Security Protection: Costs of Services Provided for Selected Cabinet
Officials (Letter Report, 12/30/94, GAO/GGD-95-50).
From October 1991 through June 1994, security protection was provided on
at least one occasion to each of the cabinet-level secretaries of the 10
departments GAO reviewed. The extent and frequency of protection varied
significantly from department to department but generally included
protecting the secretaries while they worked in their offices, attended
public events, and traveled on official business; the secretaries of two
departments received protection during personal business on five
occasions. In addition, two departments sometimes provided protection
for their deputy secretaries, and another department once provided
temporary protection to another high-level official in the department
who had been threatened. The 10 departments reported spending a total
of $1.5 million to protect officials in fiscal year 1992, $1.6 million
in fiscal year 1993, and $2 million for the first nine months of fiscal
year 1994. Although some security personnel said that the secretaries
of their departments were recognized by the general public, they
justified the need for providing security protection to the officials
mainly because of threats from persons who were affected by the policies
and issues handled by the department or who were suffering from mental
problems. Security officials at all 10 departments said that their
agents had attended or were scheduled to attend executive protection
training courses offered by law enforcement agencies such as the U.S.
Secret Service. Although some agents said that they sometimes carried
baggage or checked officials through hotels, the agents said they did so
because they were the only staff traveling with officials or because
they considered these duties to be security related.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-95-50
TITLE: Security Protection: Costs of Services Provided for
Selected Cabinet Officials
DATE: 12/30/94
SUBJECT: Public officials
Presidential appointments
Administrative costs
Education or training
Travel costs
Human resources utilization
Law enforcement personnel
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
December 1994
SECURITY PROTECTION - COSTS OF
SERVICES PROVIDED FOR SELECTED
CABINET OFFICIALS
GAO/GGD-95-50
Cost of Services
(240161)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-258939
December 30, 1994
Congressional requesters
On July 22, 1994, Congressman Jack Kingston and 104 other members of
the House of Representatives asked that we review matters relating to
security protection for selected cabinet department officials. They
asked us to determine who receives security protection at 10 of the
14 cabinet-level departments, why they receive protection, the costs
of providing such protection, whether security personnel were
performing personal duties for the officials, and whether the
security personnel had received training.\1
Following that request, Appropriations Conference Report 103-733,
dated September 20, 1994, directed us to review the need for security
protection for cabinet officials. Staff of the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies agreed to accept the scope and
methodology of work for the July 22 request but asked that we also
obtain some additional cost data for the departments of Education,
Labor, and Health and Human Services. We will provide that
information in a separate report. Appendix I contains a complete
list of the requesters.
Congressional interest in security matters resulted from news
accounts that questioned the need to protect cabinet officials who
may not be widely recognized by the public. The news media also
reported that security personnel who protect cabinet officials
sometimes performed what might be considered as personal duties for
the officials, such as handling their baggage at airports.
--------------------
\1 The departments were Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy,
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior,
Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
From October 1991 through June 1994, security protection was provided
on at least 1 occasion to each of the cabinet-level secretaries of
the 10 departments in our review. While one department protected an
official only once during that period, other departments provided
security protection more frequently. The extent and frequency of
protection varied significantly from department to department but
generally included protecting the secretaries while they worked in
their offices, attended public events, and traveled on official
business. Security officials told us that the secretaries of two
departments received protection services while on personal business
on five occasions. In addition to the cabinet secretaries, two
departments provided occasional protection for their deputy
secretaries, and another department once provided temporary
protection to another high-level official in the department who had
been threatened.
We asked the 10 departments to provide the costs of providing
security protection from October 1991 to June 1994, including
salaries and overtime of security personnel, travel, special
executive protection training, and other expenses such as equipment
and residential security improvements. The 10 departments reported
they spent a total of $1.5 million to protect officials in fiscal
year 1992, $1.6 million in fiscal year 1993, and $2 million for the
first 9 months of fiscal year 1994. At individual departments, the
costs of security protection for fiscal year 1992 ranged from zero at
one department to $409,842 at another. For fiscal year 1993, costs
ranged from $817 at one department to $379,424 at another; and costs
for the first 9 months of fiscal year 1994 ranged from zero at one
department to $455,721 at another.
At three departments, the costs of security protection during the
first 9 months of fiscal year 1994 increased substantially compared
to fiscal year 1992 spending. Security officials at the three
departments said that spending increased because (1) policies changed
and had become more controversial, generating more threats against
officials; (2) the officials traveled more than their predecessors;
and (3) the secretary of one department was much more recognizable to
the public than the department's previous secretaries. The fiscal
year 1994 costs for protection at the other seven departments did not
change significantly from fiscal year 1992.
Although some security personnel said that the secretaries of their
departments were recognized by the general public, they justified the
need for providing security protection to the officials primarily
because of potential threats from individuals who were (1) affected
by the policies and issues being handled by the department or (2)
apparently suffering from mental problems. Security personnel at all
10 departments provided us with information about threats against
officials; 6 provided information on specific death threats.
Security protection was provided by the Office of Inspectors General
at five departments and security or police officers at the other five
departments. Security officials at all 10 departments reported that
their agents had attended or were scheduled to attend executive
protection training courses offered by law enforcement agencies such
as the U.S. Secret Service.
None of the departments' security personnel reported using a firearm
or making an arrest to protect officials during the review period.
However, some reported limited use of physical intervention.
Further, security personnel stressed that effective security
protection serves as a deterrent and that without protection, some
physical harm may have been inflicted on officials.
Although some agents said they occasionally carried baggage or
checked officials through hotels, the agents said they did so because
they were the only staff traveling with officials or because they
considered such duties to be security related.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
We interviewed security officials and collected data relating to
security protection provided to officials from October 1991 to June
1994 for 10 cabinet-level departments: (1) Agriculture, (2)
Commerce, (3) Education, (4) Energy, (5) Health and Human Services,
(6) Housing and Urban Development, (7) Interior, (8) Labor, (9)
Transportation, and (10) Veterans Affairs. We did not obtain data
from the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury.
At each of the 10 departments, we reviewed security policies and
information on the costs of providing protection during the period of
our review, including salaries and overtime, travel, special
executive protection training, and other expenses such as equipment
and residential security improvements. We asked the departments to
provide costs in these categories, based on records of actual costs
or estimates if the actual cost data were not maintained.
Departments that did not employ full-time security personnel
furnished prorated portions of agents' salaries based on timekeeping
records or estimates of the amount of time spent on protection.
Travel expenses included per diem and transportation expenses
incurred by security personnel while protecting officials on travel.
Training costs included tuition and related travel expenses for
specialized, executive protection courses. Costs for residential
security improvements consisted of expenses incurred for the
installation of security systems and monitoring. Departments also
reported other costs for security equipment acquired during the
period, such as radios and ammunition, which we included. We did not
verify the accuracy of the cost information provided.
At all 10 departments, we interviewed the officials in charge of
providing security protection. We also interviewed a judgmental
sample of the security agents at the four departments with the
highest expenditures for protection to inquire whether the agents
performed personal duties for officials and whether the agents had
received training. At each of the four departments, we interviewed
three of the agents who spent the most time protecting officials.
Our review was not designed to determine whether the departments were
providing officials with the appropriate levels of protection.
We also reviewed information on who was protected, the nature and
frequency of threats made against officials, and when and how
protection was provided. In this report, we have not identified
particular departments or disclosed the details of when and how
security was provided to particular officials. Security officials
expressed concern that public disclosure of specific information
regarding the protection provided at individual departments might
endanger the officials. We agreed with their concerns.
We did our work from August 1994 to November 1994 in Washington,
D.C., in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. We discussed a draft of this report with the officials in
charge of security protection at each department and incorporated
their comments where appropriate.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
News accounts of cabinet officials' security protection questioned
whether cabinet-level officials, who often are not widely recognized
by the public, should be protected at all. The news reports also
asserted that bodyguards were being used for nonprotective purposes,
such as providing emergency car washes, speeding bags through
airports, and escorting officials to movie theaters.
Four departments in our review employed security personnel whose
full-time duties were to protect officials.\2 Of those four
departments with full-time security staff, one department employed
four full-time security agents,\3 two employed three full-time
security agents, and another employed one full-time agent. The other
six departments without a full-time protection detail had agents who
provided protective services as a collateral duty to other work.
Protection was provided by personnel from the Office of Inspectors
General at 5 of the 10 departments and by security and police
officers at the other 5 departments. Protection was provided
primarily by criminal investigators/special agents at six
departments, security specialists at three departments, and police
officers at one department. The departments also used weapons
couriers, investigators, security protection specialists, a security
program analyst, and a special assistant to provide protection.
The departments in our review cited various sources as the basis for
their legal authority to provide security protection to cabinet
officials. These included the Inspector General Act of 1978, several
Comptroller General decisions,\4 regulations authorizing the U.S.
Marshals Service to deputize other federal officers to perform the
functions of a deputy U.S. Marshal,\5 and a White House policy
adopted in the early 1970s that authorized departments to provide and
maintain a force to protect cabinet officials. Further, we note that
underlying the cited authorities is 18 U.S.C. 351, which provides
that it is a federal offense to assault, kidnap, or kill various
government officials, including specified cabinet officials.
--------------------
\2 We defined full-time security staff as those employees who spent
at least 90 percent of their time providing security to officials.
\3 This department plans to reduce the security detail to three
agents after a current threatening situation is resolved.
\4 54 Comp. Gen. 624, 628-29 (1975) and 55 Comp. Gen. 578, 580-81
(1975).
\5 28 CFR 0.112.
WHO RECEIVES PROTECTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
From October 1991 through June 1994, security protection was provided
on at least 1 occasion to each of the cabinet-level secretaries of
the 10 departments in our review. While one department protected an
official only once during the review period, other departments
provided security protection more frequently. The extent and
frequency of protection varied significantly from department to
department, but generally included protecting the secretaries while
they worked in their offices, attended public events, and traveled on
official business. Security officials told us that the secretaries
of two departments received protection services while on personal
business on five occasions. In addition to the cabinet secretaries,
two departments provided occasional, short-term protection for their
deputy secretaries, and another department once provided short-term
protection to another high-level official in the department who had
been threatened.
BASIS FOR SECURITY PROTECTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Security personnel at the 10 departments justified the need for
protection on the basis of potential threats to officials. All 10
departments provided documentation of incidents that had posed or
could pose threats to officials' safety, such as the receipt of
threats or visits to areas where people were hostile to the
departments' decisions or policies.
Security personnel at all 10 departments provided information showing
implied threats to the safety of officials. Although some security
personnel said that the secretaries of their departments were
recognized by the general public, they justified providing security
protection to the officials primarily on the basis of potential
threats from individuals who were (1) affected by the policies and
issues being handled by the department or (2) apparently suffering
from mental problems. Further, security officials at 6 of the 10
departments provided information on specific death threats\6 that
were made against officials from October 1991 to June 1994. In cases
where threats were considered sufficiently serious, security
personnel sought the assistance of other law enforcement entities to
investigate them.
Security personnel said that their duties included preventing
potentially dangerous individuals from entering the secretaries'
offices. Five departments reported instances when potentially
dangerous individuals attempted to enter the offices or buildings
where they work. Security personnel said the uninvited visitors
included an individual who sent gifts and dozens of letters of an
admiring nature to an official, an individual who stalked an
official, and members of a protest group.
Security personnel at the department reporting the most threats
against an official indicated that they identified 18 individuals,
the majority of whom had records of violent behavior or mental health
problems, who had attempted to contact the secretary. The secretary
of that department also had received two specific death threats.
Security officials said that providing security to officials when
traveling overseas is justified because officials may be targets of
those who disagree with U.S. policies. Further, security officials
said that the need for protection is greater at public events,
particularly where protesters are likely to be present or
controversial issues will be raised.
Security personnel stressed the need for protection when officials
visit geographic areas most affected by the departments' policies.
Security officials also said that security protection is needed for
cabinet secretaries because they are in the line of presidential
succession.
None of the departments' security staffs said they had to use a
firearm or make an arrest to protect officials during our review
period. However, security personnel reported incidents involving
limited physical intervention to protect officials, such as crowd
control. Further, officials reported that other law enforcement
agencies had taken action against individuals making threats against
department officials. They also said that effective security
protection serves as a deterrent and that without protection,
physical harm may be inflicted on officials.
--------------------
\6 We defined "specific death threat" as one where a specific intent
had been expressed to kill a particular official.
COSTS OF PROVIDING PROTECTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We asked officials to provide data on the costs of providing
protection during the period of our review, including (1) salaries
and overtime of security personnel; (2) travel associated with
providing security; (3) special protection training; and (4) any
other expenses associated with providing security, such as equipment
and residential security improvements.
The 10 departments in our review spent a total of $1.5 million on
protection in fiscal year 1992, $1.6 million in fiscal year 1993, and
$2 million for the first 9 months of fiscal year 1994, as shown in
tables 1, 2, and 3. At individual departments, the costs of security
protection for fiscal year 1992 ranged from zero at one department to
$409,842 at another. For fiscal year 1993, costs ranged from $817 at
one department to $379,424 at another. Costs for fiscal year 1994
(through June 1994) ranged from zero at one department to $455,721 at
another.
Table 1
Costs of Security Protection at 10
Departments During Fiscal Year 1992
Department Department Department Department Department Department Department Department
Category of security costs A\a B\b Department C Department D E F G H I\c J\d Total
--------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------
Personnel $294,670 $41,364 $241,064 $315,356 $5,940 $20,542 $82,260 $51,836 $12,300 $0
Travel 114,000 33,320 108,877 87,607 8,686 18,095 48,313 9,468 760 0
Special training 0 1,000 0 632 0 0 8,574 0 0 0
Other 1,172 10,740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
===================================================================================================================================================================================
Total $409,842 $86,424 $349,941 $403,595 $14,626 $38,637 $139,147 $61,304 $13,060 $0 $1,516,576
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Travel costs include per diem and transportation expenses
incurred by security personnel while protecting officials who are
traveling outside of Washington, D.C.
Note 2: Training costs include tuition and related travel expenses
for specialized, executive protection courses.
\a "Other" costs for department A include installation of residential
security system and monitoring.
\b Department B's special training and other costs are annual
estimates. "Other" costs are for Department B's estimated prorated
costs of a vehicle lease, ammunition, and rental and maintenance of
radios, cellular phones, and pagers. The Department's security
personnel said the vehicle and communications equipment are also used
for other security purposes, and provided the estimated time they
were devoted to protecting the Secretary.
\c Department I's personnel costs are based on the department's
estimate that its security personnel spent 2.5 percent of their time
protecting officials.
\d Department J reported that it did not expend any funds on security
protection during fiscal year 1992 because it did not protect any
officials that year.
Source: Data provided by the departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.
Table 2
Costs of Security Protection at 10
Departments During Fiscal Year 1993
Department Department Department Department Department Department Department Department
Category of security costs A\a B\b Department C Department D E F G H I\c J Total
--------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------
Personnel $266,010 $159,708 $237,079 $251,227 $44,187 $16,740 $76,082 $13,166 $14,300 $681
Travel 75,119 101,735 60,854 127,565 16,466 10,093 32,537 2,475 840 136
Special training 2,113 1,000 0 632 22,978 0 5,212 0 0 0
Other 4,807 10,740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
===================================================================================================================================================================================
Total $348,049 $273,183 $297,933 $379,424 $83,631 $26,833 $113,831 $15,641 $15,140 $817 $1,554,482
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Travel costs include per diem and transportation expenses
incurred by security personnel while protecting officials who are
traveling outside of Washington, D.C.
Note 2: Training costs include tuition and related travel expenses
for specialized, executive protection courses.
\a "Other" costs for department A include installation of residential
security system and monitoring.
\b Department B's special training and other costs are annual
estimates. "Other" costs are for Department B's estimated prorated
costs of a vehicle lease, ammunition, and rental and maintenance of
radios, cellular phones, and pagers. The Department's security
personnel said the vehicle and communications equipment are also used
for other security purposes, and provided the estimated time they
were devoted to protecting the Secretary.
\c Department I's personnel costs are based on the department's
estimate that its security personnel spent 2.5 percent of their time
protecting officials.
Source: Data provided by the departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.
Table 3
Costs of Security Protection at 10
Departments During the First 9 Months of
Fiscal Year 1994
Department Department Department Department Department Department Department Department
Category of security costs A\a B\b Department C Department D E F G H I\c J\d Total
--------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------
Personnel $271,950 $249,032 $280,432 $258,353 $94,158 $35,660 $52,117 $33,563 $11,100 $0
Travel 182,870 165,616 80,617 91,339 66,510 40,389 7,065 13,391 4,600 0
Special training 691 750 39,500 0 0 0 4,000 994 0 0
Other 210 8,055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
===================================================================================================================================================================================
Total $455,721 $423,453 $400,549 $349,692 $160,668 $76,049 $63,182 $47,948 $15,700 $0 $1,992,962
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Travel costs include per diem and transportation expenses
incurred by security personnel while protecting officials who are
traveling outside of Washington, D.C.
Note 2: Training costs include tuition and related travel expenses
for specialized, executive protection courses.
\a "Other" costs for department A include installation of residential
security system and monitoring.
\b Department B's special training and other costs are annual
estimates. "Other" costs are for Department B's estimated prorated
costs of a vehicle lease, ammunition, and rental and maintenance of
radios, cellular phones, and pagers. The Department's security
personnel said the vehicle and communications equipment are also used
for other security purposes, and provided the estimated time they
were devoted to protecting the Secretary. Fiscal year 1994 costs are
prorated for 9 months.
\c Department I's personnel costs are based on the department's
estimate that its security personnel spent 2.5 percent of their time
protecting officials. 1994 costs are prorated for 9 months.
\d Department J reported that it did not expend any funds on security
protection during the first 9 months of fiscal year 1994 because it
did not protect any officials during that period.
Source: Data provided by the departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.
The costs of security protection during the first 9 months of fiscal
year 1994 increased substantially compared to fiscal year 1992 at
three departments. At one department, spending increased from
$38,637 to $76,049, or 97 percent. At another department spending
increased from $93,584 to $428,823, or 358 percent, and at the third
department, spending increased from $14,626 to $160,668, or 999
percent. Security officials said that spending increased because (1)
departmental policies changed and had become more controversial,
generating more threats against officials; (2) the officials traveled
more than their predecessors; and (3) the secretary of one department
was much more recognizable to the public than the previous
secretaries of that department. The fiscal year 1994 costs for
protection at the other seven departments did not change
significantly from fiscal year 1992.
PERSONAL DUTIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We interviewed agents at the four departments that spent the most
money on protection to determine whether the agents performed any
duties for officials that might be considered personal, as suggested
by some news media reports.
All of the agents we interviewed denied performing or being asked to
perform any personal duties for officials. Agents at three
departments said they had occasionally carried an official's baggage
while on a trip but said they did so as a courtesy or because they
considered the task to be security related. Further, agents said
that when they travel with officials, they may be the only staff
available to perform certain duties, such as checking an official
into a hotel. In addition to providing physical protection for
officials, security agents said they made security plans for trips
and investigated threatening situations. Agents at two departments
also said that they drove officials to official events.
TRAINING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
All 10 departments reported that their agents were scheduled to
attend or had received executive protection training through courses
offered by their own departments or other law enforcement agencies,
such as the U.S. Secret Service. At the four departments where we
interviewed agents, two agents reported that they had not received
any executive protection training, but said they had recently joined
the detail and were scheduled to attend training. One of the agents
was a police officer for 18 years, and the other agent said that he
had previous security experience with the military. The other 10
agents we interviewed said they received executive protection
training from various sources, including their own departments, the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the U.S. Secret Service,
the State Department, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
We provided a draft of this report to security officials at the 10
departments to review its accuracy and how we discussed information
regarding the protection provided. Security officials at the
departments of Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services,
Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, and an
Executive Officer for the Secretary of Education said that the facts
were accurately presented in the report. The Security Director at
the Department of Energy also made some minor clarifications, which
we incorporated in the report. Officials from the departments of
Commerce, Interior, and Transportation made no comments on the
report.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
Copies of this report will be distributed to the requesters and
interested congressional committees. Copies will also be made
available to others upon request.
If you have any questions about this report, please call me on (202)
512-8387. Major contributors to this report are included in appendix
II.
J. William Gadsby
Director, Government Business
Operations Issues
LIST OF REQUESTERS
=========================================================== Appendix I
The Honorable Tom Harkin, Chairman
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Arlen Specter, Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Neal Smith, Chairman
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable John Porter, Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Wayne Allard
The Honorable Richard Armey
The Honorable Cass Ballenger
The Honorable Bill Barrett
The Honorable Douglas K. Bereuter
The Honorable Michael Bilirakis
The Honorable Peter I. Blute
The Honorable John A. Boehner
The Honorable Henry Bonilla
The Honorable Jim Bunning
The Honorable Dan Burton
The Honorable Steve Buyer
The Honorable Sonny Callahan
The Honorable Charles T. Canady
The Honorable Michael N. Castle
The Honorable William F. Clinger Jr.
The Honorable Mac Collins
The Honorable Jim Cooper
The Honorable Michael D. Crapo
The Honorable Randall Cunningham
The Honorable Nathan Deal
The Honorable Thomas D. DeLay
The Honorable Jay Dickey
The Honorable John T. Doolittle
The Honorable Bob Dornan
The Honorable David Dreier
The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.
The Honorable Jennifer Dunn
The Honorable Vern Ehlers
The Honorable Bill Emerson
The Honorable Terry Everett
The Honorable Thomas Ewing
The Honorable Harris W. Fawell
The Honorable Tillie Fowler
The Honorable Barney Frank
The Honorable Bob Franks
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
The Honorable Robert W. Goodlatte
The Honorable Porter J. Goss
The Honorable Rod Grams
The Honorable Jim Greenwood
The Honorable Steven Gunderson
The Honorable Melton D. Hancock
The Honorable James V. Hansen
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
The Honorable Joel Hefley
The Honorable Wally Herger
The Honorable David L. Hobson
The Honorable Peter Hoekstra
The Honorable Martin R. Hoke
The Honorable Steve Horn
The Honorable Michael Huffington
The Honorable Duncan Hunter
The Honorable Tim Hutchinson
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
The Honorable Bob Inglis
The Honorable James M. Inhofe
The Honorable Ernest Jim Istook
The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson
The Honorable John R. Kasich
The Honorable Jack Kingston
The Honorable Gerald D. Kleczka\7
The Honorable Scott Klug
The Honorable Joe Knollenberg
The Honorable Rick A. Lazio
The Honorable Jerry Lewis
The Honorable Ron Lewis
The Honorable Jim Lightfoot
The Honorable John Linder
The Honorable Robert L. Livingston
The Honorable Jim McCrery
The Honorable Joseph M. McDade
The Honorable John M. McHugh
The Honorable Howard P. McKeon
The Honorable John L. Mica
The Honorable Robert H. Michel
The Honorable Dan Miller
The Honorable Susan Molinari
The Honorable Constance A. Morella
The Honorable John T. Myers
The Honorable Thomas E. Petri
The Honorable Richard W. Pombo
The Honorable Rob Portman
The Honorable Deborah Pryce
The Honorable James H. Quillen
The Honorable Arthur Ravenel, Jr.
The Honorable Ralph S. Regula
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher
The Honorable Edward Royce
The Honorable Richard J. Santorum
The Honorable H. James Saxton
The Honorable Daniel L. Schaefer
The Honorable Joe Skeen
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith
The Honorable Lamar Smith
The Honorable Floyd Spence
The Honorable Cliff Stearns
The Honorable James M. Talent
The Honorable Craig Thomas
The Honorable William M. Thomas
The Honorable Peter G. Torkildsen
The Honorable Fred Upton
The Honorable James T. Walsh
The Honorable Donald E. Young
The Honorable Bill Zeliff
The Honorable Dick Zimmer
--------------------
\7 In a August 12, 1994, letter, Rep. Gerald Kleczka asked to be
added as a corequester to the July 22, 1994, request from Rep.
Kingston and 104 other signatories.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
John Baldwin, Sr., Assistant Director
Robert Homan, Evaluator-in-Charge
OFFICE OF SPECIAL
INVESTIGATIONS, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
Houston Fuller, Assistant Director
Thomas Sipes, Special Agent
*** End of document. ***