[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.