[House Report 111-705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-705
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     
                                     
                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 428



                               ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                       FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

                               2009-2010







January 3, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


 ACTIVITIES REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT 
                                 REFORM

111th Congress 
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                111-705
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 428



                               ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                       FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

                               2009-2010







January 3, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                   EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania      DARRELL E. ISSA, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio             JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri              LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
DIANE E. WATSON, California          PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Masschusetts       BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                JIM JORDAN, Ohio
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois               JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    Columbia                         BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JACKIE SPEIER, California
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
JUDY CHU, California

                     Ronald Stroman, Staff Director
                      Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
                  Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                  House of Representatives,
                                   Washington, DC, January 3, 2011.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: By direction of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, I submit herewith the 
committee's activities report for the 111th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                            Edolphus Towns,
                                                          Chairman.
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Introduction.....................................................     1
  I. Jurisdiction, Authority, Powers, and Duties......................2
 II. Committee Organization and Membership Changes....................3
III. Rules of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform........4
 IV. Oversight Accomplishments.......................................12
  V. Legislative Accomplishments.....................................55
 VI. Full Committee Proceedings......................................77
VII. Subcommittee Activities.........................................88
        A. Subcommittee on Domestic Policy.......................    88
        B. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and 
            the District of Columbia.............................   130
        C. Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, 
            and Procurement......................................   159
        D. Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and 
            National Archives....................................   174
        E. Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs.   188



                                                 Union Calendar No. 428
111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-705

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



 
  ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                                _______
                                

January 3, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Edolphus Towns, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 
                    Reform, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

 ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 
           111TH CONGRESS, 1ST AND 2D SESSIONS, 2009 AND 2010

                              INTRODUCTION

    During the 111th Congress, the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform held 164 oversight and legislative hearings. 
The Committee marked up 43 bills that passed the House of 
Representatives, 20 of which were enacted into law. The 
Committee also acted on 100 resolutions, 95 of those 
resolutions passed the House of Representatives; and, the 
Committee took up 75 postal naming bills, 14 of those bills 
passed the House and 54 were enacted into law.
    In the 111th Congress, the Committee Chair was 
Representative Edolphus Towns (D-NY) and the Ranking Member was 
Representative Darrell E. Issa (R-CA). To carry out its duties 
as effectively as possible, the Committee at the beginning of 
the 111th Congress established the following five standing 
subcommittees:
     Subcommittee on Domestic Policy
     Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, 
and the District of Columbia
     Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Organization, and Procurement
     Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and 
National Archives
     Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign 
Affairs
    This report describes the Committee's major oversight and 
legislative accomplishments, provides a chronological summary 
of Committee proceedings, and summarizes activities of the 
Subcommittees during the 111th Congress.

             I. Jurisdiction, Authority, Powers, and Duties

    The legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform includes the following areas, as set 
forth in House Rule X, clause 1:
    Federal civil service, including intergovernmental 
personnel; and the status of officers and employees of the 
United States, including their compensation, classification, 
and retirement; Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia 
in general (other than appropriations); Federal paperwork 
reduction; Government management and accounting measures 
generally; Holidays and celebrations; Overall economy, 
efficiency, and management of government operations and 
activities, including federal procurement; National archives; 
Population and demography generally, including the Census; 
Postal service generally, including transportation of the 
mails; Public information and records; Relationship of the 
federal government to the states and municipalities generally; 
and Reorganizations in the executive branch of the government.

                       OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES

    The oversight responsibilities of the Committee are set 
forth in House Rule X, clauses 2, 3, and 4. House Rule X, 
clause 2(b), provides that the Committee shall review and study 
on a continuing basis--
          (A) the application, administration, execution, and 
        effectiveness of laws and programs addressing subjects 
        within its jurisdiction;
          (B) the organization and operation of Federal 
        agencies and entities having responsibilities for the 
        administration and execution of laws and programs 
        addressing subjects within its jurisdiction;
          (C) any conditions or circumstances that may indicate 
        the necessity or desirability of enacting new or 
        additional legislation addressing subjects within its 
        jurisdiction (whether or not a bill or resolution has 
        been introduced with respect thereto); and
          (D) future research and forecasting on subjects 
        within its jurisdiction.
    House Rule X, clause 3(i), provides that the Committee 
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.''
    House Rule X, clause 4(c)(1), provides that the Committee 
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 
        States and municipalities and between the United States 
        and international organizations of which the United 
        States is a member.
And House Rule X, clause 4(c)(2), provides that the Committee 
``may at any time conduct investigations of any matter without 
regard to clause 1, 2, 3, or this clause [of House Rule X] 
conferring jurisdiction over the matter to another standing 
committee.''

           II. Committee Organization and Membership Changes

    The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform organized 
on February 11, 2009, the Honorable Edolphus Towns (D-NY) 
presiding.
    The Committee formed five standing subcommittees: the 
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, chaired by Rep. Dennis 
Kucinich of Ohio; the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal 
Service and the District of Columbia, chaired by Rep. Stephen 
Lynch of Massachusetts; the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Organization, and Procurement, chaired by Rep. 
Diane Watson of California; the Subcommittee on Information 
Policy, Census, and National Archives, chaired by Rep. William 
Lacy Clay of Missouri; and, the Subcommittee on National 
Security and Foreign Affairs, chaired by Rep. John Tierney of 
Massachusetts.
    On February 11, 2009, the membership of the Committee 
included: Representatives Edolphus Towns (D-NY, Chairman), Paul 
Kanjorski (D-PA), Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Elijah E. Cummings 
(D-MD), Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), John F. Tierney (D-MA), 
William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Diane E. Watson (D-CA), Stephen Lynch 
(D-MA), Jim Cooper (D-TN), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA), Eleanor 
Holmes Norton (D-DC), Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI), Danny K. Davis 
(IL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Paul W. 
Hodes (D-NH), Christopher S. Murphy (D-CT), Peter Welch (D-VT), 
Bill Foster (D-IL), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Steve Driehaus (D-
OH), Darrell E. Issa (R-CA, Ranking Minority Member), Dan 
Burton (R-IN), John McHugh (R-NY), John L. Mica (R-FL), Mark E. 
Souder (R-IN), Todd Russell Platts (R-PA), John J. Duncan, Jr. 
(R-TN), Michael R. Turner (R-OH), Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-GA), 
Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC), Brian P. Bilbray (R-CA), Jim Jordan 
(D-OH), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Jason 
Chaffetz (R-UT), and Aaron Schock (R-IL).
    A number of additions and changes occurred in the first and 
second sessions of the 111th Congress regarding the membership 
of the Committee and its subcommittees.
    In the first session of the 111th Congress, Reps. Mike 
Quigley (D-IL) and Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) were elected to serve as 
Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on 
April 30, 2009, pursuant to H. Res. 381. On June 1, 2009, 
pursuant to Democratic Caucus rules, Rep. Kaptur was assigned 
to the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy to rank after Rep. 
Foster. Also on June 2, 2009, Rep. Quigley was assigned to the 
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs filling 
the slot vacated by Rep. Kucinich to rank after Rep. Lynch, as 
well as the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Organization, and Procurement to rank after Rep. Murphy.
    On June 16, 2009, Rep. Todd Russell Platts (R-PA) resigned 
from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to serve 
as a Member of the House Committee on Armed Services, per H. 
Res. 548. The vacancy created by his resignation was filled by 
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), who was elected to serve as a 
Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
pursuant to H. Res. 723, on September 9, 2009. He was assigned 
Subcommittees at the request of Ranking Republican Member 
Darrell E. Issa at the Committee's business meeting of 
September 10, 2009.
    On September 21, 2009, Rep. John M. McHugh (R-NY) resigned 
from the House of Representatives after being confirmed by the 
Senate as the U.S. Army Secretary on September 17, 2009. The 
vacancy created by his resignation was filled by Rep. Anh 
``Joseph'' Cao (R-LA), elected to serve as a Member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform pursuant to H. 
Res. 807 on October 7, 2009. He was assigned Subcommittees at 
the request of Ranking Republican Member Darrell E. Issa and 
pursuant to Committee Rule 8.
    On October 15, 2009, Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) was elected to 
serve as a Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform, pursuant to H. Res. 834.
    On October 29, 2009, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) was assigned 
to the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National 
Archives replacing Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA). This change 
was approved by motion at the full Committee business meeting 
held on October 29, 2009, pursuant to Committee Rule 8.
    In the second session of the 110th Congress, Rep. Judy Chu 
was appointed to serve, pursuant to Committee Rule 8, and in 
consultation with the affected members, to the Subcommittee on 
Information Policy, replacing Rep. Diane E. Watson, and the 
Subcommittee on National Security, replacing Rep. Henry 
Cuellar. This action was approved at the full Committee's 
business meeting held on March 4, 2010.
    Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-IN) resigned from the U.S. House of 
Representatives effective Friday, May 21, 2010, per a 
Communication printed in the Thursday, May 20, 2010, 
Congressional Record. The vacancy created by his resignation 
was filled by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), who was elected to 
serve as a Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform on May 28, 2010, pursuant to H. Res. 1415. Rep. Shuster 
was assigned to the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy and the 
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the 
District of Columbia, at the request of Rep. Chaffetz at the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Business Meeting 
of June 17, 2010, pursuant to Committee Rule 8.

     III. Rules of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform


                      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 Oversight and Government 
Reform and its subcommittees as well as to the respective 
chairs. [See House Rule XI, 1.]

                            RULE 2--MEETINGS

    The regular meetings of the full Committee shall be held on 
the second Thursday 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 chairs. 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 
members shall form a quorum for taking any action other than 
for which the presence of a majority of the Committee is 
otherwise required. 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 chair, 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 printed and 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 roll call 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 five standing subcommittees with 
appropriate party ratios. The chairman shall assign members to 
the subcommittees. Minority party assignments shall be made 
only with the concurrence of the ranking minority member. The 
subcommittees shall have the following fixed jurisdictions:
          (1) The Subcommittee on Domestic Policy--Oversight 
        jurisdiction over domestic policies, including matters 
        relating to energy, labor, education, criminal justice, 
        and the economy. The Subcommittee also has legislative 
        jurisdiction over the Office of National Drug Control 
        Policy;
          (2) The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal 
        Service, and the District of Columbia--Federal employee 
        issues, the municipal affairs (other than 
        appropriations) of the District of Columbia, and the 
        Postal Service. The Subcommittee's jurisdiction 
        includes postal namings, holidays, and celebrations;
          (3) The Subcommittee on Government Management, 
        Organization, and Procurement--The management of 
        government operations, reorganizations of the executive 
        branch, and federal procurement;
          (4) The Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, 
        and National Archives--Public information and records 
        laws such as the Freedom of Information Act, the 
        Presidential Records Act, and the Federal Advisory 
        Committee Act, the Census Bureau, and the National 
        Archives and Records Administration; and
          (5) The Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign 
        Affairs--Oversight jurisdiction over national security, 
        homeland security, and foreign affairs.
    (b) 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 chair 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 chair shall notify the chairman of 
any hearing plans at least two weeks before the date of 
commencement of the 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 the chair 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 (b) or (c) affects the rights of a 
Member (other than a Member designated under paragraph (b)) to 
question a witness for 5 minutes in accordance with paragraph 
(a) after the questioning permitted under paragraph (b) or (c). 
In any extended questioning permitted under paragraph (b) or 
(c), 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 (c) 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--COMMITTEE WEBSITE

    (a) The chairman shall maintain an official website on 
behalf of the Committee for the purpose of furthering the 
Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities, 
including communicating information about the Committee's 
activities to Committee members and other members of the House.
    (b) The Chairman shall make the record of the votes on any 
question on which a record vote is demanded in the full 
Committee available on the Committee's official website not 
later than 3 legislative days after such vote is taken. Such 
record shall identify or describe the amendment, motion, order, 
or other proposition, the name of each member voting and for 
each member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or 
proposition, and the names of the Members voting present.
    (c) The ranking minority member is authorized to maintain a 
similar official website on behalf of the Committee minority 
for the same purpose, including communicating information about 
the activities of the minority to Committee members and other 
members of the House.

                 RULE 19--ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF CHAIRMAN

    The chairman of the full Committee shall:
    (a) Make available to other committees the findings and 
recommendations resulting from the investigations of the 
Committee or its subcommittees as required by House Rule X, 
clause 4(c)(2);
    (b) Direct such review and studies on the impact or 
probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects within the 
Committee's jurisdiction as required by House Rule X, clause 
2(c);
    (c) Submit to the Committee on the Budget views and 
estimates required by House Rule X, clause 4(f), and to file 
reports with the House as required by the Congressional Budget 
Act;
    (d) Authorize and issue subpoenas as provided in House Rule 
XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any investigation or 
activity or series of investigations or activities within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee;
    (e) Prepare, after consultation with subcommittee chairs 
and the minority, a budget for the Committee which shall 
include an adequate budget for the subcommittees to discharge 
their responsibilities;
    (f) Make any necessary technical and conforming changes to 
legislation reported by the committee upon unanimous consent; 
and (g) 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 20--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 is 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 21--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.

                     RULE 22--DEPOSITION AUTHORITY

    The chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority 
member, may order the taking of depositions, under oath and 
pursuant to notice or subpoena.
    Notices for the taking of depositions shall specify the 
date, time, and place of examination. Depositions shall be 
taken under oath administered by a member or a person otherwise 
authorized to administer oaths.
    Consultation with the ranking minority member shall include 
three business day's written notice before any deposition is 
taken. All members shall also receive three business day's 
written notice that a deposition has been scheduled.
    Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to 
advise them of their rights. No one may be present at 
depositions except members, Committee staff designated by the 
chairman or ranking minority member, an official reporter, the 
witness, and the witness's counsel. Observers or counsel for 
other persons, or for agencies under investigation, may not 
attend.
    A deposition shall be conducted by any member or staff 
attorney designated by the chairman or ranking minority member. 
When depositions are conducted by Committee staff attorneys, 
there shall be no more than two Committee staff attorneys 
permitted to question a witness per round. One of the Committee 
staff attorneys shall be designated by the chairman and the 
other by the ranking minority member. Other Committee staff 
members designated by the chairman or ranking minority member 
may attend, but may not pose questions to the witness.
    Questions in the deposition shall be propounded in rounds, 
alternating between the majority and minority. A single round 
shall not exceed 60 minutes per side, unless the members or 
staff attorneys conducting the deposition agree to a different 
length of questioning. In each round, a member or Committee 
staff attorney designated by the chairman shall ask questions 
first, and the member or Committee staff attorney designated by 
the ranking minority member shall ask questions second.
    The chairman may rule on any objections raised during a 
deposition. If a member of the Committee appeals in writing the 
ruling of the chairman, the appeal shall be preserved for 
Committee consideration. A witness that refuses to answer a 
question after being directed to answer by the chairman may be 
subject to sanction, except that no sanctions may be imposed if 
the ruling of the chairman is reversed on appeal.
    Committee staff shall ensure that the testimony is either 
transcribed or electronically recorded or both. If a witness's 
testimony is transcribed, the witness or the witness's counsel 
shall be afforded an opportunity to review a copy. No later 
than five days thereafter, the witness may submit suggested 
changes to the chairman. Committee staff may make any 
typographical and technical changes requested by the witness. 
Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or 
amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by the 
witness must be accompanied by a letter signed by the witness 
requesting the changes and a statement of the witness's reasons 
for each proposed change. Any substantive changes, 
modifications, clarifications, or amendments shall be included 
as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon the witness 
signing the transcript.
    The individual administering the oath, if other than a 
member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was 
duly sworn. The transcriber shall certify that the transcript 
is a true record of the testimony, and the transcript shall be 
filed, together with any electronic recording, with the clerk 
of the Committee in Washington, DC. Depositions shall be 
considered to have been taken in Washington, DC, as well as the 
location actually taken once filed there with the clerk of the 
Committee for the Committee's use. The chairman and the ranking 
minority member shall be provided with a copy of the 
transcripts of the deposition at the same time.
    The chairman and ranking minority member shall consult 
regarding the release of depositions. If either objects in 
writing to a proposed release of a deposition or a portion 
thereof, the matter shall be promptly referred to the Committee 
for resolution.
    A witness shall not be required to testify unless the 
witness has been provided with a copy of the Committee's rules.

                     IV. Oversight Accomplishments


 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Investigative Activities 
                     and Accomplishments 2009-2010

    The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the 
principal oversight committee in the United States House of 
Representatives, with jurisdiction over ``any matter.'' During 
the 111th Congress, the Committee conducted oversight and 
investigations focused on some of the most pressing issues 
facing the nation, including the national financial crisis and 
implementation of the economic stimulus. These activities 
exposed waste, fraud, and abuse involving taxpayer dollars; 
helped make the federal government more effective and 
efficient; and improved consumer protection by exposing 
improper and illegal activities in the private sector.
    The Committee conducted major inquiries involving numerous 
federal agencies, including the Departments of Commerce, 
Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services 
(including the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of 
Health), Interior (including the Minerals Management Service), 
State, Transportation (including the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration), Veterans Affairs, and the General 
Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, Office of 
Comptroller of the Currency, Securities Exchange Commission, 
and the Federal Communications Commission.
    In addition, the Committee conducted major inquiries 
involving private sector entities, including companies in the 
following sectors: commercial banking, investment banking, 
mortgage servicing, credit rating, insurance, defense 
contracting, oil drilling and oil field services, 
pharmaceuticals, computer software, telecommunications, and 
automobile manufacturing.
    Under the House Rules, the Committee Chairman is empowered 
to issue subpoenas to compel the appearance of witnesses and 
the production of documents and other information. Recognizing 
the importance of responsible and judicious use of the subpoena 
power, Chairman Towns found it necessary to issue only seven 
subpoenas during the 111th Congress. All subpoenas were 
narrowly focused and issued only when absolutely necessary to 
compel the production of documents essential to an 
investigation.
    Following are highlights of the Committee's activities in 
the 111th Congress.

                          The Financial Crisis

    The financial crisis that began in 2007 and reached its 
zenith in September 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers 
and American International Group (AIG), had extraordinary 
repercussions that are still very much being felt by Americans 
everywhere. Moreover, the Wall Street excesses exposed by the 
financial collapse and the federal bailout initiated in the 
Fall of 2008, became a lightning rod for citizen anger all 
across the country as unemployment skyrocketed and people began 
losing their homes to foreclosure.
    Against this background, the Committee began an extensive 
investigation of the causes of the financial collapse and the 
decision-making behind the federal bailout, in an attempt to 
determine how best to prevent similar problems in the future. 
The Committee's investigation focused on two major examples to 
illustrate these issues:
           The collapse and federal rescue of AIG, 
        because it was the largest single recipient of bailout 
        money and was involved in the broadest spectrum of 
        financial services, including insurance, banking, 
        securities lending, and trading in credit default 
        swaps; and
           Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill-
        Lynch, because it involved two of the largest and best 
        known financial services companies in the world, and 
        included allegations of securities violations, trading 
        on insider information, conflicts of interest, and 
        unseen decision-making by the Treasury Department, the 
        Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and the Federal 
        Reserve Bank of New York.
    Following extensive hearings, the review of more than 
500,000 pages of documents, and unprecedented subpoenas issued 
to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Committee was 
able to expose the inner workings of AIG prior to the collapse; 
the decision-making that determined the nature, extent, and 
timing of the federal bailout of AIG and Bank of America; and 
information that produced subsequent enforcement action by the 
SEC.
    A direct, tangible result of the Committee's investigation 
of the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch merger and bailout, was to 
recover $424 million of taxpayer money from Bank of America in 
connection with the so-called ring-fencing agreement with the 
Treasury Department. Until the Committee's investigation, Bank 
of America had strongly resisted compensating Treasury for the 
financial backing it provided to the bank.

                 THE COLLAPSE AND FEDERAL RESCUE OF AIG

    At the beginning of 2008, AIG was the world's largest 
insurance company, with 116,000 employees, 74 million clients, 
operations in 130 countries, and more than $1 trillion in 
assets. Moreover, it was the most profitable property and 
casualty insurance company in the world.
    AIG suddenly collapsed in September 2008 under the weight 
of bad bets made under its Securities Lending Program and by 
its AIG Financial Products (AIGFP) subsidiary, which tied the 
company to insuring and purchasing mortgage-backed securities. 
In order to prevent AIG from entering bankruptcy and to restore 
liquidity to the frozen credit markets, the Treasury Department 
and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) created a 
rescue package totaling over $180 billion in stock purchases 
and lines of credit. The rescue began on September 16, 2008, 
with an initial $85 billion infusion and an immediate 
management takeover by FRBNY, with additional cash infusions 
over the following months.
    In return for this federal funding, the Treasury Department 
took a 79.9 percent ownership stake in AIG and three trustees 
were appointed by the FRBNY to oversee the government's 
investment. Furthermore, upon AIG's receipt of its initial 
injection of federal funds, Mr. Edward M. Liddy, a former chief 
executive of Allstate and a member of the Board of Directors of 
Goldman Sachs, was appointed CEO.
    On April 2, 2009, the Committee held its first hearing on 
the collapse and federal rescue of AIG. The hearing featured 
the testimony of Maurice ``Hank'' Greenberg, former Chairman 
and CEO of the company.
    Mr. Greenberg led AIG for almost 40 years, from the late 
sixties until 2004, when he was forced out by the AIG Board of 
Directors as part of a settlement agreement with New York 
Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, amid allegations of accounting 
irregularities and securities law violations. Under Greenberg's 
leadership, AIG grew from a relatively modest-sized company to 
become the largest insurer in the United States and the 18th 
largest company in the world.
    Mr. Greenberg also oversaw the creation of AIGFP, an AIG 
unit that pioneered the creation and sale of credit defaults 
swaps (CDSs) on complex derivative products such as 
collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) backed by mortgages. 
Within financial markets, CDSs operated as insurance policies, 
which other financial institutions purchased to hedge their own 
investments in CDOs and other mortgage-backed securities. When 
the overheated real estate market collapsed in 2007 and 2008 
and homeowners began to default on their mortgages, the value 
of CDOs fell accordingly. As the ``insurer'' of these CDOs, 
AIGFP was subject to billions of dollars in payments. The major 
credit rating agencies all downgraded AIG, which prompted a 
downward spiral of margin calls and further credit downgrades.
    In his testimony before the committee, Mr. Greenberg 
defended his leadership of AIG and criticized the federal 
bailout. Mr. Greenberg told the Committee that the government's 
expenditure of billions of dollars bailing out AIG was a waste 
of taxpayer money. In his view, the government should have let 
AIG file for bankruptcy, rather than taking over the company. 
In addition, he testified that the new management the 
government had installed at AIG was not qualified to run the 
company. Mr. Greenberg was also critical of the government's 
plan to wind-down the company and sell off its more successful 
lines of business. Mr. Greenberg testified that, ``Fire-sale 
prices will bring taxpayers, who now own almost eighty percent 
of AIG, only pennies on the dollar for their investment in 
AIG.'' Mr. Greenberg suggested that a better approach would be 
to provide temporary liquidity to the company, and ``wall-off'' 
AIGFP and guarantee its debt, while the company wound-down its 
book of CDSs.
    This hearing set the stage for future testimony by AIG's 
government-appointed CEO, the AIG Trustees appointed by FRBNY, 
and the Secretary of the Treasury.

               AIG: WHERE IS THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY GOING?

    On May 13, 2009, the Committee held the second in a series 
of hearings on the collapse and federal rescue of AIG. The new 
CEO, Mr. Edward M. Liddy, and the AIG trustees, Ms. Jill M. 
Considine, Mr. Chester B. Feldberg, and Mr. Douglas L. Foshee, 
testified at the hearing as the Committee attempted to assess 
whether the taxpayer's investment in AIG was being adequately 
protected. Up until this hearing, the Congress and the public 
were generally unaware that trustees had been appointed to 
oversee the taxpayers' investment in AIG, and no one outside 
the New York Federal Reserve Bank and AIG understood how the 
trustees were carrying out their duties.
    While Mr. Liddy assured the Committee that progress was 
being made to reorganize AIG and recover the taxpayers' 
investment, he told the Committee that, although the systemic 
risk AIG posed to the global economy had been reduced, it had 
not been eliminated. He also testified that AIG's management 
was focused on reorganizing the company and unwinding the CDSs 
sold by AIGFP.
    Mr. Liddy told the Committee that his ultimate goal was to 
repay the federal investment as soon as possible. In that 
regard, Chairman Towns' investigation uncovered a strategic 
plan, referred to as Project Destiny, which had been developed 
by AIG's new management and approved by the AIG Trustees and 
the Board of Directors. Project Destiny was described as a 
multi-year roadmap for restructuring the Company. However, AIG 
resisted providing specific details of the plan to Congress and 
the American people, who now had a considerable financial 
interest in the company's future.
    AIG's failure to provide the Committee with details of its 
restructuring plan under Project Destiny raised serious 
questions as to how AIG would remain accountable to the 
taxpayers. This issue was exacerbated by controversy over: (1) 
the company's decision to pay retention bonuses to employees of 
AIGFP, the unit that was responsible for many of the problems 
which led to the company's collapse; (2) the billions of 
dollars in taxpayer funds funneled through the company to 
certain AIG credit default swap and securities-lending 
counterparties, including domestic and foreign banks, some of 
which had also received separate bailout funds; and (3) the 
revelation that AIG may have paid public relations executives a 
significant amount of taxpayer dollars to finance a campaign 
against critics of the AIG bailout and the company's 
restructuring efforts.
    On May 22, 2009, just days after the hearing and amid 
scrutiny over AIG's use of taxpayer funds, Mr. Liddy resigned 
as AIG's CEO. Furthermore, the concerns expressed by Chairman 
Towns and other Committee members over AIG's decision to pay 
retention bonuses to AIGFP employees eventually resulted in the 
recovery of at least $19 million dollars in bonus payments, and 
increased scrutiny over AIG's executive compensation.

                         THE AIG COUNTERPARTIES

    Despite the New York Fed's $85 billion infusion in 
September 2008, AIG continued to need billions of dollars each 
week to meet collateral calls and make payments to its CDS 
counterparties. By November 5, 2008, AIG had already run 
through about $61 billion of the initial $85 billion. The 
Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board, and the NYFRB 
concluded that the initial $85 billion had not solved the AIG 
liquidity crisis and that additional measures were necessary.
    On November 10, 2008, the NYFRB created Maiden Lane III, a 
limited liability corporation, to purchase the CDOs underlying 
the CDSs from counterparties of AIG to allow cancellation of 
the CDS contracts. The Federal Reserve Board authorized the 
NYFRB to provide up to $30 billion to pay the AIG 
counterparties.
    The CDS counterparties were effectively paid at par, i.e., 
100 percent of the face value of the underlying subprime-linked 
securities. Many observers, including Members of Congress and 
former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg, questioned the amount of these 
counterparty payments, observing that this was far more than 
the counterparties would have received had AIG filed for 
bankruptcy. Critics argue that the federal government should 
have been more aggressive in attempting to negotiate 
concessions from the counterparties.
    The public controversy that erupted over payment of the 
counterparties was exacerbated when the Federal Reserve Board 
initially refused to disclose the names of the counterparties 
and the amounts the counterparties were paid. The furor 
increased when, under Congressional pressure, when it was 
finally discovered that the counterparties included some of the 
largest banks and investment banking firms in the world, 
including Societe Generale, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, 
Deutsche Bank, Wachovia, and Bank of America.
    Chairman Towns launched an investigation of the decision to 
pay AIG's counterparties 100 cents on the dollar and the 
failure to disclose the names of the counterparties and the 
amounts paid to each. On January 27, 2010, the Committee held a 
hearing to examine this issue. At the hearing, Treasury 
Secretary Geithner testified that the government ``did not act 
to protect individual institutions'' but that it acted because 
the ``consequences of AIG failing would have been catastrophic 
for our economy and for American families and businesses.'' 
Secretary Geithner also claimed that if AIG's counterparties 
had not been paid all of the money they were owed, AIG's credit 
rating would have been downgraded and the company would have 
collapsed.
    The AIG investigation brought to light for the first time 
the full story of the collapse and federal bailout of AIG. The 
issues raised at these hearings and others examining the 
financial crisis provided insight for Congress to develop and 
enact comprehensive financial reform legislation. On July 21, 
2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

            THE BANK OF AMERICA-MERRILL LYNCH INVESTIGATION

    At the height of the financial crisis in September 2008, 
Bank of America announced it was buying financial services 
giant Merrill Lynch for $50 billion. When this transaction was 
announced, and for the following three months, there was no 
mention of federal funds being involved in the deal and no 
mention of any potential problems with the transaction.
    In January 2009, the public learned for the first time that 
the federal government had provided Bank of America with a $20 
billion taxpayer bailout after Bank of America's CEO called 
then-Secretary of the Treasury Paulson to say he might back out 
of the Merrill acquisition. The $20 billion was provided under 
the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
    In April of 2009, Chairman Towns, in conjunction with 
Domestic Policy Subcommittee Chairman Kucinich, launched an 
investigation to examine the events surrounding Bank of 
America's December acquisition of Merrill Lynch and the secret 
decision to provide the company with billions of dollars in 
federal financial assistance. In the months that followed this 
bailout, information began to trickle out about how and why 
this ostensibly private transaction had turned into a federal 
bailout.
    The Committee's investigation spanned more than eight 
months and included five hearings, extensive interviews with 
top Bank of America executives, and the review of over 500,000 
internal Bank of America, Treasury Department, and Federal 
Reserve documents, many of which were obtained by Chairman 
Towns under subpoena. The circumstances surrounding Bank of 
America's purchase of Merrill, and the subsequent federal 
bailout were also investigated by the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (SEC), the New York State Attorney General's office, 
and reportedly by the Department of Justice.
    This complex investigation was centered on two main issues:
    1. Did the federal government force Bank of America to go 
through with the Merrill Lynch acquisition or did Bank of 
America's then-CEO, Ken Lewis, manipulate the federal 
government to obtain taxpayer funding for the deal?
    2. Did Bank of America's management fail to disclose to 
shareholders and its own Board of Directors the extent of 
Merrill Lynch's deteriorating financial condition prior to 
consummating the deal?

                Bank of America Purchases Merrill Lynch

    On December 5, 2008, at the urging of Bank of America CEO 
Ken Lewis, Bank of America shareholders approved the bank's 
acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
    Although neither the public nor Bank of America 
shareholders knew it at the time, the Committee found that Bank 
of America's CFO, Joseph Price, asked then-General Counsel 
Timothy Mayopoulos four days before the shareholder vote 
whether Bank of America had a legal basis for backing out of 
the Merrill deal by invoking the ``material adverse change'' 
clause (referred to as ``the MAC'') in the merger agreement due 
to mounting financial losses at Merrill. Mr. Mayopoulos 
informed Mr. Price that Bank of America did not have a basis 
for invoking the MAC.
    Nine days later, Mr. Mayopoulos was fired and replaced by 
Brian Moynihan, a Bank of America business executive who had 
not practiced law in over a decade. When Mr. Moynihan was asked 
if he believed Bank of America had a legal basis for invoking 
the MAC and backing out of the Merrill deal, he determined 
there was such a legal basis. Despite Mr. Moynihan's conclusion 
that the financial losses were so material as to permit 
exercise of the MAC, these increasing losses were not disclosed 
to shareholders before the vote to approve the deal.
    On December 17, 2008, Mr. Lewis called then-Treasury 
Secretary Hank Paulson to state that he believed Bank of 
America had a MAC. The Committee's investigation revealed that 
Lewis' phone call to Secretary Paulson is the first time the 
government was made aware of any problems with the Bank of 
America-Merrill deal and demonstrated that it was Bank of 
America that involved the government in the transaction; it was 
not the government that sought to intervene.
    During the telephone conversation between Mr. Lewis and Mr. 
Paulson, Paulson indicated to Lewis that the ``systemic risk'' 
caused by a collapse of the merger could be catastrophic to the 
U.S. economy, and invited Lewis to Washington, D.C., for a 
meeting with himself and Federal Reserve Board (Fed) Chairman 
Ben Bernanke. Lewis asserted that at this meeting, Paulson and 
Bernanke stressed the harm that could be caused to the 
financial system if the Merrill transaction did not proceed.
    The Committee obtained by subpoena a Federal Reserve email 
in which Mr. Bernanke stated he believed Mr. Lewis' assertion 
that Bank of America was considering backing out of the Merrill 
deal was a ``bargaining chip.''
    On December 22, 2008, Lewis informed the Bank of America 
Board of Directors of that: (1) the Treasury Department and the 
Federal Reserve believed that failure to complete the merger 
would result in systemic risk to the financial system; (2) 
Treasury and the Fed would remove Bank of America's Board and 
management if Bank of America backed out of the deal; and (3) 
Treasury and the Fed had committed to provide financial 
assistance to Bank of America.
    Prior to testifying before the Committee, Bank of America 
CEO Ken Lewis stated that: (1) he felt pressured by the 
government to go ahead with the Merrill Lynch acquisition; and 
(2) he was told by the government not to disclose information 
about Merrill losses and federal financial assistance.
    Chairman Towns, in conjunction with Domestic Policy 
Subcommittee Chairman Kucinich, held a series of five hearings 
to examine the events surrounding Bank of America's acquisition 
of Merrill Lynch. The Committee received testimony from then-
CEO Ken Lewis, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of 
Governors Ben Bernanke, former Secretary of the Treasury Hank 
Paulson, Bank of America senior executive Brian Moynihan, 
former Bank of America General Counsel Tim Mayopoulos, selected 
members of the Bank of America Board of Directors, FDIC 
Chairman Sheila Bair, and the SEC's head of enforcement.
    The Committee's investigation and hearings revealed that:
     The federal government did not force Bank of 
America to consummate the Merrill Lynch acquisition (Mr. Lewis 
admitted this fact in his testimony, supported by Mr. Bernanke 
and Mr. Paulson).
     No government official directed Mr. Lewis or Bank 
of America not to disclose information regarding Merrill's 
worsening financial condition or a need for federal funding.
     There was no evidence that Bank of America's 
management fully disclosed to its Board of Directors or its 
shareholders the full extent of Merrill Lynch's worsening 
financial condition prior to the vote to approve the 
acquisition.
     There was no evidence of any specific commitment 
for federal financial assistance until January 2009.
    The Committee's extensive investigation of the Bank of 
America-Merrill Lynch deal resulted in an unprecedented view of 
the facts, circumstances, and deliberations attendant to one of 
the largest bailouts of the financial crisis and substantially 
contributed to the following tangible results:
     Chairman Towns' Efforts Result in $424 Million 
Payment to the U.S. Treasury
    In January 2009, Bank of America announced that it had 
completed the acquisition of Merrill Lynch. In conjunction with 
that announcement, the bank also disclosed for the first time 
that it had obtained $20 billion in federal funding to help 
complete the deal and another $118 billion in financial 
guarantees against potential losses associated with Merrill 
Lynch toxic assets, such as mortgage-backed securities. Bank of 
America touted this ``ring-fencing'' agreement to investors in 
a press release and a conference call with Wall Street 
analysts.
    Six months later, as its financial situation dramatically 
improved, Bank of America refused to pay any fees to the 
government in compensation for this ring-fencing agreement, 
arguing that it had never actually used any of the money. 
However, it was clear this Treasury backstop had substantially 
contributed to Bank of America's recovery by reassuring 
investors that toxic assets would not undermine the company's 
finances. Moreover, documents obtained by Chairman Towns in the 
course of the Committee's investigation indicated that Bank of 
America had actively sought this financial protection from the 
Treasury Department.
    Under direct pressure from Chairman Towns, in September 
2009 Bank of America agreed to pay $424 million in compensation 
to the Treasury Department for the protection provided by the 
ring-fencing agreement.
     Facts Uncovered by the Committee Helped the SEC 
Recover $150 Million from Bank of America
    In August of 2009, the SEC and Bank of America proposed a 
settlement to a federal judge in New York, under which Bank of 
America would pay a $33 million fine for failing to disclose 
employee bonuses and financial losses at Merrill Lynch prior to 
shareholder approval of the Bank of America-Merrill 
transaction.
    On September 14, 2009, Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected this 
settlement and ordered the SEC and Bank of America to prepare 
for trial. In his ruling, Judge Rakoff stated, ``the proposed 
Consent Judgment is inadequate . . . the fine . . . is also 
inadequate, in that $33 million is a trivial penalty for a 
false statement that materially infected a multi-billion-dollar 
merger.'' Eventually, in February 2010, Judge Rakoff approved a 
$150 million settlement reached by the SEC and Bank of America.
     In September 2009, Mr. Lewis announced his 
resignation from Bank of America.
     In February 2010, the New York State Attorney 
General filed fraud charges against Ken Lewis and Joe Price, 
alleging that Bank of America management had ``manipulated'' 
the federal government into granting a ``massive taxpayer 
bailout.''

          CREDIT RATING AGENCIES AND THE NEXT FINANCIAL CRISIS

    Credit rating agencies promote themselves to investors as a 
source of independent analysis and information about debt 
securities. Debt securities, which include bonds, or ``fixed-
income'' securities, are issued by governments, corporations, 
and other institutions. A major concern for investors is 
whether an issuer of debt securities will be able to make its 
promised payments. Credit rating agencies assess the financial 
condition and the creditworthiness of an issuer, as well as the 
particular security being issued, in order to grade the 
probability that the issuer will be able to make its payments.
    Inaccurate credit ratings have been cited as a major 
contributing factor to the financial crisis. Investors, 
including pension funds, trusted that rating agencies would 
warn the public about issuers or financial instruments that 
were not creditworthy. Instead, rating agencies often were 
complicit in the structuring and prioritizing of supposedly 
safe financial products that later proved to be toxic to the 
financial system. Congressional investigations have shown that 
rating agencies underestimated the riskiness of structured 
financial products, held an overly optimistic view of the 
housing market, and relied on incomplete data when determining 
ratings.
    On September 24, 2009, the Committee held a hearing 
examining the practices of the credit rating agencies following 
the financial crisis of 2008. The committee's investigation 
revealed that, a year after the credit rating agency practices 
helped bring the national financial system to the brink of 
collapse, little has changed. The hearing featured the 
testimony of Ilya Eric Kolchinsky, a former Managing Director 
at Moody's, who worked on a Moody's team that rated structured 
products, including mortgage-backed securities, until he was 
terminated in 2009.
    The Committee's investigation uncovered evidence that 
credit rating agencies continue to engage in practices that 
call into question the accuracy of their ratings, including:
           Receive payments from debt issuers for both 
        consulting and rating services, creating significant 
        conflicts of interest;
           Fail to apply updated financial models to 
        previous ratings;
           Fail to examine the credit worthiness of 
        underlying assets, such as mortgages, that may be part 
        of a larger securities package;
           Provide ratings for new financial 
        instruments, without accurate historical data; and
           Fail to devote adequate managerial resources 
        and expertise to accurately rate complex financial 
        securities.
    Moreover, the Committee found that Moody's has adopted a 
corporate policy of ``leaving no fingerprints'' by minimizing 
the creation of written records relating to the management and 
operation of the company. One particularly good example of this 
institutional secrecy was a so-called ``independent audit'' of 
the Kolchinsky allegations by an outside law firm which was 
retained by Moody's without a written agreement or statement of 
work; was provided with no written documents; and produced no 
written report.

 FOLLOWING THE MONEY: REPORT OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE 
                     TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM

    On Tuesday July 21, 2009, the Committee held a hearing to 
examine the administration and oversight of the $700 billion 
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At the hearing, the 
Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP) released his first 
audit report on the use of TARP funds, and offered testimony on 
his findings and recommendations.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     The Treasury Department did not require banks to 
track their use of TARP funds, even though most institutions 
could readily provide information on their actual or planned 
use of TARP money.
     Treasury's design of TARP's Public-Private 
Investment Program makes the program vulnerable to compliance 
failures and risks of conflicts of interest unless appropriate 
guidelines and internal controls are established.
    As a result of the Committee's hearing, in December 2009, 
the Treasury Department agreed to collect and disclose to the 
public data on the use of TARP funds by each recipient, as 
requested by Chairman Towns. Moreover, Treasury agreed to 
develop metrics and internal controls for financial assistance 
under the TARP Public-Private Investment Program. Finally, 
under pressure from Chairman Towns and other Committee Members, 
Treasury withdrew its challenge to the SIGTARP's independence.

                     The Economic Stimulus Program

    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
(Recovery Act) was signed into law on February 17, 2009. The 
purpose of the Act is to promote economic stabilization, 
preserve and create jobs, assist those most impacted by the 
recent recession, and stabilize the budgets of state and local 
governments, while providing long-term economic investments in 
transportation, environmental protection and infrastructure. 
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Recovery Act 
would involve nearly $790 billion in federal spending.
    The Committee's oversight activities in this area focused 
on preventing fraud in stimulus spending, including oversight 
of the Recovery Board's auditing and waste prevention efforts; 
ensuring accountability of stimulus spending at the federal, 
state, and local levels; and enforcing compliance with the 
Recovery Act mandate to prioritize stimulus spending in 
economically distressed areas.
    One direct, concrete result of the Committee's oversight of 
the economic stimulus program was that the Department of 
Transportation redirected millions of dollars of stimulus 
projects to economically distressed areas, as required by law.

      PREVENTING STIMULUS WASTE AND FRAUD: WHO ARE THE WATCHDOGS?

    The sheer size of the Recovery Act program demands vigorous 
oversight of billions of stimulus dollars, much of it to be 
spent on new and existing federal and State programs employing 
outside contractors.
    On March 19, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
implementation of the Recovery Act to identify potential 
oversight problems early and ensure that challenges are exposed 
before they become national disasters. The hearing featured the 
testimony of Earl Devaney, Chairman of the Recovery Act 
Accountability and Transparency Board (Recovery Board), and 
whose responsibility is oversight of the Recovery Act program. 
Chairman Towns requested Mr. Devaney to review the first 11 
contracts awarded under the Recovery Act, and the fraud 
prevention programs at federal agencies.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     The enormity of the economic stimulus program 
would require the Recovery Board to enlist the assistance of 
federal and state agency inspector generals and state auditors 
in the oversight effort.
     Following the Recovery Board's review of the first 
11 contracts, the Board referred three to the Inspector General 
at the General Services Administration and six to the Inspector 
General at the Department of Agriculture for more comprehensive 
review.
     The Administration's website for tracking Recovery 
Act spending (recovery.gov) was largely inadequate, incomplete, 
and inaccurate.
    Immediately following the hearing, Chairman Towns wrote to 
Vice President Biden requesting that he convene an information 
technology roundtable to establish a uniform, accurate approach 
to tracking stimulus funds. In response, the Vice President 
convened a week-long national online dialogue hosted by the 
Recovery Board on Recovery.gov focused on identifying business 
models, best practices, proposals, and solutions that could be 
applied to Recovery.gov.

 THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009: THE ROLE OF STATE 
                         AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

    On April 21, 2009, as part of Chairman Towns' oversight of 
the implementation of the Recovery Act, a Full Committee field 
hearing was held in Brooklyn, New York, to examine the role of 
state and local governments in implementing the program. The 
Chairman was particularly interested in how to minimize waste, 
fraud, and abuse with respect to spending, and how to 
coordinate federal oversight of Recovery Act spending with 
state and local government oversight.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     The Administration has taken steps to reach out to 
states and localities to exhort cooperation and accountability 
and to solicit state and local input. For example, on March 5, 
2009, Vice President Biden convened a day-long Stimulus 
Implementation Conference with the States. Representatives of 
49 states attended, along with Earl Devaney, Chairman of the 
Recovery Board.
     State financial representatives are engaged in 
weekly conference calls with OMB, GAO, and Recovery Board 
officials regarding implementation of the Recovery Act and 
oversight of spending. Nevertheless, state auditors and 
inspector generals are complaining of a severe lack of 
resources to adequately oversee the enormous volume of 
anticipated Recover Act spending.
     While it is still early in the life of the 
program, there are signs that Recovery Act spending is not 
being prioritized to focus on economically distressed areas, as 
required by law. Chairman Towns resolved to follow this issue 
closely in the coming months.

TRACKING THE MONEY: PREVENTING WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE OF RECOVERY ACT 
                                FUNDING

    On Wednesday, July 8, 2009, the Committee held its third in 
a series of hearings examining implementation of the Recovery 
Act. In order to ensure that taxpayer money is spent 
effectively and efficiently to those ends, the Committee sought 
to identify the unique challenges facing states, localities, 
and agencies in ensuring compliance with reporting requirements 
and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse.
    Witness testifying at the hearing included the Acting 
Comptroller General of the United States, the Deputy Director 
of OMB, and the Governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, and 
Pennsylvania.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     States were able to quickly plan, enter into 
contracts, and initiate projects in order to immediately put 
Recovery Act funds to work.
     The Recovery Act has helped states avoid Draconian 
levels of budget cuts. Specifically, the Committee learned that 
states have used Recovery Act funds to maintain vital programs 
and avoid firing critical state employees, including public 
safety workers and teachers. Further, the Committee learned 
that states have used Recovery Act funds to reinforce the 
healthcare they provide to families under Medicaid.
     Although the Recovery Act requires states to give 
priority to highway projects located in economically distressed 
areas, according to GAO the states varied substantially in how 
they prioritized those areas in project selection.
     States were concerned with the limited allowance 
made for them to use Recovery Act funds to cover administrative 
and oversight costs associated with their Recovery Act 
spending.
     Although OMB has issued new guidance regarding how 
recipients of Recovery Act funds are to report on their use of 
those tax dollars, recipient reporting will need to be 
monitored to ensure that it is performed accurately.
    Following the hearing, Chairman Towns met with the 
Secretary of Transportation to voice his concerns regarding the 
lack of prioritization of Recovery Act funding to economically 
distressed areas. On August 24, 2009, after detailed 
negotiations between Chairman Towns and DOT, the Federal 
Highway Administration issued supplemental guidance to states 
clarifying the procedure and criteria for prioritizing 
transportation projects in distressed communities.
    Chairman Towns has reiterated his call for Senate action on 
his bill, H.R. 2182, the Enhanced Oversight of State and Local 
Economic Recovery Act, which would help states defray the costs 
of administrating and conducting necessary oversight of 
recovery activities. While the bill has passed the House, it 
has yet to be taken up by the Senate.

   THE SILENT DEPRESSION: HOW ARE MINORITIES FARING IN THE ECONOMIC 
                               DOWNTURN?

    On September 23, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on the 
effects of the current economic downturn on minority 
populations in the United States. The recession had devastating 
consequences for the nation's economy and a direct effect on 
almost every household. By the time of the hearing, national 
unemployment had risen to 9.7 percent, and the country had 
experienced a dramatically increased number of home 
foreclosures, particularly among those who received subprime 
loans.
    At the hearing, the heads of several well-reputed national 
minority groups, a State Secretary of Housing, and 
representatives from think tanks, public policy and advocacy 
organizations testified regarding the startling inequities that 
minority groups have suffered as a result of the economic 
downturn. The Center for American Progress released a ground-
breaking report entitled, ``Leveling the Playing Field: How to 
Ensure Minorities Share Equably in the Economic Recovery and 
Beyond'' which highlighted the racial disparities in areas such 
as joblessness, income, earnings, health insurance coverage, 
homeownership, and poverty.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     While the recession has affected nearly every 
citizen, African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians 
have been hit the hardest, and lost more economic ground faster 
than the general population.
     Home foreclosures are highly concentrated by race. 
Furthermore, the resulting correlation of vacant and for sale' 
homes in minority communities further drive down real estate 
values in minority neighborhoods.
     In 2008, the poverty rate for African-Americans 
remained roughly three times as large as that of whites, at 
24.7 percent compared to 8.6 percent.
     Data on job losses across the country indicate a 
wide racial gap in unemployment. While unemployment hovered 
around 9 percent nationwide for whites, the national 
unemployment rate soared to more than 15 percent for African-
Americans and 13 percent for Hispanics. Furthermore, minority 
unemployment had reached even higher levels in some cities and 
states, more than double the rate for whites.
    The hearing further underscored the importance of focusing 
Recovery Act funding on economically distressed areas. As a 
result, this issue became central to the Committee's subsequent 
oversight hearings on the economic stimulus.

 TRACKING THE MONEY: HOW RECOVERY ACT RECIPIENTS ACCOUNT FOR THEIR USE 
                          OF STIMULUS DOLLARS

    On November 19, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on the 
implementation of the Recovery Act. To safeguard the $787 
billion in taxpayer funds authorized by the Act, the 
legislation mandated unprecedented levels of accountability and 
transparency, including quarterly reporting from recipients on 
the use of Recovery Act funds. The mandate, outlined in Section 
1512 of the Act, requires prime and sub-recipients of Recovery 
Act contracts, grants, and loans to submit quarterly reports on 
a range of information, including project status, total amount 
of funds received, and the number of direct jobs created or 
saved. The hearing examined those reports for the first 
reporting period covering the expenditure of Recovery funds, 
from February through September 30, 2009.
    Witnesses at the hearing included GAO, which released its 
first statutorily required report on Recovery Act recipient 
reporting at this hearing; the Chairman of the Recovery Board, 
which is mandated to audit and review the spending of Recovery 
Act dollars; and the Deputy Secretaries of Education and 
Transportation.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     Significant amounts of job creation/preservation 
data reported by recipients appears to have been either 
understated or overstated.
     The recipient reports do not represent a full 
accounting of the number of direct or indirect jobs created or 
saved, nor do they reflect the overall effect of the Act on the 
national economy. Specifically, the recipient reports do not 
measure or estimate the affect of such expenditures as the 
loans to small businesses, tax relief, unemployment insurance, 
Pell grants, or Medicaid support authorized by the Act.
     Some Recovery Act recipients may have been 
confused with regard to their reporting requirements due to 
delayed or unclear guidance from OMB and other federal 
agencies.
     Federal agencies may not be fully complying with 
the Recovery Act requirement to prioritize spending on 
economically distressed areas.
    As a result of the hearing, the Administration agreed to 
provide increased outreach and technical assistance to Recovery 
Act recipients in order to correct issues with the recipient 
reporting process. On December 18, 2009, OMB issued new 
guidance in order to address several concerns, including issues 
related to data quality, non-reporting recipients, and the 
reporting of job estimates.
    More importantly, following the hearing, Secretary of 
Transportation LaHood agreed to refocus DOT spending on 
economically distressed areas. The Secretary met personally 
with Chairman Towns and followed up personally with a visit and 
public meetings in Brooklyn, New York, to implement his 
commitment.

TRACKING THE MONEY: ASSESSING THE RECOVERY ACT'S IMPACT ON THE STATE OF 
                               CALIFORNIA

    On Friday, March 5, 2010, the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform and its Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Organization and Procurement held a joint field 
hearing in Los Angeles, California, on the affect of the 
Recovery Act in California.
    According to California's official Recovery Act website, 
California had been awarded more Recovery Act funding ($21.5 
billion), than any other state in the nation. In February 2009, 
the Administration estimated that the Recovery Act ultimately 
would create 396,000 jobs in California and provide $85 billion 
in benefits, programs, and projects to its residents.
    In assessing the impact of the Recovery Act on the largest 
single recipient of Recovery funds, the hearing focused on 
transportation, education, and energy projects, while paying 
particular attention to evaluating measures taken to prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse. The hearing also assessed the impact 
of state and local budget deficits on the implementation of the 
Act.
    Witnesses testifying at the hearing included the mayors of 
Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Jose, along with the 
Director of the California Recovery Task Force, the California 
State Auditor, the California Recovery Inspector General, and 
GAO.
    The Joint Committee hearing revealed that:
     Recovery Act funds have helped to preserve the 
delivery of essential services in California and its localities 
in the wake of declining revenues and resulting budgetary 
shortfalls. However, despite supporting numerous programs and 
projects, the Recovery Act had generally not helped local 
governments stabilize their base budgets.
     Some federal requirements, such as the Davis-Bacon 
Act and Buy American provisions, have affected the timing of 
Recovery Act program implementation as well as grantees' 
ability to select or start projects.
     California state officials and local recipients 
have experienced confusion because of delayed or conflicting 
federal guidance on assessing the results of Recovery Act 
spending.
     The California Department of Education (CDE) has 
experienced problems with the administration and oversight of 
Recovery Act activities. These problems were particularly 
significant given the department's independent constitutional 
authority within the State. Specifically, the hearing revealed 
issues regarding: (1) CDE's collection of accurate data from 
local education agencies on jobs resulting from Recovery Act 
funds; and (2) CDE's oversight of local education agencies to 
ensure proper cash management. Furthermore, the Committee was 
informed that CDE has extremely limited staff dedicated to 
Recovery Act implementation, thereby presenting a critical 
challenge to ensuring proper monitoring and oversight of 
designated Recovery funds.
    Following the Committee's investigation and hearing CDE 
worked to resolve education job reporting issues by 
communicating additional guidance to the state's local 
education agencies. CDE has also taken steps to better monitor 
cash management issues.

                      The Home Foreclosure Crisis

    The Committee held multiple oversight hearings on the 
Treasury Department's mortgage modification program and the 
failure of the banks to modify significant numbers of 
distressed mortgages. In addition, the Committee opened an 
investigation of home foreclosure fraud.

  FORECLOSURE PREVENTION: IS THE HOME AFFORDABLE MODIFICATION PROGRAM 
                       PRESERVING HOMEOWNERSHIP?

    According to RealtyTrac, by the end of 2009, the 
foreclosure crisis was growing unabated: 2.8 million households 
received notice of foreclosure in 2009. According to Moody's 
Economy.com, approximately 4 million homeowners--one in ten--
nationwide were 90 days or more delinquent on their mortgage 
payments, or were already in foreclosure proceedings. 
Nationwide, homeowners have endured an average loss of nearly 
thirty percent in the value of their homes since 2006, and over 
twenty percent of all single family homes with mortgages are 
``under water'', i.e., the mortgage exceeds the value of the 
home. It was predicted that approximately 2.4 million borrowers 
will lose their homes to foreclosure by the end of 2010.
    In response to the crisis in the housing market that was 
well under way when his tenure in office began, the Obama 
Administration implemented a number of initiatives which have 
as their goal to stabilize and support both borrowers and the 
real estate finance market. To support homeowners facing the 
unprecedented wave of foreclosures, the Administration 
announced a program called Making Home Affordable (MHA). The 
largest component of MHA is a loan restructuring initiative 
known as the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). HAMP 
has come to be the frontline federal program addressing the 
nation's foreclosure crisis.
    On March 25, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the effectiveness of HAMP. Key witnesses were the GAO, the 
Treasury Department, the SIGTARP, and the National Community 
Reinvestment Coalition.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     There are serious concerns regarding the pace with 
which HAMP is offering long term solutions to borrowers at risk 
of foreclosure. It is unclear as to whether HAMP is capable of 
meeting its goal to assist three to four million homeowners by 
the time it is scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2012.
     Widespread reports continue of borrowers enduring 
lost paperwork, non-responses from their lenders, and trial 
modifications lasting five months or more. These delays have 
sparked lawsuits against Treasury.
     GAO found that HAMP's oversight infrastructure 
(including operational effectiveness controls, as well as 
servicer compliance) was still in development, and questioned 
Treasury's assumptions for the number of loans likely to be 
modified under HAMP.
     It appears that the pace of outreach is not 
keeping up with the pace of borrowers falling into serious 
delinquency status on their mortgages.
     As HAMP participating loan servicers have 
implemented HAMP, their performance in offering trial 
modifications, success in converting trial modifications to 
permanent modifications, and communication with borrowers has 
varied widely, suggesting issues with program compliance. 
Furthermore, homeowners and organizations have been unclear as 
to the reason why some borrowers who are apparently eligible to 
participate in HAMP, are denied participation when seeking HAMP 
assistance through their servicers.
     Homeowners facing foreclosure often become 
increasingly vulnerable to foreclosure rescue scams. The extent 
to which Treasury has been able to prevent homeowners from 
falling victim to scams purporting to offer assistance through 
HAMP, or a similar government program, is unclear, but seems to 
be minimal.
    On the day after this hearing, the Treasury Department 
announced several changes to HAMP, including a principal 
forbearance program for unemployed borrowers and borrowers 
whose loans are under water. Treasury also issued rules 
prohibiting mortgage servicers from referring borrowers to 
foreclosure before offering modification under HAMP.

   FORECLOSURE PREVENTION PART II: ARE LOAN SERVICERS HONORING THEIR 
              COMMITMENTS TO HELP PRESERVE HOMEOWNERSHIP?

    Amid complaints about banks and other mortgage servicers 
doing little to modify distressed mortgages, on June 24, 2010, 
the Committee held a hearing to examine the efforts of loan 
servicers in assisting struggling homeowners to avoid 
foreclosure, focusing on the implementation of the Home 
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Testifying at the 
hearing were the CEOs of the five largest mortgage servicers, 
responsible for over 85 percent of homeowner mortgages. The 
companies represented at the hearing were CitiMortgage, Bank of 
America Home Loans, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Wells 
Fargo Home Mortgage, and Chase Home Finance.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     Innovative ideas that go beyond HAMP are needed if 
meaningful foreclosure prevention is going to be realized. The 
HAMP modification process is only a temporary aid, even when a 
so-called ``permanent'' modification is issued.
     There are serious problems with the pace of 
conversion from temporary to permanent modifications under 
HAMP. Some loan servicers have been slow to start the mortgage 
modification process for potentially eligible borrowers, while 
others have quickly offered HAMP assistance, but have kept 
borrowers in temporary status for a prolonged period of time 
while awaiting a permanent modification.
     Documentation problems are a significant factor in 
the slow pace of conversion to permanent modifications.
     While loan servicers report making organizational 
and procedural changes to improve the handling of documents and 
better assist borrowers at risk of foreclosure, servicer 
communication with borrowers appears to remain an ongoing 
issue.
     The challenges faced by borrowers who have 
difficulty understanding the reason for their HAMP denials is 
magnified when a servicer does not have an established and 
responsive process for receiving complaints and appeals.
    The Committee's hearing had an immediate, tangible effect. 
On the day of the hearing, Bank of America announced what 
appeared to be the first meaningful principle reduction program 
for distressed borrowers. If this program is implemented as 
advertised and similar programs are adopted by other banks, it 
could be more effective than HAMP in providing long-term relief 
to homeowners. In addition, Treasury and some loan servicers 
announced improvements to HAMP loan modification processing. 
Servicers also committed to hold off on foreclosures until all 
HAMP and non-HAMP alternatives were explored with delinquent 
borrowers.

           INVESTIGATION OF FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE PRACTICES

    Despite assurances to the Committee and the public that 
HAMP and non-HAMP solutions would be exhausted before beginning 
foreclosure proceedings, mortgage servicers continued to file 
record numbers of foreclosures at a rate which far outpaced 
trial and permanent modification offers. In October 2010, it 
was revealed that thousands of foreclosure proceedings 
nationwide may have been tainted by suspect practices, 
including: false certifications; the use of incorrect 
information; unverified documentation; and forged signatures. 
Some servicer employees have admitted being ``robo-signers''--
certifying the reviews of thousands of foreclosure files per 
month without having actually done so.
    In October 2010, Chairman Towns wrote to the chief 
executives of the nation's top 25 mortgage lenders requesting 
the immediate suspension of foreclosures in all 50 states 
pending investigation of these alleged irregularities. As a 
result, some major lenders agreed to suspend foreclosures, 
including Bank of America--50 states; JP Morgan Chase--23 
states; and GMAC--23 states. Attorneys General in several 
states have banded together to investigate and prosecute 
foreclosure fraud, based on these allegations.

                          Federal Contracting


       HOW CONVICTS AND CON ARTISTS RECEIVE NEW FEDERAL CONTRACTS

    Federal agencies are required by statute to award contracts 
to a ``responsible source'' that has a ``satisfactory 
performance record'' and ``a satisfactory record of integrity 
and business ethics.'' In determining whether a prospective 
party is responsible, contracting officers are required to 
consult the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) prior to 
awarding a contract or other funding to ensure that the 
prospective contractor is eligible.
    The EPLS is a web-based database of individuals and firms 
excluded by federal agencies from receiving contracts and 
certain types of financial and nonfinancial assistance. GSA is 
responsible for operating and maintaining the EPLS, which is 
accessible on the Internet.
    Any federal agency may exclude, i.e., suspend or debar, a 
business or individual from receiving contracts for reasons 
such as failure to adequately perform under the terms of a 
contract, or for an offense indicating a lack of honesty or 
business integrity. Within five business days after a 
suspension or debarment becomes effective, agencies must report 
all excluded parties to EPLS. The Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) requires contracting officers to review EPLS 
at the opening of bids or receipt of proposals, and again, 
prior to issuing an award.
    At the request of the Chairman of the Committee, GAO 
conducted a study to determine whether businesses or 
individuals listed on the EPLS have received federal contracts 
or funding. On Thursday, February 26, 2009, the Committee held 
a hearing to examine weaknesses in EPLS.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     Businesses and individuals listed on the EPLS for 
offenses ranging from national security violations to tax 
fraud, were improperly receiving federal contracts or other 
funding.
     Most of the improper contracts and payments 
identified by the Committee and GAO could be attributed to 
ineffective management of the EPLS database or to the failure 
of contracting officers to consult the EPLS or comply with the 
suspension or debarment requirement.
    Under pressure from Chairman Towns, GSA committed to take 
corrective action in an effort to resolve issues raised at this 
hearing by providing direct access links to the EPLS from 
procurement related websites; and creating automatic digital 
messages to remind contracting officers to check the EPLS prior 
to issuing a task order. Ultimately, however, the suspension 
and debarment system will be effective only if contracting 
officers list inept or corrupt contractors on the EPLS and if 
contracting officers are penalized for using contractors listed 
on the EPLS.

REWARDING BAD ACTORS: WHY DO POORLY PERFORMING CONTRACTORS CONTINUE TO 
                        GET GOVERNMENT BUSINESS?

    On March 18, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
certain federal agencies' failure to suspend or debar 
contractors for poor performance or malfeasance. The hearing 
featured testimony by the Inspector Generals from three major 
federal agencies: the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the 
Department of Transportation (DOT).
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     One year after the Committee's initial oversight 
hearing on the suspension and debarment system (Feb. 26, 2009), 
little has changed. According to recent IG reports, federal 
agencies, including DHS, USAID, and DOT, continue to disregard 
regulations related to suspension and debarment.
     In cases where contracts were terminated for 
default or for cause, the majority were never even reviewed for 
possible suspension or debarment of the contractor.
     The apparent reluctance of federal agencies to 
suspend and debar bad actors leaves the government at risk of 
continuing to do business with inept or corrupt contractors and 
may result in decreased productivity and increased costs.
    All three agencies stated at the hearing that they had 
taken steps to improve suspension and debarment deficiencies 
found by the IGs. Whether these agencies and others will 
continue to take action against poor performers will only be 
determined by continued oversight of this issue.

   RUNNING OUT OF TIME: TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSITION DELAYS WASTING 
                      MILLIONS OF FEDERAL DOLLARS

    On May 20, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the federal government's delay in implementing Networx, a 
government-wide program negotiated and managed by GSA to 
provide telecommunications service to federal agencies at 
substantial cost savings.
    The federal government is currently transitioning all of 
its major telecommunications, network, and information services 
under GSA's Federal Technology Service 2001 contracts (FTS2001) 
to the new program, Networx, which offers services at a 
significant discount, in some cases as much as 40 percent. The 
overall Networx program has an estimated value of $68 billion 
for the life of the 10-year contract.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     The transition to Networx is behind schedule. With 
bridge contracts set to expire in May and June 2010, and with 
one-year continuity of service agreements in place, FTS2001 
services are scheduled to be terminated in May and June 2011. 
While progress is difficult to measure, as of April 2010, at 
best only half of the transition had been completed.
     GSA estimates that for every month federal 
agencies delay in transitioning from FTS2001 to Networx, it 
costs taxpayers $22.4 million in unrealized cost savings, or 
$250 million per year.
    Since the Committee's hearing, the transition to Networx 
has increased to nearly 70 percent. This is still much too 
slow. The Networx transition will require continued oversight 
to ensure full implementation.

 TRANSITION IN IRAQ: IS THE STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARED TO TAKE THE LEAD?

    Since Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March 2003, the main 
U.S. presence in Iraq has been the military. In addition to 
conducting combat operations, the military is providing 
security and life support services for U.S. civilian 
operations, managing reconstruction efforts, and training and 
equipping Iraqi security forces. Under current plans, as the 
U.S. continues to withdraw its forces from Iraq, the State 
Department will be assuming responsibilities that have 
historically been carried out by the Department of Defense.
    On September 23, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to 
examine the plans and implementation status of the transition 
of Iraq functions from the Defense Department to the State 
Department. The hearing included issues identified in a recent 
report by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, which 
identified serious deficiencies in transition planning.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     Planning for moving vital functions from the 
Defense Department to the State Department is not adequate and 
risks both financial waste and undermining U.S. policy 
objectives.
     In addition to State's lack of expertise in 
carrying out the duties and functions of the military, State 
also lacks the equipment to perform these duties and functions. 
The Defense Department has for the most part failed to respond 
in a meaningful way to the State Department's equipment and 
services requests.
     Of particular concern is State's ``lost 
functionality'' list of 14 security-related tasks now performed 
by the military that State take over as the military drawdown 
proceeds.
     Regardless of the decisions made on which tasks to 
transfer from the Defense Department to State and which to 
transfer to the government of Iraq or to end, State will need 
to substantially expand its contracting staff to meet its new 
responsibilities.
     To provide security, the State Department will 
need to more than double the number of private security 
contractors serving in Iraq, to between 6,000 and 7,000.
     As State hires more private security contractors 
to perform the duties once carried out by the military, 
existing weaknesses in contract management, oversight, funding, 
and hiring are likely to be exacerbated.
     According to GAO, the State Department's 
operations budget is far too inadequate to carry out the 
functions to be transferred from the Defense Department.
    Chairman Towns concluded that the Defense Department has 
devoted relatively little attention to the serious logistical 
issues involved in implementing the transition in Iraq from the 
Defense Department to the State Department. If these issues are 
not addressed soon, there will be a potential for an enormous 
waste of money and effort. Worse, U.S. policy objectives could 
be seriously undermined.

   THE FUTURE OF THE V-22 OSPREY: COSTS, CAPABILITIES, AND CHALLENGES

    The V-22 Osprey is a tilt-rotor combat troop transport 
aircraft that combines the functions of a helicopter and a 
turboprop aircraft. This hybrid aircraft is designed to have 
the vertical maneuverability and flexibility of a helicopter 
and the speed and long range of a fixed-wing aircraft. The V-22 
was developed through a joint venture between Bell Helicopter, 
a subsidiary of Textron, and The Boeing Company, and is powered 
by two engines manufactured by Rolls-Royce. There are two major 
variants of the V-22--the MV-22 used by the Marine Corps and 
the CV-22 used by the Air Force. The vast majority of the 
Ospreys purchased by the Defense Department are used by the 
Marine Corps.
    The Osprey's development history spans a quarter century. 
Over the years, there have been concerns regarding its design, 
airworthiness, maintenance, parts reliability, combat 
readiness, and safety. From 1991 to 2000, the Osprey crashed 
four times, causing 30 fatalities. Its history has also been 
marred by aircraft fires, lawsuits by crash victims, 
subcontractor convictions for fraud, and convictions of three 
Marines for falsifying maintenance records.
    On June 23, 2009, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the operational effectiveness, suitability, and cost of the 
Osprey. At the request of the Committee, GAO conducted a 
forward-looking examination of the aircraft that focused on 
whether the V-22 can perform as promised and analyzed the 
associated costs. The hearing featured GAO's testimony on its 
findings, as well as testimony from the Marine Corps.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     While the operational requirements of the V-22 
have diminished over the years, the cost of the aircraft has 
increased significantly. The cost per aircraft has almost 
tripled since the V-22's inception, to approximately $100 
million each. Cost overruns for the V-22 program have reached 
$16.8 billion, making the program 186 percent over budget.
     The V-22 suffers from major maintenance and 
reliability problems that affect its readiness and 
availability.
     GAO found that the V-22 may not be operationally 
effective in higher-threat environments, like Afghanistan, and 
questions the ability of the aircraft to operate in extreme 
environments.
     According to GAO, the V-22's operational problems 
call into question whether the aircraft is best suited to 
accomplish the full range of missions of the CH-46E helicopter 
the V-22 was intended to replace, or the range of missions 
provided by other modern helicopters. As one result of 
operational problems, the Marine Corps intends to employ the 
aircraft so as to limit its exposure to hostile fire, such as 
avoiding ``hot'' landing zones. This is contrary to the 
original intent--that the aircraft would be able to operate in 
such environments.
     Test pilots have found limitations that restrict 
the aircraft's flight parameters and could limit its ability to 
respond to threats. The Marine Corps has imposed flight limits 
on the aircraft while it is in helicopter mode to avoid loss of 
controlled flight.
     The V-22 was intended to be used aboard ships, but 
there are severe limitations to such use. Due to the aircraft's 
large size, fewer V-22s can operate on Navy flight decks 
compared to other helicopters. In addition, the V-22 requires a 
very large inventory of spare parts that takes up too much 
space on the ship--so large an inventory that spare parts need 
to be pre-positioned onshore or on other ships.
     The extraordinary force of the ``downwash'' from 
the V-22's rotors severely affects operations below the 
aircraft, both aboard ship and on land.
     The V-22 has major problems with both icing and 
overheating.
    The June 23 hearing was first convened on May 21, 2009. 
However, at the outset of the May 21 hearing, Chairman Towns 
decided to postpone because the Department of Defense had not 
produced records in response to the Committee's May 5, 2009, 
document request. Seven days later, on May 28, 2009, the 
Committee received a partial document production of four small 
binders, and on June 2, 2009, staff met with Marine Corps 
officers who provided additional documents that filled some of 
the information gaps remaining from the initial production. 
During the June 2 meeting, staff again requested internal 
memoranda concerning the operational status of the V-22 fleet 
and received a second production, a single binder, on June 5, 
2009. The Chairman does not believe that the total of five 
binders produced to the Committee represents the full universe 
of responsive records. Nevertheless, as summarized above, the 
data and documents the Committee did receive paint a troubling 
picture of the V-22 Osprey.
    While the Defense Department does not concur with GAO's 
assessment of the V-22's operational effectiveness, it concurs 
with the finding that the V-22 has problems with reliability 
and maintenance which affect the aircraft's operational 
suitability. GAO defines ``operational suitability'' as the 
degree to which a system can be placed and sustained in field 
use.'' It is clear that the V-22 has problems with unreliable 
parts and supply chain weaknesses that have reduced the 
availability of the aircraft for field use, below minimum 
requirements.
    The Defense Department originally contemplated purchasing 
1,000 V-22s over 10 years at $40 million each. The Army 
abandoned the project in 1983 due to rising costs, but the 
Marine Corps continued the program. In 1989 and again in 1992, 
then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney unsuccessfully tried to 
eliminate the V-22 program because of serious technical 
problems and high costs. Since then, the V-22's costs have 
risen significantly.
    Marine Corps documents uncovered by the Committee raise 
additional questions about the operational capabilities of the 
aircraft. For example, an internal report by the Marine Corps 
Center for Lessons Learned provides an analysis of the MV-22's 
performance in Iraq identifying a number of serious problems 
relating to the unreliability of the MV-22 and expresses 
concern that the MV-22's full capabilities have not been 
explored due to ``cautious tasking'' and a lack of opportunity 
to participate in assault support missions at the tactical 
level.
    Other internal documents identify further serious 
deficiencies in the aircraft, discuss a variety of operational 
problems, question whether the V-22 underwent adequate and 
complete operational testing, and even raise serious questions 
about the safety and survivability of the aircraft.
    As a result, Chairman Towns concluded that the V-22 Osprey 
is a waste of taxpayer money and a threat to troop safety, and 
called for an immediate halt to further government purchase of 
the aircraft.

                             Public Health


INVESTIGATION OF JOHNSON ` JOHNSON'S RECALL OF CHILDREN'S MEDICINE AND 
                    THE ``PHANTOM RECALL'' OF MOTRIN

    On April 30, 2010, pharmaceutical giant Johnson ` Johnson 
and its McNeil Consumer Healthcare (McNeil) subsidiary 
announced a recall of 135 million bottles of children's 
medicine, the largest recall of pediatric medicine in the 
history of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
    This recall was announced after an FDA inspection revealed 
problems resulting from careless manufacturing procedures at 
the McNeil plant where the recalled medication was 
manufactured. Among other things, the FDA found that these 
medicines could contain metal shavings from machinery, too much 
active ingredient, or bacterial contamination. According to the 
FDA, from January 1, 2008, through April 30, 2010, 775 adverse 
events were reported for the recalled products, including 30 
deaths. The FDA did not consider this to be a ``spike'' in 
adverse events for the recalled products during this timeframe. 
Since the announcement of the recall, several hundred 
additional adverse events were reported to the FDA, including 
seven deaths. FDA is still investigating some of these adverse 
events to determine if the events were related to a child 
taking one of the recalled medicines.
    Chairman Towns began an investigation of this matter in 
April 2010. The investigation involved the review of over 
30,000 internal Johnson ` Johnson and FDA documents, 
investigative interviews of senior company executives, and two 
Committee hearings. The investigation is ongoing. The U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is 
also investigating McNeil, and the FDA has referred certain 
McNeil activities to its Office of Criminal Investigations.
    On May 27, 2010, Chairman Towns convened the first 
investigative hearing on this matter with Johnson ` Johnson 
executive Colleen Goggins and Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Principal 
Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, testifying.
    Dr. Sharfstein testified that over the last several years, 
FDA has had growing concerns about the quality of McNeil's 
manufacturing process. He told the Committee that FDA had 
inspected McNeil's facilities with increased frequency and 
that, earlier this year, FDA took the ``extraordinary step'' of 
meeting with the management of Johnson ` Johnson to express 
concerns about a pattern of non-compliance at McNeil. Dr. 
Sharfstein also testified that FDA was working with McNeil to 
address its systemic quality issues, was monitoring the 
implementation of McNeil's corrective action plan, and would 
ensure that when McNeil's Fort Washington plant began 
manufacturing again, it would be able to produce safe products.
    Ms. Goggins testified that the April 30 recall was not 
undertaken on the basis of adverse events and stated why McNeil 
believed the health risk to consumers was remote. Ms. Goggins 
also testified about the actions that McNeil took immediately 
after the recall to pull products from shelves and to inform 
doctors and consumers of the recall. Finally, Ms. Goggins 
stated how Johnson ` Johnson and McNeil had been working 
together to improve the quality of McNeil products and spoke 
about the steps that McNeil was taking to bring its operations 
back to a level of quality expected by the public.
    In the course of this hearing, the Committee discovered 
that Johnson ` Johnson had conducted a ``phantom recall'' of a 
certain adult Motrin product. In November 2008, McNeil 
discovered a dissolution problem in certain adult Motrin 
tablets, known as Motrin 8s. This Motrin product was sold in 
eight-count vials in roughly 4,100 stores across the country.
    Rather than announcing a recall of the Motrin product so 
the public could be aware of the problem, McNeil executives 
hired contractors to go into stores and simply buy the product 
off the shelves, without disclosing the problem or disclosing 
the fact that they were working at the direction of McNeil. 
Chairman Towns dubbed this the ``phantom recall.'' Johnson ` 
Johnson initially claimed it kept the FDA informed of its 
activities with respect to the phantom recall, but the FDA 
contended that it was never informed of the surreptitious 
manner in which the contractors were taking the medication off 
the shelves.
    According to a document obtained by the Committee, the 
following written instructions were given to the contractors 
who carried out the phantom recall:
        ``You should simply `act' like a regular customer while 
        making these purchases. THERE MUST BE NO MENTION OF 
        THIS BEING A RECALL OF THE PRODUCT!'' (emphasis in the 
        original).
    At the first hearing, a copy of these instructions was 
shown to Ms. Goggins, who stated, ``I can't tell you about the 
behavior of these contractors in the market or what they said 
or didn't say or how they acted . . . .'' Ms. Goggins was also 
asked by Chairman Towns, ``[i]n other words, for the 
contractors to go in and say do not mention the fact that this 
is a recall, you know nothing about any of that?'' Ms. Goggins 
replied, ``I know nothing about that, sir.''
    Following this hearing, Chairman Towns requested additional 
documents from Johnson ` Johnson related to the phantom recall. 
In response, the Committee received a copy of a McNeil document 
containing instructions for the contractors who conducted the 
Motrin phantom recall. In part, the instructions stated, ``[d]o 
not communicate any information about this product'' [when 
conducting the phantom recall]. Just purchase all available 
product.''
    A second hearing on this matter was held on September 30, 
2010. At this hearing, Johnson & Johnson's CEO, Mr. William 
Weldon, admitted that the phantom recall had begun before 
Johnson & Johnson informed the FDA that the affected Motrin was 
being purchased by contractors. It is also unrefuted that 
Johnson & Johnson never informed the FDA of the surreptitious 
manner in which it was having contractors take the product off 
the shelves, and that it did so without disclosing the problems 
with the medication.
    At the second hearing, Mr. Weldon stated, ``[b]ased on what 
I have learned since the May hearing [the Committee's first 
hearing on the Johnson & Johnson recalls] about the way the 
Motrin retrieval was handled, including the points that this 
Committee brought to light, it is clear to me that in 
retrospect, McNeil should have handled things differently. And 
going forward, if similar situations arise, they will be 
handled differently.''
    Ms. Goggins was invited to attend the second hearing so 
that she would have an opportunity to clarify the 
inconsistencies between what she stated at the first hearing 
and how those statements comported with the documents the 
Committee eventually obtained. At the second hearing, Ms. 
Goggins testified, ``[a]t the time of the hearing in May, I had 
no personal knowledge of and had not seen the contractor or 
McNeil instructions. Since then, however, I have reviewed the 
McNeil instructions to the contractor that instructed the 
contractor to purchase the product without engaging in 
discussions with the store personnel. Based on what I have 
learned since May, I believe that McNeil should have handled 
things differently. We, as a company, have learned from this 
process.''
    Johnson & Johnson announced Ms. Goggins' retirement on 
September 16, 2010.
    While investigating both the initial 135 million bottle 
recall of children's medicine and the phantom recall of adult 
Motrin, the Committee also discovered that McNeil used the same 
phantom contractors to perform work related to a separate 
recall of children's medicine that was announced in September 
2009. The Committee also uncovered the fact that this September 
2009 recall involved at least 8 million bottles of children's 
medicine.
    The investigation is continuing, and has expanded to 
include the possibility of additional phantom recalls.

                  MILITARY WASTE DISPOSAL IN BURN PITS

    Since 2001, the military and its contractors have used open 
pits to burn waste produced by military installations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Many veterans are now reporting that fumes and 
ashes from these burn pits have contributed to a variety of 
illnesses, including asthma, severe bronchiolitis, chronic 
coughs, skin infections, Parkinson's disease, leukemia, and 
rare cancers. Many of these burn pits were managed by 
contractors.
    On May 11, 2010, the Chairman Towns announced an 
investigation into the illnesses that have been reported by 
military personnel and civilian workers returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan. As part of this investigation, the Chairman 
requested documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
the Department of Defense.
    While the investigation is continuing, following are some 
preliminary findings:
     As early as 2003, members of the military had 
complained that the operation of burn pits violated the 
military's own guidelines.
     Medical waste, hazardous waste, plastics, and 
other dangerous materials were disposed of in some burn pits.
     Numerous members of the military complained of 
health effects associated with exposure to the burn pits, and 
indicated that burn pits were negatively impacting force 
readiness.
     Many burn pits continue to operate in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and the military still lacks effective, safe waste 
management procedures at many bases.
     The military continues to burn potentially 
dangerous materials in some burn pits, in express violation of 
Defense Department guidelines released in 2010.
     Isolated samples of some bases containing burn 
pits showed high levels of particulate matter that exceeded EPA 
guidelines and, in some cases, elevated levels of hazardous 
substances.
     Several studies conducted by or at the request of 
the Defense Department found that burn pits could produce 
adverse health effects.
    The Committee continues to support efforts by the Institute 
of Medicine and other groups to fully examine the health 
impacts associated with burn pits, and ensure that veterans who 
may have been adversely affected by the burn pits receive the 
appropriate medical treatment. To that end, the Committee has 
made relevant Defense Department documents available to the 
Institute of Medicine, to assist with the Institute's efforts 
to assess the health effects associated with burn pits.

                  VIRAL HEPATITIS: THE SECRET EPIDEMIC

    On June 17, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the issues associated with the prevention, detection, and 
control of viral hepatitis. The hearing was particularly 
focused on a report from the Institute of Medicine entitled, 
``Hepatitis and Liver Cancer: A National Strategy for 
Prevention and Control of Hepatitis B and C.''
    The committee received testimony from nine witnesses, 
including three members of Congress, the Assistant Secretary 
for Health at HHS, and the Director of the Viral Hepatitis 
Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
Witnesses stressed the importance of greater research in the 
areas of monitoring and prevention of hepatitis, and greater 
interagency coordination and integration of resources. The 
Assistant Secretary of Health, Howard Koh, announced a new 
interagency working group to improve coordination in addressing 
hepatitis, and a comprehensive strategic action plan to improve 
the coordination of viral hepatitis prevention activities 
within HHS.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     Lack of knowledge and awareness about chronic 
viral hepatitis on the part of healthcare and social-service 
providers has remained a principal barrier to effective 
treatment and prevention.
     Inadequate treatment and prevention programs have 
contributed to high levels of viral hepatitis among African-
Americans and other minorities, and additional clinical trials 
are needed to ensure the efficacy of all new treatments for 
those affected by hepatitis.
     There is currently no federal funding to provide 
core public health services for viral hepatitis, such as 
testing, counseling, or surveillance.
     Community-based organizations such as the 
Hepatitis Education Project have played an integral role in 
providing hepatitis prevention, testing, and referral to proper 
medical care.

 POST-KATRINA RECOVERY: RESTORING HEALTHCARE IN THE NEW ORLEANS REGION

    Hurricane Katrina devastated infrastructure of all types in 
the New Orleans area, including much of the region's health 
care delivery system. A number of major hospitals and 
outpatient clinics were destroyed or severely affected by the 
storm. Consequently, the region has struggled to rebuild health 
care access for many of the region's residents, particularly 
the poor.
    Chairman Towns conducted a major investigation into the 
status of the region's healthcare delivery system to examine 
what progress has been made to repair and augment the region's 
critical health care infrastructure and what challenges remain. 
The investigation assessed: (1) the role now played by the 
roughly 90 primary care clinics supported in part with 
temporary federal funding made available after the storm; (2) 
whether key primary care clinics could be made financially 
sustainable; and (3) whether certain major healthcare providers 
including hospitals could or should be rebuilt. The 
investigation also assessed the additional stresses to the 
region that could occur as a result of expected reductions in 
Medicaid funding. Committee staff conducted extensive field 
interviews with a wide-variety of healthcare providers, as well 
as federal, state, and local government officials responsible 
for providing and restoring healthcare services to the region.
    On December 4, 2009, the Committee held a hearing entitled 
``Post-Katrina Recovery: Restoring Health Care in the New 
Orleans Region'' to focus on these important issues. The 
Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     While access to health care facilities had 
improved since the storm, the region still faced considerable 
health care challenges.
     It remains unclear how or if a facility would be 
built to replace Charity Hospital, the region's largest public 
hospital.
     With a number of private hospitals remaining 
shuttered, it is questionable whether many will ever be 
reopened, due to financing questions.
     While a number of primary care clinics were able 
to supplement the services once provided by destroyed or 
capacity-diminished hospitals, the community is concerned that 
many of these clinics will not survive once stabilization grant 
money ends.
    Stemming in part from the Committee's investigation, the 
Department of Health and Human Services renewed its focus on 
the region's health care delivery system and made a commitment 
to explore new options (including Medicaid waivers) for 
continuing important health care services related to recovery. 
The Department also told the Committee that it would explore 
whether certain primary care clinics could qualify as Federally 
Qualified Health Centers, which would allow them to receive 
additional funding. This might allow some clinics to continue 
to operate. As the New Orleans region continues to recover, the 
Committee intends to monitor these and other recovery 
activities.

   EFFORTS TO MONITOR FOREIGN-PRODUCED DRUGS AND OTHER FDA-REGULATED 
                                PRODUCTS

    Globalization has placed considerable demands on the FDA, 
which is responsible for ensuring that an increasingly large 
volume of both food and drug products originating from abroad 
and consumed by Americans are safe and meet U.S. standards.
    Over the past few decades, the United States has come to 
depend on both finished drug products and important ingredients 
used to make drugs from abroad. The FDA is the primary agency 
responsible for ensuring that such imports are safe, effective, 
and meet all U.S. regulatory requirements. As more 
pharmaceutical manufacturing moves overseas, now spanning more 
than 100 countries, oversight of foreign facilities continues 
to pose considerable regulatory challenges to the FDA, 
requiring dramatic increases in inspections, monitoring 
activities, and enforcement actions, and demanding more 
resources to adequately carry out these functions.
    The Committee staff met with FDA to discuss ongoing work 
plans to inspect drug and food production facilities that ship 
products to the U.S. In addition, Chairman Towns requested GAO 
to conduct two detailed audits to evaluate FDA's efforts in 
this important consumer protection area.
    The first audit examined how well FDA was inspecting 
foreign plants shipping drugs and food products to the U.S. 
That review revealed that while FDA has made some progress in 
closing its inspection gap, the agency still conducts 
relatively few foreign inspections leaving the U.S. drug supply 
at some risk. GAO also recommended in earlier work that FDA 
create a risk-based inspection system to better prioritize 
scarce inspection resources. GAO found that the agency still 
has not adopted that recommendation, resulting in the potential 
misapplication of critical resources.
    The second audit examined efforts by the FDA to setup a 
series of overseas offices to enhance its ability to work with 
host governments to inspect all FDA-regulated products sent to 
the U.S. GAO's review found that this effort had allowed the 
agency to establish important regulatory dialogue with foreign 
regulatory authorities and gather important information about 
regulated products. However, GAO also found that coordination 
of these offices with other parts of FDA remains a challenge 
and that the agency lacks a long-term strategic plan for this 
effort. Without such a plan, GAO remains concerned that it will 
be difficult to assess how this program is benefitting the U.S. 
consumer, and whether the benefits justify their costs.
    Chairman Towns believes that the issue of how FDA regulates 
food and drugs, particularly those originating from abroad, 
should be among the top issues for continuing oversight in the 
next Congress.

         OFF-LABEL MARKETING OF THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG RAPAMUNE

    On June 11, 2010, the Committee launched an investigation 
into whistleblower reports that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (which 
was acquired by Pfizer in October 2009) marketed the 
prescription drug Rapamune for purposes that were not approved 
by the FDA. Additionally, the Committee's investigation paid 
particular attention to allegations that Wyeth promotional 
activities involving Rapamune targeted African-American 
patients and may have placed them at a greater risk of harm.
    Rapamune is approved by the FDA for use to prevent the 
immune systems of kidney transplant patients from rejecting 
their new organs. It is subject to specific instructions 
regarding when, how, and to whom the drug should be 
administered. However, several former Wyeth employees claim 
that Wyeth aggressively encouraged the use of Rapamune to 
prevent organ rejection following heart, lung, liver, pancreas, 
and islet cell transplants, without FDA approval. It has also 
been alleged that unapproved dosing regimens for Rapamune were 
promoted by Wyeth. In addition, Wyeth allegedly encouraged 
physicians to switch patients from other medications and begin 
treatment with Rapamune at a later stage following a transplant 
than is approved by the FDA. Similarly, despite the FDA's 
concerns and specific instructions regarding the drug's use in 
kidney transplant patients at a high risk of organ rejection, 
particularly African-Americans, the former employees claim that 
Wyeth may have targeted that population for the marketing of 
unapproved uses for Rapamune.
    At the request of Chairman Towns, both Pfizer and the FDA 
have turned over thousands of documents pertaining to the 
marketing of Rapamune. Although analysis of those documents is 
continuing, a preliminary review indicates that further 
investigation is strongly warranted. In addition, on October 
13, 2010, the Department of Justice announced that it had 
decided to intervene in a qui tam suit against Pfizer based on 
similar allegations.
    Based on review of the documents obtained so far, and 
because of the egregious nature of the allegations, Chairman 
Towns has concluded that the Rapamune investigation should be 
near the top of the Committee's agenda in the next Congress.

                    PANDEMIC INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS

    In March 2009, a novel strain of H1N1 influenza was 
reported in Mexico. This virus quickly moved into the U.S. over 
the spring. The virus spread globally and became the prominent 
influenza strain around the world in early 2009. On June 11, 
2009, the World Health Organization declared the H1N1 influenza 
outbreak a pandemic, the first global pandemic declared since 
1968. In response to this pandemic, the Committee held two 
hearings examining issues surrounding pandemic preparedness.

State and Local Pandemic Preparedness

    On May 20, 2009, the Committee held a hearing focused on 
the readiness of states and localities to respond to influenza 
pandemics. This hearing, which featured the testimony of 
federal, state, and local officials, examined the pandemic 
preparedness plans of state, county, and city health 
departments and explored whether these health departments had 
the required resources to implement their plans. The Committee 
received testimony about the important role that state and 
local health departments play in protecting the public health 
and how the underfunding of these health departments would 
hamper their ability to respond to an influenza pandemic.
    Following the Committee's hearing, on June 16, 2009, the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 was passed. This bill 
provided $1.85 billion for the Public Health and Social 
Services Emergency Fund to prepare for an influenza pandemic, 
with $350 million for state and local government preparedness.

The Administration's Flu Vaccine Program: Health, Safety, and 
        Distribution

    The Committee's second hearing on pandemic preparedness was 
held on September 29, 2009. This hearing examined the 
Administration's H1N1 flu vaccine program, including related 
health and safety issues, and how the U.S. might address 
pandemic flu vaccine production and distribution issues in the 
future. Three officials from the Department of Health and Human 
Services testified at this hearing: the Director of the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention, the Director of the 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the 
Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

      PROSTATE CANCER: NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT SCREENING AND TREATMENT

    On March 4, 2010, the Committee held a hearing examining 
issues surrounding the detection and treatment of prostate 
cancer. The hearing reviewed the latest developments in 
screening and treatment for prostate cancer, and the latest 
research efforts. The Committee heard testimony from the 
National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the 
U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, among others.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     Recent debates about the efficacy of screening for 
prostate cancer have sparked new concerns about both screening 
and treatment for the disease.
     While effective cancer treatment has long been 
predicated on early detection and treatment, this long-held 
tenet is now being debated.
     The American Cancer Society now takes the position 
that the benefits of early screening for breast and prostate 
cancer have been overstated.
     The National Cancer Institute has stated that it 
is not known for certain whether prostate cancer screening 
saves lives.
     Taking the opposing view, the American Urological 
Association has stated that it strongly supports prostate 
cancer screening, as does the Uniformed Services University of 
the Health Sciences Center for Prostate Disease Research.
    Given the diversity of expert opinion, the issue remains 
unclear. However, most witnesses agreed that there is a strong 
need for informed consent by patients, including a discussion 
about the benefits and risks of testing before screening is 
undertaken.

                           National Security


                    IMPLEMENTATION OF IRAN SANCTIONS

    The Secretary of State has designated Iran as a state 
sponsor of terrorism because the country has repeatedly 
provided support for acts of international terrorism. This 
designation subjects Iran to a variety of sanctions, including 
a restriction on U.S. foreign assistance, a ban on defense 
exports and sales, and controls on exports of dual-use items 
(civilian items with potential military applications). In 
addition, the designation as a state sponsor of terrorism 
triggers U.S. laws that impose sanctions on countries and 
persons engaging in certain activities with Iran. In addition, 
Executive Order 12,959 bans nearly all U.S. trade and 
investments involving Iran.
    On April 15, 2010, a bipartisan group of 363 Members of 
Congress, including Chairman Towns, wrote to President Obama to 
express concern over the threat of Iran's nuclear program and 
offering bipartisan support for tough measures, including a 
prohibition on the practice of awarding billions of federal 
dollars to companies investing in or doing business with Iran. 
On July 1, 2010, the President signed into law a sweeping new 
set of U.S. sanctions targeting Iran's energy and financial 
sectors, entitled the ``Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, 
Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA).''
    On July 29, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the implementation of Iran sanctions, including efforts to 
discourage companies from conducting business with Iran as long 
as Iran continues to support terrorism and develop nuclear 
weapons. This was the first Congressional hearing on Iran 
sanctions in years that was attended by witnesses from the 
State Department and the Treasury Department, the two agencies 
with the primary responsibility for implementing the Iran 
sanctions.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     In the 14 years since the Iran Sanctions Act 
passed, as of the date of this hearing, sanctions had not been 
imposed.
     A number of private sector firms and individuals 
have illegally transshipped or attempted to transship a wide 
range of U.S. military and dual-use goods to Iran, including 
parts for U.S.-built military helicopters; military-grade night 
vision equipment; submachine guns; computers; specialized 
laboratory equipment; electronic components for missiles; parts 
for Iran's U.S.-built Hawk anti-aircraft missiles; and 
specialized steel and pumps for nuclear applications.
     The U.S. ban on trade and investment in Iran does 
not apply to foreign firms or to foreign subsidiaries of U.S. 
companies. Consequently, many large foreign firms openly and 
actively engage in commercial transactions with Iran.
     At least 12 large U.S. multinational firms have 
received federal contracts while their foreign subsidiaries 
were doing business in Iran.
     Despite the fact that sanctions have never been 
imposed under the Iran Sanctions Act, the State Department 
believes the Act has been an effective deterrent. For example, 
State points out that it had been negotiating with several 
firms publicly identified as possible violators of the Iran 
Sanctions Act for up to a year, and several firms (Total, 
Statoil, ENI, Repsol, and Lukeoil) recently announced that they 
are withdrawing their upstream development deals in Iran. In 
addition, Total, Vitol, Trafigura, IPG, and Glencore have 
backed out of exporting gasoline to Iran in light of the new 
U.S. sanctions law.
     The Treasury Department has undertaken targeted 
financial measures aimed at persuading foreign financial 
institutions to withdraw from doing business with Iran. 
Treasury claims that it has been able to cut off financing for 
several Iranian projects and dissuade several entities from 
doing business with Iran.
    Several weeks after the hearing, the Treasury Department 
announced that it was imposing its first sanctions against 
private companies doing business with Iran, including certain 
banks and shipping companies.

    THE RISE OF THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

    During the 111th Congress, the Committee investigated 
federal efforts to combat drug smuggling on the Southwest 
border and the implications ongoing violence associated with 
Mexico's drug trade could have on Mexico's stability and U.S. 
security.
    The Committee's investigation examined whether U.S. law 
enforcement agencies have sufficient tools and capabilities to 
prosecute Mexican drug smuggling and if efforts to curtail the 
smuggling of bulk cash and weapons from the United States to 
Mexico were succeeding. The investigation additionally assessed 
whether federal and state prosecutors have sufficient legal 
tools to bring enforcement actions against the cartels. 
Finally, the Committee examined whether key law enforcement 
agencies have addressed cooperation and coordination problems, 
which for years have affected key agencies responsible for 
eradicating drug smuggling.
    Over the past decade, Mexico has become both a major 
producing state and transit state for illicit drugs being sent 
to the U.S. and Europe. Mexico is now the main foreign supplier 
of marijuana and a major supplier of methamphetamine to the 
United States. Estimates are that as much as 90 percent of all 
cocaine entering the U.S. now comes through Mexico. Although 
Mexico accounts for only a small share of worldwide heroin 
production, it has become a key supplier of the heroin now 
consumed in the U.S.
    Mexico President Felipe Calderon began a national crackdown 
on organized crime in December 2006. Since then, nearly 30,000 
people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico.
    On July 9, 2009, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
these and related issues. The hearing assembled key law 
enforcement and intelligence officials to obtain testimony on 
the threats the cartels posed to U.S. security and how violence 
patterns could evolve. The hearing examined specific proposals 
to curtail Mexican cartel activities, including the 
Administration's Southwest Border Plan.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     Despite the violence that continues to plague 
Mexico, the Department of Justice and its affiliated agencies 
contend that progress is being made in the battle against 
Mexican cartels, due largely to the Calderon Administration's 
concerted and sustained efforts.
     While a number of press reports have raised 
concerns about drug-related violence in Mexico and its 
potential `spillover' into U.S. communities, few officials 
interviewed by Committee staff expressed concerns that such 
activities, other than isolated incidents, were occurring. 
However, many top officials warned that ensuing violence could 
destabilize parts of Mexico, its economy, and governmental 
institutions.
     The DEA believes that if the drug cartels prevail 
in their conflict with the Calderon Administration, it would 
pose serious consequences for the safety and security of U.S. 
citizens.
     An effective way to disrupt cartel operations is 
to halt bulk-cash smuggling and the flow of firearms from the 
U.S. According to GAO's recent report on firearms trafficking 
to Mexico, most of the weapons provided to the U.S. by Mexican 
officials for tracing purposes were not military-grade weapons.
     Customs and Border Patrol officials said they 
welcome the opportunity to conduct southbound (into Mexico) 
inspections, but to be effective these must be conducted 
broadly and full-time. Currently, southbound inspections are 
conducted on a sporadic and ad-hoc basis.
     Some relatively simple tools could make 
interdiction of drugs into the U.S. and detection of southbound 
bulk-cash and arms smuggling more effective, including non-
intrusive imaging equipment, additional drug and currency 
sniffing dogs, shaded vehicle ports to protect inspectors from 
the sun, and retractable gates to prevent vehicles from simply 
running through check points.
     A crucial component in the fight to disrupt and 
dismantle drug trafficking organizations is better cooperation 
and coordination between counternarcotics agencies.
    As a result of Committee scrutiny, both the DEA and the 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency established a 
process to retool a long-standing memorandum of understanding 
between the agencies regarding how they would cooperate on 
anti-narcotic smuggling operations. As cartel violence 
continues to escalate, the Committee will continue to review 
U.S. law enforcement activities and potential resource needs.

       VULNERABILITIES IN THE SYSTEM USED TO ISSUE U.S. PASSPORTS

    During the 111th Congress, the Committee was briefed 
extensively by GAO regarding a series of undercover tests it 
used to assess the effectiveness of the State Department's 
system to process and issue passports. The purpose of those 
tests was to determine if the process was vulnerable to the 
type of fraud a criminal or terrorist might use to illegally 
obtain a valid U.S. passport.
    GAO designed several scenarios to simulate the actions of 
an individual who had access to an American citizen's personal 
identification information and might attempt to illegally 
obtain a passport. GAO used counterfeit documents and a mix of 
other fraudulently-obtained documents for this effort. Four 
different U.S. passports were issued to the same GAO 
investigator, each under a different name (in each case, State 
Department and Postal Service employees failed to detect the 
erroneous documents). More troubling still, GAO's investigator 
was able to then purchase an airline ticket under the name used 
on one of the fraudulently-obtained U.S. passports, obtain a 
valid boarding pass, and ultimately pass through airport 
security.
    As a result of GAO's undercover investigation, the 
Committee staff held a series of meetings with State Department 
officials and GAO to understand how the State Department could 
take corrective action to strengthen the passport issuance 
system. One issue was whether the agency could periodically 
``red team'' its own system to determine vulnerabilities. 
Moreover, questions were also posed regarding whether the 
Department would consider third-party evaluations of the system 
used to issue passports to determine how to better strengthen 
the system. Finally, the question was raised about how the 
Department could use certain additional databases that were not 
currently being used to validate applicants.
    During the 111th Congress, the State Department was asked 
to periodically update the Committee on a number of changes to 
its passport issuance system. These included enhanced training 
efforts to spot fraud and using additional data bases to 
confirm the legitimacy of applicants. The Department also said 
it is considering efforts to ``red team'' its system to 
periodically identify weaknesses. Chairman Towns intends to 
monitor this matter to determine if vulnerabilities still exist 
and additional corrective actions are warranted.

               CYBER THREATS AT DOE AND ITS NATIONAL LABS

    The Committee inquired into a variety of information 
security issues related to the Department of Energy (DOE) and 
the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) efforts 
to combat cyber threats against its facilities. DOE and NNSA 
together oversee a number of critical programs related to the 
nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, special nuclear materials, 
weapons components, and an array of highly classified and 
sensitive weapons design information.
    Throughout much of the past decade, certain DOE and the 
national labs have struggled with issues related to cyber 
intrusion. This is particularly relevant given the increasing 
reliance on the internet to communicate and share information. 
DOE experiences cyber assaults on a regular basis. Moreover, 
DOE's efforts to monitor such attacks have detected an upward 
trend in adversarial activity (and sophistication) over the 
past several years.
    The Committee periodically received classified briefings 
provided by DOE and NNSA Chief Information Officers (and other 
key intelligence officials) regarding cyber security matters. 
While the CIOs informed the Committee that progress has been 
made in protecting the Department and its assets against cyber 
intrusions, DOE officials also conveyed that significant 
challenges remain. Given the importance of the DOE and NNSA 
complex and the ongoing information security challenges these 
agencies face, the Committee intends to continue its oversight 
role in this critical area.

THE TERRORIST ATTEMPT ON A DETROIT-BOUND U.S. JETLINER: THE CASE OF MR. 
                       UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB

    On December 25, 2009, a Nigerian national, Umar Farouk 
Abdulmutallab, attempted to detonate an explosive device while 
aboard Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. The 
device did not explode, but instead ignited, injuring Mr. 
Abdulmutallab and two other passengers. The flight crew 
restrained Mr. Abdulmutallab and the plane landed safely. Mr. 
Abdulmutallab was taken into custody and was later questioned 
by the FBI. It was later revealed that Mr. Abdulmutallab was 
not on the terrorist watchlist, but was known to the 
intelligence community.
    Although this terrorist attack was unsuccessful, concerns 
were raised that all aspects of the system used to prevent 
terrorists from entering the U.S. should be re-examined and 
where necessary, adjustments made. Consequently, the Committee 
investigated the system which allowed Mr. Abdulmutallab to 
board a commercial airliner destined to the U.S. with 
explosive.
    Specifically, the Committee sought to understand the events 
leading up to the December 25 attempted terrorist attack, what 
permitted Mr. Abdulmutallab access to the aircraft, what steps 
the Administration was proposing to prevent similar attempts in 
the future, and whether improvements are needed to facilitate 
the sharing of terrorism-related information among the many 
agencies with counterterrorism responsibilities.
    As part of this effort, Committee staff attended a number 
of both classified and unclassified briefings on the events 
relating to this episode. Moreover, the Chairman also requested 
a comprehensive briefing by officials from the Departments of 
Homeland Security, State, and Justice and other law enforcement 
agencies.
    The Committee learned that the counterterrorism agencies 
failed to identify and correlate key pieces of intelligence 
held by the government related to Mr. Abdulmutallab. While the 
government had sufficient information prior to the attempted 
December 25 attack to have potentially disrupted the plot, it 
failed to adequately share critical information among agencies 
and connect important dots. The Committee also found that the 
terrorist watch listing system, while not broken, was in need 
of improvement. The Committee intends to monitor events related 
to restructuring key parts of the counter terrorism effort, 
particularly those related to coordinating and sharing 
information across federal agencies.

   INVESTIGATION OF ANTI-NUCLEAR SMUGGLING EFFORTS INVOLVING FOREIGN 
                                SEAPORTS

    The attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened concerns that 
a terrorist may try to smuggle nuclear materials or a nuclear 
weapon into the United States. In response to this threat, 
several federal agencies, including the Departments of Energy, 
Defense, State, and Homeland Security, have implemented 
programs and adopted technology to combat nuclear smuggling in 
foreign countries and in the U.S., involving both land entry 
points and seaports.
    In 2003, DOE began the Megaports Initiative to combat 
possible nuclear smuggling at major foreign seaports. This 
program allowed DOE and the State Department to coordinate with 
other foreign governments and install radiation detection 
equipment in a number of foreign seaports across the globe. In 
2005, GAO evaluated this program and found the initiative faced 
a number of challenges, particularly related to the costs and 
the types of the detectors being deployed.
    Because the nation is continually faced with terrorist 
threats, Chairman Towns asked GAO to evaluate the ongoing 
effectiveness of this program and to update its previous work. 
Specifically, Chairman Towns requested GAO to evaluate how this 
program operates, estimate its costs, and identify any major 
problems. In addition, because GAO had previously raised 
concerns about the effectiveness of the technology being used 
to detect radioactive materials, the Committee also requested 
GAO to evaluate whether the latest generation of detectors are 
effective and suitable for this effort. GAO is scheduled to 
complete this review by the spring of 2011. Chairman Towns 
intends to monitor events related to this important program and 
seek ongoing updates from both GAO and DOE.

                          Other Investigations


  WILL ARBITRON'S PERSONAL PEOPLE METER SILENCE MINORITY OWNED RADIO 
                               STATIONS?

    On December 2, 2009, the Committee held a hearing to 
examine whether Arbitron's use of the Portable People Meter 
(PPM) accurately measured radio audience listenership and 
whether Arbitron's use of the PPM had a disproportionately 
negative impact on radio stations owned by minorities or 
targeted toward minority listeners.
    Arbitron is a radio audience research company which 
attempts to estimate the size of radio station audiences. The 
size of the radio audience determines its ratings. Arbitron 
sells its ratings information to broadcasters and advertisers. 
The higher a station's Arbitron rating, the more advertisers it 
attracts and the higher the rate it may charge for advertising. 
Therefore, the viability and profitability of a majority of 
stations is directly tied to its ratings. Arbitron has a 
virtual monopoly on radio ratings services in the United 
States.
    Prior to 2007, many minority-owned and targeted radio 
stations enjoyed high ratings and relative profitability as 
they served their communities. At the time, Arbitron produced 
ratings using the ``diary method'' in which panelists listed 
the names of radio stations and the duration of time they 
listened, and submitted their diaries to Arbitron weekly. 
Arbitron recruited a large panel of radio listeners to supply 
ratings information and the group accurately represented the 
demographics of the population being surveyed. This method was 
considered reliable and was therefore accredited by the Media 
Rating Council (MRC) which establishes industry standards for 
audience measurement.
    In 2007, Arbitron began using the PPM to measure radio 
audiences in various markets. The PPM is intended to be carried 
by individuals and records the radio stations that the 
individual hears within a given time period. The recorded 
information is then transferred to Arbitron and used to produce 
ratings. The number of panelists Arbitron recruited to carry 
the PPM was 66 percent smaller than the panels which submitted 
diaries. The panels did not reflect the demographics of the 
populations being surveyed.
    Since the introduction of this new device, the ratings of 
radio stations owned by minorities or targeted toward minority 
audiences precipitously dropped by as much as 70 percent. Due 
to these lower ratings, the advertising revenue at these 
stations has also declined dramatically. As a result, minority-
owned radio stations, which account for only 2 percent of all 
radio stations in the nation, were suddenly on the brink of 
extinction. The issue posed such an immediate threat to 
diversity in radio that it prompted lawsuits by the Attorneys 
General in four states (NY, NJ, MD, and FL), on the grounds 
that methodological flaws in PPM's data collection have 
resulted in the under-representation of particular ethnic and 
age groups.
    The issues raised by Arbitron's use of the PPM include the 
following: (1) the methodology used by Arbitron to generate PPM 
data is flawed in that it undercounts minority listeners; (2) 
the number of people recruited to participate in the PPM 
ratings panel is too small to be an accurate representation of 
the market it measures; (3) the people recruited to participate 
in the PPM ratings panel are not representative of the ethnic 
demographics of the community surveyed; (4) Arbitron does not 
sufficiently train panelists to use PPM to maximize data 
reliability; (5) PPM technology does not accurately record and/
or transmit data pertaining to panelists' actual radio 
exposures; and (6) Arbitron has failed to obtain accreditation 
from the MRC for use of its PPM in the majority of markets in 
which the device is the exclusive method of measuring radio 
audiences.
    At the hearing, the Committee received key testimony from 
Arbitron's CEO (Michael Skarzynski), CEO of the MRC (George 
Ivie), CEO of Minority Media and Telecommunications Council 
(Michael Honig), CEO's of two minority owned radio systems 
(Charles Warfield and Frank Flores), and an Audience 
Measurement Specialist (Ceril Shagrin).
    As a direct result of the Committee's investigation and 
hearings:
     Arbitron's CEO, Michael Skarzynski was fired for 
making material misrepresentations in his testimony before the 
Committee regarding Arbitron's efforts to improve diversity 
among audience measurement panelists. Mr. Skarzynski claimed to 
have personally participated in recruitment of minority 
panelists in Maryland and his claim was discredited by other 
Arbitron executives.
     Arbitron committed to making significant changes 
in the methodology by which it recruits its audience 
measurement panelists to preserve the demographic diversity of 
its markets. Establishment of internal quality control metrics 
and hiring of appropriate research experts are included in this 
effort.
     Arbitron committed to improve training of its 
audience measurement panelists to maximize the reliability of 
data transmitted by the PPM device.
     Arbitron committed to continue its efforts to 
obtain MRC accreditation for use of PPM in all major radio 
markets in the nation.
     As part of its improvement plan, Arbitron meets 
with representatives of minority radio station owners and the 
MRC on a monthly basis to consult with and collaborate on PPM 
methodology improvement.
    The Committee is continuing to monitor Arbitron's efforts 
to improve its PPM methodology and receives monthly reports of 
steps taken to improve the reliability of the device.

OFFSHORE DRILLING: WILL INTERIOR'S REFORMS CHANGE ITS HISTORY OF FAILED 
                               OVERSIGHT?

    On July 22, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the Department of the Interior's efforts to reorganize the 
Minerals Management Service (MMS) following the Deepwater 
Horizon oil rig explosion and subsequent oil spill. MMS was 
responsible for leasing, permitting, and inspecting offshore 
oil drilling and production operations and collecting oil and 
gas royalties. Following the Deepwater Horizon incident, the 
Secretary of the Interior announced that the MMS would be 
divided into three separate entities. The stated goal of the 
reorganization was to increase oversight and accountability 
over offshore drilling activities, improve royalty collection, 
and provide independent environmental and safety enforcement.
    In preparation for the hearing, the Chairman and the 
Committee staff traveled to the Gulf Coast to be briefed by 
Interior and Coast Guard officials, and tour the site of the BP 
oil spill. In addition, the Committee staff interviewed MMS 
regional and district office personnel regarding their roles 
and responsibilities related to oversight of offshore oil and 
gas drilling and production, and their views on the planned 
reorganization. These interviews provided insight to the 
problems faced by MMS and the planned reorganization efforts, 
including the recruitment of qualified inspectors; the adequacy 
of resources; ethical failures; and the adequacy of 
regulations, oil spill response plans, and environmental 
reviews.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     All Gulf of Mexico district office personnel 
interviewed expressed difficulties in recruiting, retaining, 
and training qualified inspectors. Recruitment is hindered by 
the fact that Interior cannot offer salaries that are 
competitive with those of the oil industry.
     The number of people overseeing offshore 
operations has not kept pace with the increase in drilling and 
production operations.
     As of 2009, 80 percent of offshore oil production 
and 45 percent of natural gas production occurred at depths 
greater than 1,000 feet. As the Deepwater Horizon incident 
demonstrates, drilling in deep water amplifies the complexity 
of drilling and oil spill clean-up.
     The agency's research budget for developing oil 
spill response technology has only increased by roughly $1 
million since 1993--from $5.3 million to $6.3 million. The 
agency's budget for developing technology has actually 
decreased when adjusted for inflation.
     Close ties with the oil industry have repeatedly 
contributed to ethical failures within the agency. Despite 
claims from Gulf personnel that prior scandals are ``old 
news,'' the New Orleans district office is currently 
investigating ethical violations by an inspector for falsifying 
inspection reports and sleeping on the job.
     The revolving door is still spinning: of 11 former 
MMS directors, at least three worked for oil and gas companies 
before their employment with MMS and, after serving as 
directors, seven worked as lawyers, consultants, or board 
members in the energy sector. Two of these directors became 
presidents of the National Ocean Industries Association, an oil 
and gas lobbying firm that seeks to limit federal regulation of 
the oil and gas industries.
     Interior Department regulations have not kept pace 
with technological developments in deepwater exploration and 
production operations. Moreover, current regulations rely 
significantly on the industry to perform key safety functions.
     Interior approved BP's oil spill response plan for 
the Deepwater Horizon, without fully reviewing and verifying 
it. Moreover, the MMS Oil Spill Program Administrator for the 
Gulf of Mexico Regional Office told Committee investigators 
that the models used to predict the effects of an oil spill may 
be outdated and regulations related to oil spill response plans 
need to be revisited. This raises the question of whether 
Interior needs to reexamine all of the oil spill response plans 
that are currently in place, to ensure they are adequate.
     The environmental impact statement approved by 
Interior for the Deepwater Horizon contained ludicrous 
inaccuracies, e.g., references to walruses in the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    The Chairman concluded that:
     Offshore oil drilling can no longer be regulated 
on the ``honor system;'' there must be rigorous federal 
oversight and effective enforcement of existing regulations.
     Conflicts of interest must be eliminated. Royalty 
collections must be entirely separate from regulation and 
enforcement.
     The environmental impact statements for current 
offshore oil drilling operations in the Gulf should be reopened 
and closely reviewed.
     Oil spill response plans must be realistic.
     There must be an effective and proven technology 
available to prevent blowouts in deep water before we allow 
deepwater drilling to resume.

               TOYOTA GAS PEDALS: IS THE PUBLIC AT RISK?

    Incidents involving sudden, unintended acceleration by 
Toyota vehicles have resulted in thousands of complaints, have 
been attributed to several accidents, and have been linked to 
injuries and deaths. As a result, between September 2009 and 
February 2010, Toyota recalled almost 10 million vehicles in 
two separate recalls and halted production of several models. 
The first recall, in September 2009, Toyota attributed to the 
accelerator pedal becoming entrapped by the floor mat. The 
second recall, in January 2010, Toyota attributed to a physical 
defect in the accelerator pedal that may cause the pedal to 
become stuck in a depressed position.
    On January 26, 2010, Toyota announced it would halt the 
manufacturing and sale of eight models of vehicles while it 
could finalize a remedy for the problem. Two days later, on 
January 28, 2010, the company announced that it would recall 
vehicles in Europe and China with gas pedal issues.
    Experts and consumers questioned the idea that the 
unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles could be fully 
explained by sticking gas pedals or interference with floor 
mats. The Committee staff found numerous complaints made to 
DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
describing sudden acceleration that was not caused by either 
floor mats or sticky pedals. As a result, attention was also 
focused on the electronic throttle control system to determine 
whether sudden acceleration may be attributable to a software 
design problem or perhaps to electromagnetic interference.
    According to NHTSA officials, the agency had entertained 
the possibility of an electronics problem before, but was not 
able to find a link to the sudden acceleration problem. 
Nevertheless, NHTSA announced that it had begun another look at 
this problem. In response, Toyota stated that, ``it is entirely 
unlikely that an electronic malfunction is the cause.''
    As recalls mounted, concern intensified that Toyota was 
failing to provide sufficient detail to both the public and to 
regulatory agencies about potential defects behind these 
recalls. By February 2010, nearly 10 million Toyotas on U.S. 
highways were subject to recall. Most of these involved reports 
of sudden, unintended acceleration that Toyota asserted were 
related to floor mat entrapment or sticking accelerator pedals. 
Because it was unclear if these problems were the root causes 
of all sudden unintended acceleration events, however, some 
Toyota owners questioned whether their vehicles were safe to 
drive.
    In early 2010, Chairman Towns began an investigation of 
these issues. The investigation focused on whether Toyota 
vehicles were safe to drive, why certain models were subject to 
recall, and whether sufficient information about possible 
safety defects had been communicated to consumers by both 
Toyota and regulatory authorities. As part of this effort, the 
committee also sought information from NHTSA to determine 
whether the federal government had adequately investigated the 
root causes behind the recalls or had the technical capacity to 
conduct such examinations.
    In the course of the investigation, Chairman Towns issued a 
subpoena for documents in the possession of Dimitrius Biller, a 
former Toyota in-house lawyer who had handled safety defect 
litigation. Mr. Biller alleged that Toyota had for years 
systematically withheld relevant documents that were required 
to be produced under court order in tort litigation against the 
company. Mr. Biller claimed that Toyota was well aware of 
design flaws that caused serious safety problems in its 
vehicles, but had covered up those problems.
    On February 24, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to 
examine issues relating to Toyota's recalls. The Secretary of 
Transportation and the President and CEO of Toyota both 
provided testimony, as did consumer advocates for auto safety. 
Witnesses at the hearing raised concerns about Toyota's 
timeliness and transparency in informing regulators and the 
public about recall-related safety concerns.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     There have been several fatal and non-fatal 
crashes and non-crash incidents involving sudden, unintended 
acceleration of Toyota vehicles in which floor mats and sticky 
gas pedals did not appear to be a factor.
     Toyota knew it had a possible safety defect 
involving sticking gas pedals well before it reported this 
information to NHTSA.
     Toyota withheld key, relevant records that it was 
required to produce in response to the Committee's discovery 
requests.
     Toyota withheld key, relevant records that it was 
required to produce in response to certain court discovery 
orders.
     Contrary to its public representations, Toyota was 
continuing to fight discovery of records relating to alleged 
safety defects in its vehicles in one or more ongoing court 
cases.
     The system used by NHTSA to gather and analyze 
consumer complaints of possible safety defects needs to be 
redesigned to facilitate recognition of trends that indicate 
problems.
    As a result of the Committee's investigation, the Secretary 
of Transportation said he would assess how well NHTSA was 
gathering critical information on possible defects and whether 
the agency had the requisite technical resources to conduct 
such analysis. The Secretary also announced that DOT would 
undertake a separate inquiry into the possible causes of 
sudden, unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles, and would 
use the expertise and resources of engineers at the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to determine 
whether Toyota's sudden acceleration events were caused by 
problems with the electronic throttle control system, including 
the possibility of electromagnetic interference. That 
assessment is underway and its results should be available by 
the end of 2010. Finally, as part of the Committee's 
investigation, GAO was asked to conduct an evaluation of 
NHTSA's recall system and whether it is keeping the driving 
public safe.
    The Committee's investigation is still open, pending the 
results of the NASA study and GAO's evaluation of NHTSA's 
recall system.

       IS BROOKLYN BEING COUNTED?--PROBLEMS WITH THE 2010 CENSUS

    The Census Bureau conducts a national census every ten 
years for the purpose of determining Congressional 
apportionment, as mandated by the Constitution. The current 
census commenced on March 2010, with the final report to be 
delivered to the President in December 2010. Title 13 of the 
United States Code governs how the census is conducted, the 
confidentiality of requested information, and how the data is 
to be handled.
    On July 19, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the unauthorized use of data to complete census surveys by two 
former census employees at the Brooklyn North East local census 
office (Brooklyn LCO). The Committee was informed by Census 
Bureau Headquarters that complaints were received by the 
Department of Commerce Inspector General's hotline alleging 
unauthorized use by census employees of an online database to 
complete census questionnaires. The complaints were forwarded 
to the Census Bureau Headquarters and the NY Regional Director. 
An investigation was initiated and the two offending census 
employees were fired from their positions, four days after the 
complaints were logged.
    At this hearing, the Committee received testimony from the 
Director of the Census Bureau, the Department of Commerce 
Inspector General and the Regional Director of the NY Regional 
Census Center detailing the steps of their investigation and 
the action taken to correct any cases affected by the 
fraudulent activity.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     The Whistleblower Protection Act worked as it was 
intended in this case.
     The Census Bureau conducted a timely and effective 
investigation prevent further fraudulent activity.
     The Census Bureau had acted immediately to verify 
and correct the suspect information.

 PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING: HOW IT ENDANGERS CITIZENS AND JEOPARDIZES 
                           NATIONAL SECURITY

    Peer-to-peer (P2P) software allows computer users to share 
files on their computers directly with other users of the P2P 
network. Over the past few years, the number of P2P users has 
grown exponentially. In any given moment, there are 
approximately 20 million people using P2P software.
    P2P technology is most commonly used to share music, 
movies, documents, and photos. While there are legitimate uses 
of P2P software, it has become increasingly problematic. 
Millions of people around the world use P2P software to 
intentionally share and download copyrighted music and movies. 
Others, with more sinister intentions, use this same software 
to distribute child pornography and other illicit information.
    Perhaps most important, once P2P software is installed on a 
computer, it permits millions of users located around the world 
to search other users' hard drives for Social Security numbers, 
photos, tax returns, medical records, and confidential files. 
The surreptitious copying and distribution of confidential 
files via P2P software has increased significantly and 
endangers the privacy and security of citizens, businesses, and 
government agencies.
    In 2008 and 2009, several security breaches involving 
sensitive information were discovered and, in some cases, 
widely reported by the news media. The leaks included the 
wiring schematics for the ``Marine One'' helicopter, which were 
downloaded in Iran; the Social Security numbers of numerous 
private citizens, including Supreme Court Justice Breyer; 
private tax returns; and medical files.
    On July 29, 2009, the Committee held a hearing to examine 
the continued security and privacy risks associated with the 
use of P2P software, including LimeWire, which is the most 
widely used P2P software in the U.S. The hearing featured 
testimony by Mr. Mark Gorton, Chairman of the LimeWire Group, 
who asserted that changes to his company's software now prevent 
inadvertent file sharing. In addition, computer software 
experts demonstrated how LimeWire enables illicit file sharing. 
This was a follow-up to Mr. Gorton's 2007 testimony before the 
Committee, in which he testified that he ``had no idea there 
was that amount of classified information out there or that 
there are people actively looking for that and looking for 
credit card information.'' At the 2007 hearing, Mr. Gorton 
committed to making significant changes to the software.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     LimeWire's claims that it had made changes to its 
software to prevent the unwanted theft of sensitive and 
personal information were unsupported and were demonstrably 
ineffective.
     Numerous tax returns, bank records, health 
records, military files, corporate documents, and other highly 
sensitive private files can easily be found and copied by 
searching the LimeWire network.
     Detailed information about U.S. military programs 
and service members, individual tax returns, and personal 
medical information is still readily accessible on the LimeWire 
network.
     Private citizens, businesses, and the government 
continue to be victims of dangerous unintended and illicit file 
sharing.
    Chairman Towns concluded that leaks of highly sensitive 
government, military, and contractor documents on P2P networks 
are so numerous and so serious that P2P software should be 
banned from use on government and government contractor 
computers. In addition, Chairman Towns introduced H.R. 4098, 
the Secure Federal File Sharing Act, a bill that restricts the 
use of P2P file sharing software across the federal government. 
On March 25, 2010, the bill passed the House by a vote of 408 
to 13.

       CLOUD COMPUTING: BENEFITS AND RISKS OF MOVING TO THE CLOUD

    Cloud computing is a system in which all computer 
resources, including software, data processing, and data 
storage capability, are maintained in a central computer 
(rather than maintained on individual, personal computers as it 
almost universally is now), which is shared and accessible by 
authorized users.
    In September 2009, the Obama Administration announced the 
Federal Cloud Computing Initiative, which proposes to shift all 
government computing to the cloud paradigm (commonly referred 
to as ``moving to the cloud'').
    On July 1, 2010, the Full Committee, in conjunction with 
the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and 
Procurement, held a hearing to examine the benefits and risks 
of moving federal computing into the cloud. Chief among the 
benefits are cost savings and improved efficiency. However, 
security and privacy remain significant areas of concern. 
Federal Chief Information Officer, Vivek Kundra, called cloud 
computing a ``game-changing technology,'' but also warned that 
the shift to cloud computing could take ten years. Several 
industry leaders in cloud computing testified to the barriers 
the federal government faces, including the burdensome and 
fragmented security certification process and unique 
acquisition challenges.
    The Committee intends to continue to examine this issue, 
including government-wide implementation plans, progress on 
establishing information security standards, the extent to 
which FY 2012 budget submissions adequately reflect data center 
consolidation plans, and an analysis of cloud computing 
technology alternatives.

      THE WASHINGTON METRO SYSTEM: SAFETY, SERVICE, AND STABILITY

    The Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA 
or Metro) operates rail, bus, and paratransit service for the 
Washington Metropolitan Region. Recent safety and financial 
problems have brought heightened attention to problems faced by 
the system. On June 22, 2009, a collision between two trains 
along the Red Line near Fort Totten caused the deaths of nine 
people and injured 80 others. Since then, there have been five 
additional major rail accidents in which another four people 
died.
    In the wake of the Fort Totten crash, Senator Mikulski and 
Transportation Secretary LaHood requested FTA to perform a 
special audit of WMATA and its oversight body, the Tri-State 
Oversight Committee.
    On Thursday April 21, 2010, the Committee held a hearing to 
review the results of the FTA audit and to examine other major 
issues confronting the Washington Metro system as it 
transitions to new leadership. FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff 
appeared before the Committee to discuss the audit and the 
accompanying safety recommendations. The committee also heard 
testimony from Richard Sarles, the Metro Interim General 
Manager, and Peter Benjamin, the Chairman of the Metro Board of 
Directors. Each discussed Metro's ongoing safety issues and the 
$189 million budget gap facing WMATA in fiscal year 2011.
    The Committee's investigation and hearing revealed that:
     The Metro Board of Directors had commissioned and 
kept secret a report by former Metro General Manager David 
Gunn, which found that Metro's poor safety and maintenance 
conditions were system-wide and far worse than publically 
acknowledged. Chairman Towns released the report at the 
hearing.
     While the Tri-State Oversight Committee has the 
responsibility to oversee safety on the Metro system, it has no 
full time staff, no inspectors, no auditors, and no enforcement 
power.
     The Metro bus system is in good shape.
     The Metro rail system is in decline. Years of 
deferred maintenance and management problems have caused 
significant deterioration of the Metro rail system and 
seriously undermined passenger safety.
     The Metro rail system has major organizational and 
managerial problems. For example, Mr. Gunn found that there was 
so much bad blood between the maintenance and engineering 
departments that they literally would not even speak to each 
other.
     Deferred maintenance has reached the crisis stage. 
Mr. Gunn told Committee investigators that in the two weeks he 
rode the rail system, there were two derailments, one of which 
he witnessed. He also found a broken rail on the main line. In 
addition, seven station platforms--which are made of reinforced 
concrete--were being shored up by wood.
    Chairman Towns concluded that the selection of a new 
General Manager, with the operational experience and the 
managerial authority to do what is necessary, is likely to be 
key to reversing the decline. In addition, it is clear that 
Metro needs a stable source of funding, at a high enough level 
to properly maintain full service on the system and to ensure 
passenger safety. Finally, the Tri-State Oversight Committee 
needs to be restructured to eliminate political and 
philosophical gridlock, and a system of effective safety 
oversight and enforcement needs to be adopted.

                     V. Legislative Accomplishments


                            A. INTRODUCTION

    The legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform includes the federal civil service, the 
District of Columbia, federal open government and good 
government laws, the economy, efficiency, and management of 
government operations and activities, including federal 
procurement and Inspectors General, the Census, the Postal 
Service, and public information and records.
    Improving the efficiency of government operations and 
saving tax dollars by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in 
government programs were primary areas of legislative focus 
during the 111th Congress. The Committee approved legislation 
to provide the government with the tools it needs to recover 
overpayments for the American taxpayers and stop them from 
occurring in the first instance. The Oversight Committee also 
advanced legislation to strengthen the internal watchdogs at 
government agencies, improve the investigative and auditing arm 
of Congress, empower federal workers to fight fraud and waste 
without fear of retaliation, improve government efficiency by 
facilitating the sale of surplus federal real property, hold 
government agencies more accountable for performance and 
efficiency goals, and save hundreds of millions of tax dollars 
by expediting the transition of government-wide 
telecommunication services.
    The Oversight Committee's efforts to strengthen the federal 
civil service resulted in significant reforms to federal 
retirement planning and benefits, changes that will improve the 
government's ability to recruit and retain the best and 
brightest Americans for federal service. Oversight Committee 
efforts also were critical in strengthening accountability and 
transparency at the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, established as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and ensuring that employees 
of the Bureau are provided with important workplace 
protections, such as whistleblower and collective bargaining 
rights.
    The Committee took action to improve the openness and 
transparency of the federal government. As one of its first 
legislative actions in the 111th Congress, the House passed 
Oversight Committee legislation to ensure email records from 
federal agencies and the White House are preserved. The 
Committee enacted legislation to make information provided by 
the government more accessible by requiring agencies to use 
plain writing in government documents. The Committee protected 
public access to information under the Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA) in numerous measures including the Dodd-Frank Act 
and the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. 
The Committee worked to improve the transparency of federal 
advisory committees through legislation to strengthen the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    The Committee sought to enhance the viability and 
sustainability of the United States Postal Service through 
legislation rationalizing the organization's cost structure, as 
well as by examining its practices, legal and regulatory 
environment structure, and business strategies. The Committee 
approved legislation, eventually passed by the House and Senate 
in September 2009, to lower the Postal Service's FY 2009 
retiree health benefits pre-funding requirement from an 
unsustainable $5.4 billion to a more reasonable $1.4 billion. A 
Full Committee hearing, held jointly with the Subcommittee on 
Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of 
Columbia, highlighted the Postal Service's proposals for future 
revenue growth and reducing costs, as well as the finding by 
the Office of the Inspector General that the Postal Service had 
been charged an excessive amount, in the range of $55 to $75 
billion, in payments to the Civil Service Retirement System 
pension fund since the 1970s.

                B. BILLS AND AMENDMENTS ENACTED INTO LAW

    H.R. 22, the United States Postal Service Financial Relief 
Act of 2009. As introduced by Rep. McHugh on January 6, 2008, 
H.R. 22 permitted the Postal Service to make payments for the 
health insurance premiums of its current retirees out of the 
Retiree Health Benefits Fund (RHBF). As amended by the House, 
H.R. 22 reduced the FY 2009 Postal Service payment into the 
RHBF from $5.4 billion to $1.4 billion.
History: Introduced on January 6, 2009; Committee approved, as 
amended, on July 21, 2009; House passed with an amendment on 
September 15, 2009; the provisions of H.R. 22 were signed into 
law as part of H.R. 2918 (P.L. 111-68).
    H.R. 131, the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act. 
Introduced by Rep. Gallegly on January 6, 2009, the bill 
establishes the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission,' tasked 
with planning, developing, and carrying out activities to honor 
Ronald Reagan on the 100th anniversary of his birth.
History: Introduced January 6, 2009; Committee approved, as 
amended, on February 11, 2009; House passed March 9, 2009; 
signed into law June 2, 2009.
    H.R. 828, the FERS Redeposit Act. Introduced by Rep. Moran 
on February 3, 2009, the bill strengthens the federal 
government's ability to recruit experienced workers by allowing 
former federal employees to receive credit toward retirement if 
they make a payment to buy back their earlier years of service. 
The provisions of this bill were incorporated into H.R. 2647, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(P.L. 111-84).
History: Introduced on February 3, 2009; Committee approved 
March 18, 2009 (as an amendment to H.R. 1256, the Family 
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act); House passed April 
1, 2009 (as part of H.R. 1804, the Federal Retirement Reform 
Act of 2009) and June 25, 2009 (as part of Division D of H.R. 
2647); the provisions of this bill were included in H.R. 
2647(P.L. 111-84); signed into law on October 28, 2009.
    H.R. 885, the Improved Financial and Commodity Markets 
Oversight and Accountability Act. Introduced by Rep. Larson on 
February 4, 2009, the bill makes changes to the appointment 
process for the Inspectors General at five financial regulatory 
agencies to increase the independence and effectiveness of 
these Inspectors General. The bill also holds financial 
regulatory agencies accountable by requiring the agencies to 
take corrective action to address deficiencies identified by 
the Inspector General. The provision on corrective responses 
was signed into law as part of H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall 
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203). H.R. 
4173 also amends the appointment and removal authority for 
certain Inspectors General, including those covered by H.R. 
885, by requiring that appointment and removal actions be taken 
by a bipartisan Board or Commission.
History: Introduced on February 4, 2009; Committee approved May 
18, 2009; House passed June 8, 2009; provisions of this bill 
were included in H.R. 4173, which was signed into law on July 
21, 2010.
    H.R. 946, Plain Writing Act of 2010. Introduced by Rep. 
Braley on February 10, 2009, H.R. 946 improves the transparency 
and accountability of the federal government by requiring 
federal agencies to use plain language in many government 
documents and by requiring agencies to take action such as 
training employees how to write in plain language.
History: Introduced on February 10, 2009; Approved by the 
Committee as amended on March 4, 2010; passed by the House as 
amended on March 17, 2010; passed by the Senate with amendments 
on September 27, 2010; House agreed to the Senate amendments on 
September 29, 2010; signed into law on October 13, 2010.
    H.R. 1164, the CSRS Retirement Repayment Technical 
Correction Act of 2009. Introduced by Rep. Van Hollen on 
February 24, 2009, this legislation provides relief for federal 
employees who were unfairly impacted by congressional enactment 
of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990. The provisions of 
this bill were incorporated into H.R. 2647, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84).
History: Introduced on February 24, 2009; Committee approved 
March 18, 2009 (as an amendment to H.R. 1256, the Family 
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act); House passed April 
1, 2009 (as part of H.R. 1804, the Federal Retirement Reform 
Act of 2009) and June 25, 2009 (as part of Division D of H.R. 
2647); the provisions of this bill were included in H.R. 2647 
(P.L.111-84); signed into law on October 28, 2009.
    H.R. 1263, the Federal Retirement Reform Act of 2009. 
Introduced by Rep. Lynch on March 3, 2009, the bill makes 
significant changes to modernize and enhance the Thrift Savings 
Plan (TSP) and provides for other changes to strengthen federal 
employee retirement benefits. The TSP provisions in this bill, 
including the establishment of a ``Roth'' option for federal 
employees and military personnel, were incorporated into H.R. 
1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 
(P.L. 111-31). The Federal retirement provisions were 
incorporated into H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84).
History: Introduced on March 3, 2009; Committee approved on 
March 18, 2009 (as an amendment to H.R. 1256, the Family 
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act); House passed April 
1, 2009 (as part of H.R. 1804, the Federal Retirement Reform 
Act of 2009) and June 25, 2009 (as part of Division D of H.R. 
2647); the TSP provisions of this bill were included in H.R. 
1256, which was signed into law on June 22, 2009; the other 
federal retirement provisions were included in H.R. 2647, which 
was signed into law on October 28, 2009.
    H.R. 1266, the Non-Foreign AREA Act of 2009. Introduced by 
Rep. Abercrombie on March 3, 2009, the legislation ensures 
retirement equity for federal workers in Hawaii, Alaska, and 
the U.S. Territories and enhances the government's efforts to 
recruit and retain Federal workers in these areas. The 
provisions of this bill were incorporated into H.R. 2647, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 
111-84).
History: Introduced on March 3, 2009; House passed June 25, 
2009 (as part of Division D of H.R. 2647); the provisions of 
this bill were included in H.R. 2647; signed into law on 
October 28, 2009.
    H.R. 1341, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program Act of 2009. Introduced on March 5, 2009, 
by Rep. Moore, the bill strengthens the audit and investigative 
authority of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program to ensure that the IG is able to audit and 
investigate all government actions under the TARP program. 
Similar legislation, S. 383, was signed into law on April 24, 
2009.
History: Introduced on March 5, 2009; House passed (as S. 383) 
on March 25, 2009; S. 383 signed into law on April 24, 2009.
    H.R. 1506, to provide that claims of the United States to 
certain documents relating to Franklin Delano Roosevelt shall 
be treated as waived and relinquished in certain circumstances. 
H.R. 1506 facilitates the donation of the Grace Tully Archive 
to the National Archives and Records Administration.
History: H.R. 1506 was introduced on March 12, 2009; approved 
by the Committee on October 29, 2009; passed the House on 
November 16, 2009; a companion bill, S. 692, was signed into 
law on February 1, 2010.
    H.R. 1517, a bill to allow certain U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection employees who serve under an overseas limited 
appointment to be converted to a permanent appointment in the 
competitive service. Introduced by Rep. Engel on March 16, 
2009, the bill provides authority to the Commissioner of 
Customs and Border Protection to convert certain overseas 
positions from limited appointments to permanent civil service 
positions.
History: Introduced on March 16, 2009; House passed on December 
15, 2009; Senate passed, with amendments, on August 5, 2010; 
House passed on September 23, 2010, with Senate amendments; 
signed into law on October 5, 2010.
    H.R. 1722, the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010. Introduced 
by Rep. Sarbanes on March 25, 2009, H.R. 1722 promotes greater 
utilization of telework by the federal government to promote 
cost savings and reduce energy consumption and traffic 
congestion.
History: Introduced on March 25, 2009; Committee approved on 
April 14, 2010; House passed on July 14, 2010; Senate passed, 
with amendments, on September 30, 2010; House passed the Senate 
amendments on November 18, 2010; signed into law on December 9, 
2010.
H.R. 2142, Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and 
Performance Improvement Act of 2010. Introduced by Rep. Cuellar 
on April 28, 2009, H.R. 2142 improves the efficiency and 
accountability of federal agencies by requiring each agency to 
identify ambitious goals and assess progress toward achieving 
those goals. The bill strengthens the Government Performance 
and Results Act of 1993 and codifies elements of an Executive 
Order on performance management.
    History: H.R. 2142 was introduced on April 28, 2009; 
approved by the Committee as amended on May 12, 2010; passed 
the House as amended on June 16, 2010; Senate passed, with 
amendments, on December 16, 2010; House passed the Senate 
amendments on December 21, 2010; presented to the President on 
December 29, 2010.
    H.R. 2711, the Special Agent Samuel Hicks Families of 
Fallen Heroes Act. Introduced by Rep. Rogers on June 4, 2009, 
the bill authorizes the government to pay necessary expenses to 
relocate the family of a federal law enforcement officer who is 
killed in connection with his or her official duties.
History: Introduced on June 4, 2009; Committee approved on 
September 29, 2009; House passed on December 8, 2009; Senate 
passed May 14, 2010, with an amendment; House passed Senate 
amendments on May 25, 2010; signed into law on June 9, 2010.
    H.R. 3393, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery 
Act of 2010. Introduced by Rep. Patrick J. Murphy on July 29, 
2009, the bill amends the Improper Payments Information Act of 
2002 to expand requirements for identifying programs and 
activities susceptible to improper payments by requiring the 
head of each federal agency to review and identify agency 
programs and activities that may be susceptible to significant 
improper payments. The bill also requires the agencies which 
make significant improper payments to implement internal 
controls and other procedures to help eliminate any future 
significant improper payments.
History: Introduced on July 29, 2009; House passed, as amended, 
on April 28, 2010; Senate passed a companion bill, S. 1508, 
June 23, 2010; House passed S. 1508 on July 14, 2010; signed 
into law July 22, 2010 (P.L. 111-204).
    H.R. 4621, the Prevent Deceptive Census Look Alike Mailings 
Act. Introduced by Rep. Maloney on February 9, 2010, H.R. 4621 
requires mailings which feature the term ``census'' on the 
envelope to include disclaimers making it clear that the 
mailings are not the official U.S. Census and are not from the 
United States Government.
History: Introduced on February 9, 2010; Committee approved on 
March 4, 2010; House passed March 10, 2010; Senate passed on 
March 26, 2010; signed into law on April 7, 2010.
    H.R. 4786, a bill to provide authority to compensate 
federal employees for the 2-day period in which authority to 
make expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund lapsed. 
Introduced by Rep. Connolly on March 10, 2010, the bill ensures 
that certain federal employees received pay for a 2-day period 
in which funds were not authorized to be spent from the Highway 
Trust Fund, causing these employees to be furloughed. The bill 
was incorporated in H.R. 4851, the Continuing Extension Act of 
2010, which was signed into law on April 15, 2010.
History: Introduced on March 10, 2010; House passed on March 
10, 2010; signed into law on April 15, 2010 (P.L. 111-157).
    H.R. 5148, a bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to 
clarify the instances in which the term ``census'' may appear 
on mailable matter. Introduced by Rep. Issa on April 27, 2010, 
H.R. 5148 amended H.R. 4621, which required disclaimers on 
mailings that feature the term ``census'' appearing on the 
envelope, to clarify that the requirement applied to mailings 
where the term census is printed on the inside of the envelope, 
but visible through the envelope.
History: Introduced on April 27, 2010; House passed on April 
28, 2010; Senate passed May 5, 2010; signed into law on May 24, 
2010.
    H.R. 6086, to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 
the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisers 
Act of 1940 to provide for certain disclosures under section 
552 of title 5, United States Code. Introduced by Rep. Towns on 
August 10, 2010, H.R. 6086 strikes a Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) exemption that was included in section 929I of the Dodd-
Frank Act and clarifies that the SEC can protect sensitive 
records obtained under its examination authority by using an 
existing FOIA exemption covering records of financial 
institutions.
History: H.R. 6086 was introduced on August 10, 2010; a 
companion bill, S. 3717, passed the Senate on September 21, 
2010; passed the House on September 23, 2010; was signed into 
law on October 5, 2010.
    S. 1510, United States Secret Service Uniformed Division 
Modernization Act of 2010. Introduced on July 23, 2009 by Sen. 
Lieberman, the legislation modernizes the pay and hiring 
authorities for the U.S. Secret Service's Uniformed Division. 
The legislation is necessary to address long-standing 
recruitment and retention problems in the Uniformed Division.
History: Introduced on July 23, 2009; Committee approved on 
April 14, 2010; House passed on June 28, 2010, with an 
amendment; Senate passed with further amendment on September 
27, 2010; House agreed to the Senate amendments September 30, 
2010; signed into law on October 15, 2010.
    S. 2868, the Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 2010. 
Introduced by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman on December 10, 2009, 
the bill authorizes the Administrator of General Services to 
provide for the use of Federal Supply Schedules by the American 
National Red Cross and other qualified organizations (as 
described in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act) to facilitate emergency disaster 
preparedness and relief.
History: Introduced on December 12, 2009; Senate passed on May 
24, 2010; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
reported, as amended, on September 14, 2010; House passed, as 
amended, on September 15, 2010; Senate agreed to the House 
amendments on September 27, 2010; signed into law on October 8, 
2010.
    S. 3794, the FOR VETS Act of 2010. Introduced on September 
16, 2010, by Sen. Patrick Leahy, the legislation authorizes the 
transfer of federal surplus personal property to state agencies 
for distribution through donation within the states for 
education or public health purposes to veteran organizations 
which are recognized by the Secretary of Veterans.
History: Introduced on September 16, 2010, in Senate; Senate 
passed with amendment on September 29, 2010; House passed on 
December 14, 2010; signed into law on December 22, 2010.
    H.R. 6278, Kingman and Heritage Islands Act of 2010. 
Introduced by Congresswoman Norton on September 29, 2010, H.R. 
6278 would permit the District of Columbia to utilize the 
Kingman and Heritage Islands for recreational, environmental, 
educational, or education purposes in accordance with the 
Anacostia Framework Plan and the District's Comprehensive Plan. 
A substantially similar bill, H.R. 2092, was previously passed 
by the House on October 7, 2009.
History: Introduced on September 29, 2010; House passed on 
November 16, 2010; Senate passed on December 13, 2010; signed 
into law on December 22, 2010.

                      C. BILLS PASSED BY THE HOUSE

    H.R. 35, Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2009. 
Introduced by Rep. Towns on January 6, 2009, H.R. 35 improves 
public access to presidential records by establishing a process 
for the current and former president to review presidential 
records and decide whether to claim executive privilege to 
prevent the release of the records.
History: H.R. 35 was introduced on January 6, 2009; passed by 
the House on January 7, 2009.
    H.R. 36, Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2009. 
Introduced by Rep. Towns on January 6, 2009, H.R. 36 requires 
organizations that raise funds for presidential libraries and 
their affiliated facilities to disclose information about their 
donors to Congress and the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). The bill further requires NARA to make 
that information available to the public in a searchable 
format.
History: H.R. 36 was introduced on January 6, 2009; passed by 
the House on January 7, 2009.
    H.R. 626, Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 
2009. Introduced by Rep. Maloney on January 22, 2009, the bill 
allows federal employees to take 4 weeks of paid parental leave 
upon the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child.
History: Introduced on January 22, 2009; Committee approved on 
May 6, 2009; House passed on June 4, 2009.
    H.R. 1320, Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 
2010. Introduced by Rep. Clay on March 5, 2009, H.R. 1320 would 
strengthen the Federal Advisory Committee Act and close 
loopholes that have developed in the implementation of the Act. 
The bill promotes the independence of advisory committees by 
requiring that committee members be appointed without regard to 
political affiliation. The bill also provides that committee 
members who are appointed as experts must comply with conflict 
of interest and other ethics requirements. H.R. 1320 improves 
the transparency of advisory committees by requiring agencies 
to disclose more information about committees.
History: H.R. 1320 was introduced on March 5, 2009; approved by 
the Committee on March 10, 2009; passed by the House as amended 
on July 26, 2010.
    H.R. 1323, Reducing Information Control Designations Act. 
Introduced by Rep. Driehaus on March 18, 2009, H.R. 1323 
standardizes and limits the use of information control 
designations. The bill requires the Archivist to promulgate 
regulations regarding the use of information control 
designations, requires federal agencies to implement those 
regulations in a manner that reduces and minimizes the use of 
information control designations, and requires the inspector 
general of each federal agency to randomly audit unclassified 
information with information control designations.
History: H.R. 1323 was introduced on March 5, 2009, approved by 
the Committee on March 10, 2009; passed the House on March 17, 
2009.
    H.R. 1345, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 
2009. Introduced by Congresswoman Norton on May 5, 2009, H.R. 
1345 eliminates provisions applying federal Hatch Act 
restrictions to employees of the District of Columbia, and 
includes District of Columbia employees within the portion of 
the Hatch Act applicable to local government employees.
History: Introduced on May 5, 2009; Committee approved on June 
4, 2009; House passed on September 8, 2009.
    H.R. 1387, Electronic Message Preservation Act. Introduced 
by Rep. Hodes on March 9, 2009, H.R. 1387 modernizes the 
requirements of the Federal Records Act and the Presidential 
Records Act to ensure the preservation of e-mails and other 
electronic messages.
History: H.R. 1387 was introduced on March 9, 2009; approved by 
the Committee as amended on March 10, 2009; House passed as 
amended on March 17, 2010.
    H.R. 1507, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 
2009. Introduced by Rep. Van Hollen on March 12, 2009, the bill 
would strengthen protections for federal employees and 
contractors who disclose evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or 
illegality. Similar legislation passed the House as part of 
H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and 
again as S. 372, which the House amended.
History: Introduced on March 12, 2009; Similar legislation 
passed the House as part of H.R. 1 on January 28, 2009; 
Committee hearings held on May 14, 2009; House passed S. 372, 
with an amendment, on December 22, 2010.
    H.R. 1849, the World War I Memorial and Centennial Act of 
2009. Introduced by Rep. Cleaver on April 1, 2009, the bill 
would designate the Liberty Memorial at the National World War 
I Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``National World War 
I Memorial.'' It would also establish the World War I 
Centennial Commission, tasked with planning, developing, and 
carrying out activities to commemorate the centennial of World 
War I.
History: Introduced April 1, 2009; Committee approved, as 
amended, on October 29, 2009; House passed November 5, 2009.
    H.R. 1910, the Chief Technology Officer Act of 2009. 
Introduced by Rep. Connolly on April 2, 2009, the bill 
establishes in the Executive Office of the President an Office 
of the Federal Chief Technology Officer. The provisions of this 
bill were incorporated into H.R. 5136, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
History: Introduced on April 2, 2009; Committee approved as a 
part of H.R. 4900 on May 20, 2010; House passed as an amendment 
to H.R. 5136 on May 28, 2010.
    H.R. 2182, the Enhanced Oversight of State and Local 
Economic Recovery Act. Introduced by Chairman Towns on April 
29, 2009, the bill makes a number of changes to the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) to assist 
state and local governments in their efforts to oversee the 
spending directed by that Act.
History: Introduced on April 29, 2009; Committee approved on 
May 6, 2009; House passed on May 19, 2009.
    H.R. 2392, the Government Information Transparency Act. 
Introduced by Rep. Issa on May 13, 2009, the bill requires the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget to adopt a 
single data standard for (1) collection, analysis, and 
dissemination of business and financial information for use by 
private sector entities that report to the federal government; 
and (2) use by agencies for federal financial information. In 
addition, the bill directs each agency head to ensure that 
information collected using the single data standard is 
accessible to the public. The provisions of this bill were 
incorporated into S. 303, the Federal Financial Assistance 
Management Improvement Act of 2009, at a business meeting on 
December 10, 2009.
History: Introduced on May 13, 2009; Committee approved, as 
amended, on June 4, 2009; House passed as a provision of S. 303 
on December 14, 2009.
    H.R. 2646, the Government Accountability Office Improvement 
Act of 2010. Introduced by Chairman Towns on June 2, 2009, the 
bill clarifies and strengthens the authority of the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) in several critical areas, 
including its access to records. The legislation increases the 
effectiveness of GAO by ensuring that GAO is not unnecessarily 
restricted in its efforts to secure necessary information in 
the course of performing its auditing and investigative 
functions for the Congress.
History: Introduced on June 2, 2009; Committee approved on June 
4, 2009; House passed on January 13, 2010.
    H.R. 2853, the All-American Flag Act. Introduced by Rep. 
Bruce L. Braley on June 12, 2009, the bill requires any flags 
of the United States acquired for use by the federal government 
to be 100% manufactured in the United States from articles, 
materials, or supplies 100% grown, produced, or manufactured in 
the United States, by Americans.
History: Introduced on June 12, 2009; Committee approved, as 
amended on July 28, 2010; House passed on September 30, 2010.
    H.R. 3137, to amend title 39, United States Code, to 
provide clarification relating to the authority of the United 
States Postal Service to accept donations as an additional 
source of funding for commemorative plaques. Introduced by Rep. 
Issa on July 9, 2009, H.R. 3137 would permit the Postal Service 
to accept public donations to fund commemorative plaques.
History: Introduced on July 9, 2009; Committee approved on July 
10, 2009; House passed on September 15, 2009.
    H.R. 3243, a bill to provide that any hours worked by 
federal firefighters under a qualified trade-of-time 
arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations 
relating to overtime pay. Introduced by Rep. Sarbanes on July 
16, 2009, the bill will promote flexibility in work 
arrangements and scheduling for federal firefighters. It allows 
firefighters to trade shifts without triggering mandatory 
overtime payments from their employing agency.
History: Introduced on July 16, 2009; Committee approved on 
September 23, 2010; House passed on September 30, 2010.
    H.R. 3264, the Federal Internship Improvement Act. 
Introduced by Rep. Connolly on July 20, 2009, the bill would 
strengthen and streamline federal government internship 
programs. The provisions of this bill were incorporated into 
H.R. 5136, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011.
History: Introduced on July 20, 2010; House passed on May 28, 
2010, as part of H.R. 5136.
    H.R. 3913, the Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. District 
of Columbia National Guard Retention and College Access Act. 
Introduced by Congresswoman Norton on April 14, 2009, H.R. 3913 
authorizes and directs the Mayor of the District of Columbia to 
establish a District of Columbia National Guard Educational 
Assistance Program to encourage the enlistment and retention of 
persons in the District of Columbia National Guard by providing 
financial assistance to enable members of the National Guard of 
the District of Columbia to attend undergraduate, vocational, 
or technical courses.
History: Introduced on October 22, 2009; Committee approved, as 
amended, on April 14, 2010; House passed, as amended, on June 
28, 2010.
    H.R. 4098, the Secure Federal File Sharing Act. Introduced 
by Rep. Towns on November 17, 2009, the bill requires the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to 
prohibit the use of certain peer-to-peer file sharing software 
on all federal computers, systems, and networks, including 
those of contractors working on the government's behalf. In 
addition, the bill requires OMB to establish a process by which 
agencies may seek a waiver to use certain peer-to-peer file 
sharing software that is necessary for legitimate government 
purposes.
History: Introduced on November 17, 2009; Committee approved on 
March 4, 2010; House passed, as amended, on March 24, 2010.
    H.R. 4900, the Federal Information Security Amendments Act 
of 2010. Introduced by Rep. Watson on March 22, 2010, the bill 
makes a number of changes to the Federal Information Security 
Management Act, which was enacted as part of the E-Government 
Act of 2002. The bill establishes a National Office for 
Cyberspace, with a Director to be appointed by the President 
and subject to Senate confirmation. It also requires agencies 
to begin automated and continuous monitoring of their 
information security systems. The provisions of this bill were 
incorporated into H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
History: Introduced on March 22, 2010; Committee approved, as 
amended, on May 20, 2010. House passed as an amendment to H.R. 
5136 on May 28, 2010.
    H.R. 5366, the Overseas Contractor Reform Act. Introduced 
by Rep. Peter Welch on May 20, 2010, the bill requires any 
person found to be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) to be proposed for debarment from 
any federal contract or grant within 30 days after final 
judgment of such violation. The bill also authorizes the head 
of a federal agency to waive this provision for a federal 
contract or grant and declares that it U.S. policy that no 
government contracts or grants should be awarded to individuals 
or companies who violate the FCPA.
History: Introduced on May 20, 2010; Committee approved on July 
28, 2010; House passed on September 15, 2010.
    S. 3794, the FOR VETS Act of 2010. Introduced by Sen. 
Patrick Leahy on September 16, 2010, the bill adds veterans 
groups to the list of organizations eligible to receive Federal 
surplus personal property through State agencies.
History: Introduced on September 16, 2010; Senate passed on 
September 29, 2010; House passed on December 14, 2010.

                   D. BILLS APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE

    H.R. 854, the Over-Classification Reduction Act. Introduced 
by Rep. Clay on February 4, 2009, H.R. 854 applies standards 
and practices to reduce improper classification and encourage 
information sharing. This bill requires the Archivist, in 
coordination with affected federal agencies, to promulgate 
regulations to prevent the over-classification of information. 
The bill also requires agency inspectors general to randomly 
audit classified information to ensure that these regulations, 
and other classification policies, are being followed.
History: Introduced on February 4, 2009; Committee approved on 
February 11, 2009.
    H.R. 1881, the Transportation Security Workforce 
Enhancement Act of 2009. Introduced by Rep. Lowey on April 2, 
2010, the legislation makes applicable to the Transportation 
Security Administration (TSA) the rules, benefits, workplace 
protections, and conditions of employment codified in title 5 
of the United States Code, including the right for employees to 
bargain collectively.
History: Introduced on April 2, 2009; Committee approved on 
September 10, 2009.
    H.R. 2495, the Federal Real Property Disposal Enhancement 
Act of 2009. Introduced by Rep. Dennis Moore on May 19, 2009, 
this legislation would have allowed federal agencies to retain 
all of the proceeds from the sale of surplus real property. The 
agencies would be required to use these funds only for real 
property disposal activities. It would also have directed the 
General Services Administration to issue guidance on real 
property management and to make the initial payment for the 
costs associated with selling the surplus property. The federal 
agencies disposing of the property would have reimbursed the 
General Services Administration using the proceeds of the 
property sales.
History: Introduced May 19, 2009; Committee approved, as 
amended, on September 10, 2009. House passed as an amendment to 
S. 1510, but was not included in the version of S. 1510 that 
was signed into law.
    H.R. 2517, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and 
Obligations Act of 2009. Introduced by Rep. Baldwin on May 20, 
2009, the legislation would make available certain employment 
benefits to federal employees, former employees, and annuitants 
in same sex domestic partnerships. In order to receive 
benefits, the legislation would require a federal employee with 
a same sex domestic partner to certify that the relationship 
satisfies certain criteria. Once a domestic partnership is 
established, the employee and the domestic partner of the 
employee would be eligible to receive employment benefits, 
including health care insurance under the Federal Employee 
Health Benefits Plan.
History: Introduced on May 20, 2009; Committee approved on Nov. 
18, 2009.
    H.R. 4865, the Federal Employees and Uniformed Services 
Retirement Equity Act of 2010. Introduced by Rep. Lynch March 
17, 2010, the bill would allow federal and postal employees, as 
well as members of the armed forces, to deposit unused annual 
leave pay into their Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) accounts, 
consistent with IRS rules for private sector retirement plans.
History: Introduced on March 17, 2010; Committee approved on 
April 14, 2010.
    H.R. 5367, D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act. 
Introduced on May 24, 2010, by Congresswoman Norton, H.R. 5367 
increases the administrative authorities of both the D.C. 
Courts and the Public Defender Services, promoting efficiency 
in the court system.
History: Introduced on May 24, 2010; Committee approved, as 
amended, on September 23, 2010.
    H.R. 5368, United States Postal Service Postal Inspectors 
Equity Act. Introduced on May 24, 2010, by Rep. Lynch, H.R. 
5368 makes availability pay applicable to criminal 
investigators working for the Postal Service.
History: Introduced on May 24, 2010; Committee approved, as 
amended, on September 23, 2010.
    H.R. 5702, to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 
to reduce the waiting period for holding special elections to 
fill vacancies in the membership of the Council of the District 
of Columbia. Introduced on July 1, 2010, by Congresswoman 
Norton, H.R. 5702 shortens the time that a vacant seat will be 
left open in the D.C. Council from 114 days to 70 days.
History: Introduced on July 1, 2010; Committee approved on 
September 23, 2010.
    H.R. 5815, Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 
2010. Introduced by Chairman Towns on July 22, 2010, the 
legislation would enhance the ability of Inspectors General to 
gather information in connection with their audit, evaluation, 
and investigation functions, so the Inspector General community 
is better-equipped to carry out its work on behalf of U.S. 
taxpayers.
History: Introduced on July 22, 2010; Committee approved on 
July 28, 2010.

                E. RESOLUTIONS APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE

    All of the following measures were approved by the House:
    H. Con. Res. 84, supporting the goals and objectives of a 
National Military Appreciation Month.
    H. Con. Res. 127, recognizing the significance of National 
Caribbean-American Heritage Month.
    H. Con. Res. 142, supporting National Men's Health Week.
    H. Con. Res. 158, expressing support for the designation of 
an Early Detection Month for breast cancer and all forms of 
cancer.
    H. Con. Res. 160, recognizing the contributions of the 
American Kennel Club.
    H. Con. Res. 163, expressing support for designation of 
September 23, 2009, as ``National Job Corps Day.''
    H. Con. Res. 186, supporting the goals and ideals of Sickle 
Cell Disease Awareness Month.
    H. Con. Res. 226, supporting the observance of ``Spirit of 
'45 Day.''
    H. Con. Res. 244, expressing support for designation of a 
National Day of Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians.
    H. Con. Res. 255, commemorating the 40th anniversary of 
Earth Day and honoring the founder of Earth Day, the late 
Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin.
    H. Con. Res. 268, supporting the goals and ideals of 
National Women's Health Week, and for other purposes.
    H. Con. Res. 288, supporting National Men's Health Week.
    H.J. Res. 90, expressing support for designation of 
September 2010 as ``Gospel Music Heritage Month'' and honoring 
gospel music for its valuable and longstanding contributions to 
the culture of the United States.
    H. Res. 16, supporting the goals and ideals of National 
Life Insurance Awareness Month.
    H. Res. 18, honoring the life, achievements, and 
contributions of Paul Newman.
    H. Res. 47, supporting the goals and ideals of Peace 
Officers Memorial Day.
    H. Res 49, honoring Karen Bass for becoming the first 
African-American woman elected Speaker of the California State 
Assembly.
    H. Res. 70, congratulating Anthony Kevin ``Tony'' Dungy for 
his accomplishments as a coach, father, and exemplary member of 
his community.
    H. Res. 83, recognizing the significance of Black History 
Month.
    H. Res. 110, congratulating the National Football League 
champion Pittsburgh Steelers for winning Super Bowl XLIII and 
becoming the most successful franchise in NFL history with 
their record 6th Super Bowl title.
    H. Res. 112, supporting the goals and ideals of American 
Heart Month and National Wear Red Day.
    H. Res. 139, commemorating the life and legacy of President 
Abraham Lincoln on the bicentennial of his birth.
    H. Res. 159, honoring the New Hampshire State Senate for 
becoming the 1st statewide legislative body with a majority of 
women in the United States.
    H. Res. 178, expressing the need for enhanced public 
awareness of traumatic brain injury and support for the 
designation of a National Brain Injury Awareness Month.
    H. Res. 183, expressing condolences to the families, 
friends, and loved ones of the victims of the crash of 
Continental Connection Flight 3407, and for other purposes.
    H. Res. 209, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the 
Daughters of Penelope, a preeminent international women's 
association and affiliate organization of the American Hellenic 
Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA).
    H. Res. 211, supporting the goals and ideals of National 
Women's History Month.
    H. Res. 214, recognizing the efforts of the countless 
volunteers who helped the Commonwealth of Kentucky recover from 
the ice storm of January 2009.
    H. Res. 223, honoring the life, achievements, and 
contributions of Paul Harvey, affectionately known for his 
signature line, ``This is Paul Harvey . . . Good Day.''
    H. Res. 254, recognizing the contributions of Irish-
Americans in the history and progress of the United States.
    H. Res. 267, recognizing the cultural and historical 
significance of Nowruz, expressing appreciation to Iranian-
Americans for their contributions to society, and wishing 
Iranian-Americans and the people of Iran a prosperous new year.
    H. Res. 299, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that public servants should be commended for 
their dedication and continued service to the Nation during 
Public Service Recognition Week, May 4 through 10, 2009, and 
throughout the year.
    H. Res. 320, honoring the life and achievements of Dr. John 
Hope Franklin.
    H. Res. 340, expressing sympathy to the victims, families, 
and friends of the tragic act of violence at the American Civic 
Association in Binghamton, New York.
    H. Res. 341, expressing heartfelt sympathy for the victims 
and families of the shootings in Geneva and Coffee Counties in 
Alabama, on March 10, 2009.
    H. Res. 342, expressing support for designation of May 2, 
2009, as ``Vietnamese Refugees Day.''
    H. Res. 350, honoring the life and accomplishments of Harry 
Kalas for his invaluable contributions to the national past-
time of baseball, the community, and the Nation.
    H. Res. 356, expressing support for the designation of 
February 8, 2010, as ``Boy Scouts of America Day,'' in 
celebration of the Nation's largest youth scouting 
organization's 100th anniversary.
    H. Res. 370, expressing the support of the House of 
Representatives for the goals and ideals of National Healthy 
Schools Day.
    H. Res. 373, expressing support for designation of the 
month of September as ``National Hydrocephalus Awareness 
Month.''
    H. Res. 388, celebrating the role of mothers in the United 
States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day.
    H. Res. 403, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that there should be established a National 
Teacher Day to honor and celebrate teachers in the United 
States.
    H. Res. 420, celebrating the symbol of the United States 
flag and supporting the goals and ideals of Flag Day.
    H. Res. 435, celebrating Asian/Pacific-American Heritage.
    H. Res. 441, honoring the historical contributions of 
Catholic sisters in the United States.
    H. Res. 469, honoring the life of Wayman Lawrence Tisdale 
and expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives 
on his passing.
    H. Res. 476, celebrating the goals and ideals of ``Black 
Music Month.''
    H. Res. 483, supporting the goals and ideals of Veterans of 
Foreign Wars Day.
    H. Res. 513, supporting the goals and purpose of Gold Star 
Mothers Day, which is observed on the last Sunday in September 
of each year in remembrance of the supreme sacrifice made by 
mothers who lose a son or daughter serving in the Armed Forces.
    H. Res. 534, supporting the goals and ideals of ``National 
Children and Families Day.''
    H. Res. 546, recognizing the historical significance of 
Juneteenth Independence Day, and expressing the sense of the 
House of Representatives that history should be regarded as a 
means for understanding the past and more effectively facing 
the challenges of the future.
    H. Res. 566, congratulating the 2008-2009 National 
Basketball Association Champions, the Los Angeles Lakers, on an 
outstanding and historic season.
    H. Res. 612, expressing the profound sympathies of the 
House of Representatives for the victims of the tragic 
Metrorail accident on Monday, June 22, 2009, and for their 
families, friends, and associates.
    H. Res. 679, supporting the goals and ideals of American 
Legion Day.
    H. Res. 693, honoring the life and accomplishments of Jim 
Johnson and extending the condolences of the House of 
Representatives to his family on the occasion of his death.
    H. Res. 708, congratulating Nancy Goodman Brinker for 
receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
    H. Res. 725, congratulating the Chula Vista Park View 
Little League team of Chula Vista, California, for winning the 
2009 Little League World Series Championship.
    H. Res. 727, expressing support for greater awareness of 
ovarian cancer.
    H. Res. 734, a resolution expressing support for the goals 
and ideals of ``Constitution Day.''
    H. Res. 736, honoring President Lincoln's Gettysburg 
Address on ``Dedication Day,'' November 19, 2009.
    H. Res. 742, congratulating the Warner Robins Little League 
softball team from Warner Robins, Georgia, on winning the 2009 
Little League Softball World Series.
    H. Res. 743, honoring the life of Frank McCourt for his 
many contributions to American literature, education, and 
culture.
    H. Res. 771, supporting the goals and ideals of a National 
Mesothelioma Awareness Day.
    H. Res. 779, recognizing the importance of youth runaway 
prevention and at-risk youth programs.
    H. Res. 780, recognizing the celebration of Filipino 
American History Month in October.
    H. Res. 792, recognizing and honoring Robert Kelly Slater 
for winning the 2010 Rip Curl Pro Bell Championship and for his 
other outstanding achievements in the world of surfing.
    H. Res. 798, conveying the best wishes of the House of 
Representatives to those celebrating Diwali.
    H. Res. 855, expressing support for designation of May 1 as 
``Silver Star Service Banner Day.''
    H. Res. 879, supporting the goals and ideals of American 
Education Week.
    H. Res. 942, commending the Real Salt Lake soccer club for 
winning the 2009 Major League Soccer Cup.
    H. Res. 957, honoring Jimmie Johnson, 2009 NASCAR Sprint 
Cup Champion.
    H. Res. 1014, recognizing and supporting the goals and 
ideals of North American Inclusion Month.
    H. Res. 1036, recognizing the contributions of Korean 
Americans to the United States.
    H. Res. 1040, honoring the life and accomplishments of 
Donald Harington for his contributions to literature in the 
United States.
    H. Res. 1103, honoring the life and accomplishments of Sam 
Houston for his historical contributions to the expansion of 
the United States.
    H. Res. 1121, congratulating Clinton County and the county 
seat of Wilmington, Ohio, on the occasion of their bicentennial 
anniversaries.
    H. Res. 1172, recognizing the life and achievements of Will 
Keith Kellogg.
    H. Res. 1174, supporting the goals and ideals of National 
Women's History Month.
    H. Res. 1187, expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives with respect to raising public awareness of and 
helping to prevent attacks against Federal employees while 
engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.
    H. Res. 1189, commending Lance Mackey on winning a record 
4th straight Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race.
    H. Res. 1256, congratulating Phil Mickelson on winning the 
2010 Masters golf tournament.
    H. Res. 1264, Expressing support for the designation of 
March as National Essential Tremor Awareness Month.
    H. Res. 1294, expressing support for designation of the 
first Saturday in May as National Explosive Ordnance Disposal 
Day to honor those who are serving and have served in the noble 
and self-sacrificing profession of Explosive Ordnance Disposal 
in the United States Armed Forces.
    H. Res. 1297, supporting the goals and ideals of American 
Craft Beer Week.
    H. Res. 1316, celebrating Asian/Pacific American Heritage 
Month.
    H. Res. 1328, honoring the life and legacy of William 
Earnest ``Ernie'' Harwell.
    H. Res. 1330, recognizing June 8, 2010, as World Ocean Day.
    H. Res. 1357, commending and congratulating the Hollywood 
Walk of Fame on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.
    H. Res. 1369, recognizing the significance of National 
Caribbean-American Heritage Month.
    H. Res. 1428, recognizing Brooklyn Botanic Garden on its 
100th anniversary as the preeminent horticultural attraction in 
the borough of Brooklyn and its longstanding commitment to 
environmental stewardship and education for the City of New 
York.
    H. Res. 1439, congratulating the Chicago Blackhawks on 
winning the 2010 Stanley Cup Championship.
    H. Res. 1442, supporting the goals and ideals of United 
States Military History Month.
    H. Res. 1475, congratulates the town of Tarboro, North 
Carolina, on the occasion of its 250th anniversary.
    H. Res. 1479, supporting the United States Paralympics, 
honoring the Paralympic athletes, and for other purposes.
    H. Res. 1494, congratulating the champion, finalists, and 
all other participants in the 83rd Annual Scripps National 
Spelling Bee.
    H. Res. 1513, congratulating the Saratoga Race Course as it 
celebrates its 142nd season.
    H. Res. 1527, congratulating the United States Men's 
National Soccer Team for its inspiring performance in the 2010 
FIFA World Cup.
    H. Res. 1529, commending Bob Sheppard for his long and 
respected career as the public-address announcer for the New 
York Yankees and the New York Giants.
    H. Res. 1531, Expressing support for designation of 2011 as 
``World Veterinary Year'' to bring attention to and show 
appreciation for the veterinary profession on its 250th 
anniversary.
    H. Res. 1546, congratulating the Washington Stealth for 
winning the National Lacrosse League Championship.
    H. Res. 1603, expressing support for designation of 
September 2010 as National Craniofacial Acceptance Month.
    H. Res. 1617, supporting the goals and purpose of Gold Star 
Mothers Day, which is observed on the last Sunday in September 
of each year in remembrance of the supreme sacrifice made by 
mothers who lose a son or daughter serving in the Armed Forces.
    H. Res. 1642, Recognizing the centennial of the City of 
Lilburn, Georgia and supporting the goals and ideals of a City 
of Lilburn Day.
    H. Res. 1687, recognizing and supporting the goals and 
ideals of National Runaway Prevention Month.
    H. Res. 1727, recognizing Rotary International for 105 
years of service to the world and commending members on their 
dedication to the mission and principles of their organization.
    H. Res. 1743, congratulating Gerda Weissmann Klein on being 
selected to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
    S. Con. Res. 72, recognizing the 45th anniversary of the 
White House Fellows Program.

                       F. POSTAL NAMING MEASURES

1. Enacted

    H.R. 663, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 12877 Broad Street in Sparta, 
Georgia, as the ``Yvonne Ingram-Ephraim Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 774, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 46-02 21st Street in Long Island 
City, New York, as the ``Geraldine Ferraro Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 918, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 300 East 3rd Street in Jamestown, New 
York, as the ``Stan Lundine Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 955, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 10355 Northeast Valley Road in 
Rollingbay, Washington, as the ``John `Bud' Hawk Post Office.''
    H.R. 987, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 601 8th Street in Freedom, 
Pennsylvania, as the ``John Scott Challis, Jr. Post Office.''
    H.R. 1271, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 2351 West Atlantic Boulevard in 
Pompano Beach, Florida, as the ``Elijah Pat Larkins Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 1284, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 103 West Main Street in McLain, 
Mississippi, as the ``Major Ed W. Freeman Post Office.''
    H.R. 1397, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 41 Purdy Avenue in Rye, New York, as 
the ``Caroline O'Day Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 1516, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 37926 Church Street in Dade City, 
Florida, as the ``Sergeant Marcus Mathes Post Office.''
    H.R. 1595, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 3245 Latta Road in Rochester, New 
York, as the ``Brian K. Schramm Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 1713, to name the South Central Agricultural Research 
Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture in Lane, Oklahoma, 
and the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
310 North Perry Street in Bennington, Oklahoma, in honor of 
former Congressman Wesley ``Wes'' Watkins.
    H.R. 1817, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 116 North West Street in Somerville, 
Tennessee, as the ``John S. Wilder Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 2004, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 4282 Beach Street in Akron, Michigan, 
as the ``Akron Veterans Memorial Post Office.''
    H.R. 2090, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 431 State Street in Ogdensburg, New 
York, as the ``Frederic Remington Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 2162, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 123 11th Avenue South in Nampa, 
Idaho, as the ``Herbert A. Littleton Postal Station.''
    H.R. 2215, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 140 Merriman Road in Garden City, 
Michigan, as the ``John J. Shivnen Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 2325, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1300 Matamoros Street in Laredo, 
Texas, as the ``Laredo Veterans Post Office.''
    H.R. 2422, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 2300 Scenic Drive in Georgetown, 
Texas, as the ``Kile G. West Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 2470, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 19190 Cochran Boulevard FRNT in Port 
Charlotte, Florida, as the ``Lieutenant Commander Roy H. Boehm 
Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 2760, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1615 North Wilcox Avenue in Los 
Angeles, California, as the ``Johnny Grant Hollywood Post 
Office Building.''
    H.R. 2877, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 76 Brookside Avenue in Chester, New 
York, as the ``1st Lieutenant Louis Allen Post Office.''
    H.R. 2972, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 115 West Edward Street in Erath, 
Louisiana, as the ``Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post Office.''
    H.R. 3072, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 9810 Halls Ferry Road in St. Louis, 
Missouri, as the ``Coach Jodie Bailey Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 3119, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 867 Stockton Street in San Francisco, 
California, as the ``Lim Poon Lee Post Office.''
    H.R. 3250, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1210 West Main Street in Riverhead, 
New York, as the ``Private First Class Garfield M. Langhorn 
Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 3319, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 440 South Gulling Street in Portola, 
California, as the ``Army Specialist Jeremiah Paul McCleery 
Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 3386, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, 
as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post Office.''
    H.R. 3539, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 427 Harrison Avenue in Harrison, New 
Jersey, as the ``Patricia D. McGinty-Juhl Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 3547, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 936 South 250 East in Provo, Utah, as 
the ``Rex E. Lee Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 3634, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 109 Main Street in Swifton, Arkansas, 
as the ``George Kell Post Office.''
    H.R. 3667, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 16555 Springs Street in White 
Springs, Florida, as the ``Clyde L. Hillhouse Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 3767, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 170 North Main Street in Smithfield, 
Utah, as the ``W. Hazen Hillyard Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 3788, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 3900 Darrow Road in Stow, Ohio, as 
the ``Corporal Joseph A. Tomci Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 3892, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 101 West Highway 64 Bypass in Roper, 
North Carolina, as the ``E.V. Wilkins Post Office.''
    H.R. 3951, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 2000 Louisiana Avenue in New Orleans, 
Louisiana, as the ``Roy Rondeno, Sr. Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 4017, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 43 Maple Avenue in Shrewsbury, 
Massachusetts, as the ``Ann Marie Blute Post Office.''
    H.R. 4095, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 9727 Antioch Road in Overland Park, 
Kansas, as the ``Congresswoman Jan Meyers Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 4139, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 7464 Highway 503 in Hickory, 
Mississippi, as the ``Sergeant Matthew L. Ingram Post Office.''
    H.R. 4214, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, 
California, as the ``Roy Wilson Post Office.''
    H.R. 4238, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 930 39th Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, 
as the ``W.D. Farr Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 4425, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 2-116th Street in North Troy, New 
York, as the ``Martin G. `Marty' Mahar Post Office.''
    H.R. 4543, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 4285 Payne Avenue in San Jose, 
California, as the ``Anthony J. Cortese Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 4547, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 119 Station Road in Cheyney, 
Pennsylvania, as the ``Captain Luther H. Smith, U.S. Army Air 
Forces Post Office.''
    H.R. 4628, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 216 Westwood Avenue in Westwood, New 
Jersey, as the ``Sergeant Christopher R. Hrbek Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 4840, an act to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 1981 Cleveland Avenue in 
Columbus, Ohio, as the ``Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office.''
    H.R. 4861, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1343 West Irving Park Road in 
Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Steve Goodman Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 5051, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New 
York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 5099, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, 
Massachusetts, as the ``Michael C. Rothberg Post Office.''
    H.R. 5278, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 405 West Second Street in Dixon, 
Illinois, as the ``President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 5341, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, 
Michigan, as the ``Joyce Rogers Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 5390, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, Ohio, 
as the ``David John Donafee Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 5395, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 151 North Maitland Avenue in 
Maitland, Florida, as the ``Paula Hawkins Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 5450, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 3894 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los 
Angeles, California, as the ``Tom Bradley Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 6118, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, in 
Washington, D.C., as the ``Dorothy I. Height Post Office.''
    S. 748, a bill to redesignate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 2777 Logan Avenue in San 
Diego, California, as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Post Office.''
    S. 1211, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 60 School Street, Orchard 
Park, New York, as the ``Jack F. Kemp Post Office Building.''
    S. 3567, a bill to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New 
York, as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office 
Building.''

2. Approved by the House

    H.R. 1216, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in 
Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Matthew P. 
Pathenos Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 1217, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 15455 Manchester Road in Ballwin, 
Missouri, as the ``Specialist Peter J. Navarro Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 1218, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint 
Charles, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post 
Office Building.''
    H.R. 2173, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1009 Crystal Road in Island Falls, 
Maine, as the ``Carl B. Smith Post Office.''
    H.R. 2174, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 18 Main Street in Howland, Maine, as 
the ``Clyde Hichborn Post Office.''
    H.R. 2971, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in 
Portland, Oregon, as the ``Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post 
Office.''
    H.R. 4495, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, 
Arizona, as the ``Jim Kolbe Post Office.''
    H.R. 4602, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in Sharon 
Center, Ohio, as the ``Emil Bolas Post Office.''
    H.R. 4624, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, 
Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office.''
    H.R. 5133, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 331 1st Street in Carlstadt, New 
Jersey, as the ``Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and Lance 
Corporal Michael A. Schwarz Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 5446, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, 
as the ``Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office.''
    H.R. 5605, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 47 East Fayette Street in Uniontown, 
Pennsylvania, as the ``George C. Marshall Post Office.''
    H.R. 5606, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 47 South 7th Street in Indiana, 
Pennsylvania, as the ``James M. `Jimmy' Stewart Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 5655, to designate the Little River Branch facility of 
the United States Postal Service located at 140 NE 84th Street 
in Miami, Florida, as the ``Jesse J. McCrary, Jr. Post 
Office.''
    H.R. 5758, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 2 Government Center in Fall River, 
Massachusetts, as the ``Sergeant Robert Barrett Post Office 
Building.''
    H.R. 5873, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in 
Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post 
Office.''
    H.R. 5877, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 655 Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, 
Massachusetts, as the ``Lance Corporal Alexander Scott 
Arredondo, United States Marine Corps Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 6205, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, 
as the ``Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office.''
    H.R. 6237, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, 
as the ``Tom Kongsgaard Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 6387, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 337 West Clark Street in Eureka, 
California, as the ``Sam Sacco Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 6392, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 5003 Westfields Boulevard in 
Centreville, Virginia, as the ``Colonel George Juskalian Post 
Office Building.''
    H.R. 6400, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 111 North 6th Street in St. Louis, 
Missouri, as the ``Earl Wilson, Jr. Post Office.''

3. Approved by Committee

    H.R. 5720, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1227 Lunalilo Street, Honolulu, 
Hawaii, as the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 5721, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 335 Merchant Street, Honolulu, 
Hawaii, as the ``Frank F. Fasi Post Office Building.''
    H.R. 6014, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 212 Main Street in Hartman, Arkansas, 
as the ``M.R. `Bucky' Walters Post Office.''

              VI. Chronology of Full Committee Proceedings

    Business meeting to approve the committee's rules of 
procedure, establish subcommittee jurisdictions, and approve 
member assignments (February 11, 2009).
    Hearing on ``How Convicts and Con Artists Receive New 
Federal Contracts'' (February 26, 2009). Witnesses: Gregory D. 
Kutz, Managing Director, Government Accountability Office; 
James A. Williams, Commissioner of Federal Acquisition Service, 
United States General Services Administration; David A. 
Drabkin, Acting Chief Acquisition Officer, United States 
General Services Administration; Edward M. Harrington, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Procurement, United States Army; 
Captain Michael F. Jaggard, Chief of Staff for the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition and Logistics 
Management, United States Navy; Frederic Levy, Partner, McKenna 
Long & Aldridge, LLP; Scott Armey, General Counsel, Project on 
Government Oversight.
    Business meeting to mark up H.R. 1323, The Reducing 
Information Control Designations Act, H.R. 1320, The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 2009, H.R. 1387, The 
Electronic Message Preservation Act, H. Res. 166, Recognizing 
the 450th birthday of the settlement of Pensacola, Florida, and 
encouraging the people of the United States to observe the 
450th birthday of the settlement of Pensacola, Florida, and 
remember how the rich history of Pensacola, Florida, has 
likewise contributed to the rich history of the United States, 
and for other purposes, H. Res. 178, Expressing the need for 
public awareness of traumatic brain injury and support for 
designation of a National Brain Injury Awareness Month, H. Res. 
22, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the Senate should ratify the Convention on the Elimination of 
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), H.R. 918, To 
designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 300 East 3rd Street in Jamestown, New York, as the 
``Stan Lundine Post Office Building'', H.R. 955, To designate 
the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
10355 Northeast Valley Road in Rollingbay, Washington, as the 
``John `Bud' Hawk Post Office'', H.R. 987, To designate the 
facility of the United States Postal Service located at 601 8th 
Street in Freedom, Pennsylvania, as the ``John Scott Challis, 
Jr. Post Office'', H.R. 1216, To designate the facility of the 
United States Postal Service located at 1100 Town and Country 
Commons in Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal 
Matthew P. Pathenos Post Office Building'', H.R. 1217, To 
designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 15455 Manchester Road in Ballwin, Missouri, as the 
``Specialist Peter J. Navarro Post Office Building'', H.R. 
1218, To designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint Charles, 
Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post Office 
Building'', H.R. 1284, To designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 103 West Main Street in 
McLain, Mississippi, as the ``Major Ed W. Freeman Post Office'' 
(March 10, 2009).
    Business meeting to mark up H.R. 1256, The Family Smoking 
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, H. Res. 223, Honoring the 
life, achievements, and contributions of Paul Harvey, 
affectionately known for his signature line, ``This is Paul 
Harvey. . . . Good Day'', H.R. 774, To designate the facility 
of the United States Postal Service located at 46-02 21st St. 
in Long Island City, New York the ``Geraldine Ferraro Post 
Office Building'', H.R. 1397, To designate the facility of the 
United States Postal Service located at 41 Purdy Avenue in Rye, 
New York, as the ``Caroline O'Day Post Office Building'' (March 
18, 2009).
    Hearing on ``Preventing Stimulus Waste and Fraud: Who Are 
The Watchdogs?'' (March 19, 2009). Witnesses: Earl E. Devaney, 
Chairman, Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board; 
William G. Holland, Auditor General of Illinois; David P. 
Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer for Washington, DC, National 
Association of State Procurement Officials; Jerome Heer, 
Director of Audits for the County of Milwaukee; Jerry Brito, 
Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason 
University.
    Hearing on ``The Collapse and Federal Rescue of AIG and 
What it Means for the U.S. Economy'' (April 2, 2009). 
Witnesses: Maurice ``Hank'' Greenberg, Former CEO, American 
International Group, Inc.
    Hearing on ``AIG: Where is the Taxpayer Money Going?'' (May 
13, 2009). Witnesses: Edward M. Liddy, Chairman and CEO, 
American International Group, Inc.; Jill M. Considine, Trustee, 
AIG Credit Facility Trust; Chester B. Feldberg, Trustee, AIG 
Credit Facility Trust; Douglas L. Foshee, Trustee, AIG Credit 
Facility Trust; Professor J.W. Verret, George Mason University 
School of Law.
    Hearing on ``Protecting the Public From Waste, Fraud, and 
Abuse: H.R. 1507, The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act 
of 2009'' (May 14, 2009). Witnesses: Rajesh De, Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Department 
of Justice; Louis Fisher, Special Assistant to the Law 
Librarian of Congress, Law Library of Congress; Franz Gayl, 
United States Marine Corps whistleblower; Bunnatine Greenhouse, 
Army Corps of Engineers whistleblower; Teresa Chambers, United 
States Park Police whistleblower; Thomas Devine, Legal 
Director, Government Accountability Project; Michael German, 
Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union; Angela 
Canterbury, Director of Advocacy, Public Citizen's Congress 
Watch; David Colapinto, General Counsel, National 
Whistleblowers Center.
    Hearing on ``State and Local Pandemic Preparedness'' (May 
20, 2009). Witnesses: Guthrie Birkhead, Deputy Commissioner for 
Public Health, New York State Health Department; Terry Allan, 
Health Commissioner, County of Cuyahoga, Ohio; Dr. Rex Archer, 
Director of Health, Kansas City (MO) Health Department; Dr. 
Paul Jarris, Executive Director, Association of State and 
Territorial Health Officials; Dr. Dan Sosin, Director of the 
Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency 
Response, Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
    Hearing on ``Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a 
Private Deal Turn Into a Federal Bailout?'' (June 11, 2009). 
Witnesses: Kenneth D. Lewis, President and CEO, Bank of 
America, Inc.
    Hearing on ``The Future of the V-22 Osprey: Costs, 
Capabilities, and Challenges'' (June 23, 2009). Witnesses: Mike 
Sullivan, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management, 
Government Accountability Office; Dakota L. Wood, Senior 
Fellow, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; 
Lieutenant General George Trautman, Deputy Commandant for 
Aviation, United States Marine Corps; Colonel Karsten S. Heckl; 
Dr. A.R. Rivolo, Retired United States Air Force Pilot.
    Hearing on ``Afghanistan and Pakistan: Oversight of a New 
Interagency Strategy'' (June 18, 2009). Witnesses: Ambassador 
Richard Holbrooke, United States Special Representative for 
Afghanistan and Pakistan; General Wallace ``Chip'' Gregson, 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian & Pacific Security 
Affairs.
    Hearing on ``Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a 
Private Deal Turn Into a Federal Bailout? Part II'' (June 25, 
2009). Witnesses: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of 
Governors, Federal Reserve System.
    Hearing on ``The Rise of the Mexican Drug Cartels and 
National Security'' (July 9, 2009). Witnesses: Alan Bersin, 
Assistant Secretary for the Office of International Affairs and 
Special Representative for Border Affairs, Department of 
Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of 
National Drug Control Policy; Todd Owen, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Field Operations, 
United States Customs and Border Protection, Department of 
Homeland Security; Kumar C. Kibble, Deputy Director of the 
Office of Investigations, United States Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; J. Robert 
McBrien, Associate Director for Investigations and Enforcement, 
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
    Hearing on ``Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a 
Private Deal Turn Into a Federal Bailout? Part III'' (July 16, 
2009). Witnesses: Henry M. Paulson, Former Secretary of the 
Treasury.
    Hearing on ``Following the Money: Report of the Special 
Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program 
(SIGTARP)'' (July 21, 2009). Witnesses: Neil M. Barofsky, 
Special Inspector General for the Trouble Asset Relief Program.
    Hearing on ``Inadvertent File Sharing Over Peer-to-Peer 
Networks: How it Endangers Citizens and Jeopardizes National 
Security'' (July 29, 2009). Witnesses: Mark Gorton, Chairman, 
The Lime Group; Robert Boback, CEO, Tiversa, Inc.; Tom Sydnor, 
Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Study of Digital 
Property, The Progress and Freedom Foundation.
    Hearing on ``The Silent Depression: How are Minorities 
Faring in the Economic Downturn'' (September 23, 2009). 
Witnesses: Raymond Skinner, Secretary, Maryland Department of 
Housing and Community Development; James Carr, Chief Operating 
Officer, National Community Reinvestment Coalition; Dr. 
Christian Weller, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress 
Action Fund; Marc Monial, President and CEO, National Urban 
League; Janet Murgua, President and CEO, Council of La Raza; 
Lisa Hasegawa, Executive Director, National Coalition for Asian 
and Pacific American Community Development; Jacqueline Johnson-
Pata, Executive Director, National Congress of American 
Indians; Harry Alford, President and CEO, National Black 
Chamber of Commerce.
    Hearing on ``The Administration's Flu Vaccine Program: 
Health, Safety, and Distribution.'' (September 29, 2009). 
Witnesses: Dr. Thomas Frieden, Director, Center for Disease 
Control and Prevention; Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National 
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Dr. Jesse 
Goldman, Deputy Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration.
    Hearing on ``Credit Ratings Agencies and the Next Financial 
Crisis'' (September 30, 2009). Witnesses: Ilya Eric Kolchinsky, 
Former Managing Director, Moody's Investors Service; Scott 
McCleskey, Former Senior Vice President for Compliance, Moody's 
Corporation; Richard Cantor, Chief Risk Officer, Moody's 
Corporation; Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, Former Chairman, 
Senate Committee on Banking; Floyd Abrams, Partner, Cahill 
Gordon & Reindel, LLP; Eric Baggesen, Senior Investment 
Officer, California Public Employees Retirement System 
(CalPERS); Professor Lawrence J. White, Leonard N. Stern School 
of Business, New York University.
    Hearing on ``AIG Bonuses: Report of the Special Inspector 
General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP)'' 
(October 14, 2009). Witnesses: Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector 
General, Troubled Asset Relief Program.
    Hearing on ``Executive Compensation: How Much is Too 
Much?'' (October 28, 2009). Witnesses: Kenneth Feinberg, 
Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, United States 
Department of Treasury; Professor William K. Black, Associate 
Professor of Economics and Law, University of Missouri--Kansas 
City (UMKC); Professor Russell Roberts, Professor of Economics, 
George Mason University.
    Hearing on ``Bank of American and Merrill Lynch: How Did a 
Private Deal Turn into a Federal Bailout? Part IV'' (November 
17, 2009). Witnesses: Brian Moynihan, President of Consumer and 
Small Business Banking, Bank of America; Timothy J. Mayopoulos, 
Former General Counsel, Bank of America; Charles ``Chad'' 
Gifford, Member, Board of Directors, Bank of America; Thomas J. 
May, Member, Board of Directors, Bank of America.
    Hearing on ``Tracking the Money: How Recovery Act 
Recipients Account for Their Use of Stimulus Dollars'' 
(November 19, 2009). Witnesses: Earl Devaney, Chairman, 
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board; Gene L. Dodaro, 
Acting Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office; 
Anthony Wilder Miller, Deputy Secretary, United States 
Department of Education; John D. Porcari, Deputy Secretary, 
United States Department of Transportation; Dr. John S. Irons, 
Research and Policy Director, Economic Policy Institute; Dick 
Armey, Chairman, Freedom Works.
    Hearing on ``Will Arbitron's Personal People Meter Silence 
Minority Owned Radio Stations?'' (December 2, 2009). Witnesses: 
Michael Skarzynski, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
Arbitron, Inc.; Ceril Shagrin, Executive Vice President, 
Corporate Research Division, Univision Communications, Inc.; 
David Honig, President and Executive Director, Minority Media 
and Telecom Council; George Ivie, Chief Executive Officer, 
Media Rating Council; Charles Warfield, President and Chief 
Operating Officer, ICBC Holdings, Inc.; Jessica Pantanini, 
Chief Operating Officer, Bromley Communications, Inc.; Frank 
Flores, Chief Revenue Officer and New York Market Manager, 
Spanish Broadcasting System; Alfred C. Liggins, III, Chief 
Executive Officer and President, Radio One, Inc.
    Hearing on ``Post-Katrina Recovery: Restoring Health Care 
in the New Orleans Region'' (December 3, 2009). Witnesses: 
Cynthia A. Bascetta, Director, Health Care United States 
Government Accountability Office; Dr. Diane Rowland, Executive 
Vice President, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; Dr. 
Donald T. Erwin, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
Nephrology, Saint Thomas Community Health Center; Michael G. 
Griffin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Daughters of 
Charity Services of New Orleans; Alice Craft-Kerney, Executive 
Director, Lower 9th Ward Health Clinic; Dr. Karen B. Desalvo, 
Vice Dean for Community Affairs and Health Policy, Covenant 
House Clinic, Tulane University School of Medicine; Dr. Roxanne 
A. Townsend, Assistant Vice President, Health Systems, 
University Hospital, Louisiana State University System Dr. 
Marcia K. Brand, Deputy Administrator, Health Resources and 
Services Administration, United States Department of Health and 
Human Services; Alan Levine, Secretary, Louisiana Department of 
Health and Hospitals; Dr. Joia Crear-Perry, Director of 
Clinical Services, City of New Orleans Health Department; 
Clayton Williams, Director, Louisiana Public Health Institute.
    Hearing on ``Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a 
Private Deal Turn into a Federal Bailout? Part V?'' (December 
11, 2009). Witnesses: Sheila C. Bair, Chairman, Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation; Robert Khuzami, Director of the Division 
of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission.
    Hearing on ``The Federal Bailout of AIG'' (January 27, 
2010). Witnesses: Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, United States 
Treasury Department; Henry ``Hank'' Paulson, Former Secretary, 
United States Department of Treasury; Neil Barofsky, Special 
Inspector General, Troubled Asset Relief Program; Thomas C. 
Baxter, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York; Elias Habayeb, Former Senior Vice 
President and Chief Financial Officer--Financial Services 
Division, American International Group, Inc.; Stephan Friedman, 
Former Chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    Hearing on ``Toyota Gas Pedals: Is the Public at Risk?'' 
(February 24, 2010). Witnesses: Raymond H. LaHood, Secretary, 
U.S. Department of Transportation; Akio Toyoda, President and 
CEO, Toyota Motor Corporation; Yoshimi Inaba, President and 
CEO, Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; Joan Claybrook, 
President Emeritus of Public Citizen and Former Administrator 
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Clarence 
M. Ditlow, Executive Director, Center for Auto Safety; Mrs. Fe 
Lastrella, Lost Family Members in a Car Accident Involving a 
Toyota Vehicle; Kevin Haggerty, Experienced Sudden Unintended 
Acceleration in a Toyota Vehicle.
    Hearing on ``Prostate Cancer: New Questions about Screening 
and Treatment'' (March 4, 2010). Witnesses: Louis Gosset, Jr., 
Award winning actor and prostate cancer victim; Betty Gallo, 
Co-Founder, Women Against Prostate Cancer, Widow of Rep. Dean 
A. Gallo; Thomas Farrington, President and Founder, Prostate 
Health Education Network, Inc.; Theodore L. DeWeese, M.D., 
Professor of Urology, Professor of Oncology, Chairman, 
Radiation Oncologist-in-Chief, Sidney, Kimmel Comprehensive 
Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University; Otis W. Brawley, M.D., 
Chief Medical Officer, American Cancer Society; James L. 
Mohler, M.D., Associate Director and Senior Vice President for 
Translation Research, Chair, Department of Urologic Oncology, 
Department of Urology at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Dr. 
Steven G. Kaminsky, Ph.D., Vice President for Research and 
Director of Research Administration, Uniformed Services 
University of Health Sciences Center for Prostate Disease 
Research; Faina Shtern, M.D., President and Chief Executive 
Officer, AdMeTech Foundation; William L. Dahut, M.D., Senior 
Investigator, National Cancer Institute, Medical Oncology 
Branch and Affiliates; Carolyn J.M. Best, Ph.D., Program 
Manager, Prostate Cancer Research Center, Department of 
Defense, U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, 
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.
    Hearing on ``Tracking the Money: Assessing the Recovery 
Act's Impact on the State of California'' (March 5, 2010). 
Witnesses: Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor of the City of Los 
Angeles; Patrick J. Morris, Mayor of the City of San 
Bernardino; Chuck R. Reed, Mayor of the City of San Jose; Herb 
K. Schultz Director, California Recovery Task Force, Office of 
the Governor; Laura N. Chick, Recovery Act Inspector General, 
State of California; Linda Calbom, Western Regional Director, 
U.S. Government Accountability Office; Elaine M. Howle, 
California State Auditor; Gavin Payne, Chief Deputy 
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Office of the State 
Superintendent of Public Instruction.
    Hearing on ``Rewarding Bad Actors: Why do Poor Performing 
Contractors Continue to Get Government Business?'' (March 18, 
2010). Witnesses: Calvin L. Scovell, III, Inspector General, 
United States Department of Transportation; Richard L. Skinner, 
Inspector General, United States Department of Homeland 
Security; Donald A. Gambatesa, Inspector General, U.S. Agency 
for International Development; Gregory H. Woods, Deputy General 
Counsel, United States Department of Transportation; Elaine D. 
Duke, Under Secretary for Management, United States Department 
of Homeland Security; Drew W. Luten, III, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Management, United States Agency for 
International Development.
    Business meeting to consider H. Con. Res. 244, to express 
support for the goals and ideals of the National Day of 
Recognition for Long-Term Care Physicians, H. Res. 1040, to 
honor the life and accomplishments of Donald Harington for his 
contributions to literature in the United States, H. Res. 1174, 
to support the goals and ideals of National Women's History 
Month, H.R. 4840, to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in 
Columbus, Ohio, as the ``Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office'' 
(March 18, 2010).
    Hearing on ``Foreclosure Prevention: Is the Home Affordable 
Modification Program Preserving Homeownership?'' (March 25, 
2010). Witnesses: Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General, 
Troubled Asset Relief Program; Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller 
General, Government Accountability Office; John Taylor, 
President and CEO, National Community Reinvestment Coalition; 
Mark Calabria, Director of Financial Regulation Studies, Cato 
Institute; Herbert M. Allison, Jr., Assistant Secretary for 
Financial Stability, United States Department of Treasury.
    Business meeting to consider H.R. 1722, the ``Telework 
Improvements Act of 2009,'' H.R. 4865, the ``Federal Employees 
and Uniformed Services Retirement Equity Act of 2010,'' H.R. 
3913, the ``Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. District of 
Columbia National Guard Retention and College Access Act,'' S. 
806, the ``Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009,'' 
S. 1510, the ``United States Secret Service Uniformed Division 
Modernization Act of 2009,'' H.Con.Res 255, to commemorate the 
40th anniversary of Earth Day and honors the founder of Earth 
Day, the late Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, H.Res. 213, 
to urge the establishment and observation of a legal public 
holiday in honor of Cesar E. Chavez, H.Res. 855, to express 
support for designation of May 1 as ``Silver Star Service 
Banner Day,'' H.Res. 1103, to honor the life and 
accomplishments of Sam Houston for his historical contributions 
to the expansion of the United States, H.Res. 1187, express the 
sense of the House of Representatives with respect to raising 
public awareness of and helping to prevent attacks against 
Federal employees while engages in or on account of the 
performance of official duties, H.Res. 1189, to commend Lance 
Mackey on winning a record 4th straight Iditarod Trail Sled Dog 
Race, H.R. 4861, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1343 West Irving Park Road in 
Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Steve Goodman Post Office 
Building,'' H.R. 4543, to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 4285 Payne Avenue in San Jose, 
California, the ``Anthony J. Cortese Post Office Building,'' 
H.R. 4909, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 2168 7th Avenue in Anoka, Minnesota 
as the ``Richard K. Sorenson Post Office Building'' (April 14, 
2010).
    Hearing on ``Continuing to Deliver: An Examination of the 
Postal Service's Current Financial Crisis and its Future 
Viability'' (April 15, 2010). Witnesses: John E. Potter, 
Postmaster General and CEO, United States Postal Service; 
Phillip Herr, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, United 
States Government Accountability Office; Ruth Goldway, 
Chairman, Postal Regulatory Commission; David Williams, 
Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, United States 
Postal Service; John O'Brien, Senior Advisor to the Director, 
U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Kevin Kosar, Analyst, 
Congressional Research Service.
    Hearing on ``The Washington Metro System: Safety, Service, 
and Stability'' (April 21, 2010). Witnesses: Peter M. Rogoff, 
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; Richard Sarles, 
Interim General Manager, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority; Peter Benjamin, Chairman, Board of Directors, 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Matt Bassett, 
Chairman, Tri-State Oversight Committee; Jackie Jeter, 
President, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689; David Alpert, 
Vice-Chair, Metro Rider Advisory Council.
    Business meeting to consider H. Con. Res. 268, to support 
the goals and ideals of National Women's Health Week, H. Res. 
403, to support the goals and ideals of National Teacher Day, 
H. Res. 792, to honor Robert Kelly Slater, the 2010 Rip Curl 
Pro Bell Champion, H. Res. 879, to support the goals and ideals 
of American Education Week, H. Res. 1187, to express the sense 
of the House of Representatives with respect to raising public 
awareness of and helping to prevent attacks against federal 
employees while engaged in or on account of the performance of 
official duties, H. Res. 1256, to congratulate Phil Mickelson 
on winning the 2010 Masters golf tournament, H. Res. 1297, to 
support the goals and ideals of American Craft Beer Week, H. 
Res. 1316, to celebrate Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, 
H.R. 5051, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New 
York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post Office Building,'' H.R. 5099, 
to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as 
the ``Michael C. Rothberg Post Office,'' H.R. 5133, to 
designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 331 1st Street in Carlstadt, New Jersey, as the 
``Staff Sergeant Frank T. Carvill and Lance Corporal Michael A. 
Schwarz Post Office Building,'' H.Res. 1328, to honor the life 
and accomplishments of William ``Earnest ``Ernie'' Harwell, 
H.Res. 1294, to support the designation of the first Saturday 
in May as National Explosive Ordnance Disposal Day to honor 
those who are serving and have served in the noble and self-
sacrificing profession of Explosive Ordnance Disposal in the 
United States Armed Services (May 6, 2010).
    Hearing on ``H.R. 4869, The Restroom Gender Parity in 
Federal Buildings Act'' (May 12, 2010). Witnesses: Rep. Yvette 
Clarke, Member of Congress; Rep. Steve Cohen, Member of 
Congress; Commissioner Robert Peck, Public Building Service, 
U.S. General Services Administration; Dr. Kathryn H. Anthony, 
Professor, School of Architecture, University of Illinois at 
Urbana-Champaign; Hon. Sharon Pratt, Former Mayor, Washington, 
D.C.
    Hearing on ``Running Out of Time: Telecommunications 
Transition Delays Wasting Millions of Federal Dollars'' (May 
20, 2010). Witnesses: Stephen Kempf, Acting Commissioner, 
Federal Acquisition Service, U.S. General Services 
Administration; Sanjeev Bhagowalia, Chief Information Officer, 
Office of the Secretary, Department of Interior; Don Herring, 
Senior Vice President, AT&T Government Solutions; Diana L. 
Gowen, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Qwest 
Government Services; Edward C. Morche, Senior Vice President 
and General Manager, Level 3 Federal; Susan Zeleniak, Group 
President, Verizon Federal, Inc.; Bill White, Vice President, 
Federal Sales, Spring Nextel Corporation.
    Business meeting to consider H.R. 4900, the Federal 
Information Security Amendments Act of 2020, H.R. 2142, the 
Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance 
Improvement Act of 2009, H. Res. 1121, to congratulate Clinton 
County and the county seat of Wilmington, Ohio, on the occasion 
of their bicentennial anniversaries, H. Res. 1172, to recognize 
the life and achievements of Will Keith Kellogg, H. Res. 1330, 
to recognize June 8, 2010, as World Ocean Day, H. Res. 1357, to 
commend and congratulate the Hollywood Walk of Fame on the 
occasion of its 50th anniversary, H.R. 5278, to designates the 
facility of the United States Postal Service located at 405 
West Second Street in Dixon, Illinois, as the ``President 
Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building'' (May 20, 2010).
    Hearing on ``Johnson and Johnson's Recall of Children's 
Tylenol and Other Pediatric Medicines'' (May 26, 2010). 
Witnesses: Joshua M. Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner, 
U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Deborah M. Autor, Director 
of the Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research, Food and Drug Administration; Michael A. Chappell, 
Acting Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs, Food and 
Drug Administration; Colleen Goggins, Worldwide Chairman, 
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Group.
    Hearing on ``Viral Hepatitis: The Secret Epidemic'' (June 
17, 2010). Witnesses: Rep. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Member of 
Congress; Rep. Bill Cassidy, Member of Congress; Rep. Mike 
Honda, Member of Congress; Dr. Howard Koh, M.P.H., Assistant 
Secretary for Health, United States Department of Health and 
Human Services; Dr. John Ward, Director, Viral Hepatitis 
Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 
Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention; 
Randy Mayar, Chief, Bureau of HIV, STD, and Hepatitis, Iowa 
Department of Public Health; Michael Nunburg, Executive 
Director, Hepatitis Education Project; Dr. Jeffery Levi, 
Executive Director, Trust for America's Health; Rolf Joachim 
Benirschke, Former NFL Placekicker and Spokesman for Hepatitis 
C Awareness.
    Business meeting to consider H.Res. 546, to recognize the 
historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day, and 
expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that 
history should be regarded as a means for understanding the 
past and more effectively facing the challenges of the future, 
H. Res. 1369, to recognize the significance of National 
Caribbean-American Heritage Month, H.R. 5341, to designate the 
facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 
Orndorf Drive in Brighton, Michigan, as the ``Joyce Rogers Post 
Office Building,'' H.R. 5390, to designates the facility of the 
United States Postal Service located at 13301 Smith Road in 
Cleveland, Ohio, as the ``David John Donafee Post Office 
Building,'' H.R. 5395, to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 151 North Maitland Avenue in 
Maitland, Florida, as the ``Paula Hawkins Post Office 
Building,'' H.R. 5450, to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 3894 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los 
Angeles, California, as the ``Tom Bradley Post Office 
Building,'' H.Con.Res 288, to supports National Men's Health 
Week, H. Res. 1439, to congratulate the Chicago Blackhawks on 
winning the 2010 Stanley Cup Championship (June 17, 2010).
    Hearing on ``Foreclosure Prevention Part II: Are Loan 
Services Honoring Their Commitments to Help Preserve 
Homeownership?'' (June 21, 2010). Witnesses: Sanjiv Davis, CEO, 
CitiMortgage, Inc.; Barbara J. Desoer, President, Bank of 
America Home Loans; David Friedman, President and CEO, American 
Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.; Michael J. Heid, Co-President, 
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Wells Fargo & Co.; David Lowman, 
Chief Executive Officer, Chase Home Finance, Inc.; Edward J. 
Pinto, Consultant.
    Hearing on ``Cloud Computing: Benefits and Risks of Moving 
Federal IT into the Cloud'' (July 1, 2010). Witnesses: Vivek 
Kundra, Federal Chief Information Officer, Administrator for E-
Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and 
Budget; David McClure, Associate Administrator Office of 
Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies, U.S. General 
Services Administration; Cita Furlani, Director, Information 
Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology; Gregory Wilshusen, Director, Information Security 
Issues, Government Accountability Office; Scott Charney, 
Corporate Vice President, Trustworthy Computing, Microsoft 
Corporation; Daniel Burton, Senior Vice President, Global Pubic 
Policy, Salesforce.com; Mike Bradshaw, Director, Google 
Federal, Google Inc.; Nick Combs, Chief Technology Officer, EMC 
Federal; Gregory Ganger, Professor, Electrical and Computer 
Engineering, Director, Parallel Data Lab, Carnegie Mellon 
University.
    Business meeting to consider H. Con. Res. 226, supporting 
the observance of ``Spirit of `45 Day,'' H. J. Res. 90, 
expressing support for designation of September 2010 as 
``Gospel Music Heritage Month'' and honoring gospel music for 
its valuable and longstanding contributions to the culture of 
the United States, H. Res. 771, supporting the goals and ideals 
of a National Mesothelioma Awareness Day, H. Res. 1475, 
congratulating the town of Tarboro, North Carolina, on the 
occasion of its 250th anniversary, H. Res. 1513, congratulating 
the Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates its 142nd season, 
H.R. 5720, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1227 Lunalilo Street, Honolulu, 
Hawaii, as the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building,'' H.R. 
5721, to designate the facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 335 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, as 
the ``Frank F. Fasi Post Office Building'' (July 15, 2010).
    Hearing on ``Is Brooklyn Being Counted?--Problems with the 
2010 Census'' (July 19, 2010). Witnesses: Robert M. Groves, 
Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Todd J. Zinser, Inspector 
General, U.S. Department of Commerce; Lester A. Farthing, 
Regional Director, U.S. Census Bureau NY Regional Census 
Center.
    Hearing on ``Offshore Drilling: Will Interior's Reforms 
Chance its History of Failed Oversight'' (July 22, 2010). 
Witnesses: Ken Salazar, Secretary, United States Department of 
Interior; Michael Bromwich, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, Regulation, and Enforcement; Frank Rusco, Director, 
Natural Resources and Environment, United States Government 
Accountability Office; Mary L. Kendall, Acting Inspector 
General, Office of Inspector General, United States Department 
of Interior; Danielle Brian, Executive Director, Project on 
Government Oversight.
    Business meeting to consider H.R. 5815, the ``Inspector 
General Authority Improvement Act of 2010,'' H.R. 5366, the 
``Overseas Contractor Reform Act,'' H.R. 5637, the ``American 
Jobs Matter Act of 2010,'' H.R. 2853, the ``All American Flag 
Act,'' S. 2868, the ``Federal Supply Schedules Usage Act of 
2009,'' H. Res. 1428, to recognizes Brooklyn Botanic Garden on 
its 100th anniversary as the preeminent horticultural 
attraction in the borough of Brooklyn and its longstanding 
commitment to environmental stewardship and education for the 
City of New York, H. Res. 1546, to congratulate the Washington 
Stealth for winning the National Lacrosse League Championship, 
H.R. 3456, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 1900 West Gray Street in Houston, 
Texas, as the ``Hazel Hainsworth Young Post Office Building,'' 
H.R. 4266, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 4110 Almeda Road in Houston, Texas, 
as the ``George Thomas `Mickey' Leland Post Office Building,'' 
H.R. 5565, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 5014 Gary Avenue in Lubbock, Texas, 
as the ``Sergeant Chris Davis Post Office,'' H.R. 5584, to 
designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 500 East Whitestone Boulevard in Cedar Park, Texas, 
as the ``Army Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post Office 
Building,'' H.R. 5605, to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 47 East Fayette Street in 
Uniontown, Pennsylvania, as the ``George C. Marshall Post 
Office,'' H.R. 5606, to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 47 South 7th Street in 
Indiana, Pennsylvania, as the ``James M. `Jimmy' Stewart Post 
Office Building,'' H.R. 5655, to designate the Little River 
Branch facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
140 NE 84th Street in Miami, Florida, as the ``Jesse J. 
McCrary, Jr. Post Office,'' H.R. 5758, to designate the 
facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2 
Government Center in Fall River, Massachusetts, as the 
``Sergeant Robert Barrett Post Office Building,'' H.R. 5831, to 
designates the facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1081 Elbel Road in Schertz, Texas, as the ``Schertz 
Veterans Post Office'' (July 28, 2010).
    Hearing on ``Implementation of Iran Sanctions'' (July 29, 
2010). Witnesses: Robert J. Einhorn, Special Advisor for 
Nonproliferation and Arms Control, U.S. Department of State; 
Daniel Glasner, Deputy Assistant for Terrorist Financing and 
Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of Treasury; Joseph A. 
Neurauter, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of 
Acquisition Policy, U.S. General Services Administration; 
Joseph Christoff, Director, International Affairs and Trade, 
Government Accountability Office; Avi Jorisch, President, Red 
Cell Intelligence Group; Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director, 
Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
    Hearing on ``Transition in Iraq: Is the State Department 
Prepared to Take the Lead?'' (September 23, 2010). Witnesses: 
Michael J. Thibault, Co-Chairman, Commission on Wartime 
Contracting; Grant S. Green, Commissioner, Commission on 
Wartime Contracting; Stuart J. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction.
    Hearing on ``Johnson & Johnson's Recall of Children's 
Tylenol and Other Children's Medicines and the Phantom Recall 
of Motrin (Part 2)'' (September 20, 2010). Witnesses: William 
C. Weldon, Chairman and CEO, Johnson & Johnson; Colleen 
Goggins, Woldwide Chairman, Consumer Group, Johnson & Johnson; 
Joshua M. Sharfstein, M.D., Principal Deputy Commissioner, Food 
and Drug Administration.
    Business meeting to consider H.R. 3243, a bill ``to amend 
section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
any hours worked by federal firefighters under a qualified 
trade-of-time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of 
determinations relating to overtime pay,'' H.R. 5367, the 
``D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2010,'' H.R. 
5702, a bill ``to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 
to reduce the waiting period for holding special elections to 
fill vacancies in the membership of the Council of the District 
of Columbia,'' H.R. 5368, the ``United States Postal Service 
Postal Inspectors Equity Act,'' H. Res. 1442, To support the 
goals and ideals of United States Military History Month, H. 
Res. 1494, to congratulate the champion, finalists, and all 
other participants in the 83rd Annual Scripps National Spelling 
Bee, H. Res. 1529 to commend Bob Sheppard for his long and 
respected career as the public-address announcer for the New 
York Yankees and the New York Giants, H. Res. 1603, to express 
support for designation of September 2010 as National 
Craniofacial Acceptance Month, H. Res. 1617, to support the 
goals and purpose of Gold Star Mothers Day, which is observed 
on the last Sunday in September of each year in remembrance of 
the supreme sacrifice made by mothers who lose a son or 
daughter serving in the Armed Forces, H.R. 4602, to designate 
the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
1332 Sharon Copley Road in Sharon Center, Ohio, as the ``Emil 
Bolas Post Office,'' H.R. 5877, to designate the facility of 
the United States Postal Service located at 655 Centre Street 
in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, as the ``Lance Corporal 
Alexander Scott Arredondo, United States Marine Corps Post 
Office Building,'' H.R. 6014, to designate the facility of the 
United States Postal Service located at 212 Main Street in 
Hartman, Arkansas, as the ``M.R. `Bucky' Walters Post Office,'' 
H.R. 6118, to designate the facility of the United States 
Postal Service located at 2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., in 
Washington, D.C., as the ``Dorothy I. Height Post Office 
Building,'' S. 3567, to designate the facility of the United 
States Postal Service located at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New 
York, as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office 
Building'' (September 23, 2010).

                      VII. Subcommittee Activities


                   A. SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

    The Subcommittee on Domestic Policy has jurisdiction over 
domestic policies, including matters relating to energy, labor, 
education, criminal justice, and the economy. The Subcommittee 
also has legislative jurisdiction over the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy. During the 111th Congress, Rep. Dennis 
Kucinich served as Chairman and Rep. Jim Jordan as Ranking 
Member.

1. Foreclosure Prevention

    The Subcommittee held three hearings on the foreclosure 
crisis and the federal response to it. Two were field hearings. 
Working directly with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the 
Subcommittee also successfully advocated for a $15 billion 
nationwide principal reduction program for ``underwater'' 
borrowers and the creation of new flexibility in the use of 
federal foreclosure prevention funds by state housing agencies.
            a. Foreclosure in the ``Sun Belt''
    An Atlanta field hearing in November 2009 focused on the 
contours of the foreclosure crisis as they manifest in a high-
growth, Sun Belt region. The hearing was requested by Full 
Committee member Lynn A. Westmoreland. The testimony and 
information that the Subcommittee heard in Atlanta painted an 
image of a metropolitan area that is, in many ways, a microcosm 
of America: vibrant, growing in population, and replete with 
economic opportunities for individuals and businesses. Yet, in 
Atlanta, as in most other major metropolitan areas of this 
country, what was once seen as a ``boom'' in real estate 
deteriorated into the Great Recession, ravaging neighborhoods 
with record levels of foreclosure, unemployment, and vacant 
commercial space. As Professor Frank Alexander of Emory 
University School of Law noted in his testimony, the root 
causes of the real estate finance crisis that continues to 
devastate Atlanta closely parallel the causes of the crisis 
across America: ``Borrowers and lenders made loans based on 
completely unrealistic expectations about ever-rising property 
values.'' Testimony from legal advocates, representatives of 
local government, businesspersons, and community leaders in 
Atlanta confirmed the history of the city's residential real 
estate boom and bust. Homebuilders, who once had so much 
business that they could barely keep up with demand, testified 
that they now found their economic livelihoods threatened as 
financing for any new projects was nonexistent. The head of the 
Georgia Bankers Association told the Subcommittee of the 
difficulties faced by its members. A representative of the 
Federal Reserve Board warned that the large regional and 
community banking firms, which have accumulated ``unprecedented 
concentrations of commercial real estate loans,'' will be 
particularly affected by deteriorating conditions in real 
estate markets.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Testimony of Mr. Jon Greenlee, Board of Governors, Federal 
Reserve, to Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Nov. 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Witnesses at the Atlanta field hearing also testified about 
the economic devastation that the foreclosure epidemic has 
caused residential communities. Lenders had made risky loans 
and subsequently off-loaded the risk of those loans from their 
books. This limited the lenders' incentives to adhere to 
careful underwriting requirements. As William Brennan, Jr., the 
director of the Atlanta Legal Aid Home Defense Program 
testified, ``[t]he subprime [loan] securitization system was 
purposely designed to disperse risk in a way that immunized 
investors from the legal consequences of making unaffordable 
mortgage loans that were the foundation of the securities they 
invested in.''
    Several witnesses emphatically repeated the same message to 
the Subcommittee about this crisis: to prevent another crisis, 
Congress should legislate a mechanism for assignor liability in 
mortgage loans, as forcing lenders to keep some significant 
portion of the loans on their balances sheets would go a long 
way toward ensuring that lenders retained a stake in the 
outcome of the loans.
            b. Foreclosure in the ``Rust Belt''
    A Cleveland field hearing in December 2009 revealed a 
different face of the foreclosure problem. For the Cleveland 
metropolitan area the residential foreclosure crisis started 
earlier, persisted longer and, in many ways, was more 
destructive than elsewhere in the United States. The Cleveland 
metropolitan area experienced high rates of foreclosures as 
early as 2000.\2\ Despite being passed over by the widespread 
appreciation in housing prices, Northeast Ohio suffered from 
the wave of predatory lending and lax regulatory action that 
characterized the housing boom elsewhere.\3\ Concurrent job 
losses resulted in a population flight that has been among the 
most severe in the nation: Cuyahoga County, which includes the 
City of Cleveland, has lost nearly seven percent of its 
population since 2000. The City of Cleveland saw nearly 30,000 
citizens leave from 1990 to 2000, and another 60,000 from 2000 
to 2008.\4\ The result is a blight of vacant and abandoned 
housing, with more than 10,000 vacant and derelict structures 
in Cuyahoga County alone.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 2008 Annual Report Essay: 
Breaking the Housing Crisis Cycle, (online at www.clevelandfed.org/
About_Us/annual_report/2008/2008_Essay.cfm) (accessed Nov. 20, 2009).
    \3\Kathryn W. Hexter and Molly Schnoke, Center for Community 
Planning Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Responding to 
Foreclosures in Cuyahoga County: Program Year Three Evaluation Report, 
March 1, 2008 Through February 28, 2009, Cuyahoga County Board of 
Commissioners, (Sep. 25, 2009).
    \4\Rich Exner, Metro Cleveland is 3rd Nationally in Population 
Loss, Cleveland Data Central Index, (online at www.cleveland.com/
datacentral/index.ssf/2009/03/metro_cleveland_is_third_natio.html) 
(accessed Nov. 20, 2009).
    \5\Kathryn W. Hexter and Molly Schnoke, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cleveland's long experience with the foreclosure crisis 
also spurred creative local responses. For example, to address 
the crime and urban decay that accompanies vacant and abandoned 
structures, individuals and groups from Cuyahoga County and the 
City of Cleveland have utilized methods such as demolition of 
vacant structures, land banking, and aggressive housing code 
enforcement. For the many homeowners who struggle to avoid 
foreclosure, Cuyahoga County Treasurer Jim Rokakis innovated 
``Don't Borrow Trouble,'' a public education program, and the 
``Foreclosure Prevention Project,'' a mediation program 
available for any home loan borrower facing a foreclosure 
action. In addition, a collection of state-wide advocacy 
organizations have implemented aggressive foreclosure-
prevention counseling programs with a remarkable success rate: 
over 50 percent of borrowers receiving counseling have avoided 
foreclosure.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Frank Ford, Sr., Foreclosure and Housing Market Facts and 
Trends: Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, Neighborhood Progress, Inc., 
(Oct. 1, 2009), copy available with author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Foreclosure-prevention efforts rely significantly on 
federal funding and leadership to continue operations. Mark 
Seifert, the Executive Director of Empowering and Strengthening 
Ohio's People (ESOP), a statewide advocacy organization and 
HUD-approved foreclosure-prevention counseling agency, provided 
compelling testimony about the need for enhanced federal 
support and for changes to the federal-foreclosure prevention 
mechanism. In his testimony, Seifert made three points about 
the Obama administration's hallmark initiative, the Home 
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). First, HAMP is not 
working to keep borrowers in their homes, because it does not 
mandate thorough debt counseling for borrowers, which Seifert 
testified is the most effective way to prevent re-default once 
a borrower obtains a loan modification from his or her loan 
servicer. Second, Seifert said even the lucky borrowers 
admitted into ``trial modification'' status face the nightmare 
of navigating bank bureaucracies, a lengthy and frustrating 
process. Finally, Seifert urged that HAMP be altered to include 
a principal reduction component for borrowers who are 
underwater on their mortgages.
            c. Evaluating the Federal Response to Foreclosure
    The Subcommittee held a hearing in Washington, D.C., in 
February 2010 to evaluate HAMP. HAMP was launched with the goal 
of incentivizing loan modifications for three to four million 
homeowners in owner-occupied homes who are at risk of 
foreclosure, as part of the larger goal of preserving home 
ownership and protecting home values.\7\ But HAMP was 
underachieving. As of December 2009, loan servicers 
participating in HAMP had only modified about 66,000 mortgages. 
It appeared to the Subcommittee that the administration's 
centerpiece effort was having no more than a marginal influence 
on the worst crisis to hit the American homeowner since the 
Great Depression. In addition to the question of whether HAMP 
was keeping up with borrower need, the Subcommittee focused 
attention on whether HAMP was offering meaningful assistance 
that could make a real difference in the fate of homeowners. A 
December 2009 analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York 
of data on pre-HAMP subprime mortgage modifications concluded 
that principal forgiveness was more than twice as effective in 
slowing re-defaults as reducing an interest rate.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\U.S. Department of the Treasury fact sheet, ``Making Home 
Affordable: Updated Detailed Program Description, (Mar. 4, 2009).
    \8\Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report, Second Chances: 
Subprime Mortgage Modification and Re-Default, Report No. 417, (Dec. 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the primary method by which a borrower seeking to 
avoid foreclosure under HAMP obtains any relief from an 
unsustainable mortgage payment is by a reduction in the 
interest rate on the mortgage, not principal reduction. Data 
from the Treasury Department show that 100 percent of permanent 
modifications under the HAMP process include an interest rate 
reduction, 43 percent include loan term extension, 26 percent 
include principal forbearance,\9\ and, according to the most 
recent data available, less than 10 percent involve principal 
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Treasury Department data for HAMP permanent loan modifications 
as of December, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Those statistics indicated to the Subcommittee that HAMP 
was not offering the appropriate aid. As one scholar put it, 
``The principal amount of mortgage debt in the U.S. must be 
reduced in order to bring down delinquency and foreclosure 
levels and stop the erosion in home prices,''\10\ yet HAMP does 
little to address this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Alan White, Deleveraging the American Homeowner: The Failure of 
2008 Voluntary Mortgage Contract Modifications, at 4. (online at: 
ssrn.com/abstract=1325534).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the Subcommittee's February 2010 hearing, Chairman 
Kucinich strongly expressed his impatience with the 
administration's avoidance of principal reduction and 
challenged the administration to do more.
            d. Creation of New Policy
    Having laid the groundwork through extensive oversight,\11\ 
the Subcommittee set about the goal of reforming federal 
foreclosure policy. The Subcommittee focused on two objectives: 
(1) improving HAMP by embracing principal reduction for 
eligible, distressed borrowers; and (2) enhancing the 
flexibility of state housing agencies in their use of federal 
foreclosure prevention funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\In addition to the three hearings held in the 111th Cong., the 
Subcommittee held six hearings on foreclosure and related housing 
topics in the 110th Congress. They were: Hearing on Foreclosure, 
Predatory Mortgage & Payday Lending in America's Cities, 110th Cong., 
1st Session (Mar. 21, 2007); Hearing on Foreclosure and the Federal 
Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 110th Cong., 1st Session (May 21, 2007); 
Hearing on Upholding the Spirit of the Community Reinvestment Act: Do 
CRA Ratings Accurately Reflect Bank Practices? 110th Cong.; 1st Session 
(Oct. 24, 2007) Hearing on Neighborhoods: The Blameless Victims of the 
Subprime Mortgage Crisis, 110th Cong., 2nd Session (May 21, 2008); 
Hearing on Targeting Federal Aid to Neighborhoods Distressed by the 
Subprime Mortgage Crisis, 110th Cong., 2nd Session (May 22, 2008); and 
Hearing on Is Treasury Using Bailout Funds to Increase Foreclosure 
Prevention, as Congress Intended?, 110th Cong., 2nd Session (Nov. 14, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee gathered and evaluated a number of 
proposals for effecting principal reduction on a national 
scale. Chairman Kucinich settled on one of them, which was 
developed by Professor Alexander, and in February 2010 
initiated a dialogue with upper management at the Department of 
Treasury on the subject of refinancing existing mortgages at a 
discount, with funds from the Federal Housing Administration 
and private lenders at a lower amount of principal. This 
procedure is known as a ``Short ReFi'', whereby the lender 
realizes a loss on the original loan and the borrower stays in 
the home and receives a new loan at a lower amount of 
principal, corresponding with the depreciated value of the 
home. The government pays the lender for related transaction 
costs. As a result, in April 2010, Treasury announced a $15 
billion Short Refi program that could help as many as one 
million borrowers.
    The Subcommittee's long engagement on foreclosure policy 
also led to the resolution of a significant obstacle facing 
state housing agencies that want to use federal funds to 
prevent foreclosures. Chairman Kucinich had advocated for 
expansion of a special fund for states hardest hit by 
foreclosures and for state flexibility in using such federal 
funds to hire significantly increased numbers of foreclosure-
prevention counselors. Foreclosure-prevention counselors 
identify and work on behalf of borrowers eligible for federal 
home loan modification assistance.
    Though the Obama administration recognized the value of 
foreclosure prevention counseling, commonly held 
interpretations of Treasury Department guidelines restricted 
federal funds to reimbursement after the services were 
rendered. This restriction effectively denied non-profit 
counseling providers the seed money required to hire and train 
new counselors to meet the staggering need in states hardest 
hit by foreclosures and, thereby, limited the effectiveness of 
the administration's foreclosure-prevention efforts. The 
Subcommittee worked with Treasury to find a way for states to 
have the ability to forward-fund the hiring of foreclosure 
prevention counselors with federal funds. In June 2010, the 
Subcommittee and Treasury announced an agreement that allows 
states designated as hardest hit by foreclosures to give non-
profit counseling providers access to federal funds on a 
drawdown basis to hire and train new counselors. A number of 
safeguards were put in place to ensure that the funds are used 
properly.

2. Investigation of Bank of America

    The Subcommittee mounted a nine-month investigation of Bank 
of America's merger with Merrill Lynch and the extraordinary 
federal support given to it. Based largely on the findings of 
our investigation and our five joint hearings on the matter, 
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the New York 
State Attorney General both prosecuted Bank of America for 
securities fraud.
    In mid-January 2009, just days before Merrill Lynch 
disclosed losses of $21.5 billion for the fourth quarter of 
2008, the Treasury Department publicly announced two 
initiatives under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to 
support Bank of America, which had acquired Merrill Lynch the 
previous month: a cash infusion of $20 billion and a guarantee 
plan, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve and FDIC, to 
limit Bank of America's exposure to losses on a pool of $118 
billion of ``ring-fenced'' company assets.\12\ The cash 
infusion supplemented $25 billion of previous TARP investments 
under the Capital Purchase Program for Merrill Lynch and Bank 
of America. The Domestic Policy Subcommittee launched its 
investigation of Bank of America to discover why it needed such 
extraordinary federal support to complete its merger with 
Merrill Lynch and whether the support was proper, given the 
possibility that Bank of America's desperate financial 
condition was largely rooted in its own misbehavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\The asset guarantee was never formalized, but its initial 
announcement greatly benefited Bank of America's status in financial 
markets, and Bank of America subsequently paid $425 million to 
Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and FDIC for that benefit. See November 
Oversight Report: Guarantees and Contingent Payments in TARP and 
Related Programs, at 23-27 (Nov. 6, 2009) (online at cop.senate.gov/
documents/cop-110609-report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee's investigation spanned nine months and 
included a review of over 400,000 pages of documents gathered 
from Bank of America, its lawyers, the Federal Reserve, and 
others. The Subcommittee held five hearings jointly with the 
full Oversight Committee, and received testimony from Bank of 
America's chief executive officer Ken Lewis, former Treasury 
Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben 
Bernanke, and the SEC's head of enforcement.
    The Subcommittee's investigation documented how the bailout 
occurred: Only 12 days after shareholders ratified the merger 
on December 5, 2008, Bank of America's Ken Lewis made an urgent 
appeal to then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. He stated that 
Bank of America had only just become aware that Merrill Lynch's 
portfolio had suffered catastrophic losses, which threatened 
the financial health of new owner Bank of America. Lewis 
disclosed that Bank of America was considering its legal 
options to back out of its merger. Internal analysis and heated 
discussion ensued, at the Federal Reserve and among Treasury, 
the Federal Reserve, and Bank of America. Federal Reserve 
analysts dismissed Lewis's contention that Bank of America had 
only just become aware of Merrill Lynch's serious financial 
problems. Their review of documents that Bank of America 
produced to them revealed that Bank of America knew or should 
have known about Merrill Lynch's deteriorating financial 
position in mid-November 2008. Crucially, Federal Reserve 
analysts believed that Bank of America knew about Merrill 
Lynch's true financial position before shareholders of both 
companies voted to ratify the merger. Analysts also believed 
that Bank of America owned assets that were similar to the 
Merrill Lynch problem assets and were suffering similar 
declines. The Federal Reserve's general counsel speculated that 
Bank of America could be in jeopardy of violating federal 
securities law by failing to disclose to shareholders the 
magnitude of Merrill Lynch's likely losses before subjecting 
the proposed merger to shareholder approval. But the Federal 
Reserve did not share its information on Bank of America's 
knowledge or its tentative legal analysis with the SEC. Rather, 
Federal Reserve and Treasury officials pushed back hard on Bank 
of America to abandon its consideration of withdrawing from the 
merger, which was an action that they believed was both not 
supportable under the applicable legal standards and reckless 
from the perspective of macroeconomic stability. Bank of 
America quickly adopted the government position, and tripartite 
discussions continued about the level of direct federal 
government support, which assets to include in the ``ring-
fence'' protection plan, and the optimal timing of a public 
announcement of the support.
    The Subcommittee collected documents and conducted 
interviews with the primary Bank of America officials and 
lawyers to get to the heart of the question: ``What did Bank of 
America executives know about losses at Merrill Lynch, and when 
did they know it?'' The Subcommittee uncovered a key document, 
a spreadsheet that revealed that on November 12, 2008, Merrill 
Lynch's internal forecast of fourth quarter 2008 results 
projected a quarterly pre-tax loss of $8.9 billion. But the 
forecast document contained a glaring omission: it omitted any 
forecast of how the most troublesome investments--
collateralized debt obligations, subprime mortgage-backed 
securities, and credit default swaps--would perform in November 
and December. In an interview with Subcommittee staff, the 
former Merrill Lynch chief financial officer admitted that the 
November 12 forecast was not, in fact, a valid forecast. Bank 
of America was provided a copy of this forecast document by 
Merrill Lynch. Bank of America also recognized that the 
November 12 forecast was deficient on the most crucial aspect 
of the acquisition--the potential for huge losses at Merrill 
Lynch. In an interview with staff, Bank of America conceded 
that the November 12 forecast was of ``questionable validity.''
    But the subsequent actions of Bank of America would result 
in a series of decisions that denied shareholders material 
information. The next day, November 13, 2008, Bank of America 
made a slight revision to the Merrill forecast, raising 
projected losses to $10.9 billion. However Bank of America did 
not conduct any additional analysis to account for the Merrill 
Lynch omissions. On the contrary, Bank of America pulled a 
number out of thin air, based on the ``gut'' feeling of a Bank 
of America official, which was subsequently recorded on the 
forecast document. In fact, a handwritten comment by a key Bank 
of America official memorialized that the adjustment was just a 
``gut'' feeling. Nevertheless, all those relying on the 
document believed that Merrill Lynch's illiquid assets would 
almost break even for November and December because there was 
only a small loss indicated for November and no estimated loss 
or gain recorded in December's corresponding cell of the 
spreadsheet. The spreadsheet's column for the fourth quarter 
projection effectively spread October's huge reported losses on 
these assets over three months.
    Bank of America's chief financial officer met with the 
company's general counsel to discuss its shareholder disclosure 
obligations in light of the revised November 12 forecast. That 
same day, the general counsel contacted lawyers at Wachtell, 
Lipton, Rosen & Katz, a law firm representing Bank of America 
on shareholder disclosure and SEC filing issues, to consider 
the question of whether or not Bank of America owed 
shareholders additional disclosure to supplement the November 3 
proxy solicitation. The attorneys at Bank of America and at 
Wachtell, Lipton did not question the financial information 
they were given, in spite of the glaring and obvious omission 
and the explicit reference to a ``gut'' feeling.
    A week later, on November 20, 2008, the general counsel and 
Wachtell attorneys advised the chief financial officer that the 
company did not need to make additional shareholder 
disclosures. In other words, they allowed shareholders to vote 
on a multibillion dollar merger amidst financial turmoil based 
on company financial forecasts that were obviously grossly 
deficient and based significantly on a ``gut'' feeling.
    The misconduct did not end there. Bank of America's Ken 
Lewis and Merrill Lynch's CEO John Thain also agreed to pull 
another number out of thin air to revise a December 3 forecast, 
just two days before the scheduled shareholder vote. Bank of 
America's general counsel was made familiar with the financial 
data contained in the December 3 revised forecast, and he 
decided there was still nothing to disclose to shareholders.
    The Subcommittee's findings formed the basis of three 
possible legal violations by Bank of America: First, a 
violation of Section 11 of the 1933 Securities Act, which 
creates private civil liabilities for false registration 
statements; second, a violation of Rule 14a-9 under the 1934 
Exchange Act, which prohibits false or misleading proxy 
solicitations; and third, a violation of Rule 10b-5 under the 
1934 Act, which makes it unlawful ``[t]o make any untrue 
statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material 
fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the 
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not 
misleading, . . . [t]o engage in any act, practice, or course 
of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or 
deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale 
of any security.''
    Based largely on findings from the Subcommittee's 
investigation of the Bank of America-Merrill Lynch merger, the 
SEC charged Bank of America with violations of Rule 14a-9, for 
negligently withholding information from shareholders about 
mounting losses known and knowable at Merrill Lynch before the 
shareholder vote. The New York Attorney General also used our 
investigative findings as the basis for his prosecution of Bank 
of America for violations of the Martin Act.

3. Oversight of the Troubled Asset Relief Program

    The Subcommittee held three hearings and issued one report 
on the subject of the TARP.
            a. Use of TARP Funds by TARP Recipients
    On March 9, 2009, the Subcommittee released a report on 
questionable transactions effected by the largest TARP 
recipients after they received federal bailout monies. For 
example, Citigroup made an $8 billion loan to Dubai public 
sector entities on or about December 14, 2008. The then-
chairman of Citigroup said the following about the transaction: 
``We continue to place the Gulf region among our globally most 
significant markets.''\13\ Citigroup received $25 billion of 
TARP funds on October 26, 2008, which was only the first 
installment of TARP support it received. The Subcommittee also 
found that, on or about November 11, 2008, J.P. Morgan Treasury 
Services, a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co, made a $1 
billion investment for development of cash management and trade 
finance solutions in India.\14\ JPMorgan Chase & Co. received 
$25 billion in TARP funds on October 26, 2008. And the 
Subcommittee identified a $7 billion investment by Bank of 
America in China Construction Bank Corporation, made after 
November 17, 2008. This purchase constituted the exercise of an 
option acquired from China SAFE Investments Limited 
(Huijin).\15\ Bank of America received a first installment of 
$25 billion in TARP funds on October 26, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Citigroup, Press release, Citi Arranges More than $8 Billion 
for Dubai (Dec. 14, 2008) (online at: http://www.citigroup.com/citi/
press/2008/081215a.htm).
    \14\JPMorgan Chase & Co., Press release, J.P. Morgan Enhances Its 
Domestic Cash Management & Trade Services in India (Nov. 11, 2008) 
(online at: investor.shareholder.com/jpmorganchase/press/
releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=347366&ReleaseType=Current).
    \15\Bank of America, Press release, Bank of America to Exercise 
Remainder of China Construction Bank Option (Nov. 17, 2008) (online at 
http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/
index.php?s=press_releases&item=8295).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee also found that the Treasury Department 
did not know about these or any other specific transactions 
because Treasury chose not to monitor how TARP recipient banks 
used TARP funds. Under existing agreements between Treasury and 
TARP recipient financial institutions, Treasury had broad 
contractual authority to scour company books in search of, 
among other things, waste and abuse by TARP recipients. But in 
practice, Treasury was not doing so. Treasury also neglected to 
conduct oversight of TARP monies disbursed through the Capital 
Purchase Program to prevent their use for perks for company 
management, loans to foreign governmental authorities, 
investments in outsourcing jobs held by Americans, investments 
in foreign company operations overseas, the repurchase of 
company common stock, or any other potential example of waste 
and abuse. In its form at the time of the Subcommittee's 
examination, the Capital Purchase Program of TARP left 
recipient companies free to use federal funds as they would any 
other source of income, under the presumption that they were 
constrained only by the use of sound business judgment. On 
March 11, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing with the top 
Treasury official in charge of TARP.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\The Subcommittee held a previous TARP oversight hearing in the 
110th Congress: Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee, Hearing on Is Treasury Using Bailout Funds to 
Increase Foreclosure Prevention, as Congress Intended?, 110th Congress, 
2nd Session (Nov. 14, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. Government as Shareholder
    American International Group, Inc. (AIG), General Motors 
(GM), Citigroup, and Chrysler were each in extreme distress 
between October 2008 and June 2009, and all four companies 
almost certainly would have failed without enormous infusions 
of financial support from government. Unlike other TARP 
infusions, the Treasury converted its support for those four 
companies to common equity holdings. The Subcommittee held two 
hearings on this subject in December 2009.
    The sheer magnitude of U.S. government financial exposure 
justified a close look at the structures through which U.S. 
taxpayers' interests were being managed and protected. The 
monies invested were substantial. As of September 2, 2009, the 
total outstanding federal government assistance committed to 
AIG stood at $120.7 billion, of which $69.8 billion was TARP 
investment by Treasury.\17\As of September 30, 2009, Treasury's 
net investment in the auto industry totaled $79 billion, and 
investments in Citigroup stood at $50 billion.\18\ The $200 
billion the federal government invested in these four companies 
represented well more than half of the $381.4 billion net 
cumulative funds invested by Treasury under the TARP as of 
September 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Government Accountability Office, Troubled Asset Relief 
Program: Status of Government Assistance to AIG (GAO-09-975) (Sep. 
2009), (online at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09975.pdf).
    \18\Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Assets 
Relief Program, Quarterly Report to Congress (Oct. 21, 2009), (online 
at www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2009/
October2009_Quarterly_Report_to_Congress.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Treasury Department's decision to exchange a 
substantial portion of each company's outstanding debt notes 
for common equity (voting) shares or their equivalents raised 
additional, and special, concerns. As of October 2010, U.S. 
voting rights constituted outright majorities in AIG (nearly 80 
percent) and GM (61 percent), while in Citigroup and Chrysler 
the combination of government shareholding and the broad scope 
of additional federal support makes the U.S. government the 
dominant shareholder.\19\ As dominant shareholder, the U.S. 
government has a right to participate in board-level management 
decision-making and place a fiduciary responsibility on the 
government to ensure effective corporate governance. The large 
government shareholding also introduces additional concerns 
about how the different U.S. government roles as investor and 
fiduciary, regulator, and policy maker are best kept in 
balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\For example, federal support to Citigroup includes a guarantee 
whereby the federal government has exposure of up to $260 billion of 
losses on $300 billion of the bank's pool of asset-backed securities. 
According to SIGTARP's Quarterly Report to Congress (Oct. 21, 2009) the 
list of assets to be ``ring-fenced'' was not finalized when the 
guarantee was extended, but was expected to be finalized by October 31, 
2009. Initial plans called for Citigroup to absorb $39.5 billion in 
losses prior to government support; and TARP assets would cover the 
next $5 billion in losses, with FDIC ($10 billion) and the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York responsible for any remaining requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
2008, which established TARP, set forth multiple policy goals, 
including restoring liquidity and stability to the financial 
system; protecting home values, college funds, retirement 
accounts, and life savings; preserving home ownership; 
promoting jobs and economic growth; and maximizing overall 
returns to taxpayers.\20\ These goals will not necessarily be 
in alignment in all circumstances. In the case of the auto 
companies, some actions that were deemed necessary in the 
short-run to preserve long-term company viability have led to 
accelerated plant and dealership closings, with major 
reductions in employment, and, as a result of bankruptcy and 
restructuring, loss of pension security for substantial numbers 
of individuals. Similarly, where the U.S. government is a 
holder of large numbers of common equity shares, it is possible 
that the goal of maximizing returns to taxpayers may be in 
conflict with the desire for a quick exit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-
343).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In spite of its large equity holdings, the U.S. was a 
passive shareholder. Treasury's self-imposed restraint raised a 
number of concerns. Witnesses at the Subcommittee's December 
16, 2009, hearing attributed the dire straits into which 
distressed companies fell to deficiencies in their boards of 
directors; federal bailout therefore should be accompanied by 
corporate governance reform. Ralph Nader, the consumer 
advocate, testified at the hearing that, ``[W]hen the 
Government is a dominant or controlling shareholder not of its 
own asking, the Government has an obligation not to invest 
passively; it should use its ownership powers to clean up 
management and, mindful of its duty to safeguard taxpayer 
financial interest, it should also pursue statutory public 
interest mandates in areas such as consumer, environment 
protection, financial stability, and financial honesty.''\21\ 
Anne Simpson of CalPERS, one of the largest institutional 
investors in the world, concurred that reform of corporate 
governance should be a preoccupation of government 
shareholding, ``[G]overnance reform is no guarantee, but it 
gives us a framework to hold boards accountable, and we urge 
the Government, as a fellow shareowner, to help us develop and 
use the tools we need to hold these boards accountable.''\22\ 
Professor Espen Eckbo of Dartmouth testified that the 
government should use its authority as a shareholder to 
``restructure the system on a broad scale to support, to push 
for election reform for directors. It means go into the company 
and vote charter amendments, for example, where we take away 
staggered board provisions; we separate the chairmanship and 
the CEO position.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, Hearing on The Government as Dominant Shareholder: How 
Should The Taxpayers' Ownership Rights Be Exercised? 111th Cong. 1st 
Session (Dec. 16, 2009) (hereinafter ``Government as Shareholder Tr.'') 
at 46.
    \22\Government as Shareholder Tr. at 35.
    \23\Government as Shareholder Tr. at 78-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Consumer Protection

    The Subcommittee issued a report and held a hearing on the 
use of forced arbitration in consumer debt collections. The 
Subcommittee also persuaded the largest provider of arbitration 
services and nine of the largest credit-card issuing banks to 
abandon the practice.
    Arbitration creates a third system of justice that operates 
parallel to the federal and state judicial systems. In the 
context for which the Federal Arbitration Act was enacted, 
i.e., commercial disputes between businesses, arbitration can 
be more expeditious, less costly, and as fair as the two other 
judicial systems. However, most ``consumer arbitrations'' 
present a totally different situation. Consumers and banks do 
not mutually consent to have their future disputes arbitrated; 
banks require in their credit card contracts that consumers 
give up their right to have cases heard by judges and juries. 
That provision is often buried in very fine print, and, as a 
practical matter, consumers have no opportunity to negotiate 
the terms of this relationship. The arbitrators in consumer 
claims, typically attorneys or retired judges, base their 
decisions in most cases solely upon written statements made by 
the attorneys representing the creditor. The claims are sent to 
the arbitrator in batches by the arbitration provider. 
Responses by the consumer are very rare. Usually, the 
``hearing'' is nothing more than a review by the arbitrator of 
the written statements provided by the creditor or its 
attorney, without physical appearances by either the creditor 
or the consumer. Mandatory consumer arbitration lacks the 
safeguards that have been designed into our judicial system by 
our Constitution, by state and federal statutes, and by 
centuries of judicial decisions.
    Almost all of these forced debt collection arbitrations 
were conducted by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF).\24\ The 
Subcommittee investigation reviewed over 50,000 pages of 
documents that were produced by the three largest providers of 
arbitration services. That review led the Subcommittee to 
believe that different arbitrators might be issuing different 
decisions based on the same or similar facts. In order to 
determine if that was the case, the Subcommittee requested 
files in 159 claims administered in California by the NAF. All 
of these claims were filed by the same creditor at 
approximately the same time. Two arbitrators dismissed each of 
the 58 claims that were assigned to them; the third arbitrator 
issued awards to the creditor in every one of the claims 
assigned to him. Subcommittee staff reviewed those files and 
could not discover any differences in these claims that would 
justify the disparate results. Similarly, the Subcommittee 
review of 80 additional claims files of two other arbitrators 
who decided uniformly for the creditor found no differences 
that would justify the different results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\The AAA has conducted one trial program (the ``Encore/MCM'' 
program) that ended in June of 2009. In contrast, the NAF administered 
over 30,000 consumer debt collection arbitrations in California alone 
between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While it is true that the vast majority of consumers 
default and do not appear when claims are brought against them 
in courts, this does not mean that debts are fairly owed by all 
consumers. Some, such as victims of identity theft or mistaken 
identity, have legitimate defenses. But our analysis of the 
claim files demonstrated that the arbitration system, as it was 
operated by NAF, did not provide protection for these or other 
consumers. The system was ripe for abuse, and it was in fact 
abused by the largest administrator of consumer arbitrations.
    In parallel with the Subcommittee's investigation, the 
Attorney General of the State of Minnesota filed a lawsuit 
against the NAF for fraud on July 14, 2009. She alleged 
financial connections between the NAF and debt collection 
companies and law firms. NAF, she alleged, was owned and 
controlled by the same business entities that owned and 
controlled the three largest collection companies in the 
country, companies that filed over half of the claims that were 
processed through the NAF. The lawsuit also alleged that NAF, 
the three collection companies, and the business entities that 
owned and controlled them all sought to conceal the existence 
of their relationship. Days before the Subcommittee's hearing, 
the State of Minnesota announced settlement of its fraud 
charges against NAF; a condition of the settlement was that NAF 
agreed to stop administering any consumer arbitrations.
    Prior to the Subcommittee's hearing, we exposed to the 
American Arbitration Association (AAA), the largest provider of 
arbitration services, the way in which AAA's method of 
conducting arbitrations was lacking critical elements of 
fundamental fairness and due process. In response, AAA agreed 
with the Subcommittee's request to discontinue debt collection 
arbitrations in NAF's absence. Following the Subcommittee's 
hearing, we established a dialogue with the largest credit card 
issuing banks. As a result of those communications, seven of 
the nation's largest credit card issuing banks voluntarily 
abandoned their requirement that consumers waive their legal 
rights and consent to mandatory arbitration of claims, 
including debt collection. Two additional banks eliminated debt 
collection arbitration from their agreements.

5. Drug Policy

    The Subcommittee held five oversight hearings in the 111th 
Congress in exercise of its oversight and legislative 
responsibility for drug policy and the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy (ONDCP). The Subcommittee influenced ONDCP to 
take several actions to improve its effectiveness, including 
basing its policy decisions on research and science, shifting 
federal policy to focus more on addressing the public health 
consequences of drug use, implementing processes to improve its 
performance measurement system, and changing its budget 
reporting structure.
            a. Budget Oversight
    The first two hearings the Subcommittee held on drug policy 
were annual budget oversight hearings. On May 19, 2009, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing examining the priorities and 
objectives of ONDCP under the new administration and whether 
those goals were reflected in the Fiscal Year 2010 National 
Drug Control Budget.\25\ The hearing focused on the need for 
the new Administration to refocus efforts on demand-side 
programs, which have proven far more effective than supply-side 
tactics in reducing drug use in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, Hearing on ONDCP's Fiscal Year 2010 National Drug Control 
Budget and the Policy Priorities of the National Drug Control Policy 
under the New Administration, 111th Cong., 1st Session (May 19, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FY 2010 Budget, which was formulated primarily under 
the Bush administration, continued to heavily fund supply-
reduction strategies, allocating 65.6 percent of the budget to 
supply-side initiatives, and only 34.4 percent to demand-side 
efforts. As explained by budget and drug-policy expert John 
Carnevale, under the Bush administration, resources for supply 
reduction witnessed a nine-fold increase. Interdiction spending 
grew the most over the FY2002-09 period, increasing by 101 
percent, from about $1.91 billion to $3.84 billion. On the 
other end of the spectrum, resources for prevention were 
actually reduced by 10 percent, from $2 billion to $1.79 
billion over the FY 2002-2009 period. As reflected in the 
hearing testimony, the previous administration's emphasis on 
international supply-reduction efforts were ineffective in 
reducing drug use and abuse. Mr. Carnevale urged the Obama 
administration to take drug policy in a new direction and 
``heavily invest in demand reduction.''\26\ As Peter Reuter, 
another prominent drug policy expert, opined, ``Both history 
and argument show that U.S. international efforts to control 
drug production and trafficking cannot do much more than affect 
where and how coca and opium poppies are grown. The quantity 
produced is minimally affected, since suppression of production 
in one country almost invariably leads to expansion in 
another.''\27\ Experts agreed that without greater demand-side 
efforts, the U.S. would never make a serious dent in drug abuse 
in the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Id.
    \27\Written Testimony of Peter Reuter, Ph.D., Domestic Policy 
Subcommittee, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Hearing on 
ONDCP's Fiscal Year 2010 National Drug Control Budget and the Policy 
Priorities of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under the New 
Administration, 111th Cong., 1st Session (May 19, 2009) (hereinafter 
``FY2010 Budget Hearing''). See also Peter Reuter, Do No Harm: Sensible 
Goals for International Drug Policy, The American Interest (Mar./Apr. 
2009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Problems with ONDCP's budget formulation and reporting 
process were highlighted at the hearing. In addition to the 
National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP compiles and publishes an 
annual National Drug Control Budget Summary. In FY 2004, ONDCP 
revised its method for compiling the federal drug control 
budget by narrowing its scope to include only those activities 
that were deemed to have a ``primary'' drug control purpose and 
a separate line item account, excluding programs if their drug-
related funding represented very small portions of the 
agencies' total budgets or if the reported drug related 
spending was a derivation from the agencies budget. The result 
of the restructuring was the omission of over 30 national drug 
control agencies and programs totaling over $7 billion in 
federal expenditures. Many of the omitted programs are from the 
enforcement side of the budget, namely costs associated with 
the consequences of drug use and of prosecuting and 
incarcerating federal drug offenders. These omissions skew the 
appearance of overall budget expenditures on drug policy.
    Congress and this Subcommittee have criticized this budget 
reporting format, and the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 (2006 Reauthorization Act) 
made three statutory changes designed to mandate that ONDCP 
revert to a more inclusive budget.\28\ In response to the 2006 
Reauthorization Act, for FY 2009 ONDCP chose to account 
separately for many of the activities it previously excluded in 
a one-page appendix listing ``Other Related Drug Control 
Funding.''\29\ The Subcommittee has made clear to ONDCP that 
this separate accounting does not comply with the 
Reauthorization Act's mandate. At the hearing, Mr. Carnevale 
and other experts agreed that even with the appendix, ONDCP's 
practice of submitting a limited Budget Summary inadequately 
informs the public or policymakers about federal drug control 
expenditures. In response to the Subcommittee's criticism, 
ONDCP convened a working group that has conducted a review of 
the federal drug budget to establish an accurate and reliable 
accounting of federal resources that are being spent on the 
drug control mission. It has provided intermittent reports to 
the Subcommittee on its progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\See H. Rept. 109-315, pt. 1, at 40. See also Pub. L. No. 109-
469, 105(a).
    \29\The 2006 Reauthorization Act was not enacted until the first 
quarter of FY 2007, after the FY 2008 Budget Summary had already been 
certified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 14, 2010, the Subcommittee held a second budget 
hearing assessing ONDCP's 2011 National Drug Control Budget. 
The hearing examined whether the FY 2011 budget--the first 
National Drug Control Budget solely produced under the Obama 
administration and Director Gil Kerlikowske--reflected a 
balanced and evidence-based approach to national drug policy. 
To the Subcommittee's disappointment, despite clear rhetorical 
shifts focusing more on demand side approaches to reducing drug 
use like prevention and treatment, the FY 2011 Budget continued 
to provide roughly twice as much money to fund interdiction, 
eradication, and law enforcement efforts as it allocated to 
fund treatment and prevention efforts.\30\ The Subcommittee 
questioned these spending choices given the fact that, as 
counternarcotics expert Vanda Felbab-Brown of the Brookings 
Institute explained, ``[s]upply-side measures, such as 
eradication of illicit crops and interdiction of transshipment, 
have not yet succeeded in disrupting the global supply of drugs 
in a lasting way.'' In response, Director Kerlikowske 
acknowledged the limited effectiveness of supply reduction 
activities like interdiction because of the ability of the 
market to respond by moving production to other locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\National Drug Control Strategy FY 2011 Budget Summary, (online 
at www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/11budget/
fy11budget.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nevertheless, the funding decisions within areas of 
treatment, prevention, and international counternarcotics at 
the program level showed encouraging signs that the new 
administration is formulating policy decisions based on 
evidence and science. Rosalie Pacula of the RAND Corporation 
applauded ``increases in targeted treatment dollars for 
specific populations that are known to be heavy users and place 
a particularly large burden on society when left untreated, 
including the homeless, criminal offenders, and the veteran 
population.''\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Statement of Ms. Rosalie Pacula, Ph.D., Domestic Policy 
Subcommittee, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Hearing on 
ONDCP's Fiscal Year 2011 National Drug Control Budget: Are We Still 
Funding the War on Drugs?, 111th Cong., 2nd Session (Apr. 14, 2010) 
(hereinafter ``FY2011 Budget Hearing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. Policy Priorities
    The Subcommittee also held hearings on three key areas of 
national drug control policy. On June 23, 2010, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing to address the scientific evidence 
for treating drug addiction as a chronic, complex, biological, 
and psychological illness that is treatable with appropriate 
medications. The hearing explored the advances made in the 
development of medications and vaccines to combat drug 
addiction, how the federal government can partner with private 
industry to develop better medications and vaccines, and how 
medications can be better distributed to addicts through the 
health care, mental health, and criminal justice systems.
    Mr. A. Thomas McLellan, the former Deputy Director of ONDCP 
and a leading scientist on drug addiction, discussed ONDCP's 
recent emphasis on improving healthcare screening for illegal 
and prescription drug abuse as a means to avoid the social 
harms and costly treatment needs that come with full-blown 
addiction.\32\ He and other witnesses testified to the need for 
drug addiction to be treated and funded on par with other 
diseases. Mr. McLellan and Dr. Nora D. Volkow, Director of the 
National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA),\33\ testified 
regarding vaccines in development aimed at blocking the ability 
of consumed drugs to reach the brain and new medications 
already available for opioid, cocaine, and alcohol addiction, 
which help both in managing withdrawal symptoms and reducing 
cravings for drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Statement of A. Thomas McLellan, Ph.D., Domestic Policy 
Subcommittee, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Hearing on 
Treating Addiction as a Disease: The Promise of Medication-Assisted 
Recovery, 111th Cong., 2nd Session (Jun. 23, 2010) (hereinafter 
``Medication Assisted Recovery Hearing'').
    \33\Statement of Nora D. Volkow, M.D., Medication-Assisted Recovery 
Hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet despite these promising developments, the hearing 
revealed that there were many remaining obstacles to treating 
drug addiction as a disease and providing treatment to those 
drug users that need it. Mr. McLellan explained that substance 
abuse treatment centers were haphazardly distributed, 
underfunded, and insufficiently staffed, and that medication to 
combat addiction, even if sufficiently developed, was currently 
poorly disseminated.\34\ In addition, the hearing addressed 
other barriers to medication-assisted treatment, including poor 
participation in research by pharmaceutical companies that 
``have traditionally shied away from medications development 
for illicit drug disorders because of a relatively small 
patient population who also tend to be in lower income 
brackets, lack health insurance, or rely on the State for their 
care,''\35\ and the continuing stigmatization of drug addicts 
who are too often derided as morally deficient as opposed to 
being ill. There was some hope expressed that the recently 
enacted health care reform bill, by treating drug addiction on 
par with other diseases, will provide more economic incentives 
for private industry to develop medications. Nevertheless, the 
hearing echoed the Subcommittee's finding in its drug control 
and drug budget hearings that resources for demand reduction 
(and especially treatment) remain scarce relative to those 
allocated for supply control. The Subcommittee is continuing to 
engage these issues, and it has focused its inquiry on 
encouraging NIDA and FDA to incentivize and coordinate research 
and development of medications to combat addiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Statement of A. Thomas McLellan, Ph.D. Medication Assisted 
Recovery Hearing.
    \35\Statement of A. Thomas McLellan, Ph.D. Medication-Assisted 
Recovery Hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 21, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
international supply reduction programs intended to stop the 
flow of illicit drugs into the United States, including illicit 
crop eradication and alternative development programs, 
interdiction efforts, and rule of law and criminal justice 
reform. The central policy question that the hearing confronted 
is why the billions of dollars of counternarcotics funding to 
nations that export cocaine and heroin to the U.S. have failed 
to make a significant dent in the domestic supply of these 
drugs. The short answer is that many of these initiatives, such 
as aerial crop eradication, have been ineffective or 
counterproductive. Moreover, the more recently implemented 
programs that have been productive, such as justice and rule of 
law initiatives and rural development, are extremely expensive 
and have only led to reductions in drug cultivation and 
production in individual nations, not in the overall 
international availability of these drugs. Because of the 
phenomenon known as the ``balloon effect,'' other countries 
with weaker governance systems and judicial systems have 
largely picked up the slack in production given constant 
domestic demand.
    While recognizing that there are other foreign policy and 
national security goals that counternarcotics policy is 
intended to advance, the Subcommittee has found that the effort 
to shoehorn the disparate foreign policy goals of international 
counternarcotics policy into the framework of reducing domestic 
consumption has not been helpful in the presentation of an 
honest and accurate assessment of the costs and benefits of 
these strategies. Moreover, frank discussion of the alternate 
justifications for these policies is needed because funding for 
these programs cannot be justified on the basis of reducing 
domestic consumption--especially given the relative 
underfunding of more effective demand-side initiatives. The 
Subcommittee has continued to encourage ONDCP to develop a 
better set of metrics to judge the success of its overall 
international counternarcotics strategy as well as specific 
programs.
    On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee held its fifth and final 
drug-policy related hearing to focus on front-end alternatives 
to incarceration for drug-involved offenders. John Roman and 
Douglas B. Marlowe testified about research, including the 
recent National Institute of Justice-funded Multisite Adult 
Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), that has demonstrated that drug 
treatment courts have been effective in reducing recidivism, 
reducing drug abuse, and improving other social outcomes.\36\ 
There was broad agreement among hearing witnesses that drug 
courts should focus on--and drug court eligibility requirements 
should be changed to allow--the enrollment of more high-risk 
offenders, including offenders with more serious drug 
addictions and histories of criminal violence. Angela Hawken 
testified to promising results of the HOPE model of coerced 
abstinence employed in Hawaii.\37\ Under HOPE, a judicial 
mandate to arrestees to abstain from illicit drugs is enforced 
by swift and certain escalating sanctions for every positive 
drug test or missed probation appointment. The HOPE approach 
differs from drug courts in doing away with a formal clinical 
assessment of a client's drug treatment needs and the mandate 
for drug treatment for all participants. Witnesses also 
discussed the possibility of integrating a HOPE approach with 
drug courts, with perhaps the HOPE-like program at the front-
end and drug courts reserved for participants who were not able 
to desist from drug use without more extensive treatment. The 
hearing also discussed Proposition 36, a referendum passed by 
California voters in 2000 that provided that in exchange for a 
guilty plea, first- and second-time drug possession arrestees 
with no record of violent offenses would be referred to 
treatment instead of subjected to prison. The legacy of this 
program is uncertain, in part because of insufficient 
independent research and limited state funding for the 
initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Statements of Mr. John Roman, Ph.D. and Mr. Douglas B. Marlowe, 
Ph.D., Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, Hearing on Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and 
Improve Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders, 
111th Cong., 2nd Session (Jul. 21, 2010) (hereinafter ``Alternatives to 
Incarceration Hearing'').
    \37\Statement of Angela Hawken, Ph.D., Alternatives to 
Incarceration Hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The obstacles facing the implementation of better 
alternatives to incarceration reflect many of the challenges to 
improving federal drug policy that were revealed in the 
Subcommittee's four other hearings on drug policy. While the 
Subcommittee has been encouraged by signs that ONDCP has begun 
a shift from a criminal justice to a public health model for 
combating drug abuse, the reality is that many who need 
treatment for drug abuse do not receive it. While innovations 
like drug treatment courts and the HOPE approach allow for 
treatment in lieu of incarceration, draconian sentencing 
structures too often misapply public resources to incarcerating 
non-violent offenders. Finally, as reflected in the 
Subcommittee's four other hearings on drug policy, the rhetoric 
shift at ONDCP has yet to be adequately matched with a change 
in budgetary priorities. Treatment programs, both within and 
outside of the criminal justice system, remain underfunded 
despite social science establishing that expanding treatment to 
broader groups of drug users and offenders is cost-effective. 
ONDCP seems to recognize many of these flaws and has begun to 
evaluate innovations that are taking place in states and 
localities, yet substantial obstacles remain to the 
establishment of a cost-effective, evidence-based federal drug 
policy.

6. Agriculture and Food Safety

    The Subcommittee held four hearings focusing on three 
areas: regulation of genetically engineered (GE) plants by the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA); enforcement of the Humane 
Methods of Slaughter Act by the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service (FSIS) of USDA, and development of a national marketing 
agreement for packaged leafy green vegetables by the 
Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS).
            a. APHIS and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Crops
    The Subcommittee conducted its second and third hearings on 
regulation of genetically engineered plants by APHIS on July 
28, 2010, and September 30, 2010.\38\ These hearings concerned 
the agricultural crisis caused by the rapid evolution of 
herbicide-resistant weeds and APHIS's legal authority to 
address the crisis. In April 2010, the National Research 
Council (NRC) raised the alarm about the accelerating emergence 
of herbicide-resistant weeds, finding that in the last 10 
years, eight or nine species of weeds have rapidly evolved 
resistance to the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate). The 
accelerating emergence of more species of Roundup-resistant 
weeds coincides with the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready 
crop systems since 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\The Subcommittee held its first hearing on the subject in the 
110th Congress: Hearing on Is USDA Accounting for Costs to Farmers 
Caused by Contamination from Genetically Engineered Plants?, 110th 
Cong., 2nd Session (Mar. 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The first report of the emerging crisis originated in 
Delaware in 2000, where glyphosate-resistant horseweed appeared 
in glyphosate-tolerant soybean fields. Herbicide-resistant 
horseweed, which can grow to seven feet in height, has now been 
discovered throughout the mid-Atlantic, Mississippi Delta, 
South, and Midwest. Since then, two varieties of pigweed, which 
can grow three inches per day and can destroy farm equipment, 
have evolved glyphosate resistance, imperiling cotton and 
soybean production in the Southeast and Midwest. Herbicide 
resistance has also been discovered in giant ragweed, primarily 
in soybean fields. The NRC report estimated that over four 
million acres of farmland through the Southeast and Midwest 
could be infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds.\39\ 
Professor Mortensen at our July 2010 hearing testified that he 
estimates 10 to 11 million acres of farmland have become 
infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds. He also cited 
estimates by Syngenta and a scientist at Bayer that 38 million 
acres will be infested by 2013 and half of all weed species 
will be resistant to glyphosate by 2018, respectively. The 
effect of herbicide-resistant weeds on farming is very 
significant. Professor Mortensen estimated that farmers are now 
incurring an additional $1 billion in costs to control 
glyphosate-resistant weeds. One Georgia cotton grower told a 
reporter that herbicide-resistant pigweed posed a lethal threat 
to cotton farming in Georgia, equating Roundup resistant 
pigweed to the boll weevil.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\See National Research Council, The Impact of Genetically 
Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States (Apr. 13, 
2010) at 2-14.
    \40\See William Neuman and Andrew Pollack, New York Times, Farmers 
Cope with Roundup-Resistant Weeds (May 4, 2010) (online at 
www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the past two decades, APHIS has deregulated more than 
70 GE plant varieties.\41\ About 40 percent of GE crops were 
engineered for herbicide tolerance and about 25 percent for 
insect resistance.\42\ GE corn now accounts for 74 percent of 
all corn planted in the U.S. GE soybeans account for 91 percent 
of all soy grown in the U.S. and 87 percent of all cotton grown 
in the U.S. is GE.\43\ Since the Subcommittee's 2008 hearing, 
APHIS deregulated three varieties of herbicide-resistant crop. 
At the current time, APHIS lists 20 pending petitions for non-
regulated status, of which nine concern herbicide-resistant 
crop varieties.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\Corn, soy, and cotton are the most frequently deregulated GE 
crops.
    \42\USDA, Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organism, Draft 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Jul. 2007) at 11.
    \43\USDA, Economic Research Service, Adoption of Genetically 
Engineered Crops in the U.S., (online at www.ers.usda.gov/Data/
BiotechCrops/).
    \44\For instance, Monsanto is seeking to commercialize Dicamba-
tolerant soybean, glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa and creeping bentgrass. 
Dow is seeking deregulation for 2,4 D & glufosinate-tolerant soybean 
and 2,4 D & ACCase-inhibitor-tolerant corn. Bayer has petitioned for 
deregulation of glyphosate & isoaxfiutole-tolerant soybean and 
glufosinate-tolerant cotton. See www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/
not_reg.html (providing comprehensive list).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee's hearings focused on the USDA's narrow 
interpretation of its authority under the Plant Protection Act 
(PPA).\45\ USDA maintains that it is powerless to regulate GE, 
herbicide-resistant crops in order to mitigate or prevent the 
spread of herbicide-resistant weeds. At our September 2010 
hearing, for instance, the Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing 
and Regulatory Programs asserted that USDA's authority was 
limited to determination of whether or not the 
commercialization of a GE crop constituted a ``plant pest'' 
risk. However, the Subcommittee pointed out that such a narrow 
reading of the statute overlooked explicit authority to prevent 
the spread of noxious weeds. Specifically, section 412 of the 
PPA gives the Secretary authority to ``prohibit or restrict . . 
. the movement . . . of any plant . . . if the Secretary 
determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to 
prevent . . . the dissemination of a . . . noxious weed within 
the United States.''\46\ Noxious weeds are defined as ``any 
plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure 
or cause damage to crops . . . or other interest of agriculture 
. . . or the environment.''\47\ As Chairman Kucinich said at 
the hearing, a ``plain reading of Section 412 gives the 
Secretary broad authority to restrict the use of Roundup-
resistant crops if `sound science' determines that those 
restrictions are necessary to prevent the spread of Roundup-
resistant noxious weeds.'' Given the environmental and economic 
significance of the rapid evolution of Roundup-resistant weeds, 
the Subcommittee expressed displeasure at USDA's limited action 
to stem the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds and attributed 
that to USDA policy to ignore the authority plainly granted to 
it by statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\Pub. L. No. 106-224 (Jun. 20, 2000), codified at 7 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7701 et seq. The Plant Protection Act streamlined many predecessor 
statutes, including the Plant Quarantine Act, the Federal Pest Act, and 
the Federal Noxious Weed Act.
    \46\7 U.S.C. Sec. 7712.
    \47\7 U.S.C. Sec. 7702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. FSIS and Enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter 
                    Act
    The Subcommittee conducted its second hearing into 
violations of federal law at slaughterhouses.\48\ The Humane 
Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) established as public policy 
that ``the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of 
livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out 
only by humane methods.''\49\ HMSA and its implementing 
regulations specify standards for the slaughter of animals and 
for the treatment, handling, and disposition of non-ambulatory 
livestock intended for slaughter. Undercover video gathered by 
the Humane Society of the United States at slaughterhouses in 
California and Vermont depicted cruel treatment of downed 
cattle and veal calves prior to slaughter, in violation of the 
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\The Subcommittee's first hearing on the subject was held in the 
110th Congress: Hearing on After the Beef Recall: Exploring Greater 
Transparency in the Meat Industry, 110th Cong., 2nd Session (Apr. 17, 
2008).
    \49\Pub. L. No. 95-445, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In our March 3, 2010, hearing, GAO reported that their 
survey of enforcement personnel at FSIS found persistent 
deficiencies, including inadequate numbers of enforcement 
personnel and inconsistent understanding by enforcement 
personnel about what constitutes a violation under HMSA and 
appropriate enforcement action when a violation is detected.
    A key concern expressed by the Subcommittee regarded the 
USDA's treatment of whistleblowers. Under the previous 
administration, a top-ranking official at FSIS had corresponded 
with Chairman Kucinich to disparage the reputation of a 
federally employed public health veterinarian who had come 
forward to present evidence to the Subcommittee about systemic 
problems in federal enforcement efforts. The veterinarian had 
been transferred by USDA across the country after a large 
slaughterhouse where he worked had complained about his 
enforcement efforts. The USDA pursued a personnel action 
against him, which was resolved with his transfer to a Vermont 
veal calf facility that became the subject of a Humane Society 
video and subsequent criminal charges by the USDA against its 
operators. The video made clear that the facility's operators 
deliberately concealed animal abuse from this veterinarian, who 
they feared would take corrective actions against them. In 
fact, this veterinarian did take a number of corrective 
actions, only to have them overturned by superiors in the 
USDA's district office. In preparation for the March hearing, 
the Subcommittee expressed its interest in having the USDA 
retract the unsubstantiated charges made against this 
veterinarian in the USDA's letter to the Chairman. At the 
hearing, the Chairman pushed the USDA to take steps necessary 
to restore the individual's professional reputation. The 
Subcommittee reasoned that a new administration at FSIS could 
signal its intention to renew enforcement efforts by redressing 
this matter. The USDA agreed to conduct an internal 
investigation.
            c. AMS and the Proposed Leafy Green Marketing Agreement
    The Subcommittee held its first hearing on the regulation 
of pre-cut, packaged leafy greens marketed as Ready to Eat on 
July 29, 2009. The Subcommittee focused on the role of private 
industry and government, namely USDA's Agriculture Marketing 
Service (AMS), in regulating these products, and the economic, 
environmental, and food safety impacts of such regulation.
    Ready to Eat salad vegetables have become increasingly 
popular, capturing 70 percent of the domestic leafy greens 
market. Americans appreciate the convenience of this partially 
processed product and are eating more fresh produce as a 
result. That is a good and important development and will 
likely help to improve the health of Americans.
    However, as the popularity of bagged lettuce has increased, 
so has the rate of serious food-borne illnesses associated with 
it.\50\ Outbreaks of E. coli 0157:H7 and leafy green recalls 
have occurred at least once a year almost every year since 
2003, with multiple outbreaks in 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007, and 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\World Health Organization, Food borne disease outbreaks: 
Guidelines for investigations and control, Special Report, Geneva 
(2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Responsibility to prevent these outbreaks rests in the 
hands of the industry. After legislators in California drafted 
strict, mandatory measures,\51\ processors relied on provisions 
of a 1937 federal law to develop a voluntary marketing 
agreement, known as the California Leafy Greens Handlers 
Marketing Agreement (CALGMA).\52\ Typically used for assessing 
the size, weight, color, and grade of agricultural products, 
marketing agreements and orders are traditionally overseen by 
AMS.\53\ CALGMA differs from typical marketing agreements, 
however; it explicitly addresses food safety. CALGMA, as well 
as its national counterpart, the proposed National Marketing 
Agreement Regulating Leafy Green Vegetables, address safety and 
quality issues by implementing and ensuring adherence to a 
specified set of Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) in an 
effort to improve the safety of leafy greens. CALGMA includes a 
full-blown food safety inspection program, conducted by the 
USDA, which monitors wildlife activity, farm sanitation, 
watering, fertilizing and harvesting practices, with the goal 
of preventing E. coli.\54\ CALGMA's influence has not been 
confined to California; national processing and retailing 
outlets, which buy and market produce from growers all over the 
country, impose CALGMA requirements on all growers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Elizabeth Weise, ``Growers pursue safety program for leafy 
green vegetables after E. Coli scares,'' USA Today (Jan. 25, 2007) 
(online at www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-01-25-safety-
program_x.htm).
    \52\Geoffrey S. Becker, ``Food safety on the farm: Federal programs 
and selected proposals,'' Special Report on Agriculture, Congressional 
Research Service, (Apr. 6, 2009) (online at www.ncsu.edu/fvsi/
ncfreshproduce/documents/AFB2foodsafety09b%200414.pdf).
    \53\Marketing Orders and Agreements, USDA National Agricultural 
Library, (online at agclass.nal.usda.gov/agt/
mtwdk.exe?k=default&l=60&w=5389&n=1&s=5&t=2).
    \54\See appendix, ``LGMA Unannounced Observational Audit 
Checklist'' for a detailed list of audit requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee expressed concern, however, about 
deficiencies in CALGMA and the proposed national marketing 
agreement. For instance, CALGMA is silent on the use of certain 
packaging used for Ready to Eat produce, known as Modified 
Atmosphere Packaging. These are the bags containing ready to 
eat greens. That omission is significant, since the packaging 
itself can act like a greenhouse--a perfect habitat for 
bacterial growth--if bagged produce is not constantly 
refrigerated during the distribution chain. Moreover, CALGMA 
requires neither an enforceable standard for a cold chain of 
distribution nor tough requirements on packagers and 
distributors relating to the ``Best Consumed By Date'' stamped 
on Ready to Eat packaging. Finally, CALGMA condones a 
processing activity, favored by the Ready to Eat processing 
industry, known as ``coring'' lettuce in the field, and only 
suggests minimal guidelines for sanitary treatment of harvest 
equipment used for ``coring.'' This practice is inadequate to 
protect public health because recent scientific research has 
identified the potential for transferring pathogens deep into 
the cored lettuce, where the subsequent washing process would 
be unable to reach.
    The Subcommittee also expressed concerns about certain 
requirements imposed on growers. Some of CALGMA's standards or 
``metrics'' are in direct conflict with environmental 
protection and widely accepted agricultural practices. In some 
cases, streams have been contaminated, wildlife refuges 
destroyed, and biodiversity threatened by farmers' efforts to 
remain in compliance with CALGMA metrics. Small and organic 
farmers in particular have expressed concern about the costs 
and scientific justification for some of CALGMA's requirements.

7. Environmental Protection

    The Subcommittee held one hearing on the topic of mercury 
discharges from dental offices, which is the largest source of 
mercury in municipal wastewater and sludge. Our engagement with 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led the agency 
to issue notice of mandatory control technology standards for 
dentist offices in 2010.
    The Subcommittee began its oversight of the environmental 
effects of dental mercury amalgam in response to a request from 
Subcommittee member Representative Diane E. Watson in 2007. The 
Subcommittee's work in this area concerned two themes: EPA's 
estimate of the magnitude of environmental impact of dental 
mercury, and state and local statutory and regulatory 
approaches to prevent dental mercury discharge into the 
environment.\55\ Since the Subcommittee's 2008 hearing, a 
number of developments at EPA merited continued oversight by 
the Subcommittee: (1) EPA entered into a voluntary Memorandum 
of Understanding on Reducing Dental Amalgam Discharges (MOU) 
with the American Dental Association (ADA) and the National 
Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA); (2) EPA issued new 
effluent guidelines that specifically exempted dentist offices; 
and (3) EPA began to update and improve its emissions factors 
procedures during the fall of 2009 and spring of 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\The Subcommittee held two hearings on the topic in the 110th 
Congress. They were: Hearing on Environmental Risks of and Regulatory 
Response to Mercury Dental Fillings, 110th Cong., 1st Session (Nov. 14, 
2007) and Hearing on Assessing State and Local Regulations to Reduce 
Dental Mercury Emissions, 110th Cong., 2nd Session (Jul. 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 26, 2010, the Subcommittee held its third hearing on 
this topic. The hearing focused on deficiencies in the MOU, 
which, in the opinion of the Subcommittee, ignored lessons 
learned from state and local efforts to encourage dentists to 
adopt technology to prevent mercury discharge into wastewater. 
Concluded in the last days of the Bush administration, the MOU 
is a voluntary program. While the signatories are obligated to 
perform certain agreed-upon tasks, the MOU does not require 
dentists to take any actions at all. Moreover, the MOU process 
is closed; only the signatories to the MOU have been permitted 
to attend meetings or otherwise participate in the 
implementation of the MOU. Many stakeholders have therefore 
been excluded. Two of those stakeholders, state environmental 
directors and the Mercury Policy Project, testified at the 
hearing.
    The MOU established two milestones: (1) within six months 
of signing, ADA was expected to produce a ``baseline report 
estimating the current level of amalgam separator usage at the 
national and state level''; and (2) within one year of signing, 
the signatories were expected to establish interim goals of 
increasing the use of amalgam separators within a reasonable 
period of time.\56\ However, as of the time of the hearing, 
about one and one-half years after the MOU's execution, the 
baseline report did not exist, and goals for increasing 
separator usage were not finalized. While ADA did make an 
effort to fulfill its obligation and did submit data in a 
timely manner, none of the MOU signatories were satisfied with 
the quality of the data. Consequently, EPA assumed 
responsibility for creating the baseline, and it has engaged 
mercury amalgam separator manufacturers in discussions about 
obtaining sales data directly from them. In parallel, EPA 
developed a tentative goal of a 20 percent first-year increase 
and a 25 percent second-year increase in adoption of mercury 
separators by general dentists in states without any relevant 
regulations or with voluntary regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Dental Amalgam 
Discharges, effective December 29, 2008 at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The MOU was created in lieu of a mandatory standard. In 
2008, EPA issued new effluent guidelines for new and existing 
industrial pollution dischargers into surface waters and into 
publicly owned treatment works. But EPA decided to exclude 
dental offices from the scope of the 2008 guidelines. The 
decision to exclude dental offices was based on the argument, 
advanced by the ADA and previously endorsed by EPA, that dental 
offices were demonstrating ``significant progress through 
voluntary efforts.'' However, other stakeholders disagreed with 
the assessment. State and local environmental officials, known 
as the Quicksilver Caucus, registered their opposition to 
excluding dental offices on those grounds. The Quicksilver 
Caucus took the position that ``voluntary efforts to reduce 
hazards associated with dental mercury amalgam have not 
resulted in reductions by a majority of dental offices.''\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\Letter from Mark McDermid, on behalf of the Quicksilver Caucus, 
to EPA (Mar. 31, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee's 2010 hearing focused on the failure of 
the MOU's purely voluntary scheme to meet the MOU goals, 
considered what lessons could be learned from the overall 
history of state and local efforts to regulate dentists' 
behavior, and urged the EPA to re-evaluate the voluntary 
approach based on how dentist compliance rates compared to the 
MOU goals. As the Subcommittee concluded in a report on the 
subject in 2008, experience with voluntary programs from state 
and local government reveals that they ``helped to raise 
awareness about the issue but typically did not achieve their 
desired compliance goals,'' and that, ``[a]s a result [state 
and local] governments ultimately switched to a mandatory 
programs.''\58\ In September 2010, EPA announced that it would 
change course and issue a mandatory effluent guideline on 
mercury discharge by dentist offices. Dentists will now be 
required to adopt available technology to prevent the pollution 
of wastewater with dental mercury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, Staff Report on Reducing Dental Mercury Emissions: 
Installing Amalgam Separators and Achieving Compliance 110th Cong. 
(Sep. 10, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Health

    The Subcommittee held three health-related hearings. Two 
hearings concerned the bureaucratic nature of private health 
insurance companies and the motives and means they employ to 
deny coverage to their customers. A third hearing provided a 
status report of reforms undertaken by the Obama administration 
in pediatric dental Medicaid policy.
            a. Insurance Company Bureaucracy
    In the fall of 2009, as Congress headed into the final 
stages of a debate on health care overhaul legislation, the 
Subcommittee undertook a two-day examination of the private 
health insurance industry. The Subcommittee felt that a 
significant dimension of health care had received scant 
attention: how the administration of private health insurance 
operates, or how the bureaucracies of private health insurance 
companies intervene between patients and doctors, exerting real 
influence over health outcomes.
    The state regulatory record and civil litigation dockets 
are replete with recent findings of wrongful denial and delay 
of health care by private health insurance companies. For 
instance, in 2008, PacifiCare, a subsidiary of 
UnitedHealthcare, paid a $3.5 million fine, $25 million in 
waived premiums and reimbursements of medical expenses, and 
restored health care to nearly 1,000 patients to resolve 
violations of California law, including wrongful denial of 
130,000 claims, incorrect payment of claims, failure to 
acknowledge receipt of claims in a timely manner, and multiple 
requests for documentation already provided. In another 
instance, UnitedHealthcare paid a $20 million fine to settle a 
lawsuit brought by the state insurance commissioners of 
Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, and New York for 
violating claims-handling and other state administrative 
practices. In 2007, Aetna paid a $9.5 million fine for 
illegally refusing to cover services rendered appropriately, 
including emergency services, by ``out-of-network'' health care 
providers in New Jersey. In 2008, Blue Cross Blue Shield of 
Texas (a division of Health Care Service Corporation) was fined 
the equivalent of over $4 million for failing to make non-
preferred benefits available to its enrollees and for failing 
to maintain an accurate listing of preferred providers.\59\ 
Similar regulatory actions exist for nearly every insurer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\David Balto, Center for American Progress, Actions for 
Deceptive and Anticompetitive Practices Against Insurance Companies 
(document on file with Subcommittee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The numbers of violations discovered by state regulatory 
actions and cases from civil litigation demonstrate the extent 
to which the bureaucratic actions of private health insurers 
interfere with the provision of medical care. One technique 
used to avoid paying for medical care is the selective use of 
scientific studies for determining appropriate standards of 
care and creating definitions of ``experimental'' and 
``investigational,'' categories of treatment that private 
insurers do not reimburse. In 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court 
upheld the largest award in Ohio history, awarding $30 million 
in punitive damages against Anthem Ohio (a subsidiary of 
WellPoint) for the denial of appropriate chemotherapy treatment 
to Esther Dardinger for her brain cancer.\60\ In its decision, 
the court pointed to Anthem's changing rationales and dilatory 
procedures that resulted in denying Dardinger's treatment 
regime. The court agreed with the trial court jury that, ``a 
pervasive corporate attitude existed with [Anthem/AICI] to 
place profit over patients,'' stating that ``Anthem had worn 
them down as surely as the cancer had. Like cancer, Anthem 
relentlessly followed its own course, uncaring, oblivious to 
what it destroyed, seeking only to have its way.''\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 98 Ohio St. 3d 
77, 79-80 (Ohio 2002).
    \61\Id. at 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regulatory actions and jury awards do not, however, give a 
definitive perspective on the frequency of insurance-company 
delays and denials of care. Both metrics are conservative 
because they consist only of instances in which insurers were 
caught and punished for a violation. The research arm of the 
California Nurses Association published results of its analysis 
of claims payment data maintained by the California Department 
of Managed Health Care. It found that claims denials by health 
insurers operating in California averaged 21 percent from 2002 
to June 2009.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\``State HMOs Deny 1 in 5 Claims, Analysis Shows,'' Los Angeles 
Times, (Sep. 3, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delaying and denying legitimate claims may be intimately 
related to insurance company profits. Financial analysts of the 
health insurance industry carefully chart the Medical Loss 
Ratio (MLR), the amount of each dollar received in premiums 
that is spent on medical expenses. Investors consider MLR to be 
a key indicator of an insurer's ability to control its spending 
on health care, and thereby a predictor of profitability. 
According to a former executive of one of the nation's largest 
for-profit insurers, ``[I]nvestors want that [MLR] to keep 
shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not 
done what they think meets their expectations with the medical 
loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving 
in droves. I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a 
single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations 
with this medical loss ratio.''\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\Wendell Potter on Bill Moyers Journal, (PBS television 
broadcast, Jul. 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notably, during a period in which the rate of increase in 
medical costs exceeded overall inflation, the top 10 health 
insurers have been able to hold their MLR nearly constant, at 
around 83 percent.\64\ Because the business of health insurers 
is to pay medical costs, the only ways available to insurers to 
hold down MLR under inflationary circumstances are: (1) to pay 
fewer claims; (2) to pay a smaller share of claims; (3) to 
avoid paying claims that are most susceptible to price 
inflation; (4) to raise premiums; or (5) to employ a 
combination of some or all of the preceding techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Research Institute, Beyond the 
Soundbite (Nov. 2007) at 39, (online at pwchealth.com/cgi-local/
hregister.cgi?link=reg/soundbite.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee's two-day hearing considered a broad range 
of techniques used by the private health insurance industry to 
keep their MLRs down. Those techniques include the use of 
triggers in the claims processing system to delay claims 
payment and the use of divergent standards of ``medical 
necessity'' by insurers and their disease-specific 
subcontractors. Still others occur before medical treatment is 
rendered, such as prior authorization and referral requirements 
that can be used to dissuade physicians from giving the care 
they believe is appropriate for the individual. Individuals 
with personal stories, physicians with their own stories and 
perspectives, and a former health insurance company senior 
executive who was responsible for a major company's public 
relations testified on the first day of the hearing. On the 
second day of the hearing, testimony was taken from top-level 
executives from the nation's largest for-profit and non-profit 
health insurers.
            b. Medicaid Pediatric Dentistry
    The Subcommittee also held a hearing on the Obama 
administration's reform of pediatric dentistry under the 
Medicaid program. This was our fourth hearing on the topic.\65\ 
The Subcommittee's engagement on this topic began after 
February 25, 2007, when Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old boy from 
Prince George's County, Maryland, died of a brain infection 
precipitated by an untreated abscess in his mouth. Deamonte was 
Medicaid-eligible and enrolled in a health insurance plan. 
Later that week, six-year-old Alex Callender of Harrison 
County, Mississippi, also died as the result of an oral 
infection. If Deamonte had been given an opportunity to visit a 
dentist and receive care, his death might have been avoided; 
however, a team of people that included his mother, a lawyer, 
an online help supervisor, and three case managers could not 
find a dental provider in the managed care organization that 
was responsible for Deamonte's care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\Earlier hearings occurred in the 110th Congress. They were: 
Hearing on Evaluating Pediatric Dental Care under Medicaid, 110th 
Cong., 1st Session (May 2, 2007); Hearing on One Year Later: Medicaid's 
Response to the Systemic Problems Revealed by the Death of Deamonte 
Driver, 110th Cong., 2nd Session (Feb. 14, 2008); and Hearing on 
Necessary Reform of Dental Care in Medicaid, 110th Cong., 2nd Session 
(Sep. 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the course of the Subcommittee's investigation and 
several hearings, we uncovered serious deficiencies in federal 
oversight at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services 
(CMS) that resulted in the failure to monitor adequately 
Maryland's state Medicaid system. Maryland failed in its 
statutory responsibility to ensure availability of and access 
to required health care resources, as well as to help Medicaid 
beneficiaries and their families access those resources. The 
private health insurer also failed. UnitedHealthcare, the 
managed care organization in which Deamonte was enrolled at the 
time of his death, also had enrolled nearly 11,000 Medicaid-
eligible children in Maryland who, like Deamonte, had not seen 
a dentist in the previous four or more consecutive years. 
Further, only seven dentists provided 55 percent of total 
services to UnitedHealthcare beneficiaries in Prince George's 
County. Thus, the Subcommittee concluded that 
UnitedHealthcare's dental provider network was totally 
deficient.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\Letter from Chairman Dennis J. Kucinich to UnitedHealthCare and 
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Oct. 2, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee pushed CMS to reform its oversight and 
administration of Medicaid with respect to pediatric dental 
care. The director of Medicaid services under the Bush 
administration resigned, and the pace of reform quickened. At 
our October 2009 hearing, GAO reported that progress had been 
made in rates of Medicaid usage, but that the magnitude of the 
increase was small. Indeed, the previous administration's goal 
of 66 percent dental usage is far from being achieved: only 35 
percent of enrollees received dental care. The new 
administration continued and expanded pediatric dental care 
reforms, including improving reporting forms, tightening 
oversight for underperforming states, and expanding sharing 
best practices information among the states. Cynthia Mann, the 
Obama administration's new director of Center for Medicaid 
State Operations, testified that the reforms that had occurred 
since Deamonte's death were ``triggered in large part by the 
activity of this committee and by your interest in this area 
and that you have been able to plant the seeds for a renewed 
commitment on this very important matter.''\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\Testimony of Cynthia Mann, Domestic Policy Subcommittee, 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Hearing on Medicaid's 
Efforts to Reform Since the Preventable Death of Deamonte Driver: A 
Progress Report, 111th Cong. 1st Session (Oct. 7, 2009) at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            c. Research and Development for Treatment of Brain 
                    Disorders
    At the request of Representative Patrick J. Kennedy, on 
September 29, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing addressing 
the current state of neuroscience research and efforts to 
expand knowledge and treatments to help individuals afflicted 
with neurologic and mental health disorders, especially 
veterans and military personnel.\68\ The hearings also assessed 
current collaborations within the field of neuroscience to 
advance these goals and explored how government, industry, and 
academia can most effectively advance neuroscience research and 
the development of new treatments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\Hearing on From Molecules to Minds: The Future of Neuroscience 
Research & Development, 111th Cong. 2nd Session (Sep. 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The hearing brought together leaders from several key 
agencies engaged in neuroscience research, including the 
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the National 
Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the 
Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.S. Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA). Witnesses from these agencies each spoke 
in detail about their agency's neuroscience initiatives, many 
of which involve interagency projects with interdisciplinary 
approaches and extensive coordination with civilian and non-
governmental entities. These interagency partnerships are 
critical to advancing discoveries to cure brain disorders and 
illnesses.
    The hearing also addressed another critical challenge to 
advancing neuroscience development: loss of the pharmaceutical 
industry investment in the development of central nervous 
system medications. The modern drug development process has 
become extraordinarily costly and risky. It has been estimated 
that only 1 of every 10,000 new drug candidates succeeds, and 
moving from initial discovery to full commercialization is very 
expensive.\69\ This is especially true for drug development for 
central nervous system disorders. As a result, there has been a 
recent and disturbing trend for pharmaceutical companies that 
previously invested heavily in the neuroscience field to cut 
back on drug development for nervous system disorders. This 
year, both GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca have ended research 
and development of their psychiatric medications.\70\ Multiple 
reasons have been cited for the loss of interest, including the 
high cost, high risk, and decreased opportunities for 
pharmaceutical companies to recoup their investments and make 
profits. Because of these private industry cutbacks, voluntary 
health organizations (non-profit charitable organizations, 
patient advocacy groups, and private foundations) have become a 
critical funding and research source for brain and nervous 
system disorders. The hearing also focused on the importance of 
collaboration and data sharing across the public and private 
sectors to advance treatments and cures of brain disorders and 
diseases. Several witnesses discussed the Alzheimer's Disease 
Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), a collaborative effort led by a 
team of scientists and executives from NIH, the FDA, the drug 
and medical-imaging industries, universities, and nonprofit 
groups.\71\ The ADNI collaborative framework is now serving as 
a model for similar efforts against Parkinson's disease and 
other neurologic diseases and disorders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\Venture Philanthropy Strategies to Support Translational 
Research: Workshop Summary. The Institute of Medicine Forum on 
Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders (2009), available at 
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12558&page=54.
    \70\Greg Miller, Is Pharma Running Out of Brainy Ideas?, Science 
Magazine (Jul. 30, 2010,) (online at www.sciencemag.org); See also 
Andrew A. Nierenberg, The Perfect Storm: CNS Drug Development in 
Trouble, CNS Spectrums: The International Journal of Neuropsychiatric 
Medicine.
    \71\Gina Kolata, ``Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on 
Alzheimer's'', The New York Times, Aug. 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Labor

    The Subcommittee held two hearings and worked directly with 
the Department of Labor (DOL) on key labor rights issues. After 
the Subcommittee investigated, advocated, and held a hearing on 
the need to improve protections for non-agricultural guest 
workers, DOL announced in April 2010 that it would review 
regulations and propose changes to address the insufficient 
worker protections in the current program. Also, after the 
Subcommittee held a hearing exposing the flaws of the current 
workers compensation program for civilian contractors injured 
while employed in Iraq and Afghanistan, DOL acknowledged the 
program's shortcomings and is currently engaged in an 
interagency process to recommend reforms through amendment of 
the Defense Base Act.
            a. Foreign Nonagricultural Guest Worker Program
    On April 23, 2009, the Subcommittee held its third hearing 
on the rights of non-agricultural guestworkers who come to work 
in the United States lawfully through the H-2B visa 
program.\72\ In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 
the Subcommittee began an investigation into the adequacy of 
DOL's enforcement of labor laws in New Orleans. The 
Subcommittee discovered that H-2B visa holders, or non-
agricultural guestworkers, had been exposed to egregious forms 
of abuse by sponsoring employers during the Gulf Coast cleanup. 
The Subcommittee continued its investigation during this 
Congress and found that the problems that it identified in New 
Orleans--while compounded by the temporary suspension of labor 
laws and the influx of labor from neighboring states and 
countries after the Hurricanes--were representative of the 
abusive practices that were occurring in the H-2B guestworker 
program across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\The Subcommittee's two previous hearings were: Hearing on The 
Adequacy of Labor Law Enforcement in New Orleans, 110th Cong., 1st 
Session (Jun. 19, 2007); and Hearing on Evaluating the Labor Department 
in New Orleans: DOL's Performance in Investigating and Prosecuting Wage 
and Hour Violations and Protecting Guestworkers, 110th Cong., 1st 
Session (Oct. 24, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee's investigation revealed that for years, 
because of a loophole in the previous H-2B regulation, neither 
the DOL nor the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had been 
protecting the rights of H-2B guestworkers, leaving them 
vulnerable to egregious exploitation. The Subcommittee 
advocated for closure of the loophole. A new regulation enacted 
in December 2008 officially granted authority to DOL to 
establish an enforcement process to investigate compliance with 
the H-2B requirements and to remedy violations by imposing 
fines or debarment.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
Administration, Labor Certification Process and Enforcement for 
Temporary Employment in Occupations Other Than Agriculture or 
Registered Nursing, 73 Fed. Reg. 78019-78069 (Dec. 19, 2008); U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2B Nonimmigrants and 
Their Employers, 73 Fed. Reg. 78103 (Dec. 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The April 2009 hearing focused on how DOL intended to 
oversee the guestworker program, and whether DOL's 2010 Budget 
prioritized enforcing guestworker rights and reflected a 
commitment to investigating and prosecuting H-2B sponsoring 
employers who are abusing the program and exploiting workers. 
It also addressed the inherent flaws of the H-2B program, which 
left guestworkers vulnerable to exploitation by sponsoring 
employers, and how the 2008 regulation exacerbated some of 
these problems.
    During the hearing, three former guestworkers testified 
about their experiences coming to the U.S. through the H-2B 
visa program. They recounted stories of being cheated out of 
wages, being placed in jobs that they had not contracted to 
work, sitting around for weeks with no work while their debt 
continued to rise, and being intimidated by their employers. 
The witnesses explained how H-2B workers are particularly 
vulnerable to abuse because they take on so much debt to obtain 
jobs in the U.S. and because they are dependent on their H-2B 
employer to stay in the U.S. These debts keep many guestworkers 
from demanding their rights because they fear being deported 
back to their home country with debts they cannot repay.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\See Testimony of Karickathara Raju, Miguel Angel Jovel Lopez, 
and Daniel Castellanos-Contreras, Domestic Policy Subcommittee, House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on The H-2B 
Guestworker Program and Improving the Department of Labor's Enforcement 
of the Rights of Guestworkers, 111th Cong., 1st Session (Apr. 23, 2009) 
(hereinafter ``April 2009 Hearing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The guestworkers also testified that the DOL had offered 
little, if any, assistance in their struggles. One guestworker 
testified at the hearing that he, like a vast majority of 
guestworkers, did not know about DOL or the existence of any 
U.S. government agency charged with enforcing workers' 
rights.\75\ Three leading experts in workplace justice and 
immigrant rights corroborated that the experiences recounted by 
the guestworkers at the hearing were not aberrations, but 
rather symptomatic of the systemic flaws in the H-2B program 
and DOL's past failure to ensure that H-2B employers complied 
with the law.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\April 2009 Hearing Tr. at 22.
    \76\See April 2009 Hearing Tr. at 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on the findings of its investigation and testimony 
provided at the hearing, the Subcommittee sent a letter to 
Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, outlining 28 specific 
recommendations to DOL geared toward enhancing DOL's 
enforcement capacity through improved investigation practices, 
record keeping, and collaboration with other organizations and 
the guestworker community. The Subcommittee has been working 
closely with the DOL on achieving many of these reforms.
    The Subcommittee also advocated for DOL to immediately end 
its policy of allowing employers to deduct travel, visa, and 
recruitment costs from guestworker wages where such deduction 
brought guestworkers wages below the minimum wage. This policy 
clearly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as 
recognized in Arriaga v. Florida Pacific Farms, 305 F.3d 1228 
(11th Cir. 2002). On August 21, 2009, the Wage and Hour 
Division of DOL issued a Field Assistance Bulletin changing its 
policy, instructing that employers are responsible for paying 
the transportation and visa expenses of H-2B employees where 
shifting these costs to employees would effectively bring their 
wages below the FLSA minimum wage in their first workweek of 
employment.
    The letter also outlined the Subcommittee's belief that the 
2008 regulation was harmful to guestworkers and U.S. workers 
alike because it reduced oversight of the H-2B application and 
certification process, and urged DOL to begin a rulemaking 
process for new H-2B regulations. As one expert explained at 
the hearing, ``The reduction in oversight will increase 
likelihood that U.S. workers will be passed over for available 
jobs, and that vulnerable immigrant workers will suffer 
unremedied exploitation.''\77\ In April 2010, the Secretary of 
Labor acknowledged that there are insufficient worker 
protections in the current program and announced that as part 
of its semiannual agenda for regulations, the DOL would review 
regulations pertaining to the H-2B guestworker program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\See Written Testimony of Mary Bauer, April 2009 Hearing at 13-
14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 4, 2010, the DOL issued the first of two Notice 
of Proposed Rulemakers (NPRMs) on the H-2B guestworker program 
to ensure that both U.S. and foreign workers are protected from 
unfair employment practices. The first NPRM proposes changes to 
the methodology for setting prevailing wages for certification 
under this program. The proposed new wage rate methodology is 
actually a return to the principles that determined prevailing 
wage rates for temporary non-agricultural workers for more than 
30 years from 1967 until 1998, and will help ensure that 
temporary worker programs do not depress the wages and working 
conditions of workers in the United States as the current 
regulation does. The Subcommittee submitted comments reflecting 
its support for DOL's proposed rulemaking.
    The Subcommittee also continues its oversight of DOL to 
ensure that adequate resources and attention are devoted to 
enforcing the labor rights of both U.S. and foreign workers.
            b. Civilian Contractor Workers Compensation
    The Defense Base Act (DBA) requires that all U.S. 
government contractors and subcontractors secure workers' 
compensation insurance for their employees working overseas. 
Like all workers' compensation systems, the DBA provides no-
fault coverage and is an exclusive remedy to injured workers. 
Injured workers covered by the DBA are entitled to full medical 
benefits to treat their injuries and cash disability benefits 
to replace a portion of their lost wages. Taxpayers pay the 
premiums, which are incorporated in contract costs. The 
government also reimburses insurance carriers in full for 
combat-related injuries and deaths.\78\ While DBA insurance is 
provided by private insurance companies, the program is 
administered by DOL's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 
(OWCP), Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation. 
DOL is directed to ``ensur[e] that workers' compensation 
benefits are provided for covered employees promptly and 
correctly.''\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\Valerie Bailey Grasso et. al, Congressional Research Service, 
The Defense Base Act (DBA): The Federally Mandated Workers' 
Compensation System, RL34670 at 9 (Oct. 20, 2008) (hereinafter ``CRS 
DBA Report'').
    \79\U.S. Department of Labor, The Defense Base Act, December 2003, 
(online at www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/dlhwc/ExplainingDBA.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DBA program was enacted in 1941, when the U.S. military 
made sparing use of civilian contractors. When the U.S. invaded 
Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, the number of civilian 
contractors sent overseas to support the war effort 
skyrocketed: they guard bases, drive supply trucks, cook meals, 
and do other work once done by soldiers. These civilians, who 
include Americans and foreign nationals, are currently working 
in Iraq and Afghanistan in numbers exceeding U.S. troops.\80\ 
In 2008 alone, there were 200,000 contractors in the war 
zone.\81\ As of June 2008, more than 1,350 civilian contractor 
personnel have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Approximately 
29,000 contractors had been injured, more than 8,300 
seriously.\82\ The growth in the use of contractors and their 
rate of injuries has spurred a corresponding increase in DBA 
workers' compensation claims, with the caseload expanding more 
than six-fold between 2004 and 2007. The DBA workers' 
compensation claims caseload peaked in 2007, while the average 
amount of compensation and medical benefits paid per claim in 
2007 dropped to its lowest level since 2003.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\T. Christian Miller, ``Contractors Outnumber Troops in Iraq,'' 
Los Angeles Times (Jul. 4, 2007), (online at articles.latimes.com/2007/
jul/04/nation/na-private4).
    \81\T. Christian Miller and Doug Smith, ``Injured War Zone 
Contractors Fight to Get Care from AIG and Other Insurers,'' ProPublica 
(Apr. 16, 2009), (online at www.propublica.org/feature/
injured-war-zone-contractors-fight-to-get-care-from-CNA-416).
    \82\Steven Schooner, ``Remember Them Too: Don't Contractors Count 
When We Calculate the Costs of War?'' The Washington Post (May 25, 
2009), (online at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/
05/24/AR2009052401994.html).
    \83\CRS DBA Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the request of Subcommittee member Representative Elijah 
E. Cummings, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the issue on 
June 18, 2009. Hearing testimony revealed many cases where 
civilian contractors returning from war seriously injured or 
struggling with psychological trauma had to fight insurers for 
months and sometimes years to receive basic medical care. One 
civilian contractor who was injured in a shooting in Iraq 
explained at the hearing that he struggled to persuade AIG to 
approve treatment for post-traumatic stress syndrome. As he 
described his experience, he turned to the insurance executives 
on the panel explaining, ``We're not asking for millions in 
bonuses or lavish parties or even parades. . . . We want what 
we're entitled to.''
    Under the current system, insurance carriers have an 
incentive to deny claims until ordered to pay by an 
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). At the hearing, an attorney who 
has represented thousands of civilian contractors in DBA cases 
estimated that 80 percent of his cases are litigated and only 
10 percent settle prior to the hearing before the ALJ. While 
DOL is ostensibly the program administrator, apart from its 
role as monitor and technical assistant, the DBA grants 
insufficient authority to DOL to enable it to ensure that the 
benefits claims process functions fairly and expeditiously. For 
example, DOL has no enforcement authority to make insurance 
carriers pay claims when they are disputed; they can only 
recommend action. While DOL can impose civil fines if an 
employer fails to secure the payment of compensation when 
deemed required, the Subcommittee's investigation revealed that 
DOL used this power sparingly under the previous 
administration.
    The Subcommittee also found that DOL's limited resources 
prevented it from exercising the limited authority granted to 
it under the DBA. DOL has been hindered by lack of staff and 
updated technology to be able to oversee the growing program. 
Staffing levels at DOL devoted to the administration of DBA 
claims have actually dropped since 2000 despite the explosion 
of DBA claims. DOL's data collection system is also extremely 
outdated and unreliable. The Subcommittee found that the 
database produced unintelligible data as a result of company 
names not being standardized and incomplete data fields. At the 
time of the hearing, DOL was still using 3" x 5" index cards to 
keep track of insurance carriers. OWCP's requests for increased 
funding for technology upgrades and staffing were declined 
under the previous administration.
    As a result of the Subcommittee hearing, the DOL focused 
energy and resources to improving its oversight and 
administration of the current program. DOL has reported to the 
Subcommittee that it has made many internal improvements to 
improve efficacy as the Subcommittee requested, such as 
creating a method for insurers to report policy information 
electronically and discontinuing use of index cards for 
recordkeeping. DOL has also enhanced compliance assistance 
efforts, including implementing performance measures that are 
reported publicly and accelerating application of meaningful 
civil penalties for willful failure to file timely reports. 
DOL's increased attention to employer and carrier performance 
has brought about improved compliance. The Assistant Secretary 
of Labor also acknowledged at the hearing that there are 
serious flaws in the DBA and that systemic reform of the 
program is needed. The Subcommittee is currently working with 
DOL on overhauling the DBA and hopes that legislation will be 
introduced next session.

10. Energy

    The Subcommittee held one hearing on the expansion of the 
Department of Energy's (DOE) loan guarantee program for new 
nuclear power plant construction. Following the hearing, the 
Subcommittee requested that the Congressional Budget Office 
audit the program and report back to Congress. A report is 
expected in 2011.
    Nuclear power plant construction in the United States has 
been characterized by cost overruns, abandoned projects, and 
considerable taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. According to the 
Union of Concerned Scientists, ``During the 1970s and 1980s, 
utilities' cost overruns in building nuclear power plants 
averaged more than 200 percent . . . . Utilities abandoned some 
100 plants during construction--more than half of the planned 
nuclear fleet. Taxpayers and ratepayers reimbursed utilities 
for most of the more than $40 billion cost of these abandoned 
plants . . . . Ratepayers bore well over $200 billion (in 
today's dollars) in cost overruns for completed nuclear 
plants.''\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Can't Afford, Union of Concerned 
Scientists (Aug. 2009) (online at www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/
nuclear_power/nuclear-economics-fact-sheet.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But in recent years, the nuclear power industry has 
contended that a ``nuclear renaissance'' is on the horizon.\85\ 
The industry maintains that new technologies and standardized 
plant designs will produce results that are totally different 
from the industry's history of mismanagement, cost overruns, 
and taxpayer or ratepayer bailouts. The industry has said that 
the cost of plant construction will be lower, there will be no 
cost escalations or construction delays, and the problem of 
disposal of nuclear waste will be resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\See, e.g., Nuclear Renaissance Presents Significant Employment 
Opportunities, Nuclear Energy Institute News Release (Nov. 6, 2007) 
(online at: www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/
berrigansenaterelease).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nevertheless, the nuclear industry has not been able to 
attract private capital to fund its ``renaissance.'' To help it 
access capital, the industry has turned to the federal 
government for its financing, and the government has been 
responsive. On June 30, 2008, the DOE issued a solicitation for 
applications for $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear 
plant construction. The current administration is seeking to 
increase that amount to $54.5 billion. DOE announced its first 
``conditional'' loan guarantee on February 16, 2010, an $8.3 
billion loan guarantee to the Southern Company for construction 
of its Vogtle reactors in Georgia.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\The guarantee is ``conditional'' on approval of licensing and 
operation by the NRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These loan guarantees purportedly carry no cost to the 
government and do not require any appropriation. Rather, the 
sponsoring utility will be required to pay a ``credit subsidy 
fee,'' which is theoretically equal to the present value of the 
default risk. But the GAO has pointed out that ``evaluating the 
risks of individual projects will be complicated and could 
result in misestimates.''\87\ The DOE has to determine the 
percentage risk that the project will default and the 
percentage of the loan that can be ``recovered'' after default. 
News services have reported that DOE and the White House Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) have been arguing over the size 
of the credit subsidy fee, with DOE arguing for a rate near the 
1 percent suggested by industry representatives and OMB arguing 
for a higher rate.\88\ DOE has also classified the final credit 
subsidy fees assigned to projects as confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\GAO-08-750 (Jul. 2008) at 1. According to GAO, even if this 
risk could be evaluated accurately, a bias exists in this system that 
will almost certainly result in cost to the taxpayer--``borrowers who 
believe DOE has underestimated costs . . . are most likely to accept 
guarantees.''
    \88\See, e.g., Climatewire (Nov. 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee raised a number of concerns with DOE. 
First, the Subcommittee vigorously objected to DOE's 
withholding from public scrutiny the credit subsidy fees it 
determines. There is a strong public interest in knowing this 
figure, which is supposed to represent protection for taxpayers 
who ultimately bear liability for any costs resulting from a 
default. Second, the Subcommittee expressed skepticism about 
the DOE's calculation of credit subsidy fees. A credit subsidy 
fee in that low a range is appropriate for a project that has 
an extremely low likelihood of default and a very high 
likelihood of recovering most of the value of the loan after a 
default.
    On April 20, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
address these concerns. If the credit subsidy fees do not 
represent the true risk of these projects, then taxpayers may 
be faced with another multi-billion dollar bailout of the 
nuclear power industry. Following the hearing and multiple 
discussions with OMB, the Subcommittee commissioned an audit by 
the Congressional Budget Office.

11. Civil Liberties

    The Subcommittee has been investigating reports of police 
and military surveillance of peaceful, non-violent protestors.
    In 2008, it was revealed that the Maryland State Police had 
been conducting undercover surveillance of a number of 
political advocacy organizations, including anti-war groups and 
anti-death penalty groups, from 2005 to 2007. Similar incidents 
in other geographic areas had been disclosed in December 2005, 
including apparent undercover surveillance of an anti-war 
planning meeting at a Quaker meetinghouse in Florida and 
surveillance of a Quaker anti-war rally in Akron, Ohio. These 
incidents were described in electronic reports created under 
the Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) program, which 
were leaked to the media in 2005. In early 2009, the 
Subcommittee began an investigation intended to determine 
whether these incidents were isolated occurrences or whether 
they were indicative of a nationwide over-reaching by overly 
zealous law enforcement personnel. The Subcommittee identified 
263 TALON reports relating to protests or demonstrations that 
had been determined by the DOD to be inappropriate for the 
TALON database, removed from the database, and stored on a 
computer disc. In conjunction with the Subcommittee on National 
Security and Foreign Affairs, we asked to review those reports. 
After reviewing the reports we sent letters to the Secretary of 
Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security requesting additional documents relating to the 
monitoring of email of non-violent advocacy groups, the use of 
false identities to obtain access to emails, the activities of 
the DHS agent, and the identity of any ``Counter-Protest 
Groups.'' In the spring of 2010, the subcommittees interviewed 
several knowledgeable persons. As a result of those interviews, 
the subcommittees have requested and received additional 
documents. The subcommittees' investigation is continuing.

12. Fisheries Management and Law Enforcement

    The Subcommittee held a field hearing on misconduct at 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Three top officials 
were subsequently relieved of their duties.
    In response to a request from Subcommittee member 
Representative John F. Tierney, the Subcommittee conducted 
oversight on the performance of NMFS, the nation's fisheries 
enforcement agency, which is a division of the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Subcommittee held a 
field hearing in Gloucester, Massachusetts, to which we invited 
the Department of Commerce Inspector General, NOAA officials, 
and commercial fishermen. The hearing focused principally on 
the Inspector General's findings of significant problems at the 
Office of Law Enforcement and NOAA General Counsel for 
Enforcement Litigation (GCEL).\89\ Together, the two offices 
comprise federal fisheries law enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, Review of 
NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations, OIG 19887 (Jan. 21, 
2010); Review of NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund, OIG 
19887-1 (Jul. 1, 2010); Final Report-Review of NOAA Fisheries 
Enforcement Programs and Operations, OIG 19887-2 (Sep. 23, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This began a long-term engagement with NOAA, in which the 
Subcommittee worked closely with the Inspector General, who 
made findings of improper document shredding by the top 
official at Office of Law Enforcement; improper use and 
inadequate internal controls over the use of the Civil Asset 
Forfeiture fund into which fines are paid by commercial 
fisherman for violations of statutes enforced by the Office of 
Law Enforcement; and misconduct by the senior enforcement 
attorney in the Gloucester office of GCEL.
    Over the course of the engagement, the top official in the 
Office of Law Enforcement, the supervising official in the 
Gloucester office of the Office of Law Enforcement, and the 
senior attorney in the Gloucester office of GCEL were all 
relieved of their duties.

13. Veterans

    The Subcommittee's 2008 probe into Lockheed Martin's poor 
performance as the private contractor of functions previously 
performed directly by the federal government resulted in the 
revocation of a large contract from the defense contractor in 
2009.
    Retroactive pay awards to eligible retired veterans with 
combat- or service-related disabilities were enacted by 
Congress in 2003 and 2004. The function of determining 
eligibility and calculating military retired and annuitant 
benefits had been privatized by the Pentagon in 2001. At the 
time of our probe, Lockheed Martin was the prime contractor for 
the ``VA Retro Pay'' project. But delays in delivering the new 
benefits were significant. The Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service (DFAS) determined that more than 133,000 potentially 
eligible veterans were waiting for adjudication of their claims 
three years after Congress enacted the laws. The backlog grew 
to over 217,000 veterans as delays compounded. To determine the 
causes of the delays in the VA Retro program, the Subcommittee 
reviewed a total of 16,000 pages of documents produced 
separately by DFAS and Lockheed Martin and interviewed disabled 
veterans whose VA Retro payments had been delayed or denied.
    The Subcommittee's 2008 report found, inter alia, that: (1) 
up to 8,763 disabled veterans died before their cases were 
reviewed for VA Retro eligibility; (2) DFAS found Lockheed's 
performance deficient but was unable to assess penalties by the 
contract's terms; (3) DFAS cut back quality control and used 
federal workers to supplement Lockheed's workforce to decrease 
payment backlog; (4) DFAS bypassed GAO regulations on 
statistical sampling in federal quality-control procedures; (5) 
Lockheed applied a weaker standard to quality assurance than 
the standard mandated by GAO; (6) up to 60,051 payments to 
veterans were issued after a suspension of quality control 
measures went into effect on March 1, 2008; and (7) at least 
28,283 veterans were denied retroactive pay based on 
determinations made wholly without quality assurance 
review.\90\ At the Subcommittee's 2008 hearing, the Defense 
Department pledged to recalculate all denials of benefits 
previously determined by Lockheed Martin. The Subcommittee 
continued its oversight with meetings and a letter in October 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, Staff Report on Hearing on ``Die or Give Up Trying'': How 
Poor Contractor Performance, Government Mismanagement and the Erosion 
of Quality Controls Denied Thousands of Disabled Veterans Timely and 
Accurate Retroactive Retired Pay Awards, 110th Cong., 2nd Session (Jul. 
15, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the spring of 2009, the DOD cancelled its $346 million 
contract with Lockheed and brought the work back in-house. To 
our knowledge, this marks the largest reversal of a 
privatization in DOD history. Also, thousands of veterans whose 
benefits were potentially wrongly denied or miscalculated by 
Lockheed received new benefit determinations, pursuant to an 
agreement between the Subcommittee and DFAS.

14. Airline Regulation

    The Subcommittee has been conducting an investigation of 
the merger between United Air Lines and Continental Airlines. 
The investigation has focused on the veracity of Continental 
representations to Congress about its merger plans, the 
potential harms to consumers resulting from the merger, and the 
merger's legality under section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
    The Subcommittee has been conducting an investigation of 
the merger between United Air Lines and Continental Airlines. 
The investigation has focused on antitrust and policy issues, 
including the potential that the new United would exercise 
market power to the detriment of consumers through the adoption 
of anticompetitive measures, including service cuts to certain 
regional locations and price increases that will subsequently 
be adopted industry-wide because of reduced industry 
competition and capacity. Furthermore, despite assurances from 
the airlines that they had no present plans for hub closures, 
the Subcommittee has been concerned that service cuts and 
associated job reductions threaten to disproportionately harm 
Cleveland and surrounding communities that have been served by 
Continental's Cleveland hub.
    On June 15, 2010, the Subcommittee requested that 
Continental produce documents relating to representations that 
Continental made to the government regarding its plans to merge 
with United; documents relating to project revenue gains 
realized by the proposed merger; and documents relating to any 
planning for, or financial projections of, the merger, 
including hub cuts, service reductions, fare hikes, and jobs 
cuts as a goal or result of the merger. The Subcommittee has 
been engaged with representatives from Continental about its 
document production and its post-merger plans.
    On October 1, 2010, after receiving antitrust approval from 
the Department of Justice in late August and shareholder 
approval in September, United and Continental concluded their 
merger. Before merging, the airlines agreed to a protocol with 
the Attorney General of Ohio designed to provide some 
protections to service at Cleveland hub over the next five 
years contingent on the hub's profitability. The Subcommittee's 
investigation continues and is focused on the new United's 
commitment to maintaining service in Cleveland; its 
forthrightness in the process of its dealings with Congress, 
including the Subcommittee's current oversight; and the 
adequacy of federal antitrust laws to protect against harmful 
consolidation in the airline industry.

15. Chronology of Subcommittee Proceedings

    The Subcommittee held 30 days of hearings and received 
testimony from 174 witnesses.
    ``Peeling Back the TARP: Exposing Treasury's Failure to 
Monitor the Ways Financial Institutions are Using Taxpayer 
Funds Provided under the Troubled Asset Relief Program'' (March 
11, 2009). Witnesses: Mr. Neel Kashkari, Acting Interim 
Assistant Secretary for Financial Stabilization, Department of 
the Treasury; Professor Anthony B. Sanders, W.P. Carey School 
of Business, Arizona State University; Stephen Horne, VP, 
Master Data Management and Integration Services, Dow Jones & 
Co.; Mark Bolgiano, President and CEO, XBRL US, Inc.; Neil M. 
Barofsky, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Assets 
Relief Program; Richard Hillman, Managing Director, Financial 
Markets and Community Investment, Government Accountability 
Office.
    ``The H-2B Guestworker Program and Improving the Department 
of Labor's Enforcement of the Rights of Guestworkers'' (April 
23, 2009). Witnesses: Mr. Aby Karickathara Raju, Former H-2B 
Guestworker from India for Signal International LLC, Member of 
the Alliance of Guestworkers for Dignity; Mr. Miguel Angel 
Jovel Lopez, Former H-2B Guestworker from El Salvador for 
Cumberland Environmental Resources, Co., Member of the Alliance 
of Guestworkers for Dignity; Mr. Daniel Castellanos-Contreras, 
Former H-2B Guestworker from Peru for Decatur Hotels LLC, 
Organizer and Founding Member of the Alliance of Guestworkers 
for Dignity; Mr. Saket Soni, Executive Director, New Orleans 
Workers' Center for Racial Justice; Ms. Mary Bauer, Director, 
Immigrant Justice Project, Southern Poverty Law Center; Ms. 
Catherine Ruckelshaus, Legal Co-Director, National Employment 
Law Project; Professor Patrick A. McLaughlin, Ph.D., Mercatus 
Center at George Mason University.
    ``ONDCP's Fiscal Year 2010 National Drug Control Budget and 
the Policy Priorities of the National Drug Control Policy under 
the New Administration'' (May 19, 2009). Witnesses: Gil 
Kerlikowske, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy; 
John Carnevale, Ph.D., President of Carnevale Associates, LLC; 
Peter Reuter, Professor, School of Public Policy and Department 
of Criminology, University of Maryland; Gail C. Christopher, 
Ph.D., Chair, Panel on the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy: Building the Capacity to Address the Nation's Drug 
Problems, National Academy of Public Administration.
    ``Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a Private Deal 
Turn Into a Federal Bailout? (Part I)'' (June 11, 2009). 
Witness: Kenneth D. Lewis, Chief Executive Officer and 
President, Bank of America.
    ``After Injury, the Battle Begins: Evaluating Workers' 
Compensation for Civilian Contractors in War Zones'' (June 18, 
2009). Witnesses: Seth D. Harris, Deputy Secretary, Department 
of Labor; Timothy Newman, former civilian contractor in Iraq; 
Kevin Smith, former civilian contractor in Iraq; John Woodson, 
former civilian contractor in Iraq; Kristian P. Moor, President 
of AIU Holdings, Inc., a division of AIG; George R. Fay, 
Executive Vice President, Worldwide P&C Claims, CNA Financial; 
Gary Pitts, Esq., Pitts and Mills Attorneys at-Law.
    ``Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a Private Deal 
Turn Into a Federal Bailout? (Part II)'' (June 25, 2009). 
Witness: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal 
Reserve.
    ``Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a Private Deal 
Turn Into a Federal Bailout? (Part III)'' (July 16, 2009). 
Witness: Henry M. Paulson, Jr., former Secretary of the 
Treasury.
    ``Arbitration or `Arbitrary': The Misuse of Mandatory 
Arbitration to Collect Consumer Debts'' (July 22, 2009). 
Witnesses: Mr. Michael Kelly, Chief Operating Officer, National 
Arbitration Forum; Mr. Richard Naimark, Senior Vice President, 
International Centre for Dispute Resolution, American 
Arbitration Association; Mr. F. Paul Bland, Staff Attorney, 
Public Justice; Professor Christopher R. Drahozal, John M. 
Rounds Professor of Law, University of Kansas School of Law; 
The Honorable Lori Swanson, Attorney General, State of 
Minnesota.
    ``Ready-to-Eat or Not?: Examining the Impact of Leafy 
Greens Marketing Agreements'' (July 29, 2009). Witnesses: Rayne 
Pegg, Administrator, Agriculture Marketing Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture; Jeffrey Shuren, Associate 
Commissioner for Policy Planning, U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration; Scott Horsfall, Chief Executive Officer, 
California Leafy Greens Marketing Board; Caroline Smith-DeWaal, 
Director of Food Science, Center for Science in the Public 
Interest; Dale Coke, Farmer and Member of Community Alliance 
with Family Farmers; Kelly Cobb, Survivor of E. Coli Poisoning.
    ``Between You and Your Doctor: The Private Health Insurance 
Bureaucracy (Part I)'' (September 16, 2009). Witnesses: Mr. 
Mark Gendernalik, father of Sidney Gendernalik, Los Angeles, 
CA; Ms. Erinn Ackley, daughter of William Ackley, Red Lodge, 
MT; Dr. Mel Stern, M.D., Pediatrician, Highland, MD; Dr. Linda 
Peeno, M.D., former Review Physician for Humana, Louisville, 
KY; Mr. Wendell Potter, former Head of Corporate Communications 
for CIGNA, Philadelphia, PA; Ms. Karen Pollitz, Project 
Director, Health Policy Institute, Georgetown University, 
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Michael Cannon, Director, Health Policy 
Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C..
    ``Between You and Your Doctor: The Private Health Insurance 
Bureaucracy (Part 2)'' (September 17, 2009). Witnesses: Mr. 
Richard A. Collins, Senior Vice President of Underwriting, 
Pricing, and Healthcare Economics, UnitedHealthcare Group, CEO 
of Golden Rule Insurance Company and President of 
UnitedHealthOne; Mr. Brian A. Sassi, President and Chief 
Executive Officer, Wellpoint, Inc.; Ms. Patricia Farrell, 
Senior Vice President, National and International Business 
Solutions, Aetna, Inc.; Mr. James H. Bloem, Senior Vice 
President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Humana, Inc; 
Mr. Tom Richards, Senior Vice President, Product Delivery, 
CIGNA; Ms. Colleen Reitan, Executive Vice President and Chief 
Operating Officer, Health Care Service Corporation (doing 
business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, New Mexico, 
Oklahoma, and Texas).
    ``Medicaid's Efforts to Reform Since the Preventable Death 
of Deamonte Driver: A Progress Report'' (October 7, 2009). 
Witnesses: Cindy Mann, Director, Center for Medicaid and State 
Operations; Katherine Iritani, Assistant Director, Health 
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Burton L. 
Edelstein, D.D.S., M.P.H., Chair, Children's Dental Health 
Project; Mary G. McIntyre, M.D., M.P.H., Medical Director, 
Office of Clinical Standards and Quality, Alabama Medicaid 
Agency; Joel Berg, D.D.S., M.S., Chair, Department of Pediatric 
Dentistry, University of Washington; Frank Catalanotto, D.M.D., 
Professor and Chair, Department of Community Dentistry and 
Behavioral Sciences, University of Florida College of 
Dentistry, Representing American Dental Education Association.
    ``Examining the Continuing Crisis in Residential 
Foreclosures and the Emerging Commercial Real Estate Crisis: 
Perspectives from Atlanta'' (November 2, 2009). Witnesses: The 
Honorable Vincent Fort, Georgia State Senator (D-39); The 
Honorable Andrew Young, Chairman, GoodWorks International, LLC; 
Mr. Burt Manning, Chief Assessor, Fulton County Board of Tax 
Assessors; Mr. Brent Brewer, 30310 Mortgage Fraud Task Force; 
Mr. William J. Brennan, Esq., Director, Atlanta Legal Aid 
Society's Home Defense Project; Ms. Tia McCoy, Homeownership 
Center Manager, Resources for Residents and Communities; Mr. 
Dan Immergluck, Associate Professor, City and Regional Planning 
Program, Georgia Institute of Technology; Mr. Frank Alexander, 
Professor of Property, Real Estate Sales and Finance, State and 
Local Government Law, Law and Theology, Federal Housing 
Policies and Homelessness, Emory University School of Law; Ms. 
Saqirah Redmond, client of Resources for Residents and 
Communities of Georgia, Mr. Andy Schneggenburger, Executive 
Director, AHAND (Atlanta Housing Association of Neighborhood 
Based Developers); Mr. Joe Brannen, President & CEO, Georgia 
Bankers Association; Mr. Jeff Betsill, President, Jeff Betsill 
Homes, Inc.; Mr. Michael Rossetti, President, Ravin Homes, 
Inc.; Mr. Jon D. Greenlee, Associate Director, Division of 
Banking Supervision and Regulation, Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve.
    ``Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a Private Deal 
Turn Into a Federal Bailout? (Part IV)'' (November 17, 2009). 
Witnesses: Brian Moynihan, President, Consumer and Small 
Business Banking, Bank of America; Timothy J. Mayopoulos, 
former General Counsel, Bank of America; Charles Gifford, 
Member of the Bank of America Board of Directors; Thomas J. 
May, Member of the Bank of America Board of Directors.
    ``Examining Local Efforts to Address the Continuing 
Foreclosure Crisis: Perspectives from Cleveland, OH'' (December 
7, 2009). Witnesses: The Honorable Mike Foley, Ohio State 
Representative, 14th Legislative District; The Honorable Tim 
Grendell, Ohio State Senator, 18th Legislative District; The 
Honorable Michael Dudley, Sr., Councilmember, Garfield Heights 
Ward One; Mr. Daryl Rush, Director of Community Development, 
City of Cleveland; Mr. Jim Rokakis, Treasurer, Cuyahoga County; 
Ms. Phyllis Caldwell, Chief Homeownership Preservation Officer, 
U.S. Department of the Treasury; Mr. Mark Seifert, Executive 
Director, Empowering and Strengthening Ohio's People; Mr. Frank 
Ford, Senior Vice President, Neighborhood Progress, Inc.; Mr. 
Robert Grossinger, Senior Vice President for Community Affairs, 
Bank of America; Ms. Claudia Coulton, Co-director, Center on 
Urban Poverty & Community Development, Case Western Reserve 
University, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences.
    ``Bank of America and Merrill Lynch: How Did a Private Deal 
Turn Into a Federal Bailout? (Part V)'' (December 11, 2009). 
Witnesses: The Honorable Sheila C. Bair, Chairman, Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation; Mr. Robert Khuzami, Director, 
Division of Enforcement, United States Securities and Exchanges 
Commission.
    ``The Government as Dominant Shareholder: How Should the 
Taxpayer's Ownership Rights Be Exercised? (Part I)'' (December 
16, 2009). Witnesses: Ms. Orice Williams Brown, Director, 
Financial Markets and Community Investment, Government 
Accountability Office; Professor B. Espen Eckbo, Tuck School of 
Business at Dartmouth; Professor J.W. Verret, Assistant 
Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; Ms. 
Anne Simpson, Senior Portfolio Manager, Global Equity, 
California Public Employees' Retirement System; Mr. Alan 
Tonelson, Research Fellow, U.S. Business and Industry Council 
Educational Foundation; Mr. Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, 
Washington, D.C.
    ``The Government as Dominant Shareholder: How Should the 
Taxpayer's Ownership Rights Be Exercised? (Part II)'' (December 
17, 2009). Witness: Mr. Herbert M. Allison, Jr., Assistant 
Secretary for Financial Stability, U.S. Department of Treasury.
    ``Foreclosures Continue: What Needs to Change in the 
Administration's Response'' (February 5, 2010). Witnesses: Ms. 
Phyllis Caldwell, Chief Homeownership Preservation Officer, 
U.S. Department of Treasury; Mr. David Berenbaum, Chief Program 
Officer, National Community Reinvestment Coalition; Ms. 
Patricia Stringfield; Ms. Julia Gordon, Senior Policy Counsel, 
Center for Responsible Lending; Mr. Ronald Faris, President, 
Ocwen Financial Corporation; Mr. Jim Rokakis, Treasurer, 
Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Mr. Bill Sheil, Investigative Reporter, 
WJW-TV8 Cleveland, Ohio; Mr. Ed Pinto, Former Chief Credit 
Officer, Federal National Mortgage Association.
    ``Will NOAA's New Leadership Address Serious Problems in 
Fishery Law Enforcement?'' (March 2, 2010). Witnesses: Todd 
Zinser, Inspector General, Department of Commerce Office of 
Inspector General; Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of 
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Administrator, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Dale Jones, Director, 
Office for Law Enforcement, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Fisheries Service; Stephen Ouellette, Attorney; 
Richard Burgess, Gloucester-based fisherman; Jim Kendall, New 
Bedford Seafood Consulting, former scallop fisherman, former 
two-term New England Fishery Council member.
    ``Continuing Problems in USDA's Enforcement of the Humane 
Methods of Slaughter Act'' (March 4, 2010). Witnesses: Jerold 
Mande, Deputy Undersecretary for Food Safety, USDA; Lisa 
Shames, Director, Natural Resources and the Environment, 
Government Accountability Office; Dr. Dean Wyatt, FSIS Public 
Health Veterinarian, Colchester, VT; Stanley Painter, Chairman, 
National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, American 
Federation of Government Employees; Bev Eggleston, Owner, 
Ecofriendly Foods LLC; Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, Humane 
Society of the United States.
    ``ONDCP's Fiscal Year 2011 National Drug Control Budget: 
Are We Still Funding the War on Drugs?'' (April 14, 2010). 
Witnesses: Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of National Drug 
Control Policy; John Carnevale, Ph.D., President, Carnevale 
Associates, LLC; Ethan Nadelmann, Ph.D., J.D., Executive 
Director, Drug Policy Alliance; Peter Reuter, Professor, School 
of Public Policy and Department of Criminology, University of 
Maryland; Vanda Felbab-Brown, Ph.D., Fellow, The Brookings 
Institution.
    ``Nuclear Power's Federal Loan Guarantees: The Next Multi-
Billion Dollar Bailout?'' (April 20, 2010). Witnesses: Ms. 
Leslie Kass, Senior Director of Business Policy and Programs, 
Nuclear Energy Institute; Mr. Peter Bradford, former member, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, former Chairman, New York 
State Public Service Commission, former Chairman, Maine Public 
Utilities Commission, Adjunct Professor, Vermont Law School; 
Mr. Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy, Thomas A. 
Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage 
Foundation; Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President, Institute for 
Energy and Environmental Research; Mr. Michael D. Scott, 
Managing Director, Miller Buckfire & Co., LLC; Dr. Mark Cooper, 
Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis, Institute for Energy and 
the Environment, Vermont Law School; Mr. Henry Sokolski, former 
Deputy for Nonproliferation Policy, Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, President and Executive Director, Nonproliferation 
Policy Education Center; Mr. Richard Caperton, Policy Analyst, 
Center for American Progress; Mr. Christopher Guith, Vice 
President of Public Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
    ``Assessing EPA Efforts to Measure and Reduce Mercury 
Pollution from Dentist Offices'' (May 26, 2010). Witnesses: Ms. 
Nancy Stoner, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water; Mr. William 
Walsh, of Counsel, Pepper Hamilton LLP, representing American 
Dental Association (ADA); Mr. Steven Brown, Executive Director, 
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS); Mr. Al Dube, 
National Sales Manager, Dental Division, SolmeteX division of 
Layne Christensen Company; Mr. Alexis Cain, Scientist, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5; Mr. John Reindl, 
Mercury Policy Project.
    ``Treating Addiction as a Disease: The Promise of 
Medication-Assisted Recovery'' (June 23, 2010). Witnesses: Dr. 
Thomas McLellan, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Office of National 
Drug Control Policy; Dr. Nora D. Volkow, MD, Director, National 
Institute on Drug Abuse; Mr. Michael Mavromatis, member, 
Addictionsurvivors.org; Dr. Jeffrey Samet, MD, MA, MPH, 
Professor of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine; 
Mr. Gregory C. Warren, MA, MBA, President and CEO, Baltimore 
Substance Abuse Systems, Inc.; Mr. Orman Hall, Executive 
Director, Fairfield County, Ohio, Alcohol Drug Abuse Mental 
Health Board; Mr. Charles O'Keeffe, Professor, Departments of 
Pharmacology & Toxicology/Epidemiology & Community Health, 
Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies, VCU School of Medicine; 
Richard F. Pops, Chairman, President and Chief Executive 
Officer, Alkermes, Inc.
    ``International Counternarcotics Policies: Do They Reduce 
Domestic Consumption or Advance other Foreign Policy Goals?'' 
(July 21, 2010). Witnesses: Mr. Jess T. Ford, Director, 
International Affairs and Trade Team, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Mr. R. Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office 
of National Drug Control Policy; Ambassador David T. Johnson, 
Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of International Narcotics 
and Law Enforcement, U.S. State Department; Mr. William F. 
Wechsler, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Counternarcotics and Global Threats, U.S. Department of 
Defense; Mr. Adam Isacson, Senior Associate for Regional 
Security, Washington Office on Latin America; Ms. Vanda Felbab-
Brown, Ph.D., Foreign Policy Fellow, The Brookings Institution; 
Mr. Mark Kleiman, M.P.P. and Ph.D., Professor of Public Policy, 
UCLA School of Public Affairs.
    ``Quitting Hard Habits: Efforts to Expand and Improve 
Alternatives to Incarceration for Drug-Involved Offenders'' 
(July 22, 2010). Witnesses: Mr. James H. Burch, II, Acting 
Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice 
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; Mr. Benjamin B. Tucker, 
Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, Office of 
National Drug Control Policy; Angela Hawken, Ph.D., Associate 
Professor, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy; John 
Roman, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Justice Policy Center, 
Urban Institute; Douglas B. Marlowe, Ph.D., Chief of Science, 
Law and Policy, National Association of Drug Court 
Professionals; Mr. Daniel N. Abrahamson, Director of Legal 
Affairs, Drug Policy Alliance; Ms. Melody M. Heaps, President 
Emeritus, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC); 
Harold A. Pollack, Ph.D., Professor, University of Chicago 
School of Social Service Administration.
    ``Are `Superweeds' an Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy? 
(Part I)'' (July 28, 2010). Witnesses: Mr. Troy Roush, Farmer, 
Van Buren, Indiana; Mr. Micheal Owen, Professor of Agronomy, 
Iowa State University, Member, National Research Council 
Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm Economics and 
Sustainability; Mr. Stephen Weller, Professor of Horticulture, 
Purdue University; Mr. David A. Mortensen, Professor of Weed 
Ecology, Pennsylvania State University; Mr. Andrew Kimbrell, 
Executive Director, Center for Food Safety.
    ``From Molecules to Minds: The Future of Neuroscience 
Research & Development'' (September 29, 2010). Witnesses: 
Thomas R. Insel, M.D., Director, National Institute of Mental 
Health; Walter J. Koroshetz, M.D., Deputy Director, National 
Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Joel 
Kupersmith, M.D., Chief Research and Development Officer, 
Veterans Health Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans 
Affairs; Terry Rauch, Ph.D., Director, Defense Medical Research 
and Development Program, Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Health Affairs, Department of Defense; Huda Akil, 
Ph.D., Co-Director and Research Professor, The Molecular & 
Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan; 
William Z. Potter, M.D., Ph.D., Former Vice President in 
Neuroscience at Merck Research Labs; Tim Coetzee, Ph.D., 
Executive Director, Fast Forward, LLC; Kevin Kit Parker, Ph.D., 
Associate Professor of Applied Science and Biomedical 
Engineering, Harvard University; John H. Morrison, Ph.D., Dean, 
Basic Sciences and the Graduate School of Biological Sciences, 
Mount Sinai Medical Center.
    ``Are `Superweeds' an Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy? 
(Part II)'' (September 30, 2010). Witnesses: The Honorable Ann 
Wright, Deputy Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 
The Honorable Jim Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 
of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; Mr. Steve Smith, Director of Agriculture, 
Red Gold Tomato; Mr. Phil Miller, Vice President, Global 
Regulatory, Monsanto Company; Mr. Bill Freese, Science Advisor, 
Center for Food Safety; Mr. Jay Vroom, CEO, CropLife America.

B. SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT 
                              OF COLUMBIA

    The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and 
the District of Columbia has jurisdiction over federal employee 
issues, the municipal affairs (other than appropriations) of 
the District of Columbia, and the Postal Service. The 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes postal namings, holidays, 
and celebrations. In the 111th Congress, Rep. Stephen F. Lynch 
served as Chairman and Rep. Jason Chaffetz as Ranking Member.

1. Overview by Issue Area

            a. Federal Workforce
                (1) Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
    The Subcommittee is charged with overseeing the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEBBP), the nation's largest 
employer-sponsored health plan with approximately nine million 
enrollees. The Subcommittee is committed to exploring ways to 
reduce costs, both for the employee and annuitant enrollees, 
and for the federal government as an employer. An area of 
particular focus for the Subcommittee was netting substantial 
savings for FEHBP through the Office of Personnel Mangement's 
(OPM) adoption of transparent prescription drug contracting 
requirements relating to the carrier's pharmacy benefit 
managers, PBMs. Under FEHBP, OPM does not contract directly for 
prescription drug benefits, and the agency solely relies on the 
individual health plans to provide the prescription drug 
benefit, resulting in limited internal or external reviews of 
the program pharmacy benefits and pricing structure. Recent OPM 
Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits concluded that the 
plans' PBM contracts were poorly structured and designed, as 
well as lacking transparency.
    The Subcommittee believes that major obstacles remain in 
trying to determine whether or not the FEHBP receives a ``good 
deal'' for its prescription drug benefits with the lack of data 
or any in-depth reviews on FEHBP's pharmacy pricing and/or 
benefits showing what type of favorable pricing, rebates, 
dispensing, and administrative fees the overall program is 
receiving based on such factors as its large volume and 
purchasing power. In the absence of any substantial contractual 
or regulatory changes made by OPM relating to the FEHBP's 
prescription benefits, the Chairman introduced H.R. 4489, the 
FEHBP Prescription Drug Integrity, Transparency, and Cost 
Savings Act on January 21, 2010, following two hearings on this 
topic (one in each session), as well as hosting a legislative 
drafting forum specifically arranged for the entire FEHBP 
community of stakeholders including enrollees, carriers, PBMs, 
and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
    Additionally, the Subcommittee studied the prescription 
drug pricing options utilized by the Departments of Veterans' 
Affairs (VA) and Defense (DOD), as well as overall private 
sector drug pricing measures and arrangements. A further area 
of particular interest are the VA and DOD's use of formularies, 
pharmacies, and prime vendors to lower drug prices. At present, 
both agencies' formularies encourage the substitution of lower-
cost drugs determined to be as effective as or more effective 
than higher-cost drugs. Additionally, the VA and DOD use prime 
vendors, which are preferred drug distributors, to purchase 
drugs from manufacturers who then deliver the drugs to VA or 
DOD facilities. DOD and the VA receive discounts from their 
prime vendors that also reduce the prices that they pay for 
prescription drugs. As part of its work, the Subcommittee met 
with OPM, as well as officials from DOD's Tricare program, and 
conferred with multiple health care experts ranging from the 
Department of Health and Human Services, the VA, GAO, and 
outside groups representing enrollees, carriers, PBMs, and 
unaffiliated health policy experts.
                (2) Pay-for-Performance Issues
    The Subcommittee devoted considerable time to the issue of 
pay-for-performance, as well as to other pay and personnel 
systems issues. A review was conducted of the DOD's National 
Security Personnel System (NSPS), which included the DOD, labor 
and management representatives, as well as outside human 
resource experts. The Subcommittee heard from employees--both 
labor and management--who were confused by and frustrated by 
NSPS. Ultimately, the Subcommittee determined that NSPS had 
been poorly implemented at large expense to taxpayers, and DOD 
was not able to demonstrate any impact on employee performance 
or work ethic from its adoption. Given that the personnel 
system failed to produce any improved worker performance or 
management abilities, but did demonstrate unfair and non-
transparent compensation practices, as well as disparate 
treatment based on grade and race, the Subcommittee 
successfully advocated for its repeal in the Fiscal Year (FY) 
2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Additionally, 
the Subcommittee reviewed the Defense Civilian Intelligence 
Personnel System (DCIPS) and observed many of the same 
findings.
                (3) Federal Retirement Programs and Benefit Offerings
    The Subcommittee worked to improve the federal retirement 
programs by advancing and achieving enactment of long-pending 
legislation relating to both the Federal Employees Retirement 
System (FERS) and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). 
Following enactment of the FY2010 NDAA, FERS employees will 
receive retirement credit for the purposes of the annuity 
calculation for unused sick leave accumulated at the time of 
retirement, similar to their CSRS counterparts, resulting in 
increase agency productivity. Additionally, like CSRS 
employers, FERS workers, who earlier withdrew retirement 
contributions, will be able to re-deposit those contributions 
with interest, should they return to federal service. CSRS 
workers will, like FERS employees, be able to phase-down during 
their final years of service, without jeopardizing the high-
three annuity calculation of their annuities, resulting in 
increased retention of agency leaders who will train and 
develop the next generation of agency heads directly replacing 
them. Further, certain District of Columbia courts, parole, and 
public defender employers, who were earlier transferred from 
federal service, will now be able to properly receive full 
retirement credit for the sum of their government service. And, 
federal workers in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin 
Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands will be treated 
equally for purposes of pay and will receive locality pay, by 
giving up the now-defunct, tax-free Non-Foreign Cost-of-Living 
Adjustment (N-COLA).
    In the area of the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), the 
Subcommittee achieved catching federal workers' 401(k)-style 
plan up to existing private-sector 401(k) options by seeking 
enactment of auto-enrollment and a Roth-401(k) option within 
the TSP. The Subcommittee also focused on keeping the TSP plan 
up-to-speed with various IRS rule and tax code changes that 
applied to regular 401(k) plans, resulting in the Chairman 
introducing H.R. 4865, the Federal Employees and Uniformed 
Services Retirement Equity Act of 2010.
    In another attempt to keep the federal workplace on par 
with the private-sector, the Subcommittee worked to promote the 
adoption of telework by federal agencies. Given the need for 
agencies to function in a 21st Century environment, as well as 
the federal government as an employer needing to offer telework 
for recruitment and retention to be able to compete for talent 
against private-sector employers, the Subcommittee focused on 
enhancing and obtaining enactment of H.R. 1722, the Telework 
Improvements Act of 2009.
    As part of its commitment to equal pay for equal work, the 
Subcommittee became the first Congressional Subcommittee to 
consider, markup and favorably report out H.R. 2517, 
legislation to ensure equal treatment to lesbian and gay 
federal civilian employees by providing that same-sex partners 
be entitled to the same health and retirement benefits 
available to a married federal employee and his or her spouse. 
Considerable time was devoted to ensuring that all benefits 
available to employees' spouses under Chapters 81, 83, 84, 85, 
87, 89, and 90 of title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) were 
correctly amended to include same-sex domestic partners.
    Adoption of paid parental leave was another Subcommittee 
priority in the 111th Congress. The Subcommittee advanced H.R. 
626, legislation to provide federal workers with four weeks of 
pay following the birth, adoption or fostering of a new child, 
as a way to ensure the federal government as an employer offers 
attractive maternity benefits to younger applicants and 
workers, at a time of great need to recruit and retain younger 
workers given the relative aged nature of the federal 
workforce.
    In its assessment of types of benefits made available to 
deployed federal employees, the Subcommittee met with several 
groups of injured civilian employees who detailed significant 
issues with accessing treatment upon return home for injuries 
sustained while working in designated combat areas. Recognizing 
that over 100,000 federal employees have served in combat areas 
since 2001, and that current conditions in Iraq (pull-out of 
the U.S. military resulting in less security and health care 
support), Afghanistan, and Pakistan (higher number of employees 
heading into these unstable countries) may lead to increased 
numbers of injured civilian employees, the Subcommittee 
successfully inserted language in the pending FY 2011 NDAA to 
ensure that all federal employees who are injured serving in 
combat zones receive the proper medical treatment either 
through their workers' compensation program or health plans 
(under Chapters 81 or 89 of title 5 U.S.C.) upon return home. 
Of particular concern was ensuring government-wide uniform 
benefits and policies across multiple agencies, as well as 
avoiding the current situation of FEHBP plans refusing to 
provide treatment for an injury deemed work-related, while the 
Department of Labor's (DOL) Office of Worker's Compensation 
Program (OWCP) denies the injured individual's claim.
                (4) Employee Training and Development
    The Subcommittee reviewed various Merit System Protections 
Board (MSPB) reports, as well as individual agency audits and 
reports, highlighting the detrimental effect the lack of 
managerial training has on the overall federal workforce, as 
well as ultimately on the output of federal agencies. As such, 
the Subcommittee promoted H.R. 5522, the Federal Supervisor 
Training Act of 2010, requiring on-going managerial training 
for federal supervisors with the goal of creating a more 
skilled and professional federal workforce for the American 
people. The Subcommittee worked to lower the bill's 
discretionary cost by limiting the type of training that would 
be made available to federal managers and supervisors.
                (5) Oversight Duties
    The Subcommittee conducted multiple oversight hearings to 
ensure the federal government's proper treatment of its 
employees, including reviewing agencies' occupational safety 
and health protocols for protecting federal workers against 
communicable and occupational diseases (including H1N1 
influenza and ionized radiation exposure) and examining federal 
employee workplace security in the areas of facility risk 
assessments and agency emergency preparedness and safety 
training. The Subcommittee's sustained focus on the issue of 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) front-line employees 
being denied the right to voluntarily wear N-95 and surgical 
masks, as well as gloves and hand sanitizer, during the H1N1 
outbreak, resulted in the requirement that DHS front-line 
employees now have the right to use personal protective 
equipment during a public health emergency.
    Additionally, the Subcommittee performed routine and 
continuing oversight over multiple federal agencies in the 
following areas:
    OPM: FEHBP, both over the existing program and as part of 
overall health care reform), hiring reform proposals, 
retirement services (concerning large back-log in processing of 
annuities, and whether adequate staffing and financial 
resources are in place for the programs to function properly), 
Federal Employee Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) contracting 
practices (involving retained-asset accounts and incorrect and 
conflicting information and materials provided to beneficiaries 
and survivors), Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program 
(FLTCIP) contracting practices (involving premium increases and 
conflicting and confusing information and materials provided to 
beneficiaries).
    Other agencies: general hiring authorities and practices 
including compliance with competitive hiring and veterans' 
preference laws, personnel practices involving seasonal, 
intermittent, temporary and term employees (roughly ten percent 
of federal workers), pay practices and waivers for select 
groups of hard-to-recruit and retain employees in mission-
critical areas, DOL's OWCP (relating to overall timeliness of 
claims being processed and customer service, employees 
obtaining medical treatment for on-the-job injuries, including 
those serving in higher-risk areas such as in combat areas and 
in certain law enforcement positions).
                (6) Legislation
    In the legislative arena, the Chairman sponsored bills in 
the health care and retirement areas of the Subcommittee's 
jurisdiction. On March 3, 2009, Chairman Lynch introduced 
H.R.1263, the Federal Retirement Reform Act of 2009 seeking to 
enhance the Thrift Savings Plan by allowing auto-enrollment of 
participants into the plan by federal agencies, adding a Roth-
401(k) option, and authorizing the Federal Retirement Thrift 
Investment Board to consider offering a self-directed mutual 
fund window. Additionally, the bill improved federal retirement 
programs by granting retirement credit for unused sick leave 
under FERS and allowing part-time service in the final years of 
CSRS service without jeopardizing an employee's high-three for 
purposes of the annuity computation. Further, the bill allowed 
certain District of Columbia courts, parole and public defender 
employees who were transferred from federal to DC service to 
receive federal retirement credit for their DC government 
employment. An attempt was made to include all of these civil 
service provisions in the Tobacco bill, H.R. 1256, considered 
by the House, but only the TSP provisions were successfully 
added to the tobacco bill that ultimately passed the House and 
became law on June 22, 2009 (P.L. 111-31). Later, the remaining 
civil service retirement program improvements were successfully 
inserted into H.R. 2647, the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense 
Authorization, which became law on October 28, 2009 (P.L. 11-
84).
    The Chairman introduced H.R. 4489, the FEHBP Prescription 
Drug Integrity, Transparency, and Cost Savings Act on January 
21, 2010. The bill would lower the costs of prescription drugs 
in FEHPB and would provide OPM with additional oversight and 
contracting authority over the prescription drug benefit. 
Specifically, the legislation would prohibit a Pharmacy Benefit 
Manager (PBM) from being under common corporate control with a 
prescription drug manufacturer or a retail pharmacy; would 
require brand name drug substitutions to be approved by the 
patient's physician resulting in a lower net cost to both the 
health plan and the patient; would require the PBM to return 99 
percent of all rebates and other manufacturer payments to the 
health plan; would limit the amount paid for prescription drugs 
to the actual costs incurred by the PBM; would provide patients 
with an explanation of benefits (EOB); and would allow OPM full 
access to all related contracts and pricing information needed 
to determine if the health plans were charged appropriately for 
the prescription drugs purchased.
    Like all other health plans, the FEHBP is not immune from 
rising health care costs and increased usage of ever-more 
prescription medications. H.R. 4489 is intended to help combat 
increased plan premiums, copays, co-insurance, and other out-
of-pocket expenses that FEHBP enrollees and the federal 
government as an employer are facing.
    The Subcommittee successfully marked up an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 4489 on March 24, 2009 sending 
it to the full Committee for consideration. Following the 
Subcommittee's June 24, 2009 and February 23, 2010 hearings and 
the Rx Round Table Forum held on September 29, 2009, careful 
consideration was given to H.R. 4489 resulting in several 
changes. Ultimately, the Subcommittee had concerns with using 
the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) as a pricing benchmark 
given that there is significant disagreement on what exact 
costs are included in the calculation of the AMP, and that 
using AMP as the basis to reimburse the PBMs would translate 
into being reimbursed less than what they paid for the 
prescription drugs in most cases. Notably, the manager's 
amendment differed from the original bill by removing the 
language that would have limited reimbursement to PBMs to the 
AMP. Under the amended version of the legislation, FEHBP health 
plans are to reimburse the PBMs the same amount that the PBMs 
reimburse retail pharmacy. Another significant change to the 
bill made at markup is that the legislation is only applicable 
to experience-rated carriers in the FEHBP which represent about 
80 percent of FEHBP's health plan membership. On February 22, 
2009 OPM issued an out-of-cycle FEHBP carrier letter informing 
FEHBP fee-for-service health plans of new contractual 
transparency requirements regarding FEHBP PBMs for plan year 
2011.
    On March 17, 2010, the Chairman introduced H.R. 4865, the 
Federal Employees and Uniformed Services Retirement Equity Act 
of 2010. The bill would allow TSP participants to catch-up to 
private-sector workers who under current law are allowed to 
contribute the dollar value of unused leave into their 401(k) 
accounts. Under H.R. 4865, federal employees and members of the 
armed forces would be allowed to either receive a lump-sum 
payment for any accrued, unused annual leave or to direct this 
money into their TSP accounts in accordance with IRS annual 
contribution limits. The bill would assist federal workers and 
military personnel enhance their TSP savings, especially at a 
time when participants' accounts have been decimated by the 
economy. The legislation was marked up by the full Committee on 
April 14, 2010.
    The Subcommittee also considered a variety of federal 
workforce bills including legislation introduced by Members of 
the Committee. On March 25, 2009, the Subcommittee marked up 
and favorably reported out by voice vote H.R. 626, the Federal 
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. The legislation, 
sponsored by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, was later marked up 
by the full Committee on May 6, 2009 and passed by the House on 
June 4, 2009. The bill would provide federal workers who 
qualify for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave with four 
weeks of full pay to use while on FMLA leave for the birth, 
adoption or fostering of a new child. It would also enable 
employees to use up to eight weeks of accrued paid sick time 
during the remainder of their FMLA leave for a new child. 
Further, the bill gives OPM authority to increase the number of 
weeks of paid parental leave from four to eight weeks once 
further studies are conducted. Additionally, the bill requires 
GAO to conduct a study on the feasibility of providing paid 
leave for federal employees for the other types of leave 
covered under the FMLA, such as self-care and providing care 
for seriously ill family members. The Subcommittee believes 
that the federal government, as the nation's largest employer, 
is trailing the private-sector workplace in the area of 
maternity benefits as 75% of Fortune 100 companies offer at 
least six weeks of paid maternity leave. Additionally, the 
federal workforce is overall an aged workforce, reflecting the 
difficulty in hiring younger workers, and maternity leave is a 
major benefit desired by younger, working families.
    The Subcommittee considered H.R. 2517, a bill introduced by 
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, to extend employee and retirement 
benefit offerings to the domestic partners of federal employees 
and retirees. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
nearly thirteen percent of an employee's compensation comes in 
the form of insurance and retirement benefits and seven percent 
comes in the form of paid leave, which makes it possible for 
workers to accommodate work and family obligations. Therefore, 
a gay or lesbian civilian employee doing the same job at the 
same pay grade will receive significantly less compensation 
than his or her married heterosexual counterpart, which means 
that these employees are not receiving equal pay for equal 
contributions. This finding is particularly troublesome since 
the federal merit system requires employees to receive equal 
pay for equal work. Moreover, as the nation's largest civilian 
employer, the federal government has historically been a leader 
in offering benefits to its employees and fostering an 
equitable workplace. However, when it comes to the offering of 
domestic partner benefits, the federal government is clearly 
lagging behind other public and private sector employers in 
this area of personnel management. For example, the number of 
Fortune 500 companies that extend benefits to employees with 
same-sex partners has grown significantly from forty-six 
companies (9%) in 1997 to two hundred and eighty-six companies 
(57%) in 2009. Furthermore, almost 10,000 employers nationally 
offer benefits to domestic partners. Over five hundred of these 
employers are in the public sector. These employers include 19 
state governments and the District of Columbia, over 150 local 
governments, and hundreds of educational institutions and non-
profit entities.
    On July 30, 2009 the Subcommittee marked up the Domestic 
Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 bill by vote 
(5-3) forwarding it to the full Committee. In order to ensure 
that the bill would fully provide access to each and every 
federal employee benefit, including health care benefits 
(FEHBP), retirement and disability benefits (CSRS and FERS), 
dental and vision benefits (Federal Dental and Vision Insurance 
Program), group life insurance (FEGLI), long-term care 
insurance (FLTCIP), compensation for work injuries (FECA), 
family, medical, and emergency leave (Family Medical and Leave 
Act), and benefits for disability, death, and captivity, H.R. 
2517 was subsequently amended for technical corrections and 
reported out favorably by the full Committee. The Subcommittee 
maintains that a continued, pressing need exists for the 
federal government, as an employer, to be able to attract, 
recruit, and retain employees through its benefit offerings, 
which currently exclude certain federal employees' and 
retirees' immediate family members. Of note, the bill does not 
impact the Defense of Marriage Act.
    In the Second Session, the Subcommittee considered and 
marked up H.R. 1722, the Telework Improvements Act of 2009. 
Sponsored by Congressman John Sarbanes, and Representatives 
Stephen Lynch, Gerald Connolly, Danny Davis, James Moran, Dutch 
Ruppersberger, and Frank Wolf on March 25, 2009, the bill was 
crafted to enhance the federal government's usage and 
implementation of effective telework programs. Despite the 
numerous proven benefits of teleworking, which include 
increased flexibilities for both employers and employees, 
continuity of operations during emergency events, and decreased 
energy use and air pollution, telework continues to be 
underutilized by most government agencies. Much of this under-
utilization largely results from issues and barriers such as 
management resistance, office coverage, organizational culture, 
and technology security and funding. The bill defines the term 
telework and requires the head of each executive branch agency 
to establish a policy that authorizes employees to telework, in 
conformance with regulations developed by OPM, in consultation 
with the General Services Administration (GSA). Further, the 
bill requires the GSA to issue guidance (coordinating where 
appropriate with OPM and Federal Emergency Management Agency) 
on questions of eligibility, information security, making 
telework part of the agency's goals, and continuity of 
operations planning. Additionally, H.R. 1722 requires each 
agency to appoint or designate a Telework Managing Officer 
(TMO) who is to serve as the agency's point of contact on 
telework issues. The legislation also requires each TMO to 
collect information about the agency's telework program and 
provide relevant information to be included in an annual report 
compiled by GAO. The bill also stipulates a series of 
evaluation and reporting requirements to be carried out by 
individual agencies, OPM, GSA and GAO. In particular, H.R. 1722 
orders GAO to report annually to Congress on the status of 
agencies' telework program, rating, and compliance record. The 
Sarbanes legislation further requires agencies to incorporate 
telework into agency continuity of operations planning and 
requires GSA to report to Congress within one year on the 
extent to which each agency has done so.
    Chairman Lynch offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1722 at the March 24, 2009 Subcommittee 
markup making several major changes, including: granting OPM 
greater authority in the development of regulations and policy 
requirements related to establishing agency telework plans and 
programs; requiring the incorporation of the term ``telework 
eligibility'' in the descriptions of all available positions 
and other recruitment materials where applicable; transferring 
the bulk of the reporting and evaluation requirements from GAO 
to OPM; and removing the Agency compliance requirement, which 
dictated that each agency establish a policy that allows 
authorized employees to telework at least twenty percent of 
every two work weeks. The bill was favorably reported out to 
the full Committee, and subsequently passed the House on July 
14, 2010.
    Another Sarbanes bill considered and reported favorably out 
of Subcommittee on May 27, 2010 was H.R. 3243. Under current 
law, federal fire fighters are not allowed to trade time (also 
referred to as to swap a shift or to swap time) and still be 
paid according to their regularly scheduled work. In contrast, 
municipal and state fire fighters across the country, under the 
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are allowed to trade time and 
are instead paid as if they had worked their regularly 
scheduled shift. Unlike at the state and municipal levels, if 
federal fire fighters trade time, their new shifted schedule 
can trigger the payment of overtime, and they are not allowed 
to be paid as if they had simply worked the scheduled work 
shift. The workplace scheduling flexibility provided to state 
and local fire fighters, approved by the employing agency, 
gives these fire fighters the ability to attend last-minute 
family obligations while maintaining proper staffing levels. 
H.R. 3243, would allow trade time to be excluded from the 
calculation of overtime for federal fire fighters, thereby 
granting more leave flexibility to these workers without 
costing any money. It is important to note that it is up to the 
federal agency to approve the workers' request to switch 
shifts.
    The Subcommittee believes that providing this benefit to 
federal fire fighters will boost federal agencies' ability to 
recruit and retain trained fire fighters who heavily desire 
such scheduling benefits already available at the local and 
state governmental levels. Moreover, the Subcommittee hoped to 
highlight the fact that workplace flexibility is also an 
important benefit to extend to all workers, not just white-
collar desk employees. While some benefit offerings such as 
telework may not be appropriate for all segments of the federal 
workforce such as those employees who must be on site through 
their entire shift, such as a federal fire fighter, law 
enforcement officer or VA nurse, other job flexibilities can--
and should be--considered. Otherwise, such flexibilities merely 
serve to further the divide between white and blue collar 
employees.
    Additionally at the May 27 Business Meeting, the 
Subcommittee considered and marked up H.R. 3264, introduced by 
Congressman Gerry Connolly and Brian Bilbray. The bill directs 
each federal agency to appoint an internship coordinator within 
the agency, and to make publicly available the coordinator's 
name and contact information. OPM would be directed to 
establish and maintain a centralized electronic database that 
contains the names, contact information, and relevant skills of 
individuals who have completed (or are nearing completion of) 
an internship program and who are seeking full-time federal 
employment. Further, the bill would allow agencies to make 
noncompetitive appointments leading to conversion to term, 
career, or career-conditional employment of individuals who 
have completed an internship program. At the markup, the 
Chairman offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
remove the non-competitive appointment authority in the pending 
bill. The adopted amendment instead utilizes the existing 
Student Educational Employment Program, which is comprised of 
both the Student Temporary Employment Program (STEP), and the 
Student Career Experience Program (SCEP). The bill was 
favorably reported to the full Committee, and also included in 
the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 
5136.
    On July 21, 2010 the Subcommittee marked up and favorably 
reported out by voice vote H.R. 5522, the Federal Supervisor 
Training Act of 2010. Introduced on June 14, 2010 by 
Congressmen Jim Moran, Frank Wolf and Gerry Connolly, H.R. 5522 
would require federal agencies to provide training programs to 
supervisors. Currently certain agencies, including the 
Departments of Defense, Justice, Energy, Treasury, Commerce, 
Education, Veterans' Affairs and State, as well as the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Personnel Management, and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, voluntarily provide supervisor 
training, although they are not required to do so. Further, 
such training can be eliminated from an agency's budget due to 
funding constraints. To that end, the legislation would require 
federal agencies to establish and authorize funding for the 
training of all new supervisors within one year of hire or 
promotion. Additionally, the measure would require on-going 
training at least once every three years for all supervisors 
and would establish a mentoring program between experienced and 
brand-new supervisors. The Subcommittee feels strongly that 
providing leadership development training to supervisors will 
result in enhanced agency performance management and overall 
effectiveness for the American people, and will reduce the 
number of employee complaints, grievances and adverse appeals, 
ultimately saving taxpayer funds and increasing worker 
productivity.
                (7) Reports
    Reflecting the Subcommittee's concern for the safety of 
federal employees while on the job inside federal buildings, in 
light of several violent incidents in early 2010, including the 
January 4, 2010 shoot-out at the Lloyd D. George Federal 
Courthouse in Las Vegas, NV killing a U.S. courthouse security 
officer and injuring a deputy U.S. Marshall; the February 18, 
2010 attack on the Echelon federal building in Austin, TX where 
an individual purposefully flew a plan into IRS offices; and 
the March 4, 2010 shooting near the Pentagon employee entrance, 
resulting in the wounding of two officers from the Pentagon's 
Force Protection Agency, a request was made to GAO following 
the Subcommittee's March 16, 2010 hearing on this topic for a 
comprehensive report assessing the risk of violent incidents be 
they from foreign or domestic sources at federal facilities, as 
well as reviewing the level of agency preparedness and security 
training provided to employees. Additionally, GAO was asked to 
assess the effectiveness and overall competency of Federal 
Security Committees (FSC) for multi-tenant buildings, the 
Department of Homeland Security's Inter-Agency Security 
Committee (ISC), and the Federal Protective Service (FPS).
    Following enactment of the Patient Protecting and 
Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on March 23, 2001, the Subcommittee 
requested a memorandum from the Congressional Research 
Service's Law Division to review the new health care law's 
impact on existing Title 5 United States Code FEHBP statute. 
While PPACA encompassed the FEHBP given that it amended the 
Public Health Service Act, various provisions under Chapter 89, 
Title 5 U.S.C. require amendment.
    On September 9, 2010, given the Subcommittee's overall 
interest in FEHBP drug pricing issues, the Chairman, along with 
Rep. Steve Driehaus, requested a report from GAO to study the 
impact repackaged pharmaceuticals have on the FEHBP, 
particularly on the cost impact to both the health plans and to 
enrollees.
                (8) Other Matters
    The Chairman offered a successful floor amendment to the 
Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act which 
was considered by the House on June 4, 2009. The Subcommittee's 
hearing on ``Protecting the Protectors: An Assessment of Front-
Line Federal Workers and the Swine Flu Outbreak'' on May 14, 
2009, revealed that front-line Department of Homeland Security 
workers were being denied the right to don N-95 protective 
masks, and other personal protective equipment during the H1N1 
flu outbreak, as well as inconsistent messaging and practices 
across airports, land, and sea border crossings. The Chairman's 
amendment required the Transportation Security Agency to allow 
its TSA workers to voluntarily don personal protective 
equipment to include N-95 and other surgical masks, gloves, and 
hand sanitizer during a public health emergency. Additionally, 
the Chairman successfully inserted similar language into 
Chairman David Price's manager's amendment to H.R. 2892, the 
Fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act during House floor consideration. The language passed by 
the House on June 24, 2009 and ultimately enacted into law on 
October 28, 2009 (P.L. 111-83) ensures that all Department of 
Homeland Security employees who interact with the public can 
use personal protective equipment without negative personnel 
action .
            b. Postal Service
                (1) General Oversight of the Postal Service's Financial 
                    Condition
    Over the past two years, the Subcommittee has conducted 
rigorous and continuous oversight of the Postal Service's 
deteriorating financial condition. Since 2008, the Postal 
Service has experienced a cumulative loss of nearly $12 
billion. While these unprecedented losses are partly due to the 
nationwide economic downturn which caused massive declines in 
mail volume, the situation is also a direct result of the 
continued diversion of communications from hard copy to 
electronic form and retiree health benefits payments mandated 
by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA). While 
PAEA was instrumental in affording the Postal Service greater 
operational flexibilities and in permitting, for the first time 
in history, the Postal Service to make a profit, the potential 
benefits of the legislation never fully materialized, given the 
Postal Service's current financial crisis.
    In light of these concerns, the Subcommittee held its first 
postal related hearing of the 111th Congress, on March 25, 2009 
to examine the extent of the Postal Service's financial 
challenges and to discuss measures the Postal Service was 
taking to address them. The hearing, entitled ``Restoring the 
Financial Stability of the U.S. Postal Service: What Needs to 
be Done,'' took a detailed look at potential sources 
responsible for the Postal Service's declining profitability as 
well as at various short and long term strategies and options 
for reducing costs, improving efficiency and returning the 
Postal Service to financial solvency. The hearing also provided 
the Subcommittee an opportunity to question the Postal 
Service's Board of Governors on its approval of top Postal 
executives' bonus compensation packages, given the 
organization's dire financial situation.
    Lastly, the hearing also considered the merits of H.R. 22, 
which was introduced by Representatives John McHugh and Danny 
K. Davis on January 6, 2009, in order to allow the Postal 
Service to pay its share of contributions for annuitants' 
health benefits out of the Postal Service Retiree Health 
Benefits Fund instead of from its operating budget, as required 
by PAEA. Following the hearing's discussion on H.R. 22, the 
Subcommittee held a markup on the bill on June 24, 2009, and 
adopted by voice vote an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, limiting relief to three years. On July 10, 2009 
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a business 
meeting to consider H.R. 22. The Committee adopted the 
Subcommittee's amendment in the nature of a substitute by 
unanimous consent, and ordered H.R. 22 reported as amended, by 
voice vote. As approved, the measure would have afforded the 
Postal Service over $6 billion in immediate financial relief.
    On May 13, 2009 the Subcommittee continued its oversight of 
the Postal Service's financial situation by holding an 
additional hearing on the matter entitled ``Nip and Tuck: The 
Impact of Current Cost Cutting Efforts on Postal Service 
Operations and Network.'' The hearing focused on the Postal 
Service's March 2009 announcement of plans to make several 
across-the-board cuts in service and operations to help 
downsize its infrastructure and reduce costs. During the 
hearing, the Postal Service discussed its intentions to achieve 
cost savings by consolidating excess capacity in the mail 
processing and transportation networks; realigning carrier 
routes; reducing overall workhours, halting construction of new 
postal facilities; renegotiating contracts with major 
suppliers; freezing Postal Service officer and executive 
salaries at 2008 pay levels; reducing travel budgets; and 
shortening post office hours. Collectively, these cost cutting 
efforts had the potential of saving the Postal Service about $6 
billion in FY 2009.
    In addition to the two previously mentioned hearings on the 
Postal Service's financial situation, the Subcommittee, in 
conjunction with the full Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, also held a hearing on April 15, 2010 entitled 
``Continuing to Deliver: An Examination of the Postal Service's 
Current Financial Crisis and its Future Viability.'' The 
hearing entailed an in-depth discussion on the Postal Service's 
recently unveiled new business plan, ``Ensuring a Viable Postal 
Service for America: An Action Plan for the Future,'' which 
recommended such reforms as moving from a six to five day mail 
delivery schedule and restructuring the Postal Service's 
employee pension and health benefits obligations. The hearing 
also examined the findings of the Government Accountability 
Office's (GAO) report entitled ``U.S. Postal Service: 
Strategies and Options to Facilitate Progress Toward Financial 
Viability,'' which most notably found the Postal Service's 
current business model to be unviable due to its inability to 
sufficiently reduce costs in response to continuing declines in 
mail volume and revenue. Lastly, the hearing also investigated 
assertions by the Postal Service's Inspector General that the 
Postal Service overpaid $75 billion in Civil Service Retirement 
System's pension contributions.
    In continuing to examine the Postal Service's current and 
future financial prospects, the Subcommittee held a joint 
hearing with the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial 
Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and 
International Security on June 23, 2010. This hearing, 
entitled, ``Having Their Say: Customer and Employee Views on 
the Future of the U.S. Postal Service,'' provided customer and 
employee stakeholders an opportunity to discuss the economic 
difficulties currently facing the Postal Service and to respond 
to plans put forth by postal management and GAO on the Postal 
Service's future viability.
                (2) Facility and Network Consolidation
    On July 29, 2009, the Subcommittee held an additional 
postal related hearing to examine the Postal Service's proposed 
initiative to combine station and branch postal facilities as 
well as other consolidation-related efforts such as mail 
delivery route adjustments. The hearing entitled ``Making Sense 
of It All: An Examination of USPS's Station and Branch 
Optimization Initiative and Delivery Route Adjustments,'' 
provided the Subcommittee with an opportunity to take a 
detailed examination of the proposed facility consolidation 
initiative and explore the criteria USPS planned to use to 
guide its decisions; overall targeted savings; the timeline for 
implementation; and USPS's communication efforts with 
stakeholders. The hearing also explored related consolidation 
efforts such as USPS's approach to delivery route adjustments.
    Although at the time of the hearing the Postal Service 
delineated its reasoning and plans to review 3,105 Postal 
stations and branches, by the conclusion of the vetting 
process, the Postal Service had only identified 144 stations 
and branches for closing or consolidation, thereby bringing 
into question its diligence in carrying out the initiative.
                (3) Innovation and Revenue Generation
    On November 5, 2009 the Subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``More than Stamps: Adapting the Postal Service to a 
Changing World.'' The hearing examined what steps the Postal 
Service had taken since Congress passed the Postal 
Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 to use increased 
flexibility to grow revenue. Further, the hearing explored 
barriers or limitations to the Postal Service's efforts to 
innovate. Over the course of the hearing, the Subcommittee 
learned of several innovative services and product offerings, 
initiated by the Postal Service strategically aimed at growing 
revenue for the organization. These items ranged from the 
introduction Standard Mail Volume Incentive Pricing Program 
(``Summer Sale'') in the summer of 2009, which as of October 
29, 2009, had generated at least $50 million in new revenue by 
encouraging major mailers via discounts to increase their use 
of mail during the traditionally low-volume summer period and 
to the introduction of the popular Priority Mail Flat Rate Box 
campaign.
    Following the hearing, the Subcommittee requested a formal 
review from the GAO to study pioneering revenue initiatives and 
innovations of foreign Posts and their applicability to the US 
Postal Service. The Subcommittee expects GAO to complete its 
work on the report by February 2011.
                (4) Postal Pricing and Worksharing Arrangements
    In an ongoing effort to examine the nexus between the 
Postal Service's dismal financial condition and its current 
pricing system, on May 12, 2010, the Subcommittee held its 
first postal related hearing of the second session entitled, 
``The Price is Right, or is it? An Examination of USPS 
Workshare Discounts and Products that Do Not Cover Their 
Costs.'' Specifically the hearing discussed the March 29, 2010, 
Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) issued Fiscal Year 2009 
Annual USPS Compliance Determination (ACD) report, which found 
that 30 postal workshare discounts actually exceeded their 
avoided costs. The PRC found that 17 of these discounts were 
justified under statutory provisions; however, it further found 
that the remaining 13 were not appropriately justified and must 
be realigned at the next general price adjustment. In light of 
these findings, the hearing explored the appropriateness and 
current impact of various workshare discounts on the Postal 
Service finances.
    Additionally, the hearing discussed both the PRC's ACD and 
revelations contained in the Government Accountability Office's 
April 12, 2010 report entitled ``U.S. Postal Service, 
Strategies and Options to Facilitate Progress Toward Financial 
Viability'' that certain postal products do not cover their 
costs. The PRC found that, in the aggregate, all the products 
that do not cover their costs lost $1.7 billion in FY 2009, 
with the two largest such products, Periodicals and Standard 
Mail Flats, losing $642 million and $616 million, respectively. 
The hearing revealed that although some postal products were 
appropriately priced below cost for public policy reasons, the 
Postal Service had intentions to establish more accurate 
pricing policies for of these ``under-water'' products 
mailings, especially given the current financial status of the 
Postal Service. Thus, the May 12, 2010 hearing served as a 
precursor to the Postal Services filing of its first exigent 
rate case with the PRC on July 6, 2010.
                (5) House-Wide Postal Education Briefing Series
    In January of 2010, immediately following the commencement 
of the second session of the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee, 
joined by both the majority and minority full Committee, 
launched the Postal 101--House-wide Education Briefing Series. 
The series of briefings were designed to provide updated 
general and legislative information to personal office staffers 
responsible for matters pertaining to the Postal Service, its 
employees, and the millions of mailing industry customers. The 
briefing series garnered the participation of over 100 Member 
offices and involved the representation of a wide variety of 
Postal related stakeholders, such as the Postal Service, the 
Postal Regulatory Commission, the Postal Service Office of 
Inspector General, the Congressional Research Service, the 
Government Accountability Office, major Mailer Organizations, 
as well as Postal Employee Unions and Management Associations. 
A summary of the five briefings conducted under the series is 
listed below:
     Postal 101A on January 26, 2010, entitled 
``Overview of Postal Issues, Briefing Expectations and 
Introduction of Postal Principals & Stakeholders.''
     Postal 101C on February 25, 2010, entitled 
``Business as Usual: A Lesson in Postal Operations, Finance, 
Regulation & Oversight.''
     Postal 101B on March 2, 2010 entitled ``If Not the 
Taxpayer Then Who?:
     Understanding the Perspective of Mailing 
Customers/Consumers.''
     Postal 101D on March 9, 2010, entitled 
``Representing the Service in Postal Service: Issues from the 
Employee Viewpoint.''
     Concluding briefing held for both House and Senate 
Staffers in CVC on March 12, 2010 where USPS unveiled its 
action plan for the future and new business plan announced 
publicly on March 2, 2010.
                (6) Legislation
    Over the course of the 111th Congress the Subcommittee 
considered and/or approved several postal related legislative 
measures. On January 6, 2009, Representatives John McHugh and 
Danny Davis introduced H.R. 22 which was intended to provide 
the United States Postal Service (the Postal Service) temporary 
financial relief by allowing for payments for current retiree 
health benefits to be paid out of the Postal Service Retiree 
Health Benefits Fund from fiscal years 2009-2016. Under 
existing law (P.L. 109-435), the Postal Service is required to 
pay annually, through September 30, 2016 its share of 
contributions for annuitants' health benefits. These payments 
range from $2 billion to $4.2 billion annually.
    The Subcommittee convened on June 24, 2009 to consider and 
markup H.R. 22. During the business meeting, Chairman Stephen 
Lynch offered an amendment which modified the total number of 
years in which the Postal Service would be permitted to defer 
payment for its share of contributions for the health benefits 
of current retirees to the trust fund. Instead of permitting 
eight years, worth of payments to be drawn from the Postal 
Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, the amendment would only 
authorize OPM to pay the Postal Service's share of 
contributions for annuitants' health benefits out of the fund 
for fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Both amendment and the 
underlying bill were approved by voice vote and favorably 
reported out to the Full Committee. The Full Committee 
considered and approved H.R. 22 on July 10, 2009. The final 
House passed version of H.R. 22 was passed on September 15, 
2009. At that time the bill was amended to provide the Postal 
Service financial relief by reducing its FY 2009 Postal Retiree 
Health Benefits payment from $5.4 billion to $1.4 billion. In 
accordance with PAEA, the Postal Service is required to pre-
fund health insurance premiums for future retirees, which no 
other federal entity is required to do at such an accelerated 
rate.
    To address concerns relating to ongoing and proposed postal 
facility closures, Rep. Albio Sires introduced H.R. 658, 
``Access to Postal Services'' on January 22, 2009. While the 
Postal Service expressed opposition to the bill, the 
Subcommittee staff worked closely with senior Postal Service 
officials to decipher the current process for closing Postal 
Branches and Stations, in comparison to Post Offices. Moreover, 
aspects of H.R. 658 were discussed during the Subcommittee's 
July 29, 2009, hearing entitled ``Making Sense of It All: An 
Examination of USPS' Station and Branch Optimization Initiative 
and Delivery Route Adjustments''. Testimony was provided by the 
bill's sponsor Rep. Sires during the hearing. Further, to gain 
a better understanding of the issue, Subcommittee staff 
requested the Congressional Research Service conduct a study of 
retail facility closures. The report, entitled, ``Post Office 
and Retail Postal Facility Closures: Overview and Issues for 
Congress,'' was issued on July 23, 2009, entered into the July 
29, 2009 hearing record, and widely cited publicly by 
Subcommittee Members.
    On March 2, 2009, H.R. 1251 was introduced by Rep. Anthony 
Weiner, to ``amend title 39, United States Code, to provide 
that the United States Postal Service may not carry out a 
change-of-address request unless it first receives a signed 
confirmation that the request was in fact made by or on behalf 
of the addressee.'' The bill was referred to the Subcommittee 
on May 4, 2009. The Subcommittee and Rep. Weiner's staff were 
briefed by both the Office of the Inspector General and the 
United States Postal Service on this issue.
    On July 10, 2009, Subcommittee Ranking Member Jason 
Chaffetz introduced H.R. 3167, which would have allowed mail 
carriers to serve in temporary enumerator positions in 
connection with the 2010 decennial Census. Given issues related 
to timing and preparation of the 2010 census, the Subcommittee 
elected not to mark up H.R. 3167 during the 111th Congress. 
However, on December 1, 2009, Chairman Stephen Lynch and 
Ranking Member Jason Chaffetz submitted a request to GAO to 
study the various options for collaboration between the U.S. 
Census Bureau and the Postal Service in order to reduce costs 
and improve the efficiency of the 2020 Census. GAO expects to 
complete work on the study during the spring of 2011.
    On May 24, 2010, Chairman Lynch introduced, H.R. 5368, the 
United States Postal Service Postal Inspectors Equity Act. This 
bill would apply provisions of law enforcement availability pay 
to postal inspectors and criminal investigators of the United 
States Postal Service Office of the Inspector General. This 
bill was favorably reported out of the Subcommittee on May 27, 
2010 and out of the full Committee on September 23, 2010 by 
voice votes.
    Chairman Lynch introduced, H.R. 5746, the United States 
Postal Service's CSRS Obligation Modification Act of 2010 on 
July 15, 2010. This bill would prescribe the appropriate 
methodology for OPM to use in apportioning the liability 
between the Postal Service and Federal government for CSRS 
employees that served under both the former Post Office 
Department and the Postal Service. In 1971, The Postal 
Reorganization Act of 1970 (PRA or P.L. 91-375) established the 
Postal Service as an autonomous Federal entity and transferred 
the responsibilities of the Post Office Department (POD), a 
U.S. government agency, to the Postal Service. One of the 
requirements of the PRA was the continued participation of 
Postal Service in CSRS, thus ensuring continuity of pension 
coverage for postal workers. It was therefore necessary to 
determine how to allocate pension costs for pre-1971 service 
between the taxpayer-supported POD and the ratepayer-supported 
Postal Service. In allocating the pension costs, OPM used, and 
currently still uses, a particular actuarial methodology.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\OPM's current practice for apportioning benefit liabilities 
between the Federal Government and the Postal Service uses the Final 
Post Office Department salary to determine Federal Government's share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 5746 directs OPM to utilize an actuarial methodology 
in accordance with the recommendation of an independent 
actuarial firm hired by the Postal Regulatory Commission as 
required by section 802(c) of the Postal Accountability and 
Enhancement Act. Under this revised methodology, the Federal 
government's portion of an individual's CSRS annuity will be 
based on the CSRS benefit accrual formula and the conventional 
individual's ``high-3'' average salary. This legislation 
ensures that OPM uses a methodology to apportion the benefit 
liabilities between the taxpayer-supported POD and the 
ratepayer-supported Postal Service that is recognized and 
codified by the Financial Accounting Standard Board. Any postal 
surplus created as a result of this bill would be transferred 
to the Postal Retiree Health Benefits Fund. This bill was 
favorably reported out of the Subcommittee on July 21, 2010 by 
a roll call vote of 8-1.
                (7) Reports
    The following list highlights various postal related 
reports requested and/or received by the Subcommittee during 
the 111th Congress:
           On April 10, 2009, amid media reports and 
        concerns about the Postal Service's potential wasteful 
        spending, the Subcommittee sent a request to the Postal 
        Service Office of Inspector General to examine U.S. 
        Postal Service's housing relocation policy. As a result 
        of the IGs investigation, the Postal Service's 
        relocation policy was amended to be more restrictive 
        and to require more accountability and standardization 
        of the benefit;
           On June 9, 2009, Chairman Lynch, along with 
        Representatives Danny K. Davis and John McHugh 
        requested the PRC to conduct an analysis of the 
        different approaches employed by the U.S. Postal 
        Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the 
        Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to calculate the 
        present value of the Postal Service's obligations 
        related to the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits 
        Fund (Fund). The study was submitted to the 
        Subcommittee on July 30, 2009 and urged OPM to use a 
        graded health care inflation trend rate and declining 
        workforce assumptions for estimating the value of the 
        Postal Service's future retiree health benefits 
        obligations;
           On November 9, 2009, Chairman Lynch 
        requested that GAO conduct a study on international 
        posts and how they are dealing with declining mail 
        volumes as well as a study on the potential effects of 
        five-day delivery on major mailers. The Subcommittee 
        expects GAO to complete its work on both reports by 
        February 2011;
           On November 23, 2009, Chairman Lynch and 
        Ranking Member Chaffetz requested the GAO to conduct a 
        study on the feasibility of various options for 
        collaboration between the U.S. Census Bureau and the 
        Postal Service to reduce the costs and improve the 
        accuracy and efficiency of the 2020 Census. The study 
        takes into account such factors as personnel, physical 
        assets (e.g. facilities, distribution centers, and 
        vehicles) and technological expertise. GAO initiated 
        work on the project in October 2010; and
           In accordance with PAEA, on April 12, 2010, 
        the Subcommittee received the GAO issued report on the 
        future financial viability of the United States Postal 
        Service. In sum, the report entitled ``U.S. Postal 
        Service: Strategies and Options To Facilitate Progress 
        Toward Financial Viability,'' found that returning the 
        Postal Service to financial solvency in the future 
        requires (1) reducing compensation and benefit costs, 
        (2) reducing other operations and network costs, and 
        (3) generating revenues through product and pricing 
        flexibility.
               (8) Other Matters
    On July 31, 2009, Subcommittee staff met with the Postal 
Regulatory Commission officials on matters relating to docket 
N2009-1, the Station and Branch Optimization Initiative. As a 
follow-up to the meeting, Chairman Lynch filed a formal letter 
with the PRC on October 5, 2009, expressing concern that the 
Postal Service carefully consider employee, stakeholder, and 
public opinion in finalizing its facility optimization 
initiative and that it executes closures and consolidations in 
a manner that is fair and transparent, particularly regarding 
selection criteria, notification, public participation, and 
appeals.
    Further, on March 19, 2010 the Subcommittee, along with 
Representatives Danny Davis and Subcommittee Ranking Member 
Jason Chaffetz reconstituted the Congressional Postal Caucus, 
which served as an informal, bipartisan group of Members 
dedicated to maintaining and strengthening the Postal Services 
in the United States, and to educating other Members and staff 
on the postal industry and current related issues.
    Additionally, the Subcommittee hosted a series of briefings 
and brainstorming sessions with minority, full Committee and 
Senate counterparts on the potential of creating a BRAC-type 
Commission to streamline the Postal Service's processing and 
retail network. These activities included:
     Brainstorming Session on July 7, 2010.
     Official Briefing by USPS on their efforts and 
plans to consolidate their mail processing network on July 23, 
2010.
     Official Briefing by CRS staff on the government's 
experience with the military BRACs and potential application of 
a BRAC-type Commission to consolidate Postal Service facilities 
on July 23, 2010.
     Official Briefing by GAO on their findings with 
respect to the military BRACs and the potential application of 
a BRAC-type Commission to consolidate Postal Service facilities 
on July 29, 2010.
     Official Briefing by USPS-OIG on its studies, 
investigations, and audits on the consolidation of mail 
processing and retail networks on September 1, 2010.
     Official Briefing by USPS on their efforts and 
plans to consolidate their retail network on September 24, 
2010.
    Lastly, on September 3, 2010, the Subcommittee developed 
correspondence, jointly with full Committee Chairman Edolphus 
Towns, to the House Appropriations Committee requesting 
deferment of a $5.5 billion payment due to the Postal Retiree 
Health Benefits Fund on September 30, for inclusion in the 
initial 2010 continuing resolution.
            c. District of Columbia
    In carrying out this aspect of our jurisdictional 
authority, the Subcommittee worked closely with Delegate 
Eleanor Holmes Norton, during the 111th Congress to hold 
hearings and consider legislation that had a direct impact or 
connection between the municipal affairs of the District of 
Columbia and the federal government.
               (1) Legislative and Budget Autonomy
    Continual calls to advance the concepts of home-rule and 
greater self-governance in the nation's capitol led the 
Subcommittee to hold a legislative hearing to consider 
proposals designed to grant greater autonomy to the local 
District government. Entitled, ``Greater Autonomy for the 
Nation's Capital,'' the hearing was held on November 18, 2009 
and examined H.R. 960, the ``District of Columbia Legislative 
Autonomy Act of 2009'' and H.R. 1045, the ``District of 
Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009.'' Taken together, these 
two measures would promote greater self-governance in the 
District by amending the Home Rule Act to eliminate 
congressional review of newly-passed District laws as well as 
to remove federally-imposed mandates over the District's local 
budget process, financial management and borrowing authority. 
Both measures were introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton 
as part of her ``Free and Equal D.C.'' series of bills designed 
to address inappropriate restrictions placed on the District by 
the federal government.
    Given the significance of these issues, the hearing 
garnered the participation of the District's chief elected 
officials, such as Mayor Adrian Fenty, D.C. Council Chairman 
Vincent Gray and the City's Chief Financial Officer Natwar 
Gandhi. During the hearing, witnesses discussed the governing 
challenges, added costs and unintended consequences that 
certain federal restrictions currently have on the District's 
ability to govern effectively and efficiently. For example, 
testimony revealed that requiring the District's local budget 
to be approved by Congress as well as adhere to the federal 
October 1-September 30 fiscal year cycle sets the District 
apart from most other local and state jurisdictions, which 
traditionally follow a July 1-June 30 fiscal cycle. Witnesses 
testified that enactment of H.R. 1045 would help to remove 
restrictions that presently harm the District by preventing its 
elected officials from planning appropriately on school 
preparation and from relying on more timely revenue estimates 
in establishing the City's future budget.
    The hearing also revealed concerns that the current 
congressional review period for D.C. passed legislation causes 
the City Council to operate using a cumbersome and complicated 
policymaking process whereby it must pass emergency, temporary 
and permanent legislation, in some cases, in order to prevent 
gaps in the application of its laws during the congressional 
review period. Witnesses contended that passage of H.R. 960 
would remedy these problems. Although the Subcommittee did not 
mark up these two bills during the 111th Congress, the hearing 
did spur consideration and conversations on including language 
granting the District greater control over their local budget 
as part of the District's FY 2011 appropriations provisions.
               (2) Environmental Restoration--Spring Valley Formerly 
                    Used Defense Site
    At the request of Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, on June 
10, 2009, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing to examine 
developments in the Environmental Restoration Program at Spring 
Valley--a 661-acre section of northwest Washington, DC that was 
used by the U.S. Army for the development and testing of 
chemical agents, equipment and mutations during the World War 1 
era. The hearing focused on the restoration program's progress, 
discussed the criteria that will be used in declaring the site 
clean of environmental/health contamination, and assessed the 
level of transparency and/or community engagement associated 
with the Spring Valley cleanup project.
    Despite the extensive work performed and the apparent 
progress made in the removal of environmental and health 
hazards stemming from the Spring Valley Formerly Used Defense 
Sites (FUDS), the hearing discovered that many local Spring 
Valley residents continued to have significant concerns about 
the program's overall effectiveness, scope, transparency, and 
projected completion date. For instance, residents and local 
officials were especially concerned about the Corps announced 
plans to complete their physical investigation and field work 
at the Spring Valley FUDS by the end of calendar year 2010. 
Testimony at the hearing cited previous instances where the 
Corp declared the site clean by issuance of a ``No Further 
Action Record of Decision,'' which was overturned, shortly 
thereafter, upon the discovery of additional munitions or 
contaminations that forced the Corps to reconvene the Spring 
Valley FUD Clean-up project. While the hearing resulted in the 
Corps adopting more transparent public communication practices 
and committing to perform any additional future field work on 
an as needed basis, given the history of the project and the 
potential health and environmental implications associated, the 
Subcommittee continues to closely monitor developments in the 
Corps' Environmental Restoration Program at Spring Valley.
               (3) Criminal Justice
    In accordance with the National Capital Revitalization and 
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the Revitalization 
Act), the federal government has oversight authority and 
fiduciary control over aspects of the District of Columbia's 
criminal justice system, such as the D.C Courts, Pretrial 
Services Agency, Public Defender Service, and responsibility 
for probation, parole and supervised release of adult felons 
convicted under the D.C. Criminal Code. In light of this 
responsibility, the Subcommittee conducted ongoing oversight of 
the aforementioned elements of the District's criminal justice 
system during the 111th Congress. On Tuesday, September 22, 
2009, the Subcommittee held the first of four hearings on DC 
Code felons. The National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the Revitalization Act) 
transferred the responsibility for, and the costs of, certain 
state criminal justice functions, such as the housing, parole 
and supervised release of from the District of Columbia to the 
federal government. The purpose of the September 22nd hearing 
was to examine the impact of the United States Parole 
Commission (USPC) on public safety in the District of Columbia. 
Currently, the District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction 
where control over its local criminal code offenders is 
determined by the policies and practices of a federal agency, 
the USPC.
    The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act of 1997 (The Revitalization Act) granted the 
USPC chief responsibility for parole and supervised release 
decisions for D.C. Code felons. The USPC's mission is to 
promote public safety and to achieve justice and fairness in 
the exercise of its authority to release and supervise 
offenders under its jurisdiction.
    The Revitalization Act's mandate that all D.C. Code felons 
be sentenced according to a determinate sentencing system has 
caused an important shift in the responsibilities of the USPC. 
As part of a determinate sentence, a court may impose post-
imprisonment supervision. Unlike parole, the USPC has no role 
in granting supervised release. However, the agency does have 
the authority to make initial parole determinations and to set 
the conditions of supervised release and revocations for 
offenders. During the hearing, the Court Services and Offender 
Supervision Agency discussed the Correctional Treatment 
Facility women's pilot program. This Residential Substance 
Abuse Treatment program is available to 20 female inmates who 
meet the program's basic eligibility criteria. Parole and 
supervised release violators in the jail are eligible to 
participate provided they do not have a violent or weapons-
related conviction and fall within the USPC's Catergory One 
violations.
    The Subcommittee followed up this hearing with a February 
3, 2010 oversight hearing on the effects community corrections 
centers and halfway houses have on public safety and prisoner 
reentry in the District of Columbia. The hearing also examined 
whether BOP, or its contractors, communicate with District 
residents regarding citing decisions, whether the BOP takes 
into account residents' citing concerns awarding contracts, and 
whether the BOP considers the distribution of halfway houses 
within and among District neighborhoods when awarding 
contracts. District of Columbia felons convicted under the DC 
Criminal Code are housed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
(BOP). Halfway houses are commonly referred to as Community 
Corrections Centers (CCCs) by the BOP. The BOP contracts with 
private entities to operate CCS on behalf of BOP inmates 
nearing the end of their sentence. The District has three BOP 
affiliated halfway houses, the Fairview Adult Rehabilitative 
Center, Hope Village, and Efforts from Ex-Convicts Halfway 
House. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the CEO of 
Fairview as well as the CEO of Hope Village. A former resident 
of Hope Village also testified at the hearing.
    On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
to examine the criteria used to determine the placement of DC 
Code Offenders and the rehabilitation and reintegration 
challenges felons face as a result of being imprisoned far away 
from their homes and support networks. Approximately 5,700 DC 
Code felons are housed in 115 BOP facilities located in 33 
states and the District of Columbia. Witness testimony stressed 
that prisoners who maintain contact with their family members 
have lower recidivism rates than those who do not. Following 
the hearing, the Subcommittee received an update on discussions 
between the BOP and the District of Columbia Department of 
Corrections (DOC) to have certain DC inmates in BOP custody 
placed in a DOC facility. BOP is currently incarcerating 40 DC 
offenders serving short sentences at the DOC, and plan to 
increase that number to 200.
    Due to the unique rehabilitation needs of female DC Code 
felons, the Subcommittee also held a hearing on July 27, 2010 
to examine how the BOP, Court Services and Offender Supervision 
Agency, various local agencies, and community service providers 
address their needs both during incarceration and after 
releases. Witness included Our Place, a non-profit organization 
in DC which helps formerly and currently incarcerated women. 
During the hearing, Ms. Norton urged CSOSA to have a greater 
presence in prisons much like Our Place.
               (4) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Association
    On Wednesday, April 29, 2009, the Subcommittee held its 
first oversight hearing on the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Association (WMATA). The hearing was convened to cover 
a range of topics related WMATA including its financial 
condition, its proposed operational and service changes, and 
its safety and security initiatives. The hearing involved a 
detailed discussion of WMATA's financial challenges, 
particularly in light of the economic crisis, and its Capital 
Improvement Program.
    After the June 22, 2009 Red Line Metrorail collision, the 
Subcommittee convened its second Metro-related hearing 
entitled, ``Back on Track: WMATA Red Line Metrorail Accident 
and Continual Funding Challenges'' on Tuesday, July 14, 2009. 
The hearing focused on the progress WMATA had made its 
investigation following the June 22 accident and the steps that 
had been taken to ensure the safety of all Metro riders and 
employees in the aftermath of the collision. At the time of the 
hearing, reports by various entities including the Federal 
Transit Administration (FTA), the National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) and the Tri-State Oversight Committee (TOC) 
pointed to a deficient safety culture as a key contributor to 
the Red Line collision.
    The June 14, 2009 hearing also addressed WMATA's oversight 
structure. At that time, it was made clear to the Subcommittee 
that although several entities are responsible for overseeing 
safety at WMATA--including the NTSB, the FTA, and the TOC--none 
of the agencies have the legal authority to compel WMATA to 
address any findings or recommendations. Notably, the hearing 
also brought to light concerns that WMATA's State Safety 
Oversight Agency, the TOC, was underfunded, hamstrung by a 
complex decision making process, and lacked enforcement 
authority. These finding were later echoed in the FTA's March 
4, 2010 Final Audit Report of the TOC and WMATA.
    In light of this information, the Subcommittee had multiple 
discussions with the TOC and the FTA during the winter of 2009 
and considered drafting legislation to increase the TOC's 
funding levels and enhance its enforcement authority over 
WMATA. Although the Subcommittee did not introduce legislation, 
it would like to note that on April 20, 2010, the District of 
Columbia, the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of 
Virginia collectively released a White Paper outlining a two-
phase process to enhance the effectiveness of the TOC and 
address concerns regarding its funding, organization, and 
authority.
    On Thursday, September 23, 2010 the Subcommittee held its 
third and final Metro hearing entitled, ``Moving Forward After 
the NTSB Report: Making Metro a Safety Leader.'' The hearing 
explored the safety findings and recommendations made by the 
National Transportation Safety Board in its July 27, 2010 
Railroad Accident Report on the June 22, 2009 Red Line 
collision. The hearing discussed the steps WMATA took to 
enhance its overall safety culture and to remedy the concerns 
raised in the NTSB Report. The hearing spent considerable time 
discussing WMATA's efforts to cultivate a robust safety culture 
through initiatives such as an anonymous safety hotline and the 
development of a non-punitive reporting system. During the 
hearing, it was made clear to the Subcommittee that WMATA has 
made substantive efforts to be a safer transit system but that 
there is still much work to be done.
    Continued oversight of WMATA's financial condition, its 
operational and service challenges, and its safety and security 
initiatives is essential to ensuring that WMATA is operating at 
the highest levels of service, safety, and reliability. More 
specifically, it is imperative that Congress maintain close 
oversight of WMATA's efforts to address the safety findings and 
recommendations contained in both the FTA's March 4, 2010 Final 
Audit Report and the NTSB's July 27, 2010 Railroad Accident 
Report, its efforts to replace Interim General Manager Richard 
Sarles by the end of 2010, its economic situation as it works 
to keep its aging infrastructure up to date and in a state of 
good repair, and the ongoing initiatives to strengthen and 
improve WMATA's State Safety Oversight Agency, the TOC.
                (5) Lead Contamination and D.C. Water
    Lead contamination of the District's drinking water has 
been a longstanding issue for the Subcommittee since the 2000-
2003 lead-in-the-water crisis. To this end, on July 10, 2010 
the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``Lead Exposure in 
D.C.: Prevention, Protection, and Potential Prescriptions.'' 
The purpose of the hearing was to examine how the District and 
federal governments can reduce the exposure of D.C. residents, 
particularly infants and young children, to lead, as well as to 
determine what steps, if any, should be taken to identify and 
treat children previously exposed. The hearing was deliberately 
structured to take a broad, prospective look at lead leeching 
in D.C. rather than repeat prior oversight work on this issue 
or assign blame to D.C. or federal government agencies for 
previous missteps. The hearing also touched upon concerns 
raised by a House Science and Technology Subcommittee report 
that suggested the CDC used faulty assumptions and flawed data 
in confronting the lead-in-the-water issue in D.C. and in other 
cities around the country.
    The hearing involved testimony from Ileana Arias, PhD, 
Principal Deputy Director, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, Thomas P. Jacobus, General Manager, Washington 
Aqueduct Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, George S. 
Hawkins, General Manager, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, 
Christophe A. G. Tulou Acting Director, District Department of 
the Environment, Dr. Ellen Silbergeld, Professor, Johns Hopkins 
Bloomberg School of Public Health. The major takeaways from the 
hearing included CDC's commitment to develop enhanced and 
automatic reporting requirements for its Childhood Lead 
Poisoning Prevention Program and DC Water's (formerly known as 
DC Water and Sewer Authority) plans to strengthen its public 
outreach and communication efforts to educate households on 
indentifying potential lead hazards and the pro and cons of 
partial lead line replacements. The hearing also revealed 
widespread agreement amongst the participants on the need for 
legislation that would mandate the testing off all children 
under the age of 6 for lead exposure, similar to current 
statutorily required childhood immunizations. The Subcommittee 
expects to continue monitoring the progress of local and 
federal government efforts to mitigate lead contamination and 
ensure that any residents exposed to lead receive timely and 
accurate information and interventions.
            a. Legislation
    During the 111th Congress the Subcommittee considered and/
or approved a number of District of Columbia related bills. For 
example, on March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee convened to 
consider H.R. 3913, the ``Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. 
District of Columbia National Guard Retention and College 
Access Act.'' Introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton on 
October 22, 2009, H.R. 3913 directs the Mayor of the District 
of Columbia to establish a District of Columbia National Guard 
by providing financial assistance to enable members of the 
National Guard of the District of Columbia to attend 
undergraduate, vocational and technical courses. After 
consideration on the bill, the Subcommittee favorably reported 
H.R. 3913 to the full Committee, which considered and approved 
the measure shortly thereafter on April 14, 2010. H.R. 3913 was 
adopted by the full House on June 28, 2010. The bill was 
received in the Senate on June 29, 2010.
    Further, on May 27, 2010, the Subcommittee held a business 
meeting to consider H.R. 5367, the D.C. Courts and Public 
Defender Service Act of 2010. Introduced on May 24, 2010, by 
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, H.R. 5367 is designed to 
enhance the administrative authorities of both the D.C. Courts 
and the Public Defender Services of the District of Columbia. 
In short, H.R. 5367 amends Title 11 of D.C. code to grant the 
chief judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals the 
authority to hold biennially the Courts judicial conference and 
to require active magistrate judges to attend such conferences. 
Additionally, H.R. 5367 would authorize the chief judge of the 
Superior court or the court of Appeals to enter an order or 
orders to delay or toll any and all deadlines imposed by any 
statue or rule of procedure in the event of a natural disaster, 
terrorist attack or other emergency situation. Lastly, H.R. 
5367 permits the Public Defender Service for the District of 
Columbia (PDS) to purchase, out of their existing salaries and 
expenses account, professional liability insurance for its 
attorneys, staff, and board members. PDS cannot secure 
representation from either the United States or the District of 
Columbia because PDS's lawyers litigate exclusively against the 
United States or the District of Columbia, which creates an 
inherent conflict of interest. The cost of professional 
liability and malpractice insurance for PDS is approximately 
$50,000 per year, which PDS can absorb at current funding 
levels. H.R 5367 was approved by the Subcommittee on May 24, 
2010 by voice vote. On September 23, 2010, the full Committee 
also considered and ordered the bill to be reported to the full 
House via voice vote.
    During the second session of the 111th Congress, the 
Subcommittee also considered and favorably reported H.R. 5702, 
which was introduced on July 1, 2010 by Delegate Eleanor Holmes 
Norton. Upon enactment, H.R. 5702 would shorten the time that a 
vacant ward specific seat would be left open in the D.C. 
Council, thereby ensuring more continuous representation for 
the citizens of the District of Columbia. Under current law, 
the D.C. Board of Election and Ethics must hold a special 
election to fill such a vacancy on the Council within 114 days 
after the vacancy occurs. Due to this law there have been 
periods in the history of the Council where District residents 
remained unrepresented for nearly four months at a time. 
Therefore, legislation was introduced and passed by the Council 
to shorten the time period from 114 days to 70 days. As it 
stands, the 114 day rule is enforced by the Home Rule Act, a 
federal statute. Thus, H.R. 5702 amends Section 401(d)(1) of 
the Home Rule Act by striking 114 day stipulation and replacing 
it with a 70 day period. H.R. 5702 was considered and reported 
favorably by the full Committee on September 23, 2010.
    Other D.C. related legislative matters considered and 
examined by the Subcommittee over the course of the 111th 
Congress include:
           H.R. 960: District of Columbia Legislative 
        Autonomy Act of 2009;
           H.R. 1045: District of Columbia Budget 
        Autonomy Act of 2009;
           H.R. 1345: District of Columbia Hatch Act 
        Reform Act of 2010;
           H.R. 2092: Kingman and Heritage Islands Act 
        of 2009;
           H.R. 5103: 2010 District of Columbia Omnibus 
        Authorization Act;
           H.R. 5544: To promote the development of the 
        Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia; and
           H.R. 5703: To permit the advertising and 
        sale of lottery tickets within certain areas of the 
        District of Columbia.
            (7) Reports
    On May 26, 2010, the Subcommittee received notification 
that the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), in partnership with 
the District of Columbia (DC), had identified suitable property 
to satisfy the requirements of Public Law 109-396, the Federal 
and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2006--
Section 204, Conveyance to the Architect of the Capitol. The 
property identified for transfer consists of 12.000 acres of 
unimproved privately owned land within a larger parcel to be 
developed in the near future. The property is located at 4400 
Rena Drive, Morningside, Maryland.

2. Subcommittee Proceedings

    Business meeting to consider H.R. 626, the ``Federal 
Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009'' (March 25, 2009).
    Hearing on the financial stability of the USPS, entitled, 
``Restoring the Financial Stability of the U.S. Postal Service: 
What Needs to be Done?'' (March 25, 2009).
    Hearing on trends and characteristics of the present day 
federal workforce, entitled, ``Public Service in the 21st 
Century: An Examination of the State of the Federal Workforce'' 
(April 22, 2009).
    Hearing on oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority (WMATA)'s operation of Metrorail Service, 
Metrobus service and MetroAccess paratransit service. (April 
29, 2009).
    Hearing on the status of agencies' occupational safety and 
health protocols responsible for protecting federal workers 
from communicable diseases, such as the H1N1 virus, entitled, 
``Protecting the Protectors: An Assessment of Front-line 
Federal Workers and the Swine Flu Outbreak'' (May 14, 2009).
    Business meeting to consider H.R. 22, the ``United States 
Postal Service Financial Relief Act of 2009'' and H.R. 1345, 
the ``District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009.'' (May 
20, 2009).
    Hearing on status of the Postal Service's cuts in 
operations and services, as well as short- and long-term plans 
to reduce network costs and improve efficiency, entitled, ``Nip 
and Tuck: The Impact of Current Cost Cutting Efforts on Postal 
Service Operations and Network'' (May 20, 2009).
    Hearing on oversight of the Environmental Restoration 
Program at Spring Valley--a 661 acre formerly used defense 
(FUD) site for the development and testing of chemical agents, 
equipment and munitions during World War 1 (June 10, 2009).
    Hearing on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program's 
(FEHBP) drug benefit and the impact that the lack of pricing 
transparency has on the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) 
ability to evaluate the overall value of these benefits, 
entitled, ``FEHBP's Prescription Drug Benefits: Deal or No 
Deal?'' (June 24, 2009).
    Hearing on legislation designed to ensure equal treatment 
to lesbian and gay federal civilian employees by providing same 
sex partners access to benefits available to a married federal 
employee and his or her spouse, entitled ``H.R. 2517, the 
``Domestic Partnership Benefits Obligation Act of 2009'' (July 
8, 2009).
    Hearing on the steps WMATA undertook following the June 
22nd Red Line Metrorail accident to ensure the safety of riders 
and employees, and to enhance Metrorail automated systems, 
equipment, and safety policies and procedures entitled, ``Back 
on Track: WMATA Red Line Metrorail Accident and Continual 
Funding Challenges'' (July 14, 2009).
    Business meeting to consider H.R. 2517, the ``Domestic 
Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009'' (July 30, 
2009).
    Hearing on the Postal Service's plans to consolidate its 
retail facilities, entitled ``Making Sense of It All: An 
Examination of USPS's Station and Branch Optimization 
Initiative and Delivery Route Adjustments'' (July 30, 2009).
    Hearing on existing policies and benefits available to 
federal employees who serve in designated combat areas, 
entitled, ``A Call to Arms: A Review of Benefits for Deployed 
Federal Employees'' (September 16, 2009).
    Hearing on the responsibility of the United States Parole 
Commission in ensuring public safety in the District of 
Columbia, entitled, ``The Local Role of the United States 
Parole Commission (USPC): Increasing Public Safety, Reducing 
Recidivism, and Using Alternatives to Re-incarceration in the 
District of Columbia'' (September 22, 2009).
    Legislative drafting forum on enhancing the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program's (FEHBP) drug benefit, 
entitled, ``Prescribing the Right Solutions: A Discussion on 
Improving FEHBP's Drug Benefit'' (September 29, 2009).
    Hearing on issues confronting the Federal Retirement Thrift 
Investment Board as it upgrades the Thrift Savings Plan's IT 
infrastructure, security capabilities, and responds to multiple 
legislative initiatives, entitled, ``Managing the Thrift 
Savings Plan to Thrive'' (November 3, 2009).
    Hearing on what steps the Postal Service has taken since 
Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act 
of 2006 to use its increased flexibility to grow revenue, 
entitled ``More than Stamps: Adapting the Postal Service to a 
Changing World'' (November 5, 2009).
    Hearing on legislative proposals designed to grant the 
District of Columbia's locally elected officials greater 
autonomy to govern, entitled, ``Greater Autonomy for the 
Nation's Capital, an examination of H.R. 960, the ``District of 
Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act of 2009'' and H.R. 1045, the 
``District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009'' (November 
18, 2009).
    Hearing on the effectiveness of residential re-entry 
centers or ``halfway houses'' on public safety, prisoner 
reentry, and recidivism in the District of Columbia, entitled, 
``Half Way Home to the District: The Role of Halfway Houses in 
Reducing Crime and Recidivism in the Nation's Capital'' 
(February 3, 2010).
    Hearing on legislative proposal designed to strengthen 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program's drug benefit, 
entitled, ``H.R. 4489, ``The Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program (FEHBP) Prescription Drug Integrity, Transparency, and 
Cost Savings Act'' (February 10, 2010).
    Hearing on the status of and responsibility for agency and 
postal building security assessments, as well as the level of 
physical and perimeter security, entitled, ``An Examination of 
Federal Employee Workplace Safety and Security'' (March 16, 
2010).
    Hearing on legislative proposal entitled, ``H.R. 4735, a 
bill ``[t]o amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be 
ineligible for Federal employment'' (March 17, 2010).
    Business meeting to consider H.R. 1722, the ``Telework 
Improvements Act of 2009''; H.R. 3913, the ``Major General 
David F. Wherley, Jr. District of Columbia National Guard 
Retention and College Access Act''; H.R. 4489, the ``FEHBP 
Prescription Drug Integrity, Transparency, and Cost Savings 
Act''; and H.R. 4865, the ``Federal Employees and Uniformed 
Services Retirement Equity Act of 2010'' (March 24, 2010).
    Hearing, conducted jointly with full Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform, on the financial condition of the U.S. 
Postal Service (USPS) as well as recent reports issued by the 
Government Accountability Office and USPS on the future 
viability and business model of the USPS, entitled, 
``Continuing to Deliver: An Examination of the Postal Service's 
Current Financial Crisis and its Future Viability'' (April 15, 
2010).
    Hearing on criteria used to determine the placement of D.C. 
Code offenders post-conviction, entitled, ``Housing D.C. Code 
Felons Far Away From Home: Effects on Crime, Recidivism and 
Reentry'' (May 5, 2010).
    Hearing on the appropriateness and current financial impact 
of the Postal Services various pricing policies and workshare 
discounts, entitled, ``The Price is Right, or is it? An 
Examination of USPS Workshare Discounts and Products that Do 
Not Cover Their Costs'' (May 12, 2010).
    Business meeting to consider, H.R. 3243, a bill to amend 
section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
any hours worked by Federal firefighters under a qualified 
trade-of-time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of 
determinations relating to overtime pay; H.R. 3264, the 
``Federal Internship Improvement Act''; H.R. 5367 , the ``D.C. 
Courts and Public Defender Service Act''; and H.R. 5368, the 
``United States Postal Service, Postal Inspectors Equity Act'' 
(May 27, 2010).
    Hearing on regulatory changes to hiring, such as shared 
registers, the upgraded USAJOBS website, and the Veterans' 
Employment Initiative, as well as proposed legislative 
initiatives, entitled, ``Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Transforming Federal 
Hiring'' (May 19, 2010).
    Hearing on how the District and federal governments can 
reduce exposure of D.C. residents, particularly infants and 
other children, to lead in the city's water and from other 
sources, entitled, ``Lead Exposure in D.C.: Prevention, 
Protection, and Potential Prescriptions'' (June 15, 2010).
    Hearing, conducted jointly with the Senate Subcommittee on 
Federal Management, Government Information, Federal Service, 
and International Security on reforms to the Postal Service's 
business model, entitled, ``Having Their Say: Customer and 
Employee Views on the Future of the U.S. Postal Service'' (June 
23, 2010).
    Hearing on existing temporary hiring authorities, 
associated agency regulations, and the resulting impact on 
temporary employees' status and benefit offerings, entitled, 
``Temporary Employee Practices: How Long Does Temporary Last?'' 
(June 30, 2010)
    Business meeting to consider H.R. 5522, Federal Supervisor 
Training Act of 2010; H.R. 5702, a bill to amend the District 
of Columbia Home Rule Act to reduce the waiting period for 
holding special elections to fill vacancies in membership of 
the Council of the District of Columbia; and H.R. 5746, the 
``United States Postal Service's CSRS Obligation Modification 
Act of 2010'' (July 21, 2010).
    Hearing on safety standards and practices employed by 
Federal agencies to ensure that employees are not exposed to 
excessive amounts of carcinogens and ionizing radiation and to 
reduce workplace injuries and accidents, entitled, ``Are 
Agencies Playing It Safe and Secure: An Examination of Worker 
Protections Pre- and Post-Injury'' (July 21, 2010).
    Hearing on issues and challenges confronting female D.C. 
Code felons, entitled, ``Female D.C. Code Felons: Unique 
Challenges in Prison and At Home'' (July 27, 2010).
    Hearing on various safety findings and recommendations from 
the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) Railroad 
Accident Report on the June 22, 2009 Metrorail collision, 
entitled, ``Moving Forward After the NTSB Report: Making Metro 
a Safety Leader'' (September 23, 2010).

3. Other Subcommittee Proceedings/Matters

            (a) Federal Workforce
    Official Briefing on the state of security clearance 
processing by OPM's Federal Investigative Services Division 
(April 27, 2009).
    Official Briefing on personnel practices regarding the H1N1 
outbreak at the Department of Homeland Security by U.S. Customs 
and Border Patrol (April 29, 2009).
    Official Briefing on the Federal Long-Term Care Insurance 
Program (FLTCIP) by OPM (May 26, 2009).
    Official Briefing on the burrowing in of political 
appointees in the civil service by GAO (June 18, 2009).
    Official Briefing on FLTCIP contracting issues by OPM (June 
19, 2009).
    Official Briefing on FLTCIP by GAO (September 21, 2009).
    Official Briefing on OPM agency re-organization (September 
29, 2009).
    Official Briefing on hiring reforms by OPM (October 22, 
2009).
    Official Briefing on political to career conversions by GAO 
(November 9, 2009).
    Official Briefing on Fiscal Year 2011 OPM budget by OPM 
(February 18, 2010).
    Official Briefing on Federal Protective Service by 
Department of Homeland Security (March 10, 2010).
    Official Briefing on NSPS transition by NSPS Transition 
Office Director John James (March 11, 2010).
    Official Briefing by Internal Revenue Service on H.R. 4735 
(March 12, 2010).
    Official Briefing by USAID on personnel authorities (April 
9, 2010).
    Official Briefing on status of Defense Civilian 
Intelligence Personnel System by Department of Defense (May 7, 
2010).
    Official Briefing on hiring by Department of Homeland 
Security (May 26, 2010).
    Official Briefing on federal employee pay by OPM (July 12, 
2010).
    Official Briefing on Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan 
by OPM and Department of Health and Human Services (July 16, 
2010).
    Official Briefing on Federal Employee Group Life Insurance 
(FEGLI) Program by Metlife (August 3, 2010).
    Official Briefing on FEGLI by OPM (August 9, 2010).
    Official Briefing on USAJOBS by OPM (September 2, 2010).
    Official Briefing on FEHBP plan year 2011 (October 1, 
2010).
    Official Briefing on retirement claims processing by OPM 
(October 26, 2010).
            (b) Postal Service
    Official Briefing by OPM regarding USPS' CSRS pension 
obligation (April 8, 2010).
    Official Briefing by PRC regarding findings in its 2009 
Annual Compliance Determination (April 12, 2010).
    Official Briefing by OMB regarding potential relief on 
retiree health benefits prepayment obligations and potential 
modification of USPS' CSRS pension obligation (May 12, 2010).
    Official Briefing by USPS on its legislative proposals 
regarding its action plan and new business model (May 17, 
2010).
    Official Briefing by PRC-OIG on its current activities (May 
20, 2010).
    Official Briefing by USPS-OIG on an objective modeling 
approach to realigning postal retail network (June 9, 2010).
    Official Briefing by USPS on its legislative proposals 
regarding modifying the USPS' CSRS pension obligation (June 15, 
2010).
    Official Briefing by OPM regarding USPS' CSRS pension 
obligation and Board of Actuaries' responsibilities (June 24, 
2010).
    Official Briefing with Postal Regulatory Commission and The 
Segal Company on their findings with respect to the USPS' CSRS 
pension obligation (July 13, 2010).

4. Resolutions and Postal Naming Measures

    During the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee received over 
420 referrals of resolutions and postal naming measures. The 
Committee marked up 125 resolutions and 76 postal namings.

C. SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT

    The Subcommittee on Government Management, Organizations, 
and Procurement has jurisdiction over the management of 
government operations, reorganizations of the executive branch, 
and federal procurement. In the 111th Congress, Rep. Diane E. 
Watson served as Chairman and Rep. Brian P. Bilbray as Ranking 
Member.

1. Oversight

    ``The Roles and Responsibilities of Inspectors General 
within Financial Regulatory Agencies'' (March 25, 2009). The 
hearing examined the roles and responsibilities of Inspectors 
General (IGs) at agencies charged with regulating the financial 
marketplace. Particular topics of interest for the hearing 
included: the strategic challenges facing IGs due to the 
emerging economic crisis in the financial markets; the 
independence of IGs when appointed by agency chairmen or 
commissioners; and the allocation of resources for IGs charged 
with overseeing financial market regulators.
    In addition, the hearing focused on legislation sponsored 
by Congressman John Larson, H.R. 885, the Improved Financial 
and Commodities Markets Oversight and Accountability Act. The 
bill would elevate IGs at the following agency appointed 
Designated Federal Entities (DFE) financial market regulators 
as presidential IGs pursuant to Section 3 of the the IG Act: 
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission; National Credit Union 
Administration; Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; and the 
Securities and Exchange Commission. These IGs would 
subsequently have the same authorities and reporting 
requirements as other financial regulator IGs, such as the 
Department of the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, and the SIG-TARP.
    Witnesses: The Honorable John B. Larson, Member of 
Congress; Mr. H. David Kotz, Inspector General, U.S. Securities 
and Exchange Commission; Ms. Elizabeth A. Coleman, Inspector 
General, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Mr. 
William DeSarno, Inspector General, National Credit Union 
Administration; Mr. A. Roy Lavik, Inspector General, 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission; Ms. Jeannette M. 
Franzel, Managing Director, Government Accountability Office; 
Mr. Clark Kent Ervin, Director, Homeland Security Program, 
Aspen Institute; and Ms. Danielle Brian, Executive Director, 
Project on Government Oversight.
    ``United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID): Management Challenges and Strategic Objectives'' 
(April 28, 2009). USAID is the lead federal agency that directs 
and manages U.S. development assistance programs. Over the past 
decade, USAID's role has expanded to meet many new challenges 
of the post Cold War and 9/11 world. The agency's enhanced 
responsibilities are articulated in the President's elevation 
of development to a theoretically equal footing with defense 
and diplomacy as part of ``the 3 Ds'' of U.S. national security 
policy.
    The hearing focused on the agency's capacity to meet the 
new set of challenges in the provision of U.S. foreign aid as 
set out in the President's National Security Directive. 
Witnesses at the hearing discussed USAID's long-term strategic 
objectives and goals; USAID's contracting strengths and 
weaknesses; agency managerial, organizational, and workforce 
challenges; and agency coordination of the proliferation of 
U.S. Government foreign assistance programs.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from the GAO based on 
its report, released on the date of the hearing, entitled 
``USAID Acquisition and Assistance: Challenges Remain in 
Developing and Implementing a Strategic Workforce Plan (GAO-09-
607T).'' The GAO report found that USAID does not currently 
have the capacity to develop and implement a strategic 
acquisition and assistance (A&A) workforce plan because it 
lacks sufficiently reliable and up-to-date data on its overseas 
A&A staff and comprehensive information on the competencies of 
its overseas A&A staff.
    Witnesses: Mike Walsh, InsideNGO, Former Director of 
Procurement, USAID; Jim Kunder, Kunder-Reali Associates, Former 
Deputy Administrator, USAID; George Ingram, Academy for 
Educational Development; and Thomas Melito, Director, 
International Affairs and Trade, GAO.
    ``Cybersecurity: Emerging Threats, Vulnerabilities, and 
Challenges in Securing Federal Information Systems'' (May 5, 
2009). Federal information security weaknesses are a growing 
threat governmentwide as agencies increase their dependency on 
computer systems and Internet-based transactions for daily 
activities. The development of resilient information systems 
remains an elusive goal due to rapid advances in technology, 
flawed information assurance practices, and an increasing 
number of actors or groups using cyberspace as a means for 
disrupting government operations. According to the 
Congressional Research Service (CRS), attacks against computer 
systems, or ``cyberattacks,'' can have multiple effects that 
include: the disruption of computer equipment or hardware 
reliability; the altering of system processing logic; and the 
corruption or loss of data stored within agency systems. While 
the federal government has multiple laws, regulations, and 
programs to address public and private sector cybersecurity 
responsibilities, the growing number of threats to federal 
systems continues to outpace advances in information assurance.
    The oversight hearing examined the federal government's 
efforts to secure agency networks and cyber-based Critical 
Infrastructure (CI) assets, including the changing nature and 
purpose of cyberattacks against government institutions, along 
with a general discussion of the actors and organizations using 
cyberspace as a mechanism to disrupt government operations. In 
addition, the hearing looked at current laws and policies 
intended to mitigate government information system 
vulnerabilities due to technological flaws, ineffective 
management practices, and the continuing escalation of threat 
capabilities both domestically and abroad.
    Witnesses: Mr. Philip Reitinger, Deputy Undersecretary, 
National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security, (Invited); Mr. Robert F. Lentz, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber, Identity, and 
Information Assurance, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. John 
Streufert, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Information 
Security, Bureau of Information Resource Management, U.S. 
Department of State; Mr. Gregory Wilshusen, Director, 
Information Security Issues, Government Accountability Office; 
Mr. James Andrew Lewis, Director and Senior Fellow, Technology 
and Public Policy Program, Center for Strategic and 
International Studies; Mr. Marcus H. Sachs, Director, SANS 
Internet Storm Center, SANS Institute; Lt. General Harry D. 
Raduege, Jr. (Ret), Co-Chairman, CSIS Commission on 
Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency; and Ms. Liesyl I. Franz, 
Vice President, Information Security and Global Public Policy, 
TechAmerica.
    ``The State of Federal Information Security'' (May 19, 
2009). The hearing reviewed the Federal Information Security 
Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and agency efforts to improve 
the security, integrity, and reliability of the federal 
government's information systems. In addition, the hearing 
attempted to clarify the new Administration's strategic 
objectives for achieving FISMA compliance as well as its goals 
for improving how agencies mitigate the number of risks facing 
their systems.
    Witnesses: Mr. Vivek Kundra, Chief Information Officer, 
Office of Management and Budget; Mr. Gregory Wilshusen, 
Director, Information Security Issues, Government 
Accountability Office; Ms. Jacquelyn Patillo, Acting Chief 
Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation; Ms. 
Margaret Graves, Acting Chief Information Officer, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security; and Mr. Samuel Chun, Director, 
Cyber Security Practice, U.S. Public Sector, EDS, a division of 
the Hewlett-Packard Company.
    ``The State of Federal Contracting: Opportunities and 
Challenges for Strengthening Government Procurement and 
Acquisition Policies'' (June 16, 2009). The federal government 
is the largest global purchaser of goods and services due to 
its size and broad scope of responsibilities. The types of 
goods and services obtained by agencies serve both military and 
civilian purposes. Examples include weapons systems, computer 
hardware, office supplies, administrative and technical support 
services, and health care for agency employees. During FY 2008, 
agencies reported purchasing or contracting for approximately 
$517 billion in goods and services via 4.2 million separate 
transactions, resulting in a 13.3% increase in contract 
spending over FY 2007. Of this amount, $383 billion, or 74%, 
was procured by the Department of Defense (DoD). The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) cites procurement and acquisition 
deficiencies as a high-risk program management challenge for 
multiple agencies including: the DoD; Department of Energy; 
Department of Homeland Security; Department of Commerce; and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
    The hearing examined current laws and regulations governing 
agency procurement and acquisition practices, and reviewed 
plans for implementing new requirements contained in recently 
enacted legislation. The Subcommittee also sought additional 
information from Administration witnesses about its priorities 
and objectives for improving government-wide procurement and 
acquisition policies in light of key legislation enacted in 
both the 110th and 111th Congresses to address both 
inefficiencies and escalating costs throughout the agency 
procurement community.
    Witnesses: Mr. Shay Assad, Director, Defense Procurement 
and Acquisition Policy, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. David 
A. Drabkin, Acting Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services 
Administration; Mr. William Gormley, Chairman, Coalition for 
Government Procurement; Mr. Philip Bond, President, 
TechAmerica; Mr. John McNerney, General Counsel, Mechanical 
Contractors Association of America.
    ``Oversight of Federal Financial Management'' (July 28, 
2009). The Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (GMRA) 
requires all agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers 
(CFO) Act of 1990 to have agency-wide audited financial 
statements beginning in fiscal year 1996. The statements cover 
all accounts and associated activities and must be audited in 
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A 
report on the audit by the Inspector General (IG) or an 
independent auditor must be submitted to the head of the 
agency.
    For fiscal year 2008, 21 agencies obtained unqualified 
opinions, with the Department of Defense, Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) all receiving disclaimers. Also, the 
overall number of material weaknesses across the federal 
government declined from 39 to 32 (or 18 percent), mostly due 
to a decrease in the number of Financial Systems and Security 
material weaknesses. The outstanding 32 material weaknesses 
were identified in the following categories: Financial 
Management and Reporting; Financial Systems and Security; 
Property, Plant & Equipment (PP&E); and Budgetary Reporting. 
Examples of such weaknesses include: financial statement 
preparation process controls; information security; the receipt 
and tracking of PP&E and funds control. Fiscal year 2008 is the 
fifth consecutive year in which a decline in material 
weaknesses has been reported, with a cumulative decline in 
material weaknesses since FY 2001.
    The hearing reviewed the outcomes of the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) audit of the federal government's 
consolidated financial statement (CFS) for the fiscal year 
ending in 2008. The Subcommittee focused its oversight on the 
Department of Homeland Security and NASA, two government 
agencies identified in the agency-wide government financial 
audit as having significant deficiencies.
    The subcommittee also received testimony from the Honorable 
Henry Cuellar, a member of the Subcommittee, on his sponsored 
legislation, H.R. 2142, the Government Efficiency, 
Effectiveness and Performance Improvement Act of 2009 (GEEPIA). 
The intent of GEEPIA is to build upon the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 by requiring that every 
federal program be assessed at least once every five years to 
evaluate the clarity of the program's purpose and objectives, 
the quality of the program's management and organizational 
design, the quality of the program's strategic and performance 
planning and goals, and the effectiveness of the program in 
meeting its strategic objectives.
    Witnesses: Honorable Henry Cuellar, Member of Congress; 
Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller of the United States; Richard 
L. Gregg, Acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of 
the Treasury; Peggy Sherry, Acting Chief Financial Officer, 
Department of Homeland Security; Ronald Spoehel, Chief 
Financial Officer, NASA; Brian M. Riedl, Senior Policy Analyst 
and Grover Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, the 
Heritage Foundation.
    ``E-Verify: Challenges and Opportunities'' (July 23, 2009). 
The hearing examined potential challenges and benefits to the 
implementation and expansion of the E-Verify Program, a Web-
based program administered by the Department of Homeland 
Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) to verify the identity and employment information of 
new hires. Under E-Verify, participating employers submit 
information about their new hires (name, date of birth, Social 
Security number, immigration/citizenship status, and alien 
number, if applicable.) The information is compared with data 
in Social Security and DHS databases to verify identity and 
employment eligibility.
    The Bush Administration issued regulations requiring 
employers to participate in E-Verify under specified 
circumstances. One of the rules would have required certain 
federal contracts to contain a new clause committing 
contractors to use E-Verify. The Obama Administration delayed 
the applicability date of the rule until May 21, 2009. On July 
8, 2009, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the 
Administration's support for a regulation that would award 
federal contracts only to employers who use E-Verify to check 
employee work authorization.
    Witnesses: Ms. Gerri Ratliff, Deputy Associate Director, 
National Security and Records Verification Directorate, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland 
Security; Mr. David Rust, Deputy Commissioner, Social Security 
Administration; Angelo I. Amador, Executive Director, 
Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Jena Baker 
McNeill, J.D., Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation.
    ``Investment Management and Acquisition Challenges at the 
Department of Homeland Security'' (September 15, 2009). 
Established in March 2003 through the combination of 22 
separate legacy agencies, DHS is charged with preventing 
domestic terrorist events, reducing vulnerabilities to such 
attacks, and improving recovery and relief efforts when attacks 
do occur. For FY 2009, DHS had a cumulative budget of $52.5 
billion to fund approximately 180,000 employees across multiple 
programs involving law enforcement, border security, science 
and technological research, preparedness, and disaster 
mitigation. To coordinate its activities, DHS maintains three 
directorates and 16 separate agencies or offices for program 
management and operations. Due to its failure to develop a 
comprehensive plan to address matters including agency 
transformation, integration, management, and long-term mission 
challenges, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
designated DHS a high-risk entity.
    The hearing examined the Department of Homeland Security's 
(DHS) establishment of key investment management capabilities 
associated with successfully delivering major acquisitions 
programs, with a particular focus on large scale information 
technology (IT) systems. The hearing also explored the plans 
and challenges ahead for newly installed DHS leaders charged 
with strengthening the oversight and management of major 
acquisition programs.
    Witnesses: The Honorable Elaine C. Duke, Deputy 
Undersecretary for Management, Department of Homeland Security; 
Mr. James L. Taylor, Deputy Inspector General, Department of 
Homeland Security; and Mr. Randolph C. Hite, Director, 
Information Technology Architecture & Systems Issues, 
Government Accountability Office (to be accompanied by Mr. John 
Hutton).
    ``IT Procurement and Disposal: Application of the Federal 
Government's Green Policies in the Life Cycle Management of IT 
Assets.'' (October 27, 2009). The United States Government 
(USG) spends on average $70 billion annually for the purchase 
of information technology (IT) products and services and 
disposes of 500,000 computers yearly, or 9,600 every week. By 
default it plays a pivotal role in shaping the IT marketplace. 
Examples of IT products purchased by the USG are computers, 
laptops, printers, scanners, memory chips, cell phones, 
servers, microprocessors, monitors, software, and related 
communications infrastructure. Federal government guidance and 
procedures for the responsible disposal of this massive amount 
of IT investment is an issue of growing concern.
    The hearing examined the federal government's green 
initiatives in the life cycle management of its vast holding of 
information technology from the procurement to disposal phase. 
Specifically, the subcommittee attempted to determine what 
government-wide policies are in place to promote the purchase 
of IT energy-efficient products, the use of recycled materials 
in the manufacture of new IT products, and the responsible 
disposal and recycling of end of lifecycle IT assets. The 
hearing also attempted to determine to what extent mandated 
United States Government green initiatives are being 
implemented by various agencies as well as the level of 
interagency coordination and cooperation in the management and 
disposal of government IT assets.
    The subcommittee found that the USG's green program goals 
and targets are voluntary and filled with loopholes. For 
example, federal credit card purchases of IT assets are not 
tracked, therefore making it impossible to determine whether 
such purchases of IT assets conform to best practices for green 
procurement. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) provide for 
exemptions in the purchase of green IT assets outside of the 
U.S. and outlying areas and permit purchase substitutes for 
ENERGY STAR or FEMP-affiliated products. The difficulty of 
inserting green purchasing requirements in federal contracts 
allows contracting officers as well as subcontractors to 
circumvent green purchasing requirements in covered service 
contracts.
    Witnesses: The Honorable Gene Green, Member of Congress; 
The Honorable Mike Thompson, Member of Congress; John 
Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources & Environment, 
Government Accountability Office; Casey Coleman, Chief 
Information Officer, U.S. General Services Administration; 
James Jones, Principal Deputy Administrator, Office of 
Prevention, Pesticides & Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; Michael Biddle, President & Founder, MBA Polymers; 
Gilbert Casellas, Vice President, Corporate Responsibility & 
Chief Diversity Officer, Dell Inc.; Rick Goss, Vice President, 
Environment & Sustainability, Information Technology Industry 
Council; Rich Littlehale, Chief Executive Officer, 
YouRenew.com; Jeff Omelchuck, GEC Director and EPEAT Executive 
Director, Green Electronics Council.
    ``Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in a Global 
Economy: Current Trends and Future Challenges'' (November 4, 
2009). The United States is the global leader in IPR holdings 
protected under international agreements, making IPR a source 
of comparative advantage for domestic industry. According to 
recent statistics compiled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
domestic IP related holdings are valued at approximately $5.5 
trillion and account for nearly 18 million jobs in various 
sectors. Furthermore, the Chamber estimates that IPR related 
goods and services account for more than half of all U.S. 
exports and approximately 40% of private sector economic 
growth.
    The economic and social costs associated with IPR 
infringement, such as piracy and counterfeiting, are difficult 
to estimate and vary according to each industrial sector. Both 
the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have estimated 
the costs associated with piracy and counterfeiting to be 
between $200 billion and $250 billion annually for domestic 
industries.
    As the prevalence of IPR infringement increases, so have 
the number of seizures by U.S. Customs officials. For 2008, 
both the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agencies at the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported nearly 15,000 
IPR related seizures of pirated and counterfeit goods having a 
total value of $272 million, a 38% increase over FY 2007. Top 
commodities seized by authorities included footwear/
accessories, pharmaceuticals, and apparel.
    The hearing focused on the federal government's roles and 
responsibilities in the global protection and enforcement of 
intellectual property rights (IPR) and, in particular, the 
strategic objectives of the Obama Administration for improving 
coordination among stakeholder agencies (Department of 
Commerce, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 
Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Patent Office, and Department of State) having IPR protection 
or enforcement responsibilities.
    Witnesses: The Honorable Cameron Kerry, General Counsel, 
U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. Stanford K. McCoy, Assistant 
U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and 
Innovation, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; Mr. Jason 
Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal 
Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Mr. William E. Craft, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economics, Energy 
and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State; and Mr. Loren 
Yager, Director, International Affairs and Trade, Government 
Accountability Office; The Honorable Dan Glickman, Chairman and 
C.E.O, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.; Mr. Robert 
W. Holleyman, II, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
Business Software Alliance; Mr. Brian Toohey, Senior Vice 
President for International Affairs, Pharmaceutical Research 
and Manufacturers of America; and Mr. Jay Timmons, Executive 
Vice President, National Association of Manufacturers.
    ``Tracking the Money: Assessing the Recovery Act's Impact 
on the State of California'' (Field Hearing in Los Angeles, CA, 
held jointly by the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform and the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Organization and Procurement) (March 5, 2010). The Recovery Act 
was created in response to the most serious national economic 
crisis since the Great Depression. The purpose of the Act is to 
promote economic stabilization, preserve and create jobs, 
assist those most impacted by the recession, stabilize the 
budgets of state and local governments, and provide long-term 
economic investments in transportation, environmental 
protection, and infrastructure. Under the Act, California has 
been awarded more funding, $21.5 billion, than any other state 
in the nation.
    The joint full committee and Government Management 
Subcommittee field hearing, held in Los Angeles, CA, examined 
Recovery Act funded transportation, education, and energy 
projects, programs, and grants in California, with particular 
attention to evaluating measures taken to prevent waste, fraud, 
and abuse. The hearing focused on a number of issues of concern 
including: significant overhead costs associated with 
administering the Recovery Act funds and the added burden it 
places on state agencies due to declining revenues; meeting 
Recovery Act assessment and reporting requirement deadlines, 
with particular focus on the California Department of 
Education's (CDE) failure to meet those requirements; and the 
state's management of Recovery Act energy funds.
    Witnesses: The Honorable Patrick Morris, Mayor of San 
Bernardino, CA; The Honorable Chuck Reed, Mayor of San Jose CA; 
The Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles, 
CA; Linda Calbom, Director, Western Region, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Herb K. Schultz, Director, California 
Recovery Task Force; Elaine M. Howle, California State Auditor, 
Bureau of State Audits; Laura N. Chick, Recovery Inspector 
General, State of California.
    ``Federal Information Security: Current Challenges and 
Future Policy Considerations'' (March 24, 2010). Weaknesses in 
federal information security threaten both the operability of 
federal programs and the privacy of citizens whose personal 
information is maintained in government computer systems. To 
minimize vulnerabilities in federal information systems, FISMA 
was enacted in December 2002 as part of the Electronic 
Government Act of 2002. FISMA reauthorized and strengthened 
provisions in the Government Information Security Reform Act 
(GISRA) that require federal agencies to identify and minimize 
potential risks to the security of their information and 
information systems. In FY 2009, agencies reported spending 
$6.8 billion on information security out of roughly $75 billion 
for IT investments overall.
    FISMA requires federal agencies to assess the state of 
their information security management and submit the findings 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in September of 
each year. It also charges each federal agency's Chief 
Information Officer (CIO) with evaluating the state of his or 
her agency's information security management through a 
questionnaire developed by OMB. As part of the annual review 
process, each review must be independently evaluated by the 
agency's Inspector General (IG) (or another independent 
evaluator on behalf of the IG) before being submitted to OMB. 
OMB must summarize these findings and submit its analysis in an 
annual report to Congress.
    In addition, FISMA requires agencies to report the 
occurrence of security incidents or compromises of an agency's 
networks to the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-
CERT). Since its establishment in September 2003 as part of the 
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) infrastructure 
protection program, the primary purpose of US-CERT is to 
provide agencies with threat analysis information and 
assistance in responding to security incidents. Examples of 
such incidents are attempts by hackers to access systems, 
overwhelm systems by flooding them with data, or to spread 
viruses and other malicious code.
    The hearing examined issues relating to government-wide 
information security challenges and efforts to comply with 
requirements established under the Federal Information Security 
Management Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347). Specifically, the 
hearing focused on the following issues: the FY 2009 report to 
Congress on FISMA implementation and the development and 
implementation of computer based interactive reporting tools 
(Cyberscope) for data reporting in place of the current manual 
process; the increasing number of cyber incidents being 
reported by agencies to OMB; continuing federal government 
vulnerabilities and shortcomings in responding to major cyber 
incidents; weaknesses in agency responses to coordinated cyber 
attacks; interagency cooperation; and agency preparation and 
capability to combat emerging cybersecurity challenges.
    Witnesses: Mr. Vivek Kundra, Chief Information Officer, 
Office of Management and Budget; Mr. Gary ``Gus'' Guissanie, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber, 
Identity, and Information Assurance, U.S. Department of 
Defense; Mr. John Streufert, Deputy Chief Information Officer 
for Information Security, Bureau of Information Resource 
Management, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Gregory Wilshusen, 
Director, Information Security Issues, Government 
Accountability Office; Mr. Philip Bond, President, TechAmerica; 
Mr. John Gilligan, President, the Gilligan Group, Inc.; Mr. 
Alan Paller, Director of Research, SANS Institute; and Mr. 
Christopher Fountain, President and CEO, SecureInfo Corporation 
(Minority Witness).
    ``Oversight of Federal Financial Management'' (April 14, 
2010). The hearing reviewed the outcomes of the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) audit of the federal government's 
consolidated financial statement (CFS) for the fiscal year 
ending in 2009.
    Due to certain material weaknesses related to internal 
control over financial reporting and other limitations, for the 
13th consecutive year, GAO was unable to express an opinion for 
fiscal years 2008-2009 on the U.S. Government's CFS statements 
except for the 2007-2009 Statements of Social Insurance, all of 
which were represented fairly in accordance with GAAP. GAO also 
found that the federal government did not apply effective 
internal controls regarding its financial reporting 
requirements including the safeguarding of assets. GAO found 
that ongoing material weaknesses within certain agencies 
impacts the federal government's ability to (1) accurately 
report a large portion of its assets, liabilities, costs and 
other related information; (2) affects the federal government's 
ability to sufficiently protect major assets or to properly 
record various transactions; (3) prevents the federal 
government from reliably measuring the complete cost as well as 
the financial and nonfinancial performance of particular 
programs and activities; and (4) hinders the federal government 
from reporting reliable financial data.
    In addition to the testimony submitted by the Acting 
Comptroller of the United States, the Subcommittee received 
testimony from Departments of State, Treasury, and Defense 
representatives on their agencies' efforts to strengthen 
internal agency and government-wide financial management and 
reporting requirements.
    A second panel of private sector witnesses addressed H.R. 
2142, the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance 
Improvement Act of 2009 (GEEPIA), which is sponsored by 
Congressman Henry Cuellar. The intent of GEEPIA is to build 
upon the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 by 
requiring that every federal program be assessed at least once 
every five years to evaluate the clarity of the program's 
purpose and objectives, the quality of the program's management 
and organizational design, the quality of the program's 
strategic and performance planning and goals, and the 
effectiveness of the program in meeting its strategic 
objectives. The legislation also seeks to provide congressional 
policy makers with better information so that they can conduct 
more effective oversight, and to help agencies make informed 
management decisions, improve the effectiveness of agency and 
program operations, and submit evidence-based funding requests. 
Lastly, the legislation seeks to improve the federal 
government's performance management infrastructure by 
establishing the Performance Improvement Council and ``agency 
performance improvement officers.
    Witnesses: Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller of the United 
States; Richard L. Gregg Acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary, 
U.S. Department of the Treasury; Danny Werfel, Controller, 
Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management 
and Budget; James L. Millette, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Global Financial Services, Department of State; Mark E. Easton, 
Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Department of Defense; John 
Barton, Manager of Public Information, Texas Legislative Budget 
Board; Michael J. Hettinger, Director of Practice Planning and 
Marketing, Grant Thornton LLP; Veronique de Rugy, Ph.D, Senior 
Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University.
    ``Cloud Computing: Benefits and Risks of Moving Federal IT 
into the Cloud'' (Hearing held jointly with the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform and the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Organization, and Procurement) (July 1, 
2010). The Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, 
and Procurement, in conjunction with the Committee of Oversight 
and Government Reform, held a hearing on the benefits and risks 
of the federal government's employment of cloud computing 
technologies. At its most basic level, cloud computing 
technology is Internet-based computing whereby computing 
resources are shared and accessible on demand. One of the most 
commonly used analogies for cloud computing is that of a 
utility service. Before the advent of the electric grid at the 
turn of the 20th Century, business owners that wanted to use 
machinery also needed to produce enough energy to run that 
machinery. This meant investing heavily to build and maintain a 
power source. The electric grid revolutionized the country by 
centralizing the energy resource and allowing businesses to 
simply purchase electricity. Cloud computing does the same for 
computing power. Instead of building and maintaining an entire 
IT infrastructure in house, businesses can purchase computing 
power and tap into that resources over the Internet. Software 
applications, platform, and infrastructure are all available as 
a service through cloud computing.
    It is estimated that the government-wide shift to cloud 
computing may take ten years. A number of agencies have already 
begun using cloud computing solutions including, but not 
limited to, the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and 
Human Services, Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security and 
Interior. The Securities and Exchange Commission, Recovery 
Accountability and Transparency Board, Social Security 
Administration, and General Services Administration are also 
using cloud computing as are dozens of state and local 
governments around the nation.
    Cloud computing services offer a number of advantages such 
as greater efficiencies and cost savings, lower exposure of 
internal sensitive data, automated security management, and 
greater redundancies to ensure the recovery of lost data. Chief 
among cloud computing vulnerabilities are privacy and security 
concerns due to the fact that the data is not directly held by 
the user.
    The hearing examined both the advantages and 
vulnerabilities associated with the federal government's move 
to cloud computing platforms as well as efforts the Office of 
Management and Budget, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, and other relevant federal agencies are undertaking 
to develop common standards to promote cloud computer usability 
and ensure security.
    In July 2009, Chairwoman Watson requested that GAO commence 
a study (``Information Security: Federal Guidance Needed to 
Address Control Issues with Implementing Cloud Computing,'' 
July 1, 2010, GAO-10-513) to evaluate the technical and 
security risks associated with cloud computing across the 
federal government. The GAO report, released to the public at 
the hearing, determined that while individual agencies have 
identified security measures needed when using cloud computing, 
they have not always developed corresponding guidance, and that 
OMB and GSA have yet to complete government-wide cloud 
computing security initiatives. Government panel witnesses 
assured the Committee that government-wide cloud security 
guidance would be issued by the end of the calendar year.
    Witnesses: Mr. Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information 
Officer, Administrator for E-Government and Information 
Technology, Office of Management and Budget; Mr. David McClure, 
Associate Administrator, Office of Citizen Services and 
Communications, General Services Administration; Ms. Cita 
Furlani, Director, Information Technology Laboratory, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology; Mr. Gregory Wilshusen, 
Director, Information Security Issues, Government 
Accountability Office; Mr. Scott Charney, Corporate Vice 
President, Trustworthy Computing, Microsoft Corporation; Mr. 
David Burton, Senior Vice President, Global Public Policy, 
Salesforce.com; Mr. Mike Bradshaw, Director, Google Federal, 
Google Inc.; Mr. Gregory Ganger, Professor, Electrical and 
Computer Engineering, Director, Parallel Data Lab, Carnegie 
Mellon University.
    ``Green Building Practices in the Federal Sector: Progress 
and Challenges to Date'' (July 21, 2010). The hearing explored 
what performance measurements are in place to track energy 
efficiency savings and other outcomes for green buildings; how 
funding constraints and other factors affect the full 
implementation of green building practices; the role Congress 
should play in shaping a coherent set of standards for green 
building; how well federal agencies are coordinating efforts to 
``green'' federal buildings; challenges related to measuring 
performance outcomes; and the use of green building practices 
to reduce the consumption of energy, water, and materials and 
promote a healthy and productive workplace. Finally, potential 
disadvantages associated with the adoption of green and high-
performance building practices were addressed.
    The subcommittee found that although the long-term benefits 
of green building renovation and construction are demonstrated 
through greater energy efficiency and lower operating costs, 
many agencies cite the requirement to outline capital costs 
outright in the federal budget as an impediment to greening 
federal buildings, and as a direct conflict with other agency 
funding priorities. Further, there is a concern that going 
forward that federal agencies will be less inclined to invest 
in energy efficient technologies if their budgets are based on 
smaller operating costs that discourage such investments.
    For green building practices to succeed, there is a need 
for more funding to better train federal agency staff in 
overseeing energy savings performance contracts and related 
activities in an effort to comply with provisions contained in 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Another 
issue affecting the full implementation of EISA and relevant 
executive orders is the inconsistent collection of reliable 
energy data and the absence of a data collection standards 
pertaining to federal energy management. Federal agencies use a 
range of methods to collect energy data that produce varying 
results and in turn can cause inefficient building operations 
post construction. The adoption of a uniform data collection 
standard, along with improved training for energy management 
and building personnel, will assist federal agencies in meeting 
their energy reduction and other target goals under EISA.
    To date, Congress has not conducted extensive oversight 
regarding green building practices, which are relatively new 
and involve multiple federal agencies. Progress has been made 
by GSA, EPA, DOE and OMB in coordinating the implementation of 
EISA high-performance federal building requirements; however, 
concerns exist that once the flow of Recovery Act funding 
ceases for DOE and GSA, the agencies will likely experience 
difficulty in maintaining some of their obligations under EISA, 
and in reducing their energy and water usage as mandated.
    Witnesses: Kevin Kampschroer, Director, Office of High 
Performance Green Buildings, General Services Administration; 
Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
U.S. Department of Energy; Dennis Bushta, Deputy Director, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 
Henry Green, President, National Institute of Building 
Sciences; Ellen Vaughan, Policy Director, High Performance 
Green Buildings, Environmental and Energy Study Institute Lynn 
Bellenger, President, American Society for Heating, 
Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE); James 
Bertrand, Vice President, Delphi, President, Delphi Automotive 
Holdings Group and Delphi Thermal Systems.
    ``Minority Contracting: Opportunities and Challenges for 
Current and Future Minority-Owned Businesses (July 28, 2010). 
The hearing examined issues relating to government-wide 
minority contracting and agency efforts to comply with 
requirements for minority-owned business programs. General 
issues addressed included the following: the state of federal 
programs designed to aide minority and disadvantaged business 
owners in accessing federal markets; administrative or 
competitive barriers within the contracting process; 
accountability of agencies charged with meeting contracting 
goals established for minority-owned firms; identification of 
barriers, including racial discrimination, for minority 
entrepreneurs within the contracting process; and the future 
policy landscape for competition among larger and smaller 
minority-owned firms.
    The Subcommittee also received testimony from Congressman 
Bobby Rush on his legislation, H.R. 4343, the Minority Business 
Development Improvements Act of 2009, which would require the 
Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) to establish a 
program providing technical assistance, loan guarantees, and 
contract assistance to ``qualified minority businesses.''
    The subcommittee focused a great deal of attention on 
evidence of ongoing discrimination in federal contracting and 
the fact that minority-owned businesses are still 
disproportionately underrepresented in the federal marketplace. 
Proving such discrimination in a way that can withstand 
``strict scrutiny,'' however, has been increasingly difficult 
given developments in the federal courts' jurisprudence on 
Equal Protection. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the 
Supreme Court decided several key cases, including City of 
Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. and Adarand Constructors Inc. v. 
Pena, which resulted in the federal government having to show 
that any race-conscious programs are necessary to achieve a 
compelling government interest. While courts have recognized 
that the government can potentially have a compelling interest 
in remedying either its own discrimination or private-sector 
discrimination in which it is a ``passive participant,'' they 
have placed an increasingly heavy evidentiary burden upon 
Congress in demonstrating such discrimination.
    The 2008 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in Rothe Development Corporation v. Department 
of Defense arguably represents the culmination of this trend. 
In Rothe, the court struck down a Department of Defense 
minority contracting program on the grounds that Congress did 
not have a ``strong basis in evidence'' for concluding that 
race-conscious contracting was necessary to remedy 
discrimination in the defense industry when it reenacted the 
program in 2006. The court found that the six ``disparity 
studies'' relied on the government as showing discrimination in 
defense contracting were methodologically flawed, limited in 
their geographic coverage, and not the subject of Congressional 
findings. It also rejected other statistical and anecdotal 
evidence on similar grounds, noting, in particular, that even 
anecdotal evidence introduced at congressional hearings is 
``insufficient by itself'' to support a challenged program.
    Witnesses: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Member of Congress; 
The Honorable Marie C. Johns, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Small 
Business Administration; Ms. Jiyoung Park, Associate 
Administrator for Small Business Utilization, General Services 
Administration; Ms. Linda Oliver, Acting Director, Office of 
Small Business Programs, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. David 
Hinson, Director, Minority Business Development Agency, 
Department of Commerce; Mr. Brandon Neal, Director, Office of 
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Department of 
Transportation.; Mr. Anthony W. Robinson, President, Minority 
Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund; Mr. 
Fernando V. Galaviz, President, The Centech Group, on behalf of 
The Mid-Tier Advocacy; Mr. Don O'Bannon, Chairman, Airport 
Minority Advisory Council; Mr. Joel Zingeser, Director of 
Corporate Development, Grunley Construction Co., Inc.

2. Legislation

            a. H.R. 2142, The Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and 
                    Performance Improvement Act of 2009
    H.R. 2142, the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness and 
Performance Improvement Act of 2009, sponsored by Congressman 
Henry Cuellar, builds upon the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993 by requiring that every federal program be 
assessed at least once every five years to determine whether 
such programs meet their intended purpose and objectives. It 
requires that programs be evaluated in accordance with specific 
criteria that include: program management and organizational 
design; strategic and performance planning; and program 
effectiveness.
    The legislation also seeks to provide Congress with more 
reliable data to be used in making program funding decisions, 
conducting oversight, and in developing long-term budgetary 
blueprints for agency needs. To meet these goals, the 
legislation establishes a Performance Improvement Council 
within OMB and requires the establishment of ``performance 
improvement officers'' in each agency. Below is a summary of 
key provisions contained in the legislation.
           Requires each agency head to collaborate 
        with the Director of OMB to assess every program at 
        least once every five years focusing on the program's 
        purpose, strategic plan, and performance related 
        objectives;
           Requires the Director of OMB to make 
        available, along with the President's budget, a draft 
        list of programs to be assessed during the following 
        fiscal year for planning purposes.
           Updates the requirements for agency 
        strategic plans required by the Government Performance 
        and Results Act of 1993.
           Creates the position of ``agency performance 
        improvement officer'' to supervise the performance 
        management activities of each agency.
           Establishes the Performance Improvement 
        Council to assist in the development of performance 
        standards and evaluation methodologies, identify best 
        practices in federal performance management, and 
        facilitate the exchange of information on performance 
        among agencies.
    The Subcommittee considered H.R. 2142 during a business 
meeting on Wednesday, May 12, 2010. Rep. Cuellar offered a 
substitute amendment making a number of changes to the bill. 
These changes include: requirements that each agency, in 
consultation with OMB, identify high priority goals with 
performance outcomes that can be clearly and objectively 
reviewed and measured and that have high direct value to the 
public, and that agencies review progress toward meeting those 
goals at least once each quarter; requirements for OMB to make 
available with the President's annual budget a list of agency 
goals and the approach to be used by agencies to review 
progress toward achieving those goals; the establishment of 
mechanisms for both Congress and the public to comment on the 
goals to be reviewed and methods each agency plans to use; and 
requirements for agencies to make the results of performance 
reviews publicly available on the Internet.
    The Cuellar amendment requires GAO or, as appropriate, an 
agency's Inspector General, to evaluate implementation of the 
bill at least as often as the first, third, and fifth years 
after enactment.
    H.R. 2142, as amended by the Cuellar amendment, was 
approved by the Subcommittee on a voice vote.
            (b) H.R. 4900, the Federal Information Security Amendments 
                    Act of 2010
    H.R. 4900, the Federal Information Security Amendments Act 
of 2010, was introduced by Subcommittee Chairwoman Watson on 
March 22, 2010. The bill was marked up by the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Organization, and Procurement and 
forwarded to the full committee, as amended, by voice vote on 
May 5, 2010.
    The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) was 
enacted in December 2002 as part of the Electronic Government 
Act of 2002. FISMA requires federal agencies to assess the 
state of their information security management and submit the 
findings to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 
September of each year, and are included in OMB's annual report 
to Congress on federal information security.
    FISMA includes several key information security protocols 
and requirements that require agencies to:
           conduct periodic risk assessments that 
        evaluate likely threats against their information and 
        systems;
           categorize the appropriate levels of risk 
        among different information systems and to develop 
        plans to minimize the risk posed by various threats;
           provide employees with security awareness 
        training;
           maintain a detailed inventory of all 
        information systems, both in-house and those operated 
        by outside contractors; and
           develop a contingency plan for the 
        continuation of operations in the event that systems 
        are compromised.
    In addition, FISMA requires agencies to report the 
occurrence of security incidents or compromises of an agency's 
networks to the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-
CERT).
    Despite improvements made under FISMA, GAO continues to 
report significant and persistent information security 
weaknesses within agency information systems and security 
programs. Recent data point to an increasing number of 
cyberattacks against federal information systems, including the 
number of agencies reporting security incidents where 
operations were disrupted or sensitive data was placed at risk.
    In response to these challenges, H.R. 4900 incorporates 
multiple policy recommendations made by the Obama 
Administration, public-private sector working groups, and GAO 
for remedying both technical and managerial information 
security deficiencies throughout the federal government. Key 
provisions in H.R. 4900 include:
           The establishment of a National Office for 
        Cyberspace (NOC) within the Executive Office of the 
        President to coordinate and oversee the information 
        security of agency information systems and 
        infrastructure. The Director of the NOC would be 
        appointed by the President and subject to Senate 
        confirmation.
           The establishment of a Federal Cybersecurity 
        Practice Board (Board) within the NOC that would be 
        charged with developing policies and procedures for 
        agencies to adhere to in meeting FISMA statutory 
        requirements and to oversee the implementation of NIST 
        approved standards and guidance. The Board will be 
        chaired by the Director of the NOC, and include 
        standing members from OMB, DoD, and selected members 
        from civilian and law enforcement agencies.
           Requirements for agencies to undertake 
        automated and continuous system monitoring to identify 
        system compliance, deficiencies, and potential risks 
        caused by cyber incidents or threats to an agency's 
        information technology assets.
           Requirements for agencies to obtain an 
        annual independent audit of their information security 
        programs to determine their overall effectiveness and 
        compliance with FISMA requirements. Audits would also 
        be required of contractors responsible for managing 
        agency systems or programs on their behalf.
           Requirements for the development of secure 
        acquisition policies and vulnerability assessments for 
        major systems to be used in the procurement of 
        information technology products and services, as well 
        as policies for mitigating supply chain risks 
        associated with such products.
    The Subcommittee considered H.R. 2142 during a business 
meeting on Wednesday, May 5, 2010. The Subcommittee agreed to 
an amendment by chairwoman Watson containing technical changes 
and minor refinements to the original bill, as well an 
amendment from Congressman Connolly to establish an Office of 
the Chief Technology Officer within the Executive Office of the 
President.

  D. SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

    The Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and 
National Archives has jurisdiction over public information and 
records laws such as the Freedom of Information Act, the 
Presidential Records Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, the Census Bureau, and the National Archives and Records 
Administration. In the 111th Congress, Rep. William Lacy Clay 
served as Chairman and Rep. Patrick T. McHenry as Ranking 
Member.

1. Oversight

            a. 2010 Decennial Census
                (1) Overview
    A substantial portion of the Subcommittee's oversight 
activities involved the Census Bureau and its implementation of 
the 2010 Census. The Subcommittee sought to assess and improve 
the Census Bureau's preparedness on a number of issues relating 
to the efficiency and operational aspects of the 2010 Census. 
Some 9,400 key operations and activities made up the greater 
Census 2010 agenda. However, the Census Bureau identified 44 
key decennial operations for 2010 and the Subcommittee 
continued to evaluate and assess. These complex, time sensitive 
activities made oversight vitally important to ensuring 
operational efficiency, budget awareness and fiscal constraint. 
To that end, the Subcommittee accomplished the following:
           Monitoring the 2010 Census field address 
        list improvement and enumeration operations for 
        accuracy, conformity to specifications, inclusiveness 
        and field management efficiency.
           Ascertaining the adequacy of security 
        controls, including information technology to protect 
        privacy of information by its respondents.
           Continual monitoring of the Census Bureau's 
        effectiveness at managing the cost, schedule, and 
        operation risks.
           Follow up and investigate Census related 
        fraud claims and hotline complaints.
           Assess the Recovery Act expenditures related 
        to 2010 census field operations.
           Provide an examination of the Census 2010 
        communications campaign.
           Increased transparency and accountability of 
        Census 2010 operations.
           Evaluating and ensuring that the Census 2010 
        Communications Campaign received proper ad placement in 
        traditionally hard to count communities.
           A special data product of census tabulations 
        regarding the Prison Group Quarters count.
    The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 gave the Census 
Bureau an additional $210 million to help cover the 2010 
decennial costs. The Bureau was required to submit a detailed 
plan and timeline of decennial milestones and expenditures, and 
a quantitative assessment of associated risks. The Commerce 
Department, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was required 
to provide quarterly reports on the Bureau's progress with the 
plan. The objective of the report, according to the OIG, was to 
determine the Bureau's ability to oversee the systems and 
information for tracking schedule activities, cost, and risk 
management activities.
    In the First Quarterly Report released on August 14, 2009, 
the OIG review found the Bureau's ability to effectively 
oversee decennial progress is hampered by inherent weaknesses 
in its systems and information tracking activities, costs, and 
risk management activities. The overarching problem was a lack 
of integration between systems and information. The 
Subcommittee sought direct links between the schedule of 
activities, the cost of those activities and the work actually 
accomplished. The Subcommittee subsequently took a more active 
role in the improvement and oversight of these specific 
measures.
    The Subcommittee also focused on the state of the Bureau's 
progress and readiness for the 2010 enumeration and detailed 
advancements made in prior areas of concern. The Subcommittee 
explored specific aspects of Census operations including, but 
not limited to, the payroll processing system for the 1 million 
temporary workers and the field workflow management and 
operation systems. There were a few glitches in payroll, in a 
few specific areas, but those were quickly alleviated. Further, 
the Subcommittee received continued updates on cost estimates. 
Additionally, the Subcommittee tracked the efforts underway by 
the Census Bureau to fully ensure that Census 2000 issues have 
been mitigated.
    The U.S. Census Bureau returned at least $1.6 billion back 
to the government this year because the 2010 Census came in 
under budget. Congress appropriated $14.7 billion over 12 years 
for this year's headcount. Preparations for the 2010 count 
began in 1999 with early planning meetings, but the more than 
half the money was spent this year. The 2010 Census was still 
the most expensive in American history, but census budgets have 
climbed every decade since 1950, as the population and number 
of households have increased. In contrast, the Census Bureau 
returned $305 million from a $7 billion total budget in 2000. 
Factors which contributed to the recent savings were: (1) an 
initial good response rate; (2) more efficient workers; (3) the 
advertising blitz; (4) no natural disasters; (5) remote area 
savings; and (6) daily troubleshooting by the bureau.
                (2) Master Address File
    The Census Bureau developed a nationwide address list, 
often called the ``Master Address File'' (MAF) to document the 
street address (or a comparable location description), the 
mailing address (if different from the street address), and the 
census block location of every designated living quarter in the 
United States and related Island Areas. The Bureau developed 
different procedures for acquiring the urban area addresses as 
opposed to the rural areas. This is a tremendous endeavor. The 
Subcommittee along with Bureau engaged to ensure the quality 
and quantity of addresses in the United States.
                (3) Non-Response Follow-Up
    The Subcommittee also sought the lessons learned from 
address canvassing that improved the effectiveness of non-
response follow-up (NRFU). NRFU is the most expensive and labor 
intensive operation of the decennial census. Increasing costs 
and automation problems caused the Census Bureau decision to 
abandon the handheld computers for Non Response Follow Up and 
coverage measurement operations in favor of paper. This move 
was applauded by the oversight agencies as well as the 
Subcommittee, as problems with the hand-helds continued.
                (4) Complete Count Committees
    In an effort to increase the likelihood of an accurate 
count, the Census Bureau developed a partnership with thousands 
of organizations and community leaders. On the local level, the 
Census Partnership Program works with religious and faith-based 
organizations, local officials, businesses, educators and 
community activists. These groups are described as Complete 
Count Committees (CCC). The Complete Count Committees worked on 
the local level and touch neighborhoods and communities. The 
Census Bureau provides official materials to these partners, 
but no monetary assistance to these committees. Thus, the 
committees, in encouraging civic participation, had to be 
creative and innovative in reaching their communities and 
securing funds for assistance in their task. The success of 
Complete Count Committees was crucial to ensuring an accurate 
count.
                (5) Paper Based Operation Control Systems
    Paper Based Operation Control System (PBOCS) encountered 
hardware and software problems. Prior audits, earlier in the 
year, determined that PBOCS were high risk. The Census Bureau 
immediately took steps to improve management functions, 
including the appointment of a testing officer to oversee 
operations. Further problems were mitigated with new software 
and hardware updates.
                (6) Census Staffing
    The 565,000 temporary workers hired to conduct follow up 
interviews at the 47 million households that didn't return 
census forms were more educated and experienced than previous 
years. The highly skilled workforce was thought to be due 
mostly to a higher number of unemployed overqualified 
applicants seeking jobs amid the economic slump. The added work 
experience meant workers spent less money and time on travel 
and completed their work more efficiently and in a timely 
manner. The Inspector General of the Commerce Department found 
that the Census Bureau was well positioned for Non Response 
Follow-Up in terms of workload and staffing.
            b. Information Policy
                (1) Overview
    The Subcommittee conducted oversight into federal 
information policy. At Chairman Clay's request, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) agreed to review the management and 
protection of information collected and maintained by 
commercial providers of Web 2.0/social media services on behalf 
of or in association with federal agencies. The Subcommittee 
also examined the state of public access to the results of 
federally-funded research and the status of federal electronic 
records management.
                (2) National Archives and Records Administration
    A significant portion of the Subcommittee's oversight 
activities involved the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA), including examining NARA's management 
and preservation of federal electronic records; information 
technology and physical security at NARA facilities; and the 
continuing development of the Electronic Records Archives 
(ERA). At Chairman Clay's request, the GAO agreed to review 
NARA's use of Earned Value Management in its management of the 
ERA contract.
    The Subcommittee also reviewed the mission of the National 
Archives, in light of recent agency challenges, a new Archivist 
of the United States, and concerns over agency morale.
    Further, the Subcommittee examined NARA's use of Advisory 
Committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act; the 
possible exposure of personally-identifiable information in 
improperly-handled electronic records under NARA's care; the 
probable loss of millions of Bush Administration e-mails; the 
initial progress of the Office of Government Information 
Services; and researcher concerns over renovations at Archives 
I, the agency's headquarters and a major research facility.
                (3) Presidential Records
    The Subcommittee reviewed the Report On Alternative Models 
for Presidential Libraries, submitted to Congress in September 
2009. A requirement of the Presidential Historical Records 
Preservation Act of 2008, the Archivist was asked to submit a 
report on reducing costs, improving preservation and reducing 
delays in public access to Presidential records.
    At Chairman Clay's request, GAO agreed to review the 
relationships between presidential libraries and the private 
foundations that build and help to maintain them. The 
Subcommittee also reviewed NARA's use of the Advisory Committee 
on Presidential Libraries, including questions of membership 
balance and frequency of meetings.
                (4) The National Historical Publications and Records 
                    Commission
    The Subcommittee conducted oversight over the National 
Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), the 
grant-making arm of NARA. Chairman Clay sought to increase the 
funding of the NHPRC with H.R. 5616, the National Historical 
Publications and Records Commission Act of 2010, which would 
authorize appropriations for the National Historical 
Publications and Records Commission for FY2011-FY2015 at $20 
million per year. The Subcommittee reported the bill favorably 
to the full Oversight Committee.
                (5) The Freedom of Information Act
    The Subcommittee reviewed the administration of the Freedom 
of Information Act across the federal government. The 
Subcommittee also heard from the open government community 
about how to improve FOIA administration, decrease backlogs and 
delays, and improve cooperation between agencies and 
requesters.
    The Subcommittee examined the progress of the new 
government-wide FOIA ombudsman, the Office of Government 
Information Services (OGIS), which is charged with reviewing 
the FOIA policies and procedures of administrative agencies to 
make sure they are in compliance with the new law. Congress 
placed OGIS within the National Archives and Record 
Administration to serve as an impartial mediator to resolve 
disputes between FOIA requestors and administrative agencies.

2. Proceedings

            a. Hearings
    ``Status of the 2010 Census Operations'' (March 5, 2009). 
This hearing examined the progress report on the 2010 Census. 
The hearing addressed integration and testing of the 
information technology systems; implementation of the 2010 
Census Local Update of Census Address (LUCA) program; 
preparations for Address Canvassing; reliability of the cost 
estimate; and field infrastructure for non-response follow-up 
(NRFU) and other operations. The subcommittee also examined the 
Census Bureau's progress on implementing recommendations of the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO).
    Witnesses: Mr. Thomas L. Mesenbourg, Acting Director, U.S. 
Census Bureau; Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic 
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. David A. 
Powner, Director Information Technology, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office and Glenn S. Himes, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Civilian Agencies, Center for Enterprise 
Modernization, the MITRE Corporation.
    ``2010 Census: Assessing the Bureau's Strategy for Reducing 
the Undercount of Hard-to-Count Populations'' (March 23, 2009). 
This hearing examined the Census Bureau's strategies for the 
2010 Regional Partnership Program; how the communications plan 
would decrease the undercount and increase the mail response 
rate of hard-to-count communities; and whether the messaging 
would generate community support for the Census. The hearing 
was a follow-up to the Subcommittee's July 10, 2008 hearing on 
the integrated Communications Campaign.
    Witnesses: Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic 
Issues, United States Government Accountability Office; Mr. 
Thomas L. Mesenbourg, Acting Director, U.S. Bureau of the 
Census; Mr. Lester A. Farthing, NY Regional Director, U.S. 
Bureau of the Census; Mr. Tim Olson, Assistant Division Chief 
of Partnership, Field Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census; Ms. 
Stacey Cumberbatch, City Census Coordinator, City of New York; 
and Jeff Tarakajian, Executive Vice President, DRAFTFCB.
    ``Stakeholders' Views on the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA)'' May 21, 2009. This hearing examined 
issues that President Obama's Administration should consider in 
selecting the next Archivist of the United States, as well as 
NARA's Strategic Plan, the Freedom of Information Act, the 
Presidential Libraries Donation Act, the Office of Government 
Information Services Act, the collection and storage of 
historical records and the staffing of NARA facilities.
    Witnesses: Dr. Thomas C. Battle, Director of the Moorland-
Spingarn Research Center at Howard University; Ms. Meredith 
Fuchs, General Counsel for the National Security Archive at The 
George Washington University; Mr. Lee White, Executive Director 
of the National Coalition for History; and Ms. Patrice 
McDermott, Director of OpenTheGovernment.Org.
    ``Identity Theft: Victims Bills of Rights'' (June 17, 
2009). This hearing examined actions the federal government has 
taken to address the problem of identity theft, and how to 
provide protection to victims.
    Witnesses: Betsy Broder, Assistant Director of the Division 
of Privacy and Identity Protection at the Federal Trade 
Commission; Jason M. Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice; 
Mr. Daniel Bertoni, Director of Education, Workforce and Income 
Security at the Government Accountability Office; Ms. Catherine 
Allen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Santa Fe 
Group; Mr. Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director of the Electronic 
Privacy Information Center; Mr. Donald Rebovich, Executive 
Director of the Center for Identity Management and Information 
Protection; Ms. Anne Wallace, President of the Identity Theft 
Assistance Corporation; and Mr. Eric Handy, Representative of 
the Identity Theft Resource Center.
    ``Census Data and Its Use in Federal Formula Funding'' 
(July 9, 2009). This hearing examined how census data is used 
to calculate funding levels and appropriations in federal 
programs, at the Congressional level and by federal agencies 
themselves. The hearing looked at what criteria are used in 
these funding decisions, whether Congress and the agencies 
factor in the undercount of certain communities in these 
calculations and whether the yearly estimates and other 
adjustments fairly allocate federal, state and local dollars. 
The hearing also investigated what steps Congress and the 
Administration should take to improve the present system.
    Witnesses: Thomas Mesenbourg, Acting Director, U.S. Census 
Bureau; Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; Todd Richardson, Associate 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy Development, U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development; Donald Moulds, Acting 
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services; Stuart Kerachsky, 
Acting Director of the National Center for Education 
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education; Carleton Finkbeiner, 
Mayor, City of Toledo, Ohio; Robert Bowser, Mayor, City of East 
Orange, New Jersey; Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National 
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials; Jamie 
Alderslade, Director, External Relations, The Social Compact, 
Inc.
    ``National Archives and Records Administration 
Organizational Issues'' (July 30, 2009). The hearing examined 
the loss of an external hard drive containing copies of Clinton 
Administration Executive Office of the President data. The 
hearing provided an opportunity for representatives from the 
National Archives to inform the Subcommittee on how an incident 
like this occurred within the secure walls of a NARA facility 
and what was being done to make sure that this never happened 
again. The Subcommittee examined the steps NARA was taking to 
notify and assist the individuals whose privacy had been 
affected because their names and social security numbers were 
contained on the hard drive.
    Witnesses: Ms. Adrienne C. Thomas, Acting Archivist of the 
United States National Archives and Records Administration; Mr. 
Gary M. Stern, General Counsel, National Archives and Records 
Administration; and Mr. Paul Brachfeld, Inspector General, 
National Archives and Records Administration.
    ``The 2010 Census Integrated Communications Campaign: 
Criteria for Implementation; Measurements for Success'' 
(September 22, 2009). In 2007, the Census Bureau initiated an 
Integrated Communications Campaign (ICC) which is aimed at 
reducing the 2010 undercount, reaching hard to count 
communities and achieving a full count Decennial Census. The 
Integrated Communications Campaign, originally funded in excess 
of $200 million, is intended to be one of the most extensive 
and far-reaching marketing campaigns ever conducted. The ICC 
includes paid media, earned media, a national partnership 
program and the Census in Schools program. The ICC goals are to 
increase mail response, improve accuracy and improve 
cooperation with enumerators. Census' prime contractor for this 
project, DraftFCB, has developed the Paid Media Plan. The Media 
Plan encompasses television, radio, interactive, outdoor and 
transit, and print newspapers and magazines utilizing multiple 
languages and reaching into specific markets across the U.S. 
and Puerto Rico. This hearing examined the Integrated 
Communications Campaign in the context of the Office of the 
Inspector General report released August 14, 2009. The hearing 
focused on four specific areas as it the 2010 Census- cost, 
schedule, risk management, and transparency.
    Witnesses: Dr. Robert Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; 
Mr. Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Commerce; Mr. Jeff Tarkajian, President, DRAFTFCB.
    ``National Archives: Advisory Committees and their 
Effectiveness'' (October 20, 2009). This hearing explored how 
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 
utilizes two different advisory committees in helping the 
agency fulfill its diverse and challenging mission.
    Witnesses: Ms. Sharon Fawcett, Assistant Archivist for 
Presidential Libraries at the National Archives and Records 
Administration; Ms. Martha Morphy, Chief Information Officer at 
the National Archives and Records Administration; Mr. Robert 
Flaak, Director of the Committee Management Secretariat at the 
General Services Administration; and Dr. Christopher Greer, 
Assistant Director for Information Technology R&D at the White 
House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Member, 
Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives.
    ``The 2010 Census Master Address Files: Issues and 
Concerns'' (October 21, 2009). The Subcommittee's hearing on 
October 21, 2009, focused on the Census Bureau's progress in 
the compilation, scheduling, cost, and transparency of the 
Master Address File (``MAF''). The Subcommittee explored all 
aspects of the MAF, including, but not limited to, the LUCA 
appeal process, address canvassing, special Gulf Coast 
initiatives, budgetary matters, as well as the addition and 
deletion of addresses. The Bureau's interaction and cooperation 
with local and county government and stakeholders was explored. 
Additionally, the hearing tracked the efforts underway to fully 
ensure that addresses due to new construction, rehabilitated 
properties, non-traditional housing units and converted 
properties are also included in the address file.
    Witnesses: Dr. Robert Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; 
Mr. Todd Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
Commerce; Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, 
Government Accountability Office; Ms. Ilene Jacobs, Director, 
Litigation, Advocacy & Training, California Rural Legal 
Assistance, Inc.
    ``The National Archives' Ability to Safeguard the Nation's 
Electronic Records'' (November 5, 2009). This hearing explored 
recent instances of data breaches and possible breaches at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the 
status of the Electronic Records Archive (ERA).
    Witnesses: Ms. Adrienne Thomas, Acting Archivist of the 
United States, National Archives and Records Administration; 
Mr. Paul Brachfeld, Inspector General of the National Archives 
and Records Administration; Mr. David Powner, Director of 
Information Technology Management Issues at the Government 
Accountability Office; and Mr. Alan E. Brill, Senior Managing 
Director for Technology Services at Kroll Ontrack.
    ``The 2010 Census: How Complete Count Committees, Local 
Governments, Philanthropic Organizations, Not-For-Profits and 
the Business Community Can Contribute to an Accurate Census'' 
(December 2, 2009). This hearing provided an opportunity for 
Census stakeholders to provide testimony and a blueprint for 
those communities and governments seeking to form Complete 
Count Committees (CCC). The hearing also granted an opportunity 
to hear testimony from urban and rural local governments 
partnering with the business, philanthropic and not-for-profit 
organizations, in an effort to achieve an accurate Census 2010 
count. Lastly, the Subcommittee explored all aspects of the CCC 
including, but not limited to, diversity of membership, 
activities, funding alternatives, and special initiatives in 
rural and urban settings. The Bureau's interaction and 
cooperation with local and county governments and stakeholders 
was explored. Additionally, the hearing tracked the efforts 
underway by local governments to actively encourage Census 
participation. The Subcommittee also heard testimony on 
activities specific to ``hard to count'' communities.
    Witnesses: Dr. William O'Hare, Senior Fellow, Annie E. 
Casey Foundation; Ms. Yvette Cumberbatch, Coordinator, NYC 2010 
Census, New York City Government; Ms. Melanie Campbell, 
Executive Director, National Coalition on Black Civic 
Participation; Ms. Mercedes Lemp Jacobs, Director, Office of 
Latino Affairs, Washington DC Government; Mr. David Williams, 
Chair and Planning Director, Gaston County Complete Count 
Committee, Gaston County, Gastonia, North Carolina.
    ``History Museum or Records Access Agency? Defining and 
Fulfilling the Mission of the National Archives and Records 
Administration'' (December 16, 2009). This hearing explored the 
proper balance between the National Archives' core mission of 
records management, preservation and access, and its creation 
and management of museum exhibits, educational and public 
programs and other outreach efforts.
    Witnesses: The Honorable David S. Ferriero, Archivist of 
the United States, National Archives and Records 
Administration; The Honorable G. Wayne Clough, Secretary of the 
Smithsonian Institution; The Honorable James H. Billington, 
Librarian of Congress; Ms. Anne L. Weismann, Chief Counsel for 
Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington; Ms. Janet 
A. Alpert, President of the National Genealogical Society; Mr. 
Kevin M. Goldberg, Legal Counsel for the American Society of 
Newspaper Editors; and Mr. Carl Malamud, President and Founder 
of Public.Resource.Org.
    ``The 2010 Census: Enumerating People Living in Group 
Quarters'' (February 22, 2010). The field hearing in Brooklyn, 
New York assessed census efforts to enumerate persons residing 
in the United States who do not live in housing units such as 
single family houses, apartments and mobile homes. Group 
quarters include, but are not limited to dormitories, military 
barracks, correctional facilities, migrant worker dormitories, 
juvenile institutions, convents and group homes. This hearing 
focused on the challenges of counting these populations, as 
well as suggestions for possible improvements. The hearing 
allowed the Census Director an opportunity to detail activities 
and update efforts.
    Witnesses: Dr. Robert Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; 
Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, Government 
Accountability Office; Mr. Peter Wagner, Executive Director, 
Prison Policy Initiative; Mr. Thomas Ellett, Associate Vice 
President, Student Affairs, New York University.
    ``The 2010 Census Communication Contract: The Media Plan in 
Hard to Count Areas'' (February 24, 2010). This hearing 
examined the 2010 Census Integrated communications campaign in 
traditionally ``Hard to Count'' areas, as the Census Bureau 
prepared for the 2010 decennial Census. The hearing assessed 
the ethnic and print and broadcast media's role in preventing 
an undercount. The hearing further examined the media plan for 
impacting traditional Hard to Count populations in the various 
communities including, but not limited to African-American, 
Latino, Asian, Arab, Native American and Caribbean populations. 
The hearing highlighted in particular the importance and impact 
of specific mediums in reaching individuals and families in 
Hard to Count areas. Further, the presence of traditional, 
local print and broadcast media in the Census 2010 endeavor was 
measured.
    Witnesses: Dr. Robert Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; 
Mr. Jeff Tarkajian, President, DRAFTFCB; Ms. Robbyn Ennis, 
Media Director, Global Hue; Mr. Nelson Garcia, Senior Vice 
President, Global Hue Latino; Ms. Karen Narasaki, Executive 
Director, Asian American Justice Center; Mr. Arturo Vargas, 
Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected 
Officials; Ms. Helen Hatab Samhan, Executive Director, Arab 
American Institute Foundation; Mr. James Winston, Executive 
Director, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters; Ms. 
Sandy Close, Executive Director, New American Media; Mr. 
Marcelo Gaete-Tapia, Vice President, Entravision Communication 
Corporation; Mr. Danny Bakewell, Chairman, National Newspaper 
Publishers Association; Ms. Linda Smith, Executive Director, 
National Association of American Child Care Resources and 
Referral Agencies.
    ``Census 2010: Hard to Count Populations with Special 
Living Arrangements'' (March 8, 2010). This field hearing 
examined and discussed efforts to enumerate the Hard to Count 
populations with special living conditions including, but not 
limited to the following populations: the homeless, veterans, 
college students, and nursing home residents.
    Witnesses: Honorable Mark Mallory, Mayor, Cincinnati, Ohio; 
Mr. Thomas L. Mesenbourg, Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Census 
Bureau; Mr. David Scharfenberger, Director of Training, Working 
in the Neighborhoods, Inc.; Mr. Jason Riviero, State Director, 
Ohio League of United Latin American Citizens; Ms. Suzanne 
Hopkins, Director, Programs for The Center of Independent 
Living Options; Mr. Josh Spring, Executive Director, Greater 
Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless; Mr. Todd Duncan, 
Director of Housing and Food Services, University of Ohio.
    ``Administration of the Freedom of Information Act: Current 
Trends'' (March 18, 2010). This hearing examined how agencies 
process and respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
requests, and discussed current FOIA developments.
    Witnesses: Ms. Melanie Pustay, Director of the Office of 
Information Policy at the Department of Justice; Ms. Miriam 
Nesbit, Director of the Office of Government Information 
Services at the National Archives and Records Administration; 
Mr. Larry F. Gottesman, National Freedom of Information Act 
Officer, Office of Environmental Information at the 
Environmental Protection Agency; Ms. Valerie C. Melvin, 
Director of Information Management and Human Capital Issues at 
the Government Accountability Office; Mr. David Sobel, Senior 
Counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Ms. Sarah Cohen, 
the Knight Professor of Journalism at Duke University; Ms. 
Adina H. Rosenbaum, Director of the Freedom of Information 
Clearinghouse at Public Citizen; Dr. David Cuillier, Assistant 
Professor at the University of Arizona School of Journalism; 
and Mr. Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch.
    ``The 2010 Census: An Assessment of the Census Bureau's 
Preparedness'' (March 25, 2010). This hearing provided an 
opportunity for the Census Director to provide testimony on the 
readiness of the Bureau to conduct the 2010 Census. This 
assessment includes, but is not limited to, the status of key 
IT systems and updates on specific operations. Further, the 
hearing will address advancements the Census Bureau has made to 
address ongoing internal challenges, performance issues and 
project management.
    Witnesses: Mr. Arnold Jackson, Associate Director, U.S. 
Census Bureau; Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, director Strategic 
Issues, Government Accountability Office; Ms. Judy Gordon, 
Associate Deputy Director, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office 
of the Inspector General.
    ``The 2010 Census: Participation of Hard to Count 
Communities in Non-Response Follow Up'' (April 30, 2010). This 
Los Angeles field hearing examined ways to increase 
participation on the Census 2010 non-response follow up 
efforts. The subcommittee explored all aspects of Complete 
Count Committees and focused on special initiatives in rural 
and urban settings. Lastly, the Census Bureau's cooperation 
with local and county governments and stakeholders was 
explored. This hearing further allowed the Census Bureau to 
exhibit its lessons learned in developing a best practices 
guide for future census outreach.
    Witnesses: Honorable Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor, City of 
Los Angeles; Honorable Mona Pasquil, former Acting Lt. 
Governor, State of California; Honorable John Perez, Speaker of 
the Assembly, State of California; Dr. Robert Groves, Director, 
U.S. Census Bureau; Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director of 
Strategic Issues, Government Accountability Office; Dr. Robert 
Ross, President, California Endowment; Ms. Gina Montoya, Chief 
Administrative Officer, Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund.
    ``Strengthening the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission'' (June 9, 2010). This hearing reviewed the 
success of the Commission's grant programs over the last 45 
years; examined the major changes to archives, records and 
historical research since the current authorized funding level 
was set in 1988; and discussed expanding the funding and scope 
of its grants programs in order to bring the Commission in line 
with current and future needs.
    Witnesses: The Honorable John B. Larson, Member, U.S. House 
of Representatives and Member, National Historical Publications 
and Records Commission; The Honorable David S. Ferriero, 
Archivist of the United States and Chairman of the National 
Historical Publications and Records Commission; Ms. Kathleen M. 
Williams, Executive Director of the National Historical 
Publications and Records Commission, National Archives and 
Records Administration; Mr. Michael R. Beschloss, Presidential 
Historian and Vice President of the Board of Directors, the 
Foundation for the National Archives; Dr. Steven Hahn, Roy F. 
and Jeannette P. Nichols Professor of History at the University 
of Pennsylvania; Ms. Karen Jefferson, Head of Archives and 
Special Collections at Atlanta University Center; Dr. Ira 
Berlin, Distinguished University Professor at the University of 
Maryland and Representing the American Historical Association; 
Dr. Pete Daniel, Curator, National Museum of American History 
(Retired) and Representing the Organization of American 
Historians; Dr. Peter Gottlieb, State Archivist of Wisconsin 
and Representing the Society of American Archivists; Ms. 
Barbara Franco, Director, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 
Commission and Representing the American Association of State 
and Local History; Ms. Barbara Teague, Kentucky State Archivist 
and Records Administrator and Representing the Council of State 
Archivists; Ms. Kaye Lanning Minchew, Director of Archives for 
Troup County, Georgia and Representing the National Association 
of Government Archives & Records Administrators; and Ms. Susan 
Holbrook Perdue, Director of Documents Compass at the Virginia 
Foundation for the Humanities and Representing the Association 
for Documentary Editing.
    ``Federal Electronic Records Management: A Status Report'' 
(June 17, 2010). This hearing reviewed the management of 
electronic records at federal agencies and explored ways to 
improve the scheduling and preservation of electronic records.
    Witnesses: The Honorable David S. Ferriero, Archivist of 
the United States, National Archives and Records 
Administration; Mr. Jason Baron, Director of Litigation at the 
National Archives and Records Administration; Mr. Paul Wester, 
Director of the Modern Records Program at the National Archives 
and Records Administration; Mr. David M. Wennergren, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Information Management, 
Integration and Technology and Deputy Chief Information Officer 
at the Department of Defense; Ms. Valerie C. Melvin, Director 
of Information Management and Human Capital Issues at the 
General Accountability Office; Dr. Gregory S. Hunter, Associate 
Professor of Library and Information Science at Long Island 
University--C.W. Post Campus; Ms. Carol Brock, Certified 
Records Manager and Representing ARMA International; and Ms. 
Anne Weismann, Chief Counsel for Citizens for Ethics and 
Responsibility in Washington.
    ``Government 2.0, Part I: Federal Agency Use of Web 2.0 
Technologies'' (July 22, 2010). This hearing reviewed federal 
agency use, under the Federal Records Act, of Web 2.0 
technologies that promote transparency, collaboration and 
participation, and examined the records management implication 
of those technologies.
    Witnesses: The Honorable David S. Ferriero, Archivist of 
the United States, National Archives and Records 
Administration; Dr. David McClure, Associate Administrator of 
the Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies at 
the General Services Administration; Mr. Gregory C. Wilshusen, 
Director of Information Security Issues at the General 
Accountability Office; and Mr. John M. Simpson, Stem Cell 
Project Director at Consumer Watchdog.
    ``Public Access to Federally-Funded Research'' (July 29, 
2010). This hearing reviewed the current state of public access 
to federally-funded research in science, technology and 
medicine. The hearing provided an opportunity to assess the 
issues surrounding public access policies, including the impact 
of increasing public access on scientists, physicians, and 
researchers.
    Witnesses: Mr. Allan Adler, Vice President of Government 
Affairs at the Association of American Publishers; Dr. Steven 
Breckler, Executive Director for Science at the American 
Psychological Association; Professor Ralph Oman, Pravel 
Professorial Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law Fellow at 
The George Washington University Law School; Dr. Richard 
Roberts, Chief Scientific Officer at New England Biolabs; Ms. 
Sharon Terry, President/CEO of the Genetic Alliance; Mr. 
Elliott Maxwell, Project Director of the Digital Connections 
Council at the Committee for Economic Development; Dr. Sophia 
Colamarino, Vice President of Research at Autism Speaks; Dr. 
David Shulenburger, Vice President of Academic Affairs at the 
Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities; Ms. 
Catherine Nancarrow, Managing Editor of the Public Library of 
Science Community Journals; and Dr. David Lipman, Director of 
the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National 
Library of Medicine, at the National Institutes of Health.
            b. Business Meetings
    National Historical Publications and Records Commission Act 
of 2010 (July 1, 2010). This business meeting was held to 
review and mark up the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission Act of 2010 (H.R. 5616). The Subcommittee 
approved H.R. 5616 by recorded vote (6-1) and reported the bill 
to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

3. Oversight Correspondence

     March 30, 2009--Letter to Census Bureau requesting 
supplemental information with regard to the Partnership Program 
and the Integrated Communications Campaign.
     April 30, 2009--Joint Request letter to GAO 
regarding the Bureau's readiness to conduct key census-taking 
operations, the identification and management of risks, and the 
extent to which these operations are on track.
     June 11, 2009--Letter requesting details of Census 
Bureau's fingerprinting program, including but not limited to 
expenditures, efficiency, error rate, and criminal backgrounds 
of potential enumerators.
     June 19, 2009--Request letter seeking 
clarification of Census Coverage Measurement program, including 
potential magnitude of errors, accuracy of enumeration, and use 
in allocation of funding to governments, cities, and sub-state 
areas.
     July 31, 2009--Letter from Chairman Clay giving 
public comment on the U.S. Census Bureau's New Construction 
Program.
     September 9, 2009--Letter from Chairman Clay to 
GAO regarding a request to study federal assistance programs, 
census data, and allocation formulas.
     September 9, 2009--Letter to Census Bureau from 
Chairman Clay regarding a request for specific information 
detailing the Census Communications Campaign.
     September 25, 2009--Chairman Clay and Ranking 
Member's condolence letter to Dr. Groves upon learning of the 
death of Census 2010 enumerator, William Sparkman.
     September 30, 2009--Letter to Census Bureau 
concerning the details of the 2010 Census Fingerprinting 
Program. Request for documentation related to discussions 
between the Census Bureau and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
     October 6, 2009--Request letter from Chairman Clay 
to Census Bureau regarding Census Bureau Pilot Program and 
Census Challenge Program.
     October 7, 2009--Chairman Clay's letter to the 
Census Bureau requesting additional information on the Bureau's 
Census Coverage Measurement Program.
     October 30, 2009--Chairman Clay's letter to the 
Census Bureau requesting additional information about the 
Bureau's ink and paper fingerprinting plan for enumerators.
     October 30, 2009--Letter from Chairman Clay to 
Acting Archivist Adrienne C. Thomas requesting complete 
documentation on the National Archives' plan to renovate public 
areas of the main Archives Building and to decrease research 
space.
     November 3, 2009--Request letter for additional 
information with regard to the Bureau's Communications Campaign 
spending with minority media in traditionally hard to count 
areas.
     November 18, 2009--Chairman Clay's letter to the 
Bureau discussing and seeking information regarding the 
readiness of the payroll system and the paper based operational 
system.
     November 24, 2009--Letter to GAO from Chairman 
Clay requesting an assessment of NARA's use of earned value 
management in regard to the Electronic Records Archives.
     December 11, 2009--Letter to GAO from Chairman 
Clay requesting an assessment of the Census Bureau's readiness 
for the headcount and its implementation of key census 
activities.
     January 12, 2010--Letter to GAO from Chairman Clay 
requesting an assessment of the relationship between NARA's 
Presidential libraries and the private foundations that build 
and support them.
     January 14, 2010--Letter to Census Bureau 
requesting information about media contacts and contracts in 
traditionally hard to count areas.
     March 3, 2010--Request letter to Census Bureau 
seeking information relative to minority partnership in the 
media campaign.
     April 15, 2010--Letter to GAO from Chairman Clay 
requesting an assessment of the management and protection of 
information collected and maintained by commercial providers of 
social media services on behalf of or in association with 
federal agencies.
     April 15, 2010--Joint ``Dear Colleague'' sent to 
house members encouraging them to contact their constituents 
and encourage participation in Census 2010.
     April 21, 2010--Request letter to the Census 
Bureau requesting clarification and information from Census 
media contractors as to statements made at the Los Angeles 
field hearing.
     May 20, 2010--Letter from Chairman Clay to 
Archivist David S. Ferriero requesting complete documentation 
the plans to handle the paper records of the 2010 Decennial 
Census.
     May 20, 2010--Letter from Chairman Clay to the 
Census Bureau requesting complete documentation the plans to 
handle the paper records of the 2010 Decennial Census.
     May 20, 2010--Letter from Chairman Clay to 
Archivist David S. Ferriero requesting that NARA investigate 
and document the possibility that the Bush Administration 
failed to archive millions of federal records in the form of e-
mails.
     August 12, 2010--Letter from Chairman Clay to 
Archivist David S. Ferriero requesting documentation on the 
status, plans, capabilities and requirements of the Electronic 
Records Archives.
     August 19, 2010--Letter from Chairman Clay to the 
NARA Inspector General requesting information and documentation 
regarding IG audits of NARA information technology projects.

        E. SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

    The Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs 
has oversight jurisdiction over U.S. national security, 
homeland security, and foreign affairs. In the 111th Congress, 
Rep. John F. Tierney served as Chairman and Rep. Jeff Flake as 
Ranking Member.
    During this Congress, the Subcommittee conducted robust, 
sustained, and constructive oversight. Members and staff 
addressed a wide range of subjects aimed at making U.S. 
national security agencies and policies smarter, stronger, more 
economically efficient, more effective, more cooperative and 
coordinated, and more accountable to the American taxpayers and 
men and women in uniform.
    Among others, the Subcommittee conducted oversight of the 
U.S. Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and 
Veteran's Affairs, the U.S. Agency for International 
Development, major government contractors, and non-governmental 
organizations.
    The Subcommittee held 30 hearings on a wide range of 
pressing national security issues; hosted countless briefings 
for the benefit of Subcommittee Members and the public; 
dispatched numerous fact-finding trips by Subcommittee Members 
and staff; commissioned over 20 investigations and reports by 
the U.S. Government Accountability Office; and conducted 
oversight investigations exposing millions of dollars of 
government waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition to the 
summaries below, testimony, member and witness statements, and 
archived webcasts can be found on the Subcommittee's website: 
http://nationalsecurity.oversight.house.gov.

1. Confronting the Crisis in Afghanistan and Pakistan

    U.S. relations with and operations in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan have been a central focus of the Subcommittee's 
oversight efforts during the 111th Congress. The Subcommittee 
has closely and thoughtfully directed its oversight to examine 
the nature of the threats to U.S. national security emanating 
from the region and U.S. efforts to combat terrorism, to 
bolster civil society and governance, and to improve and 
strengthen relations with Pakistani and Afghan leaders. 
Throughout this sustained oversight effort the Subcommittee has 
sought to ensure greater interagency cooperation, a more 
careful and strategic distribution of military and civilian 
resources, improved aid effectiveness, and enhanced mechanisms 
to ensure that the government is accountable for the health and 
safety of its warfighters and the actions of its growing number 
of contractors.
            a. Hearings
    February 2, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Training and Equipping Afghan Security Forces: Unaccounted 
Weapons and Strategic Challenges.'' Witnesses included Charles 
Johnson, Director of International Affairs and Trade, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; Thomas Gimble, Principal 
Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense; and Mark 
Schneider, Senior Vice President, International Crisis Group.
    March 3, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Afghanistan and Pakistan: Understanding a Complex Threat 
Environment.'' Witnesses included Peter Bergen, Schwartz Senior 
Fellow at New America Foundation; Joshua T. White, Research 
Fellow at the Institute for Global Engagement and Ph.D. 
Candidate at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International 
Studies; and Dr. Paul R. Pillar, Visiting Professor and 
Director of Studies, Security Studies Program at Georgetown 
University.
    March 26, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Troops, Diplomats, and Aid: Assessing Strategic Resources for 
Afghanistan.'' Witnesses included Lieutenant General David W. 
Barno (U.S. Army Ret.), Director, Near East South Asia Center 
for Strategic Studies, National Defense University; Amb. James 
Dobbins, Director of the Center for International Security and 
Defense Policy, RAND Corporation; Dr. Frederick W. Kagan, 
Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for 
Public Policy Research; and Dr. David Kilcullen, Senior Non-
Resident Fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
    March 31, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Afghanistan and Pakistan: Understanding and Engaging Regional 
Stakeholders.'' Witnesses included Amb. Wendy J. Chamberlain, 
President of the Middle East Institute; Lisa Curtis, Senior 
Research Fellow, South Asia, Asian Studies Center, The Heritage 
Foundation; Dr. Deepa M. Ollapally, Associate Director of the 
Sigur Center for Asian Studies at The George Washington 
University Elliott School; Dr. Sean R. Roberts, Director, 
International Development Studies Program, The George 
Washington University; and Karim Sadjadpour, Associate, Middle 
East Program, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
    May 19, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Afghanistan and Pakistan: Resourcing the Civilian `Surge'.'' 
Witnesses included Paul Jones, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
State, South and Central Asia Bureau; David S. Sedney, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Central Asian Affairs; James 
A. Bever, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Asia and Near East 
Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development; Michael 
Michener, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture; and Amb. John Herbst, Coordinator, 
Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization, U.S. Department of 
State.
    June 16, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``U.S. Contributions to the Response to Pakistan's Humanitarian 
Crisis: The Situation and the Stakes.'' Witnesses included Dr. 
Samina Ahmed, South Asia Project Director for the International 
Crisis Group; Sherry Rehman, Former Federal Minister for 
Information and Broadcasting and Member National Assembly, 
Pakistan Peoples Party; Kenneth Bacon, President, Refugees 
International; and Michel Gabaudan, Regional Representative to 
the U.S. and Caribbean for the United Nations High Commissioner 
for Refugees.
    June 24, 2009, the Subcommittee held a joint hearing with 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform titled 
``Afghanistan and Pakistan: Oversight of a New Interagency 
Strategy.'' Witnesses included Amb. Richard Holbrooke, U.S. 
Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan and Wallace 
``Chip'' Gregson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and 
Pacific Affairs.
    July 14, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``U.S. Promotion of the Afghan Economy: Impediments and 
Opportunities.'' Witnesses included Mildred Callear, Executive 
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Small Enterprise 
Assistance Funds and Afghan Growth Fund, Executive board 
Member; Dr. Mohammad Usman, Agricultural Economist; Aly Mawji, 
Aga Khan Development Network, Afghanistan Country Director; and 
Jeremy Pam, Esq., Visiting Research Scholar, Sustainable 
Development, U.S. Institute of Peace.
    September 9, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Afghanistan and Pakistan: Accountability Community Oversight 
of a New Interagency Strategy.'' Witnesses included Major 
General Arnold Fields (USMC Ret.), Special Inspector General 
for Afghanistan Reconstruction; Gordon Heddell, Inspector 
General, Department of Defense; Harold Geisel, Inspector 
General, U.S. Department of State; Donald Gambatesa, Inspector 
General, U.S. Agency for International Development; and 
Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, Managing Director, International 
Affairs and Trade, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    November 19, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Afghan Elections: What Happened and Where Do We Go From 
Here?'' Witnesses included J. Alexander Thier, Director for 
Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. Institute of Peace; Amb. Peter 
J. Galbraith; Gils Dorronsoro, Visiting Scholar, Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace; and Dr. Ashley Tellis, 
Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
    December 9, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``U.S. Aid to Pakistan: Planning and Accountability.'' 
Witnesses included Dr. Christine Fair, Center for Peace and 
Security Studies, Georgetown University; Dr. Andrew Wilder, 
Research Director for Policy Process, Feinstein Center, Tufts 
University; and Dr. Samina Ahmed, South Asia Project Director, 
International Crisis Group.
    March 16, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``U.S. Aid to Pakistan (Part II): Planning and 
Accountability.'' Witnesses included Daniel Feldman, Deputy to 
the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. 
Department of State; James A. Bever, Director, Afghanistan-
Pakistan Task Force, and Deputy Assistant Administrator, Asia 
and Near East Bureau, U.S. Agency for International 
Development.
    April 22, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Crisis in Kyrgyzstan: Fuel, Contracts, and Revolution along 
the Afghan Supply Chain.'' Witnesses included Dr. Eugene 
Huskey, Professor, Stetson University; Amb. Baktybek Abdrisaev, 
Lecturer, Utah Valley University; Dr. Alexander Cooley, 
Professor, Barnard College at Columbia University; Scott 
Horton, Professor, Columbia Law School, and Contributing 
Editor, Harper's Magazine; and Sam Patten, Senior Program 
Manager, Eurasia, Freedom House.
    June 22, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Investigation of Protection Payments for Safe Passage along 
the Afghan Supply Chain.'' Witnesses included Lieutenant 
General William Phillips, Principal Military Deputy to the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 
Technology, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, U.S. Army; Gary Motsek, 
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Program 
Support, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, U.S. Department of 
Defense; Brigadier General John Nicholson, Director of the 
Pakistan/Afghanistan Coordination Cell, The Joint Staff, U.S. 
Department of Defense; Moshe Schwartz, Specialist in Defense 
Acquisition, Congressional Research Service; Carl Forsberg, 
Research Analyst, Institute for the Study of War; Colonel T.X. 
Hammes, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for National 
Strategic Studies, National Defense University; and Dr. S. 
Frederick Starr, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced 
International Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
            b. Official Travel/Delegations
    The Subcommittee led a Congressional Delegation to conduct 
oversight in Qatar, Pakistan, and Afghanistan from January 28-
February 3, 2009. The delegation examined (1) U.S. aid 
accountability and effectiveness in Afghanistan, including 
assessing the capacity of various U.S. government agencies and 
existing personnel; (2) U.S. counterterrorism policy and 
programs as well as aid accountability and effectiveness 
related to Pakistan; (3) regional context and geopolitics 
related to both Afghanistan and Pakistan; (4) civilian law 
enforcement capacity in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including 
assessing the progress of Afghan police training; (5) targeting 
procedures in Afghanistan in light of civilian casualties and 
the deleterious effect such casualties have on 
counterinsurgency strategy; and (6) the NATO mission in 
Afghanistan. The delegation included Chairman John Tierney, 
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Rep. Peter Welch, Rep. Christopher 
Murphy, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Ron Kind, and Subcommittee 
staff.
    The Subcommittee led a Congressional Delegation to Pakistan 
to conduct oversight on November 9-15, 2009. Specifically, the 
delegation looked at (1) regional perspectives on U.S. military 
and civilian efforts in Afghanistan; (2) South Asian 
geopolitical considerations; (3) U.S.-Pakistan relations and 
program accountability; (4) U.S.-India relations and program 
accountability; (5) Counter-terrorism efforts across South 
Asia; and (6) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
mission in Afghanistan through the lens of coordination of 
diplomatic, military, and development efforts among NATO 
allies. The delegation included Chairman John Tierney, Rep. 
Peter Welch, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Ron Kind, and 
Subcommittee staff.
    The Subcommittee led a delegation to Romania, Pakistan, 
Afghanistan, and Tunisia from January 27-February 27, 2010. 
During its official business in Romania, the delegation 
examined the progress of regional efforts to combat terrorist 
financing and money laundering activities. While in Pakistan, 
the delegation assessed the current political and security 
climate in the region through a series of coordinated meetings 
with Government of Pakistan and U.S. government officials. In 
Afghanistan, Members and staff examined the progress of 
regional military, security, political, and reconstruction 
efforts through coordinated meetings with U.S. government 
officials, U.S. military personnel, Afghan National Army 
representatives, U.S. Agency for International Development 
representatives, and officials from the Office of the Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Finally, 
during its official business in Tunisia, the delegation 
conducted discussions with U.S. government and Tunisian 
Republic government officials regarding the status of U.S.-
Tunisia bilateral relations, regional security efforts, and 
counter-terrorist cooperation. The delegation included Rep. 
Stephen F. Lynch, Rep. Bob Inglis, Rep. Betty Sutton, Rep. Todd 
Platts, Rep. Joe Donnelly, and Subcommittee staff.
            c. Briefings and Other Activities
     On March 3, 2009, the Subcommittee held a briefing 
by the Office of the Secretary of Defense about arms 
accountability in Afghanistan.
     On March 18, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
classified briefing from the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence (ODNI) on the nature of threats to U.S. national 
security interests emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan.
     On March 31, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
briefing from Bruce Reidel of the Brookings Institution on his 
Af-Pak strategy review.
     On June 18, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
briefing on the political situation in Pakistan by Imran Khan, 
a Pakistani political leader and activist.
     On September 9, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
briefing on security in Karachi, Pakistan from Vali Nasr.
     On October 28, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
briefing by The Asia Foundation on its Afghanistan survey.
     On December 8, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
briefing on counternarcotics programs in Afghanistan.
     On May 19, 2010, the Subcommittee hosted an 
official luncheon with Members of the Standing Committee on 
Defense and Defense Production of the Senate of Pakistan.
            d. Reports Commissioned or Requested
     On February 23, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
requested U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled 
Securing, Stabilizing, and Developing Pakistan's Border Area 
with Afghanistan: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight.

2. Wartime Contracting

    With the U.S. military stretched between two wars and 
dozens of other commitments around the globe, military planners 
have come to rely increasingly on private contractors to 
provide important support services over the last decade. This 
has allowed the United States to concentrate more of its forces 
on combat operations, but it has also created the potential for 
corruption and waste and thus a new area for vigilant 
oversight. During the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee 
initiated two major oversight investigations of Department of 
Defense contracts supporting the war in Afghanistan that have 
exposed waste, corruption, and failures to properly vet and 
oversee contracts that are both lucrative and strategically 
critical. One was released in a majority staff report that 
exposed rampant extortion and corruption along the military's 
supply lines in Afghanistan. The Subcommittee's oversight 
effort also included two hearings.
            a. Hearings
    June 10, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Commission on Wartime Contracting: Interim Findings and Path 
Forward.'' Witnesses included Michael J. Thibault, Commissioner 
and Co-Chair, Commission on Wartime Contracting; Christopher 
Shays, Commissioner and Co-Chair, Commission on Wartime 
Contracting; Charles Tiefer, Commissioner, Commission on 
Wartime Contracting; Grant S. Green, Commissioner, Commission 
on Wartime Contracting; and Alan Chvotkin, Executive Vice 
President & Counsel, Professional Services Council.
    June 29, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Contracting in Combat Zones: Who Are Our Subcontractors?'' 
Witnesses included William Solis, Director, Defense 
Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office; Mary Ugone, Deputy Inspector General for Auditing, U.S. 
Department of Defense Inspector General; Stuart Bowen, Jr., 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; and Richard 
Fontaine, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security.
            b. Official Travel/Delegations
    Subcommittee staff travelled to Dubai, United Arab Emirates 
on May 24-29, 2010 to conduct interviews as part of the 
Subcommittee's investigation into the Department of Defense's 
Host Nation Trucking contract in Afghanistan. Subcommittee 
staff met with and formally interviewed Afghan and American 
private security commanders and company executives with first 
hand knowledge of convoy operations and HNT contractors in 
Afghanistan.
    Subcommittee staff traveled to Scott Air Force Base in St. 
Louis on July 30, 2010 to meet with General Duncan McNabb, 
Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, and his staff. 
Subcommittee staff received a series of detailed briefings from 
logistics officers from all of the service branches, 
intelligence officers, and contractors on the status of the 
military's Northern Distribution Network, which facilitates the 
transport of all goods and military materiel to Afghanistan in 
support of the war effort.
    Subcommittee staff traveled to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan and 
London, England on August 10-19, 2010 to conduct interviews and 
meetings as part of the Subcommittee's investigation into 
corruption allegations surrounding the Department of Defense's 
two primary jet fuel suppliers for the war in Afghanistan. 
Staff met with Kyrgyz officials and politicians, U.S. military 
commanders and officers, and subject matter experts, formally 
interviewed the principals of the two companies, and received a 
briefing and tour of the Manas Transit Center from the 
commanding U.S. officer.
            c. Investigations and Reports
    In December 2009, the Subcommittee began an oversight 
investigation into the Host Nation Trucking (HNT) Contract, 
which is responsible for transporting and distributing over 70 
percent of goods and materiel in Afghanistan to U.S. troops. 
The investigation was initiated in response to public reporting 
that Afghan private security companies that were subcontracted 
to protect the HNT truck convoys were engaging in extortion, 
warlordism, and excessive violence and that the elements of the 
military responsible for contractor oversight were aware of the 
behaviour but were either unable or unwilling to respond. Some 
reporting had also suggested that the security companies were 
paying members of the Taliban. Subcommittee staff conducted 
over 30 formal interviews in Washington, DC and Dubai. 
Witnesses included trucking and security contractors, Afghan 
commanders and powerbrokers, and military and Department of 
Defense officials. The Subcommittee also reviewed nearly 
100,000 documents produced by witnesses. Chairman Tierney and 
the Subcommittee majority staff released the findings of the 
investigation in an 80-Page report titled Warlord, Inc.: 
Extortion and Corruption along the U.S. Supply Chain in 
Afghanistan. The report concluded that: (1) Security for the 
U.S. supply chain is principally provided by warlords; (2) the 
highway warlords run a protection racket; (3) protection 
payments for safe passage are a significant potential source of 
funding for the Taliban; (4) unaccountable supply chain 
security contractors fuel corruption; (5) unaccountable supply 
chain security contractors undermine U.S. counterinsurgency 
strategy; (6) the Department of Defense lacks effective 
oversight of its supply chain and private security contractors 
in Afghanistan; and (7) HNT contractors warned the Department 
of Defense about protection payments for safe passage to no 
avail.
    In April 2010, the Subcommittee began an investigation into 
the Department of Defense's jet fuel contracts at the Manas 
Transit Center in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan and their contribution to 
corruption and revolution within Kyrgyzstan. Subcommittee staff 
has reviewed over 150,000 documents from the Departments of 
Defense and State and the two primary contractors. The 
Subcommitee also formally interviewed the principal executives 
of the companies in London, England, and travelled to Bishkek 
to meet with the base commander and officers at the Manas 
Transit Center, as well as several Kyrgyz officials and 
international whistleblowers. The investigation is ongoing.

3. Improving Healthcare and Preventing Sexual Assault in the Military

    The Subcommittee conducted extensive oversight aimed at 
ensuring that the U.S. is doing everything possible to protect 
the health, safety, and well-being of its troops and their 
families. This included rigorous oversight of the military 
healthcare system, the improvement of military housing, 
standards of care, and long-term physical and mental health 
care for seriously injured soldiers. It has also included 
efforts to prevent, treat, and prosecute sexual assaults 
perpetrated by and against service members.
    In the three years since the Walter Reed scandal, 
Subcommittee Members and staff have visited the facility to 
ensure that necessary improvements have been made. The 
Subcommittee has also made a sustained effort to strengthen the 
military's sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic 
violence prevention and response programs. During the 111th 
Congress this effort included three hearings and a U.S. 
Government Accountability Office follow-on investigation to 
track the Department of Defense's progress in expanding and 
improving its sexual assault prevention and response.
            a. Hearings
    June 26, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Sexual Assault in the Military Part III: Context and 
Causes.'' Witnesses included Dr. Veronique Valliere, President 
of Valliere & Counseling Associates, Inc.; Dr. Fred Berlin, 
Founder of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention, 
and Treatment of Sexual Trauma and the Director of the Johns 
Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic; Dr. Elizabeth Hillman, Law 
Professor at the University of California Hastings; and 
Professor Helen Benedict, Author The Lonely Soldier: The 
Private War of Women Serving in Iraq, and Professor of 
Journalism at Columbia University.
    On February 24, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
titled ``Sexual Assault in the Military Part IV: Are We Making 
Progress?'' Witnesses included Gail McGinn, Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense (Plans), U.S. Department of Defense; Dr. 
Kaye Whitley, Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
Office, U.S. Department of Defense; Dr. Louis Iasiello, and 
Brigadier General Sharon Dunbar, Defense Task Force on Sexual 
Assault in the Military Services; Brenda Farrell, Director, 
Defense Capabilities and Management, and Randolph Hite, 
Director, Information Technology Architecture and Systems, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; and Merle Wilberding, 
Coolidge Wall.
            b. Official Travel/Delegations
    Subcommittee staff visited and inspected the Walter Reed 
Medical Facility in Washington, D.C. on August 20, 2009 to 
continue its oversight of the facility and assess the status of 
reforms and renovations to the facility.
    Members of the Subcommittee toured and inspected the Walter 
Reed Medical Facility in Washington, D.C. on September 24, 2009 
and met with patients and administrators to continue its 
oversight of the facility and assess the reforms, renovations, 
and improvements in the quality of care.
            c. Briefings
    Throughout August and September 2010, the Subcommittee 
hosted four separate briefings for Members and staff by each of 
the military service branches and the Department of Defense's 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. The briefers 
explained the structure of their respective programs to Members 
and staff and assessed the progress that had been made since 
the Subcommittee's initial series of hearings and U.S. 
Government Accountability Office investigations.
            d. Reports Commissioned or Requested
     On January 26, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
requested U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled 
VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment: Better Incentives, 
Workforce Planning, and Performance Reporting Could Improve 
Program.
     On April 20, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
requested a U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled 
Army Health Care: Progress Made in Staffing and Monitoring 
Units that Provide Outpatient Case Management, but Additional 
Steps Needed.
     On October 6, 2009, Chairman Tierney requested a 
U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation of the 
Department of Defense's efforts to prevent and adequately 
respond to incidents of sexual harassment involving service 
members, which is pending.
     On December 8, 2009, Chairman Tierney and Ranking 
Member Flake requested a U.S. Government Accountability Office 
report on the standards for credentialing medical professionals 
in the military following the shooting incident at Ft. Hood, 
which is pending.
     On October 13, 2010, the Subcommittee received a 
requested U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled 
Sustained Leadership and Oversight Needed to Improve DOD's 
Prevention and Treatment of Domestic Abuse.

4. Making the Government's National Security Sector Smarter and More 
        Efficient

    During the 111th Congress the Subcommittee sought to 
investigate, expose, and remedy instances of government waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the national security departments and 
agencies. With respect to good governance, the Subcommittee has 
had a particular focus on: (1) fostering interagency 
cooperation, (2) rationalizing the defense budget, and (3) 
reforming the defense acquisitions process. In all of these 
endeavors, the oversight looks for solutions that both save 
money and enhance national security.
    This included an annual vetting of the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office's Assessment of Selected Weapons 
Programs, with hearings as warranted, to ensure that the 
Department of Defense is aggressively working to implement 
Congressional reforms and reduce recurring cost delays and 
schedule overruns in major acquisitions programs. The 
Subcommittee also held recurring briefings and received 
testimony from the military services, Department of Defense 
officials, and academic subject matter experts on achieving 
sustainable defense spending.
             a. Hearings
    May 7, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ``GPS: 
Can We Avoid a Gap in Service?'' Witnesses included Cristina 
Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, GAO; 
Major General William N. McCasland, Director, Space 
Acquisition, Office of the Undersecretary of the Air Force; Dr. 
Steve Huybrechts, Principal Director, Command, Control, 
Communications, Space & Spectrum, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration/
Chief Information Office); Lieutenant General Larry D. James, 
Commander, 14th Air Force (Air Forces Strategic), Air Force 
Space Command, and Commander, Joint Functional Component 
Command for Space, U.S. Strategic Command; Karen L. Van Dyke, 
Director, Position Navigation and Timing, Research and 
Innovative Technology Administration, Department of 
Transportation; F. Michael Swiek, Executive Director, U.S. GPS 
Industry Council; and Chet Huber, President, On-Star 
Corporation.
    On May 19, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Defense Acquisitions: One Year after Reform.'' Witnesses 
included Mike Sullivan, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing 
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; John Roth, 
Deputy Comptroller for Program/Budget, Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); and Dr. Nancy Spruill, 
Director, Acquisition Resources and Analysis, Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics.
    On July 20, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Rethinking our Defense Budget: Achieving National Security 
through Sustainable Spending.'' Witnesses included Carl 
Conetta, Co-Director, Project on Defense Alternatives; Benjamin 
Friedman, Research Fellow, Cato Institute; Todd Harrison, 
Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; 
Dr. Gary Schmitt, Resident Scholar and Director, Advanced 
Strategic Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public 
Policy Research; and Dr. Gordon Adams, Distinguished Fellow, 
Stimson Center.
    On July 28, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``National Security, Interagency Collaboration, and Lessons 
from SOUTHCOM and AFRICOM.'' Witnesses included John Pendleton, 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team, U.S. 
Government Accountability Office; Dr. James Schear, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Partnership Strategy and 
Stability Operations, U.S. Department of Defense; Thomas 
Countryman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 
Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State; and Susan 
Reichle, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for Democracy, 
Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for 
International Development.
            b. Investigations
    In July, 2009 the Subcommittee, in conjunction with the 
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, initiated an inquiry into 
allegations of government surveillance of non-violent U.S. 
protestors and requested documents from the Defense 
Intelligence Agency. Subcommittee staff interviewed federal 
agents related to the allegations, reviewed substantial 
document productions from the agencies, and continue the 
investigation.
            c. Briefings and Other Activities
     On June 24, 2009, the Subcommittee hosted a 
briefing by the Department of Defense on the Army's procurement 
of Russian helicopters.
     On September 11, 2009, the Subcommittee hosted a 
briefing on Cuban migration.
     On May 14, 2010, the Subcommittee hosted a 
briefing by Gordon Adams on interagency coordination and 
budgeting.
            d. Reports Commissioned or Requested
     On February 20, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled Defense 
Management: Actions Needed to Address Stakeholder Concerns, 
Improve Interagency Collaboration, and Determine Full Costs 
Associated with the U.S. Africa Command.
     On September 15, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
requested U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled 
Global Positioning System: Significant Challenges in Sustaining 
and Upgrading Widely Used Capabilities.
     On September 24, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
requested U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled 
Defense Acquisitions: Many Analyses of Alternatives Have Not 
Provided a Robust Assessment of Weapon System Options.
     On July 19, 2010, Chairman Tierney requested that 
the U.S. Government Accountability Office review DOD's efforts 
to build and streamline defense expertise within U.S. 
Embassies. That report is pending.
     On July 28, 2010, the Subcommittee received a U.S. 
Government Accountability Office report titled Defense 
Management: U.S. Southern Command Demonstrates Interagency 
Collaboration, but Its Haiti Disaster Response Revealed 
Challenges Conducting a Large Military Operation.
     On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee received a 
requested U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled 
Global Positioning System: Challenges Sustaining and Upgrading 
Capabilities Persist.

5. Identifying Emerging Threats and Improving U.S. Grand Strategy

    The Subcommittee made extensive efforts to identify 
emerging threats to the United States during the 111th Congress 
and worked to ensure that the U.S. national security apparatus 
devotes sufficient attention and resources to new challenges. 
This effort to focus attention on emerging and evolving threats 
is part of a broader campaign to ensure that U.S. grand 
strategy and global defense posture are foreword-thinking. Some 
of the major areas of focus were as follows:
            (1) International Drug Trade
    The Subcommittee has conducted ongoing oversight of the 
national security threats posed by transnational drug 
enterprises and the increasingly violent drug wars in Mexico, 
the world's twelfth-largest economy, the U.S.' second-biggest 
trading partner and an important oil supplier. That violence is 
increasingly spilling over onto U.S. soil, and the U.S. Justice 
Department has called Mexican gangs the ``biggest organized 
crime threat to the U.S.'' The Subcommittee has examined steps 
the United States can take on our side of the border to help 
stop the increasing border violence in Mexico.
                a. Hearings
    March 12, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Money, Guns, and Drugs: Are U.S. Inputs Fueling Violence on 
the U.S.-Mexico Border?'' Witnesses included Andrew Selee, 
Director, Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute; Michael A. 
Braun, Managing Partner, Spectre Group International LLC, and 
former Drug Enforcement Administration Assistant Administrator/
Chief of Operations; and Tom Diaz, Senior Policy Analyst, 
Violence Policy Center.
    October 1, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Transnational Drug Enterprises: Threats to Global Stability 
and U.S. National Security from Southwest Asia, Latin America, 
and West Africa.'' Witnesses included Eric Olson, Senior 
Advisor, Security Initiative, Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson 
International Center for Scholars; David Mansfield, University 
Research Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, the 
Kennedy School at Harvard University; Douglas Farah, Senior 
Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center; and Dr. 
Vanda Felbab-Brown, Foreign Policy Fellow, Brookings Institute 
and Adjunct Professor, Security Studies Program, School of 
Foreign Service, Georgetown University.
    March 3, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Transnational Drug Enterprises (Part II): U.S. Government 
Perspectives on the Threats to Global Stability and U.S. 
National Security.'' Witnesses included R. Gil Kerlikowske, 
White House Director of National Drug Control Policy; Amb. 
David T. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of 
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, U.S. State 
Department; Anthony P. Placido, Assistant Administrator and 
Chief of Intelligence, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. 
Department of Justice; Adam J. Szubin, Director, Office of 
Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Treasury; and William F. Wechsler, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and 
Global Threats, U.S. Department of Defense.
            (2) Iran
    As Iran proves increasingly committed to obtaining nuclear 
technology the Subcommittee played an increasingly active role 
in the oversight of U.S. policy towards Iran. The Subcommittee 
also took strides this congress to increase the government's 
understanding of the Iranian regime and opposition movement, 
political and cultural trends within the populace, and the 
significance of Iran for the region.
    The Subcommittee also held a hearing on sanctions on Iran, 
focusing on the impact of sanctions across the policy spectrum. 
While recognizing the potential that sanctions may have to 
change Iran's behavior, the hearing also included discussion of 
the sanctions' limitations and the potentially adverse effects 
that sanctions could have on the Iranian population.
                a. Hearings
    December 15, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Iran Sanctions: Options, Opportunities, and Consequences.'' 
Witnesses included Dr. Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow, The 
Brookings Institution; Dr. George Lopez, Professor of Peace 
Studies, University of Notre Dame; Amb. James Dobbins, 
Director, RAND International Security and Defense Policy 
Center; and Robin Wright, Jennings Randolph Fellow, U.S. 
Institute of Peace.
            (3) Drones
    In March, 2010, the Subcommittee held the first public 
discussion in response to public reporting about the increasing 
use of unmanned weapons systems to target al-Qaeda and Taliban 
personnel in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The hearing also 
examined the implications for the current U.S. strategy in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. national security and 
counterterrorism, military mental health, international law, 
and the future of war. In order to examine the Administration's 
legal rationale, articulated shortly after the Subcommittee's 
first hearing by State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh, the 
Subcommittee held a follow-up hearing to receive testimony from 
four experts in international and national security law 
regarding the legality of unmanned targeting.
                a. Hearings
    March 23, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Rise of the Drones: Unmanned Systems and the Future of War.'' 
Witnesses included Dr. Peter W. Singer, Director, 21st Century 
Defense Initiative, The Brookings Institution; Dr. Edward 
Barrett, (Lt. Col., USAF), Director of Research, Stockdale 
Center for Ethical Leadership, U.S. Naval Academy; Kenneth 
Anderson, Professor, Washington College of Law, American 
University; John Jackson (Captain, USN Ret.), Professor of 
Unmanned Systems, U.S. Naval War College; Michael Fagan 
(Colonel, USMC Ret.), Chair, Unmanned Aerial Systems Advocacy 
Committee, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems 
International; Michael J. Sullivan, Director, Acquisition and 
Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; 
Dyke Weatherington (Lt. Col., USAF Ret.), Deputy, Unmanned 
Aerial Vehicle Planning Taskforce, Office of the Under 
Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, U.S. 
Department of Defense; and the Honorable Kevin Wolf, Assistant 
Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and 
Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.
    On April 28, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``The Rise of the Drones II: Examining the Legality of Unmanned 
Targeting.'' Witnesses included Professor Kenneth Anderson, 
Professor, Washington College of Law, American University; 
Professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, Professor, University of Notre 
Dame Law School; Professor David Glazier, Professor, Loyola Law 
School Los Angeles; and Professor William Banks, Professor, 
Syracuse University College of Law.
            (4) Manufacturing
    The Subcommittee took significant steps to assess the 
national security implications of U.S. manufacturing policy, 
with a focus on the security challenges posed by a shrinking 
defense industrial base and domestic supply chain. 
Manufacturing--including the defense industrial base--currently 
accounts for 12 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product and 10 
percent of national employment. Yet, increasingly, the defense 
industry faces the proliferation of foreign-made and 
counterfeit parts, outdated technology, and a depleted 
manufacturing workforce.
                a. Hearings
    September 22, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``Made in the USA: Manufacturing Policy, the Defense Industrial 
Base, and National Security.'' Witnesses included Jeff Faux, 
Founding President and Distinguished Fellow, the Economic 
Policy Institute; Robert Baugh, Executive Director, Industrial 
Union Council, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
Industrial Organizations; Mark Gordon, Executive Committee, the 
National Defense Industrial Association; and Michael Wessel, 
President, the Wessel Group; Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic 
and Security Review Commission; and Senior Advisor, the 
Alliance for American Manufacturing.
            (5) Cuba
    In the 111th Congress the Subcommittee investigated the 
impact of current U.S.-Cuba policy on U.S. national security 
and evaluated the potential effects of increased U.S.-Cuba 
interaction on U.S. national security interests. The rationale 
and consequences of Cuba's placement on the State Department's 
State Sponsors of Terrorism List was also examined.
                a. Hearings
    April 29, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 
``National Security Implications of U.S. Policy toward Cuba.'' 
Witnesses included General Barry McCaffrey, President, BR 
McCaffrey Associates, and former SOUTHCOM Commander; Jorge 
Pinon, Energy Fellow, Center for Hemispheric Policy, The 
University of Miami; Rensselaer Lee, Senior Fellow, Foreign 
Policy Research Institute; Phil Peters, Vice President, 
Lexington Institute; and Sarah Stephens, Executive Director, 
Center for Democracy in the Americas.
            (6) Briefings and other Activities
     On June 18, 2009, the Subcommittee hosted a 
briefing by the Department of Defense on U.S. overseas basing 
strategy.
     On August 28, 2009, the Subcommittee held a 
briefing on sexual violence in the Congo.
     On October 14, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
briefing by John Ging from the United Nations Relief and Works 
Agency on Gaza.
     On February 3, 2010, the Subcommittee hosted a 
briefing from a high-level Kenyan delegation on the 
deteriorating security situation in Somalia and related, 
pressing security challenges for Kenya.
     On September 29, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
briefing entitled, ``The Effects of Demographic Change on 
Global Security.'' This briefing addressed the emerging issues 
surrounding demographic security, which primarily focuses on 
the link between the age structure of a population and the 
propensity for conflict.
     On October 5, 2010, the Subcommittee staff 
received a briefing from the State Department on the State 
Sponsors of Terrorism list.
            (7) Reports Commissioned or Requested
     In May 2009, the Subcommittee commissioned a 
Congressional Research Service report on intelligence oversight 
as it relates to Congressional Committees.
     On September 17, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled Nuclear 
Nonproliferation: National Nuclear Security Administration Has 
Improved the Security of Reactors in its Global Research 
Reactor Program, but Action Is Needed to Address Remaining 
Concerns.
     On October 27, 2009, Chairman Tierney and Ranking 
Member Flake requested a U.S. Government Accountability Office 
report on the Yucca Mountain Defense Department Nuclear 
Storage, which is pending.
     On March 25, 2010, Chairman Tierney requested a 
U.S. Government Accountability Office report on UAV export 
controls, which is pending.
     On March 29, 2010, Chairman Tierney requested a 
U.S. Government Accountability Office report on 
counterterrorism travel, which is pending.
     On March 29, 2010, Chairman Tierney joined a 
request by Senator Joseph Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, for a 
U.S. Government Accountability Office report on a 
counterterrorism safe haven strategy, which is pending.
     On April 25, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled Defense 
Management: DOD Needs to Determine the Future of Its Horn of 
Africa Task Force.
     On July 28, 2010, the Subcommittee received a U.S. 
Government Accountability Office report titled Defense 
Management: Improved Planning, Training, and Interagency 
Collaboration Could Strengthen DOD's Efforts in Africa.
     On September 24, 2010, the Subcommittee received a 
U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled Maritime 
Security: Actions Needed to Assess and Update Plan and Enhance 
Collaboration among Partners Involved in Countering Piracy off 
the Horn of Africa.

6. Ensuring Responsible Iraq Withdrawal and Reconstruction

    The Subcommittee continued efforts during the 111th 
Congress to ensure that the U.S. carefully and responsibly 
manages the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq and that 
there is sustained oversight of ongoing commitments and 
investments related to Iraq reconstruction. This included two 
investigations, three official visits to Iraq, eight 
investigations by GAO, and two hearings.
            a. Investigations
    In May 2009, the Subcommittee initiated a document request 
for all of the documents related to the withdrawal of a 
congressionally mandated Department of Defense Inspector 
General (IG) report. The report had been mandated in response 
to allegations that retired military officers working as 
analysts and commentators for certain media outlets were 
engaged in an organized public affairs campaign at the behest 
of the Department of Defense in the run-up to the Iraq War. 
Claims had also been made that officers were given access to 
classified information while also allegedly serving on the 
Boards or involved with defense contractors, resulting in an 
unfair competitive advantage for those companies. During 
January 2009, the Department of Defense IG reported that no 
wrongdoing occurred, but the report was withdrawn in March due 
to methodological problem. In response to the Subcommittee's 
requests, the Department of Defense IG agreed to reopen its 
investigation and rewrite the report thoroughly and properly.
            b. Official Travel/Delegations
    The Subcommittee led a Congressional delegation to Iraq, 
Israel (including Gaza), and Kuwait on July 24-28, 2009. The 
primary purposes of the Congressional delegation was to further 
examine the political and military situation in Iraq, to 
conduct on-site oversight of certain U.S.-funded projects in 
Iraq, to express personal gratitude to American service men and 
women deployed in Iraq, and to examine the security, political, 
and humanitarian dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 
in the Gaza Strip. Specifically, the delegation examined 
projects built with Commander Emergency Response Program funds, 
including a hotel facility. The delegation was led by Rep. 
Stephen Lynch and also included Rep. Todd Platts, Rep. Brian 
Higgins, Rep. Joe Courtney, Rep. Mike Quigley and Subcommittee 
staff.
            c. Briefings and Other Activities
     On June 30, 2009, the Subcommittee held a briefing 
by the Congressional Budget Office on the costs of Iraq 
withdrawal.
     On July 28, 2009, the Subcommittee held a 
classified briefing by senior officials from the Department of 
Defense on the pace, integrity, and costs of withdrawing 
military assets from Iraq.
     On March 12, 2010, the Subcommittee held a 
briefing by the Joint IED Defeat Organization on improvised 
explosive devices.
            d. Reports Commissioned or Requested
     On April 21, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled Iraqi 
Refugee Assistance: Improvements Needed in Measuring Progress, 
Assessing Needs, Tracking Funds, and Developing an 
International Strategic Plan.
     On October 7, 2009, the Subcommittee received a 
requested report from the Congressional Budget Office titled 
Withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq: Possible Timelines and 
Estimated Costs.

                                  
