterrorism Official, adjunct professor, Bard 
College, executive director, Iran Human Rights Documentation 
Center; Baroness Falkner of Margravine, member, House of Lords, 
United Kingdom, fellow, Institute of Politics, Harvard 
University, member in 2005, Prime Minister's Taskforce on 
Muslim Extremism; James A. Lewis, senior fellow, Technology and 
Public Policy Program, Center for Strategic and International 
Studies; and David B. Rivkin, partner, Washington, DC, office 
of Baker and Hostetler, member, U.N. Sub-Commission on the 
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, contributing editor, 
National Review, former official at the White House and the 
Departments of Justice and Energy during the Reagan and George 
H.W. Bush administrations.
37. ``Weapons of Mass Destruction [WMD]: Current Nuclear 
        Nonproliferation Challenges,'' September 26, 2006
    a. Summary.--The hearing examined the importance of the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] and the appropriate 
steps to strengthen the regime. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty [NPT] is intended to stop the spread of nuclear weapons 
and material related to the production of nuclear weapons. The 
subcommittee learned the International Atomic Agency [IAEA] has 
taken steps to strengthen safeguards, including conducting more 
intrusive inspections, to seek assurances that countries are 
not developing clandestine weapons programs. IAEA has begun to 
develop the capability to independently evaluate all aspects of 
a country's nuclear activities. This is a radical departure 
from the past practice of only verifying the peaceful use of a 
country's declared nuclear material. However, despite successes 
in uncovering some countries' undeclared nuclear activities, 
safeguards experts cautioned that a determined country can 
still conceal a nuclear weapons program. In addition, there are 
a number of weaknesses that limit IAEA's ability to implement 
strengthened safeguards. First, IAEA has a limited ability to 
assess the nuclear activities of four key countries that are 
not NPT members--India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan. 
Second, more than half of the NPT signatories have not yet 
brought the Additional Protocol, which is designed to give IAEA 
new authority to search for clandestine nuclear activities, 
into force. Third, safeguards are significantly limited or not 
applied to about 60 percent of NPT signatories because they 
possess small quantities of nuclear material, and are exempt 
from inspections, or they have not concluded a comprehensive 
safeguards agreement. Finally, IAEA faces a looming human 
capital crisis caused by the large number of inspectors and 
safeguards management personnel expected to retire in the next 
5 years.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Hans Blix, chairman, the Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Commission; William H. Tobey, Deputy Administrator 
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security 
Administration, Department of Energy; Andrew K. Semmel, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for International Security and 
Nonproliferation, Department of State; Jack David, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Combating Weapons of Mass 
Destruction and Negotiations Policy, Department of Defense; 
Gene Aloise, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, 
Government Accountability Office; Ambassador Thomas Graham, 
Jr., chairman, Bipartisan Security Group, Global Security 
Institute; Baker Spring, F.M. Kirby research fellow for 
National Security Policy, the Heritage Foundation; Jonathan 
Granoff, president, Global Security Institute; Henry D. 
Sokolski, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center; and 
professor Frank von Hippel, co-chairman, International Panel on 
Fissile Materials.

                                 OTHER

    1. Updating Nuclear Security Standards: How Long Can the 
Department of Energy Afford to Wait?--This investigative report 
was approved by the full committee. The National Security, 
Emerging Threats, and International Relations [NSETIR] 
Subcommittee conducted an oversight investigation of Department 
of Energy [DOE] efforts to improve nuclear facility security. 
The subcommittee examined the DOE National Nuclear Security 
Administration [NNSA] and the Office of Energy, Science and 
Environment [ESE] to determine the reasons behind persistent 
reports of facility security lapses. The Department of Energy 
is the Nation's custodian for the protection nuclear weapons, 
components and special nuclear material.
    The oversight investigation conducted by the subcommittee 
attempted to identify systemic problems within the structure 
and management of DOE. The investigation sought to make sure 
risk management policies are threat-based, not artificially 
constrained by the question, ``How much security can we 
afford?'' in the effort to formulate and implement a new, post-
September 11th security standard or Design Basis Threat [DBT].
    2. Strengthening Disease Surveillance This investigative 
report was approved by the full committee.--The National 
Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations 
[NSETIR] Subcommittee conducted an oversight investigation into 
the status of disease surveillance systems. The subcommittee 
found Disease surveillance systems are fragmented and have been 
slow to adapt to new technologies which could improve the 
timeliness of outbreak reporting. The subcommittee recommended 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should clearly 
define the technical parameters and set a specific timeframe 
for establishing a unified national disease surveillance system 
to replace the current patchwork of reporting and monitoring 
programs.

                VIII. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs

1. ``The Impact of Regulation on U.S. Manufacturing,'' April 12, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing considered the structural costs 
imposed by Federal regulations on domestic manufacturers, 
especially with respect to the impact that it had on U.S. 
competitiveness. It considered the relative cost of regulatory 
compliance for U.S. manufacturers when compared with other 
major world manufacturers, and began checking up on agency 
adherence to predetermined timelines for action or response to 
suggested reform to the regulations within their respective 
agencies.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr John D. Graham, Administrator, OIRA, OMB; 
Al Frink, Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services, 
U.S. Department of Commerce; Govenor John Engler, president, 
National Association of Manufacturers; Dr. Thomas Duesterberg, 
president and CEO, Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI; Lori Luchak, 
vice president, Miles Fiberglass and Composites representing 
the American Composites Manufacturers Association; and Sidney 
Shapiro, Center for Progressive Regulation.
2. ``Less is More: The Increasing Burden of Taxpayer Paperwork,'' May 
        25, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing considered the ongoing oversight 
of the Internal Revenue Service in its taxpayer paperwork 
burden reduction efforts, particularly in relation to the 
provisions required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 
and its following amendments. The percentage goals of reduction 
of regulatory burden originally envisioned by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 have not been met.
    b. Witnesses.--Mark Everson, Commissioner, Internal Revenue 
Service and former Deputy Director for Management, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget; Leonard Steinberg, the Steinberg Group and former 
member of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, on behalf of the Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship Council; Keith Hall, Hall and 
Hughes, PLLC, on behalf of the National Association for the 
Self-Employed; and Lary Gray, Alferman, Gray and Co., on behalf 
of the National Association of Tax Preparers.
3. ``Reducing the Paperwork Burden on the Public: Are Agencies Doing 
        All They Can?'' June 14, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing examined agency efforts to reduce 
the paperwork burden which is imposed on the public. 
Specifically, the two aspects of paperwork burden reduction 
which were focused on were Federal agency compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act and Federal agency efforts to reduce 
burden above and beyond what is statutorily required.
    b. Witnesses.--Patrick Pizzella, Assistant Secretary for 
Administration and Management, U.S. Department of Labor; 
Kimberly Nelson, Assistant Administrator and Chief Information 
Officer, Environmental Protection Agency; Daniel Matthews, 
Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation; 
Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; Sean Moulton, senior 
information policy analyst, OMB Watch; Kevin Barrett, certified 
industrial hygenist and certified safety professional, Barrett 
Occupational Safety and Health Management Services, on behalf 
of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association.
4. ``The Impact of Regulation on U.S. Manufacturing: Spotlight on 
        Department of Labor and Department of Transportation,'' June 
        28, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing continued in the same vein as the 
April 12th hearing, but narrowed its scope to focus on the 
progress made specifically by the Department of Labor and 
Department of Transportation.
    b. Witnesses.--Veronica Stidvent, Assistant Secretary for 
Policy, U.S. Department of Labor; Jeffrey Rosen, General 
Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation; Stuart Sessions, 
vice president, Environomics, Inc., on behalf of Surface 
Finishing Industry Council and Specialty Steel Industry of 
North America; Jeff Melby, vice president, Environment and 
Safety, Genmar Holdings, Inc., on behalf of the National Marine 
Manufacturers Association; and Joan Claybrook, president, 
Public Citizen.
5. ``Improving Information Quality in the Federal Government'' July 20, 
        2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed agency implementation of 
the Information Quality Act passed in 2001, specifically the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service of the Department of the Interior, and the Department 
of Health and Human Services. Ensuring that information is of 
the highest quality and uses the best available science is 
necessary to create fairness and transparency in government and 
was the focus of the hearing.
    b. Witnesses.--Kimberly Nelson, Assistant Administrator and 
CIO, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Tom Melius, 
Assistant Director for External Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Department of the Interior; James Scanlon, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Data Policy, 
Department of Health and Human Services; Mark Greenwood, 
partner, Ropes and Gray; Jeff Ruch, executive director, Public 
Employees for Environmental Responsibility; William Kovacs, 
vice president for Environment, Technology, and Regulation, 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Sidney Shapiro, University 
Distinguished Chair in Law, Wake Forest University.
6. ``Regulatory Reform: Are Regulations Hindering Our 
        Competitiveness?'' July 27, 2005
    a. Summary.--This hearing was held to consider 
congressional regulatory reform initiatives and their effect on 
the promulgation of regulations, especially these regulations 
that impact America's ability to remain globally competitive. A 
number of House Representatives were available to discuss bills 
they had introduced with regards to regulations and American 
competitiveness.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. J.D. Hayworth, Representative, 5th 
Congressional District of Arizona; Hon. Sue Kelly, 
Representative, 19th Congressional District of New York; Hon. 
Robert Ney, Representative, 18th Congressional District of 
Ohio; Curtis Copeland, Specialist in American National 
Government, Congressional Research Service; Christopher Mihm, 
Managing Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability 
Office; Marlo Lewis, senior fellow in environmental policy, 
Competitive Enterprise Institute; and Erik Olson, senior 
attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council.
7 ``Protecting Our Great Lakes: Ballast Water and the Impact of 
        Invasive Species,'' September 9, 2005 (Fair Haven, MI)
    a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the effect which 
invasive species such as the Round Goby and the Zebra Mussel 
have on environments to which they are not indigenous. In 
addition, the hearing focused on how best to combat the effects 
of invasive species and how to avoid their spread. The 
regulations established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 
Prevention and Control Act [NANPCA] need revision, as they have 
been largely ineffective in reducing the number of invasive 
species.
    b. Witnesses.--Mike Cox, attorney general, State of 
Michigan; Robin Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources and 
Environment, Government Accountability Office; Commander Kathy 
Moore, Chief, Environmental Standards Division, U.S. Coast 
Guard; Dr. Stephen Brandt, Director, Great Lakes Environmental 
Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce; Dennis Schornack, 
chairman, U.S. Section, International Joint Commission; Kathy 
Metcalf, director, maritime affairs, Chamber of Shipping of 
America; James Weakley, president, Letter Carriers' 
Association; Jason Dinsmore, policy specialist, Michigan United 
Conservation Clubs; and Kurt Brauer, chair, Natural Resources 
Committee, Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited.
8. ``OxyContin and Beyond: Examining the Role of FDA and DEA in 
        Regulating Prescription Painkillers,'' September 13, 2005 
        (Boston, MA)
    a. Summary.--This hearing analyzed the problems of the 
prescription painkiller OxyContin, and what the Food and Drug 
Administration and the Drug Enforcement Agency are doing to 
monitor the drug. The biggest concerns are that there is no 
regulatory authority over ``off-label'' prescriptions, and that 
because generic forms of OxyContin are to be introduced to the 
market, the government will have to take certain regulatory 
measures to prevent the abuse and diversion of these drugs.
    b. Witnesses.--Dr. Robert Meyer, Director, Office of Drug 
Evaluation II, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration; Joseph Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief 
of Enforcement Operations, Drug Enforcement Agency; 
Massachusetts State Senator Steven Tolman, 2nd Legislative 
District, Suffolk County; Massachusetts State Representative 
Brian Wallace, 4th Legislative District, Suffolk County; John 
McGahan, executive director, Cushing House; Dr. Janet Abrahm, 
co-director of the Pain and Palliative Care Programs at Dana 
Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital and 
Anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, on behalf of the American 
Cancer Society.
9. ``The Impact of Regulation on U.S. Manufacturing: Spotlight on the 
        Environmental Protection Agency,'' September 28, 2005
    a. Summary.--A continuation of the Impact of Regulation on 
U.S. Manufacturing hearings, this one dealt specifically with 
the Environmental Protection Agency. In December 2004, OMB 
released a list of 189 reform nominations for regulations in 
the manufacturing sector. Of these, 76 were considered by OMB 
to be priorities for consideration by the various agencies; 42 
of those 76 nominations were ascribed to the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and this hearing checked the progress of 
these nominations.
    b. Witnesses.--Brian Mannix, Associate Administrator for 
Policy, Economics, and Innovation, Environmental Protection 
Agency; Tom Sullivan, Chief Counsel, the Office of Advocacy, 
U.S. Small Business Administration; John Wagner, corporate 
director of environmental affairs, Mueller Industries Inc.; 
Chris Bagley, EH&S manager, DanChem Technologies, on behalf of 
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association; B.J. 
Mason, president, Mid-Atlantic Finishing Inc., on behalf of the 
Surface Finishing Industry Council; and Scott Slesinger, vice 
president for government affairs, Environmental Technology 
Council.
10. ``Plain Language Regulations: Helping the American Public 
        Understand the Rules,'' March 1, 2006
    a. Summary.--A hearing to consider the ``plain language'' 
in government initiative, especially how it relates to the 
drafting and publishing of regulations. Every year, Federal 
regulatory agencies write and enforce thousands of rules, 
however, the average American citizen or small business owner 
affected by these rules may not fully understand their impact 
and their compliance requirements. Congress finds that the 
American citizens and businesses still struggle to understand 
the many rules that they need to follow. This hearing also 
discussed Chairman Miller's H.R. 4809, the ``Regulation in 
Plain Act of 2006,'' and the incorporation of her concepts into 
actual regulation.
    b. Witnesses.--Joseph Kimble, law professor, Thomas Cooley 
School of Law; Dr. Annetta Cheek, vice-chair, Center for Plain 
Language; and Todd McCracken, president, National Small 
Business Association.
11. ``The Paperwork Reduction Act at 25: Opportunities to Strengthen 
        and Improve the Law,'' March 8, 2006
    a. Summary.--A hearing examining the effectiveness of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act after 25 years of implementation. With 
an original budget of $11 billion devoted to enforcing 
regulations, today $44 billion is allocated for that purpose. 
As well as discussing the original bill the hearing addressed 
the amendment made to the bill in 1995 and its effectiveness in 
improvement.
    b. Witnesses.--James Miller, chairman emeritus, CapAnalysis 
Group, LLC; Sally Katzen, visiting professor, George Mason 
University Law School; Linda D. Koontz, Director, Information 
Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; 
William L. Kovacs, vice president, Environment Technology and 
Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Andrew Langer, 
manager, regulatory policy, National Federation of Independent 
Business; and Robert Shull, director of regulatory policy, OMB 
Watch.
12. ``Taking on Water: The National Park Service's Stalled Rulemaking 
        Effort on Personal Watercraft,'' March 15, 2006
    a. Summary.--An oversight hearing on the National Park 
Service's rulemaking effort governing the use of personal 
watercraft in the national park system. The subcommittee 
examined the rulemaking process at NPS governing PWC use, 
particularly the status of individual rulemaking and reasons 
for the delays in the NPS rulemaking process. They also voiced 
their concerns for the delays that have prohibited the use of 
PWCs.
    b. Witnesses.--Karen Taylor-Goodrich, Associate Director 
for Visitor and Resource Protection, National Park Service, 
Department of the Interior; Fernando Garcia, director of public 
and regulatory affairs, Bombardier Recreational Products; Laura 
Baughman, president, the Trade Partnership; John Hamer, owner, 
Motorsports of Miami; and Carl Schneebeck, public lands 
campaign director, Bluewater Network.
13. ``The Sarbanes-Oxley Act 4 Years Later: What Have We Learned?'' 
        April 5, 2006
    a. Summary.--A hearing which examined the Security and 
Exchange Commission's [SEC] implementation of Section 404 of 
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [SOX], which evidence suggests has 
adversely affected the small business community and the 
competitiveness of American companies overall. The subcommittee 
discussed the intended purpose of the act, the skyrocketing 
compliance cost, the unintended consequences, the benefits and 
the recent remedial action.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Mark Kirk, U.S. House of 
Representatives, 10th Congressional District of Illinois; Hon. 
Tom Feeney, U.S. House of Representatives, 24th Congressional 
District of Florida; Hon. Gregory Meeks, U.S. House of 
Representatives, 6th Congressional District of New York; Grace 
Hinchman, senior vice president, Financial Executives 
International; Richard Hubbell, president and CEO of RPC and 
Marine Products Corp; Alex J. Pollock, resident fellow, AEI; 
Robert Dowski, CFO, the Allied Defense Group, Inc.; and Damon 
Silvers, associate general counsel, AFL-CIO.
14. ``FEMA's Floodplain Map Modernization: A State and Local 
        Perspective,'' May 8, 2006 (Algonac, MI)
    a. Summary.--A field hearing conducted in Algonac, MI, 
which examined the State and local impact of FEMA's efforts to 
update flood maps in St. Clair County, MI and, particularly, in 
Clay Township. FEMA justified its proposal to raise the base 
flood elevation on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study on 
water levels in the Great Lakes; however, that data is not 
reliable due to 1986 being the final year of the study, which 
was the year that water levels in the Great Lakes were at 
historic highs. Subcommittee members asserted FEMA is in 
financial trouble, and needs to increase revenues to pay for 
the payments associated with the hurricanes of 2005. 
Subcommittee members directed question to as to why this 
increase is necessary and the benefits for Clay Township.
    b. Witnesses.--Janet Odeshoo, Deputy Regional Director, 
Federal Emergency Management Administration, Region V, 
Department of Homeland Security; Lieutenant Colonel [LTC] 
Donald P. Lauzon, Commander and District Engineer, Detroit 
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Hon. Judson Gilbert II, 
Senator, 25th District, Michigan; Jon E. Manos, supervisor, 
Clay Township, MI; Chris Wilson, city manager, Algonac, MI; 
Manfred ``Whitey'' Simon, president, Harsens Island St. Clair 
Flats Association; and John Collison, Sterling Real Estate Co., 
Macomb, MI (representing the Michigan Association of Realtors).
15. ``A Balancing Act: Cost, Compliance, and Competitiveness After 
        Sarbanes-Oxley,'' June 19, 2006 (New York, NY)
    a. Summary.--A field hearing conducted in New York City to 
examine the impact of the SEC's implementation of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act [SOX] on U.S. stocks markets in terms of liquidity, 
competitiveness, and the overall health of the U.S. markets. 
This hearing examined the benefits of Section 404 of the act 
and as well as the value added by Section 404 compliance for 
investors, and businesses. The hearing focused on individuals' 
and professional consultants' use of the information disclosed 
under Section 404 of the act when making investment decisions. 
The hearing also compared the protections provided by Section 
404 to the protections provided by Section 302 of the act. 
Finally, the subcommittee explored the changes in corporate 
behavior pre and post SEC implementation of SOX. This inquiry 
included exploring the differences in corporate behavior in 
matters relating to strategic planning, resource allocation, 
and implementation of IT systems.
    b. Witnesses.--Neal Wolkoff, CEO, the American Stock 
Exchange; Mallory Factor, chairman, Free Enterprise Fund; 
Robert Robotti, president, Robotti and Co., former member of 
the SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies; William 
W. Beach, director for data analysis, the Heritage Foundation; 
David Lawrence, chief financial officer, Acorda Therapeutics 
Inc.; R. Cromwell Coulson, CEO, the Pink Sheets; and John P. 
O'Shea, president and CEO, Westminster Securities Corp.
16. ``Another Year, Another Billion Hours: Evaluating Paperwork 
        Reduction Efforts in the Federal Government,'' July 18, 2006
    a. Summary.--A hearing to examine the effectiveness of the 
Federal Government's implementation of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act for Fiscal Year 2005. In 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act 
[PRA] replaced the FRA and established the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] in OMB, whose 
principal responsibility is paperwork reduction. GAO conducted 
a study and filed a report on implementation of the act 
identifying significant weaknesses in the process, which were 
examined in the hearing.
    b. Witnesses.--Steve Aitken, acting administrator, Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB; Beth Tucker, 
Director of Outreach, Communication, and Disclosure, Small 
Business/Self-Employed Division, Internal Revenue Service; 
Linda D. Koontz, Director of Information Management, GAO; 
Matthew Berry, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Communications 
Commission; Andrew Langer, manager, regulatory policy, NFIB; 
Robert Hayes, president, Medicare Rights Center, Information 
Collection Budget of the Federal Government (fiscal year 1995-
fiscal year 2005).
17. ``Is the Federal Government Doing All it Can to Stem the Flow of 
        Illegal Immigration?'' July 25, 2006
    a. Summary.--A hearing to examine the current regulatory 
structure in place at different Federal agencies that play a 
role in documenting, detecting, and penalizing the employment 
of illegal aliens. The subcommittee heard from five Federal 
agencies to examine how they intend to use the information 
available to them via wage reports and I-9 inspections to 
enforce immigration law. The hearing demonstrated the lack of 
cooperation between Federal agencies dealing with illegal 
immigration and worker verification. Also, the hearing examined 
the worker verification provisions of both the House and Senate 
bills and their effectiveness in combating the hiring of 
illegal emigrants.
    b. Witnesses.--Al Robinson, Acting Administrator of the 
Wage and Hour Administration of the Employment Standards 
Administration at the Department of Labor; Janis Sposato, 
Associate Director of the National Security and Records 
Verification Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Service; Matthew Allen, Deputy Assistant Director, U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Martin H. Gerry, Deputy 
Commissioner of Social Security for Disability and Income 
Support Programs, the Social Security Administration; and K. 
Steven Burgess, Director, Examinations Small Business/Self 
Employed Division, Internal Revenue Service.
18. ``H.R. 5242: the Small Business Paperwork Amnesty Act,'' September 
        26, 2006
    a. Summary.--A hearing examining the bill H.R. 5242, which 
gives small businesses the ability to correct a first-time 
paperwork violation within 6 months as long as the violation 
does not harm the public interest, affect internal revenue 
laws, or threaten public health or safety. Subcommittee members 
directed questions regarding the effects posed by this bill on 
small businesses as well as the economy.
    b. Witnesses.--Hon. Randy Neugebauer, U.S. House of 
Representatives, 19th Congressional District of Texas; Hon. 
David Vitter, U.S. Senate, Louisiana; Karen Harned, executive 
director, NFIB Legal Foundation, National Federation of 
Independent Businesses; James M. Wordsworth, president, J.R.'s 
Stockyards Inn, representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and 
J. Robert Shull, deputy director, auto safety and regulatory 
policy, Public Citizen.
                                APPENDIX

                          I. Committee Prints

March 2005
    Rules of the Committee on Government Reform, House of 
Representatives, Together with Selected Rules of the House of 
Representatives (Including Clause 2 of House Rule XI) and 
Selected Statutes of Interest.
December 2006
    A Ceremony of the Unveiling of the Portrait of John 
Conyers, Jr.???

                       II. Investigative Reports

    FIRST REPORT, July 18, 2005 The National Drug Control 
Strategy for 2005 and the National Drug Control Budget for 
Fiscal Year 2006.
    SECOND REPORT, September 20, 2005 A Citizen's Guide on 
Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 
l974 to Request Government Records.
    THIRD REPORT, November 18, 2005 Investigation into Rafael 
Palmeiro's March 17, 2005 Testimony at the Committee on 
Government Reform's Hearing: ``Restoring Faith in America's 
Pastime: Evaluating Major League Baseball's Efforts to 
Eradicate Steroid Use.''
    FOURTH REPORT, December 16, 2005 The Methamphetamine 
Epidemic: International Roots of the Problem, and Recommended 
Solutions.
    FIFTH REPORT, January 31, 2006 Bringing Communities into 
the 21st Century: A Report on Improving the Community Block 
Grant Program,'' January 31, 2006.
    SIXTH REPORT, April 25, 2006 2006 Congressional Drug 
Control Budget and Policy Assessment: A Review of the 2007 
National Drug Control Budget and 2006 National Drug Control 
Strategy.
    SEVENTH REPORT, April 25, 2006 Updating Nuclear Security 
Standards: How Long Can the Department of Energy Afford to 
Wait?
    EIGHTH REPORT, Strengthening Disease Surveillance, April 
25, 2006.
    NINTH REPORT, September 6, 2006 What Will it Take to Turn 
Lost Opportunities into America's Gain?

                        III. Legislative Reports

March 17, 2005, House Report 109-26
    Program Assessment and Results Act, to accompany H.R. 185, 
109th Congress, 1st Session.
April 28, 2005, House Report 109-66, Part I
    Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, to accompany 
H.R. 22, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
May 23, 2005, House Report 109-91
    General Services Administration Modernization Act, to 
accompany H.R. 2066, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
July 12, 2005, House Report 109-164
    To extend by 10 years the authority of the Secretary of 
Commerce to conduct the quarterly financial report program, to 
accompany H.R. 2385, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 3, 2005, House Report 109-268
    Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2005, to accompany H.R. 923, 
109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 3, 2005, House Report 109-267
    2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act, to 
accompany H.R. 3508, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 18, 2005, House Report 109-313
    Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act, to 
accompany H.R. 3128, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 18, 2005, House Report 109-315
    Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act 
of 2005, to accompany H.R. 2829, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 18, 2005, House Report 109-316
    Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property 
Act of 2006, to accompany H.R. 3699, 109th Congress, 1st 
Congress.
March 14, 2006, House Report 109-390
    To provide that attorneys employed by the Department of 
Justice shall be eligible for compensatory time off for travel 
under section 5550b of title 5, United States Code, to 
accompany H.R. 4057, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
April 25, 2006, House Report 109-439
    527 Reform Act of 2006, to accompany, to accompany H.R. 
4975, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
April 26, 2006, House Report 109-440
    National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2006, to 
accompany H.R. 3496, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
April 27, 2006, House Report 109-445
    Executive Branch Reform Act of 2006, to accompany H.R. 
5112, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
May 2, 2006, House Report 109-449
    A bill to provide for the participation of employees in the 
judicial branch in the Federal leave transfer program for 
disasters and emergencies, S. 1736, 109th Congress, 2nd 
Session.
May 9, 2006, House Report 109-457
    Requesting the President to transmit to the House of 
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of 
adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the 
President relating to the receipt and consideration by the 
Executive Office of the President of any information concerning 
the variation between the version of S. 1932, the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005, that the House of Representatives passed 
on February 1, 2006, and the version of the bill that the 
President signed on February 8, 2006, to accompany H. Res. 752, 
109th Congress, 1st Session.
June 22, 2006, House Report 109-519
    RESPOND Act of 2006, to accompany H.R. 5316, 109th 
Congress, 2nd Session.
June 29, 2006, House Report 109-544
    Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, to 
accompany H.R. 1317, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
July 11, 2006, House Report 109-553
    To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 
1999 to reauthorize for 5 additional years the public and 
private school tuition assistance programs established under 
the Act, to accompany H.R. 4855, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
July 24, 2006, House Report 109-593
    District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act 
of 2006, to accompany H.R. 5388, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
July 24, 2006, House Report 109-594
    Government Efficiency Act of 2006, to accompany H.R. 5766, 
109th Congress, 2nd Session.
September 13, 2006, House Report 109-652
    To amend the Truth in Regulating Act to make permanent the 
pilot project for the report on rules, to accompany H.R. 1167, 
109th Congress, 2nd Session.
September 14, 2006, House Report 109-660
    Regulation in Plain Language Act of 2006, to accompany H.R. 
4809, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
March 31, 2005, House Report 109-29

                         IV. Committee Meetings

    February 17, 2005--Full Committee Approved Budget Views and 
Estimates by voice vote and H. Res. 41 by unanimous consent.
    February 9, 2005--Full Committee Organizational Meeting 
Approved Committee Rules, Oversight Plans, H.R. 324 and H. Con. 
Res. 25 both by unanimous consent. Also the minority consultant 
contract by unanimous consent.
    March 10, 2005--Full Committee Approved S. 384 by voice 
vote and H.R. 185 by roll call vote.
    March 26, 2005--Full Committee Approved Recommendations to 
the House regarding Oversight Plans for all House Committees by 
voice vote and H. Res. 142 and H. Res. 148 both by unanimous 
consent.
    April 13, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 22 as amended 
by roll call vote and H.R. 1533, as amended by voice vote. 
Also, H.R. 504, H.R. 1072, H.R. 1082, H.R. 1236, H.R. 1524, H. 
Res. 184, H. Res. 197, H. Con. Res. 41 and H.R. 1001 all by 
unanimous consent.
    May 5, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 2066 as amended 
by voice vote. Also H.R. 627, H.R. 1760, H. Res. 231 and H. 
Res. 185 all by unanimous consent.
    May 17, 2005--Federal Workforce and Agency Organization 
Approved H.R. 994, H.R. 1283 and H.R. 1765 all by unanimous 
consent.
    May 26, 2005--Full Committee approved H.R. 2326 by 
unanimous consent and H.R. 2565 by voice vote.
    June 14, 2005--Federalism and the Census Approved H.R. 2385 
as amended by voice vote.
    June 16, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 2113, H.R. 
2183, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2490, H.R. 2630, H. Con. Res. 71 and H. 
Con. Res. 160 all by unanimous consent. Also, H.R. 994, H.R. 
1283 as amended, H.R. 1765, H.R. 2385 as amended and H.R. 2829 
as amended all by voice vote. 1st Investigative Report--The 
National Drug Control Strategy for 2005 and the National Drug 
Control Budget for Fiscal Year 2006 approved by voice vote.
    June 22, 2005--Government Management, Finance and 
Accountability Approved ``A Citizens Guide on Using the Freedom 
of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request 
Government Records,'' by voice vote.
    September 15, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 3508 as 
amended and H.R. 3128 both by voice vote. A Citizen's Guide on 
Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 
1974 to Request Government Records approved by voice vote. 
Also, H. Con. Res. 59, H. Con. Res. 209, H.J. Res. 61, H. Res. 
209, H.J. Res. 61, H. Res. 429, H.R. 2062, H.R. 2413, H.R. 
3439, H.R. 3440, H.R. 3667, H.R. 3703, H.R. 3767, S. 1275 and 
S. 1323 all by unanimous consent.
    September 29, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 3549, H.R. 
3830, H.R. 3853, H. Res. 15, H. Res. 276 and H. Res. 389 all by 
unanimous consent. H.R. 1317 as amended by roll call vote.
    October 20, 2005--Full Committee approved H.R. 3256, H.R. 
3368, H.R. 3548, H.R. 3770, H.R. 3825, H.R. 3989, H.R. 4053 and 
S. 37 all by unanimous consent. H.R. 1455 and H.R. 4057 both 
passed by voice vote and H.R. 3496 passed as amended by voice 
vote.
    October 26, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 3134 as 
amended by voice vote.
    November 16, 2005--Full Committee Approved the report on 
the Investigation into Rafael Palmeiro's March 17, 2005 
Testimony at the Committee on Government Reform's Hearing: 
``Restoring Faith in America's Pastime: Evaluating Major League 
Baseball's Efforts to Eradicate Steroid Use.'' Also, approved 
H.R. 3934, H.R. 4101, H.R. 4107, H.R. 4108, H.R. 4109 as 
amended, H.R. 4152, H.R. 4295, H. Con. Res. 218, H. Con. Res. 
289 and H. Res. 487 all by unanimous consent.
    December 15, 2005--Full Committee Approved minority 
consulting contract and two investigative reports entitled, 
``Bringing Communities into the 21st Century: A Report on 
Improving the Community Development Block Grant Program.'' And 
``The Methamphetamine Epidemic: International Roots of the 
Problem, and Recommended Solutions,'' all by voice vote.
    February 1, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 4054, H.R. 
4346, H.R. 4456 as amended, H.R. 4509, H. Res. 629, and S. 1989 
all by unanimous consent.
    March 9, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R 4674, H.R. 4688, 
H.R. 4786, H.R. 4805, H. Res. 85, H. Res. 517, as amended and 
H. Res. 556 all by unanimous consent. S. 1736 and H.R. 4855 
passed both by voice vote and the report, ``2006 Congressional 
Drug Control Budget and Policy Assessment: A Review of the 2007 
National Drug Control Budget and 2006 National Drug Control 
Strategy,'' passed by voice vote.
    March 30, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 4368, H.R. 
4561, H.R. 4586, H.R. 4646, H.R. 4811, H.R. 4995, H. Res. 518 
and H. Res. 737 all by unanimous consent.
    April 6, 2006--Full Committee Approved ``Strengthening 
Disease Surveillance'' and ``Updating Nuclear Security 
Standards: How Long Can the Department of Energy Afford to 
Wait?'' Both by voice vote. Also, H.R. 4975 as amended by voice 
vote and H.R. 5112 approved by roll call vote.
    May 4, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 4768, H.R. 5086, 
H.R. 5104, H.R. 5245, H. Res. 327, H. Res. 626, H. Res. 627, H. 
Res. 729, H. Res. 753, H. Res. 763, H. Res. 773, H. Res. 788, 
H. Con. Res. 399 all by unanimous consent. Also, the committee 
unfavorably approved H. Res. 752 by roll call.
    May 18, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 5316, as amended 
by voice vote. H.R. 5388 was approved by roll call vote and 
H.R. 5410 failed by voice vote.
    June 8, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 5169, H.R. 5194, 
H.R. 5224, H.R. 5426, H.R. 5248, H.R. 5434, H.R. 5504, H.R. 
5540, H. Res. 498, S. 1445 and H. Res. 826 all by unanimous 
consent. Also, H.R. 4809, H.R. 4416, S. 959 as amended, H.R. 
1167 as amended, H.R. 5216, and H.R. 5525 all approved by voice 
vote.
    June 29, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 3329, H.R. 
5697, H.R. 5711, H.R. 4962, H.R. 5626, H. Res. 189 and H. Res. 
721 all by unanimous consent.
    July 18, 2006--Federal Workforce Agency Organization 
Approved H.R. 5710 by voice vote.
    July 20, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 4087, H.R. 
4846, H.R. 5664, H. Res. 605, H. Res. 901, H. Res. 912 all by 
unanimous consent. Report, ``Brownsfield: What Will It Take to 
Turn Lost Opportunities into America's First Gain?'' Approved 
by voice vote. Also, H.R. 5766 as amended and H.R. 3282 both 
approved by roll call vote.
    September 13, 2006--Federal Workforce and Agency 
Organization Approved H.R. 4859 by voice vote.
    September 21, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 960, H.R. 
1472, H.R. 4969, H.R. 5108, H.R. 5857, H.R. 5923, H.R. 5989, 
H.R. 5990, H.R. 6075, H.R. 6078, H.R. 6102, H. Res. 402, H. 
Res. 745, H. Res. 748, H. Res. 973, H. Res. 974, H. Res. 991, 
H. Con. Res. 471 and H. Con. Res. 473 all by voice vote.
    September 27, 2006--Government Management, Finance, and 
Accountability Approved H.R. 867 by voice vote.



            VIEWS OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER HENRY A. WAXMAN

    While I agree with significant parts of the Chairman's 
report, there are several sections that warrant comment as 
discussed below.

                    PART ONE: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

                     I. Legislative Accomplishments

H.R. 185, ``Program Assessment and Results Act''
    H.R. 185, the Program Assessment and Results Act [PARA], 
would require every Federal program to be reviewed or evaluated 
at least once every 5 years. While the concept of programmatic 
reviews has merit, this bill as drafted allows the program 
review process to be politicized. In addition, the bill fails 
to ensure adequate public participation. Finally, the bill 
permanently authorizes these reviews whereas it should have a 
termination date to ensure its usefulness.
    During full committee markup, the minority proposed 
amendments to PARA addressing these three fundamental flaws. An 
amendment by Representative Henry A. Waxman would have required 
agencies, and not the partisan Office of Management and Budget 
[OMB], to perform the bill's required program assessments. An 
amendment by Representative Ed Towns would have enhanced 
transparency by requiring a notice and comment process prior to 
the conducting of assessments. Another amendment by 
Representative Ed Towns would have sunsetted the bill in the 
year 2013. Because these three amendments were rejected, I 
cannot support PARA as reported by the Committee on Government 
Reform.
    PARA expands on the requirements of the Government 
Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. GPRA requires agencies to 
set annual goals and measure their performance in achieving 
those goals. PARA adds a periodic 5-year review to provide a 
detailed analysis at the individual program level.
    As drafted, this bill deviates from GPRA in one significant 
respect. Instead of requiring agencies to set performance goals 
and evaluate the performance of their programs, PARA requires 
the White House, through the OMB, to pick the criteria and 
evaluate performance. The Waxman amendment sought to fix this 
problem.
    When Congress passed GPRA, it clearly wanted the agencies 
to set the goals and measures, not OMB. The Government 
Accountability Office [GAO] highlighted this issue when it 
reviewed the administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool 
[PART], upon which the bill before us is based. When explaining 
that OMB intends to modify GPRA goals and measures in order to 
align them with the PART, GAO found that ``OMB's judgment about 
appropriate goals and measures is substituted for GPRA 
judgments based on a community of stakeholder interests,'' 
including Congress.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Government Accountability Office, Performance Budgeting: 
Observations on the Use of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool for the 
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, 6 (January 2004) (GAO-04-174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress expresses its priorities through statutes 
authorizing agency activities. But OMB is not tasked with 
implementing those statutes. Instead, OMB implements the 
priorities of the White House. In fact, many agencies, and 
especially those charged with protecting public health, worker 
safety, and the environment, view OMB as hostile to the 
agencies' fundamental missions.
    OMB has a history of using the PART review to criticize 
congressional actions and priorities. OMB rated the Community 
Development Block Grant program as ``ineffective'' and proposed 
its virtual elimination in the fiscal year 2006 budget. OMB, in 
its PART analysis, partially blamed Congress. OMB explained 
that the programs mission is not clear because ``throughout 
CDBG's legislative history there has been ambiguity.'' \2\ 
Similarly, OMB criticized the acid rain program, created under 
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and widely regarded as a 
tremendously successful program and a model for environmental 
regulations. OMB penalized this program for complying with its 
explicit statutory directives from Congress. OMB's rationale 
for downgrading the acid rain program states that these 
identified program deficiencies would be fixed if Congress 
passed the President's proposal to amend the Clean Air Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the 
U.S. Government, Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART Performance 
Measurements, Housing and Urban Development, 16 (February 2005).
    \3\ Id., Environmental Protection Agency, 3-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to ignoring the will of Congress, OMB does a 
poor job assessing programs. HOPE VI has been found to be 
effective by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, 
as well as the GAO and the HUD Inspector General. Yet OMB in 
its fiscal year 2006 gave the HOPE VI an ``ineffective'' 
rating, and then used its rating to justify defunding the 
program in the fiscal year 2006 budget. Also, OMB rated the 
Superfund removal program as ``results not demonstrated'' 
because OMB did not agree with EPA's measure of success. The 
Superfund program clearly has been a success. It has cleaned up 
thousands of hazardous waste sites since its creation in 1980 
and it is a critically important program that addresses threats 
ranging from polluted groundwater to radioactive waste.
    In conclusion, PARA is a flawed evaluation tool that usurps 
the traditional role of Congress in evaluating the 
effectiveness of programs, allowing OMB to effectively overrule 
Congress and set the goals for federal agency activities.

                        II. Legislative Hearings

H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act
    H.R. 5766 would have created partisan commissions empowered 
to propose eliminating or privatizing critical government 
programs and require that those proposals be considered by 
Congress under expedited procedures. Under this bill, any 
program the President did not like could have been put on the 
chopping block under fast-track procedures. This bill was a 
backdoor attack on Federal programs that support our most 
vulnerable citizens including seniors, children, and the 
disabled.
H.R. 3282, the Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act 
        of 2005
    H.R. 3282 would have jeopardized the existence of every 
Federal agency and program, no matter how important. This bill 
would have automatically abolished every agency within 12 
years. An agency would only be saved if Congress acted to 
reauthorize the agency.
    This bill would have radically altered the balance of power 
between Congress and the President. Every Federal agency would 
have been abolished if Congress did not act to reauthorize the 
agency on a set schedule.
H.R. 1167, to amend the Truth in Regulating Act to Make Permanent the 
        Pilot Project for the Report on Rules
    The bill as introduced had the potential effect of hurting 
GAO's ability to carry out its primary mission of answering to 
Members of Congress. GAO currently does not have adequate 
resources to accept all congressional requests. This concern 
was largely addressed by the Waxman amendment, which was 
unanimously passed in committee. Concerns about the purpose of 
H.R. 1167 are described in more detail in the minority views 
filed with the committee's September 13, 2006, report on this 
legislation (H. Rept. 109-652).

                     PART TWO: OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

                           I. Full Committee

Jack Abramoff's Lobbying of the White House
    The majority report does not include any reference to the 
committee's investigation of Jack Abramoff's lobbying of the 
White House. This investigation, which commenced in the wake of 
numerous guilty pleas by Jack Abramoff and his lobbying 
associates relating to fraud and public corruption, resulted in 
a staff report jointly released by Chairman Davis and Ranking 
Member Waxman on September 29, 2006. Relying on billing records 
and emails supplied by Jack Abramoff's former firm, the report 
documented hundreds of contacts between Mr. Abramoff's lobbying 
team and the Bush White House.
    In March 2006, the committee requested billing records and 
e-mail communications of Mr. Abramoff and his associates at his 
lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig L.L.P., relating to their 
lobbying contacts with the White House. The e-mail and billing 
data provided to the committee by Greenberg Traurig spanned 
over 3 years and amounted to more than 14,000 pages.
    The billing records and emails show a much closer 
relationship between the White House and the Abramoff team than 
had been previously known. According to the documents, Abramoff 
and his team had 485 lobbying contacts with White House 
officials between January 2001 and March 2004. These include 
contacts with Karl Rove, senior advisor to the President, Ken 
Mehlman, the White House political director, as well as 
officials in the White House Offices of Intergovernmental 
Affairs and Legislative Affairs. More than half of the in-
person interactions described in the documents involved meals 
or drinks with White House officials.
    If what the documents describe is accurate, there is 
evidence that White House officials took multiple actions to 
benefit Mr. Abramoff and his clients, including ensuring the 
release of $16 million for the construction of a jail for the 
Mississippi Band of the Choctaw, pressuring a Senate office to 
advance legislation to resolve a land dispute affecting the 
Sandia Pueblo of New Mexico, endorsing or declining to endorse 
political candidates, and intervening to secure the termination 
of a State Department employee who had taken positions contrary 
to those advocated by Mr. Abramoff.
    In addition to the lobbying contacts, the documents show 
that Mr. Abramoff and his team offered White House officials 
tickets to 19 sporting events and concerts. These included 
tickets for floor-level seats at Wizards basketball games, ice-
level seats at Capitals hockey games, box seats at Orioles 
games, as well as tickets for U2 and Bruce Springsteen 
concerts.
Iraq Contracting
    The majority's summary of the committee's oversight of Iraq 
contracting states, ``The committee has engaged in continuous 
and vigorous oversight of contract activities in Iraq over the 
past 3 years.'' In fact, the full committee held just one 
hearing on Iraq contracting during the 109th Congress, despite 
numerous requests from the minority, and this hearing occurred 
near the end of the 109th Congress. However, the majority did 
join the minority in requesting that the Government 
Accountability Office examine Halliburton's compensation under 
the Restore Iraqi Oil contract and in obtaining audits and 
compensation documents for a number of other Iraq contracts. 
Cooperation during the 110th Congress could enhance the 
committee's efforts to vigorously oversee the contracts in 
Iraq.
Hearing entitled, ``Making the Grade? Examining District of Columbia 
        Public Schools Reform Proposals,'' April 28, 2006
    Questioning at the hearing elicited testimony regarding the 
root of the designation of the District of Columbia Public 
Schools as a ``high-risk'' grantee by the U.S. Department of 
Education. This testimony pointed out that, as a city without a 
State, the District does not have a full and independent State 
education oversight mechanism. It is worth noting that only the 
District and the U.S. territories--none of which are parts of 
States or have voting representation in Congress--have been 
designated high risk. The fact that the Department of Education 
assigned the most severe designation without exhausting 
available intermediate steps with DCPS raises basic questions 
of fairness.
Hearing entitled, ``Northern Lights and Procurement Plights: The Effect 
        of the ANC Program on Federal Procurement and Alaska Native 
        Corporations,'' June 21, 2006
    The description in the majority report is accurate. In 
addition, at the hearing, Ranking Member Waxman referred to 
``Dollars, Not Sense: Government Contracting Under the Bush 
Administration.'' This report, prepared at the request of 
Ranking Member Waxman, finds that between 2000 and 2005, 
procurement spending increased by over $175 billion, making 
Federal contracts the fastest growing component of Federal 
discretionary spending. The report concludes that procurement 
spending is accelerating rapidly, contract management is 
widespread, and the costs to the taxpayer are enormous. The 
report identifies 118 Federal contracts worth $745.5 billion 
that have been found by government officials to include 
significant waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement.
Hearing entitled, ``Code Yellow: Is the DHS Acquisition Bureaucracy a 
        Formula for Disaster?'' July 27, 2006
    The description in the majority report is accurate. In 
addition, on the same day as the hearing, Chairman Davis and 
Ranking Member Waxman released a report assessing the 
administration's record on homeland security contracts. The 
report, entitled, ``Waste, Abuse, and Mismanagement in 
Department of Homeland Security Contracts,'' describes a 
pattern of reckless spending, poor planning, and ineffective 
oversight that is wasting taxpayer dollars and undermining 
homeland security efforts. According to the report, 
noncompetitive contracts have soared over 700 percent in just 3 
years, and the total value of the Department's wasteful 
contracts exceeds $34 billion.
Hearing entitled, ``CSI Washington: Does the District Need Its Own 
        Crime Lab?'' September 22, 2006
    The majority report omits discussion of the burden that the 
absence of a forensics lab in the District of Columbia places 
on the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]. Because the 
District of Columbia has limited forensic capabilities, it 
relies on the FBI forensic crime lab located in Quantico, VA. 
The FBI estimates that 30 percent of its overall workload comes 
from the District. Moreover, the District of Columbia continues 
to lag far behind in closing violent crime cases because it is 
not able to benefit from advancements in DNA and the creation 
of DNA database due to a lack of an adequate State/local 
forensic laboratory. While other jurisdictions are eliminating 
their DNA backlog and are looking to begin DNA analysis on more 
than just violent crimes, the District has about 1,500 sexual 
assault cases backlogged and is also expecting the violent 
crime backlog to grow between 100-200 cases a year, until the 
new consolidated lab is operational.

 II. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

Hearing entitled, ``Harm Reduction or Harm Maintenance: Is There Such a 
        Thing as Safe Drug Abuse?'' February 16, 2005
    The majority offers a distorted description of the purpose 
and effect of syringe exchange programs and other harm 
reduction strategies aimed at reducing the risk of disease 
transmission--most notably, HIV and hepatitis--and/or overdose 
among intravenous drug users. Minority members and minority 
witnesses--Chris Beyrer, Robert Newman, and Peter Bielenson--
cited the overwhelming body of scientific research that 
demonstrates that syringe exchange is effective in reducing HIV 
transmission rates among intravenous drug users and do not 
increase drug use; they also argued that syringe exchange 
programs can be an effective portal to drug treatment, HIV-
testing, and other valuable healthcare services. A May 25, 
2005, letter from full Committee Ranking Member Waxman to 
Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters 
summarizes the scientific literature on the efficacy of needle 
exchange, and is attached to these views as well as available 
online at http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/
20050525110831-63007.pdf.
Hearing entitled, ``RU-486: Demonstrating a Low Standard for Women's 
        Health,'' May 17, 2006
    Although some women have died from a C. sordellii infection 
after taking mifepristone, it is not clear whether mifepristone 
was the cause of any of these infections. The medical 
literature shows that C. sordellii infections and deaths have 
occurred in men, women, and children. Victims have included 
newborns; injection drug users; women who had just given birth; 
and children and adults who experienced trauma such as a broken 
limb. As of the date of the hearing, there were approximately 
30 reported cases of C. sordellii fatalities in the medical 
literature, including the medical abortion cases noted by the 
majority. Nine cases occurred in women who had just given birth 
and two occurred after miscarriages. The FDA and independent 
medical researchers agree that more research is needed into the 
cause of C. sordellii infection.
Report on Abstinence
    The majority's staff report, released 2 years after the 
minority staff investigation of curricula used in federally-
funded abstinence-only programs, does not effectively rebut the 
original report's findings. In November 2006, GAO released a 
report finding that HHS conducts little to no oversight of the 
scientific accuracy of information included in Federal 
abstinence-only programs. GAO also found that there is no 
substantial evidence base to support the effectiveness of 
abstinence-only programs in promoting public health outcomes 
for youth.

           III. Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources

Hearing entitled, ``Methyl Bromide: Are U.S. Interests Being Served by 
        the Critical Use Exemption Process?'' February 15, 2006
    The majority's summary of the issues addressed in this 
hearing omits a number of important points about ozone-
depleting substances, methyl bromide use, and exemptions for 
``critical uses.''
    First, the Montreal Protocol is widely regarded as the 
single most successful environmental treaty. Depletion of the 
ozone layer is a grave threat to human health and the 
environment, but due to the Protocol, the ozone layer is slowly 
starting to heal. The majority's approach to this issue raised 
questions about whether the Protocol or the United States' 
compliance with it should be revisited. Yet it would be a 
terrible mistake to act in any way to undermine the Protocol or 
the phase-out of ozone depleting substances.
    Second, methyl bromide is the most potent ozone-destroying 
chemical that continues to be used in large quantities. It is 
also a highly potent biocide with risks to human health, 
particularly farm-workers, so there are multiple reasons to 
reduce its use. According to the minority witness, the methyl 
bromide exemptions allowed in 2005 and 2006 will cause more 
than 20 deaths from skin cancer, more than 4,000 other skin 
cancer cases, and more than 1,400 cataract cases, in the United 
States alone, and far more world-wide.
    Finally, there are significant concerns about the 
administration's use of the ``critical use'' exemption under 
the Protocol. The minority witness testified that ``U.S. 
Government data show that the amount of methyl bromide actually 
used for all fumigation purposes in 2003 was nearly 25 percent 
less than the amount claimed to be critical in 2005,'' 
indicating that the United States is asking for more new 
production of methyl bromide than would actually be used. 
Moreover, methyl bromide producers currently have very large 
amounts of methyl bromide stockpiled, which means that no new 
production is actually needed under the ``critical use'' 
exemption. According to the minority witness, ``data show that 
just five U.S. producers and distributors held a huge methyl 
bromide stockpiles equaling at least 22 million pounds,'' while 
at least 24 other companies also held methyl bromide 
stockpiles.
Royalty Relief and Price Thresholds
    In its description of the subcommittee's examination of 
circumstances surrounding the absence of price thresholds from 
deepwater leases in 1998 and 1999, the majority identifies 
certain individuals in the Department of the Interior as being 
responsible for this problem. Earl Devaney, Inspector General 
of the Department of the Interior, reviewed this matter as 
well, and testified at the subcommittee's September 13, 2006, 
hearing that he did not find a ``smoking gun'' pinpointing 
blame on any one individual regarding the lease issue. Mr. 
Devaney also commented more broadly on his 7 years of 
experience at the Department, asserting that the culture at the 
Department of the Interior is one that ``sustains managerial 
irresponsibility and a lack of accountability,'' and that, 
``short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the 
Department of the Interior.''
Global Climate Change
    Throughout the majority's description of energy issues that 
have arisen in various subcommittee hearings, the majority 
omits discussion of one of the most pressing issues in energy 
policy: the effect of our current carbon-based energy sources, 
such as oil and coal, on global warming. This issue is central 
to many of the questions examined by the subcommittee relating 
to U.S. energy consumption and oil dependence, energy 
geopolitics, and energy efficiency. Energy policy discussions 
that fail to take global warming into account are unlikely to 
produce the policies necessary to address this urgent and 
serious threat.

     IV. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization

Hearing entitled, ``Yucca Mountain Project: Have Federal Employees 
        Falsified Documents,'' April 5, 2005
    The majority stated in its summary of this hearing that, 
``The Department of Energy [DOE] announced Wednesday, March 16, 
2005, that Federal employees of the U.S. Geological Survey 
[USGS] falsified data used in scientific studies at the 
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada.''
    In actuality, on March 16, 2005, DOE announced that, 
``certain employees of the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] at the 
Department of the Interior working on the Yucca Mountain 
project may have falsified documentation of their work.'' 
Additionally, after a thorough investigation, in February 2006, 
DOE issued a report entitled, ``Evaluation of Technical Impact 
on the Yucca Mountain Project Technical Basis Resulting From 
Issues Raised by E-mails of Former Project Participants.'' The 
report confirmed the technical soundness of infiltration 
modeling work performed by USGS employees. Neither DOE, nor the 
subcommittee, after a year of investigation, found evidence to 
substantiate that Federal employees at the USGS falsified 
documents.

      V. Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and 
                        International Relations

Hearing entitled, ``Private Security Firms: Standards, Cooperation and 
        Coordination on the Battlefield,'' June 13, 2006
    The majority's summary of the hearing on private security 
firms operating in Iraq is accurate but incomplete. Aside from 
the issues discussed in the summary, the minority repeatedly 
raised questions about the lack of transparency of government 
contracts and subcontracts with security firms, as well as the 
possible criminal conduct of private contractors in Iraq. 
Moreover, the summary does not address the subcommittee's 
unsuccessful attempts to obtain relevant documents from the 
administration and Blackwater USA.
    Representative Waxman first raised concerns about 
Blackwater USA's role as a subcontractor under Halliburton's 
LOGCAP troop support contract in a November 30, 2004, letter to 
the U.S. Army Field Support Command. In that letter, 
Representative Waxman cited reports by the News & Observer that 
Blackwater was serving as a third-tier subcontractor under 
Halliburton's LOGCAP contract. He sought a breakdown of how 
much each contractor in the tier was paid for the security 
services being provided by Blackwater. He also requested copies 
of the subcontracts, invoices, and other documentation.
    On December 21, 2004, General Jerome Johnson of the Army 
Field Support Command sent a pro forma response, saying he had 
forwarded the request to ``the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense for formal staffing and response.''
    At the June 13, 2006, hearing, Representative Waxman 
proposed issuing a subpoena to obtain the documents requested 
in November 2004. Rather than hold a vote on this motion, 
Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Shays asked Representative 
Waxman to withdraw his motion, promising that the documents 
would be delivered within 2 weeks. Chris Taylor, vice president 
of Blackwater USA, also was directed to provide relevant 
contract documents.
    A month later, on July 14, 2006, Army Secretary Francis J. 
Harvey sent a letter in response to the document request. No 
contract documents were provided. Similarly, on July 14, 2006, 
Mr. Taylor sent Blackwater's response to certain questions 
posed at the hearing, but he provided none of the contract 
documents requested at the hearing. In addition, the government 
witnesses failed to answer the questions for the record 
submitted by Members.
    In his letter, the Secretary of the Army asserted that the 
Army had no knowledge of any subcontracts for security services 
under Halliburton's LOGCAP contract. The Army Secretary pointed 
out that the LOGCAP contract explicitly prohibits such security 
subcontracts, and that the military theater commander never 
authorized them. Representative Van Hollen raised questions 
about this letter at a full committee hearing on September 28, 
2006, and in response the Army witness testified repeatedly 
that she had researched the question thoroughly and stood by 
the Army Secretary's assertions.
    The minority obtained new evidence, however, that 
contradicts the Army's letter and this sworn testimony. 
Specifically, the minority received information that a 
Halliburton subcontractor, ESS, entered into security 
subcontracts with Blackwater. According to a November 30, 2006, 
memorandum from ESS's parent firm, a British company called 
Compass Group, ESS had a subcontract under Halliburton's LOGCAP 
contract and used Blackwater ``to provide security services'' 
under that subcontract.
    If the ESS memo is accurate, it appears that Halliburton 
entered into a subcontracting arrangement that is expressly 
prohibited by the contract itself. This raises serious concerns 
about whether it was proper for Halliburton to bill these 
services to the U.S. taxpayer. It also raises concerns about 
the failure of the Army to provide this information to the 
committee and the testimony of Army officials that subcontracts 
for these security services never occurred.

                 VI. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs

Hearing entitled, ``OxyContin and Beyond: Examining the Role of FDA and 
        DEA in Regulating Prescription Painkillers,'' September 13, 
        2005
    This hearing was held at the request of Ranking Minority 
Member Stephen Lynch. OxyContin addiction and abuse has 
severely affected the Boston area as well as many communities 
nationwide in recent years. This hearing examined what lessons 
FDA and DEA have learned from their experiences with OxyContin 
and how they are applying those lessons.
Hearing entitled, ``Taking on Water: The National Park Service's 
        Stalled Rulemaking Effort on Personal Watercraft,'' March 15, 
        2006
    The majority report does not provide a complete description 
of this hearing. Ranking Minority Member Stephen Lynch 
highlighted the need for the National Park Service to carefully 
and thoroughly analyze how personal watercraft will impact each 
national park still under consideration, including the 
potential impact on plants, wildlife, water and air quality, 
and other visitors.


                                 
