[House Prints 105-D]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
105th Congress
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Print
105-D
_______________________________________________________________________
INTERIM REPORT
of the
ACTIVITIES
of the
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
1997
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] CONGRESS.#13
MARCH 1998
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-663 WASHINGTON : 1998
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania \3\
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
Carolina JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JIM TURNER, Texas
PETE SESSIONS, Texas THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee \2\
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas ------
BOB BARR, Georgia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio \1\ (Independent)
DAN MILLER, Florida \4\
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
William Moschella, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
----------
\1\ Elected to committee on April 9, 1997, resigned from committee on
November 13, 1997.
\2\ Elected to committee on April 17, 1997.
\3\ Resigned from committee on April 17, 1997.
\4\ Elected to committee on November 13, 1997.
PREFACE
This report outlines the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight's activities for the first session of the 105th
Congress. A separate and final report covering activities
during both sessions will be published at the conclusion of the
105th Congress in accordance with House Rule XI, 1(d).
As the primary investigative body of the U.S. House of
Representatives, my committee's jurisdiction encompasses the
responsibility of ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse to make
government smaller and smarter. In addition, the full committee
investigation into illegal campaign fundraising showed and
continues to show the American people the infiltration of
foreign funds to American political candidates during the 1996
election cycle.
Dan Burton, Chairman
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Part One. General statement of organization and activities....... 1
I. Jurisdiction, authority, powers, duties..........................1
II. Historical background............................................9
III. Organization....................................................15
A. Subcommittees......................................... 15
B. Rules of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight............................................ 16
IV. Activities, 1st Session, 105th Congress.........................25
A. Investigative reports................................. 25
B. Legislation........................................... 26
C. Reorganization plans.................................. 31
D. Committee Prints...................................... 31
E. Committee Action on Reports of the Comptroller General 31
Part Two. Report of committee activities......................... 33
I. Matters of Interest, Full Committee
A. General............................................... 33
1. Oversight plans of the committees of the U.S.
House of Representatives......................... 33
2. Investigations.................................. 37
a. Oversight of Implementation of the
Government Performance and Results Act of
1993....................................... 37
b. The Campaign Fundraising Investigation...... 39
II. Investigations
a. investigations resulting in formal reports
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology, Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman........................ 51
1. ``A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information
Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government
Records,'' House Report No. 105-37, March 20, 1997,
First Report by the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.............................................. 51
Subcommittee on Human Resources, Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman 52
1. ``Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: VA, DOD Continue to
Resist Strong Evidence Linking Toxic Causes to Chronic
Health Effects,'' House Report No. 105-388, November 7,
1997, Second Report by the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, Together with Additional Views... 52
b. other investigations
Full Committee................................................... 56
1. Review of the Federal Government's Aquisition Strategy
Regarding the Federal Telecommunications System of 2001
Program................................................ 56
2. Elimination of Section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994 [FASA] (Public Law 103-355)... 58
Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................ 58
1. Impact of the President's FY 1998 Budget on Federal
Employees.............................................. 58
2. Federal Hiring from the Welfare Rolls................... 61
3. Assisting the District of Columbia with it's Pension
Liabilities............................................ 65
4. Review of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance [FEGLI]
Program................................................ 68
5. Erroneous Enrollments in the Federal Retirement System.. 70
6. Employment Discrimination in the Federal Workplace...... 74
7. Employment Discrimination in the Pursuit of Diversity... 78
8. Oversight of Contracting Out Practices.................. 81
9. Review of Premiums Under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program [FEHBP]............................... 85
10. Suspension of Affirmative Action at the IRS............ 85
11. The Merits of Holding a CSRS to FERS Open Season....... 87
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia......................... 89
1. Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.................. 89
2. Public Law 104-8, District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
(D.C. Control Board)................................... 90
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology..................................................... 92
1. GAO High-Risk Series.................................... 92
2. Year 2000 Computer Date Problem......................... 93
3. Implementation of the Government Performance and Results
Act.................................................... 97
4. Internal Revenue Service Management..................... 102
5. Debt Collection......................................... 103
6. Federal Measures of Race and Ethnicity.................. 104
7. The Post FTS-2000 Telecommunications Contract........... 107
8. White House Management Issues........................... 107
9. Executive Branch Information Dissemination.............. 108
10. The Medicare Transaction System........................ 109
11. Total Quality Management............................... 109
12. Electronic Funds Transfer.............................. 110
13. Inspectors General..................................... 111
14. Performance-Based Organizations........................ 112
15. Governors Island....................................... 113
16. Government Sponsored Enterprises....................... 114
17. Metropolitan Statistical Areas......................... 116
18. Statistical Proposals.................................. 117
19. Defense Surplus Equipment.............................. 117
20. U.S. Customs Service................................... 119
21. U.S. Forest Service.................................... 120
22. Clinger-Cohen Act...................................... 120
23. Management Practices in State and Local Governments.... 123
24. Federal Advisory Committee Act......................... 124
Subcommittee on Human Resources.................................. 125
1. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Steps Against the
Health Threat Posed by ``Mad Cow Disease'' and Other
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies [TSEs]....... 125
2. The Need for Better Focus in the Rural Health Clinic
Program................................................ 126
3. Cabinet Department and Agency Oversight................. 127
4. Oversight of the Department of Health and Human
Services' Healthy Start Program........................ 128
5. Nursing Home Fraud...................................... 129
6. Fixing the Consumer Price Index [CPI]................... 130
7. Bio-Ethics and Informed Consent......................... 130
8. Analysis of the Medicare Transaction System [MTS]....... 131
9. Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] Enforcement of
Blood Safety Regulations............................... 131
10. Reducing Education Mandates............................ 132
11. Restructuring the Department of Veterans Affair [VA]
Medical Services....................................... 132
12. Pfiesteria and Public Health........................... 133
13. Job Corps.............................................. 133
14. Privatization of Child Support Enforcement Services.... 134
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and
Regulatory Affairs............................................. 135
1. Investigation of the White House Database............... 135
2. Investigation of the Misuse of Statistics by the
Department of Energy................................... 135
3. Investigation of OIRA's Review of NAAQS Rules........... 135
4. Securities and Exchange Commission...................... 136
5. Oversight of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Programs............................................... 137
6. Oversight of the Security and Exchange Commission's
``Disclosure of Accounting Policies for Derivative
Financial Instruments and Derivative Commodity
Instruments''.......................................... 140
7. EPA's Particulate and Ozone Rulemaking.................. 143
8. GAO Findings on Superfund Cleanup....................... 149
9. Office of Management and Budget's ``Report to Congress
on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations''..... 152
10. EPA's Strategic Plan................................... 154
11. Oversight of EPA and the Regulatory Process............ 155
12. Brookhaven National Laboratory......................... 157
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and
Criminal Justice............................................... 159
1. National Drug Control Policy............................ 159
2. Department of Defense Inventory Management.............. 172
3. Immigration and Naturalization Service's Program
Citizenship USA........................................ 177
4. Force Protection and Antiterrorism...................... 181
5. Oversight of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration......................................... 185
6. Oversight of the Census Bureau and Census 2000.......... 186
Subcommittee on the Postal Service............................... 190
1. General Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The
Inspector General of the Postal Service and the Board
of Governors........................................... 190
2. General Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The
General Accounting Office and the Postmaster General... 192
3. U.S. Postal Service: Little Progress Made in Addressing
Persistent Labor-Management Problems................... 195
4. International Mail Market............................... 202
5. Electronic Commerce..................................... 202
6. Outsourcing............................................. 203
7. Investigation of the Postmaster General: For Knowingly
Participating as a Government Officer or Employee in
Which he had a Financial Interest...................... 203
III. Legislation
a. new measures
Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................ 205
1. H.R. 240, Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997. 205
2. H.R. 1316, to amend chapter 87, of title 5, U.S.C., with
respect to the order of precedence to be applied in the
payment of life insurance benefits..................... 205
3. H.R. 1836, Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act
of 1997................................................ 206
4. H.R. 2675, the Federal Employees Life Insurance
Improvement Act........................................ 207
5. H.J. Res. 56, Celebrating the end of slavery in the
United States.......................................... 207
6. H. Con. Res. 95, recognizing and commending American
airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald
concentration camp during World War II for their
service, bravery, and fortitude........................ 208
7. H. Con. Res. 109, recognizing the many talents of the
actor Jimmy Stewart and honoring the contributions he
made to the Nation..................................... 208
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia......................... 209
1. H.R. 514, to permit the waiver of District of Columbia
residency requirements for certain employees of the
Office of Inspector General of the District of
Columbia, and for other purposes....................... 209
2. H.R. 2015, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.............. 209
3. H.R. 3025, to amend the Federal charter for Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., and for
other purposes......................................... 213
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology..................................................... 214
1. H.R. 173, to amend the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize
donation of surplus Federal law enforcement canines to
their handlers......................................... 214
2. H.R. 680, to amend the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the
transfer to States of surplus personal property for
donation to nonprofit providers of necessaries to
impoverished families and individuals.................. 214
3. H.R. 930, Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1997.. 215
4. H.R. 404, to amend the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the
transfer to State and local governments of certain
surplus property for use for law enforcement and public
safety purposes........................................ 216
5. H.R. 52, Fair Health Information Practices Act of 1997.. 217
6. H.R. 1962, Presidential and Executive Office............ 218
7. H.R. 716, Freedom from Government Competition Act of
1997................................................... 219
Subcommittee on Human Resources.................................. 219
1. H.R. 399, the Subsidy Termination for Overdue Payments
[STOP] Act............................................. 219
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and
Criminal Justice............................................... 220
1. H.R. 956, Drug Free Communities Act of 1997............. 220
2. H.R. 1553, to amend the President John F. Kennedy
Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend
the authorization of the Assassination Records Review
Board until September 30, 1998......................... 222
3. H.R. 2610, a bill to amend the National Narcotics
Leadership Act of 1988 to extend the authorization for
the Office of National Drug Control Policy until
September 30, 1999, to expand the responsibilities and
powers of the Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, and for other purposes................. 224
Subcommittee on the Postal Service............................... 227
1. H.R. 22, the Postal Reform Act of 1997.................. 227
2. H.R. 282, to designate the United States Post Office
building located at 153 East 110th Street, New York,
New York, as the ``Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office
Building''............................................. 229
3. H.R. 499, to designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service under construction at 7411 Barlite
Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Frank M.
Tejada Post Office Building''.......................... 230
4. H.R. 681, to designate the United States Post Office
building located at 313 East Broadway in Glendale,
California, as the ``Carlos J. Moorehead Post Office
Building''............................................. 231
5. H.R. 1057, to designate the building in Indianapolis,
Indiana, which houses the operations of the Circle City
Station Post Office as the ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr. Post
Office Building''...................................... 231
6. H.R. 1058, to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service under construction at 150 West
Margaret Drive in Terre Haute, Indiana as the ``John T.
Myers Post Office Building''........................... 232
7. H.R. 1231, the ``Post Office Relocation Act of 1997''... 233
8. H.R. 1254, to designate the United States Post Office
building located at Bennett and Kansas Avenue in
Springfield, Missouri, as the ``John N. Griesemer Post
Office Building''...................................... 233
9. H.R. 1585, to allow postal patrons to contribute to
funding for breast cancer research through the
voluntary purchase of certain specially issued United
States postage stamps.................................. 234
10. H.R. 2013, to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 551 Kingstown Road in
South Kingston, Rhode Island, as the ``David B.
Champagne Post Office Building''....................... 234
11. H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (also known as
the Budget Reconciliation bill)........................ 235
12. H.R. 2129, to designate the United States Post Office
located at 150 North 3rd Street in Steubenville, Ohio,
as the ``Douglas Applegate Post Office''............... 236
13. H.R. 2378 (S. 1023), Making appropriations for the
Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service,
the Executive Office of the President, and certain
Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes............. 236
14. H.R. 2564, to designate the United States Post Office
located at 450 North Centre Street in Pottsville,
Pennsylvania, as the ``Peter J. McCloskey Postal
Facility''............................................. 237
15. S. 1378, a bill to extend the authorization of use of
official mail in the location and recovery of missing
children, and for other purposes....................... 238
b. review of laws within committee's jurisdiction
Standing Committee............................................... 239
Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................ 242
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia......................... 246
Subcommittee on Human Resources.................................. 277
Subcommittee on the Postal Service............................... 278
IV. Other Current Activities
a. general accounting office reports
Standing Committee............................................... 281
Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................ 286
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology..................................................... 301
Subcommittee on Human Resources.................................. 320
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and
Criminal Justice............................................... 325
Subcommittee on the Postal Service............................... 329
V. Prior Activities of Continuing Interest
Standing Committee............................................... 337
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia......................... 337
Subcommittee on Human Resources.................................. 337
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and
Criminal Justice............................................... 338
Subcommittee on the Postal Service............................... 339
VI. Projected Program for the 105th Congress, 2nd Session
Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................ 340
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia......................... 342
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology..................................................... 342
Subcommittee on Human Resources.................................. 344
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and
Criminal Justice............................................... 344
Subcommittee on the Postal Service............................... 345
VII. Views of the Ranking Minority Member
Views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman.................................... 349
INTERIM REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 105TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, 1997
PART ONE. GENERAL STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVITIES
I. Jurisdiction, Authority, Powers, and Duties
The Rules of the House of Representatives provide for
election by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, of
19 named standing committees, 1 of which is the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.\1\ Pursuant to House
Resolutions 12 and 13 (adopted January 7, 1997), and House
Resolution 14 (adopted January 7, 1997), establishing the
membership at 44, with 6 vacancies. Subsequent membership was
set at 45 pursuant to House Resolution 32 (adopted January 21,
1997), membership was decreased to 44 pursuant to communication
to the Speaker on February 5, 1997, House Resolution 36
(adopted February 5, 1997) filled the vacancies of the
membership, on March 21, 1997, membership was decreased to 43
pursuant to communication to the Speaker, House Resolution 108
(adopted April 9, 1997) increased the membership to 44, on
April 17, 1997, membership was decreased to 43 pursuant to
communication to the Speaker, membership increased to 44
pursuant to House Resolution 120 on April 17, 1997, membership
was decreased to 43 pursuant to communication to the Speaker on
November 13, 1997, and on November 13, 1997, membership was
increased to 44 pursuant to House Resolution 331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rule X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule X sets forth the committee's jurisdiction, functions,
and responsibilities as follows:
RULE X
Establishment and Jurisdiction of Standing Committees
the committees and their jurisdiction
1. There shall be in the House the following standing
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and
related functions assigned to it by this clause and clauses 2,
3, and 4; and all bills, resolutions, and other matters
relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of any standing
committee as listed in this clause shall (in accordance with
and subject to clause 5) be referred to such committees, as
follows:
* * * * * * *
(g) Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
(1) The Federal Civil Service, including intergovernmental
personnel; the status of officers and employees of the United
States, including their compensation, classification, and
retirement.
(2) Measures relating to the municipal affairs of the
District of Columbia in general, other than appropriations.
(3) Federal paperwork reduction.
(4) Budget and accounting measures, other than
appropriations.
(5) Holidays and celebrations.
(6) The overall economy and efficiency of Government
operations and activities, including Federal procurement.
(7) National archives.
(8) Population and demography generally, including the
Census.
(9) Postal service generally, including the transportation
of the mails.
(10) Public information and records.
(11) Relationship of the Federal Government to the States
and municipalities generally.
(12) Reorganizations in the executive branch of the
Government.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the
preceding provisions of this paragraph (and its oversight
functions under clause 2(b) (1) and (2)), the committee shall
have the function of performing the activities and conducting
the studies which are provided for in clause 4(c).
* * * * * * *
general oversight responsibilities
2. (a) In order to assist the House in--
(1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of (A)
the application, administration, execution, and
effectiveness of the laws enacted by the Congress, or
(B) conditions and circumstances which may indicate the
necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional
legislation, and
(2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of
such modifications of or changes in those laws, and of
such additional legislation, as may be necessary or
appropriate,
the various standing committees shall have oversight
responsibilities as provided in paragraph (b).
(b)(1) Each standing committee (other than the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget) shall review
and study, on a continuing basis, the application,
administration, execution, and effectiveness of those laws, or
parts of laws, the subject matter of which is within the
jurisdiction of that committee, and the organization and
operation of the Federal agencies and entities having
responsibilities in or for the administration and execution
thereof, in order to determine whether such laws and the
programs thereunder are being implemented and carried out in
accordance with the intent of the Congress and whether such
programs should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated. In
addition, each such committee shall review and study any
conditions or circumstances which may indicate the necessity or
desirability of enacting new or additional legislation within
the jurisdiction of that committee (whether or not any bill or
resolution has been introduced with respect thereto) and shall
on a continuing basis undertake future research and forecasting
on matters within the jurisdiction of that committee. Each such
committee having more than twenty members shall establish an
oversight subcommittee, or require its subcommittees, if any,
to conduct oversight in the area of their respective
jurisdiction, to assist in carrying out its responsibilities
under this subparagraph. The establishment of oversight
subcommittees shall in no way limit the responsibility of the
subcommittee with legislative jurisdiction from carrying out
their oversight responsibilities.
(2) The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 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.
* * * * * * *
(c) Each standing committee of the House shall have the
function of reviewing and studying on a continuing basis the
impact or probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects
within its jurisdiction as described in clauses 1 and 3.
* * * * * * *
additional functions of committees
4. * * *
(c)(1) The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
shall have the general function of--
(A) receiving and examining reports of the
Comptroller General of the United States and of
submitting such recommendations to the House as it
deems necessary or desirable in connection with the
subject matter of such reports;
(B) evaluating the effects of laws enacted to
reorganize the legislative and executive branches of
the Government; and
(C) studying intergovernmental relationships between
the United States and the States, and municipalities,
and between the United States and international
organizations of which the United States is a member.
(2) In addition to its duties under subparagraph (1), the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight may at any time
conduct investigations of any matter without regard to the
provisions of clause 1, 2, or 3 (or this clause) conferring
jurisdiction over such matter upon another standing committee.
The committee's findings and recommendations in any such
investigation shall be made available to the other standing
committee or committees having jurisdiction over the matter
involved (and included in the report of any such other
committee when required by clause 2(1)(3) of Rule XI).
* * * * * * *
Rule XI provides authority for investigations and studies,
as follows:
RULE XI
Rules of Procedure for Committees in General
1. * * *
(b) Each committee is authorized at any time to consider
such investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or
appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under Rule
X, and (subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as
required by clause 5) to incur expenses (including travel
expenses) in connection therewith.
* * * * * * *
(d) Each committee shall submit to the House, not later
than January 2 of each odd-numbered year, a report on the
activities of that committee under this rule and Rule X during
the Congress ending at noon on January 3 of such year.
* * * * * * *
committee rules
* * * * * * *
Power to sit and act; subpoena power
(m)(1) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions
and duties under this rule and Rule X (including any matters
referred to it under clause 5 of Rule X), any committee, or any
subcommittee thereof, is authorized (subject to subparagraph
(2)(A) of this paragraph)--
(A) to sit and act at such times and places within
the United States, whether the House is in session, has
recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings,
and
(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the
production of such books, records, correspondence,
memorandums, papers, and documents as it deems
necessary.
The chairman of the committee, or any member designated by such
chairman, may administer oaths to any witness.
(2)(A) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by a
committee or subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) in the
conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or
activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members
voting, a majority being present. The power to authorize and
issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to
the chairman of the committee pursuant to such rules and under
such limitations as the committee may prescribe. Authorized
subpoenas shall be signed by the chairman of the committee or
by any member designated by the committee.
(B) Compliance with any subpoena issued by a committee or
subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as
authorized or directed by the House.
Use of committee funds for travel
(n)(1) Funds authorized for a committee under clause 5 are
for expenses incurred in the committee's activities; however,
local currencies owned by the United States shall be made
available to the committee and its employees engaged in
carrying out their official duties outside the United States,
its territories or possessions. No appropriated funds,
including those authorized under clause 5, shall be expended
for the purpose of defraying expenses of members of the
committee or its employees in any country where local
currencies are available for this purpose; and the following
conditions shall apply with respect to travel outside the
United States or its territories or possessions:
(A) No Member or employee of the committee shall
receive or expend local currencies for subsistence in
any country for any day at a rate in excess of the
maximum per diem set forth in applicable Federal law,
or if the Member or employee is reimbursed for any
expenses for such day, then the lesser of the per diem
or the actual, unreimbursed expenses (other than for
transportation) incurred by the Member or employee
during that day.
(B) Each Member or employee of the committee shall
make to the chairman of the committee an itemized
report showing the dates each country was visited, the
amount of per diem furnished, the cost of
transportation furnished, any funds expended for any
other official purpose and shall summarize in these
categories the total foreign currencies and/or
appropriated funds expended. All such individual
reports shall be filed no later than sixty days
following the completion of travel with the chairman of
the committee for use in complying with reporting
requirements in applicable Federal law and shall be
open for public inspection.
(2) In carrying out the committee's activities outside of
the United States in any country where local currencies are
unavailable, a member or employee of the committee may not
receive reimbursement for expenses (other than for
transportation) in excess of the maximum per diem set forth in
applicable Federal law, or if the member or employee is
reimbursed for any expenses for such day, then the lesser of
the per diem or the actual, unreimbursed expenses (other than
for transportation) incurred, by the member or employee during
any day.
(3) A member or employee of a committee may not receive
reimbursement for the cost of any transportation in connection
with travel outside the United States unless the member or
employee has actually paid for the transportation.
(4) The restrictions respecting travel outside of the
United States set forth in subparagraphs (2) and (3) shall also
apply to travel outside of the United States by Members,
officers, and employees of the House authorized under clause 8
of rule I, clause 1(b) of this rule, or any other provision of
these Rules of the House of Representatives.
(5) No local currencies owned by the United States may be
made available under this paragraph for the use outside of the
United States for defraying the expenses of a member of any
committee after--
(A) the date of the general election of Members in
which the Member has not been elected to the succeeding
Congress; or
(B) in the case of a Member who is not a candidate in
such general election, the earlier of the date of such
general election or the adjournment sine die of the
last regular session of the Congress.
The committee also exercises authority under a number of
congressional mandates.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For legislation imposing duties specifically on the committee,
see, for example, sec. 203(e)(6) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(6)(e)), relating to
negotiated disposal of Federal surplus property. It requires that, with
limited exceptions, explanatory statements be sent ``to the appropriate
committees of the Congress'' in advance of negotiated disposal under
the Act. It covers disposal of all real and personal property whose
estimated fair market is over $15,000 in the case of personal property
and over $100,000 in the case of real property. The current language
stems from a 1988 amendment (Public Law 100-612), which retained the
explanatory statement requirement but changed the dollar value
thresholds, which theretofore had been $1,000 for both personal
property and real property. The House and Senate Government Operations
Committees are expressly identified as the appropriate panels in House
Report 1763, 85th Congress, which accompanied the measure that
contained the 1958 amendment. See also GSA's Federal Property
Management Regulations at 41 CFR-47.304-12(d).
[N. B. The further examples given in the original footnote text
cover sections (section 414 of the 1969 Housing Act and section 304 of
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act) have been repealed. The
reference to sections 191-194 of title 2, U.S. Code, does not deem
pertinent here.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 U.S.C. Sec. 2954
Information to committees of Congress on request
An Executive agency, on request of the Committee on
Government Operations of the House of Representatives or of any
seven members thereof, or on request of the Committee on
Government Operations of the Senate, or any five members
thereof, shall submit any information requested of it relating
to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505
Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct
compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigation
demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process
Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any
place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by
other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to
written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the
subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits
another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any
threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or
impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due
and proper administration of the law under which any pending
proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the
United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of
inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had
by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint
committee of the Congress--
Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more
than five years, or both.
31 U.S.C. Sec. 712
Investigating the use of public money
The Comptroller General shall--
* * * * * * *
(3) analyze expenditures of each executive agency the
Comptroller General believes will help Congress decide whether
public money has been used and expended economically and
efficiently;
(4) make an investigation and report ordered by either
House of Congress or a committee of Congress having
jurisdiction over revenue, appropriations, or expenditures; and
(5) give a committee of Congress having jurisdiction over
revenue, appropriations, or expenditures the help and
information the committee requests.
31 U.S.C. Sec. 719
Comptroller General reports
* * * * * * *
(e) The Comptroller General shall report on analyses
carried out under section 712(3) of this title to the
Committees on Governmental Affairs and Appropriations of the
Senate, the Committee on Government Operations and
Appropriations of the House, and the committees with
jurisdiction over legislation related to the operation of each
executive agency.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For other requirements which relate to General Accounting
Office reports to Congress and which affect the committee, see secs.
232 and 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Public Law
91-510).
II. Historical Background
The committee was initially named the ``Committee on
Expenditures in the Executive Departments.'' Its antecedents
are summarized in Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, vol. VII, sec. 2041, p. 831 (1935), as
follows:
This committee was created, December 5, 1927, by the
consolidation of the eleven Committees on Expenditures
in the various Departments of the Government, the
earliest of which has been in existence since 1816. As
adopted in 1816, the rule did not include the
committees for the Departments of Interior, Justice,
Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. The committees for
these Departments date, respectively, from 1860, 1874,
1889, 1905 and 1913.
The resolution providing for the adoption of the rules of
the 70th Congress discontinued the several committees on
expenditures and transferred their functions to the newly
created Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments:
On March 17, 1928, the jurisdiction of the committee
was further enlarged by the adoption of a resolution,
reported from the Committee on Rules, including within
its jurisdiction the independent establishments and
commissions of the Government.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Examples of the wide-ranging scope of the committee's
jurisdiction may be found in Cannon's Precedents, supra VII, secs.
2042-2046, pp. 831-833 (1935).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1928 until January 2, 1947, when the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 became effective, the committee's
jurisdiction was set forth in Rule XI, 34, of the House Rules
then in force (H. Doc. 810, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. (1945)), as
follows:
POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES
* * * * * * *
34. The examination of the account and expenditures of the
several departments, independent establishments, and
commissions of the Government, and the manner of keeping the
same; the economy, justness, and correctness of such
expenditures; their conformity with appropriation laws; the
proper application of public moneys; the security of the
Government against unjust and extravagant demands;
retrenchment; and enforcement of the payment of moneys due the
United States; the economy and accountability of public
officers; the abolishment of useless offices, shall all be
subjects within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Expenditures in the Executive Departments.
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, section 121(b),
as adopted in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Rule XI, 8, of
later Rules of the House (XI, 9, the 93d Congress), provided:
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
(a) Budget and accounting measures, other than
appropriations.
(b) Reorganizations in the executive branch of Government.
(c) Such committee shall have the duty of--
(1) receiving and examining reports of the
Comptroller General of the United States and of
submitting such recommendations to the House as it
deems necessary or desirable in connection with the
subject matter of such reports;
(2) studying the operation of Government activities
at all levels with a view to determining the economy
and efficiency;
(3) evaluating the effects of laws enacted to
reorganize the legislative and executive branches of
the Government;
(4) studying intergovernmental relationships between
the United States and the States and municipalities,
and between the United States and international
organizations of which the United States is a member.
(d) For the purpose of performing such duties the
committee, or any subcommittee thereof when authorized
by the committee, is authorized to sit, hold hearings,
and act at such times and places within the United
States, whether or not the House is in session, is in
recess, or has adjourned, to require by subpoena or
otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the
production of such papers, documents, and books, and to
take such testimony as it deems necessary. Subpoenas
may be issued under the signature of the chairman of
the committee or of any subcommittee, or by any member
designated by any such chairman, and may be served by
any person designated by any such chairman or
member.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Paragraph (d) was adopted by the House Feb. 10, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule X, 1(h), of later Rules of the House, effective
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Congress), added the
additional jurisdiction of general revenue sharing (formerly
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means),
and the National Archives (formerly within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
Rule X, 1(j)(6), of later Rules of the House listed the
additional jurisdiction of measures providing for off-budget
treatment of Federal agencies or programs, which was added by
sec. 225 of Public Law 99-177, the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (December 12, 1985).
The 1946 Act contained the following proviso:
Provided: That unless otherwise provided herein, any
matter within the jurisdiction of a standing committee
prior to January 2, 1947, shall remain subject to the
jurisdiction of that committee or of the consolidated
committee succeeding to the jurisdiction of that
committee.
This proviso was omitted from the Rules of the House adopted
January 3, 1954.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ H. Res. 5, 83d Cong. (99 Cong. Rec. 15). Cf. rules in H. Doc.
562, 82d Congress, 2d session p. 328 and in H. Doc. 739, 81st Congress,
2d session, p. 326.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 5, cl. 2), ``Each
House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' Omission of
the proviso made no substantive change, since the scope of the
committee's jurisdiction prior to January 2, 1947, was embraced
within the committee's jurisdiction as stated in existing rules
and precedents.
The committee's membership, which was fixed at 21 when it
was consolidated on December 5, 1927, was increased to 25 when
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 became effective on
January 2, 1947. In 1951, the committee's membership was
increased to 27.\7\ From 1953 until January 1963, the
committee's membership remained at 30.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ H. Res. 60, 83d Congress, 1st session (97 Cong. Rec. 194).
\8\ H. Res. 98, 83d Cong. (99 Cong. Rec. 436); H. Res. 94, 84th
Cong. (101 Cong. Rec. 484); H. Res. 89, 85th Cong. (103 Cong. Rec.
412); H. Res. 120, 86th Cong. (105 Cong. Rec. 841); H. Res. 137, 87th
Cong. (107 Cong. Rec. 1677).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to H. Res. 108, 88th Congress, adopted January 17,
1963, the committee was enlarged to 31 members. In the 89th
Congress the membership of the committee was increased to 34
through passage of H. Res. 114, January 14, 1965. The committee
membership in the 90th and 91st Congresses of 35 was first
established by H. Res. 128, 90th Congress, approved January 16,
1967. The committee membership in the 92d Congress of 39 was
established by H. Res. 192, approved February 4, 1971. It was
raised to 41 by H. Res. 158, adopted January 24, 1973. The
committee membership of 42 was established by H. Res. 1238,
adopted July 17, 1974. It was increased to 43 by H. Res. 76 and
101, adopted January 20 and 28, 1975. Membership was maintained
at 43 in the 95th Congress by H. Res. 117 and 118, adopted
January 19, 1977. The committee membership was set at 39 in the
96th Congress by H. Res. 62 and 63, adopted January 24, 1979.
The committee membership was set at 40 in the 97th Congress by
H. Res. 44 and 45, adopted January 28, 1981. The committee size
was increased to 41 by the adoption of H. Res. 370 on February
24, 1982. Pursuant to House Res. 26 and 27, adopted January 6,
1983, the committee membership for the 98th Congress was set at
39.
In the 99th Congress, the membership of the committee was
set at 39, pursuant to House Res. 34 and 35, adopted January
30, 1985.
In the 100th Congress, the membership of the committee was
set at 39, pursuant to House Res. 45 and 54, adopted January 21
and 22, 1987, respectively.
The committee membership in the 101st Congress was
established at 39 by H. Res. 29 and H. Res. 45, adopted January
19 and 20, 1989. In the 102d Congress, the membership of the
committee was set at 41, pursuant to H. Res. 43, 44, and 45,
adopted January 24, 1991. The committee membership was set at
42 in the 103d Congress by adoption of H. Res. 8 and 9 on
January 5, 1993; H. Res. 34 on January 21, 1993; H. Res. 67 on
February 4, 1993; and H. Res. 92 and 93 on February 18, 1993.
The membership was increased to 44 by the adoption of H. Res.
185 on May 26, 1993 and H. Res. 219 on July 21, 1993. Beginning
September 28, 1949, the moneys appropriated to the committee
were, by House resolution in each session of Congress,
available for expenses incurred in conducting studies and
investigations authorized under Rule XI, whether made within or
without the United States.\9\ In the 103d Congress, these
matters are covered in paragraph (b) of clause 1 of Rule XI, as
set forth above and by clause 5 of Rule XI. The funds for the
committee's studies and oversight function during the first
session of the 103d Congress were provided by H. Res. 107
adopted March 30, 1993 (H. Rept. 103-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See items under (1) in footnote 3, of the final calendar of the
committee for the 93d Congress (Dec. 31, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's name was changed to ``Committee on
Government Operations'' by House resolution adopted July 3,
1952.\10\ The Congressional Record indicates the reasons
underlying that change in name were, in part, as follows: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ H. Res. 647, 82d Cong. (98 Cong. Rec. 9217). The Senate had
made a similar change of name on Mar. 3, 1952, after conference between
the chairman of the House and Senate Committees on Expenditures in the
Executive Departments to ensure both Houses would adopt the change in
name. S. Res. 280, 82d Cong. (98 Cong. Rec. 1701-1702). See also S.
Rept. No. 1231, 80th Congress, 2d Session, p. 3 (May 3, 1948).
\11\ Letter of Feb. 19, 1952, from the chairman, Senate Committee
on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Senator McCellan to
Senator Hayden (98 Cong. Rec. 1702).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This committee is proposing the indicated change in
the present title, in view of the fact that it is
misleading and the committees' functions and duties are
generally misunderstood by the public.
* * * * * * *
In suggesting the proposed change the committee based its
decision on what it considers to be the major or primary
function of the committee under the prescribed duties assigned
to it to study ``the operations of Government activities at all
levels with a view to determining its economy and efficiency.''
It was the unanimous view of the members of the committee that
the proposed new title would be more accurate in defining the
purposes for which the committee was created and in clearly
establishing the major purpose it serves.
On January 4, 1995, the 104th Congress opened with a
Republican majority for the first time in forty years. The
shift in power from Democrats to Republicans has resulted in a
realignment of the legislative priorities and committee
structure of the House of Representatives. Perhaps more than
any other committee, the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee embodies the changes taking place in the House of
Representatives. The committee itself was created by
consolidating three committees into one, resulting in budget
and staff cuts of nearly 50 percent. The committees that were
merged include the Committee on Government Operations, the
Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service, and the
Committee on the District of Columbia.
In order to fulfill the Republican Contract with America,
the committee held a record number of hearings and mark-ups,
and members cast more votes during this 100 day period than in
any of the previous committees' histories. Over the course of
the first session, 295 bills and resolutions were referred to
the committee and its subcommittees, and 180 hearings and mark-
ups were held. Five of these measures have been signed into
law.
In addition to its greatly expanded legislative
jurisdiction, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee
serves as the chief investigative committee of the House, with
the authority to conduct governmentwide oversight. Because the
committee only authorizes money for a small number of Federal
agencies and programs, it is able to review government
activities with an independent eye.
The 105th Congress and the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight under the leadership of Chairman Dan Burton (R-
IN) enjoyed a productive year as Congress continued to move
closer to its goals established with the Contract of America to
seek to achieve a smaller, smarter and more efficient common
sense government.
In addition to the committee's oversight responsibilities,
the Government Reform and Oversight Committee has pursued an
active, ambitious agenda throughout the first session of the
105th Congress with its ongoing investigation of suspected
illegal activities during the 1996 elections. The committee's
and its seven subcommittees conducted 129 hearings during the
first half of the 105th Congress. Hearings covered an
incredibly diverse range of subjects including the year 2000
computer crisis, the Federal employee health benefit program,
and the Persian Gulf war veterans illnesses. The committee
staff developed a web site (www.house.gov/reform) to post up-
to-minute witness testimonies and reports for quick
availability.
III. Organization
A. SUBCOMMITTEES \12\
In the 104th Congress, significant steps were taken to
reduce the number of committees, subcommittees, and the number
of congressional staff. As a result, the Congress eliminated
the District of Columbia Committee and the Post Office and
Civil Service Committee. The jurisdiction of these committees
were merged into the Government Operations Committee and its
name was changed to the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee
are ex-officio members of all subcommittees on which they do not hold a
regular assignment (Committee Rule 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to perform its functions and to carry out its
duties as fully and as effectively as possible, the committee
under the leadership of its chairman, the Honorable Dan Burton
of Indiana, at the beginning of the 105th Congress, established
seven standing subcommittees, which cover the entire field of
executive expenditures and operations. The names, chairpersons,
and members of these subcommittees are as follows:
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL SERVICE, John L. Mica,
Chairman; members: Michael Pappas, Constance A.
Morella, Christopher Cox, Pete Sessions, Elijah E.
Cummings, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Harold E. Ford,
Jr.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Thomas M.
Davis, Chairman; members: Constance A. Morella, Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen, Stephen Horn, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and
Thomas H. Allen.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION,
AND TECHNOLOGY, Stephen Horn, Chairman; members: Pete
Sessions, Thomas M. Davis, Joe Scarborough, Marshall
``Mark'' Sanford, John E. Sununu, vacant, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Paul E. Kanjorski, Major R. Owens, Rod R.
Blagojevich, and Danny K. Davis.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, Christopher Shays,
Chairman; members: Vince Snowbarger, Benjamin A.
Gilman, David M. McIntosh, Mark E. Souder, Michael
Pappas, Steven Schiff, Edolphus Towns, Dennis J.
Kucinich, Thomas H. Allen, Tom Lantos, Bernard Sanders,
and Thomas M. Barrett.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, NATURAL
RESOURCES, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, David M. McIntosh,
Chairman; members: John E. Sununu, J. Dennis Hastert,
Joe Scarborough, John B. Shadegg, Steven C. LaTourette,
Vince Snowbarger, Bob Barr, Pete Sessions, Bernard
Sanders, John F. Tierney, Jim Turner, Paul E.
Kanjorski, Gary A. Condit, Dennis J. Kucinich, and
Chaka Fattah.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, J. Dennis Hastert,
Chairman; members: Mark E. Souder, Christopher Shays,
Steven Schiff, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John M. McHugh,
John L. Mica, John B. Shadegg, Steven C. LaTourette,
Bob Barr, Thomas M. Barrett, Tom Lantos, Robert E.
Wise, Jr., Gary A. Condit, Rod R. Blagojevich, Carolyn
B. Maloney, Elijah E. Cummings, and Jim Turner.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE POSTAL SERVICE, John M. McHugh,
Chairman; members: Marshall ``Mark'' Sanford, Benjamin
A. Gilman, Steven C. LaTourette, Pete Sessions, Chaka
Fattah, Major R. Owens, and Danny K. Davis.
B. RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
Rule XI, 1(a)(1) of the House of Representatives provides:
The Rules of the House are the rules of its
committees and subcommittees so far as applicable,
except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a
motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of
a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available,
are nondebatable motions of high privilege in
committees and subcommittees.
Rule XI, 2(a) of the House of Representatives provides, in
part:
Each standing committee of the House shall adopt
written rules governing its procedures.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, on February 12, 1997, adopted
the rules of the committee. The rules read as follows:
Rule 1.--Application of Rules
Except where the terms ``full committee'' and
``subcommittee'' are specifically referred to, the following
rules shall apply to the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight and its subcommittees as well as to the respective
chairmen.
[See House Rule XI, 1.]
Rule 2.--Meetings
The regular meetings of the full committee shall be held on
the second Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., when the House is
in session. The chairman is authorized to dispense with a
regular meeting or to change the date thereof, and to call and
convene additional meetings, when circumstances warrant. A
special meeting of the committee may be requested by members of
the committee following the provisions of House Rule XI, 2(c)2.
Subcommittees shall meet at the call of the subcommittee
chairmen. Every member of the committee or the appropriate
subcommittee, unless prevented by unusual circumstances, shall
be provided with a memorandum at least three calendar days
before each meeting or hearing explaining (1) the purpose of
the meeting or hearing; and (2) the names, titles, background
and reasons for appearance of any witnesses. The ranking
minority member shall be responsible for providing the same
information on witnesses whom the minority may request.
[See House Rule XI, 2(b).]
Rule 3.--Quorums
A majority of the members of the committee shall form a
quorum, except that two members shall constitute a quorum for
taking testimony and receiving evidence, and one-third of the
members shall form a quorum for taking any action other than
the reporting of a measure or recommendation. If the chairman
is not present at any meeting of the committee or subcommittee,
the ranking member of the majority party on the committee or
subcommittee who is present shall preside at that meeting.
[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 XI, 2(l).
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, 2(l)(5). The time allowed for
filing such views shall be three calendar days, beginning on
the day of notice but excluding Saturday, 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. 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) before
consideration of such proposed report in subcommittee or full
committee. An investigative report or oversight report will be
considered as read if available, to the members, at least 24
hours before consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and
legal holidays unless the House is in session on such days. If
hearings have been held on the matter reported upon, every
reasonable effort shall be made to have such hearings available
to the members of the subcommittee or full committee before the
consideration of the proposed report in such subcommittee or
full committee. An investigative or oversight report may be
filed after sine die adjournment of the last regular session of
the 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.--Roll Calls
A roll call of the members may be had upon the request of
any member upon approval of a one-fifth vote.
[See House Rule XI, 2(e).]
Rule 7.--Record of Committee Actions
The committee staff shall maintain in the committee offices
a complete record of committee actions from the current
Congress including a record of the rollcall votes taken at
committee business meetings. The original records, or true
copies thereof, as appropriate, shall be available for public
inspection whenever the committee offices are open for public
business. The staff shall assure that such original records are
preserved with no unauthorized alteration, additions, or
defacement.
[See House Rule XI, 2(e).]
Rule 8.--Subcommittees; Referrals
There shall be seven subcommittees with appropriate party
ratios that shall have fixed jurisdictions. Bills, resolutions,
and other matters shall be referred by the chairman to
subcommittees within two weeks 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 judgement, 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.
[See House Rule XI, 1(a)(2).]
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 XI, 5 and 6, 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 XI, 5 and 6, 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
The chairman of the full committee will announce the date,
place, and subject matter of all hearings at least one week
before the commencement of any hearings, unless he determines,
with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the
committee determines by a vote, that there is good cause to
begin such hearings sooner. So that the chairman of the full
committee may coordinate the committee facilities and hearings
plans, each subcommittee chairman shall notify him of any
hearing plans at least two weeks before the date of
commencement of hearings, including the date, place, subject
matter, and the names of witnesses, willing and unwilling, who
would be called to testify, including, to the extent he is
advised thereof, witnesses whom the minority members may
request. The minority members shall supply the names of
witnesses they intend to call to the chairman of the full
committee or subcommittee at the earliest possible date.
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
(1) A committee member may question a witness only when
recognized by the chairman for that purpose. In accordance with
House Rule XI, 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) Nothing in paragraph (2) or (3) affects the rights of a
Member (other than a Member designated under paragraph (2)) to
question a witness for 5 minutes in accordance with paragraph
(1) after the questioning permitted under paragraph (2) or (3).
In any extended questioning permitted under paragraph (2) or
(3), the chairman shall determine how to allocate the time
permitted for extended questioning by majority members or
majority committee staff and the ranking minority member shall
determine how to allocate the time permitted for extended
questioning by minority members or minority committee staff.
The chairman or the ranking minority member, as applicable, may
allocate the time for any extended questioning permitted to
staff under paragraph (3) to members.
Rule 15.--Investigative Hearings; Procedure
Investigative hearings shall be conducted according to the
procedures in House Rule XI, 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.--TV, Radio, and Photographs
An open meeting or hearing of the committee or a
subcommittee may be covered, in whole or in part, by television
broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography, or by any
such methods of coverage, unless closed subject to the
provisions of House Rule XI, 3.
Rule 18.--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, 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, 2(c);
(c) Submit to the Committee on the Budget views and
estimates required by House Rule X, 4(g), and to file
reports with the House as required by the Congressional
Budget Act;
(d) Authorize and issue subpoenas as provided in
House Rule XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any
investigation or activity or series of investigations
or activities within the jurisdiction of the committee;
(e) Prepare, after consultation with subcommittee
chairmen and the minority, a budget for the committee
which shall include an adequate budget for the
subcommittees to discharge their responsibilities;
(f) Make any necessary technical and conforming
changes to legislation reported by the committee upon
unanimous consent; and
(g) Will designate a vice chairman from the majority
party.
Rule 19.--Commemorative Stamps
The committee has adopted the policy that the determination
of the subject matter of commemorative stamps properly is for
consideration by the Postmaster General and that the committee
will not give consideration to legislative proposals for the
issuance of commemorative stamps. It is suggested that
recommendations for the issuance of commemorative stamps be
submitted to the Postmaster General.
Rule 20.--Interrogatories and Depositions
The chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority
member, may order the taking of interrogatories or depositions,
under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena. Such
authorization may occur on a case-by-case basis, or by
instructions to take a series of interrogatories or
depositions. Notices for the taking of depositions shall
specify the date, time, and place of examination. Answers to
interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing under oath
and depositions shall be taken under oath administered by a
member or a person otherwise authorized by law 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.
The committee shall not initiate contempt proceedings based
on the failure of a witness to appear at a deposition unless
the deposition notice was accompanied by a committee subpoena
issued by the chairman.
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 committee
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 of the committee permitted to question a witness per
round. One of the committee staff attorneys shall be designated
by the chairman and the other shall be designated by the
ranking minority member. Other committee staff members
designated by the chairman or the ranking minority member may
attend, but are not permitted to pose questions to the witness.
Questions in the deposition will be propounded in rounds. A
round shall include as much time as is necessary to ask all
pending questions. 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.
An objection by the witness as to the form of a question
shall be noted for the record. If a witness objects to a
question and refuses to answer, the member or committee staff
attorney may proceed with the deposition, or may obtain, at
that time or a subsequent time, a ruling on the objection by
telephone or otherwise from the chairman or a member designated
chairman. The committee shall not initiate procedures leading
to contempt proceedings based on a refusal to answer a question
at a deposition unless the witness refuses to testify after an
objection of the witness has been overruled and after the
witness has been ordered by the chairman or a member designated
by the chairman to answer the question. Overruled objections
shall be preserved for committee consideration within the
meaning of clause 2(k)(8) of House Rule XI.
Committee staff shall insure 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 requesting the changes
and a statement of the witness's reasons for each proposed
change. A letter requesting any substantive changes,
modifications, clarifications, or amendments must be signed by
the witness. 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. Interrogatories and
depositions shall be considered to have been taken in
Washington, DC, as well as at 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.
All depositions and interrogatories received pursuant to
this rule shall be considered as taken in executive session.
A witness shall not be required to testify unless the
witness has been provided with a copy of the committee's rules.
This rule is applicable to the committee's investigation of
political fundraising improprieties and possible violations of
law, and is effective upon adoption of a resolution, in the
House of Representatives, providing the committee with special
investigative authorities.
Rule 21.--Letters Rogatory and International Government Assistance
The chairman, after consultation with the ranking minority
member, may obtain testimony and evidence in other countries
through letters rogatory and other means of international
government cooperation and assistance. This rule is applicable
to the committee's investigation of political fundraising
improprieties and possible violations of law, and is effective
upon adoption of a resolution, in the House of Representatives,
providing the committee with special investigative authorities.
IV. Activities, 1st Session, 105th Congress
SUMMARY
1. In the 105th Congress, first session, the committee
approved and submitted to the House of Representatives 2
investigative reports. In addition, the committee issued 4
committee prints.
2. In the 105th Congress, first session, 288 bills and
resolutions were referred to the committee and studied. Of
these, the committee reported 21. In addition, 11 Memorials, 2
Petitions, and 5 Presidential messages were referred to the
committee.
3. Pursuant to its duty of studying reports of the
Comptroller General, the Congress received officially 986 such
reports during the first session, 105th Congress, and the
committee studied 88. In addition, 889 executive
communications, were referred to the committee under clause 2
of Rule XXIV of the House of Representatives.
4. The full committee met 24 days during the 105th
Congress, first session, while the subcommittees met a total of
128 days in public hearings, markups, and meetings.
The significant actions taken by the committee with respect
to these and a considerable number of other matters are
discussed in detail below.
A. INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
During the first session, 105th Congress, the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight approved and submitted to the
Congress 2 reports of an investigative nature. A number of
other reports were in preparation and a number of
investigations were underway. These will be considered by the
subcommittees and the full committee during the second session
of the 105th Congress.
For convenience, the published reports are listed here with
the names of the originating subcommittees. A more detailed
discussion of the material will be found in part two below in
the breakdown of the committee's activities by subcommittee:
First Report (H. Rept. 105-37): ``A Citizen's Guide
on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy
Act of 1974 to Request Government Records.''
(Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology)
Second Report (H. Rept. 105-388): ``Gulf War
Veterans' Illnesses: VA, DOD Continue to Resist Strong
Evidence Linking Toxic Causes to Chronic Health
Effects.'' * (Subcommittee on Human Resources)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes report accompanied by additional, dissenting, minority,
separate, or supplemental views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. LEGISLATION
The legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight covers a wide range of important
governmental operations. In accordance with jurisdiction
assumed from the former Committee on Government Operations, the
committee receives all budget and accounting measures other
than appropriations; all measures relating to the overall
economy and efficiency of Government operations and activities,
including Federal procurement, intergovernmental relationships,
general revenue sharing (the latter subject was formerly within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means), and the
National Archives (formerly within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service); all reorganization
plans and bills providing for the establishment of new
departments in the executive branch such as the Department of
Energy and the Department of Education; and most other
reorganization legislation, examples of which are legislation
to reorganize the intelligence community, international trade,
and regulatory agencies. Other legislation includes debt
collection and proposals relating to delinquent payments and
paperwork reduction. It also receives legislation dealing with
the General Services Administration, including the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 and special
bills authorizing the Administrator of General Services to make
specific transfers of property, plus legislation dealing with
the General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and
Budget, the Administrative Expenses Act, the Travel Expenses
Act, the Employment Act of 1946, and the Javits-Wagner-O'Day
Act relating to the sale of products and services of blind and
other handicapped persons. In addition, the committee has
jurisdiction over the Freedom of Information provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, the Government
in the Sunshine Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee as well
as the Inspector General Act.
Rule X, 2(b) of the standing Rules of the House, requires
the committee to see and review the administration of all laws
in the legislative jurisdiction, and Rule XI, 1(d) requires
that the committee report to the House thereon by the end of
each Congress. The present report outlines the extent and
nature of the committee and subcommittee activities
constituting the review.
During the first session of the 105th Congress, the
committee studied 288 bills and resolutions referred to it and
reported 21 to the House. The measures reported or ordered
reported are discussed more fully in part two below. However,
they are listed with the name of the subcommittee that
initially considered them:
H.R. 173, a bill to amend the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, to authorize
donation of surplus Federal Law Enforcement canines to
their handlers. (Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology; passed House amended;
passed Senate June 26, 1997; Public Law 105-27.)
H.R. 240, to amend title 5, United States Code, to
provide that consideration may not be denied to
preference eligibles applying for certain positions in
the competitive service, and for other purposes.
(Subcommittee on the Civil Service; H. Rept. 105-40,
Pt.1; passed House amended on April 9, 1997; received
in Senate on April 10, 1997; referred to Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs.)
H.R. 514, to permit the waiver of District of
Columbia residency requirements for certain employees
of the Office of the Inspector General of the District
of Columbia, and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on
the District of Columbia, H. Rept. 105-29; Public Law
105-7.)
H.R. 680, a bill to amend the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, to authorize the
transfer to States of surplus personal property for
donation to nonprofit providers of necessaries to
impoverished families and individuals. (Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology;
passed House amended April 29. 1997; Roll Call Vote
418-0; passed Senate amended on July 9, 1997, and the
House agreed to these amendments on September 18, 1997;
Public Law 105-50.)
H.R. 930, Travel and Transportation Reform Act of
1997. (Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology; passed House amended April
16, 1997; received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.)
H.R. 1057, to designate the building in Indianapolis,
Indiana, which houses the operations of the Circle City
Station Post Office as the ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr. Post
Office Building.'' (Subcommittee on the Postal Service;
passed House amended June 17, 1997; Roll Call Vote 413-
0; passed Senate November 9, 1997; Public Law 105-90.)
H.R. 1058, to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service under construction at 150 West
Margaret Drive in Terre Haute, Indiana, as the ``John
T. Myers Post Office Building.'' (Subcommittee on the
Postal Service; passed House June 17, 1997; Roll Call
Vote 416-0; passed Senate November 9, 1997; Public Law
105-91.)
H.J. Res. 56 (S.J. Res. 11), Celebrating the end of
slavery in the United States. (Subcommittee on the
Civil Service; passed House June 17, 1997; Roll Call
Vote 419-0; received in Senate on June 18, 1997.)
H.R. 956, to amend the National Narcotics Leadership
Act of 1988 to establish a program to support and
encourage local communities that first demonstrate a
comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce substance
among youth, and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on
National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice, H. Rept. 105-105, Pt I; passed House amended
May 22, 1997; Roll Call Vote 420-1; passed Senate;
Public Law 105-20.)
H.R. 1316, to amend chapter 87 of title 5, United
States Code, with respect to the order of precedence to
be applied in the payment of life insurance benefits.
(Subcommittee on the Civil Service; H. Rept. 105-134;
passed House amended on June 24, 1997; received and
referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
on June 25, 1997.)
H.R. 1553, to amend the President John F. Kennedy
Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend
the authorization of the Assassination Records Review
Board until September 30, 1998. (Subcommittee on
National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice, H. Rept. 105-138, Pt. I; passed House June 23,
1997; passed Senate June 27, 1997; Public Law 105-25.)
H.R. 404, to amend the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the
transfer to State and local governments of certain
surplus property for use for law enforcement of public
safety purposes. (Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology; passed House
amended November 4, 1997; received in the Senate and
referred to Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on
November 13, 1997.)
H.R. 1962, to provide for the appointment of a Chief
Financial Officer and Deputy Chief Financial Officer in
the Executive Office of the President. (Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology; H.
Rept. 105-331; passed House amended on October 21,
1997; Roll Call Vote 413-3; received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs on
October 22, 1997.)
H.R. 282, to designate the United States Post Office
building located at 153 East 110th Street, New York,
New York, as the ``Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office
Building.'' (Subcommittee on the Postal Service; passed
House October 21, 1997; passed Senate November 9, 1997;
Public Law 105-87.)
H.R. 681, to designate the United States Post Office
building located at 313 East Broadway in Glendale,
California, as the ``Carlos J. Moorhead Post Office
Building.'' (Subcommittee on the Postal Service; passed
House October 21, 1997; passed Senate November 9, 1997;
Public Law 105-88.)
H.R. 2013 (S. 973), to designate the facility of the
United States Postal Service located at 551 Kingstown
Road in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, as the ``David
B. Champagne Post Office Building.'' (Subcommittee on
the Postal Service; passed House October 21, 1997;
passed Senate October 24, 1997; Public Law 105-70.)
H.R. 2129, to designate the United States Post Office
located at 150 North 3rd Street in Steubenville, Ohio,
as the ``Douglas Applegate Post Office.'' (Subcommittee
on the Postal Service; passed House October 21, 1997;
passed Senate November 9, 1997; Public Law 105-97.)
H.R. 2564, to designate the United States Post Office
located at 450 North Centre Street in Pottsville,
Pennsylvania, as the ``Peter J. McCloskey Facility.''
(Subcommittee on the Postal Service; passed House
October 21, 1997; passed Senate November 9, 1997;
Public Law 105-99.)
H.R. 2610, to amend the National Narcotics Leadership
Act of 1988 to extend the authorization for the Office
of National Drug Control Policy until September 30,
1999, to expand the responsibilities and powers of the
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on National
Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice;
passed House amended under suspension of rules on
October 21, 1997; received and referred to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary; reported with amendment
November 6, 1997; no written report.)
H.R. 1836, to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United
States Code, to improve administration of sanctions
against unfit health care providers under the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program, and for other
purposes. (Subcommittee on the Civil Service; H. Rept.
105-374; passed House amended on November 4, 1997 under
suspension of the rules; received and referred to the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on November 5,
1997.)
H.R. 2675, to require that the Office of Personnel
Management submit proposed legislation under which
group universal life insurance and group variable
universal life insurance would be available under
chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, and for
other purposes. (Subcommittee on the Civil Service; H.
Rept. 105-373; passed House amended on November 4, 1997
under suspension of the rules; received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs
on November 5, 1997.)
OTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION
The following bills were referred to the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, the committee was discharged
from further consideration, and, therefore, the bills were not
reported by the committee. Latest action is shown:
H.R. 497, to repeal the Federal charter of Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., and for
other purposes. (Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia; passed House under suspension of the rules;
Roll Call Vote 417-0; passed Senate with amendments on
November 8, 1997.)
H.R. 499, to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service under construction at 7411
Barlite Boulevard in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Frank
M. Tejeda Post Office Building.'' (Passed House 400-0;
passed Senate; Public Law 105-4.)
H.R. 852 (H. Res. 88), to amend chapter 35 of title
44, United States Code, popularly known as the
Paperwork Reduction Act, to minimize the burden of
Federal paperwork demands upon small businesses,
educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal
contractors, State and local governments, and other
persons through the sponsorship and use of alternative
information technologies. (Subcommittee on National
Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory
Affairs; H. Rept. 105-7, Pt. 1; passed House; received
in the Senate.)
H.R. 513, to exempt certain contracts entered into by
the government of the District of Columbia from review
by the Council of the District of Columbia.
(Subcommittee on the District of Columbia; passed House
under suspension of rules; Roll Call Vote 390-7 on
March 6, 1997; received in the Senate and referred to
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on March 6,
1997.)
H.R. 1003, to clarify Federal law with respect to
restricting the use of Federal funds in support of
assisted suicide. (Subcommittee on Human Resources;
passed amended; passed Senate.)
H. Con. Res. 61, Honoring the lifetime achievements
of Jackie Robinson. (Subcommittee on the Civil Service;
passed House under suspension of rules; passed Senate.)
H.R. 1778, to reform the Department of Defense. (H.
Rept. 105-133, Pt. I.)
H. Con. Res. 102, Expressing the sense of the
Congress that the cost of government spending and
regulatory programs should be reduced so that American
families will be able to keep more of what they earn.
(Passed Housed under suspension of rules; Roll Call
Vote 386-20; received in the Senate on June 25, 1997.)
H.R. 1585, to allow postal patrons to contribute to
funding for breast cancer research through the
voluntary purchases of certain specially issued United
States postage stamps. (Subcommittee on the Postal
Service; passed House amended; passed Senate July 24,
1997; Public Law 105-41.)
H.R. 1254, to designate the United States Post Office
building located at Bennett and Kansas Avenue in
Springfield, Missouri, as the ``John N. Griesemer Post
Office Building.'' (Subcommittee on the Postal Service;
passed House amended September 16, 1997; passed Senate
November 13, 1997; Public Law 105-131.)
H. Con. Res. 95, recognizing and commending American
airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald
concentration camp during World War II for their
service, bravery, and fortitude. (Subcommittee on the
Civil Service; passed House on September 16, 1997,
under suspension of the rules; received and referred to
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on September 17,
1997.)
H. Con. Res. 109, recognizing the many talents of the
actor Jimmy Stewart and honoring the contributions he
made to the Nation. (Passed House on September 16,
1997, under suspension of the rules; received and
referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on
September 17, 1997.)
H.R. 2977, to amend the Federal Advisory Committee
Act to clarify public disclosure requirements that are
applicable to the National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Public Administration.
(Subcommittee on Government Management, Information,
and Technology; passed the House November 9, 1997;
passed Senate November 13, 1997; Public Law 105-153.)
H.R. 3025 (H.R. 497), to repeal the Federal charter
of Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc.,
and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on the District
of Columbia; passed House November 13, 1997; passed
Senate November 13, 1997; Public Law 105-149.)
S. 1378, to extend the authorization of use of
official mail in the location and recovery of missing
children, and for other purposes. (Subcommittee on the
Postal Service; passed Senate November 5, 1997; passed
House on November 12, 1997; Public Law 105-126.)
H.R. 2676, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to restructure and reform the Internal Revenue Service,
and for other purposes.
H.R. 2366, to transfer the Secretary of Agriculture
the authority to conduct the census of agriculture, and
for other purposes. (Subcommittee on National Security,
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice; passed
House on October 21, 1997; passed Senate on November
10, 1997; Public Law 105-113.)
``Oversight Plans for all House Committees,'' (H.
Rept. 105-44). (Full Committee)
C. REORGANIZATION PLANS
The most recent authority of the President to transmit
reorganization plans to Congress was reestablished by Public
Law 98-614. Approved November 8, 1984, this authority expired
on December 31, 1984. Legislation extending executive
reorganization authority was not enacted during the first
session of the 105th Congress.
D. COMMITTEE PRINTS
Four committee prints, resulting from work by the committee
staff, were issued during the first session, 105th Congress, as
follows:
``Rules of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, House of Representatives, Together with
Selected Rules of the House of Representatives
(Including Clause 2 of House Rule XI) and Selected
Statutes of Interest.'' (Full Committee.) (February
1997.)
``Title 5, United States Code: Government
Organization and Employees'' (Subcommittee on Civil
Service.) (February 1997.)
``Oversight Plans for all House Committees with
Accompanying Recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, House of
Representatives (Required by Clause 2 of House Rule
XI).'' (Full Committee.) (March 1997.)
``Rules of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, House of Representatives, Together with
Selected Rules of the House of Representatives
(Including Clause 2 of House Rule XI) and Selected
Statutes of Interest.'' (Full Committee.) (June 1997.)
E. COMMITTEE ACTION ON REPORTS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
Rule X, 4(c)(1)(A), of the rules of the House, imposes the
duty upon this committee to receive and examine reports of the
Comptroller General referred to and to make such
recommendations to the House as it deems necessary or desirable
in connection with the subject matter of the reports.
In discharging this responsibility, each report of the
Comptroller General received by the committee is studied and
analyzed by the staff and referred to the subcommittee of this
committee to which has been assigned general jurisdiction over
the subject matter involved. The committee has received a total
of 986 General Accounting Office Reports to the Congress for
processing during the first session of the 105th Congress.
After preliminary staff study, these reports were referred to
subcommittees of this committee as follows:
Subcommittee on the Civil Service................................. 6
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.......................... 2
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology 18
Subcommittee on Human Resources................................... 19
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and
Regulatory Affairs............................................ 20
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and
Criminal Justice.............................................. 9
Subcommittee on the Postal Service................................ 10
______
Total....................................................... 84
Furthermore, in implementation of section 236 of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, the committee now
regularly receives GAO reports that are not addressed to
Congress but contain recommendations to heads of the Federal
agencies. These are generally reports to the agency heads their
written statements of actions taken with respect to such
recommendations, as required by section 236. The committee
received a total of 986 such GAO reports to Federal agencies or
other committees and Members within the legislative branch.
Periodic reports are received from the subcommittees on
actions taken with respect to individual reports, and monthly
reports are made to the chairman as to reports received. During
the session, the committees used the reports to further
specific investigations and reviews. In most cases, additional
information concerning the findings and recommendations of the
Comptroller General was requested and received from the
administrative agency involved, as well as from the General
Accounting Office. More specific information on the actions
taken appears in part two below.
Complete files are maintained by the committee on all
Comptroller General's reports received. Detailed records are
kept showing the subcommittee to which the report is referred,
the date of referral, and the subsequent action taken.
The committee will review all of the Comptroller General's
reports received during the Congress in the light of additional
information obtained and actions taken by the subcommittees,
and the terminations will be made whether specific
recommendations to the House are necessary or desirable under
rule X.
PART TWO. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
I. Matters of Interest, Full Committee
A. GENERAL
1. Oversight Plans of the Committees of the U.S. House of
Representatives.
The 104th Congress adopted a new Rule that provides for
each standing committee of the House to formally adopt
oversight plans at the beginning of each year. Specifically,
the Rule states in part:
Rule X, clause (2)(d)(1). Not later than February 15
of the first session of a Congress, each standing
committee of the House shall, in a meeting that is open
to the public and with a quorum present, adopt its
oversight plans for that Congress. Such plans shall be
submitted simultaneously to the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight and to the Committee on House
Oversight.
On March 31, 1997, Committee Chairman Dan Burton submitted
the oversight plans of each House committee together with
recommendations to ensure the most effective coordination of
such plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
Oversight Plans of the Committees of the House
Congressional oversight, as envisioned by the majority
leadership of the House, is ultimately about the public
interest, the liberty of citizens, and the taxpayers' dollars.
The ability, and duty, of popularly-elected representatives to
oversee the executive branch is a fundamental component of the
system of checks and balances established by the founding
fathers. The Rules of the House of Representatives ensure
Congress' responsibility to the public in this regard. Pursuant
to House Rule X, clause 2(b)(1), each standing committee of the
House ``shall review and study, on a continuing basis, the
application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of
those laws, or parts of laws, the subject matter of which is
within the jurisdiction of the committee and the organization
and operation of the Federal agencies and entities having
responsibilities in or for the administration and execution
thereof, in order to determine whether such laws and the
programs thereunder are being implemented and carried out in
accordance with the intent of the Congress and whether such
programs should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated.''
Congressional oversight in the 105th Congress should focus
on three fundamental efforts:
(1) Review the implementation by the Executive Branch
of recent policy changes enacted by Congress to assess
their effectiveness. Congress enacted significant
reform legislation in the 104th Congress. These reforms
include the termination of 270 useless Federal
programs, offices, agencies and projects, and the
privatization of four major government programs. Other
reform efforts, such as the Unfunded Federal Mandates
Reform Act, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act, the
Line-Item Veto Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Debt Collection Improvement Act, and the Information
Technology Management Reform Act, will enhance
management practices governmentwide, and help reduce
unnecessary burdens placed upon State and local
governments. Still other legislative reforms make
improvements in specific programs areas. These include
the enactment of comprehensive welfare reform,
telecommunications reform, and lawsuit abuse reform.
Many of these reforms have already resulted in major
cost savings and improvements in the efficiency of the
Federal Government. But they will need continued
monitoring and oversight by the Congress to ensure
their success as effective legislative changes. In
their oversight plans for the 105th Congress, House
committees recognize the importance of their
responsibility to oversee the implementation of recent
legislative reforms. The Government Reform and
Oversight Committee recommends that committees fully
utilize the auditing and oversight services of the
General Accounting Office, the Congressional Research
Service, and agency Inspectors General to augment their
efforts to oversee implementation of these critical
legislative reforms.
(2) Review existing Government programs in order to
inform the public and build a compelling case for
further change and reform. While the legislative
successes of the 104th Congress are laudable, many
other opportunities for streamlining, improving
efficiency, and reducing costs to the American taxpayer
exist. The following committee oversight plans reveal
priority areas for programmatic and agency reform
efforts in the 105th Congress, including: fundamental
reform of the tax code; structural reform of the
Internal Revenue Service; Medicare reform; reform of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service; reform of
the General Services Administration; reform/
restructuring of the Commerce Department, State
Department, Labor Department, and Department of Housing
and Urban Development; reform of the National Park
Service; deregulation of electric utilities; and,
reform of the U.S. intelligence community. All but a
small handful of House committees have incorporated
into their oversight plans their intentions with regard
to the GPRA, or Results Act. This important act
codifies the fundamental way Congress and the executive
branches should be assessing Federal Government
missions and activities. The Government Reform and
Oversight Committee recommends that each committee take
full advantage of the House Leadership's current
efforts to coordinate agency and program review as
legislated by the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993. This includes reaching out to our minority
counterparts as well as the Senate.
(3) Review Government programs to root out waste,
fraud and abuse, thereby maximizing accountability in
the Federal Government to the public. The merits of
Federal programs and activities are, of course, subject
to intense debate--particularly in times of budget
deficits and keen competition for limited Federal
resources. However, the importance of efficient,
effective, and honest management is not a debatable
issue. Fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement serve no
legitimate constituency or political interest. They
cheat both the taxpayers and the intended beneficiaries
of the programs and activities they affect. They also
undermine the confidence of the American people in the
capacity and will of the Federal Government to perform
its functions effectively. The Government Reform and
Oversight Committee recommends that committees
carefully review the findings in (1) the General
Accounting Office's ``High Risk List'' of 25 Federal
programs at risk for serious fraud, waste, and abuse;
(2) agency Inspector General semi-annual and annual
reports to Congress; and (3) the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee September 1996 Report entitled
``Federal Government Management: Examining Government
Performance As We Near the Next Century.'' These
documents are an important source of serious problems
currently existing in the Federal Government that need
immediate attention by Congress.
Collectively, the committee oversight plans cover a wide
array of Federal programs and management issues. The challenges
of dealing with the serious, pervasive problems that continue
to impede effective management and efficient program delivery
is formidable.
A major breakthrough in prospects for improving Federal
management, as well as congressional oversight of Federal
programs, has been provided by two recent laws: the Chief
Financial Officers Act and Government Performance and Results
Act. Together, these acts provide a framework necessary to help
achieve improved government accountability and stewardship and
to lower costs by focusing on results. The Congress framed it
this way: Set goals, operate programs, and measure results
using reliable financial and management information.
While these acts are still in the process of being
implemented, efforts already completed or underway in response
to both acts offer committees a valuable source of information
and insight into the management problems and issues. These
include issues that impact individual programs, as well as
those that cut across agency programs and organizational
boundaries.
The committees of the House should: (1) conduct oversight
to ensure that these statutes are being aggressively
implemented, and (2) use the information produced by the
implementation of these statutes and the General Accounting
Office's [GAO] high risk list to assess the management
weaknesses in the agencies within their jurisdiction.
Chief Financial Officers Act
One of the underlying historical impediments to better
management of Government programs has been the lack of reliable
financial information. With passage of the CFO Act, the
Congress has said that this must change and change quickly. The
long-needed fiscal accountability that the act is designed to
bring about is essential to effective program management and
congressional oversight.
Agencies, which represent organizations larger than the
Nation's largest private corporations, have typically not been
able to perform even the most rudimentary bookkeeping
functions. Agency financial management systems are badly
deteriorated--OMB reports that most do not meet standards and
almost all agencies have been unable to pass the test of an
independent financial statement audit.
A primary element of the Chief Financial Officers Act, as
expanded by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, is
the requirement for all 24 major agencies to have audited
financial statements. (The act also calls for governmentwide
financial statements, audited by GAO, by fiscal year 1997.)
Also, agencies must now have
financial information that is linked with
program and budget data for use in both management
control and planning;
reports on program cost trends and other
performance indicators from which managers can make
informed decisions on running government operations
effectively and efficiently
Since passage of the initial legislation in 1990, the CFO
Act has already provided:
significantly more accurate information on the
Government's financial status and operations, as well
as an understanding of how unreliable the financial
information being provided to the Congress and program
managers has been;
a better understanding of the pervasiveness of
management control problems; and
substantial savings from recoveries and better
use of funds.
Annual financial statement audits, which are done by the
agency Inspectors General [IGs] or by GAO, continue to provide
valuable information on the results of program operations and
the current financial condition of agencies. This information
can be of great use to committees in their oversight efforts.
Audits, for example, have identified
Despite over $400 billion in adjustments
needed to correct errors in Defense's financial data
over the last 3 years, Defense is still unable to
render an accurate accounting of its hundreds of
billions of dollars in assets. This unreliable data has
traditionally served as the basis for Defense's reports
to the Congress.
Duplicate, erroneous, and even fraudulent
payments to Defense contractors totaling billions of
dollars.
Unneeded Defense inventories of almost $40
billion.
The IRS being unable to effectively collect or
accurately account for $1.25 billion in annual
revenues; audits show that only a fraction of over $100
billion in recorded tax receivables was collectible.
GAO's ongoing financial audit work includes the IRS, the
Bank Insurance Fund, the Resolution Trust Corporation, and the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, all for fiscal year 1994,
and the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 1995. IGs are
conducting (in some instances with contracted assistance from
accounting firms) fiscal year 1994 audits in the Departments of
Education, HHS, Army, Air Force, NASA, Veterans Affairs, EPA,
Labor, Agriculture, HUD, Interior, and other agencies.
Government Performance and Results Act
Effective implementation of the Chief Financial Officers
Act is also a vital element to the success of the Government
Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. GPRA seeks to change the
focus of Federal management and accountability from a
preoccupation with inputs, such as the amount of program
appropriations, to measured results and outcomes of Federal
programs. Successful implementation of the act will help
address the question: What are the American people getting for
their investment in the Federal Government? Information on
performance in relation to agency goals can also be helpful to
the Congress.
Experiences of State governments and foreign countries that
are leaders in public management show that GPRA's three key
elements: strategic planning; performance measurement; and
public reporting and accountability could influence the basic
culture of the government so that is more results-oriented.
Accurate results-oriented information will greatly assist the
Congress in its efforts to oversee current programs and in
making informed decisions for the future.
But making the major changes in the way Federal agencies
are managed and held accountable called for under GPRA will
require agencies to develop the capacity to manage for results.
This will not be accomplished quickly or easily. Therefore, the
act's provisions are being phased in with a series of pilot
projects over the next several years.
Already, 70 pilots have been designated ranging in size
from small programs to entire agencies, including the IRS, SSA,
and the Defense Logistics Agency. As agencies implement the
act, oversight committees should have opportunities to work
with agencies in improving performance by providing managers
freedom to experiment and find innovative ways to improve
program results, while increasing accountability for achieving
those results.
2. Investigations.
a. Oversight of Implementation of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.--The Government
Performance and Results Act (Results Act) is designed to
provide policymakers and the public with systematic, reliable
information about where Federal programs and activities are
going, how they will get there, and how we will know when they
have arrived. This is to be accomplished through agency reports
to Congress providing strategic and performance planning. The
act will only succeed if Congress then uses the information to
better inform authorizing and budgetary decisionmaking.
As described in the section on ``Review of Laws Within the
Committee's Jurisdiction,'' the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee has worked closely with the House Republican
leadership during 1997 to educate and involve all congressional
committees in the successful implementation of the Results Act.
Part of that educational process has included two full
committee hearings highlighting the potential of the act as a
tool for more productive oversight and ultimately, better
informed policy decisions.
The first hearing, entitled ``The Government Performance
and Results Act: Sensible Government for the Next Century,''
was held on February 12, and was chaired by Dan Burton. In his
opening statement, Chairman Burton stressed the practical
elements of the Act--setting performance goals and linking
budget to performance--as such elements are often applied in
private sector businesses. The chairman hoped that the hearing
would signal to the administration and the American public the
importance of using the Results Act to make sure citizens are
getting what they expect and pay for from Federal programs.
The lead witness, Majority Leader Dick Armey, testified
regarding the importance the House Republican leadership places
on the Results Act. He spoke of the opportunity the act
presents for Democrats, Republicans and those in the executive
branch to work together to improve the way Washington works--to
alleviate waste, inefficiencies, ineffectiveness, fraud, and
bad management. The majority leader stressed that for the act
to be successful, each congressional committee and each elected
representative must devote more attention to agencies' major
plans and objectives, and show a new willingness to reexamine
pet projects with an ear toward objective, credible information
about the results of these programs. He concluded his prepared
testimony by reiterating a point Chairman Burton had made about
the Results Act's similarity to processes widely used by
private businesses to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.
The second panel of witnesses included James Hinchman,
Acting Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office
[GAO], and John Koskinen, Deputy Director for Management,
Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. Mr. Hinchman testified
that GAO had made three important conclusions as a result of
examining management issues throughout the Federal Government.
The first is that the Federal Government is rift with
management problems. The second is that Congress has put in
place a sound statutory framework for addressing such
management problems, including the Chief Financial Officers
Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, and as
cornerstone, the Results Act. And the third conclusion of the
GAO is that Congress has an important role to play in the
implementation of the Results Act, beginning with consultations
with the agencies on their strategic plans. Mr. Hinchman also
stressed the important role of congressional oversight hearings
to improve management in Federal agencies.
Mr. Koskinen, the last witness for this hearing, testified
on behalf of OMB that the agencies had been encouraged to
consult with Congress on their strategic plans for over a year
(although at the time of the hearing, no consultations had
occurred). He discussed OMB's guidance which had been issued 18
months earlier on the preparation and submission of strategic
plans. He indicated his belief that the draft agency strategic
plans OMB had reviewed allowed them to conclude that the final
plans due in the fall of 1997 would be useful and informative
strategic plans.
Another Results Act hearing entitled, ``The Results Act:
Are We Getting Results?'' was held on October 30. Chairman
Burton opened the hearing by expressing his disappointment in
the dismal lack of compliance found in the agency draft
strategic plans, and his greater disappointment that it
appeared the final plans were only marginally improved over the
drafts.
For the second time, the lead witness was Majority Leader
Armey, who was only able to give part of his testimony before
being called to vote. His written statement reflected on a year
of hard work that Congress and the executive branch agencies
had dedicated to the implementation of the Results Act and the
lessons we were learning from the experience.
Others scheduled to testify included Franklin Raines,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, James Hinchman,
Acting Comptroller General, General Accounting Office, and the
Honorable Maurice McTigue, distinguished visiting scholar,
Center for Market Processes at George Mason University.
Unfortunately, the schedule of end-of-session votes made it
impossible to conclude this hearing. It is likely that it will
be re-scheduled for early in the second session.
b. The Campaign Fundraising Investigation.--On January 20,
1997, Chairman Dan Burton issued the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight's first request for documents to the White
House, regarding its investigation into potentially illegal
campaign fundraising practices, including illegal foreign
fundraising, during the 1996 campaign and prior campaign
cycles. Chairman Burton was compelled by substantial
allegations in the media, an accumulating body of evidence, and
the ensuing public outcry to undertake a thorough investigation
of potential campaign fundraising illegalities, including the
following areas:
whether United States' domestic and foreign
policy was affected by illegal, foreign donations,
foreign interests, and foreign governments;
possible breaches of national security
resulting from possible improper access given to
political donors;
possible misuse of classified information;
the activities of John Huang, including his
business and political activities in Arkansas, his
relationship with the Lippo Group, his contacts with
foreign officials and the White House and his
fundraising activities on behalf of the Democratic
National Committee;
the activities of Yah Lin ``Charlie'' Trie
including his business and political activities in
Arkansas, Washington, DC, China, Macau, Hong Kong, and
Taiwan; his contacts with foreign governments; his
relationship with Ng Lap Seng, Antonio Pan, and Keshi
Zahn, his fundraising activities for the DNC and the
President's Legal Expense Trust; his appointment by
President Clinton to the Commission on United States
Pacific Trade and Investment Policy, and all activities
since he left the United States;
the activities of the Riady family and the
Lippo Group and its related companies in Arkansas,
California, Indonesia, Hong Kong and China and the
Riady family's contacts with President Clinton, Mrs.
Clinton and other current and former administration
officials;
the activities of other major donors with
foreign ties, including Pauline Kanchanalak, Johnny
Chung, Ted Sioeng, and others;
matters pertaining to Webster Hubbell,
including his activities in Arkansas and Washington,
DC; his employment by the Rose Law Firm and his
employment after resigning from the Department of
Justice, including a $100,000 contract with the Lippo
Group;
matters pertaining to fundraising abuses by
any political party or campaign from 1992 to the
present, including the funneling of foreign money into
campaigns and political organizations, misuse of
Government resources for political purposes, and the
development and use of the White House database, and,
the activities of Secretary of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt and other Government officials regarding
the possible trading of political contributions in
return for specific Government action in the matter of
the proposed Indian casino in Hudson, WI.
Chairman Burton was concerned about serious questions of
national policy and national security involving the Clinton
administration, especially as daily revelations disclosed more
troubling facts about the unusual access that questionable
individuals had with high-ranking White House and
administration officials in private meetings, fundraising
``coffees'' and other political events, and official functions.
According to one published report, ``[t]he FBI has obtained
substantial evidence that top Chinese officials approved plans
in 1995 to buy influence with American politicians, and that
the scheme continued through the 1996 elections and is ongoing
. . .'' \13\ Testifying before a Senate subcommittee in March
1997, FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that the FBI Task Force
investigating the fundraising matter would scrutinize as one of
its top priorities whether there was a direct threat to our
national security by a deliberate plan by a foreign government
to influence our political process. Freeh told the
subcommittee, ``One of the subjects that the . . . task force
is going to be investigating are allegations with respect to
not just illegal political activities and contributions, but
also the national security aspects of that . . . [and] whether
the funding or attempted funding or planning was originated not
by individuals per se, but by a foreign government or state
sponsor or ministry.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Washington Post, April 25, 1997.
\14\ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 21, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The investigation also followed the flow of money once it
entered the United States and scrutinized whether and to what
extent illegal actions or money influenced Government officials
and official Government policies or actions. In doing so, the
committee was determining whether there was a definable pattern
of illegal activity and whether there was a commonality of
purpose involved.
The activities of former Commerce Department official and
DNC fundraiser John Huang, who raised at least $3 million for
the DNC during the 1996 election cycle, raised many potential
illegalities, including the misuse of an official Government
position at the Department of Commerce, the illegal disclosure
of classified information, and questions about the true source
of the money that he raised and whether White House and DNC
officials had any knowledge or role in the systematic transfer
of funds from foreign sources to the Democratic party.
John Huang had strong ties to the Indonesia-based Lippo
Group and worked for banks affiliated with Lippo since the
early 1980's. The Lippo Group is controlled by the Riady family
and has large investments in Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, and
Vietnam. Riady companies and the Riady family, who were
permanent residents in the United States at the time,
contributed substantially to the DNC, affiliated State parties,
and soft money venues during the 1992 election. The Riadys
subsequently returned to Indonesia following the election. Upon
leaving the Lippo Group in 1994 to work at Commerce, Huang
received a bonus package worth hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
A published report implicated Huang as having deliberately
funneled political contributions to the DNC and affiliated
organizations using a number of sham corporations and
ineligible individual contributors. Another report contained
the information that Huang had an unusually high number of
classified briefings while he was an official at the Commerce
Department. In just 18 months, Huang attended 146 briefings at
which he had access to classified information. At the same
time, Huang was also making telephone calls to his old
employer, the Lippo Group. Huang also managed to obtain his top
secret clearance 5 months before he started his employment at
Commerce and kept it for a year after he left the department to
move to the DNC.\15\ Huang visited the White House at least 23
times between February and October 1996 and regularly met with
high level White House officials, such as Bruce Lindsey and
Harold Ickes. On 4 days, June 21-24, 1994, Huang and James
Riady of the Lippo Group entered the White House on five
separate occasions. At the same time, Riady met with Webster
Hubbell at least two times during the same 4 days. On June 27,
1997, a Lippo Group subsidiary, Hong Kong China Ltd., paid
Hubbell $100,000.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Washington Times, May 15, 1997.
\16\ New York Times, March 20, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Huang is a central figure in this investigation, who,
along with Webster Hubbell, Charlie Trie, the Riady family,
Mark Middleton and Pauline Kanchanalak, had chosen not to
cooperate with the investigation. By asserting his fifth
amendment rights, Huang forced the committee to utilize other
means, such as document subpoenas, depositions of witnesses and
foreign discovery, to proceed with its investigation.
DNC Fundraiser Charlie Trie, who first met President
Clinton in the late 1970's or early 1980's as a Little Rock,
AR, restaurant owner raised over $300,000 for the DNC, much of
which the DNC has pledged to return. Trie also tried to
contribute more than $600,000 to the President's legal defense
fund, all of which was eventually returned, because of its
doubtful origins. According to published reports, Trie
``received a series of substantial wire transfers in 1995 and
1996 from a bank operated by the Chinese government.'' \17\
Trie visited the White House at least 38 times and met with
high level officials, such as Mark Middleton. In January 1996,
President Clinton issued an Executive order to increase the
size of the U.S. Pacific Trade and Policy Commission from 15 to
up to 20 members. He thereafter added only Charlie Trie's
appointment to the Commission. The White House released the
names of the appointees, including Trie on April 17, 1996, only
weeks after the Presidential Legal Expense Trust's Executive
Director Michael Cardozo informed Mrs. Clinton and Harold Ickes
of Trie's delivery of questionable funds to the fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Wall Street Journal, April 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNC contributor Ted Sioeng and his daughter contributed
more than $355,000 to the DNC since 1993. He and his associates
also made substantial contributions to the National Policy
Forum and other candidates. According to published reports,
Sioeng is under investigation by the Department of Justice for
``allegedly working as a [Chinese] political operative in the
United States . . . [and seeking] to acquire influence for
China through his family's political donations, including
$250,000 to the Democratic National Committee during last
year's presidential campaign.'' \18\ Sioeng is now rumored to
be in Hong Kong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another case, unfavorable information obtained by staff
on the National Security Council about a potential White House
visitor, California businessman Yogesh Gandhi, prevented him
from meeting the President at the White House. However,
``Democratic fundraisers arranged for the meeting to take place
on May 13, 1996, at the Sheraton Carlton hotel, two blocks
[from the White House] . . . [where] Gandhi met with President
Clinton and donated $325,000 to the Democratic National
Committee.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Wall Street Journal, June 10, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee investigated the use of official White House
resources in the creation of a database, which included
political contributors. Reportedly, White House officials
merged a list of the President's social contacts with a larger
list of political contributors, despite a warning from the
White House Counsel's office that the database could be used
only for official, not political, purposes.\20\ There were also
reports published that DNC contributor lists were found in
official Commerce Department files.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Washington Times, May 16, 1997.
\21\ Washington Post, June 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another case of alleged misuse of Government agencies,
the Department of Justice announced on April 28, 1997, that its
Inspector General was launching an investigation of allegations
of ``mismanagement, misconduct and illegality'' \22\ at the
Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding the operation
of the Citizenship USA program. ``The probe will delve into
charges that the program . . . was misused for political
purposes and ended up naturalizing criminals in a rush to
create as many new citizens as possible in time for last year's
elections . . . [and] will cover allegations that the office of
Vice President Gore played a key role in promoting the program
in hopes of reaping a Democratic electoral windfall.'' \23\ The
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and
Criminal Justice has done extensive investigative work in this
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Washington Post, April 29, 1997.
\23\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee amassed a large body of documents that
contain troubling information regarding the conduct of senior
Government officials and donors with highly unusual access. Of
great significance were the allegations that this
administration may have solicited money from foreign and other
sources to obstruct the workings of justice and protect various
officials from further investigation and possible prosecution.
Reported payments to Webster Hubbell of $100,000 by the Lippo
Group \24\ raised serious questions about whether there was a
coordination of payments by persons close to the President from
entities in the United States and abroad to Hubbell in order to
influence his cooperation with the investigation of Whitewater
and related matters. The interrelationships of the billionaire
Riadys, John Huang, Webster Hubbell and other senior
administration figures is a central focus of the inquiry into
alleged misuse of Government resources and/or obstruction of
ongoing criminal investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ New York Times, October 12, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To demonstrate the seriousness of these charges, which
possibly involve senior officials, and the degree to which the
public consternation has been aroused, it is useful to note a
few editorial quotes taken from newspapers across the political
spectrum:
Americans are now fully aware of the disclosures and
allegations that the law was broken by operatives of
Mr. Clinton's re-election campaign. Of particular
interest is the allegation that money was solicited and
accepted from foreign sources. Every informed account
of the campaign, including many from insiders, says
that senior officials in the White House and the
campaign, as well as Mr. Clinton himself, were involved
in the most intricate details of fund-raising.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ New York Times, May 2, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fund-raising disclosures have blown up into the
biggest political scandal in the United States since
Watergate. It is paralyzing the President, preoccupying
Congress, and fueling public cynicism about our
political system.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ New York Times, April 16, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've commented before on the selective way in which
this White House dispenses--and--doesn't dispense--the
truth when it is in trouble. They put up a series of
false fronts; you knock one down only to be confronted
by another. Then they complain about the fact that they
are not believed. They're dead right about that.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Washington Post, May 9, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It gets progressively easier to see why . . . [there]
may be the makings of an obstruction of justice case in
the White House treatment of Webster Hubbell. . . .
[T]he circumstantial case is already weighty.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ New York Times, May 6, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unavailability of Key Witnesses
From the beginning of its investigation, Chairman Burton's
investigation was hampered by scores of key witnesses,
eventually totaling 70 persons, who refused to cooperate with
the committee's investigation by either being out of the
country, pleading the fifth amendment, or refusing to be
interviewed. These uncooperative witnesses included former
Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, former White House
aide Mark Middleton, former Commerce Department and Democratic
National Committee official John Huang, and prominent
Democratic fundraisers Yah Lin Charlie Trie, Pauline
Kanchanalak, Ted Sioeng, Nora and Gene Lum, Arief and Soraya
Wiriadinata, James Riady, and John H.K. Lee.
In response to this lack of cooperation from such an
overwhelming number of key witnesses, the committee issued 385
subpoenas related to the investigation in 1997.
The following is a list of the committee witnesses who
refused to cooperate with the investigation in 1997:
46 House & Senate Witnesses Asserting Fifth Amendment:
John Huang Nora Lum Gin F.J. Chen
Mark Middleton Gene Lum Hsin Chen Shih
Nolanda Hill Seow Fong Ooi Jou Sheng
Jane Huang Bin Yueh Jeng Judy Hsu
Duangnet Kronenberg Hsiu Chu Lin Jane Dewi Tahir
Maria L. Hsia Jen Chin Hsueh Maria Mapili
Webster Hubbell Chi Rung Wang Jie Su Hsiao
Yogesh Ghandi Yumei Yang Hsiu Luan Tseng
Cheyenne Indians Arapaho Indians Mark Jimenez
Gilbert Colon Larry Wong Michael Brown
Irene Wu Na-chi ``Nancy'' Lee Steven Hwang
Mike Lin Hueutsan Huang * Man Ya Shih *
Zie Pan Huang * Yue Chu * Keshi Zhan *
Shu Jen Wu * Man Ho * Yi Chu *
David Wang * Manlin Foung * Joseph Landon *
Siuw Moi Lian *
* Granted Immunity after pleading 5th Amendment
12 Witnesses Have Left the Country:
Charlie Trie John H.K. Lee Dewi Tirto
Pauline Kanchanalak Agus Setiawan Subandi Tanuwidjaja
Ming Chen Arief Wiriadinata Soraya Wiriadinata
Antonio Pan Ted Sioeng Felix Ma
12 Foreign Witnesses Have Refused to be interviewed by Investigative
Bodies:
Ng Lap Seng Stephen Riady Roy Tirtadji
Ken Hsui John Muncy James Lin
Eugene Wu Mochtar Riady Stanley Ho
Suma Ching Hai James Riady Daniel Wu
In 1997, Chairman Burton wrote letters to President Clinton
asking for his help in locating Charlie Trie and Pauline
Kanchanalak. After an interview with Mr. Trie in Shanghai,
China, was broadcast on NBC's ``Nightly News,'' Chairman Burton
wrote to President Clinton regarding Charlie Trie on June 27,
1997:
Mr. Trie is an American citizen and, reportedly, a
long-time friend of yours. He is a former member of the
DNC's national finance board of directors, and in April
1996 was appointed by you to the Commission on U.S.
Pacific Trade and Investment Policy. Mr. Trie is also a
central figure in this Committee's investigation into
allegations that foreign governments and persons may
have attempted to unlawfully influence our electoral
process.
Recent media reports have asserted that Mr. Trie
received more than $1 million in foreign wire transfers
during the campaign and that some or all of that money
may have found its way into your legal defense fund and
the Democratic National Committee. In February, this
Committee issued a subpoena to Mr. Trie for documents
related to his fundraising activities. As confirmed by
the NBC News story, he has no intention of producing
the documents called for by the subpoena or of
otherwise cooperating with the Committee's
investigation.
In view of the very serious allegations concerning
Mr. Trie, and his recently corroborated presence in the
People's Republic of China, the Committee requires your
assistance and that of the State Department in
obtaining evidence from Mr. Trie. I accordingly request
that you instruct the Secretary of State to contact the
appropriate officials of the People's Republic of China
and formally petition the PRC to help facilitate the
return of Charles ``Yah Lin'' Trie to the United States
for questioning or, at a minimum, make him available
for deposition by the Committee and its staff.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Letter to President William Clinton from Chairman Dan Burton,
June 27, 1997.
Chairman Burton wrote a similar letter to the President
regarding Pauline Kanchanalak on July 11, 1997, and also sent
letters to the Ambassadors of China and Thailand asking for
their assistance. As of December 1997, Trie and Kanchanalak has
still not cooperated with the investigation.
White House Non-Compliance with Committee Subpoenas
The committee was also hampered by the White House's
refusal to fully comply with document requests first issued by
the chairman on January 20, 1997. After several weeks of non-
cooperation by the White House, Chairman Burton issued document
subpoenas to the White House on March 4, 1997. On April 10,
1997, in response to White House demands for a formal procedure
for the handling, storage and release of documents, the
committee adopted a document protocol. The White House
proceeded to release some documents in a desultory manner and
withheld other documents subject to claims of executive,
attorney-client, and work-product privileges. Because of the
failure of the White House to fully comply with the subpoenas
or to formally assert a privilege over the sequestered
documents, Chairman Burton scheduled a contempt hearing for May
21, 1997, calling on White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff to
explain the White House's refusal to comply with the subpoenas.
After substantial negotiations between the White House and
the committee, Mr. Ruff avoided the necessity of a contempt
hearing by agreeing to release to Chairman Burton all relevant
documents in its possession by June 13, 1997, with the
exception of 40 documents it listed on a privilege log it
submitted to the committee. On June 27, 1997, the White House
formally certified that it had released all documents
responsive to the subpoenas.
Despite this certification, the White House continued to
make productions to the committee over the next 6 months,
including a substantial number of video and audio tapes
containing the White House Communications Agency's taping of
fundraising activities of President Clinton. Committee staff
reviewed approximately 300 hours of videotapes and over 100
hours of audiotapes, belatedly produced by the White House. In
all, the White House made 26 additional productions through
December 11, 1997, despite having certified on June 27, 1997,
that all responsive documents had already been produced to the
committee.
As early as January 1997, the Washington Post wrote an
editorial denouncing the White House's pattern of obfuscation,
stating:
It puts up a false front, offers a misleading version
of events. If and when that fails, as often occurs, it
puts up another, and another--as many as it takes. Then
Administration officials bemoan the cynicism with which
what they have to say is so often greeted and wonder
aloud, or pretend to wonder, why they are not believed
. . . The dispensing of truth in reluctant dribs and
drabs does indeed have the corrosive effect that the
White House itself periodically deplores . . .\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Washington Post, January 17, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Fundraising Investigation Hearings
The committee held four hearings in 1997 related to its
investigation of possible campaign fundraising improprieties
and illegalities. The committee held its first 2 days of
hearings on October 8-9, 1997, on the issue of whether illegal
conduit payments using ``straw donors'' had been made to
Democratic National Committee campaign coffers during the 1996
Presidential election cycle. The witnesses at this hearing were
Manlin Foung, sister of Democratic fundraiser Yah Lin Charlie
Trie, and her friend, Joseph Landon. Also present as a witness
was Los Angeles businessman David Wang. Foung and Landon
testified that Charlie Trie reimbursed them for $35,000 in
illegal donations they made to the Democratic National
Committee. David Wang testified that DNC official John Huang
had asked him to donate $10,000 to the DNC, for which Huang
reimbursed him. This hearing demonstrated that two prominent
Democratic fundraisers, one a DNC official, Charlie Trie and
John Huang, had indeed violated the law prohibiting a person
making contributions in the name of another person (2 U.S.C.
Sec. 441f ), according to the testimony of the witnesses.
Chairman Burton stated at this hearing that the next obvious
step was to call Trie or Huang to testify, but unfortunately
Huang had pled the fifth amendment and Trie had fled the
country.
The committee's next hearing was on November 6-7, 1997, on
``White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas,'' especially
concerning the belated disclosure by the White House of
videotapes containing filmed segments of Presidential
fundraising coffees and other fundraising events. White House
counsels, Charles F.C. Ruff, Cheryl Mills, Lanny Breuer, and
Dimitri Nionakis were witnesses. Despite pointed questions from
Chairman Burton and other committee members about the
innumerable delays of producing key information related to the
committee's subpoenas of March 4, 1997, Mr. Ruff and his
subordinates claimed that there were only ``innocent mistakes''
on the White House staff's part for the delays in producing
documents, including the 25 additional productions after the
Mr. Ruff had certified on June 27, 1997, that:
. . . to the best of my knowledge, the White House
has produced all documents responsive to the
Committee's subpoenas.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Letter from White House Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff to Chairman
Dan Burton, June 27, 1997.
At this hearing, it was disclosed that the White House
Counsel's office had withheld for over a year a document that
was clearly to the committee's investigation of the White House
database. The document in question was a page of handwritten
notes indicating President Clinton's interest in integrating
the White House database with the database at the Democratic
National Committee. When asked about this, White House Deputy
Counsel, Cheryl Mills, testified that ``she could not recall
the reasoning that led her and Jack Quinn, then the White House
Counsel, to withhold the documents. ``I cannot today re-create
our decision-making,'' she said in a statement to
reporters.\32\ Members of the committee were highly critical of
the White House's conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Los Angeles Times, November 7, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's third hearing was held on November 13-14,
1997, on the activities of Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung.
Witnesses for this hearing included Maggie Williams, former
chief of staff to First Lady Hillary Clinton, Nancy Hernreich,
director of White House Oval Office operations, Kelly Crawford,
White House aide, Carol Khare, former aide to DNC Chairman
Donald Fowler, Ceandra Scott, DNC staffer, and Brooke Darby and
Robert Suettinger, who both worked for the National Security
Council.
Mr. Chung, who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars
to the DNC and the President's legal defense fund, pled the
fifth amendment after initially agreeing to testify. In lieu of
public testimony before the committee, Chung met with the
chairman and other members of the committee privately. In open
hearing, Carol Khare testified that she had received a
telephone call from Chung for then-DNC Chairman Fowler which
she referred to an assistant, Ceandra Scott. Scott stated that
she called Kelly Crawford in Mrs. Clinton's office to obtain a
meeting for Chung and a group of Chinese businessmen with
President Clinton, which occurred on March 11, 1995. Nancy
Hernreich testified that President Clinton rebuked her
immediately after the Chung Oval Office meeting, saying, ``You
should not have done that.''
Hernreich then stated that she contacted Melanie Darby at
the National Security Council to determine whether photographs
of President Clinton with Chung and his entourage ought to be
released. Darby testified that she contacted NSC Asian affairs
specialist Robert Suettinger, who then admitted in his
testimony that he sent Darby and e-mail describing Johnny Chung
as a ``hustler.''
Maggie Williams admitted in her testimony that 2 days
before the Oval Office meeting, she had accepted a $50,000
check from Johnny Chung at the White House, although she
claimed that she did not look at the amount of the check.
The committee held its fourth hearing on December 9-10,
1997, on the current implementation of the independent counsel
statute, especially in light of Attorney General Janet Reno's
decision not to seek an independent counsel to investigate
allegations concerning President Clinton and Vice President
Gore. Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI Director Louis Freeh,
and Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz were witnesses.
On December 2, 1997, Attorney General Reno announced that
she would not appoint an independent counsel to pursue an
investigation of President Clinton, Vice President Gore or
former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary. Chairman Burton called
Ms. Reno before the committee the following week to explain why
she had declined to appoint independent counsels in these
matters. Burton also called FBI Director Freeh to explain a
memo he had sent to Reno on November 25, 1997, urging her to
appoint an independent counsel. Chairman Burton issued a
subpoena for the memo on December 5, 1997, with which Attorney
General Reno refused to comply, citing ``the need to protect
the confidentiality and independence of an ongoing
investigation and our prosecutorial decision making.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ New York Times, December 9, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the hearing, Freeh testified that he believed `` `very
strongly' that an independent counsel should be appointed to
investigate the campaign fundraising scandal.'' \34\ He stated
that his recommendation to Reno that she should appoint an
independent counsel was based on his reading of the independent
counsel statute, in which there are only two grounds for the
appointment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Washington Post, December 10, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
when there is specific information from a
credible source that the President, Vice President or
other high-ranking officials may have violated a
Federal criminal law and
when the Attorney General determines that
having the Justice Department investigate the matter
might result in a personal, financial or political
conflict of interest.
When Chairman Burton asked Mr. Freeh if had ever
experienced any investigation in which over 65 people have
invoked the fifth amendment or fled the country, Freeh
responded that the only time that he had had this problem was
when he was investigating ``organized crime.''
In open hearing, Independent Counsel Smaltz testified that
his investigation of former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy
``had been impeded by Justice Department officials who tried
for months to prevent him from examining Mr. Espy's former
chief of staff, [Ronald Blackley].'' \35\ Mr. Smaltz later
obtained a conviction of Mr. Blackley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ New York Times, December 11, 1997.
II. Investigations
A. INVESTIGATIONS RESULTING IN FORMAL REPORTS
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman
1. ``A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and The
Privacy Act of 1974 to request Government Records,'' House
Report No. 104-37, March 20, 1997, First Report by the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
a. Summary.--The Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], enacted
in 1966, presumes those records of the executive branch of the
U.S. Government are accessible to the public. The Privacy Act
of 1974 is a companion to FOIA and regulates Government agency
record-keeping and disclosure practices. The Freedom of
Information Act provides that citizens have access to Federal
Government files with certain restrictions. The Privacy Act
provides certain safeguards for individuals against an invasion
of privacy by Federal agencies and permits them to see most
records pertaining to them maintained by the Federal
Government.
A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act
and Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Government Records, House
Report 105-37, dated March 20, 1997, and issued by the House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, explains how to
use the two laws and serves as a guide to obtaining information
from Federal agencies. The complete texts of the Freedom of
Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), and the Privacy
Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), are reprinted in the committee
report.
b. Benefits.--Federal agencies use the Citizen's Guide in
training programs for Government employees who are responsible
for administering the Freedom of Information Act and the
Privacy Act of 1974. The Guide enables those who are unfamiliar
with the laws to understand the process and to make requests.
In addition, the complete text of each law is included in an
appendix. The Government Printing Office and Federal agencies
subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act
of 1974, distribute this report widely. The availability of
these acts to all Americans allows executive branch information
to be widely available.
c. Hearings.--None.
Subcommittee on Human Resources
Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman
1. ``Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses: VA, DOD Continue to Resist Strong
Evidence Linking Toxic Causes to Chronic Health Effects. House
Report 105-388. November 7, 1997. Second Report by the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Together with
Additional Views.''
a. Summary.--Since February 1996, the Subcommittee on Human
Resources has been conducting an oversight investigation into
the illnesses reported by an estimated 100,000 Gulf war
veterans, and the response to veterans' health complaints by
the departments of Veterans Affairs [VA] and Defense [DOD]. The
investigation resulted in a report approved by the subcommittee
on October 31, 1997, and the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on November 7, 1997.
Responding to requests of veterans, the subcommittee
initiated a far-reaching oversight investigation into the
clusters of symptoms and debilitating maladies known
collectively as the ``Gulf War Syndrome.'' The subcommittee
sought to ensure sick Gulf war veterans were being properly
diagnosed, treated, and compensated for service-connected
disabilities, despite official denials and scientific
uncertainty regarding the exact causes of their ailments. The
subcommittee also sought to determine whether the Gulf war
research agenda was properly focused on the most likely, not
just the most convenient, hypotheses to explain Gulf war
illnesses.
The subcommittee investigation and hearings found that the
VA and DOD had not listened to veterans since the Gulf war
ended in 1991. Veterans suspected and reported exposure to
toxic agents in the Gulf war theater--to chemical and
biological warfare agents, environmental hazards, and
experimental drugs and vaccines. Any one, or any combination,
of these toxins may have produced the illnesses among some
veterans. Yet, the VA and DOD ignored veterans' concerns,
continued to maintain there were no toxic exposures and
therefore no health effects, and attributed any illnesses to
battlefield stress.
It was the consistent pressure from this subcommittee, and
other House and Senate panels, that forced the Pentagon to
acknowledge a ``watershed event''--the probable exposure to
United States troops to chemical weapons fallout at Khamisiyah,
Iraq. With that first admission, the three pillars of
Government denial--no credible detections, no exposures, no
health effects--began to crumble. The number of U.S. troops
presumed exposed grew rapidly from the 400 announced in June
1996 to nearly 100,000 announced in July 1997.
This revelation and other credible chemical detections,
along with private research which probed the parallels between
Gulf war illnesses and known effects of chemical poisoning,
suggested a significant role for toxins in causing, triggering
or amplifying neurological damage and producing delayed and/or
chronic symptoms in many veterans.
The subcommittee believes current approaches by the VA and
DOD to research, diagnosis and treatment of Gulf veterans are
flawed and unlikely to yield answers to veterans' ailments in
the foreseeable, or even far distant, future.
Six years and hundreds of millions of dollars have been
spent by the VA and DOD in an effort to determine the causes of
the illnesses besetting Gulf war veterans. When asked what
progress has been made healing sick Gulf veterans, VA and DOD
cannot respond. When asked, are sick veterans any better off
today than when they were first examined, VA and DOD are
silent. Millions of research dollars have been thrown at the
problem without answers or accountability.
Government delays and denials for 6 years are symptomatic
of a system content to presume the Gulf war produced no delayed
casualties, and determined to shift the burden of proof onto
sick veterans to overcome that presumption. That task has been
made difficult, if not impossible, because most of the medical
records needed to prove toxic causation are missing, destroyed
or inadequate. Nevertheless, VA and DOD insist upon reaping the
benefit of any doubts created by the absence of those records.
The subcommittee believes the current presumptions about
neurotoxic causes and effects should be reversed and the
benefit of any doubt should inure to the sick veteran.
Finally, the subcommittee reluctantly concluded that
responsibility for Gulf war illnesses, especially the research
agenda, must be placed in more responsive and expert hands,
independent of the VA and DOD.
The committee report contained 18 major oversight findings:
Diagnosis
1. VA and DOD did not listen to sick Gulf war veterans as
to possible causes of their illnesses.
2. The presence of a variety of toxic agents in the Gulf
war theater strongly suggests exposures have a role in causing,
triggering or amplifying subsequent service-connected
illnesses.
3. Gulf war troops were not trained to protect themselves
from the effects of exposure to depleted uranium dust and
particles.
4. Pyridostigmine bromide [PB] can have serious side
effects and interactions when taken in combination with other
drugs, vaccines, chemical exposures, heat and/or exercise.
5. VA and DOD health registry diagnostic protocols relied
on the unfounded conclusion there were no chemical, biological
or other toxic exposures to United States troops in the Gulf
war theater.
6. VA and DOD health registry diagnosis protocols continue
to be based on the unwarranted conclusion that, unless there is
an immediate and acute reaction, exposures to chemical weapons
and other toxins do not cause delayed or chronic symptoms.
7. Prematurely ruling out toxic exposures as causative, VA
and DOD doctors relied on diagnoses of somatoform disorder and
Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder [PTSD] to explain Gulf war
veterans' illnesses.
8. There is no credible evidence that stress or PTSD causes
the illnesses reported by many Gulf war veterans.
9. Accurate diagnosis of veterans' illnesses remains
difficult due to inadequate or missing personal medical
records, missing toxic detection logs, and unreleased
classified documents.
10. Accurate diagnosis of veterans' illnesses was also
hampered by the VA's lack of medical expertise in toxicology
and environmental medicine.
11. Exposures to low levels of chemical warfare agents and
other toxins can cause delayed, chronic health effects.
Treatment
12. Neither the VA nor the DOD has systematically attempted
to determine whether sick Gulf war veterans are any better or
worse today than when they first reported symptoms.
13. Treatment of sick Gulf war veterans by VA and DOD to
date has largely focused on stress and PTSD.
Compensation
14. Compensation ratings for sick veterans are minimized
due to inadequate personal medical records, missing toxic
detection logs, and unreleased classified documents which could
help veterans establish service-connection of post-war
disabilities.
15. Compensation ratings are also minimized by over-
reliance on somatoform disorder and PTSD as the basis of
disability claims.
Research
16. Federal research strategy has been blind to promising
hypotheses due to reliance on unfounded DOD conclusions
regarding chemical exposures.
17. Institutional and methodological constraints make it
unlikely the current research structure will find the causes
and effective treatments for Gulf war veterans' illnesses in
the short term.
18. The FDA was passive in granting and failing to enforce
the conditions of waiver to permit use of PB by DOD.
Based upon the subcommittee investigation and findings, the
report made the following detailed recommendations:
Diagnosis
1. Congress should enact a Gulf war toxic exposure act
establishing the presumption, as a matter of law, that veterans
were exposed to hazardous materials known to have been present
in the Gulf war theater.
2. The VA should contract with an independent scientific
body composed of non-government scientific experts
representing, at a minimum, the disciplines of toxicology,
immunology, microbiology, molecular biology, genetics,
biochemistry, chemistry, epidemiology, medicine and public
health for the purpose of identifying those diseases and
illnesses associated in peer-reviewed literature with singular,
sustained, or combined exposures to the hazardous materials to
which Gulf war veterans are presumed to have been exposed.
3. The VA Gulf War Registry and the DOD Comprehensive
Clinical Evaluation Program should be re-evaluated by an
independent scientific body which shall make specific
recommendations to change both programs from crude research
tools into effective clinical diagnosis and outcomes monitoring
efforts.
4. The VA should refer all Phase II Registry examinations
to Gulf war referral centers.
5. The VA should add toxicological and environmental
medicine expertise to the staff resources dedicated to Gulf war
illnesses.
6. DOD and VA should make every effort to find, and where
necessary re-create through veterans' testimony, individual
Gulf war medical records to reflect vaccines administered, PB
use, and exposure to DU, pesticides and other hazardous
materials.
7. The President should order an intensified effort to
declassify Gulf war documents in any way related to Gulf war
veterans' illnesses and should personally certify to the
appropriate committees of Congress when he deems
declassification of such documents to be against the national
interest.
8. DOD failure to adhere to recordkeeping requirements or
clinical protocols under an informed consent waiver should
result in the presumption of service-connection for any
subsequent illness(es) suffered by service personnel to whom
the drug or protocol was administered.
Treatment
9. VA and DOD should systematically and effectively monitor
the clinical progress of Gulf war veterans to determine the
most effective treatments.
10. VA and DOD clinicians should be encouraged to pursue,
and be trained in, new treatment approaches to suspected
neurotoxic exposure effects.
11. The diagnoses for somatoform disorders and Post-
Traumatic-Stress-Disorder [PTSD] should be refined to insure
that physiological causes are not overlooked.
Compensation
12. Denials of Gulf war veterans' compensation claims
attributable in any way to missing medical records should be
reviewed and veterans given the benefit of any doubt regarding
the presumptive role of toxic exposure in causing post-war
illnesses and disability.
13. For purposes of compensation determinations,
disabilities associated with presumed exposures should be
deemed service-connected without any limitation as to time.
Research
14. Congress should create or designate an agency
independent from the departments of Defense and Veterans
Affairs as the lead Federal agency responsible for coordination
of all research into Gulf war veterans' illnesses and
allocation of all research funds.
15. The lead Federal agency on Gulf war veterans' illnesses
should focus research on the evaluation and treatment of the
common spectrum of neuroimmunological disorders known as Gulf
War Syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue
syndrome and fibromyalgia.
16. DOD and VA medical systems should augment research and
clinical capabilities with regard to women's health issues and
the health effects of combat service on women's health.
17. VA, in collaboration with NIH, CDC, FDA and other
public health agencies should establish an interdisciplinary
research and clinical program on the identification, prevention
and treatment of environmentally induced neuropathies.
18. FDA should grant a waiver of informed consent
requirements for the use of experimental or investigational
drugs by DOD only upon receipt of a Presidential finding of
efficacy and need.
b. Benefits.--Recommendations based on the subcommittee's
investigation into Gulf war veterans' illnesses, if
implemented, should help veterans receive the answers they
deserve as to why they are sick and what can be done to make
them healthy again. Such a successful effort could return
veterans to full and productive lives, enabling them to better
support themselves and their families. These veterans, a
product of the all-volunteer U.S. military, put their lives on
the line while serving their country in time of war. Failure to
care for these veterans could have serious implications for
military recruitment programs in the future. Recommendations,
if implemented, would also provide: greater focus and better
coordination of research into Gulf war illnesses; faster and
more meaningful research results with available dollars; a
stronger sense of urgency and responsibility by the Federal
Government to meet the medical and compensation needs of Gulf
war veterans.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee convened the following
oversight hearings on Gulf war veterans' illnesses in 1997:
``Gulf War Syndrome: To Examine New Studies Suggesting Links
Between Gulf Service and Higher Rates of Illnesses,'' January
21, 1997; ``Status of the Department of Veterans Affairs to
Identify Gulf War Syndrome,'' April 24, 1997; ``Oversight of
NIH and FDA: Bioethics and the Adequacy of Informed Consent,''
May 8, 1997; ``Status of Efforts to Identify Persian Gulf War
Syndrome: Recent GAO Findings,'' June 24, 1997; and ``Gulf War
Syndrome: Multiple Toxic Exposures,'' June 26, 1997. (In the
104th Congress, the subcommittee convened the following
hearings: ``The Status of Efforts of Identify Persian Gulf War
Syndrome,'' March 11 and 28, June 25, and September 19, 1996;
and ``Persian Gulf Veterans' Illnesses,'' December 10 and 11,
1996.)
Witnesses at these hearings included: Gulf war veterans;
representatives from veterans service organization; officials
from the VA, DOD, CIA, FDA, NIH, EPA and Presidential Advisory
Committee on GW Veterans' Illnesses; GAO investigators;
physicians; private researchers from neurology, pharmacology,
toxicology, psychiatry, microbiology, molecular biology,
environmental medicine, biochemistry, physics, nuclear
medicine, immunology, epidemiology, and bioethics; and chemical
and biological weapons experts.
B. OTHER INVESTIGATIONS
Government Reform and Oversight Committee
1. Review of the Federal Government's Acquisition Strategy Regarding
the Federal Telecommunications System 2001 Program.
The Federal Telecommunications System 2000 [FTS2000] is the
Government's current long distance telecommunications service.
The multi billion dollar program provides telecommunications
services to approximately 1.7 million users across the Federal
Government. The FTS program was largely successful leveraging
the emerging competition in the long distance markets to save
billions of dollars over the General Services Administration's
[GSA] prior Federal Telecommunications Service network. The
current FTS2000 contracts were awarded in 1988, will expire in
December 1998, with the awarding of the FTS2001 contracts
anticipated in the summer of 1998.
The telecommunications industry has changed dramatically
since the initial contracts were awarded: the array of
available commercial services is broader; the number of service
providers has increased; and the availability and nature of the
underlying technologies themselves continue to change. The
Government's needs for communications services has changed as
well, for more advanced data and video services outdistancing
growth in basic voice communications services. It is imperative
that the FTS2001 program embrace an acquisition strategy that
is based on commercial practices which maximizes the use of
commercially available services to meet agency needs while
following an appropriate strategy for managing complex
Government operations.
The committee's monitoring the development of the FTS2001
procurement will ensure that the Federal Government receives
the most technically-effective and cost efficient
telecommunications services. The Government and more
importantly the taxpayer will be able to take maximum advantage
of the economies associated with increasing competition in the
new telecommunications environment. Through a combination of
the best prices and excellent service quality the executive
agencies will be able to do their jobs of serving the citizens
more efficiently and effectively.
The General Services Administration worked closely with the
interagency group and a broad cross section of industry
preparing an acquisition strategy. Initial proposals failed to
take full advantage of telecommunications reform along with
today's rapidly changing landscape of advancing technologies,
new services, and emerging service providers. Working closely
with this committee, GSA ultimately developed a proposal that
addressed many of the issues raised by the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight and others which will enable
the Government to take full advantage of rapid changes in the
telecommunications service environment. This procurement will
make maximum use of commercial services and practices in
designing solutions to the Government's requirements. It will
also enable the Government to leverage its position as the
country's largest user of telecommunications services to obtain
the best possible prices for the taxpayers. GSA is proceeding
with this FTS2001 acquisition strategy.
The committee held two hearings to receive testimony from
Robert J. Woods, Commissioner of the Federal Telecommunications
Service; Frank E. Lalley, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Telecommunications, Department of Veteran's Affairs and
chair, Interagency Management Council for Telecommunications;
other witnesses included representatives of the long distance
carriers, systems integrators, and the Regional Bell Operating
Co.'s.
2. Elimination of Section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining
Act of 1994 [FASA] (Public Law 103-355).
a. Summary.--The committee strongly supported the complete
repeal of Section 1555 of FASA. This measure was repealed, as
part of the House and Senate Treasury Postal Appropriations
Conference Report, which was signed into law on October 19,
1997.
The cooperative purchasing program would have allowed State
and local governments to buy a wide array of goods and services
off the Federal supply schedule administered by the General
Services Administration. The committee believes that this is a
serious threat to the Nation's small business community.
The committee did seek to craft new legislation, submitting
legislative language that would have only allowed information
technology products [IT] to be sold to State and local entities
off the Federal supply schedule.
This new legislative language was opposed by many who felt
that this would somehow set a precedent and allow other goods
and services to be purchased off the Federal supply schedule as
a result. However, the narrowly crafted IT language was
specific to one industry and would not have set a precedent.
Subcommittee on the Civil Service
1. Impact of the President's FY-1998 Budget on Federal Employees.
a. Summary.--President Clinton's proposed Federal budget
for fiscal year 1998 recommended reductions in spending of
$6.252 billion from accounts used to pay Federal employees and
retirees. The President's recommendations would have required
Federal agencies to pay an additional 1.5 percent of employees'
salaries to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
[CSRDF], a change that would have provided $621 million in
savings the first year and almost $3 billion over the 5-year
budget cycle. The President also recommended that Federal
employees in both the Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS]
and the Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS] pay an
additional one half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) toward their
retirements. This increased payroll deduction was recommended
to be deferred and phased in, so that employees would face an
increase of 0.25 percent beginning January 1999, 0.15 percent
beginning January 2000, and 0.10 percent, beginning in January
2001. In addition to these increases affecting current
employees, the President proposed to delay the cost of living
adjustment paid to Federal civilian annuitants each year from
January to April. This reduction in payments to Federal
retirees would have saved $278 million in fiscal year 1998, and
was projected to achieve $1.5 billion in reduced benefits
during the period ending in fiscal year 2002.
b. Benefits.--This investigation provided an opportunity to
review the President's budget proposals affecting Federal
employees and retirees in light of the savings targeted to be
achieved through changes in pay and benefits. These
deliberations provided a basis for Congress to reject the
administration's proposed delay in Federal retirees' cost of
living adjustments when it enacted the Balanced Budget
Enforcement Act of 1997. They also opened the door to exploring
options to ensure more equitable treatment of Postal Service
employees and FERS employees, whose retirement programs are
currently funded on a ``full normal cost'' basis. The
investigation underscored the need to modify the formula used
to calculate the Government's share of the FEHB premiums. The
formula was subsequently changed in the Balanced Budget
Enforcement Act of 1997.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``The President's 1998
Budget: Civil Service Impacts'' was held on February 13, 1997.
The hearing provided an opportunity to review consequences of
current strategies for funding Federal pensions, to assess the
different effects of the changes on different Federal
retirement systems, and to identify the consequences on
different employees and agencies as they are affected by the
changes.
Mr. Mica noted that the administration had submitted
similar proposals for each of the 2 previous fiscal years, and
that none of these proposals had been enacted during that
period. He observed that Federal agencies would have to reduce
their current spending by $3 billion to comply with these
increased payments into retirement systems, and that Federal
jobs might have to be eliminated to pay for these expenditures.
Mr. Mica also noted that the administration's proposal would
have allowed the current formula for calculating Federal
employees' health insurance premiums to shift from a
calculation based on the former ``Big Six'' plans to an average
based on the five largest plans remaining in the program. This
shift would have led to higher insurance premiums for Federal
employees, and Mr. Mica proposed to address this issue in a
subsequent hearing. Mr. Mica stressed the importance of
achieving the overall savings, noting that the Budget Committee
has acted to realize savings from these programs when the
subcommittee could not enact its own solutions in previous
years.
Mrs. Morella noted that she had introduced H. Con. Res. 13,
expressing the sense of the Congress that annuitants' cost of
living adjustments should be paid in January, consistent with
the payment of COLAs to Social Security beneficiaries and
military retired pay.
Mr. Robert Tobias, national president of the National
Treasury Employees Union, recommended that the subcommittee
write to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to request
that the subcommittee be assigned a savings target of zero for
this budget resolution. He asked that the increased retirement
fund contributions from both employees and agencies be denied
by the subcommittee.
Mr. Michael Styles, national president of the Federal
Managers Association, asserted that the Congress and the
administration have failed to provide pay and benefits
consistent with the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. He
observed that he had completed an assignment with a Navy
contractor, and that private firms' employees were paid
substantially more than public employees performing the same
work. He claimed that the Federal workforce has continued to
perform at solid levels, even in the face of continued
pressures to reduce the workforce and to convert work to
commercial firms through contracts. He concluded that these
approaches have demoralizing effects on the Federal workforce,
and should be resisted.
Mr. Charles Jackson, president of the National Association
of Retired Federal Employees, expressed disappointment with the
President's proposal to delay annual cost of living adjustments
to Federal annuitants. He claimed that the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund is able to pay current
obligations, and reported that most large and medium employers
in the private sector pay full retirement costs of their
employees, where Federal employees pay 25 percent of their
retirement costs. He contrasted the President's proposal to
delay the COLA to Federal civilian annuitants, but not the
COLAs associated with Social Security beneficiaries and
military retired pay. He also noted that the President's
proposal to allow the statutory modification of the Federal
Employee Health Benefit Premium increase to take effect would
result in a substantial price increase for Federal annuitants,
an increase that would be difficult to absorb in light of the
COLA delay.
Mr. James Cunningham, national president of the National
Federation of Federal Employees, expressed severe
disappointment with the President's budget. He claimed that
Federal employees should receive a 6.6 percent increase instead
of the 2.8 percent that the President proposed. He observed
that the increased pay to employees will increase the
compensation costs of Federal agencies, and generate pressure
for other spending cuts that might impede agencies' operations.
He questioned the propriety of the administration's championing
of its workforce reductions, and emphasized that his
organization was interested in the National Partnership
Council's work only to the extent that it contributed to more
effective agency performance.
Mr. Mica stressed that the subcommittee would be required
to achieve savings in the entitlement programs under the budget
resolution, and noted the political difficulties of achieving
fair distribution of the responsibilities for reaching the
budget targets. Both Mr. Styles and Mr. Jackson recommended
that the tax cuts proposed for working Americans be used as a
source of savings, rather than reducing the burdens that the
retirement system places on tax revenues. Mr. Jackson indicated
an interest in reviewing savings achieved through a Medical
Savings Account pilot program authorized under the Kennedy-
Kassebaum Act of 1996. He recognized the desire to curb
increases in medical costs, but preferred to see results of the
pilot before endorsing any particular proposal to limit the
growth of benefits.
Mr. Styles and Mr. Tobias recommended achieving savings by
reducing the contractor workforce. Mr. Styles claimed that
there are no accurate reports of the number of employees
working for agencies through contracts, and that Federal
contracting costs, at $108 billion, now exceed the $103 billion
Federal payroll. As a result, he argued, the Federal Government
has not truly shrunk, but we have shifted to paying for these
functions through contracts rather than through direct
employment costs.
Mr. Mica provided a copy of a letter from Office of
Personnel Management Director James B. King acknowledging that,
if his proposal to cap the Federal payment for health insurance
premiums at a fixed dollar amount had been adopted, Federal
employees would have saved $820 million in health insurance
premiums during the past 2 years. This would have averaged $200
per enrollee in the FEHBP. He also demonstrated that the amount
of money needed to pay Federal annuities is growing annually.
Whereas Civil Service retirement outlays from the Treasury
exceeded receipts by $24 billion in 1992, this year the
retirement accounts will require $30 billion in support from
the taxpayers. This shortfall is projected to increase to $107
billion per year within 20 years, and continue to grow for the
foreseeable future. Mr. Mica commented that he considered
singling out Federal civilian retirees for the delayed COLA was
blatantly unfair, and sought the panel's suggestions for
options to address the Budget Committee's targets.
Mr. Hugh Bates, president of the National Association of
Postmasters of the United States, observed that the Postal
Service had achieved an operating surplus of $1.8 billion
during the previous year, and endorsed efforts to balance the
Federal budget. He opposed the COLA delay that would affect
only Federal civilian annuitants.
Mr. William Brennan, president of the National League of
Postmasters, testified that the League also opposes requiring
Federal employees and annuitants to assist efforts to balance
the budget. He noted that the Postal Service already pays a per
capita share of Federal retirement programs that is larger than
other Federal agencies, because the Postal Service is required
by law to make payments that are not required of other
agencies. Mr. Mica observed that, where the Postal Service
currently provides 54 percent of the cash in the Federal
retirement funds, by 2015 the Postal Service will provide 81
percent of this funding. He noted that, since Postal employees
must already pay the full normal costs of their retirement, as
calculated by the Office of Personnel Management, postal
employees already pay a fair share toward retirement benefits,
and that the President's proposal could be considered unfair to
them.
2. Federal Hiring From the Welfare Rolls.
a. Summary.--Although the Federal Workforce Restructuring
Act of 1994 directed the reduction of 272,900 Federal employees
by 2000, President Clinton announced a program to hire 10,000
people off the welfare rolls into the Federal workforce. The
President announced this effort as part of a program to ease
the impact of welfare reform laws enacted in 1996. A hearing
was called to develop an understanding of the administration's
strategy for accomplishing this hiring initiative in a manner
consistent with the workforce reduction targets, the variety of
protections and reinstatement eligibility provided to Federal
employees facing reductions-in-force, veterans' preference, and
merit system principles. The hearing provided an opportunity
for the subcommittee to review the administration's approach to
hiring people currently benefiting from welfare into Federal
employment. The administration articulated its reasons for
believing that this could be accomplished consistent with merit
system principles and veterans preference by relying upon
normal turnover, targeting opportunities in entry level and
temporary positions, and by using several excepted service
hiring authorities that are available (albeit rarely used) to
facilitate hiring in positions intended as training
assignments. Employee organizations provided insight about the
adverse effects on Federal employees who consider this
initiative particularly ill-timed in light of their agencies'
workforce reduction efforts. Private scholars and analysts were
afforded an ability to demonstrate that different approaches
are working more effectively in several States than the targets
indicated by the administration.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee gained clear understanding
of the effects on the working poor of providing a preference
for welfare recipients, as proposed in legislation introduced
by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (H.R. 1066, the Federal
Jobs Opportunity Act).
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Federal Hiring from the
Welfare Rolls'' was held on April 24, 1997. Mr. Mica noted that
Federal agencies have vast experience in welfare-to-work
programs, but much of that experience has resulted in little
success. Instead, State programs (such as Wisconsin's and
Oregon's) have reduced welfare case loads substantially in ways
that could make the Federal endeavor irrelevant to former
welfare dependents' needs. He also noted that thousands of
Federal employees have been separated involuntarily as part of
downsizing and the administration's efforts to reinvent
government. Those former employees have retention rights that
would provide eligibility to return to agencies that have
positions available. He noted that the Department of Defense
had borne the lion's share of these reductions, and that it
faced additional reductions in the President's budget proposal.
Mr. Koskinen, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget, reported that more than 2.8 million
people were removed from welfare rolls, a 20 percent reduction
from the numbers on welfare rolls in 1993. He estimated that
current economic growth creates about 200,000 jobs each month.
The President had asked corporate America to include welfare
recipients among the workers who join the workforce during this
expansion. In response to a request from the President,
agencies had, during a 30-day period, assembled plans and
identified appropriate positions that would be included in the
President's initiative. The target of 10,000 positions reflects
a proportionate share based on the Federal portion of the
national workforce. Even during a general workforce reduction,
Federal agencies hired 58,000 permanent and 140,000 temporary
employees in 1996, so Mr. Koskinen viewed this target as within
reason for a 3-year period. He believed that the targets could
be realized without preferences or any set-asides for welfare
applicants. Agencies would not create special jobs for these
applicants, and they would have to pass any tests or meet
appropriate qualifications, just as any other Federal employee.
Mr. King, Director, Office of Personnel Management,
described the interagency efforts used to develop and implement
the administration's initiative. The Office of Personnel
Management has provided written guidelines to agencies that
describe optional hiring procedures available under current
law. Most of the effort will involve providing additional
information about opportunities in the Federal sector in new
formats and in a more timely manner. OPM has established a
target of 25 positions. The Bureau of the Census, which will
soon begin hiring in preparation for the 2000 Census, has
committed to hire nearly 4,000 welfare recipients, or 40
percent of the governmentwide target. Most of the positions
would be temporary, and provide introductory work experience
during planning stages of the operation. Mr. King stressed that
this initiative is not directed at career positions, but at
providing entry-level opportunities. He reaffirmed his belief
that the objectives could be accomplished consistent with merit
system principles and veterans preference. In response to
questions, Mr. King confirmed that employees hired as a result
of this initiative would not get benefits other than those
available to similarly-situated Federal employees.
Ms. Disney, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Civilian
Personnel), Department of Defense, reported that the Department
of Defense continues to hire about 20,000 civilians each year
for permanent positions, and another 23,000 temporary
positions, even while planning to eliminate an additional
90,000 positions during the next 3 years. Defense expects to be
able to fill about 2,900 of these positions with current
welfare recipients during the 3-year period. It will use a
variety of wage-grade, temporary, and nonappropriated fund
opportunities to accomplish this hiring goal.
Mr. Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources,
Department of Veterans Affairs, described the Department of
Veterans Affairs' efforts to hire 800 applicants from the
welfare rolls during the next 2 years. He noted that most of
the opportunities would be in GS-1 and GS-2 positions that are
temporary, but could provide important initial experience. He
noted that in these positions, annual turnover rates average
almost 20 percent. He stressed that the Department's targeted
recruitment efforts would pay particular attention to veterans,
and mentioned programs that are already in place to assist
veterans in conversion to civilian employment. He affirmed that
this target could be achieved without compromising veterans
preference and while adhering to re-employment opportunities
for former Federal employees.
Mr. Hantzis, national executive director, National
Federation of Federal Employees, reported that Federal
employees are concerned about the manner in which the
President's plan is being implemented. He noted that OPM
figures indicated that Federal agencies currently employ 677
persons in GS-1 and GS-2 positions, and, because OPM does not
maintain a governmentwide re-employment priority list, it is
difficult to know how many people remain on re-employment
lists. The Department of Defense's ``stopper'' list includes
21,000 RIF'd DOD employees. He expressed concern that
advantages given to temporary hires under this initiative might
place current temporary employees at an additional
disadvantage. He noted that many National Federation of Federal
Employees had described this initiative as ``outrageous.''
Mr. Rector, senior policy analyst, welfare and family
issues, the Heritage Foundation, described the policy as, at
best irrelevant, and at worst a very foolish policy that has
nothing to do with reducing welfare dependence. He noted that
the administration had failed to consult with States that had
implemented successful programs when it developed its
initiative. He described this effort as ``more a press release
than an actual mechanism for helping the poor.'' He noted that
Wisconsin's welfare case load had dropped by 55 percent in the
previous 4 years. By instituting effective work requirements,
and counseling applicants about the dangers of welfare
dependence, initial applications drop. Both Wisconsin and
Oregon use ``pay for performance'' programs through which
welfare recipients must work to earn their benefits. When such
requirements are enforced, welfare recipients often find
better-paying jobs. Rather than radical increases in poverty,
States administering work-based programs have experienced
substantial economic growth and increased self-sufficiency
among former welfare dependents. These programs have
contributed most to the 20 percent drop in welfare caseloads
during the past 2 years, the biggest drop since the Korean war.
He noted that child care has not proven to be a substantial
obstacle, and that the funds freed from the reduced caseload
provide ample resources for supporting child care initiatives,
if necessary. Although funding for day care has gone up in
Wisconsin, for example, it still amounts to less than 5 percent
of the savings from the initiative. He emphasized that the most
important step in the program is the follow-up; making certain
that, once involved in work, the recipient remains in a
position to earn any benefits that are acquired. Most
employment will inevitably come from the private sector.
Mr. Riccio, Manpower Development Research Corp., described
welfare recipients as a diverse group, but generally a group
that is lacking in traditional employment skills. Nonetheless,
most welfare recipients have some work history, and nearly all
are capable of securing and maintaining employment. However,
not even the most successful welfare-to-work programs have
developed effective strategies to counter the high turnover
rates in positions occupied by welfare recipients in their
first employment. Of California welfare recipients who left
jobs, 41 percent reported quitting to seek better employment
opportunities than the low-paid entry positions.
Mr. Tetro, president, Training and Development Corp.,
stressed the importance of providing initial opportunities in
our society. He noted the importance of the Wisconsin example
cited in Mr. Rector's testimony, in major part because it is a
common sense approach. He concluded that the most important
strategy in combating welfare dependence is guiding people into
work, then providing effective support when they are there. Mr.
Tetro explained that he agreed with the Heritage Foundation
testimony about the importance of monitoring the effectiveness
of training programs. Most have not worked well, and most are
pre-occupied with preserving bureaucratic procedures rather
than with finding solutions to peoples' problems. He indicated
that he had successfully restructured job training programs in
Richmond, and agreed with Mr. Rector that they had not been as
successful in Maine, a difference that he attributed to Maine
being ``one of those States that has left the responsibility
for welfare reform in the hands of the welfare bureaucracy.''
Mrs. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas testified that she had
introduced legislation that would provide a 3 percent addition
to the test scores of applicants for Federal employment who
were seeking jobs while on welfare rolls. She believes that
this advantage would provide additional incentives to employing
agencies to take the chance on reaching beyond the normal
applicant pool. She added that initial employment efforts had
failed before because of the difficulties of getting to work in
low-wage positions. She noted that her bill was structured to
avoid giving advantages over people who faced RIF situations.
In response to Mr. Cummings question, however, she conceded
that, as written, her bill would provide an advantage to
welfare recipients over those whom he termed the ``working
poor.'' She emphasized the importance of the first experience,
of getting one's foot in the door.
3. Assisting the District of Columbia with It's Pension Liabilities.
a. Summary.--As part of its proposal to rescue the District
of Columbia government from a looming financial crisis, the
administration proposed to have the Federal Government assume
the liabilities of the District's defined benefit pension
programs covering police, fire fighters, and teachers. Although
these retirement programs are partially funded through accounts
managed by the District of Columbia Retirement Board, the
President proposed to have the Federal treasury seize most of
the assets managed by the Retirement Board, in return for
basing future pension payments on the ``full faith and credit''
of the U.S. Government. The seized assets would be depleted to
pay benefits to annuitants during the transition. A hearing was
called to examine the funding assumptions that supported this
proposal and to compare them to the operation of Federal
retirement programs.
Defined benefit pension programs often promise generous
benefits, but when governments rely upon the ``full faith and
credit'' of future taxpayers to fund the pension obligations,
they depend upon the willingness of future legislators to fund
those obligations. In a March 27, 1997 memorandum, the
Congressional Budget Office [CBO] described this as comparable
to saving for college by placing IOUs in a cookie jar. Relying
on nonmarketable securities to ``fund'' Federal pensions
promotes a false sense of security since, as CBO testified,
``Those Federal securities are merely the promise of the
Federal Government to itself. The left pocket owes the right
pocket, but the combined trouser assets are exactly zero.'' By
contrast with the mostly unfunded Federal Civil Service
Retirement System, the DC Retirement Board oversees investments
in tangible assets currently valued at nearly 50 percent of
actuarial liabilities. The unfunded half of the District's
retirement liabilities can be traced back to the unfunded
liabilities transferred to the District when Congress enacted
home rule. The District government has had to rely on annual
tax revenues to meet its growing pension obligations, currently
amounting to $307 million per year. As a local jurisdiction,
the District has great difficulty raising tax revenues to meet
those obligations.
b. Benefits.--This investigation provided an opportunity
for the subcommittee to examine the President's proposal to
deal with the District of Columbia's pension obligations as
part of his program for the District's economic relief. The
President proposed to assume the District's current pension
liabilities and to use DC Retirement Fund cash assets to pay
pension obligations until the assets are depleted. The
Congressional Budget Office provided valuable testimony
demonstrating the future liabilities incurred as a result of
different approaches to financing pension benefits, and
concluded that the ``pay-as-you-go'' approach used for the
District's retirement systems and the Federal employees'
retirement programs is unsustainable in the long run. This
hearing supported subcommittee efforts to propose different
funding mechanisms to address pension obligations facing the
District government in light of the $35 billion long-term costs
that will result from the President's proposal to assume the
District's current pension liabilities.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``D.C. Retirement System:
Coping with Unfunded Liabilities'' was held on April 29, 1997.
At the hearing Subcommittee Chairman Mica recognized that the
District needs relief from its mounting pension obligations,
but he observed two fatal flaws in the President's proposal.
First, by assuming the District's pension debts, the Federal
Government incurs significant new long term obligations. These
outlays are offset in the short term by enabling the U.S.
Treasury to raid over $3.5 billion of hard assets from the
District Retirement Board. Second, when those future
obligations come due, the District's employees would join
Federal employees at the mercy of the annual appropriations
process. Where the District's unfunded accrued actuarial
liability is $4.8 billion, the future obligations owed to
Federal annuitants amount to more than $900 billion, of which
only $380 billion is ``funded'' but with nonmarketable
certificates of indebtedness. Within 20 years, the cost of
redeeming the pension promises in the Federal cookie jar will
surpass $100 billion annually. In 2041, those annual pension
shortfalls are projected to exceed $220 billion. Mr. Mica
foresees Federal pensions as becoming more vulnerable
throughout that period in the absence of an adequate funding
mechanism.
Ms. Norton of the District of Columbia cited additional CBO
memoranda demonstrating that the District's unfunded liability
for these pensions compounds its operational difficulties,
especially with regard to efforts to limit tax increases and to
borrow funds when needed. She noted that, in 2004, the annual
$52 million Federal payment to these systems will be completed,
and that the District's obligations to address future funding
would intensify. She acknowledged the challenges of the funding
mechanism, but contended that these problems could imperil the
overall proposal for the District's recovery.
Mr. G. Edward DeSeve, Comptroller, Office of Management and
Budget commented that the proposal to address the District's
pension funding needed to be assessed in light of other efforts
to reduce spending in the District government's budget. He
traced these unfunded liabilities to the transition to home
rule, and emphasized the congressional responsibility for the
obligations accumulated before 1980. He noted that the
President's plan would result in no net increase in Federal
spending until the Retirement Board's assets were expended,
sometime early in the next century.
Mr. Anthony Williams, Chief Financial Officer, District of
Columbia government, stressed the importance of resolving
questions related to pension funding because of their effects
in restricting the District's operating options. He noted that
the President's recovery plan integrates efforts at economic
development and improved cost controls with the funding changes
proposed here. He conceded imperfections in the plan, but noted
that these difficulties are very similar to the challenges
faced in funding Federal employees' pensions.
Mr. James Blum, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget
Office, observed that the President's proposal takes advantage
of the cash-based Federal accounting system to delay
recognition of the assumption of the District's unfunded
liabilities. He noted that the assumption would subject
District pensioners to the same political risks now faced by
Federal annuitants. He agreed that the unfunded liability could
be resolved by extending the annual payment more than 30 years
until the current obligations were redeemed, but noted that the
pressures associated with other--equally unfunded--systems
(Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) would increase the
difficulties of pursuing such a course. He also noted that
switching the pension systems to defined contribution systems
could reduce anticipated political risks of the current system.
In responding to questions, Mr. Blum estimated that the annual
increase in Federal spending attributable to the unfunded
liability inherited as a result of this proposal would be about
$700 million. Although such obligations pose no insurmountable
difficulty in the short run, Mr. Blum observed that they are
unsustainable in the long run.
In response to questions, Mr. DeSeve conceded that there
were alternative approaches to funding future liabilities for
pension benefits, but claimed that the principal should be that
the District provide for its employees' benefits. This proposal
would freeze the current liabilities, and new proposals to
address future coverage would be formulated consistent with the
District's ability to pay. That ability would be enhanced by
having the Federal treasury assume the current actuarial
obligations. He also noted that the legislation created a new
trustee for the retirement funds to enable the Secretary of the
Treasury to manage the assets assumed under the bill.
Under questioning from Ms. Norton, Mr. Blum acknowledged
that these obligations would eventually face taxpayers, the
questions center on the timing and the amount. He indicated
that the least costly solution would be payment of the
obligations when they are incurred, and that deferring them
would inevitably increase the costs. He emphasized that the
result of this proposal would be annual payments of $700
million to $800 million annually, merely to meet current
pension payments.
Ms. Betty Ann Kane, chairman, Legislative Committee and
Trustee, District of Columbia Retirement Board, reported that
the accounting firm, Bear Stearns, had commended the Retirement
Board's administration of the funds entrusted to it. In 1996,
the Board realized a 14.1 percent rate of return on its
investments, exceeding both the actuarially-assumed rates and
its own targets. She noted that the Congress had acknowledged
the actuarial shortcomings of the funds transferred to the
District in 1980. She also noted that, for District employees
hired after October 1996, a defined contribution program has
been instituted to limit future obligations. She noted that the
President's plan would have the system revert to the
financially unsound basis that the Congress had rejected in
1979. The Board's accountants, Milliman and Robertson, estimate
that the $700 million annual costs would continue for 20 years
after liquidation of the Board's assets, for a net long-term
cost of at least $14 billion. She observed that the preferred
solution would be for increased funding in the short term, but
that Congress had previously rejected increasing the annual
payment from $52 million to $104 million. She questioned
whether the Congress would be willing to meet the projected
$700 million annual costs in 10 years.
Mr. Ron Robertson, chairman, Metropolitan Police Labor
Committee, Fraternal Order of Police, testified that the
Fraternal Order of Police favors retention of all current
benefits without reduction, but expressed reservations about
the funding mechanism in the President's plan. He recommended a
funding strategy that would amortize payments proportionally
over a 30 year period.
Mr. Tippett, chairman, pension committee, Fire Fighters
Association of the District of Columbia, contended that the
President's plan was a bad deal for the fire fighters, and
recommended that Congress consider the background that led to
the current difficulties. He counseled against another deferral
of these obligations. He reported that the method that the
administration had chosen to implement the plan had created
uncertainty and confusion in the affected workforce.
Mr. James Baxter, treasurer, Washington Teachers Union,
testified that the Washington Teachers Union supported the
President's plan.
4. Review of Federal Employees Group Life Insurance [FEGLI] Program.
a. Summary.--Chapter 87 of title 5 establishes a group life
insurance program for Federal employees. The subcommittee
recognized that life insurance is an important component in
employees' financial planning. Accordingly, it conducted the
most extensive review of the benefits available under the
program in over 40 years and compared those benefits to options
offered by private sector employers.
The FEGLI program began in 1954 as a one-size-fits all
approach. But it has evolved to permit enrollees to now choose:
basic life insurance, six levels of additional life insurance,
family insurance, and three options with respect to post-
retirement basic insurance, plus accelerated payment options
for the terminally ill. The basic insurance and all of the
options, however, are built on term insurance. Close to 90
percent of the eligible Federal workforce has consistently
participated in the FEGLI program, attesting to its popularity.
OPM has held only six open enrollment periods in the history of
FEGLI, two of which have been held since 1993. These open
seasons were offered in response to significant program
developments. MetLife has been the primary insurance carrier
for the FEGLI program since its inception in 1954.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's examination of FEGLI
revealed a consensus that employees should have more choice in
the selection of life insurance options and produced a number
of recommendations for improvements that were incorporated in
H.R. 2675, the Federal Employees Life Insurance Improvement
Act. These recommendations included offering employees group
universal or group variable universal life insurance options,
additional voluntary accidental death and dismemberment
insurance, more coverage for spouses and family members, and
increased coverage during retirement. H.R. 2675 is described
more fully in Section III. A. 4. (Subcommittee on the Civil
Service).
c. Hearings.--``Federal Employees Group Life Insurance:
Could We Do Better?'' was held on April 30, 1997. The hearing
was called to review operations of the Federal Employees Group
Life Insurance [FEGLI] program and to ensure that Federal
employees are receiving adequate coverage at a reasonable cost.
FEGLI provides basic life insurance for 2.5 million Federal
employees and 1.5 million retirees, with employees paying two-
thirds of costs and agencies paying one-third. Optional
insurance is available above the basic coverage, with employees
bearing full responsibility for the costs of additional
coverage. The Office of Personnel Management [OPM] conducts the
program for Federal agencies, with Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. (MetLife) processing claims. It is reimbursed for all
claims by the Federal Government.
Mr. William E. Flynn, Associate Director for Retirement and
Insurance, Office of Personnel Management, testified that the
FEGLI program was instituted in 1954, and has been a ``one size
fits all'' program. It has developed to include optional
benefits, including coverage for spouses and dependents,
incremental coverage in six levels, and coverage during
retirement as well as accelerated coverage for the terminally
ill. OPM has conducted six open seasons to enable enrollment
after initial hiring, two of those open seasons have occurred
since 1993. That open season resulted in coverage expanding
from 88.4 to 89.9 percent of the Federal workforce. A 1995 open
season was conducted following passage of the Living Benefits
Act, and 1301 applications for benefits have been approved
under that program. He reported that the Civil Service
Commission had initiated the contract with MetLife, and that
contract had been sustained since the program began. MetLife
incurred some risk at the outset of the program because the
fund had no reserves. Today, the fund has accumulated a balance
that would probably cover all claims. OPM saw no need for a
basic restructuring of the program.
Mr. Flynn acknowledged that the MetLife contract is renewed
annually through negotiations with OPM. Mr. Mica observed that
between 1994 and 1995, the administrative expenses charged to
the program jumped from $6.6 million to $9.2 million. Mr. Flynn
responded that the OPM Inspector General was nearing completion
of an audit of those expenditures, and he attributed some of
these costs to the open season conducted that year. These
administrative expenses, including OPM and MetLife costs,
amount to six-tenths of 1 percent of the total program costs.
The planning necessary to address concerns about how they would
be used. Mr. Flynn conceded that there is no record of MetLife
having experienced a loss in this program, even though it
nominally bears risk associated with the payment of benefits.
He noted that the ``risk'' charge (about $850,000 annually) was
waived after the reserve fund had reached adequate levels. He
also acknowledged that all except about $50 million of the
$17.4 billion reserve fund balance is invested in nonmarketable
U.S. Treasury securities. This allocation of reserve funds is
consistent with the original statute.
Under questioning, Mr. Flynn acknowledged that there had
been no recompetition of the contract in 43 years, but claimed
that, in this case, ``doing better'' ``can only mean we can
operate more efficiently administratively.'' He observed that
MetLife currently receives good reviews from program users. He
reported that OPM has an initiative under way to review the
benefit design of this program, perhaps to include universal
life insurance or variable universal life insurance, which
would add a cash value component to the current term insurance
benefits.
Ms. Margery Brittain, vice president, Group National
Accounts, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., reported that
MetLife had been selected at the start of the FEGLI program
because it was the largest group life insurance carrier at the
time. It currently maintains that status, with more than $1
trillion in group life insurance coverage in force. She noted
that the company pays 85,000 FEGLI claims annually, and that
these claims total approximately $1.6 billion. Administrative
expenses amounted to 0.6 percent of claims in fiscal year 1996.
She testified that the design of the FEGLI program is generally
consistent with life insurance benefits provided by other large
employers, with the exception that most employers pay the full
cost of basic life insurance for their employees. Many private
sector firms provide group universal life insurance as optional
coverage. Open enrollment periods are rare in private sector
programs. Most private employers also select only one carrier
to administer their life insurance coverage.
Mr. Barnett I. Chepenik, president, Lincoln Financial
Group, Inc., Chepenik and Associates, compared the FEGLI
benefit with private sector programs and noted that the
tendency of private employers to design flexible benefit
packages for employees limited the base of employers that could
be used for analysis. He noted that Federal employees under age
45 receive a basic benefit that is greater than a year's
salary, a benefit that is rare in the private sector. He noted
that private employers negotiate more frequently to provide
open seasons that would enable employees to elect optional
coverage. He found the dependent benefit comparable to private
sector options, but asserted that the opportunity for a
competitive offering of additional benefits was feasible. In
terms of post-retirement benefits, FEGLI is competitive with
private sector benefits. He reported that private employers
offer both group universal and variable life insurance
products, and that these tend to be fully-funded by employees.
He noted that group conversion is a significant expense to
employees, but indicated that this cost is exacerbated because
this course of action is highly influenced by adverse selection
factors.
5. Erroneous enrollments in the Federal retirement system.
a. Summary.--Although the Civil Service Retirement System
[CSRS] was closed to new enrollment effective December 31,
1983, agencies subsequently enrolled additional employees in
CSRS mistakenly. Under current law, when the Office of
Personnel Management [OPM] learns about such mistakes in
retirement coverage, employees are converted to the proper
retirement coverage enrollment. The law provides no option to
employees in defining proper retirement coverage, and the
correction of these errors has consequences for the employees'
Federal, State, and (in some cases) local tax payments, for
eligibility for benefits under the Social Security System, and
with regard to retirement benefits.
b. Benefits.--This investigation provided the subcommittee
with extensive information about difficulties that affect
several thousand Federal employees, former employees,
annuitants, and survivors as a result of mistakes made by
agencies during the transition to a new retirement system. The
subcommittee demonstrated that the Congress and the Office of
Personnel Management had been aware of the problem for more
than 7 years, but that no effective remedy had been enacted to
ease the costs borne by people who were the innocent victims of
their agencies' errors. The investigation provided a record to
support legislation that the chairman and ranking member have
described as an immediate priority for the next session.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Agency Mistakes in
Federal Retirement--Who Pays The Price?'' was held on July 31,
1997. Witness included Mr. Alan White, Office of the Inspector
General, Department of Defense; Mr. David Mangam, Army War
College; Mr. John Gabrielli, Internal Revenue Service; Mr. E.
Barry Schrum, Department of Energy; Mr. William E. Flynn,
Associate Director, Retirement and Insurance Service, Office of
Personnel Management; Ms. Sarah Hall Ingram, Associate Chief
Counsel, Employee Benefits/Exempt Organizations, Internal
Revenue Service; Ms. Diane Disney, Deputy Assistant Secretary
(Civilian Personnel), Department of Defense; and, Ms. Linda
Oakey-Hemphill, Agency Retirement Counselor, Department of the
Treasury.
At the hearing Subcommittee Chairman Mica reported that the
problems associated with retirement system enrollment mistakes
had been brought to Congress' attention in 1989 by the Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board, but that the congressional
response in 1990 indicated that employees who believed that
they were harmed by these errors should sue for relief under
the Federal Tort Claims Act. In notifying Federal employees of
these errors, OPM had provided little or no assistance.
Witnesses testified that they had received no accounting of the
funds transferred out of their Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund [CSRDF] accounts. OPM's indifference to the
plight of Federal employees was highlighted through samples of
letters that had been mailed to affected employees.
Mr. Cummings observed that life does not have dress
rehearsals, and that when people are deprived through no fault
of their own of things that they deserved, Government has a
responsibility to remedy the problem if the Government made the
mistake.
Mr. Pappas expressed his concern that the testimony
presented at the hearing indicated a lack of accountability
within the system established to manage the Federal retirement
program.
Mrs. Morella observed that these involuntary corrections
are especially troubling for employees who rejected the
opportunity to transfer into FERS when that system was
established in 1987.
Mr. Alan White reported that he was hired by the Department
of the Air Force as a criminal investigator in August 1984, and
had remained in CSRS through his transfer to the Inspector
General's office in the Department of Defense. The mistake in
his retirement enrollment was detected when he requested an
estimate of the cost of buying CSRS credit for his military
service (an option that is not available under FERS). His
personnel office changed his retirement enrollment to FERS on
February 28, 1996, retroactive to his entry on duty in 1984. He
learned about the change by mail on a Saturday, when his leave
and earnings statement reported a drop in his CSRS account from
$51,000 to $103. His personnel office did not notify him of the
change until April, and both his agency and OPM proved
unresponsive in providing guidance.
Mr. White read a statement from Mrs. Deborah Monroe, a GS-7
program assistant in the Chicago office of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development who had been in the CSRS since
August 1983 and was involuntarily converted to FERS in 1995.
She reported that both her agency and OPM told her that nothing
could be done to correct her situation.
Mr. David Mangam of the Army War College had completed a
military career when he accepted an overseas limited
appointment from the Department of Defense in 1983. In 1984, he
gained a career-conditional appointment at the Army War
College, and was enrolled in CSRS when hired. He indicated that
he would not have accepted the position unless he was able to
benefit from the coverage of the CSRS, because he was
interested in converting his military service under that
system. The agency changed his enrollment in November 1996 and
OPM's review fully supported the agency's action. He reported
that the complete transition between the systems would require
257 pay periods--or nearly 10 years. He estimated that the
mistake would cost him $30,000 per year, assuming retirement
after 35 years of service. He also reported suffering
aggravation of a diabetic condition that his doctors associated
with the stress of the transition.
Mr. John Gabrielli of the Internal Revenue Service's
Buffalo, NY, office reported that he began service as a
temporary appointee and was converted to career-conditional
status in September 1984, at which time he was enrolled in
CSRS. He was provided an opportunity to enroll in FERS during
1987, but rejected it. He and four other employees were
notified of the enrollment error on April 13, 1993, and were
adjusted to FERS coverage, effective in May 1991. He reported
that he still had not received notice of what credit he would
receive for funds transferred from his CSRS account to his
Social Security account, and whether he would receive a refund
of any differences. He noted that the National Treasury
Employees Union had assisted efforts to get appropriations
language requiring OPM to address the issue, but that OPM had
not provided a solution to date.
Mr. E. Barry Schrum is a criminal investigator with the
Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General. He was
hired in December 1984 and enrolled in the CSRS under law
enforcement retirement provisions. He, too, had been provided
opportunity to elect FERS coverage in 1987, but chose to remain
in CSRS. The Department's OIG personnel office informed him of
the mistaken enrollment in April 1996 and notified that he
would be retroactively changed to FERS enrollment. That change
was made effective in a June 25, 1996, memorandum. He testified
that he was informed at that time that he would be able to make
retroactive contributions to the TSP, and that he would have to
remain continuously employed in the Federal service for 8 years
to make up the back contributions to the TSP. He recommended
legislation that would require the agencies that made the
mistakes to make employees whole, and submitted a letter from
the Department of Energy attorney which claimed that the
Department lacks the authority to compensate employees for
these errors under current law.
Under questioning, all of the employee witnesses asserted
that they had little support from their agencies and virtually
none from OPM. Two of the witnesses are parties to class action
litigation, filed July 28, 1997, after completing
administrative review through their agencies and having an
initial claim from Mr. White denied by the Merit Systems
Protection Board. They reported extensive legal fees associated
with the litigation and the administrative reviews. Mr.
Gabrielli reported that he lacked the means to pursue
resolution of his case through an attorney, and that he was
assisted by his union.
Mr. William E. Flynn of the Office of Personnel Management
noted that the resolution of this problem would require actions
of OPM, the Thrift Investment Board, the Internal Revenue
Service, the Social Security Administration, and the Treasury
Department. He reported that these agencies are conducting
discussions, but that they had not agreed on a solution to the
problems associated with enrollment errors. He added that a
comprehensive solution is desirable to address concerns of
employees, former employees, annuitants, and survivors who have
been affected by these concerns. Under questioning from
Representatives Mica and Cummings, Mr. Flynn agreed to submit a
proposal to resolve these problems to the subcommittee no later
than September 10, 1997. Mr. Flynn admitted that OPM has no
idea of the number of individuals affected by these enrollment
errors, and that he could not estimate the cost of correcting
the errors throughout the Federal service.
Ms. Sarah Hall Ingram of the Internal Revenue Service
admitted that the range of legal and tax policy questions
associated with correcting these errors in retirement coverage
were complicated and unclear. The IRS administers and collects
the FICA taxes paid to the Social Security system, and private
employers are normally required to deposit these in a timely
manner. Federal employers are subject to nearly identical
requirements for payment of these taxes. Few of these
procedures, however, are intended for situations where mistakes
in calculating the tax obligation require correction years
after the tax should have been paid. She also noted that the
Internal Revenue Code restricts the amount that an employee can
contribute to a tax-deferred retirement account, and that such
limits might have to be amended as part of any resolution of
these issues.
Ms. Diane Disney reported that the Department of Defense
had found as many as 3,100 employees of the approximately
170,000 hired between 1984 and 1986 who might have been placed
into wrong retirement systems. In reviewing those records, many
of the CSRS classifications were correct because of previous
Federal service, but she conceded that the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service is in the process of correcting 500
employees' records. She noted the difficulties of correcting
mistakes that are now more than 10 years old, and that some of
the options essential to make employees whole are not
authorized by current law.
Ms. Linda Oakey-Hemphill of the Department of the Treasury
described extensive interagency negotiations to attempt
resolution of the issues, and reported that such concerns had
been raised as early as 1987. She noted that the automated
information available in personnel systems is not adequate to
identify the enrollment errors, and does not provide adequate
guidance for resolution of the cases. She reported that the
Department of the Treasury had corrected as many as 600 cases
since 1992, but could not estimate the number of additional
errors that could remain in the system.
6. Employment discrimination in the Federal workplace.
a. Summary.--Employment discrimination in the Federal
workforce is a serious and continuing concern of the Congress.
The subcommittee has received numerous reports of
discriminatory practices by Federal agencies, as well as
extensive information that demonstrates that the appeals
procedures intended to resolve allegations of employment
discrimination are not working. Data compiled by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and provided to the
subcommittee indicate that, among non-Postal Federal agencies,
complaints about employment discrimination have been filed at
increasing rates since 1993. EEOC data indicated that white
employees are filing more cases alleging race discrimination,
and that age discrimination and religious discrimination cases
are being filed more frequently. Filings of new cases increased
even though the portion of complaints that are sustained after
investigation has declined. The subcommittee received testimony
in 1995 that reported that Federal employees file grievances at
a rate five times higher than comparable private sector
employees. Other testimony claimed that many Federal employees
file grievances as a method of deterring Federal managers from
acting to address performance problems among employees.
b. Benefits.--The investigation provided an opportunity to
document deficiencies in appeals processes from the perspective
of Federal employees with Federal discrimination complaints.
The subcommittee received impassioned testimony alleging
mistreatment from Federal managers, describing apparent
conflicts of interests as agencies investigate charges leveled
against senior managers by employees, and reinforced
information about delays averaging more than 2 years facing
employees who work through the EEOC procedures. Representative
Martinez was provided an opportunity to explain his bill, the
Federal Employees' Fairness Act (H.R. 2441), that would address
some deficiencies in these procedures.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Employment
Discrimination in the Federal Workplace, Part I'' was held on
September 10, 1997. The hearing provided an opportunity to
receive statements from three panels of witnesses to describe
difficulties that they have encountered in working with the
dispute resolution procedures available to Federal employees.
Witnesses on the first panel included the Hon. Albert Wynn of
Maryland, the Hon. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, and the Hon.
Matthew Martinez of California. The second panel consisted of
Mr. Oscar Eason, president, Blacks in Government; Mr. A.
Baltazar Baca, president, National IMAGE, Inc.; Mr. Thomas
Tsai, chairman, Federal Asian-Pacific-American Council; and Ms.
Dorothy Nelms, president, Federally Employed Women. The third
panel included Mr. Howard L. Wallace, author, Federal
Plantation: Affirmative Inaction Within Our Federal Government;
Mr. Lawrence Lucas, Coalition of Federal Employees at the
Department of Agriculture; Ms. Romella Arnold, National
Association for the Advancement of Black Federal Employees; Ms.
LaVerne Cox, Library of Congress Class Action Plaintiffs; and
Mr. Sam Wright, Federal Aviation Administration employee.
In his opening statement Subcommittee Chairman Mica
emphasized that there is no place for discrimination in the
Federal workplace, and affirmed his commitment to improving the
appeals procedures available to Federal employees. He noted
that his efforts to reform the procedures were defeated in the
previous Congress, but observed that the testimony heard in
this session demonstrated beyond a doubt that those procedures
desperately need reform.
Mr. Cummings reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission is aware of difficulties in its Federal case
processing procedures, and that the agency is developing
recommendations to revise those procedures within the limits of
its administrative discretion. He added that he was also
concerned about reports from the Merit Systems Protection Board
that indicated that minorities remain concentrated in lower
grades of the Federal workforce, and that Federal agencies do
not adequately understand that employment discrimination
affects every aspect of the employee's life.
Ms. Norton claimed that the EEOC's jurisdiction has been
expanded by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Americans With
Disabilities Act, and questioned whether the Commission has
resources adequate to perform the associated responsibilities.
She indicated dissatisfaction with the budget levels proposed
by the President. She interpreted statistics available to her
as showing relative stability, and noted that the statistics
weren't where she had wanted them in the first place. She
hypothesized that the combination of buyouts, early
retirements, and optional retirements used to achieve
downsizing should have resulted in more opportunities for
minorities to advance within the Federal workforce. She
believes that the current system of addressing employee
disputes, which includes investigations by agencies of charges
filed against them, involves an inherent conflict of interest.
Mr. Barrett described employment discrimination charges
filed against senior officials of the Internal Revenue
Service's [IRS] Milwaukee District Office. Even after the
charges were confirmed by an EEOC administrative judge, the
District Director announced that the discriminating supervisors
would be allowed to retire ``with dignity'' rather than be
disciplined. The victim of the illegal activities, however,
continues to work, and has claimed retaliation in regard to the
agency's response to her successful claims.
Mr. Wynn described the problem of employment discrimination
in the Federal workplace as a ``long-festering sore.'' He has
concluded, after receiving complaints from numerous agencies,
that the problem is systemic rather than a series of isolated
incidents. He argued that the Federal service lacks diversity
at the GS-13 to GS-15 senior management level. He considers the
Federal experience to include ``a chronic pattern of abuse,
misuse, and manipulation of personnel laws.'' In particular, he
claimed that minority employees frequently receive arbitrary
personnel evaluations, and that complaints often result in
retaliation. He also claimed that the EEO process is under
funded and ineffective.
Mr. Hoyer asserted that Congress has a moral and legal
responsibility to ensure that Federal workplaces recognize
discrimination as both immoral and contrary to principles of
sound management. He conceded that there are invalid charges in
the system, but claimed that the vast majority of these claims
merit redress.
Mr. Martinez reported that he had previously served as
chair of a subcommittee overseeing the EEOC. In hearings across
the country, he reported numerous accounts of charges that had
been rejected when agencies reviewed their own operations, only
to have courts overturn the nondiscrimination findings when
cases were taken to judicial channels. He contended that few
employees have the resources to take agencies to court. He
believes that the Federal Employee Fairness Act, which he had
reintroduced, provided a suitable vehicle for streamlining the
appeals process. He argued that administrative remedies are
inadequate to address the problems that he has seen in the
dispute resolution process. He noted that the Office of
Management and Budget projected that his bill would save $25
million. He noted that his bill would remove EEO jurisdiction
that currently rests within agencies.
Mr. Eason claimed that African Americans are being
discriminated against in Federal employment, and that this
discrimination has resulted in a decline in the percentage of
African American men in Federal employment. (EEOC data indicate
that the percentage of black men in the Federal workforce has
declined from 8.41 percent in 1987 to 8.04 percent in 1996.
Black men constitute 4.9 percent of the Civilian Labor Force.)
He alleged that the process for addressing discrimination
complaints has not been effective, but claimed that this
process was the primary method of securing senior executive
service promotions for minority employees.
Mr. Baca testified that Hispanic Americans are the fastest
growing minority in the United States, but the only minority
group that is under represented in the Federal workforce. He
asserted that downsizing should not be used as a pretext for
discrimination. He noted that Hispanic employees have
successfully sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that
similar suits are pending against other agencies, including the
Postal Service. He noted that the Bureau of Land Management has
been successful in its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees.
He agreed that many of the problems could be addressed by
improving the appeals procedures available to employees. He
argued that effective enforcement of current laws is necessary
to progress.
Mr. Tsai alleged that discrimination has impaired the
morale of Asian-Pacific-Americans, and contended that the two
types of discrimination that are most commonly encountered by
Asian Americans are nonselection and ``work environment
harassment.'' He recommended revising the ``EEO program plan of
each agency with specific goals to meet the needs and have the
management involved in development of the program plan.'' He
further asserted that managers should be held accountable for
new efforts to achieve a diverse workforce.
Ms. Nelms asserted that the Federal Government, as the
largest employer in the country, ``has failed to establish a
model workplace, and has allowed discrimination to continue
rampant.'' She reported that 72 percent of federally-employed
women are in jobs rated between GS-1 and GS-8.5. Women comprise
42 percent of the GS-9 to 12 Federal workforce, 25 percent of
its GS-13 to 15 workforce, and 19 percent of the Senior
Executive Service. She claimed that federally employed women
are subjected to both sexual harassment and sex discrimination.
She praised cultural diversity efforts at different agencies,
but asserted that the time needed to process complaints is too
long, and that employees need additional training in the rights
and obligations of Federal employees and agencies under the
law.
Mr. Wallace claimed that systemic discrimination is rampant
throughout the Federal sector. He asserted that, at every
agency that he examined, minorities are the last hired and
first fired, disciplined more often and more severely, and
given much smaller awards. He agreed that the EEO process is
broken, in part because ``there is no incentive for managers to
negotiate in good faith.'' He added, ``Most EEO officers,
counselors, and other EEO personnel are part of the problem.
They are rewarded for discouraging employees from filing and
making the process so difficult to understand that many
complainants withdraw . . . out of frustration. Findings of
discrimination are virtually nonexistent, yet billions are
being wasted on processing paper work that amounts to . . . an
exercise in futility.'' He recommended immediate dismissal for
the most egregious managers, and a ``three-strikes-and-you're
out'' law for repeat discriminators. He agreed that EEO
processing should be removed from agencies and placed within
the jurisdiction of the EEOC.
Mr. Lucas contended that the President's initiative on race
cannot proceed until he has confronted discrimination in the
Federal agencies. He asserted that the Department's proposal
would ``grandfather'' county employees who have a history of
discrimination and sexism into the Department. He noted that
Secretary Glickman's Civil Rights Action Team [CRAT] had
submitted 92 recommendations to address the problems at the
Department of Agriculture, but Mr. Lucas described the
Secretary's ``zero tolerance of discrimination'' initiative as
a ``paper tiger.'' He commented, ``You all have created this
dinosaur at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and you are
responsible for . . . the racism and sexism that exists in
these Federal bureaucracies.''
Ms. Arnold opened by announcing that her organization's
first choice as a witness, a senior employee with the
Department of the Interior, had been informed that ``her career
would be over'' if she testified. Ms. Arnold appeared even
though she feared reprisals as a result of testimony that she
would provide. She commented that the Department has been the
subject of numerous hearings and reports over the years, all
indicating that the Department's employment practices
systematically excluded African Americans as a class, and that
the Department is ill-prepared to enter a more diverse century.
She noted that blacks are 6.1 percent of the Department's
employees, but 10.4 percent of the Civilian Labor Force.
Interior has only four black males among its 365 attorneys. She
recounted a history of incidents of inequitable treatment,
including more than 700 discrimination complaints filed in
1996. She noted that the Department averages 565 days to
process such cases, more than three times the 180 day statutory
limit.
Ms. Cox reported that the Library of Congress had been in
the process of resolving the Cook class action lawsuit since
1975. Although the EEOC had found no discrimination in 1981,
the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and
awarded $8.5 million in damages. She claimed that the Library
continues to resist implementation of the Cook settlement, but
information provided from the Library indicated that the
Library was in compliance with the terms of the settlement. The
class action plaintiffs had withdrawn four of five outstanding
complaints in court action the previous week.
Mr. Wright reported that he has been employed by the
Federal Aviation Administration since 1976, and involved in the
EEO process since 1977. He contended that executive branch
agencies fail to obey the law with regard to discrimination
complaints, and that they are unwilling to investigate
seriously claims of wrong-doing. When appellate agencies rule
against Federal agencies, the agencies fail to take appropriate
corrective actions. Federal officials, he alleged, incur no
sanctions when found responsible for discrimination. He
asserted that the Department of Justice and their agencies work
to defend managers who are accused of discrimination. He
described the nondisclosure clauses frequently included in
settlement of discrimination complaints as ``depriving
employees of their first amendment rights.'' He recommended
that the EEOC be granted the same adjudicatory powers over
agencies as the Merit Systems Protection Board. He concluded
that additional laws defining discrimination are unnecessary;
the challenge is to get the agencies to comply with laws
already on the books.
7. Employment discrimination in the pursuit of diversity.
a. Summary.--Federal agencies have devoted more than 30
years to efforts to eliminate illegal discrimination from
Federal workplaces. Although agencies devote millions of
dollars annually to training in the requirements of fair
employment laws and other civil rights and diversity
initiatives, the subcommittee has learned that complaints of
employment discrimination based on race, gender, age,
ethnicity, and related causes have increased in the past 5
years. The subcommittee has learned that at least one agency
advertises positions for ``unqualified applicants . . . .'' The
rise in the number of complaints filed, however, is not
consistent with the decline in the number of cases where
discrimination is found. Statistics provided by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission indicated that the portion of
cases where discrimination is found has declined, whether this
is reflected in settlements with corrective actions and/or
agency and appeals decisions. This investigation brought to
light cases where agencies are responsible for unlawful
discrimination.
b. Benefits.--The investigation augmented the
subcommittee's record on employment discrimination in the
Federal workforce by demonstrating the adverse consequences of
diversity programs at several agencies. A hearing provided
evidence that the Forest Service's hiring practices included
advertising developmental assignments that sought ``unqualified
applicants'' for firefighter positions. It also provided an
alternative perspective from scholars who conclude that the
implementation of proportional goals inevitably conflicts with
both merit principles and the free choices of individual
applicants and employees. The subcommittee had the opportunity
to review the intentions and effects of Representative Canady's
bill (H.R. 1909) that would eliminate race and gender
preferences in Federal employment and set asides in Federal
procurement.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Employment
Discrimination in the Federal Workplace, Part II'' was held on
September 25, 1997. In efforts to implement diversity programs,
agencies have been faced with claims of discrimination from
employees who believe that merit staffing procedures have been
violated. Witnesses testified that they continued to encounter
agency resistance and bureaucratic delays after successfully
prosecuting discrimination claims in Federal courts. Three
panels of witnesses included the Hon. Charles Canady of
Florida, the Hon. Wally Herger of California, Ms. Lynn Cole,
attorney, Mr. Angelo Troncoso, Internal Revenue Service, Mr.
Edward Drury, Federal Aviation Administration, Mr. Ronald
Stewart, Deputy Chief for Programs and Legislation, U.S. Forest
Service, Mr. G. Jerry Shaw, general counsel, Senior Executives
Association, and Mr. John Fonte, adjunct scholar, American
Enterprise Institute.
Subcommittee Chairman Mica noted that abuses of equal
employment opportunity requirements can often be traced to
excessive efforts to implement ``diversity'' programs, often
through numerical goals or quotas. He emphasized that the
Federal affirmative employment program was intended to work in
the context of a merit system, not in conflict with it. He
asserted, ``Affirmative action in the Federal Government should
never have been about anything other than hiring the most
qualified employees.'' He indicated that he and Mr. Cummings
would be working with agency heads to address some of the more
egregious complaints raised during the subcommittee's hearings
on this topic. He also reported his intention to develop
appropriate legislative measures for passage by the
subcommittee in 1998.
Mr. Herger reported that his office had encountered
numerous incidents of discrimination practiced by the U.S.
Forest Service in his district. He submitted documents
advertising positions open only to applicants who do not meet
minimum qualifications as well as a memorandum indicating that
the Forest Service failed to fill firefighting positions when
it could not get a sufficiently ``diverse'' pool of applicants,
thus increasing risks of forest fires in communities adjacent
to the forests where more than 800,000 acres burned last
summer. Additional documentation showed that the Forest Service
had received legal advice that these practices were in
violation of the law, but continued them anyway.
Mrs. Morella agreed that she found the Forest Service's
actions in these instances to be simply outrageous.
Mr. Canady reported that the Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on the Constitution, which he chairs, has held
nine hearings on Federal affirmative employment programs, and
concluded that ``it has become increasingly clear that it is
exceptionally difficult to defend, as a matter of legal or
moral principle, the government practice of granting
preferences on the basis of race or sex.'' He recognized that
the United States has a history of unequal practices, but noted
that the Nation has made great strides toward overcoming
racism, and contended that ``the answer . . . is not to be
found in Federal policies that classify, sort, and divide the
American people on the basis of their race and gender.'' He
contended that, rather than end affirmative action, his
proposed legislation would reaffirm the original purpose of
affirmative action as an initiative based on outreach and
recruitment, coupled with nondiscrimination in selection and
contract awards.
Ms. Norton argued that the Supreme Court has already
addressed Mr. Canady's concerns, that the President's ``mend
it, don't end it'' approach has weakened affirmative action,
and that many of the problems being addressed in this hearing
are actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Mr.
Canady reported that, in spite of these remedies, Federal
agencies continue to hire and promote, and award contracts
based on quotas, and that we should establish solid
nondiscriminatory policies as the legal standard, rather than
rely on the courts to act for the Congress.
Ms. Cole reported that her clients have increasingly
concluded that personnel decisions within their agencies are
being made on bases other than merit, and that the remedies
available through EEOC procedures are inadequate to resolve
their growing dis-satisfactions within the system. In response
to questions, she indicated that when agencies face
discrimination complaints, they act both as adjudicators and
those accused, inevitably resulting in conflicts of interests.
She advocated a stronger role for mediation within the EEO
process. Mr. Troncoso, one of Ms. Cole's clients, is a Cuban-
born immigrant who was denied promotions by the Internal
Revenue Service [IRS] on three occasions, even though he was
rated well-qualified every time and was the highest-rated
applicant on two occasions. His efforts to seek redress through
the agency's personnel procedures were rebuffed within
personnel offices, which he characterized as defensive of
management. He expressed concern that, even though he intended
to make the IRS a career, he would experience retaliation as a
result of this testimony. Mr. Drury is an air traffic control
manager with the Federal Aviation Administration. After 26
years of service, he was removed from his position as an
airport tower manager as a result of pressures generated by the
National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees. He
subsequently filed complaints through the Department of
Transportation, but that case was not considered on its merits.
He reported that it required 2 additional years to get his case
to trial, where the Government's litigation strategy appeared
to be to defeat him on legal technicalities rather than address
the merits of the case. When the jury heard the evidence, it
awarded $500,000 in punitive damages, an amount subsequently
reduced by the judge to the $300,000 statutory ceiling. He
noted that a subsequent complaint that addressed retaliation
concerns was pending within the EEOC, and had been there for
725 days.
Mr. Stewart claimed that his experience as a regional
forester in California had provided first-hand perspective
about the ways in which discrimination undermines agency
morale, and asserted that the Chief (Michael Dombek) had taken
significant initiatives to eliminate discrimination in the
Forest Service. He also noted the importance that Secretary of
Agriculture Dan Glickman attaches to implementing his Civil
Rights Action Team's recommendations. He noted a 37 percent
reduction in open EEO cases as an indicator of the success of
these efforts.
Mr. Shaw predicted that promotions within the Federal
service are likely to become increasingly contentious as
downsizing continues. He reported substantial increases in the
numbers of minorities and women holding positions in the Senior
Executive Service, even in the face of the administration's
efforts to reduce both SES and GS-13 to GS-15 positions. He
reported that a 1992 survey of Senior Executive Association
members found that 92 percent believed that employees abuse the
complaints procedures to intimidate managers and agencies from
taking actions against poor performers. Further, 56 percent of
his members believe that non-legitimate complaints are filed in
ways that deter the filing of well-founded grievances. He
concluded that managers have little grounds for confidence in
the current EEO system. Even when agencies settle cases, they
do not reflect intentional discriminatory actions. He
recommended that employees should be required to make stronger
cases before having them processed, and that once complaints
are recognized as meritorious, they should be heard by a single
outside agency.
Mr. Fonte argued that two visions of civil rights are in
conflict. The traditional equal opportunity principles
enshrined in civil rights laws and merit system principles have
a different philosophical and legal foundation than the
diversity principles being promoted recently. The diversity
agenda, he demonstrated, rests on a theory of proportional
representation that was rejected at the founding of the
republic and has proved disastrous in any country that has
attempted to implement it. He cited studies of people
distributed in different occupations with different racial,
ethnic, and gender compositions. Distributions reflected chosen
avenues of opportunity rather than the result of discriminatory
actions. He forecast that increased efforts to promote
proportionalism would only increase dissatisfaction, because
such a result can be realized only through heavy regulation in
a command economy. He asserted, ``We will never arrive at a
right percentage for all groups in all positions and at the
same time remain a free society.'' In response to questions, he
cited reports that, rather than an effort to redress historical
discrimination, 75 percent of recent immigrants are eligible
for preference programs. The difficulty with diversity programs
is that, once numbers are defined, they trump all other
factors, especially merit.
8. Oversight of contracting out practices.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted this investigation
to provide additional information and to address changes since
two previous hearings on contracting out that were conducted in
1995. In 1996, the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]
published a revision of OMB Circular A-76, the policy document
that establishes standards for conducting cost comparisons in
Federal agencies. Although the subcommittee has heard charges
that agencies have reduced budgets and converted numerous
functions to contract in order to redesign processes and save
money, OMB reported that the Government's expenditures on
contracting decreased to $111.7 billion in 1996, or $2.4
billion below 1995 levels. A hearing provided an opportunity
for employee organizations to voice concerns about contracting
practices.
b. Benefits.--The investigation provided an opportunity for
the Office of Management and Budget and Defense agencies, which
have the greatest experience managing competition for
government services, to introduce recent data that documents
the reduction in service contracting since GAO's last report in
1997. They entered into the record data demonstrating that 30
percent aggregate savings have been realized over a 10-year
period from contracting for services. The long-term data
provide a useful contrast to the anecdotal evidence that
frequently shapes the discussion.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Contracting Out--
Successes and Failures'' was held October 1, 1997. This hearing
fulfilled the chairman's commitment to employee organizations
that they would have an opportunity to describe some of the
difficulties that they have encountered in dealing with
contractors who perform services for Federal agencies.
Witnesses included Mr. Christopher Donellan, legislative
director, National Association of Government Employees, Mr.
James Cunningham, national president, National Federation of
Federal Employees, Ms. Patricia Armstrong, chapter president,
Federal Managers Association, Cherry Point, NC, Mr. G. Edward
DeSeve, Acting Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget, Mr. John Goodman, Deputy Undersecretary,
Department of Defense, and Mr. Samuel Kleinman, Center for
Naval Analyses.
Ms. Norton alleged that service contracting is driven by
cost concerns alone, without adequate attention to the quality
of work being performed. She has introduced legislation that
would require cost comparisons, claiming that a 1994 General
Accounting Office report concluded that agencies do not
consistently save when they convert to contract. She has also
sponsored legislation that would require OMB to develop an
inventory of the number of people employed by service
contractors, so that we could know whether, in converting
employees, the number of people required to perform the work
actually increased. She further proposed legislation that would
reduce by $5.7 billion the amount of service contracting done
by Federal agencies annually. The revenues would be directed to
pay increases for civil servants.
Mr. Donellan claimed that contracting out of services
inevitably reduces support, and accused contractors of poor
performance and dishonest practices. He cited the example of a
laundry services contractor at Ft. Leonard Wood, MO, who
allegedly abandoned the installation owing employees $23,000 in
back pay and with utility bills unpaid. The company also failed
to pay employees taxes before declaring bankruptcy. Although
the Department of Labor will intervene, employees are slated to
receive only 22 cents on the dollar owed to them.
Mr. Cunningham asserted that any contracting out should be
done only if all Circular A-76 procedures are followed, only if
it can be demonstrated that there will be no decline in work
quality, that a significant cost savings will be realized
through the life of the contract, and that the contractor will
be monitored extensively to prevent abuses. He reported that
members' requests for assistance in addressing issues related
to contracting have increased tenfold in the past year, notably
within the Department of Defense. He cited an example of a
service contract for maintenance of Navy airplanes that
purportedly places limits on the amount of rust required to be
removed from bolts on airplanes, resulting in contractors' work
failing to pass quality inspections. Federal employees wind up
having to complete the work.
Ms. Armstrong reported that Congress wants to contract out
$1 billion of the Navy work currently performed at the Cherry
Point, NC, depot. She averred that under the revised Circular
A-76, Federal managers have lost discretion to supplement their
efforts with Federal employees; complete functions must be
contracted. She noted that the Department of the Navy has
40,000 positions currently under review, and plans to review
80,000 positions over the next 5 years. Savings of $1.4 billion
that will result from these cost comparisons have already been
projected into future agency budgets. She also claimed that the
Department of Defense is not able to monitor contracts
adequately, resulting in overpayments and duplicate payments
that are costly to taxpayers. She also observed that contract
employees are allowed to strike, an option that is not
available to Government employees. She cited a recent strike
against the McDonnell-Douglas aircraft manufacturing division
as one where contractor strikes allegedly affected Federal
operations. She contended that competition, rather than
contracting, is the key to savings, and that Federal employees
have competed successfully for major contract awards.
Mr. DeSeve testified that the administration is
incorporating competition into budget as part of its efforts to
improve service delivery. Contracting is merely one element of
the endeavor to improve the business practices of Government
agencies to achieve effective operations in the context of a
balanced budget. He stated that the goal is not simply to
contract for more services, but to optimize the use of both
private and public resources by selecting the most cost-
effective providers. He declared, ``We have no evidence that
suggests that contractors are reducing their costs or otherwise
developing an unfair competitive advantage by reducing pay and
benefits to their employees.'' He cited the Clinger-Cohen Act
as one of the legislative improvements that enable agencies to
make more effective and efficient use of the marketplace. He
noted that the administration opposed the Freedom from
Government Competition Act (H.R. 716), which it views as
unnecessarily restricting Federal employees from competing when
contracts are under consideration. He also opposed H.R. 885,
which would prohibit agencies from contracting when Federal
employees can provide services at a lower cost, describing the
bill as ``unnecessary and administratively burdensome.'' He
opposed legislation that would reduce contracting funds to pay
for a Federal employee pay increase, commenting, ``Reducing
contract dollars without regard to the disruption of service
requirements or the competitive costs of services could lead to
significant inefficiencies and limit an agency's ability to
respond to changing conditions, emergencies, and other
requirements.''
Mr. Goodman affirmed that the Department of Defense must
improve the performance and reduce the costs of support
provided to the Nation's fighting forces. The Quadrennial
Defense Review forecast that the Nation is likely to require
more agile fighting forces in the future, and that maintaining
those forces will require increased capital expenditures on
weapons systems. In the absence of funding increases,
productivity efficiencies are essential. Contracting is merely
one element of a broad array of efforts to achieve that
objective. He noted improvements in the Defense Logistics
Agency's efforts to provide more direct shipments of goods
acquired from private manufacturers, resulting in substantial
improvements in force readiness. He described the Department's
approach as ``a clear and measured approach of introducing
competition into our support activities,'' rather than
wholesale outsourcing. The Department saves more than $1.5
billion annually as a result of 2,000 competitions conducted
between 1978 and 1994, and claimed that competitions reduce
costs by an average of 30 percent, regardless of whether
private contractors or public employees win. Half of the
competitions did not result in outsourcing. He noted that the
General Accounting Office had confirmed these findings in a
March 1997 report. He noted several recent competitions that
did bring functions in-house after contractors lost to teams of
Federal employees. He emphasized the continuing partnership
with the Department's workforce, and described placement
efforts associated with workforce reductions.
Mr. Kleinman noted that the Defense Department's review of
competitions showed that savings averaged 20 percent when
functions are retained in-house, and 40 percent when they are
converted to private contractors. These figures include the 3
to 10 percent of costs required to monitor contractors'
performance. He attributed these savings to the efficiencies
resulting from competition. Although Federal employees have
right of first refusal to positions with contractors, most
prefer to remain with the Government, and only 3 percent accept
contractors' offers of employment. He refuted assertions that
costs increase after contracts are awarded, noting that the
functions are subject to recompetition, and that there are
always additional bidders eager for the business if costs rise.
He acknowledged a couple of defaults, but reported that in most
cases costs were contained and quality maintained.
In response to questions, Mr. DeSeve emphasized that the
important information needed to assess performance is data
about the costs of production and the level of services
provided. He asserted that he does not need to know the number
of employees working on any particular contract, and that he
would not have any use for the information if it were
collected. He pointed out that, in many cases, the important
factor is the method of providing services, a concern that
frequently requires differing technologies rather than
additional people. He noted that, when OPM eliminated its
training workforce, it resulted in no significant change in
training for Federal employees. He also observed that the
change to contract investigations has resulted in sustained
quality and the creation of a successful new business.
9. Review of Premiums Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program [FEHBP].
a. Summary.--Approximately 9 million Federal employees and
retirees and their dependents obtain health insurance through
the FEHBP. Following 5 years of relative stability in FEHBP
premiums, including 2 years in which average premiums declined,
OPM announced that 1998 premiums would increase by an average
of 8.5 percent. The subcommittee conducted an investigation to
examine the factors contributing to these increases.
The subcommittee's examination revealed that the 8.5
percent average premium increase masked wide variations in
individual plan experiences. The employees' share of the
premium increased, on average, by 15.4 percent. While premiums
for a number of plans remained unchanged or actually decreased,
the total premium for two employee-organization plans rose over
20 percent, causing the employees' share to soar as much as 75
percent.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee determined that the
increases generally reflected rising health care costs and
decreased plan reserves. Although the most recent Government
mandates did not appear to add appreciably to the 1998
increases, the subcommittee was warned that government-imposed
mandates drive up costs and can contribute to significant
increases in future premiums. For example, Blue Cross-Blue
Shield testified that the cumulative effect of the 27 mandates
imposed by OPM since 1990 was to increase its 1998 premiums by
about $100 million. Likewise, the subcommittee learned that
Maryland-based HMOs have been placed at a competitive
disadvantage in the National Capital Area because State-
mandated benefits have driven up their premiums. The increased
costs caused by mandates are, of course, borne by the employees
and retirees who participate in the FEHBP and by the taxpayers.
The subcommittee was also cautioned against overregulation of
FEHBP premiums.
The subcommittee's investigation also demonstrated that
employees would have paid less for health insurance if either
the ``Fair Share Formula,'' enacted in the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997, or the ``Fixed Dollar Formula'' proposed by
Subcommittee Chairman Mica in 1995 had been in effect. Under
the ``Fair Share Formula,'' the average employees' share would
have risen by 10 percent rather than 15.4 percent; the increase
under the ``Fixed Dollar Formula'' would have been only 11.6
percent.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``FEHB Rate Hikes--What's
Behind Them'' was held October 8, 1997.
10. Suspension of affirmative action at the IRS.
a. Summary.--In a May 1997, decision in Byrd v. Rubin, a
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled
that the Internal Revenue Service's affirmative employment
program was unconstitutional because it could not meet the
strict scrutiny standards that the Supreme Court determined to
be appropriate in Adarand Construction v. Pena. Rather than
contest the Byrd case on its merits, the Government settled the
case with Mr. Byrd and his three fellow plaintiffs. As was
reported in previous subcommittee hearings on employment
discrimination, that settlement included a nondisclosure
agreement which cloaked the terms of the settlement from
congressional oversight. The Department of Justice secured a
modification of the settlement agreement that permitted
informing Congress of the terms of the settlement, but
redacting the amount of compensation paid to the litigants. On
August 19, 2 days before the settlement agreement was signed,
acting IRS Commissioner Michael Dolan issued a memorandum
suspending two elements of employees' performance appraisals
and two elements of the agency's business plan so that those
elements could be revised to comply with constitutional
requirements. On September 22, IRS' National Personnel
Director, Mr. James O'Malley (who accompanied Mr. Fowler to the
hearing) issued a memorandum revising the standards that had
been suspended the previous month.
The IRS had been identified in both of the subcommittee's
previous hearings on employment discrimination in the Federal
workforce. Although the Office of Personnel Management has
responsibility for governmentwide personnel policies, the IRS
testified that it had not consulted with OPM in acting to
address its affirmative employment program. IRS also stated
that it had consulted with the Department of Justice, which
issued guidance to Federal agencies on compliance with Adarand
on February 29, 1996. Justice not only had initiated legal
guidance in the area, but it would also have responsibility for
defending any modified standards in subsequent litigation. IRS
reported that its workforce is 67 percent female and 35 percent
minority, so continued application of affirmative employment
standards raised questions about whether the agency was
applying ``diversity'' criteria improperly.
b. Benefits.--This investigation continued the
subcommittee's efforts to understand the full effects of race
and gender preferences in Federal human resource management
operations. The IRS faces continuing scrutiny because of abuses
of taxpayers and employees documented in recent reports, and
reflects several challenges facing all Federal agencies in
their efforts to ``mend'' affirmative employment practices
consistent with the Department of Justice's guidelines issued
after the Adarand v. Pena decision. The hearing provided the
foundation for additional oversight activities that will be
continued in the next session.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``IRS' Suspension of Its
Affirmative Action Program'' was held on October 28, 1997. The
witness testifying at the hearing was Mr. Charles D. Fowler,
National Director, Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity
Program, Internal Revenue Service.
Subcommittee Chairman Mica affirmed in his opening
statement that the subcommittee has a responsibility to ensure
that important issues of public policy are not being decided
through settlement agreements that are not subject to
congressional review. He also emphasized the importance of
ensuring that every Federal employee is hired, evaluated, and
terminated on an equitable basis.
Mr. Cummings was reassured by the IRS' implementation of
revised performance elements and its renewal of its commitment
to affirmative action.
Ms. Norton stressed the importance of implementing
affirmative action programs consistent with the law, and
observed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 favors
settlements over litigation. She believes that consistency is
important so that agencies are not vulnerable to litigation
based on any perceived inconsistencies.
Mr. Charles Fowler, who was accompanied by Mr. Dennis
Ferrara of the General Counsel's office and Mr. James O'Malley,
the IRS' National Personnel Director, had emphasized the
principle of equitable treatment for all employees as a way of
doing business since assuming his responsibilities (within 6
weeks before this hearing). He claimed that the Service remains
committed to both its diversity program and the concept of
equitable treatment of all its employees. In response to
questions, he expressed hope that the revised standards would
encourage agency managers not to undertake actions that might
be in violation of the law. The September 22, 1997, memo
eliminated language included in previous standards that might
have been interpreted as approving numerical targets. He added
that the performance elements in place are temporary and
subject to revision as the agency develops better ways to
describe its managers' appropriate responsibilities.
Mr. Fowler asserted that the agency has no numerical goals
at present, and even the document on managing the workforce
that had been a source of concern in the Byrd case, ERR-16,
concentrated on positions of national level. Mr. Fowler
indicated that outreach strategies would be used to address
concerns about the diversity of upper management in the agency.
Mr. Cummings indicated that he had encountered criticisms
that the IRS was acting without adequate explanation of its
decisions in selecting personnel for ``acting'' and
``developmental'' assignments. These are opportunities that
employees consider important in terms of career development.
Mr. Fowler responded that review of these selections is an
important element of his efforts in this position. He also
added that he would make appropriate contacts with OPM and EEOC
to endeavor to develop a consistent strategy to the concerns
raised about these programs.
11. The merits of holding a CSRS to FERS open season.
a. Summary.--The Treasury-Postal and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-61) included a
provision that would have allowed civil servants enrolled in
the Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS] to switch their
enrollment to the Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS].
Section 642 of the law would have authorized an open season
between July 1 and December 31, 1998. This provision, however,
was the subject of an item veto exercised by President Clinton
on October 16, 1997. Mr. Mica reported that the item, with
costs estimated at $2.1 billion over 5 years, was the single
largest item veto exercised by the President to date. In
vetoing this provision, the President had noted that the
provision was introduced by the Senate during conference, and
that the measure had not had adequate opportunity for hearings
and public discussion.
b. Benefits.--This investigation provided an opportunity
for the subcommittee to review the President's use of the item
veto on the measure having the largest cost and potential
impact on Federal employees. It enabled a comparison of
different bases of estimating the cost of this action, and
dispelled impressions that an open season allowing for
additional numbers of employees to shift from CSRS to FERS
might provide a method of reducing the Government's long-term
pension obligations under the older Federal retirement system.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``CSRS-FERS Open Season--
What are the Merits?'' was held on November 5, 1997. Witnesses
included William E. Flynn, Associate Director, Retirement and
Insurance Services, Office of Personnel Management, Michael
Brostek, Associate Director, Federal Workforce and Management
Issues, General Accounting Office, and Paul Van de Water,
Assistant Director, Budget Analysis Division, Congressional
Budget Office.
As chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, Mr. Mica
called the hearing to examine the merits of the issue and
consider the appropriateness of enacting separate authorizing
legislation. Federal employees had an opportunity to switch
their enrollment into the newer retirement system when FERS was
established in 1987. At the time, only 4 percent of the
eligible employees took advantage of the open season to switch
enrollment, although the Congressional Budget Office had
estimated that approximately 10 percent of CSRS employees would
do so. With 10 years' experience in the Thrift Savings Plan,
supporters of the open season believe that a different dynamic
might affect employees' decisions about retirement enrollment.
Mr. Mica noted that the unfunded liability of the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund had increased during the
previous 2 years, and that those obligations now constitute the
fourth largest government debt being transferred to future
generations. He also noted that, in light of the difficulties
that the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] encountered
managing the previous transition, and the importance of
correcting enrollment mistakes already in the system, that the
agency might have difficulty administering another open season.
Mr. William E. Flynn of OPM testified that the
administration had estimated that approximately 5 percent of
the eligible employees, or about 60,000 individuals, would
switch if an open season were held during 1998. He indicated
that employees interested in switching might delay normal
retirements to gain exemption from Government pension offset
and windfall elimination provisions of Social Security law, and
that agencies with unique demographic mixes might experience
some human resource management challenges as a consequence of
the new incentives that would be provided to employees. He
estimated that the transfers would reduce the CSRDF's net
actuarial unfunded liability by less than $2 billion, but when
added costs for FERS funding and Thrift Savings Plan [TSP]
contributions are included, the result would probably increase
the long term costs to the Government. He stressed that many
factors could affect individual decisions about retirement
system enrollment, so that there are no sure methods of
projecting the level of interest in such an open season.
Mr. Michael Brostek of the General Accounting Office noted
that participation in the TSP has risen substantially since its
inception, and that more than half of lower-graded employees
and nearly all higher-grade employees now participate. By
transferring from CSRS to FERS, employees would become eligible
for matching funds for current contributions, a factor that
could increase incentives to enter the newer system at
considerable cost to the Government. Agencies' retirement costs
would increase for each employee who transferred to FERS. GAO
provided estimates that the additional costs of such transfers
could be projected at a rate of $32 million per year for each 1
percent of the Federal workforce that switched to the newer
system.
Mr. Paul Van de Water of the Congressional Budget Office
[CBO] reported that his agency had estimated that only 1
percent of the CSRS employees would switch to the new system if
provided another open season. This projection was based upon
previous experience, adjusted for the reduced portion of the
Federal workforce that remains in CSRS. CBO projected that
these switches would raise net Federal costs by $250 million
over the next 10 years, with most of the additional expense
attributable to increased agency payments to the TSP accounts
of employees. He indicated that employees who had already
reached the maximum CSRS benefit would benefit from such a
switch, as would employees with minimal CSRS coverage who would
desire to avoid public pension offset provisions of the Social
Security law. Both groups would impose additional costs on the
Government.
Mr. Brostek indicated that differences between the cost of
living adjustment provisions in CSRS and FERS contribute to the
continuing escalation of CSRS projected costs. Mr. Van de Water
emphasized that, despite differences in details, all three
projections indicated that the open season would cost
Government in the aggregate. He added, that when each of the
estimating models use comparable assumptions to project future
costs, they reach similar conclusions. Given the difficulties
of projecting switch rates, these variations are inevitable.
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
1. Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.
a. Summary.--The purpose of this subcommittee investigation
is to review the significance of the Wastewater Treatment
facility in the city of Washington, DC, and the immediate
region. Most all Federal facilities, in all 3 branches of
government, plus approximately 2 million residential users in
Virginia, Maryland, and the District, depend upon Blue Plains.
It treats an average 325 million gallons a day on 154 acres in
Southwest Washington. A collapse of Blue Plains, which seemed
possible last year, would be an ecological catastrophe.
As recently as September 1995, the Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA] warned of a very real possibility that raw sewage
would flow into the Potomac because of serious shortcomings at
Blue Plains. But since the new Water and Sewer Authority came
into existence, on October 1, 1996, there have been no EPA
violations. And there have been no more ``boil water alerts.''
Subcommittee Chairman Davis convened a hearing to enunciate
the improvements as a result of the new Water and Sewer
Authority on November 12, 1997.
b. Benefits.--In review of the current situation at Blue
Plains under the new Water and Sewer Authority, existing
concerns and practical solutions were explored. The new law, in
place for 13 months at the time of the hearing, established an
11 member Authority, with 5 suburban representatives and a
super-majority required for significant actions. Blue Plains
was transferred to the Authority from the Public Works
Department of the District of Columbia government. There is an
orderly payback of $83 million dollars planned for the
Authority from the District of Columbia government.
Subcommittee Chairman Davis praised the role of the local,
State, and Federal officials who worked together to make it
possible for the Water and Sewer Authority to work very well.
Additionally, Subcommittee Chairman Davis praised the role of
the subcommittee and its bi-partisan fashion in which it
conducted itself for helping to reverse many dangerous trends
at Blue Plains.
c. Hearings.--On November 12, 1997, the subcommittee held
an informational hearing on the ``District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority.'' The hearing followed just over the 1
year anniversary of the Water and Sewer Authority. Those
testifying were, Michael McCabe, Region 3 Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency; Michael Rogers, chairman,
Washington District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority;
Jerry N. Johnson, general manager, Washington District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority; Honorable Douglas Duncan,
county executive, Montgomery County, MD; Michael Errico, deputy
chief administrative officer, Prince Georges County, MD;
Anthony H. Griffin, alternate member, Washington District of
Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Fairfax County, VA.
2. Public Law 104-8, District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority (D.C. Control Board).
a. Summary.--An oversight hearing was conducted to review
the implementation of the management reforms required by the
national Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement
Act of 1997 (Public law 105-33) by the D.C. Control Board.
Legislation originating in this subcommittee and signed by the
President on April 17, 1995 (Public Law 104-8) created the D.C.
Control Board and conferred upon it responsibilities and
authority. Since that time the underlying statute has been
occasionally refined and the Control Board has participated in
a significant number of hearings held by this subcommittee
dealing with various significant issues affecting the District
of Columbia.
The management reforms enacted as part of Subtitle B of
Title XI of the Revitalization Act (Public Law 105-33) went
into effect following the President's signature on August 5,
1997.
b. Benefits.--The management reforms were enacted in
response to the exceptionally poor management practices which
Congress noted in the District government. Almost without
exception, the District lacked sound management and direction.
It was manifestly clear to Congress that changes had to be made
rapidly in order to avoid a complete breakdown of municipal
services. These reforms were not motivated by desire to confer
or remove specific power from existing government entities.
Rather, the reforms were enacted by a strong belief that
management issues are the long term keys to the best possible
government and prosperity for the District. The management
reforms directed the Control Board and the city to develop and
implement management reform plans for 9 specified departments
of the District government. All entities of the District
government were directed to develop and implement management
reform plans in the areas of asset management, information
resources management, personnel, and procurement. The Control
Board was required to enter into contracts with consultants to
develop the management reform plans.
Management reform teams were established for each
management reform plan. Department heads were directed to take
any and all steps within their authority to implement the terms
of the plan. In the case of a management reform plan covering
the entire District government each member of the management
reform team was instructed to take any and all steps within the
member's authority to implement the terms of the plan, under
the direction and subject to the instructions of the chairman
of the control board. In carrying out any of the management
reform plans the member of the management reform team was
required to report to the Control Board. Such reports were
required to be made solely to the Control Board.
During the control year, as defined by Public Law 104-8,
the Mayor may appoint the head of each department following
recommendations from and consultation with the Control Board
and notification to the city council. Each nomination of a
department head is subject to approval by the control board.
Appointments may be made directly by the control board if the
Mayor does not make a nomination within 30 days from the date
any vacancy begins, or for a longer period as established by
the Control Board upon notification to Congress.
A vacancy was deemed to exist in the head of each of the 9
departments mentioned upon enactment of Public Law 105-33. The
Control Board was also given the power to remove any department
head. Removal by the Mayor was made subject to approval by the
Control Board.
Executive summaries of the initial consultant's reports
were made available on October 16, 1997. These reports
confirmed deep problems throughout city government. On December
5, 1997, the Control Board announced plans to implement a
number of recommendations for improving city services. A
reported 170 projects were listed for priority consideration.
The Control Board also indicated an intention to submit a
report to Congress in January 1998, regarding final decisions
about management improvements. A new chief management officer,
as required by the Revitalization Act, is expected to be
appointed shortly. The recently enacted Budget for fiscal year
1998 (Public Law 105-100) signed by the President on November
19, 1997, provides the Control Board with great flexibility in
these areas.
c. Hearings.--Subcommittee Chairman Davis convened a
hearing on December 19, 1997, ``Oversight Hearing on D.C.
Control Board, Implementation of Public Law 105-33 and Police
Matters.''
Witnesses who gave testimony to answer concerns of the
subcommittee were Dr. Andrew Brimmer, chairman of the District
of Columbia Financial Responsibility Management Assistance
Authority (D.C. Control Board); Mr. Stephen Harlan, vice
chairman, D.C. Control Board; and Ms. Sonya T. Proctor, acting
chief of police, Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department.
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
1. GAO High-Risk Series.
a. Summary.--The General Accounting Office [GAO] High-Risk
Series highlights programs, activities, or agencies
particularly vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. GAO
compiled the first high-risk list in a letter dated January 23,
1990. The letter responded to a request from the chairmen of
the House Government Operations Committee and the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee based on congressional concern
that waste, fraud, and abuse were endemic throughout the
Federal Government. GAO found that the Government was plagued
by serious breakdowns in its internal control and financial
management systems. If uncorrected, these breakdowns create an
environment ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse. The January 23rd
letter also found that these serious breakdowns in systems
controls had been known, in several instances for many years,
but had not been corrected by the agencies. The high-risk
series was an attempt to ensure that areas likely to result in
material losses are identified, and that appropriate corrective
actions are undertaken to stem or minimize the losses. GAO
decided to continue monitoring agencies progress in correcting
the problems and, in 1993, changed the format from a letter to
a series of reports, 17 in all. In 1995, GAO identified 20
high-risk problems. Now, with the issuance of the 1997 series,
the number of areas considered particularly vulnerable to
waste, fraud, and abuse has risen to 25, including 10 that were
on the original list.
Subcommittee Chairman Horn convened a hearing to examine
the substantive problems behind the programs on the high-risk
series. The subcommittee heard testimony from Gene L. Dodaro,
Assistant Comptroller General, Accounting and Information
Management Division, accompanied by Keith O. Fultz, Assistant
Comptroller General, Resources, Community and Economic
Development Division, and Henry L. Hinton, Jr., Assistant
Comptroller General, National Security and International
Affairs Division, all from the U.S. General Accounting Office.
Mr. Horn opened the hearing by noting the challenges
presented by both the areas that have been on the high-risk
series since 1990 and the new areas that were added in 1997. He
asked for analysis from GAO on the problems that land agencies
on the high-risk series and the types of solutions that enable
them to improve.
Gene L. Dodaro opened his testimony by focusing on the
problems at the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue
Service. He noted that as of 1995, about half of the $70
billion in defense inventory, or $35 billion, was not needed.
He further noted that no major component of the Department of
Defense had received a positive audit opinion. In terms of the
IRS, he noted that for the past 4 years, GAO has been unable to
render an audit opinion at the IRS. The reason is that the IRS
has been unable to substantiate the balances of $1.4 trillion
in revenues collected with the account balances of individual
taxpayers.
Mr. Dodaro also addressed the major information technology
projects on the high-risk series, including the tax system
modernization at the IRS and the air traffic control
modernization effort. He noted the importance of the Clinger-
Cohen Act for improving the record on these projects, as well
as for addressing one of the major new additions to the high-
risk series, the year 2000 problem. He stressed the importance
of reform legislation in general, noting the importance of
``fully and effectively implementing the legislative foundation
established for broader management reforms.'' Mr. Dodaro
emphasized the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
b. Benefits.--Publicity is one of the best cures for waste,
fraud, and abuse in Government. The high-risk series brings
much-needed congressional attention to areas where management
is inadequate. Focus on the series and the issues outlined in
it provide useful direction for implementation of important
reform legislation. According to the General Accounting Office,
areas of waste that can be substantially reduced include:
$6-$20 billion in fraudulent and abusive Medicare
claims (1996),
$1 billion in SSI overpayments (annually),
$132 million in tax filing fraud (1995).
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled,
``Oversight of the General Accounting Office's High-Risk
Series,'' on February 13, 1997.
2. Year 2000 Computer Date Problem.
a. Summary.--Many computers that use two digit date fields
will fail to recognize the century date change on January 1,
2000. After midnight on the last day of ``99,'' computers
around the world will automatically flash to ``00''--and many
will interpret these digits as the year 1900 instead of the
year 2000. If left unchanged, affected computer systems will be
unable to function or send correct and accurate information to
multiple systems. This issue must be addressed promptly by
industry and government.
The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology held its initial hearing on the year 2000 problem on
April 16, 1996. The specific focus was on what Federal agencies
were doing to prevent a possible computer disaster on January
1, 2000. Kevin Schick of the Gartner Group, expressed concern
that ``there is no sense of urgency . . . [I]f [Federal
agencies] are not already well into this project by October of
1997, [the Government] will be doing a disservice to the very
constituents that depend on [it] to prevent something like this
from happening to them . . .''.
Alarmed by what the subcommittee learned at that hearing,
Subcommittee Chairman Stephen Horn and Ranking Member Carolyn
Maloney sent a joint congressional oversight letter on behalf
of the subcommittee. The letter was addressed to each Cabinet
department and 10 additional agencies. The April 29, 1996,
letter asked 13 detailed questions intended to learn the status
of each agency's preparation for the year 2000.
The overall response the subcommittee received was
discouraging. Only 9 of the 24 agencies responded that they had
a plan for addressing the problem. Five of the agencies had not
even designated a specific official within the agency to be
responsible for the problem. No agencies had complete cost
estimates for fixing the problem. Only seven agencies even had
partial estimates. Efforts at the Departments of Energy and
Transportation were so primitive that neither could answer any
of the 13 questions posed by the April 29th letter. Many
agencies with direct responsibilities for furnishing services
to the public, such as the Departments of Labor and Veterans
Affairs and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had only
the most limited year 2000 initiatives underway.
Appearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government on March 11,
1997, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
committed to furnishing Congress with a quarterly report on
Federal progress toward correcting the year 2000 computer
problem. The first quarterly report was transmitted to Congress
on June 23, 1997. It was based on data provided to OMB by all
major departments and agencies on May 15, 1997.
The subcommittee convened three hearings on this issue. The
first hearing drew, in part, on agency responses to a January
14, 1997 oversight letter to each of the statutory department
and agency Chief Information Officers. Witnesses included the
following agency Chief Information Officers: Ms. Liza
McClenaghan, Department of State; Assistant Secretary Emmett
Paige, Department of Defense; Ms. Patricia Lattimore,
Department of Labor; Mr. John J. Callahan, Department of Health
and Human Services; Associate Deputy Secretary Michael Huerta,
Department of Transportation; and Mr. Mark D. Catlett,
Department of Veterans Affairs. In addition, Joel C.
Willemssen, Director, Accounting and Information Management
Division, General Accounting Office, testified about GAO's work
on the topic.
Mr. Horn opened the hearing with reference to the January
14 letter that requested information from each agency on its
year 2000 plans, noting that ``the quality of the response
varies widely.'' Mr. Horn outlined three questions every agency
must answer:
1. Have you defined the size and scope of the
problem?
2. Do you know how and when the fixes will be made?
3. Have you identified mission critical systems and
set clear priorities for action?
Mr. Horn expressed grave concern that 12 of the 14 Federal
Departments plan to implement their solutions in the final 3
months of 1999.
Joel C. Willemssen's testimony focused on GAO's newly-
released report: ``Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment
Guide.'' The purpose of the report was to provide a useful
framework for agency managers to use in planning and
implementing their year 2000 programs. Ms. Liza McClenaghan,
Chief Information Officer for the Department of State,
testified that the Department of State had accurately defined
the year 2000 problems if faced. She reported that 57 of the 85
mission-critical systems were not year 2000 compliant. She
estimated the total cost of the year 2000 problem for the State
Department at $135.2 million. She stated that the strategy
included integrating year 2000 fixes into a larger plan for
modernization of information technology infrastructure.
Assistant Secretary Emmett Paige, Department of Defense,
testified that the DOD was ``far down the road to completing''
the assessment phase. He pointed to the Defense Integration
Support Tools, or DIST, as a management tool to track essential
information regarding DOD systems. He also noted that the DOD
was reprogramming resources from all areas for use in solving
the year 2000 problem and asked that Congress reduce the drain
on resources by lowering the number of special reporting
requirements.
The subcommittee's second hearing on the year 2000 problem
in 1997 extended the focus beyond standard computer systems to
survey other affected technologies, including a variety of
consumer products. Witnesses testified on the year 2000 risks
associated with embedded microprocessors. Many critical
technology systems depend on automated devices that control
their operations. These can include security systems for badge
readers, surveillance and home security systems, medical
devices, factory machinery, and telephone systems. Problems
associated with date calculations in these devices can result
in various malfunctions or shutdown.
At the hearing, Bruce Hall, research director for the
Gartner Group, explained the ``time horizon to failure'' issue.
Ann Coffou, managing director, Giga Group, testified on the
problems with embedded microchips. Vito Peraino, an attorney
with Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, covered the potential for
year 2000 liability claims. Harris Miller, president,
Information Technology Association of America, testifying about
his organization's certification program for the year 2000
software conversion process. Following the hearing, the
chairmen and ranking members of the two subcommittees sent an
oversight letter to department and agency heads to determine
whether the agencies were assessing their vulnerability to the
embedded chip problem.
The subcommittee's third hearing on the year 2000 problem
in 1997, once again held jointly with the Technology
Subcommittee, evaluated Federal department and agency progress
on the basis of the quarterly progress report provided to
Congress by the Office of Management and Budget. At this
hearing, committee members called upon the executive branch to
attach far greater priority to the year 2000 effort.
Subcommittee Chairman Horn opened the hearing by stressing
the importance of high-level attention for progress on this
problem. With the Office of Management and Budget as lead
witness, he asked: ``Has the President of the United States
made this an issue? He is one of the great communicators of
this century. We need him to awaken the Nation to this very
serious situation.'' He also asked whether agency timetables
were realistic and adequate to solve the problem before the
unmovable deadline of midnight, December 31, 1999, and whether
agencies have sufficient management processes in place to
monitor their year 2000 efforts. He asked these questions in
the context of the disappointing news reflected in OMB's
quarterly report, which showed that some agencies with critical
responsibilities for providing public services were stuck at
the starting gate. As of May 15, noted Mr. Horn, fully 18 out
of 24 agencies had yet to finish assessing the vulnerability of
their computer systems to the year 2000 problem; 10 out of 24
agencies had yet to complete any testing of software changes.
Mr. Horn stated that these were discouraging and worrisome
statistics.
Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory affairs, Office of Management and Budget, testified
that the administration's estimate for governmentwide cost of
preparing its computers for the date change had risen to $2.8
billion, from $2.3 billion in February. Despite this, she
insisted that the Government was on track to complete all
necessary fixes before January 1, 2000. Her prepared testimony
concluded that ``the year 2000 computer problem will be a non-
event.'' She testified that ``we will all breathe a very happy
sigh of relief on December 31st, 1999.''
Joel Willemssen, Director of Accounting and Information
Management Division, General Accounting Office, was much less
optimistic. He testified that based on the latest information,
Federal agencies simply did not have enough time to complete
all necessary fixes. He strongly urged agencies to prioritize
so that critical systems are fixed in time.
Joe Thompson, Chief Information Officer, General Services
Administration, testified that the General Services
Administration is working to raise awareness of the year 2000
problem throughout the government. He reported that GSA's
Federal Supply Service has notified manufacturers and service
and equipment providers that all products sold to the
Government must be year 2000 compliant.
Kathleen Adams, chair of the Interagency Year 2000
Subcommittee of the Chief Information Officers Council and
Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Systems, Social Security
Administration, testified on the role of the Interagency Year
2000 Subcommittee. She reported that the year 2000 subcommittee
is developing a database that will contain information
regarding whether commercial-off-the-shelf software presently
in use in Federal agencies will function properly after the
date change. She stressed that although the efforts like this
database can help, the responsibility for success or failure
ultimately lies with the Chief Information Officer of each
agency and with OMB.
b. Benefits.--The year 2000 problem is going to be
expensive to the taxpayers, but how expensive depends on how
quickly officials step up to the problem. Administration cost
estimates are already nearing $4 billion, and figures in this
range have been deemed dramatically low by a variety of
experts. The ultimate cost depends to a great extent on how
early and how efficiently the Government can address the
problem. The costs associated with fixing this labor-intensive
problem will rise significantly as the date change nears.
Furthermore, failure to repair computers before the date change
will bring a variety of costs of untold proportions. It is
therefore critical that the fixes are made and made early.
Effective efforts to expedite this process will save the
taxpayers considerable amounts of money.
Potentially even more significant that the financial toll
of a delayed response to the year 2000 problem is the danger of
failure. It is very difficult to determine the exact
consequences of inaccurate date computations in most computer
programs. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, preparations
for the date change are crucial. Failure to make the necessary
fixes puts citizens at risk of everything from late social
security checks to unsafe travel conditions.
c. Hearings.--The Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology held three hearings on this issue
in the first session of the 105th Congress: (1) ``Will Federal
Government Computers Be Ready for the Year 2000?'' February 24,
1997; (2) ``Year 2000 Risks: What Are the Consequences of
Information Technology Failure?'' March 20, 1997, held jointly
with the Subcommittee on Technology of the Science Committee;
and (3) ``Will Federal Government Computers be Ready for the
Year 2000?'' July 10, 1997, held jointly with the Subcommittee
on Technology of the Science Committee.
3. Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act.
a. Summary.--The American voters have made it clear that
they think the Federal Government is too often ineffective,
inefficient, and overly expensive. Real reform must involve
fundamental changes in how the Government operates, beginning
with the adoption of effective management techniques from the
private sector. Outcome-oriented or results-driven performance
management strategies adopted from the private sector are the
driving force of the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993.
The Government Performance and Results Act is the
centerpiece of Federal management reform in recent years. In
essence, the act requires Federal agencies to ask and to
repeatedly answer some very basic questions: What is the
agency's mission? What are its goals and how will the agency
achieve them? How can the agency's performance be measured? How
should that information be used to make improvements? These
questions are answered in Strategic Plans, required by the
Results Act to be completed for the first time by September 30,
1997. The plans provide the framework for agency's management
to examine activities throughout the organization, ensuring
that all activities relate to the agency's basic mission. To
Congress, this is an opportunity for a broad discussion about
an agency's future direction and program priorities.
In preparation for this historic submission of the first
Strategic Plans, the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology consulted with the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB], House Majority Leader Dick Armey,
and a wide range of Federal agencies. The General Services
Administration [GSA] was a particular focus of subcommittee
efforts.
In August agencies submitted draft Strategic Plans. The
plans were reviewed by Congress for legal compliance and
quality. The subcommittee was the primary evaluator for GSA and
participated with Mr. Armey's staff in the evaluation of all
Federal agencies. A large number of agency Strategic Plans were
not legally compliant. The quality of these plans ranged from a
low of 11 to a high of 62 on a 105 point scale. The GSA
Strategic Plan rated an unacceptable 35.
The final Strategic Plan submissions in September were
reviewed and evaluated by the same process using the same
criteria. Because of the congressional oversight the average
score increased by 56 percent from 29.9 to 46.6, with a low of
28 and a high of 75 on a 100 point scale. GSA increased to 40.5
points.
In addition to GSA, the subcommittee paid particular
attention to the Strategic Plan of OMB because of OMB's role in
guiding the Results Act compliance of all other agencies. OMB's
final plan was much improved in packaging and clarity but not
in substance. OMB's Strategic Plan does not show the strategy
and resources required for high quality Results Act Strategic
Plans throughout the Federal Government.
The subcommittee held a series of four hearings on the
Results Act in the first session of the 105th Congress. This
series of hearings will continue in the second session. The
Results Act provides a unique opportunity to view the Federal
Government on a comprehensive basis. In this context, the
executive branch should seek to identify and set the priorities
for the services that must be provided, the activities that
must be carried out, and the measurement of the results that
are achieved.
The first subcommittee Results Act hearing of the session
was held in two parts. In the first part, the subcommittee
examined the status of the consultation process required by the
Results Act. It anticipated the consultations between executive
branch agencies and Congress that would take place during much
of 1997 on the content of agency strategic plans. The objective
was to take a closer look at what the consultation process
would actually involve.
L. Nye Stevens, Director, Federal Management and Workforce
Issues, General Government Division, testified for the General
Accounting Office. Mr. Stevens stressed the importance of the
consultation process. He pointed to the string of failed
efforts to link results with resources in the Federal
Government, including PPBS (the Planning Programming Budgeting
System) and zero-based budgeting. The reason they failed,
argued Mr. Stevens, was that they each ignored the need for
constructive, candid communication and shared goals between
branches of the Government. He advised the members of the
subcommittee to pay particular attention to engaging the right
people in the consultation discussions. Those with authority
over operations need to be involved in the process, as do
Members of Congress. He also suggested that strategic plans
should be considered dynamic, subject to change and open to
criticism by all participants.
The subcommittee also heard testimony from three agencies:
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Social
Security Administration, and the Forest Service. All three were
early GPRA pilots. Representatives from these agencies
discussed how they were preparing for full GPRA implementation.
Dwight Robinson, Deputy Secretary, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, testified that HUD has used performance
reporting to monitor performance of programs since fiscal year
1994. He emphasized the role of technology by highlighting
HUD's use of an application of Lotus Notes software to
coordinate program and departmental efforts. He said the
application facilitates communication among management levels.
He also said it ``allows for a system based on resource levels
that may be utilized by program areas down to the process
level.''
The second part of the hearing took place on March 13,
1997. The subcommittee listened to a local government success
story with an eye toward the Federal reform effort. The
featured program was the substantial reinvention process
undertaken by the city of New York under the leadership of
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The reinvention has involved re-
engineering and could extend to privatization of certain
government activities. The subcommittee heard about how New
York City dramatically improved its management practices and
gained nationwide acclaim for its considerable crime-fighting
accomplishments.
Mr. Horn opened this part of the hearing by observing that
New York's achievement is part of a pattern of change from
which the Federal Government should learn. In New Zealand, the
Federal Government and local governments include performance
measures in their annual financial reports, and in Great
Britain the Audit Commission compiles and reports on a series
of performance measures for local governments. They have
improved the performance of their departments and lowered the
cost of doing business. The approach is basic: carefully
evaluate each activity, decide whether it furthers the agency's
mission, drop it if it does not, and then decide how to perform
the essential tasks more efficiently and at a lower cost.
State and local governments in the United States are using
performance measures to improve the quality of their services.
Several States and local governments in the United States also
provide examples of the effective use of performance
measurement for management of programs, including Oregon,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. Prince William
County in Virginia has a performance management system for all
major areas of service delivery. The Board of Prince William
County in Virginia uses performance data to annually update its
current 5-year strategic plan and to formulate a new plan that
will be more realistic. Portland, OR has a performance
reporting system for the city's six largest programs: police,
fire, parks, water, sewer, and streets.
Mayor Giuliani testified on the management reforms behind
New York City's reduction in crime over recent years. He
pointed to reorganization. Three separate police departments
were merged into one, enabling the pooling of resources and
efficiency of organization where jurisdictional disputes
traditionally hindered action. Mr. Giuliani also pointed to the
innovative use of technology in the form of the Compstat
program. This program provides the police department with up-
to-the-minute statistics on crimes in each of the city's
precincts, allowing both immediate response to trends in crime
as well as coordinated planning on overall patterns of crime.
The subcommittee's second hearing on the Results Act in
1997 focused on pilot projects required by the law in the early
stages of implementation. The Results Act specifies that the
Office of Management and Budget shall report on the benefits,
costs, and usefulness of the plans and reports prepared by
pilot agencies. These pilots are essential to effective
implementation of the act. From them the Government will
experiment with and learn about three aspects of Federal
management reform: performance goals, managerial accountability
and flexibility, and performance budgeting.
The law called for a minimum of 10 performance measurement
pilot agencies. But instead of 10 or another relatively small,
manageable number, OMB created 72. This is troublesome to the
subcommittee. At the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Horn
expressed concern that it looks very much as though executive
branch attention to this law is being spread too thin. The
pilots were meant to provide concrete experiences with success
and failure in the implementation of this act. Quantity appears
to have become the enemy of quality.
John Koskinen, Deputy Director for Management at the Office
of Management and Budget, testified on his Office's reviews of
pilot agency efforts to implement the principles of the Results
Act. He stated that no element of performance-based management
is more important than the strategic plan. They are the
foundation and framework for implementing all other parts of
the Results Act. According to Mr. Koskinen, OMB issued strong
guidance to Federal agencies supporting congressional
consultation. Looking ahead, he further reported that OMB has
prepared guidance on the preparation and submission of annual
performance reports in fiscal year 1999.
L. Nye Stevens, Director of Federal Management and
Workforce Issues at the General Accounting Office, testified
that implementation of the Results Act had so far achieved
mixed results. Mr. Stevens predicted highly uneven
governmentwide implementation in the fall of 1997, noting that
many agencies did not appear well positioned to provide in 1997
an answer to the fundamental Results Act question of whether
programs have produced real results.
GAO found that agencies are confronting five key challenges
that were limiting effective implementation of the Results Act:
(1) establishing clear agency missions and strategic goals when
program efforts are overlapping or fragmented; (2) measuring
performance, particularly when the Federal contribution to a
result is difficult to determine; (3) generating the results-
oriented performance information needed to set goals and assess
progress; (4) instilling a results-oriented organizational
culture within agencies; and (5) linking performance plans to
the budget process.
At the third Results Act hearing, the subcommittee heard
testimony from the Office of Management and Budget and the
General Accounting Office regarding the content of OMB's
Strategic Plan. Gene Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General,
Accounting and Information Division, General Accounting Office,
testified on the deficiencies in OMB's August draft Strategic
Plan. He also testified on the improvement in OMB's final
September Strategic Plan and the remaining deficiencies. Mr.
Dodaro cited evidence within OMB's plan to make the distinction
between relative strengths in budgeting and serious weaknesses
in management. GAO continued to testify concerning the serious
weaknesses in the strategy and resources for management tasks.
GAO emphasized the lack of assurance that the planned method of
coordinating agency efforts via councils would accomplish
anything.
Mr. G. Edward DeSeve, Acting Deputy Director of Management
at OMB, testified on the compliance and completeness of OMB's
final Strategic Plan. He testified that a number of meaningful
tasks were accomplished using the method of coordinating
councils. He testified that the strategy and resources
currently available to OMB were sufficient to accomplish all of
OMB's responsibilities.
Subcommittee Chairman Horn questioned Mr. DeSeve concerning
``management'' as versus ``budget'' activities at OMB. In
particular, he enumerated some of OMB's responsibilities and
questioned OMB's capacity to handle all the work. Mr. DeSeve
insisted that OMB's strategy of coordinating councils was not
due to insufficient resources but a purposeful choice of the
best way to achieve management improvement throughout the
Federal agencies.
At the fourth and final subcommitee hearing on the Results
Act in 1997, testimony was heard from the General Services
Administration [GSA] regarding the content of GSA's Strategic
Plan. Mr. Dennis J. Fisher, Chief Financial Officer at GSA,
testified as to the completeness and quality of the GSA
Strategic Plan. Mr. Fisher was personally in charge of the
plan's development and attested to its alignment with GSA
divisional plans and budgets. Mr. Horn questioned GSA building
rental rates, overhead costs, and flexibility.
b. Benefits.--The quality of agency Strategic Plans and
their derivative Performance Plans and Performance Reports
affects the effectiveness and efficiency of the entire Federal
Government. Without strategic plans and actual performance
measures against those plans, it is impossible for any large
organization to access its success. This is particularly true
to Federal Departments and agencies because of the diverse
nature of the programs they administer. For a large number of
Federal programs it is very difficult to assess their success.
It is especially difficult to compare the relative success of
duplicate or overlapping programs. Consequently, it is
difficult for Congress to determine which programs are worth
the American taxpayer's investment; which programs should be
expanded because they work well and which programs should be
canceled because they do not deliver their intended result.
The subcommittee has conducted hearings to oversee the
Government's implementation of GPRA. The subcommittee has made
recommendations on how strategic plans should be developed. The
subcommittee has made explicit the intentions and expectations
of Congress for the content and quality of GPRA strategic
plans. The subcommittee has worked with specific agencies such
as GSA and OMB to review their draft strategic plans. Further,
because of the special function of OMB in guiding other Federal
agencies, the subcommittee has insisted that OMB set serious
standards for all Federal agencies to deliver realistic
strategic plans and meaningful performance measures.
The subcommittee worked closely with congressional
leadership to evaluate the draft strategic plans submitted in
August. The critiques provided to the largest 24 Federal
Departments and agencies resulted in substantial quality and
content improvements in the final strategic plans submitted for
September fiscal year end. In fact, the average score for final
strategic plans was almost double the score for draft plans.
The quality of agency Strategic Plans and their derivative
Performance Plans and Performance Reports affects the
effectiveness and efficiency of the entire Federal Government.
Further, the quality of Results Act plans affects the ability
of Congress to evaluate program adherence to policy, program
effectiveness and efficiency, and program duplication, overlap,
and waste. Similarly, the administration and the agencies
themselves are affected by the quality of their Results Act
plans. A small effort by the subcommittee has tremendous
leverage in improving Results Act plans and, thereby,
performance throughout the Federal Government.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held four hearings on the
Government Performance and Results Act in 1997: (1)
``Government Performance and Results Act Implementation: How to
Achieve Results,'' March 10 and 13, 1997; (2) ``Government
Performance and Results Act: Status and Prospects of the
Results Act,'' June 3, 1997; (3) ``Oversight of OMB's GPRA
Strategic Plan,'' October 6, 1997; and, (4) ``Oversight of
GSA's Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Plan,''
October 8, 1997.
4. Internal Revenue Service Management.
a. Summary.--The Internal Revenue Service has had
difficulty adapting to the information and accountability
demands of the late 20th century. The subcommittee held two
hearings on financial management at the IRS in 1996. Those
hearings focused on the IRS's revenue accounting system and the
IRS's problems with collections, management of accounts
receivables, filing fraud and fraudulent refunds, records
retention, tax lien recovery, and unauthorized browsing of
taxpayer records by IRS personnel. Despite promises for reform
made at those hearings, a steady stream of press reports on
feeble management, failed automation, and poor customer service
at the IRS continued unabated into 1997.
The list of failed projects at the IRS includes:
The Tax Systems Modernization project, a $4
billion attempt to modernize the IRS's decades-old
computer systems;
Cyberfile, a project that would have allowed
taxpayers to prepare and electronically submit their
tax returns from their personal computers;
Integrated Case Processing, a program that
would have allowed IRS representatives to access all
the data needed in order to answer taxpayer questions
over the telephone;
the Document Processing System, a system that
would have scanned paper documents and electronically
captured data for subsequent processing and retrieval;
and
the Service Center Recognition/Image
Processing System, the failed document-scanning program
that the Document Processing System was designed to
replace.
Several important questions must be answered. What does the
IRS need to do to get its modernization project back on track?
How is the Treasury going to ensure that the IRS embarks on a
modernization plan that will work? What sort of milestones or
benchmarks should a modernization plan have so that its
progress can be monitored? How long do we have to wait to see
results? Will the right people be held accountable? How can we
overcome obstacles to change such as the organizational culture
of the IRS? How do we modify it? How do we make sure that the
IRS can manage multimillion-dollar information-technology
development projects, even if such projects are given to
outside contractors?
The IRS must be accountable. Americans have a right to know
whether the agency that collects taxes from their hard-earned
money is capable of managing its internal operations in an
efficient, fair, and accountable way.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Lynda Willis,
Director for Tax Administration and Policy of the General
Accounting Office, who discussed the progress the IRS has made
in acting on recommendations submitted by GAO to improve IRS
operations. Robert Tobias of the National Treasury Employees
Union, presented IRS employees' views on how to restore public
and congressional confidence in the IRS. Sheldon Cohen, former
IRS Commissioner during the Johnson administration and a
National Academy of Public Administration fellow, also
testified on information technology challenges at the IRS. Mr.
Cohen was Commissioner when the IRS first started to
computerize its operations. Deputy Commissioner Michael Dolan
provided testimony on the IRS's approach to modernization.
Mr. Horn noted at the hearing that the President was faced
with the task of nominating a new IRS Commissioner. Mr. Horn
advised the President that he should be judicious in his choice
of the new IRS Commissioner. It should not be someone who is
simply a CPA tax accountant, or a tax lawyer, but someone who
has demonstrable management expertise in providing leadership
to large, complex organizations. The President later followed
Mr. Horn's advice by nominating Charles O. Rossotti, a
technology executive, to the position.
b. Benefits.--Congressional attention to the troubles at
IRS are essential if the agency is going to reform. At the
heart of IRS's problems is poor management, including poor
financial management and poor information technology
management. The year 2000 computer software conversion problem
is an issue that illustrates the importance of improving
management at the IRS. Without serious attention, it may become
necessary to add the year 2000 problem to the IRS failure list.
This would be a catastrophe not only for the IRS but for all
the other agencies and organizations that depend on IRS
information.
c. Hearings.--``Internal Revenue Service Mismanagement and
Ideas for Improvement'' was held on April 14, 1997.
5. Debt Collection.
a. Summary.--The Debt Collection Improvement Act [DCIA] was
signed into law on April 26, 1996, as a part of Public Law 104-
134. The DCIA established new tools to assist agencies in
collecting debts owed to the United States. It provides
agencies incentives to increase collections of delinquent debts
while protecting the rights of debtors. It also allows agencies
to rely on the expertise of private-sector debt collectors.
The subcommittee held two hearings regarding the
implementation of the Debt Collection. The first hearing was
entitled ``Implementation of the Debt Collection Improvement
Act of 1996.'' Larry Summers, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury,
described efforts to reform and modernize the Internal Revenue
Service. Summers noted his opposition to an independent
Internal Revenue Service and opposition to an oversight board.
According to Mr. Summers, no other issue occupies more of his
time than debt collection. John Koskinen, Deputy Director,
Office of Management and Budget described the challenges,
priorities, trends in the debt collection area, and the
importance of interagency cooperation. Koskinen was questioned
as to OMB's commitment to the debt collection function.
Koskinen asserted that debt collection is a priority and that
OMB is actively engaged, although the function occurs primarily
at other agencies.
Mr. Gerald Murphy, Assistant Fiscal Secretary, Department
of the Treasury described the activities within his Department
to organize the Treasury Offset Program to intercept payments
to delinquent debtors, provide for cross-servicing, draft
regulations and other activities intended to promote debt
collection. Mr. Steven McNamara, Assistant Inspector General,
Department of Education, noted his office's work to identify
benefit fraud in the Pell Grant program. According to McNamara,
a confidential survey of tax returns was conducted that
compared them against stated income. The survey revealed that
nearly $200 million in Pell Grants went to ineligible
individuals who had lied on their applications.
Mr. Mitchell Adams, commissioner, Massachusetts Department
of Revenue, described the effort of the State of Massachusetts
to collect delinquent debts including student loans and child
support, through wage garnishment. Mr. Adams noted a
technically advanced system designed to automate this process.
The subcommittee's second hearing on debt collection was
entitled ``Oversight of Federal Debt Collection Practices,''
and held on November 12, 1997. Jerry Hawke, Undersecretary,
Department of the Treasury, and Gerald Murphy, Assistant Fiscal
Secretary, Department of the Treasury, described the Department
of the Treasury's efforts to implement the Debt Collection
Improvement Act. The Department was criticized for poor
progress and missteps. The Department was unable to produce a
timetable for implementation.
David Longaknecker, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education, noted his agency's
improvements in debt collection. The department, with years of
experience in the area and an excellent team in place, has
improved its recoveries of delinquent debts.
John Gray, Deputy Administrator, Small Business
Administration, described the SBA's program to collect
delinquent debts. These efforts include a large loan sales
program that has been the subject of some delays. Mr. Gray
indicated that the SBA would begin referring delinquent
accounts to the private collection agencies under contract with
the Department of the Treasury by January 1998.
b. Benefits.--The role of the Federal Government in the
credit markets is enormous. The Federal Government dominates
the markets for student loans and housing loans, and has a
strong impact on other sectors as well. Effective Federal debt
collection practices is essential to protect the interests of
the taxpayers, and strong congressional oversight is essential
to effective debt collection practices. At this point, the
Government is still in the process of implementing the DCIA.
There are a variety of steps in the process of implementation
that warrant heightened congressional attention.
c. Hearings.--Subcommittee Chairman Horn called two
hearings regarding implementation of the Debt Collection
Improvement Act, one on April 18, 1997 and the other on
November 12, 1997.
6. Federal Measures of Race and Ethnicity.
a. Summary.--For the past two decades, the Federal
Government had used four racial categories to measure the
population: black, white, American Indian or Alaskan Native,
and Asian or Pacific Islander. Separately, individuals have
also been classified according to Hispanic ethnicity. Since the
1978, these categories have been set forth in the Office of
Management and Budget's Directive No. 15--Race and Ethnic
Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting.
Race and ethnic classifications are used for implementation of
numerous Federal laws on voting rights, lending practices,
provision of health services, and employment practices. The
data are also utilized by State and local governments for
legislative redistricting and compliance with the Voting Rights
Act.
Directive No. 15 has restricted designation of an
individual to one of the four racial categories. The major
concern with this requirement is that a growing segment of the
population can claim multiple racial heritages. It is argued
that forcing such individuals to choose just one heritage is
unfair to them and an unnecessary inaccuracy in the measurement
of race. Proposed solutions included creation of a new category
called ``multiracial,'' and, alternatively, allowing
individuals to mark more than one of the four traditional
categories.
Due to increasing pressure over the measure of multiracial
status as well as a variety of other concerns, OMB conducted a
4-year review of Directive No. 15. The review involved four
public hearings around the country and three sample surveys to
measure the affect of proposed changes. The review was
conducted by the Interagency Committee, a task force created by
OMB with representation from 30 Federal agencies. The
Interagency Committee completed its review of Directive No. 15
and submitted its recommendations to OMB in July 1997. The
recommendations were published in the July 9, 1997, Federal
Register. The Interagency Committee rejected the proposal for
creation of a ``multiracial'' category but recommended that
individuals be permitted to ``select one or more'' of the
current categories of race whenever the Federal Government
measures race.
The Interagency Committee argued for its ``select one or
more'' recommendation by observing that the multiracial
population is growing. Allowing individuals to identify with
more than one race will help to measure the demographic changes
more precisely. The Interagency Committee also pointed out that
at least 0.5 percent of respondents already mark more than one
race in spite of instructions to choose just one. Finally,
there is a trend toward reporting more than one race at the
State level. Currently five States allow individuals to select
a multiracial category or to choose more than one race.
The Interagency Committee provided several reasons for
rejecting a multiracial category. First, it found that there is
no general consensus on the definition of ``multiracial.''
Second and related, a multiracial category is more likely to be
misunderstood by individuals responding to questions on race.
Such misunderstanding would lead to inaccurate responses and
therefore less reliable data on race. A third reason is that a
multiracial category would require either more space or mode
coding.
OMB accepted public comments on the Interagency Committee
recommendation for approximately 2 months, after which time it
announced its decision to adopt the recommendation with slight
modifications. On the multiracial issue, it adopted the
``select one or more'' recommendation. The changes will be
adopted by the Census Bureau during its dress rehearsal for the
2000 census in the spring of 1998.
The first hearing provided background on the issues
involved in Federal measures of race and ethnicity. The
subcommittee heard testimony from the Office of Management and
Budget, the General Accounting Office, the Department of
Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The second hearing featured advocates and opponents of a
multiracial designation, including Susan Graham, president,
Project RACE; Ramona Douglass, president, Association of
MultiEthnic Americans; Karen Narasaki, executive director,
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; Harold
McDougall, director, Washington Bureau, National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People; Eric Rodriguez, policy
analyst, National Council of La Raza; and JoAnn Chase,
executive director, National Congress of American Indians. The
subcommittee heard arguments that the categories of Directive
No. 15 did not accurately account for a particular group from
U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) and Helen Hatab Samhan,
executive vice president, Arab-American Institute. The hearing
also featured demographic and sociological specialists: Dr.
Mary Waters, Department of Sociology, Harvard University; Dr.
Balint Vazsonyi, director, Center for the American Founding;
and Dr. Harold Hodgkinson, Institute for Educational
Leadership.
The third hearing featured testimony on the potential
consequences of the Interagency Committee recommendation.
Several witnesses focused on challenges presented by the
variety of new data created by allowing individuals to select
more than one race. The central issue is how this data will be
tabulated. One major concern is whether the recommendation, if
adopted by OMB, would lead to double counting of individuals
who identify with more than one race. This could be a problem
particularly in the enforcement of civil rights laws. The
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Isabelle
Katz Pinzler, addressed this issue.
b. Benefits.--Federal measures of race and ethnicity are
important to many people for a variety of reasons. The data
gathered by the Census Bureau and other Federal agencies as
well as by school districts and hospitals throughout the
country provide essential information to governments,
businesses, and a variety of other organizations. Professionals
from statisticians to law enforcement officials rely on this
data. Furthermore, all individuals have a first-hand experience
with this data: they are the ones who provide it. The way the
Federal Government decides to measure race and ethnicity
therefore affects many people at many levels. The decision of
whether to make changes to the current standards was a very
important one. It was a decision that needed to be considered
cautiously and openly. Although ultimately the decision was in
the hands of OMB, it first needed the attention of Congress and
the American people. The subcommittee's hearings on the issue
both broadened and deepened deliberations on the issues
involved in the decision.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a series of three
hearings on this issue. The series was entitled, ``Federal
Measures of Race and Ethnicity and the Implications for the
2000 Census.'' These hearings were held on April 23, May 22,
and July 25, 1997.
7. The Post FTS-2000 Telecommunications Contract.
a. Summary.--The FTS2000 contract was first issued in 1988
by the General Services Administration. The contract governs
Federal purchases of long-distance telephone services and other
ancillary services. By most estimates, it has been successful
in reducing Federal telecommunications costs. Prior to the
FTS2000 contract, GSA operated a government-owned
infrastructure that cost more than standard commercial rates
offered by AT&T, MCI and Sprint, the three main long-distance
firms. The FTS2000 contract reduced significantly the rate-per-
minute charge paid by Federal agencies using the contract,
which was awarded to Sprint and MCI.
GSA has worked with the Interagency Management Council
[IMC], a group of agency telecommunications experts, in
managing the FTS2000 program and planning for the follow-on
contract. This planning process was initiated in March 1993.
The IMC and GSA solicited input from agency users, industry,
and academia for the follow-on contract (FTS2001).
Enactment of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996
[TRA] affected planning for the FTS2001 contract by promising
to bring a new era of competition to telecommunications. This
undermined the justification for a longer-term contract, since
a long-term contract awarded now would not allow the Federal
Government to benefit from industry consolidation and
competition under TRA.
In September 1996, GSA released its then-current strategy
for the FTS2001 contract. In response to congressional and
industry interest, GSA released a revision of the strategy in
February 1997 in the form of a statement of principles rather
than a draft RFP. The revision created an opportunity for the
eventual contractors in the FTS2001 and MAA programs to compete
against each other. A refinement of these principles was issued
on April 4, 1997. The refinement governs the contract duration,
award process and means of competition, and the inclusion of
optional services.
b. Benefits.--The FTS-2000 contract has benefitted
taxpayers enormously. The follow-on contract will provide a
contracting vehicle to allow Federal agencies to obtain better
rates for local service. Congressional participation in guiding
this process was crucial to achieving the best possible
telecommunications deal for the taxpayers.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on April 30,
1997, entitled, ``Oversight of the Post-FTS2000
Telecommunications Contract.''
8. White House Management Issues.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee addressed two concerns
regarding management of the Executive Office of the President:
the status of special Government employees and the lack of a
chief financial officer in the White House. The issue of a
chief financial officer in the White House was treated through
legislation with H.R. 1962 (see Section III. A. Legislation,
New Measures for more discussion.)
The continuing spate of allegations about mismanagement at
the White House have been frequent reminders of the need for
serious, statutory changes in the way the White House is run.
H.R. 1966, the ``Special Government Employee Act of 1997,''
updates the definition of a ``special Government employee'' to
cover unpaid, informal advisors. Foremost is the need for
accountability and adherence to conflict-of-interest and other
disclosure requirements. The White House has a history of using
informal associates and advisers who are present in the White
House on an ongoing basis and regularly affect public policy,
yet who are utterly unaccountable to the public. Americans have
a right to know who is influencing policy decisions in the
White House. Too often influential associates of the President
wield power in the White House yet remain hidden in the shadows
and unaccountable to the public. Hearings before the full
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in the last
Congress demonstrated that certain associates of the President
used their access to President Clinton, the First Lady, and the
staff of the Executive Office of the President to promote their
own business interests, even to the extent of encouraging the
termination of career employees of the White House.
b. Benefits.--Redefining ``special Government employee''
will shine the light of publicity on back-room advisors. The
proposed measure will expand the definition of ``special
Government employee'' to cover unpaid, informal advisors to the
President so that they come under the same conflict of interest
and financial disclosure statutes as regular White House staff.
This proposal would amend the current definition to make it
completely clear who comes under conflict of interest and other
disclosure requirements. This includes a functional test that
focuses on what the advisors actually do and on whether they
are involved in the Government's deliberative processes.
c. Hearings.--``Oversight of the `Presidential and
Executive Office Financial Accountability Act of 1997' and the
`Special Government Employee Act of 1997' '' was held on May 1,
1997.
9. Executive Branch Information Dissemination.
a. Summary.--The Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology is a principle congressional
guardian of access to executive branch information. The
subcommittee's charter states that it ``will ascertain the
trend in the availability of Government information and will
scrutinize the information practices of executive agencies and
officials.'' The subcommittee oversees Federal information
dissemination. Information dissemination programs at the
Government Printing Office include the distribution of
publications to Federal depository libraries nationwide,
cataloging and indexing, and distribution to recipients
designated by law. They also include distribution to foreign
libraries designated by the Library of Congress, in return for
which the Library receives governmental publications from those
countries.
The Government Printing Office distributes about 100
million copies of Government publications per year.
Approximately 75 percent of all its printing needs are
contracted out to private printers. Of the work handled in-
house, about half is for Congress. The Government Printing
Office currently employs 3,674 employees, fewer than at any
time in this century. There is concern that the administration
has been reducing public access to information. Specifically,
many executive branch agencies are not furnishing copies of the
information they produce to the Government Printing Office for
dissemination through the Federal depository libraries.
Furthermore, there is concern that the administration is
allowing many agencies to enter into restrictive distribution
agreements that further limit the availability of agency
information to the public.
b. Benefits.--Access to information--especially
governmental information--is the foundation of an educated
citizenry and hence a free society. The Government Printing
Office plays an essential role in making governmental
information available to the American people. In times of rapid
technological advance, it is important that the Government
keeps pace with changes--both to maintain availability and to
take advantage of time and cost saving measures. Subcommittee
oversight in the areas of both information and technology is
crucial to this process.
c. Hearings.--``Oversight of the Government Printing Office
and Executive Branch Information Dissemination'' was held on
May 8, 1997.
10. The Medicare Transaction System.
a. Summary.--In November 1995, the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology and the
Subcommittee on Human Resources held a joint hearing that
considered, among other matters, how existing information
technology processes could be incorporated into the Medicare
claims system to more effectively identify fraud. Based on
several reports from the General Accounting Office, the
subcommittees had serious concerns at that time about the
ambitious Medicare Transaction System or MTS. Congressman Horn
feared that the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] was
ill-equipped to manage such a massive and complex project, and
that the costs would outweigh the benefits.
Unfortunately, the fears materialized. On April 4th, the
Health Care Financing Administration announced that it was
``exploring other options to develop MTS.'' Moreover, the
subcommittees learned in 1997 that HCFA has a serious year 2000
problem. The General Accounting Office wrote a report that
includes sharp criticism of HCFA's involvement in the year 2000
software conversion effort of its claims contractors and
standard systems maintainers.
b. Benefits.--If the Medicare system is unable to process
claims accurately in the year 2000, the impact on Medicare
beneficiaries across the country, and indeed the entire health
care system, could be catastrophic. Congressional oversight was
necessary to get assurances for the American people about the
future of Medicare transaction processing as well as the HCFA's
management of the year 2000 problem.
c. Hearings.--``Status of the Medicare Transaction System''
was held jointly with the Subcommittee on Human Resources on
May 16, 1997.
11. Total Quality Management.
a. Summary.--Total Quality Management [TQM] is management
philosophies that has helped many organizations become more
efficient and effective in a very competitive environment.
Government has many concerns other than the bottom line, but
public and private sector services are inevitably compared in
the consumer's mind--and in certain cases Government must
compete directly with private companies. It is no surprise that
in recent years voters have made abundantly clear their desire
for a more efficient and affordable government. TQM strives to
achieve continuous improvement of quality through organization-
wide efforts based on facts and data. Organizations use quality
management principles to determine the expectations of all
their customers--both external and internal--and to establish
systems to meet those expectations. In recent years, both
Federal and State governments have found that they could not
attain high quality by using traditional approaches to managing
service and product quality. The customer of the Federal
Government is the American taxpayer. To satisfy its customer,
the Government must design its programs, goods, and services
for quality. Furthermore, application of quality management
principles to the Government--an organization whose customers
are also its owners--presents a unique set of challenges.
The subcommittee sought ideas on how quality management
principles might be applied to the special case of the
Government with the overall purpose of working toward a more
efficient and effective Federal Government. The formal
definition of a Total Quality Management company exists in the
criteria for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. This
annual award, given since 1988 by the Department of Commerce,
recognizes companies that excel in managing for and achieving
quality.
b. Benefits.--In our relentlessly competitive global
economy, the only constant is rapid change. In this
environment, organizations must adapt or perish.
Competitiveness depends on management. The private sector has
proven remarkably adept at organizational flexibility. The
public sector has been distinctly less successful at changing
with the times. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over
management in the executive branch and is therefore responsible
for examining management philosophies that could help to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal
Government.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Total Quality
Management'' was held on June 9, 1997.
12. Electronic Funds Transfer.
a. Summary.--The Debt Collection Improvement Act [DCIA] was
signed into law as a part of Public Law 104-134 on April 26,
1996. The DCIA included provisions that will move Federal
payments toward electronic funds transfer [EFT], which includes
direct deposit, credit cards, and other forms of electronic
payments. This will take place by 1999 unless the EFT
requirement represents a hardship for the recipient. Prior to
this law, Federal payees had the option of receiving EFT or a
paper check in payment of salary, benefit, or other Federal
payment due the individual from the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, these checks are often forged, counterfeited,
stolen, or fraudulent, and are sometimes delayed in the mail or
lost.
During the subcommittee's hearing Mark Catlett, Chief
Financial Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, described
the department's efforts to promote the use of electronic
payments by the VA's vendors. Vendors have traditionally been
reluctant to accept such electronic payments. Currently,
governmentwide, only 16 percent of vendors are currently
receiving electronic payments. However, the VA has aggressively
promoted the use of such payments, and the Department has
achieved rates approaching 80 percent. This has eliminated 10
million paper transactions, thus reducing the burden on VA
finance office staff.
Marcy Creque, volunteers director, American Association of
Retired Persons, described her organization's efforts to ensure
that senior citizens are not hurt by the EFT mandate. She noted
a telephone survey performed by a contractor for the Financial
Management Service. According to this survey, 18 percent of
Federal check recipients do not have bank accounts. By way of
comparison, 13 percent of all U.S. households do not have
accounts with a financial institution. The reasons vary. Many
of those without bank accounts said that they do not have
enough money (47 percent), they do not need an account (21
percent), and that bank fees are too high (6 percent). This
raises the question of whether financial institutions should
provide accounts with no minimum balance amount, and with a
large number of free ATM withdrawals and reasonable fees.
b. Benefits.--The EFT requirement to receive benefits
electronically will affect millions of Americans in a number of
ways in the coming years. It will bring individuals heretofore
outside the financial system into the mainstream. It will
modernize Federal payment methods. It will give new impetus to
electronic smart card products. Above all, EFT will solve the
problems of lost, stolen, and fraudulent checks, reduce check-
cashing charges for Federal beneficiaries in the amount of $1.6
billion per year, and reduce Federal expenditures by $100
million per year, according to the Department of the Treasury.
Congressional oversight of the implementation of EFT is
necessary to ensure that these benefits are realized.
c. Hearings.--``Implementation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of
1996'' was held on June 18, 1997.
13. Inspectors General.
a. Summary.--Inspectors General serve to protect the
integrity of Federal programs and resources. Through their
audits and investigations, Inspectors General seek to determine
whether program officers, contractors, Federal workers,
grantees, and others are conforming with regulations and laws.
The Offices of Inspectors General were established by the
Inspector General Act of 1978. To carry out their
responsibilities, the Offices of Inspectors General have broad
investigative authority. They have access to documents relating
to programs and operations within their area of responsibility.
They have the ability to administer oaths, affirmations or
affidavits and the power of subpoena. Recently, questions have
been raised about investigative techniques used by some
Inspectors General. In particular, investigative practices by
Inspectors General, especially communications with witnesses
and witness access to counsel, have come under scrutiny lately.
b. Benefits.--In fiscal year 1995, the most recent year for
which information is available, Inspector General
investigations and audits led to $1.5 billion in ``recoveries''
(fines and reimbursements from individuals and companies that
defrauded the Government). In addition, IG recommendations led
agency managers to cancel or seek reimbursements of $2.3
billion from contractors or grantees in 1995. IG
recommendations also inspired Federal managers to improve plans
for spending $10.4 billion--maximizing the return on Federal
dollars. In addition, IG accomplishments in fiscal year 1995
include 14,122 successful prosecutions, 2,405 personnel
actions, and 4,234 suspensions and debarments of persons or
firms doing business with the Government. The effectiveness of
the Inspectors General is therefore of obvious interest to
Congress and to the taxpayers.
c. Hearings.--``Oversight of Investigative Practices of
Inspectors General'' was held on June 24, 1997.
14. Performance-Based Organizations.
a. Summary.--In September 1995, Vice President Al Gore
announced that a series of agencies would be transformed into
performance-based, customer-oriented agencies. This
transformation will build on existing initiatives that reorient
Government agencies away from focusing on the resources they
receive and toward their concrete accomplishments with those
resources. Federal agencies need to change their incentives and
internal cultures in order to focus on customers and achieving
results. Agencies need to be more responsive to citizens at the
same time that they account for program costs and safeguard
broader public interests. According to the administration, this
can be done by creating performance-based organizations that
set forth clear measures of performance, hold the head of the
organization clearly accountable for achieving results, and
grant the head of the organization authority to deviate from
governmentwide rules if this is necessary to achieve agreed-
upon results.
A Performance-Based Organization is a discrete management
unit with strong incentives to manage for results. PBOs commit
to clear objectives, specific measurable goals, customer
service standards, and targets for improved performance. Once
designated, a PBO must have customized managerial flexibilities
and a competitively hired chief executive. The chief executive
signs an annual performance agreement with the Secretary and
has his or her pay and tenure tied to the organization's
performance. The British Government, on which the PBO concept
is modeled, has found that such agencies improve performance
while cutting administrative costs.
The President's 1998 Budget identifies nine PBO candidates.
These candidates are in varying stages of preparing legislation
and sending it to their respective authorizing committees in
Congress. The administration has several prerequisites for
becoming a PBO candidate: a clear mission, measurable services,
and a performance measurement system in place or in
development; a general focus on external, not internal,
customers; operations that can be separated from policymaking
with a clear line of accountability to an agency head; top-
level support to transform the function into a PBO; predictable
funding levels that correspond to their business operations. In
a PBO, the policymaking and regulatory functions are split from
their program operations. The PBO focuses on programmatic
operations. However, not all Government agencies are suited to
become PBOs. Operations that do not have clear, measurable
results should be excluded.
The subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Christopher
Mihm, Acting Associate Director, U.S. General Accounting
Office, General Government Division, Federal Management and
Workforce Issues, who described the conclusions of GAO
regarding the British Next Step agencies, upon which the
concept of PBO is based. Mr. Mihm stressed that (1) a lack of
clarity in the relationship between agencies and their parent
departments, (2) an uncertainty concerning who is accountable
for performance, and (3) difficulties in developing and setting
performance goals, have confronted the British, and may pose
similar problems for the United States PBOs.
Mr. Edward Kazenske, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for
Patents, Patent and Trademark Office, described the Patent and
Trademark Office's [PTO] leadership in seeking a PBO
designation. Mr. Kazenske outlined the recent troubled history
of the PTO. The turnaround at PTO came in 1982, with the
enactment of legislation to increase the agency's fees, gave
the agency access to such fees, and paved the way for self-
sufficiency. This set up a ``compact'' with inventors to:
reduce the time required to examine and issue a patent to 18
months; reduce the time required to issue a trademark first
action notice to 3 months and to register a trademark by 13
months; to automate the operations of the PTO by the 1990's;
and to strengthen the world-wide protection of intellectual
property. While David Sanders, Deputy Administrator, Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC], described his
agency's proposal to create a PBO by creating incentives to
promote individual and agency performance. According to Mr.
Sanders, this gives all employees a direct stake in the
agency's future for the first time in history.
b. Benefits.--As proposals for converting Federal agencies
into such PBOs increase, it is extremely important to examine
the impact that such proposals will have on the procurement and
civil service systems, and to determine the goal of such
changes.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled,
``Performance Based Organizations,'' on July 8, 1997.
15. Governors Island.
a. Summary.--Located half a mile off the southern tip of
Manhattan, Governors Island is Federal property that was
recently declared surplus by the Federal Government. Governors
Island consists of 204 acres, with 225 structures totaling 3
million square feet of space ranging from residential to office
space. A portion of the island is historic; it includes Fort
Jay and Castle Williams, which was built to protect New York
harbor. As part of its reorganization plan, the Coast Guard
streamlined its base structure and in 1995, announced it would
close Governors Island.
As the property returns to civilian use, a number of
disposal issues have surfaced, including how to pay for
maintenance, and what type of access ought to be allowed. The
1997 balanced budget agreement requires the General Services
Administration to sell the island at fair market value. The
Congressional Budget Office estimated that the island would
yield $500 million if it were sold for the estimated fair
market value.
The subcommittee convened a hearing to examine what Federal
actions would be necessary between now and year 2000, to ensure
that the island does not deteriorate and possible prospects for
future projects. Congressman Jerrold Nadler, (D-NY), expressed
his interest in seeing increased public space such as
hospitals, parks and other public facilities. In addition,
Karen Alder of the General Services Adminstration outlined
GSA's internal system of property disposal. She described the
various possible uses of the land, and stressed that GSA would
follow legislation enacted by Congress; however, the ultimate
choices for reuse lay with the local authorities. An official
from the city of New York, criticized the ``fictitious and
unattainable $500 million'' figure estimated by the CBO.
b. Benefits.--Governors Island is a historic landmark and
played a key role in the defense of New York harbor in the War
of 1812. The island played an important part in U.S. history
and its preservation is an important responsibility of the
Federal Government.
c. Hearings.--On July 14, 1997, the subcommittee convened a
hearing entitled, ``Governor's Island: Options for Reuse after
Federal Government Departure.''
16. Government-Sponsored Enterprises.
a. Summary.--The Federal Government established the first
financial entity known as a Government Sponsored Enterprise in
1916. These entities were created to direct funds to particular
sectors of society that seemed to be inadequately served by the
private credit markets. Private parties own most of the stock
in GSEs, whose traditional function has been to engage in
business operations in the private sector to increase the flow
of credit to home buyers, farmers, students, and colleges.
Although GSEs are authorized or established by Congress, their
activities are not included in the Federal budget totals on the
grounds that they are privately owned. Due to their special
relationship with the Federal Government, however, detailed
statements of financial operations and conditions are presented
in the President's budget to the extent such information is
available. These statements are not reviewed by the President;
they are presented as submitted by the GSEs.
There are currently 11 GSEs in operation. They were
established by law between 1916 and 1989. Five enterprises
operate in the housing area: the Federal Home Loan Banks; the
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae); the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); the Financing
Corporation; and the Resolution Funding Corporation. Four
enterprises operate in the agriculture area: the Federal
Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac); the Banks for
Cooperatives; the Agricultural Credit Bank; and the Farm Credit
Banks. Two enterprises operate in the education area: the
Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae); and the
College Construction Loan Insurance Association.
While private parties own all of the stock of most GSEs and
they are managed by private individuals, GSEs have strong ties
to the Federal Government. The enabling legislation of each GSE
specifies its general purpose and authorized transactions. For
example, Fannie Mae is chartered to increase housing credit
availability by engaging in secondary market and other
transactions. The enabling legislation also identifies Federal
agencies responsible for prescribing overall policy and
regulations for the GSEs and usually provides that a minority
of their board members be appointed by the President or another
Federal official.
GSEs typically receive their financing from private
investors. They issue capital stock and short- and long-term
debt instruments, sell asset backed securities (also known as
mortgage-backed securities), and collect fees for guarantees
and other services. Their principal source of financing is
borrowing through the issuance of debt obligations or the sale
of mortgage-backed securities. GSEs generally do not receive
Federal appropriations.
As a result of the benefits conferred upon GSEs and the
similarity between their debt securities and those of the U.S.
Treasury, most GSE debt and mortgage-backed securities are
perceived by the credit markets to be guaranteed by the Federal
Government. This perception allows GSEs to borrow in the credit
markets at interest rates only slightly higher than the rates
paid by the Treasury on its borrowings. Furthermore, this
perception by the credit markets was enhanced by the
Government's 1987 rescue of the Farm Credit System, which at
that time was composed of three GSEs. This rescue could
ultimately cost the Federal Government $5 billion.
Subcommittee Chairman Horn convened the hearing to examine
the evolving role of GSEs. Mr. Jim Bothwell, Chief Economist,
U.S. General Accounting Office, described the five criteria for
an effective regulator of GSEs: objectivity and arm's length
status; prominence in government; consistency in regulation of
similar markets; separation of the regulation of primary and
secondary markets; and economy and efficiency. Mr. Bothwell
noted past examples of regulatory failure, and noted that most
GAO recommendations have gone unimplemented.
Mr. Thomas Woodward, Economist, Congressional Research
Service, noted that the creation of special benefits or
privileges for a GSE are themselves a form of market
distortion. While this may be justified in order to ensure that
a public purpose is accomplished, it may be wise to
periodically review whether the GSEs need their privileges,
according to Mr. Woodward.
Mr. Thomas H. Stanton, fellow, Johns Hopkins University,
made three main point: (1) that safety and soundness rules must
be designed before rather than after a GSE gains political
power, since such political power could prevent later
imposition of these sensible requirements; (2) the public
benefits of a GSE depend upon the quality of ongoing public
oversight, since in their markets, the GSE has an incentive to
provide profitable services regardless of the presence of a
public benefit; and (3) GSE legislation should contain an exit
strategy and full disclosure of expenditure to influence the
political process.
b. Benefits.--Federal legislation confers a number of
benefits on GSEs that are not provided to private companies.
Most enterprises have a direct line of credit with the U.S.
Treasury, their securities are exempt from Securities and
Exchange Commission registration requirements, and their
investors' interest income is exempt from State and local
taxation. In addition, GSE debt obligations and securities have
characteristics that are common to U.S. Treasury obligations.
These advantages, combined with their strong impact on credit
markets generally, make effective oversight essential.
c. Hearings.--``Oversight of Government-Sponsored
Enterprises'' was held jointly with the Subcommittee on Capital
Banking Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored
Enterprises of the Banking and Financial Services Committee on
July 16, 1997.
17. Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
a. Summary.--Metropolitan areas are geographic areas that
have a large population center together with adjacent
communities. The Office of Management and Budget designates and
defines metropolitan areas following a set of official
standards. Various categories of metropolitan areas include
metropolitan statistical areas [MSAs], consolidated
metropolitan statistical areas [CMSAs], and primary
metropolitan statistical areas [PMSAs]. An MSA consists of one
or more counties that contain a city of 50,000 or more
inhabitants, or contain a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area
that has a total population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in the
six New England States).
Additional outlying counties are included in the MSA if
they have large numbers (generally 15 percent) of commuters to
the central counties and they meet requirements for population
density, urban population, percentage growth in population
between the two previous decennial censuses, and the number of
inhabitants within the urban area that qualifies the MSA.
These designations are used as a framework for the Federal
statistical system. They are also used for other reasons. For
example, local community leaders use metropolitan area
designation to promote the community as a business district.
State governments use metropolitan areas to make communities
eligible for programs that may be focused on urban or rural
districts. The private sector uses metropolitan areas to
develop sales territories and market new products. For example,
according to USA Today, ``having MSA status designation is like
having money in the bank because it puts them on marketers
``A'' lists. Some restaurant chains and big retailers would not
even consider coming to a city without MSA designation'' (USA
Today, August 22, 1996).
Testimony was received from Representatives Tim Holden (D-
PA), Bill Remond (R-NM), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), and Maurice
Hinchey (D-NY), described the problems communities they
represent face in obtaining designation as an MSA. The
Honorable Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, noted the process by which MSAs are
designated and the review process for proposed changes. Mr. Ed
Spar, executive director, Council of Professional Associations
on Federal Statistics, noted that the private sector users of
Federal statistical data ideally want data on the lowest
possible geographic area so that it can be aggregated according
to the needs of the data user. Finally, Mr. Alvin Marshall,
member of the Board of Directors, Schuylkill Economic
Development Corp., noted that Shuylkill County was unable to
qualify for an MSA designation since heavy strip mining left
scarred portions of the land which were unable to support
housing, and therefore could not meet the contiguity
requirements for the MSA.
b. Benefits.--Since so many private organizations and
Government programs are based on the Federal MSA designation,
it is important to periodically review this MSA designation
process, especially in light of charges that some communities
are unfairly affected by the current classifications.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled,
``Oversight of Metropolitan Statistical Areas'' on July 29,
1997.
18. Statistical Proposals.
a. Summary.--The economic statistics gathered and analyzed
by the Federal Government are integral to public and private
decisionmaking. The financial markets rise and fall, Federal
aid is determined and distributed, and businesses make a wide
variety of decisions all based on the data provided by the
Government. Although sound statistics and analysis do not by
themselves produce sound public policy, they do provide a
necessary foundation from which to identify problems, to
evaluate options, and to monitor results. There is widespread
concern that Federal statistical agencies could be working more
efficiently. The solution may be to consolidate the three main
statistical agencies into a single entity. Introduced last
Congress as the Statistical Consolidation Act, this measure
would create the Federal Statistical Service as an independent
agency. The Service would incorporate the Bureau of the Census,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Bureau of Economic
Analysis. This proposal directly addresses the need for better
coordination and planning among economic statistical agencies.
The goal of this and other proposals is to improve the Federal
statistical system by reducing the organizational and legal
barriers to greater coordination.
b. Benefits.--Given the importance of Federal Government
statistics, it is crucial that this data be gathered and
processed in the most accurate and timely manner possible.
Changes in the structure of the Federal statistical community
are necessary if this goal is going to continue to be met in
the near future. Substantial changes will require a broad
consensus in Congress and throughout the Government. The
subcommittee's efforts on this issue are meant to help forge
this consensus in order to preserve and improve the integrity
and Federal statistics.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled,
``Oversight of Statistical Proposals'' on July 29, 1997.
19. Defense Surplus Equipment.
a. Summary.--Treatment of Federal surplus personal property
is governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949 [FPA]. There are two categories of surplus
property--excess and surplus. Excess property is property that
has been declared unnecessary by the owning agency. Once
property is declared excess, it is screened for further reuse.
If another agency determines that it can use the property, it
is reused. If it cannot be used or is not desired by another
Federal agency, the property is declared surplus. Once it is
declared surplus, the property can be donated for any number of
public purposes, such as education or drug interdiction or to
municipalities. The FPA authorized State Agencies for Surplus
Property to receive equipment as an intermediary for ultimate
use by State governments and other entities within a State. The
State agencies are funded by charges on recipients of the
donated property. Property not donated may be sold.
The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service [DRMS] was
established in 1972 and is part of the Defense Logistics
Agency. Its purposes are: (1) to receive personal property
(everything except real estate, from battleships to paper
clips) from defense units that no longer need the property; (2)
to inspect personal property to verify the condition code
reported by the reporting agency, to determine whether it needs
to be demilitarized (i.e., the military capacity of the item
destroyed), and to identify any property needing special
handling, such as hazardous waste; (3) to transfer the
property, at no cost, to other organizations that can use it;
and, (4) to sell the remainder of the property unless it has no
value or is still a military item. Items with no value can be
scrapped and military items need to be demilitarized prior to
disposal.
The agency received $25 billion of property last year at
its 148 facilities, and employs about 2,500 people.
Approximately 50 percent of the property is unusable and must
be demilitarized. About 60 facilities handle two-thirds of the
volume. The amount of property declared surplus has increased
due to base closure and the post-Cold war drawdown. Property
sold in fiscal year 1996 by DRMS yielded 1.9 percent of the
original acquisition cost.
The subcommittee heard from Representative Nick Smith (R-
MI), Bob Liberman, Assistant Inspector General for Auditing,
Department of Defense, and David Warren, Director, Defense
Management Issues, General Accounting Office. Noting that the
headquarters of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service
is located in the district of Representative Smith, he asserted
that the donation program is inherently unfair, since many
States have very small military organizations within them and
therefore do not generate substantial volumes of surplus
property. Mr. Lieberman described the complexities of balancing
the need for maximizing disposal sales and ensuring that
dangerous military equipment does not get into the hands of
purchasers. The Inspector General has assigned a high priority
to logistics issues, and this has led to close scrutiny of the
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service, and Mr. Lieberman
points out that many problem areas remain. GAO officials
described the disposal process which the Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Service follows. This process is governed by laws
and regulations that require the Department of Defense to make
the best property available to other DOD agencies, other
Federal agencies, and a host of other eligible donees who
represent State agencies, prior to the sale. This resulted in
low market returns.
b. Benefits.--Between $20 and $30 billion in defense
personal property is declared surplus each year. The use of
this property by the subsequent owner should be a concern of
all taxpayers, since the efficiency of the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service can significantly affect
the value of the property.
c. Hearings.--``Oversight of Defense Surplus Equipment and
the Activities of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Service'' hearing was held on September 12, 1997.
20. U.S. Customs Service.
a. Summary.--The First Congress passed and President George
Washington signed the Tariff Act of July 4, 1789, which
authorized the collection of duties on imported goods. It was
called ``the second Declaration of Independence'' by the news
media of that era. Four weeks later, on July 31, the fifth act
of Congress established the Customs Service and its ports of
entry. For nearly 125 years, the Customs Service funded
virtually the entire Government, and paid for the Nation's
early growth and infrastructure. The territories of Louisiana
and Oregon, Florida and Alaska were purchased with Customs
revenue. By 1835, Customs revenues alone had reduced the
national debt to zero. The Customs Service currently collects
about $20 billion for the Federal Treasury with 19,000
employees.
The agency was restructured in 1995 as a three-tiered
organization modelled of people, processes, and partnerships,
with the emphasis on service delivery at ports of entry. The
Commissioner of Customs, by authority delegated by the
Secretary of the Treasury, establishes policy and supervises
all activities from the Service Headquarters in Washington, DC.
The Customs Service ensures that all imports and exports comply
with U.S. laws and regulations. The Service collects and
protects the revenue, guards against smuggling, and is
responsible for the following: (1) assessing and collecting
Customs duties, excise taxes, fees and penalties due on
imported merchandise; (2) interdicting and seizing contraband,
including narcotics and illegal drugs; (3) processing persons,
baggage, cargo and mail, and administering certain navigation
laws; (4) detecting and apprehending persons engaged in
fraudulent practices designed to circumvent Customs and related
laws; (5) enforcing U.S. laws intended to prevent illegal trade
practices, including provisions related to quotas and the
marking of imported merchandise; the Anti-Dumping Act; (6)
enforcing import and export restrictions and prohibitions,
including the export of critical technology used to develop
weapons of mass destruction, and money laundering; and (7)
collecting accurate import and export data for compilation of
international trade statistics.
California has traditionally received fewer resources and
personnel than ports of entry on the East Coast for the same
workload. The North American Free Trade Agreement will bring
increased trade with Mexico. The growing economies of the
Pacific Rim will bring increased trade with Asia. This makes it
more difficult to enforce trade laws and intercept illegal
narcotics. When he testified before the subcommittee, Bob
Trotter, Assistant Commissioner, Field Operations, U.S. Customs
Services, Department of the Treasury, described the agency's
strategic plan and its performance-based management
initiatives. Mr. Trotter denied that there was a regional
disparity in staffing at the Customs Service. John Heinrich,
Director, Customs Management Center, U.S. Customs Services,
Department of the Treasury, described the challenges to the
trade services area from the growth in volume from the Asia-
Pacific region and Latin America. Mr. Heinrich described the
opportunities of the past few years to increase staffing at
airports due to the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act
fees. Ms. Judy Grimsman, president, Los Angeles Customs and
Freight Brokers Association, described the need for additional
resources in the southern California area and the changes
wrought by NAFTA in terms of promoting automation in the trade
servicing area. This automation has placed additional duties on
importers, according to Ms. Grimsman, but the Customs Service
has not completed the automation process. Ms. Grimsman asserted
that the Service must complete the automated bonding and air
manifest processes in order for such automation to be fully
implemented.
b. Benefits.--Given the rapid changes inherent in a
globalizing economy and the vital role of the Customs Service,
it is crucial that this agency is well-managed. Close
congressional scrutiny is necessary at this point to ensure
that the agency is prepared to adjust to important economic and
demographic changes.
c. Hearings.--A field hearing was held in Long Beach, CA,
entitled, ``Oversight of the Management Practices of the U.S.
Customs Service,'' on October 16, 1997.
21. U.S. Forest Service.
a. Summary.--In the last Congress, a pilot program was
authorized for the Forest Service to allow visitors to pay a
fee to use park amenities. This pilot is similar to the
permanent authority which the National Perk Service possesses
to charge fees for visits to National Parks. Previously, the
Forest Service had argued that the large number of entry points
to National Forests, in contrast to the more controlled
National Parks, makes a program of fee collection
administratively infeasible.
Representative Charlie Bass, (R-NH), testified that it is
important to take into account the views of the local citizens,
review services provided within the National Forests by State
governments, and ensure that payment-in-lieu of taxes [PILT]
are fully funded. Since PILT funds services in which there is a
large Federal presence, including roads and fire protection, it
is a key funding priority for States with a large Federal
presence. However, according to Mr. Bass, PILT has not been
fully funded.
Donna Hepp, Forest Supervisor, White Mountain National
Forest, U.S. Forest Service, described her agency's
implementation of the pilot fee program at the White Mountain
National Forest, citizen comment and reactions to the fee.
Generally, respondents to a poll support the notion of fees by
a wide margin.
b. Benefits.--As Federal agencies move toward more funding
through user fees, it is important to examine public
accessibility, the use of proceeds, and accountability to
taxpayers.
c. Hearings.--A field hearing was held in Conway, NH, on
``Management Practices of the U.S. Forest Service: Review of
the User Pilot Program'' on October 20, 1997.
22. Clinger-Cohen Act.
a. Summary.--The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 [CCA] is now 1
year old and the subcommittee held the first congressional
oversight hearing on its implementation. (CCA was originally
passed as the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 and the
Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996. These
acts are Divisions D and E, respectively, of Public Law 104-
106.) The intention of CCA is to significantly improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of Information Technology [IT]
throughout the Federal Government. CCA has several major
components: (1) procurement reform for IT hardware and software
acquisition; (2) the requirement for a set of IT plans
including a business-driven IT strategic plans and an IT
Architecture; and (3) the establishment of the Chief
Information Officer [CIO] as a statutory position throughout
the Federal Departments and agencies.
CCA procurement reform is moving forward and has been
reflected in the Federal Acquisition Requirements that regulate
all Federal purchases. Business-driven IT strategic plans and
architecture have made little if any progress. The positions of
CIO have in general been implemented, however, the quality of
work produced by the various offices of CIO is inconsistent.
This concern was the subject of a subcommittee hearing.
Further, there is a particular class of IT projects with
tremendous potential benefit to the Federal Government that are
not being utilized, specifically, cross-cutting IT projects. An
example cross-cutting IT project, the International Trade Data
System [ITDS], was examined in this hearing. The ITDS project
has the potential to deliver a $25 billion a year tax cut to
American business involved in international import and export.
ITDS would also result in cost savings of hundreds of millions
of dollars per year for the Federal Departments and agencies.
Plus, ITDS would improve the effectiveness of Federal agency
regulatory enforcement in areas such as illegal immigration,
unsafe imported foods, and drug trafficking.
The Federal Government does not have a process whereby such
cross-cutting IT projects can be identified, evaluated, funded,
housed, supported, coordinated, and implemented. Every aspect
is missing. Consequently, the likelihood of such projects being
successful or even getting started is very low. The
subcommittee made recommendations for improving cross-cutting
IT projects based upon the experiences of the ITDS project.
Mr. Gene Dodaro, Assistant Comptroller General, Accounting
and Information Management Division of the General Accounting
Office, testified about the current shortcomings in CIO
positions and incumbents. He further testified to the
difficulty of obtaining qualifications information about CIOs.
This information has not been forthcoming from OMB. GAO
recommended Congress, OMB, and the Federal agencies take action
to rectify the situation because of the high leverage impact
the CIOs could have upon the effectiveness and efficiency of IT
throughout the Federal Government.
The second panel of witnesses represented CIO success
stories in selective Federal agencies. Mr. Alan P. Balutis,
Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Department of Commerce,
testified about a collection of 25 successful IT projects
published by the CIO Council. These successful IT projects
prove that it can be done. The next step is to understand why
these projects were successful when so many others are not.
Ms. Liza McClenaghan, Chief Information Officer for the
Department of State, testified about the accomplishments of the
CIO Council in setting training requirements and skill targets
for IT professionals. This work has lead to improvements in
training programs, classroom curriculum, and identification of
automated training tools. The next step is to understand the
component training plays in developing and retaining an IT
workforce in face of increasing competition from the private
sector for technically competent employees.
Ms. Anne Reed, Chief Information Officer for the Department
of Agriculture, testified about the IT architecture standards
that are being established by the CIO Council. There is a long
way to go, and nobody wants to create one governmentwide
standard, but the start has been well made. The Clinger-Cohen
Act requires each Federal agency to develop an IT architecture.
The CIO Council is attempting to establish selective IT
architecture components across multiple Federal agencies.
The subcommittee also heard testimony on the International
Trade Data System [ITDS], a cross-cutting IT project, that
could save $25 billion a year of unnecessary paperwork expenses
for American businesses. Mr. John P. Simpson, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Treasury for Regulatory, Tariff, and Trade
Enforcement of the Department of the Treasury, testified about
the national benefits that could accrue from this system. Mr.
Michael D. Cronin, Assistant Commissioner of Inspection of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, testified about the
increases in productivity and quality that Customs could
achieve because of the ITDS project. Mr. Robert W. Ehinger,
Director, ITDS Project Office of the Department of Treasury,
testified about the difficulties of getting all relevant
Federal agencies to participate in the ITDS project; the
improved productivity in the 6 pilot sites already up and
running; and planned subsequent steps.
Subcommittee Chairman Horn summarized the lessons learned
from the hearing and made recommendations for OMB and Federal
agencies to improve IT effectiveness and efficiency for the
benefit of Federal programs, their beneficiaries, and the
American taxpayer.
b. Benefits.--The Federal Government spends at least $26
billion every year on information technology. This figure
represents only the direct cost of IT. It does not count the
millions of labor hours spent using IT systems. It does not
consider the effects of these IT systems on Federal programs or
the American citizens those programs serve.
Private sector experience is that 24 percent of large IT
projects are significantly over budget and behind schedule.
Experience in the Federal sector is considerably worse--so bad,
in fact, that no official figures have even been collected.
Subcommittee Chairman Horn has repeatedly asked, ``Why do we
cancel these projects at the $4 billion level instead of the
$400 million or $40 million level. Why can't we cancel these
failures at $4 million and save everybody not only billions of
dollars but years of frustration and unfulfilled citizen
needs?''
The Chief Information Officers are now in place throughout
the Federal agencies. By law they are required to report to the
head of the agency, to be dedicated full-time to information
technology, and to be qualified in terms of large organization
and technical experience. Unfortunately, these requirements are
not met by well over half of the current CIOs. The subcommittee
is pressuring OMB and the Federal agencies to rectify this
situation. The effectiveness of the CIOs can make a difference
in the billions of dollars of IT expenditures, the success of
hundreds of IT projects, and the efficiency improvements
achieved by IT in agency programs and service delivery to the
American taxpayers.
The International Trade Data System [ITDS] was selected as
an example cross-cutting IT project because it has the
potential to save American business approximately $25 billion a
year in unnecessary paperwork costs. This is the equivalent to
a $25 billion a year tax cut or $125 billion over the typical 5
year Federal budgetary planning horizon. The subcommittee made
recommendations to Federal agencies in general and this project
in particular. The subcommittee was at least partially
influential in another congressional committee funding the ITDS
project for the first time.
c. Hearings.--``Oversight of the Implementation of the
Clinger-Cohen Act'' was held on October 27, 1997.
23. Management Practices in State and Local Governments.
a. Summary.--Governments of all sizes throughout the ages
have been susceptible to waste, corruption, and inefficiency.
The problem has seemed especially bad lately, probably more due
to the contrast with our extraordinarily productive and
efficient private sector than for any other reason. The
challenge for the Subcommittee on Government Management is how
to articulate the practices that make government work to its
maximum potential.
The Innovations in American Government Awards Program is
funded by the Ford Foundation and administered by the Kennedy
School of Government in partnership with the Council for
Excellence in Government. It is designed to promote a national
conversation about what works in Government. Each year the
program receives applications from more than 1,500 Federal,
State, and local government programs around the country. Of
these, 25 programs are chosen as finalists and 10 of these are
selected as winners by the National Committee on Innovations in
American Government. The committee makes its selections on the
basis of four criteria: (1) originality of approach; (2)
effectiveness in addressing important public problems; (3)
value to clients; and (4) potential replication in other
jurisdictions. The National Committee is chaired by David
Gergen, editor-at-large at U.S. News and World Report, and its
members include former elected officials, private industry
leaders, and journalists.
Innovations awards finalists and winners each receive
grants. The awards grant is intended to help successful
programs disseminate information to the public as well as to
other government agencies looking for ways to address similar
problems or to make similar programs work better. The 1997
Innovations winners were announced on October 8.
b. Benefits.--The programs singled-out by the Innovations
Program provide an excellent opportunity to consider what works
in results-oriented management. The 105th Congress and
especially the Government Reform and Oversight Committee have
been working hard to oversee and encourage implementation of
the Government Performance and Results Act. Another important
element of government reform involves looking at successful
programs, seeing what factors make them successful, and asking
whether those factors can be applied elsewhere. Innovative and
effective State and local government programs throughout the
country can be seen as laboratories of good governance. The
hearing will provide Congress with the occasion to learn from
this array of experience.
c. Hearings.--``Management Practices in State and Local
Governments: Lessons for Federal Government'' was held on
October 31, 1997.
24. Federal Advisory Committee Act.
a. Summary.--When it passed FACA in 1972, Congress was
explicit in its intention that the law not apply to the
National Academy of Sciences [NAS] and similar organizations,
such as the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA].
For the last 25 years, it has been the operating assumption of
the Academies, Congress, and the executive branch that FACA did
not apply to these organizations.
In a recent court case brought by the Animal Defense League
Fund [ADLF], FACA was interpreted as applying to NAS and by
logical extension to NAPA and perhaps to an unknown number of
other groups like the American Bar Association that are
utilized by the Federal Government. The ADLF and other
interested parties sought more public participation in NAS
committee processes.
Both Houses of Congress were in favor of clarifying through
legislation that FACA does not apply to the NAS. OMB Director
Franklin Raines also expressed support for a legislative
remedy. The primary litigants met with the House majority and
minority staffs to identify committee process for NAS and NAPA
that would provide more public participation without
inappropriate requirements for a Federal Government committee
as per FACA. NAS and NAPA agreed to modify their committee
processes as follows:
1. Post to the Internet for public comment the
committee members names, biographies, and brief
conflict of interest disclosures when nominated.
2. Invite public attendance at all data gathering
committee meetings by posting notice to the Internet.
3. Make public the names and biographies of reviewers
of draft committee reports by posting this information
to the Internet.
4. Make available summaries of formal committee
meetings that are not open to the public.
NAS and NAPA already made their final reports available to
the public via the Internet and both will continue to do so.
They simply anticipated adding the above to their same Internet
web databases. The only remaining issue for resolution was the
location of the above list and its exact wording.
A hearing was held on November 5, 1997. A bill was drafted
in consultation with a team of majority and minority staff from
both the House and the Senate. The bill, H.R. 2977, was
introduced by Mr. Horn on November 9 and passed the House under
suspension of the rules on November 10 by voice vote. The bill
was then considered by the Senate and passed without amendment
by unanimous consent on November 13. The bill was signed into
law on December 17, 1997, Public Law 105-153.
b. Benefits.--The American people benefit from the
expertise and experience of the committees created by the
National Academy of Sciences. When confronted by an important
problem with key scientific aspects, the Federal Government can
commission a study by NAS. At any given point in time
approximately 400 such studies may be simultaneously under way.
These studies are commissioned by Federal Departments and
agencies, Congress, State governments, international bodies, or
private organizations. NAS then selects a committee of the most
qualified scientists who work for free. These scientific
committees are independent of the various parties that may have
a vested interest in the outcome of their study, including the
Federal Government.
The expertise, experience and independence of the best
scientists for each particular problem delivers high quality,
objective findings and recommendations. This benefits the
Federal agency that commissioned the NAS study and the American
people, who are assured that the scientific aspects of the
problem are studied free of political pressures. All NAS
studies result in a report that is readily available to the
public--either by writing NAS or from the Academy's Internet
web site.
The National Academy of Public Administration operates in a
manner similar to NAS but specializes in matters of public
administration rather than science. Again the best expertise
and experience is brought to bear for a commissioned study of
an important administrative problem. The benefits of NAPA
accrue to the Federal agency requesting the study and the
American people. Their reports are also publicly available by
writing NAPA or from their Internet web site.
The benefits of this particular amendment to FACA are
twofold. First, the Federal Government and the American people
will continue to benefit from the independent high-quality
studies of NAS and NAPA without undue restrictions. Second, the
processes used by NAS and NAPA will be more open to scrutiny by
all interested parties. The American people can be assured that
all NAS and NAPA studies will be conducted in a balanced and
objective manner.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on November
5, 1997, entitled, ``Oversight of the Federal Debt Collection
Practices.''
Subcommittee on Human Resources
1. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Steps Against the Health Threat
Posed by ``Mad Cow Disease'' and Other Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathies [TSEs].
a. Summary.--The Human Resources Subcommittee reviewed the
timing and effectiveness of the FDA proposal to prohibit the
use of certain rendered animal parts in feeds for other
ruminant animals as a means of protecting the U.S. food supply
from TSE-infection. It also examined current blood safety and
risk assessment standards designed to guard against the
transmission of TSEs through blood and blood products.
The subcommittee considered FDA, USDA, CDC, and NIH efforts
to understand and prevent the spread of TSEs; the monitoring of
agricultural health situations of U.S. trade partners; the lack
of any known U.S. TSE that is transmissible to humans; and the
differences between animal-to-animal transmission of bovine
spongi-form encephalopathy [BSE], or ``Mad Cow Disease,'' and
human-to-human transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease [CJD],
a variant form of the human TSE. Members also discussed the
risk analysis as the vehicle for establishing a rational policy
for dealing with a little understood disease, as well as the
methodology used by the agencies in revealing blood
contamination.
b. Benefits.--The investigation informed Members and the
public about the nature and scope of the threat TSE poses to
the Nation's food supply and blood and animal products. It also
exposed the challenges presented by the need to develop an
appropriate response to a public health threat where there is
little conclusive evidence but theoretical risks of serious or
even calamitous spread of infection.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Potential Transmission
of Spongiform Encephalopathies to Humans: The Food and Drug
Administration's [FDA] Ruminant to Ruminant Feed Ban and the
Safety of Other Products'' was held on January 29, 1997.
Testimony was received from the FDA, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's [USDA] Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC],
the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the University of
Southern Alabama School of Medicine, and the Virginia-Maryland
College of Veterinary Medicine.
2. The Need for Better Focus in the Rural Health Clinic Program.
a. Summary.--The Human Resources Subcommittee looked into
the administration of, and allocation of resources in, the
Nation's rural health clinic [RHC] program, with special
emphasis on the General Accounting Office [GAO] report
entitled, ``Rural Health Clinics: Rising Program Expenditures
Not Focused on Improving Care in Isolated Areas'' and the
Office of Inspector General [OIG] of the Department of Health
and Human Services [HHS] report entitled, ``Rural Health
Clinics: Growth, Access, and Payment.''
The subcommittee focused on Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement policies for RHCs, administered by the HHS Health
Care Finance Administration [HCFA], and program eligibility
criteria. It also addressed how rural health care access can be
measured more accurately and more often, and how to extend the
reach of Medicare and Medicaid into isolated rural areas more
efficiently and effectively.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee inquiry exposed the RHC
program's lack of focus on those people who have difficulty
obtaining primary care. It also highlighted a growing consensus
that HCFA ought to revise its Medicare payment policy to hold
all RHCs to payment limits, or caps, and generated a dialog
about other tools that would help set the RHC program back on
track.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``The Need for Better
Focus in the Rural Health Clinic Program'' was held on February
13, 1997. Witnesses included representatives from GAO, the IG
for HHS, HCFA, the HHS Health Resources and Services
Administration [HRSA], the National Association of Rural Health
Clinics and the National Rural Health Association. A hearing
entitled, ``The Need for Better Focus in the Rural Health
Clinic Program--Part II'' was held on September 11, 1997.
Testimony was received from private physicians and
representatives from GAO and HRSA.
3. Cabinet Department and Agency Oversight.
a. Summary.--The Human Resources Subcommittee, which has
oversight jurisdiction over those departments and agencies of
Government managing human service programs, conducted an
oversight investigation examining the most pressing management
and programmatic problems facing those departments and agencies
in the 105th Congress. It also explored the extent to which
they are able to comply with the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. Over the course of its
investigation, the subcommittee reviewed budget data, Inspector
General [IG] reports and audits, and General Accounting Office
[GAO] studies and recommendations. The undertaking culminated
in oversight hearings with the Secretaries of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development [HUD] and the Department of
Labor, as well as representatives of the five Cabinet and
National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] IG offices, and the GAO.
The HUD inquiry focused on the problems and challenges that
led the $40 billion department to be rendered a ``high-risk''
agency by the GAO--namely weak internal controls, inadequate
information and financial management systems, and an
ineffective organizational structure. In addition, the
subcommittee addressed IG Susan Gaffney's concern that HUD has
yet to resolve three major issues: the mismatch of HUD's
numerous programs and diminishing staff and work capacity; the
inability of certain offices to oversee the most efficient use
of taxpayer funds; and the incompatibility of its ``place-
based'' program delivery goals and its program-based
organizational structure. In response to the subcommittee's
probe for answers, Secretary Cuomo pointed to downsizing and
streamlining of the Department and implementation of management
and legislative reforms as possible solutions.
The subcommittee's investigation into the Department of
Labor began with an examination of the Secretary's plans for
reform of the $38 billion Department, including investment in
learning and skill development, the movement of people from
welfare to work, pension protection and the initiation of
greater pension portability, improved enforcement, and an
appreciation of family needs. The subcommittee also considered
the GAO's suggestion that the Department improve management and
develop new regulatory strategies that are less burdensome and
more effective than the ones that are currently in place, as
well as IG Charles Masten's insistence that it improve the
effectiveness of DOL's employment and training system,
safeguard pension assets, implement significant new statutory
mandates, and ensure the integrity of the unemployment
insurance [UI] system. Masten also cited opportunities for
savings in the Department's foreign labor programs.
The oversight inquiry into the Department of Health and
Human Services [HHS] focused on the IG's concern about three
program areas in Medicare found to be particularly susceptible
to waste, fraud and abuse: home health, hospice and durable
medical equipment. The subcommittee also considered program-
wide issues raised by the GAO such as the need to improve
accountability, coordination and oversight, generate timely and
reliable information, identify and correct program
vulnerabilities, and integrate its information management needs
as part of its overall process of developing a strategic plan
in compliance with the GPRA.
The inquiry into the Department of Veterans Affairs
generated positive messages about the Department's willingness
and ability to streamline its focus to reduce the vulnerability
to waste, fraud and abuse, as well as its attempts to comply
with the GPRA. However, the subcommittee did find problems in
its outdated health care system, large backlog in claims and
appeals, and workman's compensation program.
In carrying out its oversight responsibility for the
Department of Education, the subcommittee looked into how well
the Department satisfied its mission, worked with State and
local educators, and managed its budget. The subcommittee found
the areas needing the greatest improvement to be student
financial aid programs at ``high risk'' of waste, fraud, and
abuse, persistent data system problems, an inability to curtail
fraud in grant applications, and a failure to meet the
performance measure criteria for the GPRA.
The oversight investigation into the NLRB focused on recent
efforts to improve the resolution of labor-management disputes,
the size of the case backlog, the speed of case processing, the
number of case settlements, and the effectiveness of compliance
enforcement. It also looked at why the agency has difficulty
fulfilling the requirements of the GPRA.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's review of Department and
agency problems and weaknesses provided valuable information
regarding where and how the Government might reign in the
capacity for waste, fraud, and abuse. In so doing, the hearings
gave Members a valuable overview and insight into how to best
focus their energies as an oversight body and helped lay the
groundwork for future reform and savings.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a series of oversight
hearings covering each of the five Cabinet agencies under its
jurisdiction. ``Oversight of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development [HUD]: Mission, Management, and Performance''
was held on February 27. ``Agency Oversight--the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Labor:
Mission, Management, and Performance'' was held on March 6,
1997. ``Agency Oversight--the Department of Health and Human
Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs: Mission,
Management, and Performance'' was held on March 18, 1997.
``Oversight of the Department of Education: Mission, Management
and Performance'' was held on March 20, 1997. ``Department of
Labor: Mission, Management and Performance'' was held on June
10, 1997. ``Oversight of the National Labor Relations Board:
Mission, Management and Performance'' was held on July 24,
1997.
4. Oversight of the Department of Health and Human Services' Healthy
Start Program.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an investigation
into the Healthy Start Program, a 5-year demonstration
initiative designed to fight infant mortality. The purpose was
to explore the extent to which the initiative accomplished its
mission, HHS's management of the program, and the lessons
learned.
Healthy Start began in 1991 with the goal of reducing
infant deaths by 50 percent in selected communities with infant
mortality rates above the national average, and emphasized
innovative approaches to health and other support services to
combat the problem. The inquiry was intended to draw
conclusions about the program's strengths and weaknesses in the
wake of the President's proposal to expand the program to 30
more sites.
b. Benefits.--The inquiry generated valuable information
regarding the potential impact of Healthy Start's community-
driven strategies on the leading causes of infant mortality,
low birth weight, birth defects, and sudden infant death
syndrome, as well as how to measure the program's effectiveness
given the absence of long-term data. The information will prove
useful to lawmakers, health care professionals, and other
interested parties as they begin to debate the wisdom of
expanding this and other related programs.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled,
``Healthy Start: Implementation Lessons and Impact on Infant
Mortality'' on March 13, 1997. Testimony was received from
representatives from HHS' Health Resources and Services
Administration [HRSA], the Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, as well as community project
directors from the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Cleveland,
and the Mississippi Delta.
5. Nursing Home Fraud.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee reviewed reports of waste,
fraud, and abuse in the nursing home industry in hopes of
determining how to improve nursing home regulation for maximum
taxpayer benefit. During the course of its investigation, the
subcommittee considered the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse,
the impact on State Medicaid programs, the effectiveness of
Medicaid Fraud Control Units [MFCUs] and private industry
programs in detecting and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse,
the complexity of reimbursement policies, and options for
coordinating care for beneficiaries eligible for both Medicaid
and Medicare.
b. Benefits.--The investigation culminated in two hearings
which demonstrated the need for greater vigilance over nursing
home practices and improved enforcement of waste and fraud
control programs. The undertaking also made complex
reimbursement and ``pay and chase'' processes, as well as other
practices that enable over billing and improper claims to slip
by current control measures, easier to understand and control.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``The Extent, Causes, and
Effects of Fraud and Abuse in Nursing Homes'' was held on April
16, 1997. Testimony was received from the Medicaid director for
operations for the State of Connecticut, the vice president of
the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units
[NAMFCU] and the director of Maryland MFCU, the assistant
attorney general and director of AHCCS Fraud Unit in Arizona
MFCU, the HHS Deputy Inspector General for Evaluations and
Inspection, the GAO Associate Director of Health Financing and
Systems Issues, the executive vice president of the American
Health Care Association, and the vice president for Public
Policy for the American Association of Homes and Services for
the Aging. A hearing entitled, ``Health Care Fraud in Nursing
Homes--Part II'' was held on July 10, 1997. Testimony was
received from the Health Care Financing Administration, the
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, the American
Association of Retired Persons, and the National Long Term Care
Ombusdman.
6. Fixing the Consumer Price Index [CPI].
a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined proposals by the
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] to
improve the accuracy and maintain the integrity of the CPI. As
the Government and private sector's tool for measuring
inflation, the CPI is used in the calculation of cost of living
adjustments [COLAs] for major Federal entitlement programs and
private pension benefits, giving it the power to wield enormous
consequences for the economy at large. The subcommittee focused
its investigation on conflicting views regarding the degree of
bias in the current CPI, difficulties in quantifying the impact
of new products and quality improvements on the economy, as
well as the BLS' ability to create and implement an impartial,
effective, and timely process to make the changes.
b. Benefits.--The inquiry taught Members and other
interested parties about the nature, extent, and source of the
problems and challenges faced by the BLS as it begins the
process of adjusting the CPI. The investigation and subsequent
hearing also shed light on the degree to which the BLS is
capable of resolving these issues, and whether any immediate
adjustments can be made pending long-term legislative changes.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Bureau of Labor
Statistics Oversight: Fixing the Consumer Price Index'' was
held on April 30, 1997. Testimony was received from the
Department of Labor's Commissioner of Labor Statistics and
private economists.
7. Bio-Ethics and Informed Consent.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee reviewed the Federal
Government's approach to biomedical ethics issues in research
involving human subjects and the adequacy of informed consent.
The subcommittee considered the emerging parameters of informed
consent in view of recent scientific advances in areas such as
cloning and gene therapies and increased research budgets, with
particular attention to vulnerable patient populations
including children, mentally ill and drug addicted individuals,
as well as current procedures used to address bioethics
questions and disputes.
b. Benefits.--The investigation revealed deficiencies in
the evaluations and oversight needed to maintain a rigorous
bioethical review system, institutional barriers and logistical
obstacles in the policing of thousands of research projects,
and a false sense of security that difficult issues are being
confronted. The ensuing hearing then sharpened questions
regarding the mechanism used to address these ethical issues,
and provided information that will prove valuable in future
reform efforts.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the NIH
and FDA: Bio-Ethics and the Adequacy of Informed Consent'' was
held on May 8, 1997. Testimony was received from
representatives of the Department of Health and Human Services,
the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and scholars from the
University of Pennsylvania, the University of California-San
Francisco, and the University of Arizona.
8. Analysis of the Medicare Transaction System [MTS].
a. Summary.--The subcommittee, working in conjunction with
the Government Management, Information, and Technology
Subcommittee, reviewed problems associated with the Health Care
Financing Administration's [HCFA] multi-million dollar
development of MTS. The investigation looked at a cost-benefit
analysis of MTS, projected overall costs of design and
implementation of the system, and the adequacy of HCFA's
management and oversight of the project. Other issues addressed
were HCFA's management of Medicare's nine claims processing
systems that are being used while MTS is being developed, and
the agency's preparations for ``the millennium problem'' when
computers may not recognize dates after the year 2000.
b. Benefits.--The investigation revealed the nature and
extent of critical managerial and technical weaknesses that
continue to delay and undermine the MTS effort, the process
through which HCFA is reassessing the MTS project, and
prospects for its completion by the year 2000. This information
will prove useful to those engaged in efforts to contain HCFA's
spiraling costs.
c. Hearings.--A joint hearing with the Government
Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee entitled,
``Status of the Medicare Transaction System'' was held on May
16, 1997. Testimony was received from the Director of
Information Resources at the General Accounting Office, the
Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration, the
vice president and general manager of the Information Systems
Division at GTE, and the vice president of Intermetrics Systems
Services Corp.
9. Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] Enforcement of Blood Safety
Regulations.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined the effectiveness of
the FDA's enforcement practices in ensuring the safety of the
blood supply. Members considered the adequacy of the FDA's
inspection and enforcement practices for the blood and plasma
industries, the response to accident and error reports, the
effectiveness of the Blood Products Advisory Committee [BPAC]
and the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy [TSE] Advisory
Committee, and the agency's recall and notification practices.
The subcommittee also reviewed the current regulatory approach
to the risks associated with pooled plasma products, with
particular attention to the relationship between the size of
the plasma pool and the risk of infectious disease
transmission.
b. Benefits.--The investigation demonstrated the need for
continued systemic improvements in the inspection of blood
facilities and in the methods used to notify practitioners and
patients of potentially unsafe products. It also helped
elucidate Members and others as to the risks associated with
the possible transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease [CJD]
through blood transfusion and the effectiveness of surveillance
efforts to detect the presence of CJD in the blood supply.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``FDA Regulation of Blood
Safety: Notification, Recall and Enforcement Practices'' was
held on June 5, 1997. Testimony was received from
representatives of the General Accounting Office, the Office of
Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Food and Drug Administration. A hearing
entitled, ``Food and Drug Administration [FDA] Oversight: Blood
Safety and the Implications of Pool Sizes in the Manufacture of
Plasma Derivatives'' was held on July 31, 1997. Testimony was
received from representatives of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the
Food and Drug Administration, the National Hemophilia
Foundation, the Immune Deficiency Foundation, the American Red
Cross, and all the major plasma fractionators.
10. Reducing Education Mandates.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee looked at the regulatory
burdens and mandates on schools that may detract from
educators' mission of teaching children. The investigation
explored how education could be deregulated to achieve maximum
flexibility in using Federal education dollars to improve
teaching and learning. The inquiry explored the scope and
effects of existing Federal mandates, potentially conflicting
Federal, State, and local government mandates, current options
for mandate relief, and alternative models of regulatory
flexibility.
b. Benefits.--The investigation revealed how mandates
affect educators and how their requirements and restrictions
might be eased or facilitated. It also brought to light the
need for schools and school districts to have greater access to
technical assistance to make educators aware of existing
flexibility provisions. Finally, it demonstrated a tendency of
mandates to have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged
urban districts that find it hard to raise money through
increased property taxes, and suggested ways in which this
inconsistency might be resolved.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Reducing Regulatory
Mandates on Education'' was held on June 12, 1997. Testimony
was received from Representatives Rob Portman (R-OH), Kay
Granger (R-TX), and Gary Condit (D-CA), and representatives
from the National School Boards Association, the American
Association of School Administrators, the Association of School
Business Administrators, the Texas Association of School
Boards, and the National Education Association.
11. Restructuring the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] Medical
Services.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee explored the impact of VA
health services restructuring and resource allocation on the
quality of care at VA facilities, with particular attention to
hospitals in Castle Point and Montrose, NY. The subcommittee
considered how the VA measures the quality of health care
provided to veterans, the impact of budget cuts imposed under
the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation [VERA] system, as
well as how the VA plans to assure the consistent quality of
medical care in the new ``integrated'' structure.
b. Benefits.--The investigation demonstrated the existence
of financial incentives for Senior Executive civil servants
awarded according to their progress in meeting VA goals,
including the achievement of Veterans Integrated Service
Network [VISN] savings. It also gave the subcommittee and
general public the opportunity to review the extent to which VA
reform measures were examined prior to their implementation,
the degree to which they have helped or hurt veterans, and the
way in which they are viewed by the men and women they are
supposed to aid.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Restructuring VA
Medical Services: Measuring and Maintaining the Quality of
Care'' was held on August 4, 1997, at the Wallkill Community
Center in Middletown, NY. Testimony was received from
representatives of VISN 3, the VA Office of Performance
Management, the New York State Division of Veterans Affairs,
the Orange County Veterans Service Agency, the Rockland County
Veterans Service Agency, the Sullivan County Veterans Service
Agency, the Dutchess County Veterans Service Organization, and
a large number of public witnesses.
12. Pfiesteria and Public Health.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee reviewed State and Federal
public health responses to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida,
the alleged source of fish kills and human illness in Maryland,
North Carolina and other areas, to determine Federal and State
governments' ability to respond to new public health threats
presented by emerging infectious agents and toxins.
b. Benefits.--The investigation and ensuing hearings
suggested ways to improve the sensitivity and effectiveness of
State and national programs, policies, and practices designed
to prevent and reduce the Pfiesteria threat. It also revealed
unprecedented ways in which leaders in Government, science,
medicine, agriculture might work together to design and
implement a more unified response.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Pfiesteria and Food
Safety: the State Response'' was held on September 25, 1997.
Testimony was received from the Governor of Maryland and
representatives from North Carolina State University and the
University of Maryland School of Medicine, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services for the State of North Carolina, the
Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources for the State of
North Carolina, the commissioner of the Department of Health
for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and author Rodney Barker. A
hearing entitled, ``Pfiesteria and Food Safety: the Federal
Response'' was also held on September 25, 1997. Testimony was
received from representatives from the Department of Commerce,
the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and the Environmental Protection Agency.
13. Job Corps.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined Job Corps' success
in training people for employment, including the degree to
which the program ensures client commitment, removes barriers
to employment, improves employability skills, and links skill
training to the local job market. The investigation drew
heavily from the results of a General Accounting Office [GAO]
examination of the Department of Labor's management of Job
Corps recruitment and placement contractors in terms of how
they demand and measure success in client commitment and long
term job potential.
b. Benefits.--The investigation unearthed a need for Job
Corps to generate more data in order to maintain a stronger
focus on performance and accountability, with hearing witnesses
providing suggestions as to how this might be achieved.
According to GAO and the Department of Labor Inspector General,
high program drop-out rates may indicate contractors need to
revise Job Corps admissions standards, while poor job placement
prevents the Government from determining the program's
benefits.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Job Corps Oversight:
Recruitment and Placement Standards'' was held on October 23,
1997. Testimony was received from representatives from GAO, the
Office of Inspector General for the Department of Labor, Job
Corps, the Clearfield Job Corps Center, the Hubert H. Humphrey
Job Corps Center, the David L. Carrasco Job Corps Center, as
well as a Job Corps graduate.
14. Privatization of Child Support Enforcement Services.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee looked at the benefits,
challenges, and future course of State and local efforts to
privatize social service programs, with special emphasis on
child support enforcement. The investigation considered
testimony and data from various sources, including a report by
the General Accounting Office [GAO] on the benefits, problems,
performance, and cost effectiveness of efforts to privatize
child support enforcement services [CSE].
The subcommittee also reviewed H.R. 399, the ``Subsidy
Termination for Overdue Payments [STOP] Act'' introduced by
Congressman Michael Bilirakis (R-FL). The legislation would
require parents to pay child support obligations or face loss
of Federal financial assistance, with a ``good cause''
exception to avoid penalizing parents in situations where they
are unable to satisfy their child support obligation due to
factors beyond their control.
b. Benefits.--The investigation injected the debate over
the CSE privatization efforts of State and local governments
with a historical perspective, as well as an understanding of
the key issues surrounding State and local privatized services,
with particular attention to implications for Federal policy.
The inquiry also yielded an appreciation of the negative
effects that the absence of robust competition, lack of
experience specifying contract results, or failure to monitor
performance can have on privatization benefits and program
quality.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Social Services
Privatization: the Benefits and Challenges to Child Support
Enforcement Programs'' was held on November 4, 1997. Testimony
was received from Congressman Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) and
representatives from the GAO, Policy Studies Inc., Lockheed
Martin IMS, Maximus Inc., G.C. Services, the Ventura County
District Attorney's Office, and the Association for Children
for Enforcement of Support.
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and
Regulatory Affairs
1. Investigation of the White House Database.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee has been investigating and
continues to investigate the misuse of the White House Database
[WhoDB] for unauthorized purposes. This investigation has been
a part of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's
investigation of campaign fundraising abuses. This
investigation was first referred to the subcommittee by
Chairman William F. Clinger, Jr., in the 104th Congress.
This referral was reaffirmed at the beginning of the 105th
Congress by Chairman Dan Burton and ratified in writing on July
17, 1997.
b. Benefits.--The misuse of the WhoDB implicates the Anti-
Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), which prohibits the use of
funds authorized by Congress for unauthorized purposes and 18
U.S.C. 641 which imposes criminal sanctions for the use of
Government property for nongovernmental purposes.
According to documents produced to the subcommittee by the
White House, creation of the WhoDB involved approximately $1.7
million of taxpayer funds. The subcommittee is investigating
whether the White House converted this government asset to
assist the private political purposes of the President and the
Democratic National Committee. The subcommittee has received
more than 35,000 pages of documents and spoken to more than 20
witnesses. The subcommittee expects to continue its
investigation during the second session of the 105th Congress.
The documents produced to the subcommittee and the testimony of
the witnesses continue to suggest that the WhoDB was misused
for unauthorized purposes.
2. Investigation of the Misuse of Statistics by the Department of
Energy.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee has initiated an inquiry into
the use of statistics by the Department of Energy to
misrepresent its activity in making grants to disadvantaged
business enterprises.
b. Benefits.--Such misrepresentations undermine the
credibility of the Department and reflect a political agenda
that may be inconsistent with the program requirements. The
subcommittee expects to investigate the matter further during
the second session of the 105th Congress.
3. Investigation of OIRA'S Review of NAAQS Rules.
a. Summary.--EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards
[NAAQS] for particulate matter and ozone were considered a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866
and were reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs [OIRA] of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB].
OIRA approved the rules as complying with the requirements of
the order. The NAAQS rulemaking was one of the most significant
regulatory actions of this year, expected to impose costs of
over $9 billion per year on the regulated public for partial
attainment. Because of the major impact of these rules, the
subcommittee has carefully investigated OIRA's involvement in
the rulemaking to determine the extent to which OIRA performed
its regulatory review obligations under President Clinton's
Executive Order 12866 and ensured that the proposed rules
complied with all applicable statutes and Executive orders.
b. Benefits.--The investigation has thus far exposed
serious deficiencies in OIRA's conduct of regulatory review
pursuant to Executive orders and procedural statutes. As a
result, the subcommittee better understands specific areas in
which the regulatory review process needs further oversight and
reform. OIRA has repeatedly failed to cooperate fully with
congressional oversight efforts.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on ``EPA's
Particulate Matter and Ozone Rulemaking: Is EPA Above the
Law?'' on April 16 and 23, 1997.
4. Securities and Exchange Commission.
a. Summary.--From March 1996 through April 1997, the
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources,
and Regulatory Affairs reviewed the official travel policies
and procedures of the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC].
Based upon its investigation, the subcommittee recommended that
the SEC begin following the internal guidelines set out by the
SEC Comptroller, particularly those in a July 9, 1993, memo on
first-class travel, which states that employees should not fly
first class even at their own expense.
The subcommittee recommended and the SEC implemented the
following reforms:
Strictly construe the FTR's requirements for
approvals of upgrades for travel or lodging
accommodations, and require explicit justifications for
such upgrades consistent with FTR requirements.
Do not construe the FTR to permit travel
upgrades to business class for the reason that official
business needs to be conducted in flight, even if the
official work is confidential in nature.
Continue to caution SEC travelers to be
circumspect about doing work on confidential or
sensitive matters while traveling to protect against
inadvertent or premature disclosure of confidential or
sensitive information. (The subcommittee has concluded
that neither business- nor first-class travel
significantly enhances the opportunity to maintain
confidentiality of agency documents or records.\36\ )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The subcommittee does not believe that the exceptional
security circumstances cited in the FTR include maintaining
confidentiality of agency records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Include the specific FTR justification for any
travel upgrade in a written approval memorandum, which
must be submitted to the SEC's Comptroller's Office
with the travel voucher before any reimbursement for
upgrade expenses is approved. Consistent with current
practice, that memorandum should be retained with the
agency's official records relating to the trip.
If a traveler receives an upgrade for lodging,
and he or she stays at a hotel with a rate in excess of
the maximum approved rate for subsistence expenses
(currently up to 150 percent of the standard per diem
allowance) (the maximum per diem allowance), determine,
on a case-by-case basis, whether the appropriate
reimbursement is the standard per diem allowance or the
maximum per diem allowance.
Factors to be considered include, but are not limited to,
the following:
1) net savings to the Government due to the proximity
of the chosen hotel to the location of work which would
lessen related transportation costs to be paid by the
Government;
2) reasonable personal safety concerns, particularly
relative to persons traveling alone; and
3) attendance at conferences or meetings which take
place at hotels with rates above the maximum per diem
allowance.
Increasing the lodging allowance up to the maximum per diem
allowance for a particular locality should be considered
exceptional--travelers are expected to attempt to find
reasonable accommodations within the per diem allowance set by
GSA. The traveler bears the burden of persuasion to satisfy the
SEC's Office of the Comptroller that the traveler should
receive more than the standard per diem allowance. The
subcommittee is of the view that justifying a rate above the
standard per diem allowance on the basis of attending
conferences or meetings at hotels with rates above the maximum
per diem allowance is appropriate only if the traveler stays on
site, at a less expensive hotel in close proximity to the
conference or meeting site, or if no other hotel is reasonably
available.
Consult with the Inspector General to
implement a periodic audit by the Inspector General's
office of agency travel vouchers, including those in
which upgrades have been approved, to determine
compliance with the FTR and agency policies.
Require all SEC travelers to attach used
airline ticket stubs, demonstrating the class of
accommodations used by the traveler, to their travel
vouchers.
Review and approve requests for travel
upgrades on a uniform basis.
b. Benefits.--The SEC has agreed to implement all of the
subcommittee's recommended reforms. Many of these
recommendations are not reforms; rather, they require
enforcement of internal agency travel policies and Federal
travel regulations already on the books. In adopting these
recommendations, the SEC has come into compliance with the
regulations which govern all Federal employees' travel.
The SEC's Inspector General is making quarterly reports to
the subcommittee on compliance with the travel reforms. Reports
were submitted in October 1997 and January 1998, showing full
compliance. The subcommittee hopes that the SEC will begin to
serve as an example of an agency that fully complies with its
internal travel policies and the Federal travel regulations,
with the benefit being, the protection of taxpayer dollars.
c. Hearings.--None.
5. Oversight of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Programs.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted oversight into the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's (the Corps) wetlands program. The
subcommittee held an oversight hearing on this issue in
Marietta, GA, on June 16, 1997. The hearing, ``Wetlands:
Community and Individual Rights vs. Unchecked Government
Power,'' examined particular difficulties that local citizens
and the county government had in obtaining permits from the
Corps to develop their property.
First, the hearing covered the issue of the Corps' denial
of a permit for Cobb County to build the West Cobb Loop, a
much-needed roadway to ease traffic congestion in the area. The
Corps denied the permit because it favored an alternate route
which would not impact any wetlands, but would affect more than
700 homes, 2 churches and a school in the West Sandtown
community, and force residents in 39 homes to completely
relocate.
Second, the hearing examined the problems Robert Dabbs, a
small, local developer of subdivisions, experienced in
obtaining a permit from the Corps. The Corps put a Cease and
Desist Order on his entire development project, although he
only affected 0.63 of an acre of wetlands in the 111-acre
residential development. Mr. Dabbs cooperated with the Corps'
every request, spending thousands of dollars to comply, but the
Corps did not have time to look at his paperwork. At the time
of the hearing, Mr. Dabbs was on the brink of financial ruin
due to the Corps' delay. One of his partners had already folded
and 165 construction workers' jobs had been eliminated.
Third, the hearing examined the situation of Grady Brown,
an elderly cattle rancher and businessman. The Corps stopped
him from using part of his own land because the Georgia
Department of Transportation [DOT] inadvertently flooded it 10
years previously, creating a wetland. The DOT recognized their
error and drained the property, but when the Corps found out,
they ordered the DOT to undo their work and reflood the land.
The Corps left Mr. Brown with a lot of useless swamp land and
no recourse but to go through a long and likely futile
permitting process or to engage in a costly, protracted legal
battle.
Background: Federal Wetlands Regulations
The key program under which wetlands are regulated by the
Federal Government is found in Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act [CWA], which was established in 1972. Under Section 404,
landowners and developers must get permits from the Corps
before conducting any work which results in the disposal of
dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States,
including wetlands. The Section 404 program is jointly
administered by the Corps and the Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA]. Section 404 authorizes States to take over the
administration of permits, but the process to do so is very
complex and only two States have assumed this responsibility--
Michigan and New Jersey.
The Corps issues general permits for activities that will
only have a minor impact on wetlands and individual permits for
more extensive activities. General permits, which are issued
for 5-year periods, allow activities in their scope to go
forward without individual review, reducing paperwork and
delay. Over 80 percent of the approximately 50,000 activities
permitted by the Corps each year are covered by general
permits.
In December 1996, the Corps reissued its 37 nationwide
permits [NWPs], as its general permits are known, and added 2
new ones. The Corps made a few significant revisions to the
NWPs. Most importantly, it is phasing out the Nationwide 26
permit which authorizes discharges into isolated waters (not
connected or adjacent to surface waters) and headwaters
(minimal flow waters) affecting up to 10 acres. The Corps has
reauthorized NWP 26 for 2 years. After 2 years, NWP 26 will be
eliminated entirely and replaced by new, activity-specific
permits. While NWP 26 remains in existence, it has been reduced
to cover only those activities affecting up to 3 acres. A
preconstruction notification is now required for any activity
affecting more than one third of an acre, reduced from 1 acre.
Landowners and developers have voiced great concern that the
Corps will not be able to replace NWP 26 sufficiently and that
the increased workload of granting individual permits for all
the activities that were formerly covered by NWP 26 will result
in long, costly delays. Over 20,000 activities occur under NWP
26 every year.
The subcommittee examined a study recently released by the
Competitive Enterprise Institute [CEI], which concluded that
wetlands restoration has exploded in the last decade resulting
in ``no net loss'' of wetlands. In fact, the study reported,
there has been a net gain in wetlands. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resource and Conservation Service has
conducted a survey of wetlands across the Nation as part of its
most recent National Resources Inventory [NRI]. The NRI showed
a trend of wetland losses that indicates about 141,000 acres of
wetlands were lost in 1995. In the same year, three non-
regulatory wetland restoration programs of the USDA restored at
least 187,000 acres of wetlands. These programs are the
Partners For Wildlife Program, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, and the Wetland Reserve Program. Wetland
restoration is defined as ``the re-establishment of wetland
hydrology and wetland vegetation to lands which had previously
been drained, typically for agricultural purposes.''
Restoration is distinct from creation of a new wetland where
none existed previously or enhancement of an existing wetland
to improve its functioning.
b. Benefits.--As a result of the subcommittee's oversight
hearing, the Corps agreed to readdress the West Cobb Loop and
Robert Dabbs' permit issues, as well as drainage of the wetland
on Grady Brown's property.
At the hearing, Cobb County Department of Transportation
Director Jim Croy testified on behalf of Cobb County on the
West Cobb Loop issue. The Commission's application for a permit
to build the road was rejected by the Corps because the chosen
route would impact 11 acres of wetlands--not the ``least
environmentally damaging alternative.'' The Commission and
local citizens chose the route that would impact some wetlands
because it would have the smallest impact on the residents of
the area. They also offered to mitigate the impact by creating
eight times as many wetlands and building bridges where
possible to span the wetlands, making the project more
expensive. The route the Corps preferred would widen an
existing road through a residential neighborhood, affecting
700+ homes, 1 school and 2 churches, and forcing the complete
relocation of 39 homes. This route would not touch any
wetlands. The route the county chose would only force the
relocation of three homes. The citizens of Cobb County feel
strongly that there is a need for this road to ease the traffic
on smaller roads. They are paying for the road directly from
their own tax dollars--no Federal funds--through a 1 percent
tax they voted to impose on themselves for road improvement
projects.
Two citizens testified about the impact the road would have
on their community if the Corps' preferred route was chosen.
Chris McLean and David Parr addressed issues of community
safety and well-being. There is a school on the road the Corps
wanted to widen. Children walk to school along that road every
day. The road connects several housing subdivisions. The rate
of accidents in this residential area would greatly increase if
the road was widened from two to five lanes and the speed
increased.
Col. Grant M. Smith, District Commander of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Savannah District, testified on behalf the
Corps. He made the decision to reject the county's application
for a permit to build the West Cobb Loop. At the hearing, Col.
Smith agreed to work with the county on its re-proposal of a
route for the West Cobb Loop. To date, Cobb County has
submitted a new application for a permit to build on a route
similar to the one in its first proposal. Currently, the
application is in a joint comment period. According to Cobb
County officials, it is likely that the application will be
approved and a permit will be granted to begin construction in
March or April 1998.
In the case of a permit for Robert Dabbs' housing
subdivision, Col. Smith testified that he was not aware of the
costly delays caused by the Corps, and he apologized for them.
He announced that the Corps had scheduled a meeting to inspect
Mr. Dabbs' property again on June 18 (2 days after the
hearing). At the inspection, the Corps agreed with the
delineation Mr. Dabbs' engineer had determined--they settled on
0.9 of an acre of wetlands. Mr. Dabbs applied for an after-the-
fact permit from the Corps for his development, and he will
mitigate for the wetlands he disturbed. The Corps gave him a
letter releasing the part of the development that isn't wetland
for construction to continue.
Col. Smith was not able to be as accommodating in Mr.
Brown's case. Because the regulations do not distinguish
between man-made and natural wetlands, both must be protected.
But he agreed to reconsider the issue to determine if a
mutually agreeable solution could be reached. The case has not
yet been resolved satisfactorily.
c. Hearings.--A field hearing was held on this matter on
June 16, 1997, in Marietta, GA, ``Wetlands: Community and
Individual Rights v. Unchecked Government Power.''
6. Oversight of the Security and Exchange Commission's ``Disclosure of
Accounting Policies for Derivative Financial Instruments and
Derivative Commodity Instruments'' (derivative rule).
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted a substantial
review of the SEC's derivative rule, which was promulgated on
February 10, 1997, to determine whether the rule was sound and
efficient and whether the SEC had complied with the statutory
requirements of the underlying securities law (National
Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996) and the
Congressional Review Act under the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (Public Law 104-121). The subcommittee
sent the SEC oversight letters on March 17, 20, and 28, 1997,
requesting a complete copy of the initial and final regulatory
flexibility analysis for the rule, among other materials.
The subcommittee reviewed all the documents submitted by
the SEC and conducted extensive interviews of the SEC Chief
Economist, the SEC Chief Accountant, the SEC Deputy Chief
Accountant, and an SEC Assistant General Counsel, all of whom
were involved in the derivative rulemaking process. The
subcommittee also interviewed a number of outside economic
experts, market analysts, and securities experts and met with a
variety of interested parties in the regulated community. In
addition, the subcommittee has carefully reviewed the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Senate Subcommittee on
Securities in their report dated April 21, 1997 (Report of the
Subcommittee on Securities on Proposals by the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Financial Accounting Standards
Board for the Accounting Treatment of Financial Derivatives).
Based on this substantial review of the derivative rule, we
find additional support for and endorse the findings and
conclusions of the Senate report.
Most significantly, the subcommittee reviewed a memorandum
from the SEC Office of Economic Analysis dated January 7, 1997,
which presents a thorough and persuasive critique of the
quantitative disclosure requirements of the derivative rule.
The memorandum suggests that the market has already responded
positively to the concerns that arose a few years ago in well-
publicized cases and will continue to do so without any action
by the SEC. In contrast to the direction the market is taking,
the SEC's Chief Economist states that the derivative rule,
particularly its quantitative disclosure requirements, ``has
the potential to create misleading representations of market
risks in the registrants'' disclosures.'' In fact, the SEC's
Chief Economist wrote that under the rule ``some risk
disclosures will be misleading.'' (Emphasis added.) To cite but
one example, the Chief Economist wrote that ``a registrant may
be at considerable risk due [to its] derivatives positions and
yet report a quantitative risk of zero under the [derivative
rule].'' Finally, the Chief Economist wrote that the
quantitative disclosure requirements of the derivative rule
will likely cause market participants to shift to over-the-
counter contracts that entail even greater risk. As the
memorandum relates, the rule ``creates incentives for financial
engineering and a movement of trading to over-the-counter
markets from financial exchanges.'' In short, it appears that
the SEC's Chief Economist believed that no quantitative
disclosure requirement was necessary and that the requirements
in the rule the SEC has issued will be misleading and
counterproductive.
Apart from the persuasive criticism of the derivative rule
in the memorandum, the subcommittee is most troubled that the
Chief Economist's conclusions, and many other comments that the
SEC received from the regulated community on the quantitative
disclosure requirements, appear to have been completely ignored
by the SEC's Office of the Chief Accountant and others at the
SEC. Sadly, the subcommittee has concluded that the SEC
regulated for the sake of regulating, rather than for the
protection of investors.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee concluded, in accordance
with the Senate Subcommittee on Securities' Report, that the
derivative rule is problematic for the following reasons.
1. There is no justification for requiring quantification
of derivative risks, as the derivative rule requires, but not
requiring quantification of the following intangible risks,
each of which the SEC Chief Economist said usually has a larger
impact on a public company's stock value:
changes in company management;
the possibility of a labor strike;
changes in a competitor's line of products or
services;
development of valuable patent rights;
good or bad marketing decisions;
increases or decreases in the cost of
manufacturing inputs; and,
all other good or bad business decisions.
2. Although the market developed the valuation methods that
the SEC now requires under the derivative rule, the market
players who developed the tools oppose mandatory disclosure. By
mandating disclosure, the derivative rule, creates an incentive
for the market not to develop or improve such risk management
tools in the future, for derivatives or for any of the other
risks listed above.
3. The SEC Chief Economist admitted in an internal memo and
in a subcommittee interview that none of the derivative
debacles of the past would have been prevented by the new
derivative rule.
4. The SEC's initial economic analysis and cost estimate on
the derivative rule was simply guesswork on the part of the
Deputy Chief Accountant with no input from the SEC Office of
Economic Analysis. The SEC's final economic analysis was based
on anecdotal interviews by the Deputy Chief Accountant, who has
since left, with only minimal review by the SEC Office of
Economic Analysis. The Senate Subcommittee on Securities found
that the SEC had violated Section 106 of the National
Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 by not conducting a
real cost benefit analysis. The Subcommittee on National
Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affair
concurs with this conclusion.
5. The actual direct cost of compliance with the derivative
rule will far exceed the SEC's estimates. Interviews with the
CFOs of several major corporations convinced the subcommittee
that the SEC's final cost estimate was based on faulty
assumptions about the amount of time it would take to comply
with the rule.
6. Those companies to which the derivative rule applies are
at serious risk of competitive harm because they are forced to
disclose sensitive information that their foreign competitors
and those domestic companies which are not covered by the rule
do not have to disclose.
7. The SEC Chief Economist concluded that the analyses
required by the derivative rule will be too complex for most
investors to follow. Therefore, the rule will provide
misleading information to investors.
8. The SEC Chief Economist concluded that the analyses
required by the derivative rule will also be misleading because
the various options the rule allows for reporting derivative
risk are not compatible. Companies are given three options for
quantitative reporting: tabular presentation (describing the
fair value and contract terms), ``sensitivity analysis''
(describing potential earnings and losses under various market
fluctuations), and ``value at risk'' (describing potential
losses within a historical context). It would be difficult, if
not impossible, for most investors to compare what one company
puts in one format and another company puts in another format.
9. The SEC Chief Economist concluded that the derivative
rule will create an incentive for firms to move from financial
exchanges to over-the-counter or other non-cash settled
commodity markets, thus increasing the risk to investors.
10. The SEC Chief Economist concluded that the derivative
rule will create an incentive for firms to engage in less
hedging activity, thus increasing the risk to investors. This
is the case because derivatives are used by companies primarily
to reduce risk. The companies that use derivatives oppose the
rule because it requires them to disclose financial trade
secrets. If these companies have to disclose information about
how they use derivatives to their competitors, it is not as
worthwhile for them to use derivatives. Thus, the rule creates
an incentive for companies to use fewer derivatives. Using
fewer derivatives creates more risk for the companies'
investors.
11. Although the ``safe-harbor'' provision of the SEC rule
is an attempt to limit the litigation arising from the rule,
the sbcommittee believes that substantial litigation remains
likely to occur.
c. Hearings.--None.
7. EPA's Particulate and Ozone Rulemaking.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted significant
oversight of the process that the Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA] followed in developing new air quality standards
for particulate matter [PM] and ozone. This review focused on
EPA's compliance with Federal laws and procedures intended to
assure that regulations will not do more harm than good. In
particular, the subcommittee examined the Agency's compliance
with the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA], Regulatory Flexibility Act
[RFA], the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act [UMRA] and Executive
Order 12866, and with the administrative procedures set forth
in the Clean Air Act.
On November 27, 1996, EPA proposed revisions to tighten
dramatically the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS]
for particulate matter and ozone. The new NAAQS, which were
finalized in July 1997, will regulate fine particles and impose
a lower acceptable level of smog measured over a longer time
period. Under the Clean Air Act, NAAQS are required to be set
at a level that is ``requisite to protect the public health,''
while ``allowing an adequate margin of safety.'' Throughout the
rulemaking proceeding, EPA Administrator Carol Browner
persistently maintained that the Clean Air Act allows the
Agency to consider only health factors in its decisionmaking.
Therefore, she insisted that UMRA's regulatory requirements did
not apply and that EPA could not consider the results of its
regulatory impact analyses in determining whether to revise the
current standards. She also argued that RFA and SBREFA did not
apply, because these health-based standards do not, in
themselves, have any direct regulatory effect. Moreover, she
stated that it is not feasible to conduct regulatory impact
analyses at the NAAQS-setting stage, because the Agency does
not know what specific regulatory requirements a State will
choose for implementing the standards.
However, EPA's analyses assume that the available science
indicates a threshold for unacceptable risk from which EPA
could set a standard allowing an adequate margin of safety. In
fact, this assumption ignores the findings of EPA's own
scientific advisory committee. Based on the best available
science, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee [CASAC]
determined that there are no such bright scientific lines.
Indeed, CASAC indicated that there is no scientific proof that
EPA's standards will measurably improve public health. In the
case of ozone, the panel concluded that the proposed standard
was not significantly more protective of public health than the
current one. In the case of PM, they found significant
uncertainty surrounding the health effects of fine particles.
In their view, there is no compelling evidence on which to set
more restrictive standards at this time. As a result, CASAC
concluded that science could not make the judgment call on
EPA's new standards.
In the face of inconclusive science and the prospect of
questionable public health benefits, compliance with ``good
government'' procedures takes on added significance. Under
these circumstances, sound policy judgments can be made only
after (1) a careful balancing of the weight of the available
scientific evidence against anticipated costs, risks, and
likely benefits; and (2) an adequate opportunity for review and
comment. For this reason, the subcommittee closely reviewed
EPA's compliance with the Federal laws, Executive orders, and
administrative procedures that require the Agency (1) to
analyze and take into account a range of factors in exercising
its discretion on proper risk management; and (2) to allow
ample time for the filing and review of comments. The
investigation focused on the following problems:
Regulatory Flexibility Act.--EPA certified that its rules
will not have a significant impact on small business. This
finding is very problematic because EPA indicated that these
rules will have a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities in its regulatory impact analyses.
Moreover, the Agency has previously prepared analyses of small
business effects in other NAAQS-setting rulemakings. Finally,
the Small Business Administration, the controlling legal
authority, determined that EPA was required to do so in this
rulemaking proceeding.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.--EPA has insisted that the
Clean Air Act (Act) prohibits it from complying with the
requirements of UMRA. Therefore, EPA did not prepare a written
statement that evaluated the effects of its changes on State,
local, and tribal governments and the private sector or provide
an explanation why the Agency could not select the least
costly, most cost-effective, and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the Act. Nor did EPA involve
State and local officials in developing its rules. Yet, the
Agency had the discretion not to change the existing air
quality standards and this NAAQS review involved policy
judgments.
Executive Order 12866.--Although EPA considered it
appropriate to evaluate alternative regulatory options, the
Agency maintained that it would be inconsistent with the Clean
Air Act for the Agency to take into account the results of its
economic analyses in determining which option to select. This
is problematic in light of CASAC's conclusion that science
could not make the judgment call in this rulemaking proceeding.
Regulatory Impact Analyses.--At the proposing stage, EPA
failed to perform full cost analyses of its changes to the PM
and ozone standards and available alternatives, even though
doing so would have enabled a more informed evaluation of the
achievability of these standards and their net benefits.
Risk Management.--In developing its new PM2.5 annual
standard, the Agency did not give appropriate weight to the
inconclusive nature of the scientific evidence on the health
effects of fine particles, especially the significant
uncertainties raised by CASAC. Moreover, in spite of the
marginal public health benefits that its ozone proposal would
provide and its own determination that the costs of
implementing the standard would outweigh the benefits, EPA
preferred this option to issuing an 8-hour equivalent of the
current standard.
PM Research.--Despite the many unanswered questions and
uncertainties surrounding the mortality effects of fine
particles, EPA refused to validate the two key government-
funded prospective studies upon which the Agency relied, by
obtaining and making available to the public for independent
review the data underlying those studies.
Opportunity for Review.--EPA did not find it necessary to
provide an adequate opportunity for public comment and
regulatory review before adopting any revisions to the PM and
ozone NAAQS. This is very problematic given the complexity of
this NAAQS review, which addressed both the PM and ozone
standards, and the amount of time allocated in the past to
reviewing just one standard. In the case of the ozone standard,
this is particularly egregious because EPA was not under a
court-ordered deadline to review that standard. Moreover, in
its filing with the District Court in Arizona seeking an
extension of the deadlines for the particulate matter
rulemaking, EPA recognized that the court provided ``an
extraordinarily short time period'' for reviewing and
responding to public comments in a rulemaking of this nature.
Under such severe time constraints, it is highly dubious that
EPA was able to perform a meaningful review of all of the
comments filed on both the PM and ozone proposals.
In pursuing its oversight work, the subcommittee sent
letters of inquiry to EPA, OIRA, SBA, and the Council on
Economic Advisers. The subcommittee also interviewed EPA, SBA,
and OIRA officials involved in this rulemaking proceeding,
CASAC scientists, State and local authorities, and economic and
policy analysts. In addition to the documents provided in
response to its inquiries, the subcommittee reviewed legal,
economic and scientific analyses developed by the private
sector and the public comments submitted on EPA's proposals.
Finally, on April 16 and 23, 1997, the subcommittee held a
hearing on EPA's rulemaking. On the first day of the hearing,
the subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of the
public, small business, the scientific community, and State and
local government. Testifying at the second day of the hearing
were EPA Administrator Browner, OIRA Administrator Sally Katzen
and SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy Jere Glover.
On the first day of the hearing, witnesses provided
persuasive testimony that EPA's proposed new stringent
standards were misguided. Dr. Christopher Grande, an
anesthesiologist and intensive care specialist in trauma
injury, said that the proposed rules are ``the latest example
in what [he] see[s] as a disturbing trend of the last two
decades where scarce public health resources are diverted from
more clearly demonstrated beneficial uses.'' ``For example,''
he added, ``if a community is forced to spend its resources
implementing the ozone and particulate matter air quality
standards, what other public health needs will the community
sacrifice?'' This concern was echoed by Faith Kline, a fourth-
grade school teacher and severe asthma sufferer, and Fred
Congress, a minority business owner. Both admonished the Agency
not to take a great public policy leap without more scientific
justification. To do otherwise, they agreed, will just result
in onerous new control measures being imposed on the backs of
citizens for minimal health benefits.
A bipartisan group of State and local elected officials
also expressed concern that EPA's air quality standards will be
counterproductive to cleaner air and improvements in public
health. According to Ohio Governor George Voinovich, ``the
proposed standards threaten to undo all the hard work and
sacrifice made by our [citizens] to bring their communities
into attainment.'' San Diego Mayor Susan Golding and Illinois
State Representative Jeffrey Schoenberg believed that the rules
will have an enormous impact on small business and will become
``one of the largest unfunded mandates'' ever faced by State
and local government.
During the course of its oversight, the subcommittee also
found the following information particularly noteworthy in view
of its concerns about the conduct of the rulemaking process:
Interagency Review.--EPA did not adequately address the
economic and scientific criticism that its air quality
standards provoked throughout the Clinton administration. The
President's own Office of Science and Technology Policy
objected that these standards are not based on adequate
scientific information. The Council of Economic Advisers [CEA]
observed that, ``the incremental health-risk reduction from
more stringent standards is small, while costs are high.'' In
fact, the CEA estimated that the costs of fully complying with
just EPA's new ozone standards could reach $60 billion a year.
According to the SBA, these are ``the most expensive
regulations faced by small business in 10 or more years.'' The
Department of Transportation [DOT] commented that it was
``incomprehensible that the administration would commit to a
new set of standards without much greater understanding of the
problem and its solutions.'' A DOT analysis of the impact of
EPA's standards on States and localities showed that areas in
noncompliance will face ``economically strangling restrictions
to daily operations.'' The Department noted that the standards
will ``bring a significantly larger proportion of the
population and more jurisdictions under Federal oversight and
procedural burdens.''
State and local elected officials.--EPA did not adequately
address the concerns voiced by numerous governors and thousands
of mayors about these standards. They maintained that the
standards will have a disproportionate impact on small business
and will impose one of the largest unfunded mandates ever on
State and localities. These standards will force onerous new
control measures and unnecessary lifestyle changes on hundreds
of counties that will not be able to comply. The costs of doing
business will rise considerably, causing massive layoffs. Areas
in nonattainment will have to adhere to stringent requirements
regarding building permits and uses, transportations plans,
industrial uses, and the like. In short, the elected officials
protested that States and localities will face oppressive
constraints on their freedom to run their own communities and
meet the needs of their citizens.
EPA's Final Regulatory Impact Analysis.--While EPA has
interpreted the Clean Air Act as requiring the setting of NAAQS
to be health-based and not based on cost or other economic
considerations, the Agency nonetheless performed a regulatory
impact analysis [RIA] to determine the costs and benefits of
its new standards. Moreover, EPA's final RIA clearly shows that
its preliminary analysis did not conform to the
administration's own guidelines for issuing regulations (OMB's
guidelines for implementing Executive Order 12866). In contrast
to that preliminary analysis which showed that the standards
were cost-effective, EPA now has found that its new standards
may actually result in harm to the public, potentially
producing net negative benefits of $26 billion. Based on its
estimates, EPA has concluded that the net benefits for ozone
are negative and that it is quite plausible that the net
benefits of the PM2.5 standard also will be negative. Total
costs could be $47 billion ($37 billion from the PM2.5 rule
plus $9.6 billion from the ozone rule). By the time EPA
finalized its rules, its cost estimate rose about five-fold,
while its measure of public health fell by over 80 percent
(number of lives saved fell by 97 percent). Finally, the level
that EPA has adopted for its annual PM2.5 standard is very cost
sensitive. A change in the level by just 1 microgram per cubic
meter, from 15 to 16, would result in a 37 percent reduction in
the number of residual nonattainment areas--from 30 to 19.
Job Impacts.--In its study, ``Costs, Economic Impacts, and
Benefits of EPA's Ozone and Particulate Standards, the Reason
Public Policy Institute found that the standards could cost
from $90 to $150 billion annually. These costs would have an
adverse effect on economic growth and employment, taking about
$1,600 from each family of four after taxes and putting 200,000
to 400,000 jobs at risk. The costs of these standards could
reduce the purchasing power of lower income families by more
than 5 percent. Finally, the study projected that
disproportionate share of the job losses would come from lower
paying occupations in the small business sector.
Better Investments.--EPA did not evaluate the health
benefits from investing scarce resources in the implementation
of its stringent PM and ozone standards as compared to benefits
from investing in other public health and safety programs. In
terms of cost per life-year saved, EPA's rules are very cost
ineffective when compared with other investment choices, such
as mammograms and immunizations. For example, the cost per
life-year saved of breast cancer screening for women ages 40-64
is about $17,000, while the cost per life-year saved of
pneumonia vaccinations for those over 65 is about $2,300. By
contrast, EPA's PM analysis indicates a cost per life-year
saved of $2.4 million.
Research.--Although EPA's 1996 ``Air Quality and Emissions
Trends Report'' shows that nationwide air quality has improved
substantially over the last 10 years, the incidence of asthma
is increasing appreciably. Most experts believe that the
primary cause of increased asthma prevalence is related to
indoor not outdoor air pollution. Further research is needed to
examine the effects of poverty and indoor air quality on the
incidence of asthma, relative to the effects of outdoor air.
Moreover, with respect to the health effects of fine particles,
CASAC urged EPA to ``immediately implement a targeted research
program to address [the] unanswered questions and
uncertainties.'' President Clinton's budget request for fiscal
year 1998 underscored the necessity for research. In requesting
$26.4 million for PM research, a 37 percent increase over 1997,
the President indicated, among other things, the need to
investigate the ``biological mechanisms by which PM
concentrations in outdoor air may induce health effects and, in
doing so, evaluat[e] potential links between PM exposures and
health effects.'' Clearly, absent a better understanding of the
science, effective control strategies cannot be designed.
Underlying Data.--The subcommittee sent letters to Harvard
and the American Cancer Society [ACS] urging that they
cooperate with efforts to structure a public process for the
independent review of the data underlying their long-term
studies, which are critical to EPA's annual PM2.5 standard.
Prompted by such appeals, Harvard and ASC are working with the
Health Effects Institute to set up procedures for independent
scientific review.
Unintended Adverse Consequences.--EPA did not evaluate any
of the following potential adverse consequences: (1) Reducing
ground-level ozone may cause an increase in malignant and
nonmelanoma skin cancers and cataracts, as well as other health
risks from ultraviolet B rays; (2) Setting a generic fine
particle standard may result in controlling particles that
don't significantly harm the public health, and not controlling
ones that do; and (3) The regulatory costs that will be
transmitted throughout the economy will increase poverty
levels. As a result, workers and consumers will have less
disposable income to spend on safety devices, on medical
checkups and procedures, and on clean and safe housing.
b. Benefits.--The record developed through the
subcommittee's oversight clearly shows that EPA defied good
government laws and procedures in developing its new air
quality standards, that these standards are scientifically
indefensible, and that they will impose enormous burdens on
State and local government and the private sector, with little
or no assurance of public health benefits. Nothing in the Clean
Air Act removes the Agency's discretion and responsibility to
take a reasonable approach when the scientific evidence is
inconclusive. Contrary to good government procedures and
requirements, EPA rushed to judgment without weighing a range
of relevant factors and without providing an adequate
opportunity for public comment and review.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled,
``EPA's Particulate Matter and Ozone Rulemaking: Is EPA Above
the Law?'' on April 16 and 23, 1997.
8. GAO Findings on Superfund Cleanup.
a. Summary.--On February 13, 1997, the subcommittee held a
hearing on the preliminary findings of the General Accounting
Office [GAO] on the duration of the Superfund cleanup process.
Despite the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] claims to
the contrary, GAO testified that the pace of the Superfund
program is actually slowing down. GAO stated that it now takes
much longer for non-Federal sites to move through the Superfund
system than it did 10 years ago. Moreover, GAO staff warned
that longer completion times are significant because many
listing and cleanup activities remain in the Superfund program.
The Superfund program was created in 1980 when Congress
enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act [CERCLA] to identify and cleanup the Nation's
worst hazardous wastesites. After nearly 17 years, the public
and private sectors combined have spent over $30 billion on the
program, with only 30 percent of the sites on the National
Priorities List [NPL] cleaned up.
At the request of former Government Reform and Oversight
Chairman William F. Clinger, GAO investigated the time it takes
to assess and cleanup contaminated sites on the NPL and why
cleanups have been delayed. In March 1997, GAO issued its final
report, ``Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of
Hazardous Waste Sites,'' which confirmed its earlier findings.
Based on EPA's own data, GAO concluded that:
(1) It now takes substantially longer to list sites
on the NPL than it did 10 years ago. In 1996, it took
9.4 years to evaluate and place sites on the NPL, while
sites listed between 1986 and 1990 took about 5.8
years. GAO predicted that long delays will continue
because a large number of sites are potentially
eligible for Superfund listing and only a limited
number of sites are being added to the program each
year. GAO estimated that between 1,400 and 2,300 sites
could be added to the program in the future;
(2) The average number of site additions to the NPL
has fallen dramatically over this same 10 year period.
Only 16 sites per year have been added in recent years;
(3) The time it takes to clean up a site, once it has
been placed on the NPL, is more than twice as long as
it was 10 years ago. In 1986, the average time to
cleanup a Superfund site listed on the NPL was less
than 4 years. In 1993, EPA established a goal of 5
years to cleanup a site. However, by 1996, cleanups
were averaging 10.6 years; and
(4) The actual time it takes to do ``construction
work''--the real shovels-in-the-dirt part--is being
completed in the same length of time. In 1996, remedial
actions took about 2 years, as long as it took in 1991.
EPA told GAO that the increased cleanup times are the
result of three factors: ``(1) the growing complexity of sites,
(2) efforts to find parties and reach settlements with them,
and (3) resource constraints.''
Certainly, sites are now ``more complex'' in one respect.
GAO reported in 1993 that a full 40 percent of all the sites
that EPA had reported as ``construction complete'' required no
remedial action whatsoever. Basically, EPA finished leaning up
the sites that were easier to deal with early in the program.
However, GAO also noted in their report that actual cleanup is
just as fast today as it was previously. Therefore, the
``complexity'' that EPA cites as a reason for delay is
attributable to the pre-cleanup phase--studies, remedy design,
et cetera. In the case of multi-party sites, this phase is
dominated by legal battles with potentially responsible parties
[PRPs] over who should pay and how much, and what should be
done--that is, issues of liability and remedy selection.
Moreover, by stating that efforts to reach settlements with
parties delays the process, EPA acknowledged that the liability
system hinders site cleanup. Notably, EPA reported to GAO that
the reason remedial designs are completed twice as quickly at
Federal sites as they are at non-Federal sites is because
``Federal cleanups do not usually involve negotiations or
litigation with private responsible parties.'' EPA's own data
suggest that the number of parties involved in legal disputes
is correlated to the speed of cleanup:
A full 50 percent of all ``orphan'' sites
(sites where EPA is unable to identify any viable
liable party and simply pays for the cleanup itself)
have been completed, and 41 percent of the sites with
10 or fewer parties have been cleaned up. However, at
sites with 500 or more PRPs, just 17 percent have been
finished.
The average multi-party Superfund site takes a
total of 12 years to be completed after it is listed on
the NPL. As John F. Lynch, Jr., an experienced
Superfund lawyer, testified at the hearing, the
problems at multi-party sites are much greater than at
single party sites, ``by orders of magnitude.'' The
lengthy testing, decision and ``down'' periods are
directly attributable to complicated negotiations and
litigation with PRPs over remedies and their costs, and
which parties should pay.
Finally, President Clinton sought unsuccessfully to
increase funding for the current Superfund program during
fiscal year 1998 by $650 million. Clearly, based on GAO's
findings, appropriating such amounts without first reforming
the underlying program would do little to expedite cleanups but
would simply perpetuate this flawed and inefficient program.
In presenting data on completion times, GAO used a ``date
of event'' analysis (e.g., date of a site's placement on the
NPL, date of completing a cleanup) and looked back to compute
the length of time. The GAO staff testified that this
methodology is the most appropriate measure of the productivity
and management of Super-fund resources over time. GAO's
analysis considered the actual number of listings, cleanups
completed, or intermediate steps completed in a given year
regardless of when the sites were discovered or placed on the
NPL. The staff pointed out that this approach is consistent
with the method that EPA uses in its management reports to
measure the Superfund program's performance and to justify
budget requests.
At the hearing, Elliot Laws, Former Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, testified that recent
EPA reforms have fundamentally changed the program. Among other
things, he claimed that the Agency's reforms have brought
relevant stakeholders into the process earlier, increased the
number of small parties who are protected from liability,
adopted liability allocations worked out by the relevant
parties, allowed States to assume more responsibility for
cleanups, increased the speed of cleanups by using presumptive
remedies, and reduced cleanup costs by establishing a Remedy
Review Board to review proposed high-cost remedies at sites.
In March 1997, EPA submitted its own analysis comparing
cleanup durations during the Clinton administration to those
under prior years. The Agency claimed that its data show that
it has taken only 8 years to clean up a site in recent years
(1993-1996), as opposed to the more than 10 years it had taken
for sites in the pipeline between 1987-1992. EPA's study used a
``date of submission'' analysis, which tracks processing times
by the year sites were discovered or listed. For each time
period, EPA's analysis only counted activities started and
finished during that time period. As a result, EPA's findings
are skewed. The Agency's study shows improvement in processing
times only because the data for later years excludes a higher
proportion of ongoing work than the data for earlier years.
On September 24, 1997, GAO issued a report entitled,
``Super-fund: Duration of the Cleanup Process at Hazardous
Waste Sites on the National Priorities List.'' In that report,
GAO compared EPA's projection that sites listed in 1993 through
1996 would be cleaned up in an average of 8 years against the
program's historical performance. In doing this, GAO used the
same methodology as EPA, a ``date of submission'' analysis, to
isolate any effects of recent policy or procedural changes on
processing times. GAO calculated the duration of the cleanup
process from a site's listing on the NPL through remedial
action for all sites that began this process in fiscal years
1986 through 1994. GAO examined both how long it took to clean
up completed sites and how long the uncompleted sites have been
``in process.'' Based on EPA's own data, GAO determined that
the only way cleanups could average 8 years would be if all
cleanups ``in process'' had been completed by July 1, 1997.
However, because such a large proportion of the sites listed in
the 9-year period are still in process, the average cleanup
time for these sites will exceed 8 years by a substantial
margin. Therefore, even after using the same methodology as EPA
to analyze Superfund processing data, GAO verified that
cleanups are taking substantially longer.
Finally, on May 30, 1997, at the request of the
subcommittee and full committee, GAO completed its report,
``Superfund: Information on EPA's Administrative Reforms,'' in
which it examined whether, in fact, EPA's 45 administrative
reforms have resulted in significant, fundamental changes in
the program and are achieving demonstrable results. GAO found
that the Agency could report quantifiable results for just six
of them. Furthermore, of those six, EPA could document the
benefits fully for merely four reforms. These results do not
show any significant progress, let alone a fundamentally
different program.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's oversight and the GAO
report on cleanup times provide further evidence that the
current Superfund program is not working and requires
comprehensive reform. GAO's findings show that the program will
probably get worse before it gets better. Even assuming that
the administration can do a better job, the sheer number of
potential Superfund sites is staggering. GAO estimated that
1,400 to 2,300 additional sites may be added in the future. If
EPA can only clean up 65 sites per year, and it is only taking
on 16 new sites per year, the job may never be done. Moreover,
GAO's findings show that the delays are attributable to the
pre-cleanup phase, which is plagued by legal battles over who
should pay and what should be done. Actual cleanup time has
remained steady. Therefore, cleanups will continue to be
delayed, unless the Superfund's liability system is
fundamentally reformed. Only those who are truly responsible
for the pollution, those parties which owned and controlled
sites and parties which violated disposal laws, should be held
accountable. Otherwise, the real mission of this program--
cleaning up sites that pose a risk to our citizens--will never
be achieved. The subcommittee is amazed that EPA is not equally
concerned by GAO's findings and acknowledging the urgency for
comprehensive legislative reform.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing entitled,
``GAO Findings on Superfund Cleanup,'' on February 13, 1997.
9. OMB's ``Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
Regulations.
a. Summary.--On October 27, 1997, the subcommittee sent a
letter to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] expressing
its concerns about the adequacy of the agency's ``Report to
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations.''
These concerns also were shared by the Commerce and
Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. Based on a
thorough review, all three committees found that OMB's report
failed to provide a sound information base for public policy
decisionmaking.
This report was submitted pursuant to Section 645 of the
Treasury, Postal Services, and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208), which required
the Director of OMB to provide to Congress, by September 30,
1997, a report containing the following information:
(1) Estimates of the total annual costs and benefits
of Federal regulatory programs;
(2) Estimates of the costs and benefits of each rule
that is likely to result in annual costs of $100
million or more;
(3) An assessment of the direct and indirect impacts
of Federal rules on the private sector, State and local
government, and the Federal Government; and
(4) Recommendations from the Director and a
description of significant public comments to reform or
eliminate any Federal regulatory program or program
element that is inefficient, ineffective, or is not a
sound use of the Nation's resources.
In adopting these regulatory accounting requirements,
Congress sought to obtain a credible and reliable assessment of
the benefits and burdens of regulation in order to develop a
more effective and accountable regulatory system that will
achieve better results. However, OMB's report made painfully
clear that the Federal Government has not yet established an
information system that will yield meaningful estimates of the
effects of regulation on our society.
In particular, the letter to OMB noted that its report did
not fully comply with specific statutory requirements. It was
wholly deficient in assessing the direct and indirect impacts
of Federal rules and it made no recommendations for reform. In
addition, OMB interpreted Congress mandate too narrowly to
achieve the legislative goal. For example, the report did not
break down information by Federal program, it provided
information on only a limited number of major rules, and it
excluded information on rules issued by independent agencies.
Most significantly, the report exposed the lack of any
systematic approach to collecting, analyzing, and reporting
data on regulatory impacts. Moreover, in developing this
report, OMB did not take the leadership role that Congress
intended in assuring the quality and reliability of the
information reported. Without a systematic approach and OMB
auditing, Congress will not be assured of the accurate,
complete, and consistently measured information that it needs
to properly manage the regulatory process.
The letter recommended that OMB take the lead in
implementing the following improvements:
(1) Standardize procedures governmentwide for
collecting, analyzing, and documenting the best
available information on a regular and systematic
basis, including formalizing the agency's ``Best
Practices'' guidelines;
(2) Establish an information database on the benefits
and costs of regulation, obtaining information from a
variety of sources as it becomes available;
(3) Establish a system for tracking net benefits of
different regulatory programs and their program
elements;
(4) Ensure that the report to Congress includes
information on all Federal mandates, provides estimates
on paperwork burdens and full social costs, and
disaggregates the total overall estimates by regulatory
program and economic sector;
(5) Use traditional economic measures, such as
impacts on productivity, employment, and income
distribution, to present aggregate information in a
more meaningful way; and
(6) Synthesize and evaluate the information provided
by Federal agencies, especially their compliance with
OMB's guidelines, and supply both an independent
assessment of regulatory impacts and concrete reform
recommendations.
b. Benefits.--Based on the letter's recommendations, the
subcommittee, along with the Committees on Commerce and
Transportation and Infrastructure, will work with OMB to
implement more effectively Section 625 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-
61), which carries forward these regulatory accounting
requirements for another year. As the OMB report indicated,
Federal regulation constitutes ``a major component of our
economy'' and regulations have ``enormous potential for both
good and harm.'' The committees hope that, working together
with OMB, we can begin to build a sound information base for
decisionmaking and can make regulatory accounting the effective
management tool that Congress intended.
c. Hearings.--None.
10. EPA's Strategic Plan.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee participated with the House
Departmental Staff Team which reviewed and commented on the
strategic plan developed by the Environmental Protection Agency
[EPA] under the Government Performance and Results Act (Public
Law 103-62) (Results Act). The overall aim of the Results Act
is to foster accountability by requiring Federal Government
agencies to establish goals and measure their performance. It
is designed to obtain systematic and reliable information about
where Federal programs and activities are going, how they will
achieve their goals, and how performance will be measured.
Specifically, the Results Act requires Federal agencies to
prepare multi year strategic plans, annual performance plans,
and annual performance reports. Under the act, Agencies had to
submit their first 5-year strategic plans to Congress and the
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] by September 30, 1997.
The act requires agencies to include the following six critical
components in their plans: (1) a comprehensive mission
statement; (2) agency wide long-term goals and objectives for
all major functions and operations; (3) strategies and the
various resources needed to achieve the goals and objectives;
(4) the relationship between the long-term goals and objectives
and the annual performance goals; (5) an identification of key
factors, external to the agency and beyond its control, that
could significantly affect the achievement of the strategic
goals; and (6) a description of program evaluations used to
establish or revise strategic goals and a schedule for future
program evaluation. In developing their strategic plans,
agencies were required to consult with Congress regarding the
contents of their plans.
On July 28, 1997, the committees participating on the House
EPA Staff Team sent a letter to the Agency providing comments
on its draft strategic plan. In general, the committees felt
that the draft plan was a good starting point, but that many
changes were necessary before it complied with the act. The
following are some of the changes that the committees
recommended to improve the draft plan:
(1) The Agency's mission statement should more
accurately reflect its founding statutes and authority.
Moreover, the plan should place priority on those
strategic goals for which the Agency has statutory
authority;
(2) EPA's goals and objectives need to be more
results-oriented and measurable;
(3) The Agency's goals and objectives should be
expressed as environmental outcomes, while
organization/program outputs should be classified as
implementation tools; that is, strategies for achieving
those goals;
(4) The strategic plan should prioritize among goals
and objectives. In particular, EPA should commit to
using risk assessment to prioritize environmental risk
management decisions;
(5) The plan should emphasize the need to have
reliable information in order to measure results. Also
needed are performance measures that link EPA's
activities to changes in health and environmental
conditions;
(6) Given the kinds of goals and objectives that it
sets, the strategic plan should contain measurements of
the costs that EPA's regulatory actions impose on the
private sector and State and local government;
(7) The Agency's numerical objectives must be
justified by reference to some statutory or policy
requirement;
(8) EPA should include performance measures relating
to its efforts to work with States to achieve
environmental goals;
(9) The draft plan lacked a sufficient assessment of
external factors that would limit the Agency's ability
to achieve its objectives;
(10) The draft plan did not include program
evaluations used to develop the plan and a schedule for
future evaluations;
(11) The draft plan did not address the relationship
between its long-term goals and objectives and the
annual performance goals; and
(12) The draft plan did not discuss coordination with
other agencies for crosscutting programs, activities,
or functions that are similar to those of other Federal
agencies;
b. Benefits.--Based on these comments, EPA made certain
changes in the final strategic plan that it submitted to
Congress and OMB in September 1997. It added sections on
program evaluations used in preparing the plan and on the
relationship of the plan's general goals to annual performance
goals. The plan also described the steps that EPA took to
coordinate its plan with other agencies, and addressed the role
of the States in implementing EPA's programs. The section
identifying key external factors was expanded to include
additional factors, such as changes in producer and consumer
behavior, that could directly affect the achievement of the
plan's goals and objectives. The mission statement also was
revised to coincide more closely with the language of the
Agency's statutes. Finally, EPA included an addendum that
identified its authorities by goal and objective.
The Team will continue to work with EPA to make further
improvements, such as: (1) stating goals and objectives in
quantifiable and measurable terms; (2) relating specific
strategies to specific objectives; (3) communicating more
effectively the Agency's priorities; (4) ensuring the
availability of sufficient scientific and environmental data;
(5) coordinating plans and activities with other agencies that
have similar or crosscutting functions; and (6) specifically
linking the Agency's goals and objectives to each of its
budgetary program activities.
c. Hearings.--None.
11. Oversight of EPA and the Regulatory Process.
a. Summary.--As part of its oversight responsibilities
concerning Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the
regulatory process, the subcommittee continued to inquire about
specific Agency's rulemaking actions. These inquiries have
focused on the Agency's compliance with ``good government''
laws and procedures intended to assure that regulations do not
do more harm than good. Specifically, the subcommittee has
investigated the Agency's compliance with the requirements of
the Administrative Procedures Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, the Congressional Review
Act, and Executive Order 12866. The subcommittee has been
particularly interested in whether the following types of
issues were adequately addressed in the rulemaking proceedings:
the need for regulation; the incremental costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives; whether the benefits of the
intended regulation would justify its costs; what would be the
most cost-effective, least costly, and least burdensome
regulatory option and any reasons why the Agency could not
select that alternative; paperwork burdens; impacts on small
business, State and local government, and the private sector;
efforts to involve small business and State and local
government representatives early in the development of the
rule; impacts on the economy; any disproportionate impacts of
the rule on certain populations or geographical areas;
opportunity for comment and review.
In the recent past, the subcommittee conducted inquiries
into the following specific rulemakings:
Urban Area Source Program.--On November 18, 1997, the
subcommittee sent a letter of inquiry to EPA regarding its
implementation of the Urban Area Source Program under Section
112(k) of the Clean Air Act. The subcommittee raised concerns
about whether EPA, in developing a regulatory strategy on area
sources, is complying with the requirements of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA]. In
particular, the subcommittee requested information about
whether EPA is analyzing potential impacts on small business
entities in developing its strategy; is providing a meaningful
opportunity for small entities to participate early in the
process; and is planning to convene a Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel. Also, the subcommittee inquired whether EPA has
been focusing on chemicals that are, in fact, emitted from area
sources, in compiling its draft list of candidate air toxics
for this program.
Toxic Release Inventory [TRI] Program.--On March 17, 1997,
the subcommittee sent a letter to OMB concerning its review of
EPA's draft final rule, ``Addition of Facilities in Certain
Industry Sectors: Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Community
Right to Know.'' This ruled extended the requirements under
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act for the reporting of toxic chemical releases to seven
new industry sectors. In the letter to OMB, the subcommittee
raised concerns about the unnecessary paperwork burdens that
this regulation would create, especially for small businesses.
The letter requested information on the extent to which such
burdens on small business had been analyzed and whether all
practicable steps had been taken to exempt from reporting or,
alternatively, to minimize the burdens on, small businesses and
other small entities. The subcommittee also questioned whether
the benefits from imposing these informational requirements
justified their costs.
NOX Rule for Utilities.--On November 21, 1997, the
subcommittee sent a letter to EPA inquiring about its proposed
Phase II Nox rules under the Clean Air Act. This letter raised
concerns about the process that the Agency had followed in
developing these rules. In this rulemaking, EPA proposed
lowering Nox emissions for about 750 wall-fired and
tangentially-fired utility boilers (Group 1 boilers) and
establishing specific emission limits by category for about 190
other boilers. The subcommittee questioned whether the Agency
was providing an adequate opportunity for public input and
whether EPA and its consultants used realistic methodologies to
support lowering emissions limits on the Group 1 boilers. The
subcommittee also questioned the need for changing the Nox
emissions standard for Group 1 boilers and the need for
regulating cyclone boilers at all. Finally, the subcommittee
requested information on why the EPA did not prepare an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis and on the Agency's efforts
to involve State and local officials in developing its rules.
12. Brookhaven National Laboratory.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee has been investigating
environmental, health, and safety problems at the Brookhaven
National Laboratory [BNL], one of the Department of Energy's
[DOE] major multi-program laboratories, and evaluating actions
that are being taken at this Federal facility to remedy and
prevent the recurrence of these problems.
Initially, the focus of the subcommittee's oversight was on
DOE and BNL efforts to clean up existing onsite groundwater
contamination, stemming from the facility's past activities.
However, when tritium from active operations was detected in
groundwater on the Lab site, it became clear that the problems
at BNL were not isolated events, but were, instead, systemic in
nature. The subcommittee then began investigating institutional
deficiencies in the management of environmental, health, and
safety activities [E, H & S] at BNL.
Because of its former use as a military facility and the
later operations of the Laboratory, this site became
contaminated with chemical wastes and hazardous substances.
After a history of chemical and radiological releases to
surface water and groundwater on site, the Brookhaven facility
was listed on the National Priorities List under the Superfund
law in 1989. While there have been ongoing remedial
investigations to define future clean-up priorities, activities
over the past few years have concentrated on capping inactive
landfills, removing underground storage tanks, excavating
cesspools, removing above-ground radiological waste tanks,
installing a groundwater pump and treat system to minimize off-
site contamination, and hooking-up homes south of the site to
the public water supply. Although BNL officials recognized the
need for extensive groundwater monitoring back in 1992, this
was given a low priority.
In December 1996 elevated concentrations of tritium, a low-
level radioactive form of hydrogen, were discovered in
monitoring wells adjacent to BNL's High Flux Beam Reactor
[HFBRA], a research reactor at the site. Results of a DOE
investigation pointed to the reactor's spent fuel pool as the
source of the tritium. The tritium groundwater plume was found
to extend about 2,200 feet and has peak concentrations, close
to the reactor, over 30 times the Federal drinking water
standard. Based on the size of the plume, the leak may have
started as much as 12 years ago. At the time that the leak was
detected, the HFBR had been shutdown for routine maintenance
and remains shutdown today.
Back in 1994, the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services had informed BNL that the HFBR spent fuel pool did not
comply with county code requirements for hazardous waste
storage. While BNL agreed to install monitoring wells near the
spent fuel pool at that time, the wells were not installed
until 1996. Also, although the tritium leak was detected in
December 1996, it was not until January 16, 1997, that the lab
began notifying regulatory agencies and local officials. This
delay severely damaged BNL's credibility with the local
community. Finally, while the tritium plume posed no health
threat to the surrounding communities and lab employees, this
incident, which arose after various other problems, showed the
need for improvement in laboratory E, S & H management and
oversight.
As a result of the discovery of the tritium leak and the
management review and investigation that followed, Secretary of
Energy Federico Pena terminated Associated Universities, Inc.
[AUI] as the managing contractor for BNL. AUI had been
operating contractor for the laboratory since its founding in
1947.
As part of its oversight, subcommittee staff visited BNL
twice and interviewed managers and scientists at BNL; DOE's
onsite staff, the Brookhaven Group; and local citizens. The
subcommittee also interviewed officials at DOE headquarters
within the offices of Oversight and Energy Research, and staff
at the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. The subcommittee
has reviewed investigatory reports and management reviews that
have been done regarding BNL, including the ``Integrated Safety
Management Evaluation of the Brookhaven National Laboratory''
by DOE's Office of Oversight, the ``Interim Report of the BNL
Facility Review,'' the findings of EPA's Multi-Media Compliance
Evaluation Inspection, and ``Brookhaven National Laboratory: At
the Crossroads,'' the report resulting from the New York
Attorney General's investigation.
Based on such reports and evaluations, DOE has developed an
Action Plan ``to improve the way DOE and BNL protect the
environment, provide for the safety and health of employees,
and address local community concerns and interests while
conducting world-class science.'' Through its oversight, the
subcommittee intends to track the implementation of this plan
to determine whether DOE and BNL are meeting their objectives
and milestones for change. In particular, the subcommittee will
be monitoring their progress in the following areas: (1)
Clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and authorities related
to BNL; (2) Strengthening management systems and procedures
used by BNL and the Brookhaven Group to determine necessary
corrective actions and to prioritize, track, and implement
those actions; (3) Establishing a structured, standards-based
approach to the planning and control of work and related
hazards across organizations, facilities, and activities, with
a view to fully integrating effective E, S & H management
processes and allocating appropriate funding support throughout
BNL; (4) Strengthening DOE's monitoring and assessments of BNL
E, S & H performance and safety management (especially, BNL's
compliance with safety management policies, prioritization of
issues and resources, and control of workforce hazards), and
including the Department's performance expectations into its
strategic plan and annual performance plans; and (5) Expanding
BNL community involvement and outreach efforts.
b. Benefits.--All of the investigatory reports and
management reviews that the subcommittee reviewed identified
opportunities for improvement at BNL. The laboratory must put
into place E, S & H management systems and controls that will
serve to prevent environmental problems from occurring and that
will detect and quickly remedy those that do arise. This
subcommittee intends to make sure that environmental management
practices are securely in place, the causes of the tritium leak
and other problems that have occurred are fully understood, and
corrective actions are taken expeditiously.
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice
1. National Drug Control Policy.
a. Summary.--The National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988
(21 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) established the Office of National
Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]. The act also provided for
appointment of a Director of ONDCP, and required that the
Director develop an overall strategy and budget for Federal
anti-narcotics efforts, including both supply and demand
reduction. Specifically, the statute provided that ONDCP: ``(A)
include comprehensive, research based, long-range goals for
reducing drug abuse in the United States; (B) include short-
term measurable objectives which the Director determines may be
realistically achieved in the 2-year period beginning on the
date of the submission of the strategy; (C) describe the
balance between resources devoted to supply reduction and
demand reduction; and (D) review State and local drug control
activities to ensure that the United States pursues well-
coordinated and effective drug control at all levels of the
government.'' Pursuant to the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee's jurisdiction over ONDCP, as well as all other
departments and agencies engaged in counternarcotics efforts,
the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs,
and Criminal Justice convened numerous in-depth oversight
hearings during 1997 to assess the status and effectiveness of
the Nation's Federal drug control strategy and the strategy's
implementation.
In addition to administration officials, expert advice and
recommendations were sought from preeminent outside experts,
including local officials and civic leaders. The subcommittee
aimed to identify strategic and policy weaknesses, and in the
course of its investigation, the subcommittee engaged in
official contact with the various agencies and departments over
which it has jurisdiction, namely those that engage in
counternarcotics activities. These include, but are not limited
to, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Departments
of Defense, State, Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency,
the U.S. Customs Service, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network.
Throughout 1997, the subcommittee met extensively with the
agencies involved in counternarcotics efforts, collecting and
analyzing both statistical and anecdotal evidence on the
effectiveness of the Nation's drug strategy and supporting
programs. This includes the areas of source zone interdiction,
transit zone interdiction, arrival zone interdiction, law
enforcement, prevention, and treatment. The subcommittee sought
further insight from GAO investigators, field agents, and
departmental Inspectors General.
Congressional Delegation.--From May 23 through June 1,
1997, Subcommittee Chairman J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was joined
by Representatives Mark Souder (R-IN), Mark Sanford (R-SC), Bob
Barr (R-GA), and Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) on a Congressional
Delegation [CODEL] which visited Panama, Colombia, Peru and
Bolivia. The purpose of the visit was to conduct an in-country
review of current U.S. counternarcotics efforts and determine
the level of cooperation by source and transit zone countries.
The CODEL held extensive meetings with United States and host
nation civilian, military, and law enforcement officials to
discuss current policies, programs and activities intended to
stop the flow of illegal drugs coming into the United States.
The CODEL also explored how financial support for these
programs could be better directed, and more effectively used.
On May 23, 1997, the CODEL visited with the Panama country
team at the Embassy. Those attending included the U.S.
Ambassador, the intelligence community, the DEA agent in
charge, U.S. Customs agent in charge, military attache, and
civilian personnel assigned to the Embassy. The country team
emphasis seemed to be on unity. They were adamant about how
well they worked together in their mission. The Embassy brought
in the Attorney General and several of his associates to
explain Panama's new money laundering laws and creative efforts
to stop the flow of laundered money to and through Panama. DEA
explained that the Panamanian police were ill-equipped to
handle certain routine tasks, and requested that money be
provided to the Panamanian police for vehicles and
communications equipment. United States Customs personnel
expressed a desire to see more x-ray and other detection
devices at Panama's airports; the need for Customs aircraft
throughout the source country region became obvious.
On May 24, 1997, the CODEL met with General Wesley Clark,
Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern Command [SOUTHCOM] at his
headquarters; SOUTHCOM'S support staff was present for the
briefing. The General offered his view of how to effectively
enhance counternarcotics efforts in the source countries and
described the mission of SOUTHCOM as it related to an array of
present and future counternarcotics issues. SOUTHCOM plays a
major role in the region's counternarcotics efforts. It is the
southern-most U.S. base, and, as such, is strategically vital
in the war on drugs. SOUTHCOM's use of Howard Air Force Base
provides regional support for detection, monitoring, and
interception of illegal drug traffic by air. The U.S. presence
also facilitates regional inter-military cooperation, jungle
training, regional police and military training, and
intelligence coordination. That presence must be strong,
committed, enduring and well-supported by the Pentagon; despite
the move of SOUTHCOM to Miami and the importance of continued
and uninterrupted development of SOUTHCOM activities on Puerto
Rico, there was a consensus among Members of the CODEL that the
United States must maintain a strong forward-based presence at
Howard Air Force base.
In Colombia, the CODEL visited San Jose del Guaviere, a
remote forward-operating base for the Colombian National Police
[CNP], and the Colombian Army's Second Mobile Brigade on May
25. This area is located in the southeastern region of
Colombia, also known for its geography as the ``wild zone.'' It
is the largest coca growing and producing area in the world,
and is universally acknowledged to be narco-guerrilla infested.
The CODEL was accompanied by CNP General Rosso Jose Serrano,
CNP Colonel Leonardo Gallego, director of the DANTI
(antinarcotics police), Ambassador Frechette and selected
Embassy staff.
The CODEL then continued west from Bogota to Maraquita,
where the CNP maintains its aviation school. There, the CODEL
witnessed a CNP special operations drug lab assault
demonstration using UH-1H helicopters, helicopters critical to
effective counter-narcotics operations in the narco-guerrilla
regions. This involved a live-fire coca lab ``take down.''
Subsequently, the CODEL inspected three of the UH-1Hs, released
just prior to the CODEL's arrival in Maraquita. They were
released only after pressing the questions to Ambassador
Frechette in the country team briefing 2 days earlier. The
helicopters were in poor condition; notably, the U.S.-provided
helicopters were inexplicably missing essential mounts for the
guns that would protect the helicopters during coca lab take
downs. The helicopters were in need of substantial maintenance
to place them in flying condition; this was a development
widely seen as ironic, in view of the U.S. ability to deliver
repaired and flyable excess aircraft. For each helicopter
Colombia received from the United States, the CNP must now
commit an additional $100,000 to make the asset flight worthy.
Following the CODEL's return, the remaining helicopters were
released to the CNP. Instructively, these helicopters were
conducting counternarcotics missions within 3 days of delivery.
These facts strongly support a pressing need for U.S. draw down
aid, namely additional ``surplus helicopters.''
On May 27 and 28, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the CODEL met
with the Bolivia country team, including the Deputy Charge of
Mission [DCM], DEA agent in charge, NAS, and civilian assets in
place. The country team was mission-specific, and appeared to
be running efficiently and smoothly. The DCM outlined a
coherent counter-narcotics strategy, which seemed to be the
United States Embassy's No. 1 priority in Bolivia. The DEA
reported that it would have seven new DEA personnel shortly.
The DEA briefed the CODEL about ongoing operations in the
Chapare region, which is the country's leading coca producing
region. NAS reported on several alternative development
projects, and provided persuasive statistics regarding their
success.
On May 29 and 30, in Lima, Peru, the CODEL met with the
Peruvian country team. Considerable attention was given to the
successful ``shoot down policy'' adopted by President
Fujimori's government. Additionally, the DEA and NAS touted
eradication efforts and the decrease in coca production.
Earlier in Iquitos, Peru, the CODEL witnessed part of Peru's
riverine interdiction program. The CODEL also visited some
remote coca field sites in Peru. The ``shoot down'' policy,
supported by the United States in combination with intensive
Peruvian law enforcement activities, yielded an 18 percent
reduction in coca cultivation during 1996. The subcommittee
subsequently learned that, in 1997, Peru achieved a further 27
percent reduction in coca cultivation.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee recognizes that the
availability of drugs on U.S. streets and the number of persons
using illegal drugs continue to be serious problems in the
United States, and constitute a major national and personal
security threat. The subcommittee, through its oversight
hearings, determined that there are significant policy and
management obstacles that must be resolved in order to markedly
improve the U.S. drug control efforts. In addition, the
effectiveness of U.S. efforts to combat drug production,
transshipment, and importation remain, on the whole,
handicapped by low resource allocation. It is apparent that the
U.S. Government has yet to meet the drug threat with the same
intensity and dedication that the drug cartels and traffickers
undertake in their efforts. Obstacles include numerous
organizational and operational limitations, as well as a lack
of sufficient and consistent funding. In addition, the lack of
effective measurement systems makes it difficult to accurately
assess the results of our National Drug Control Strategy. The
subcommittee's hearings, meetings, and official correspondence
assisted in elevating interagency cooperation and coordination,
as well as providing much needed attention to counternarcotics
issues. The oversight and investigation of drug policies and
programs also enabled the subcommittee to determine whether
current strategies or programs were meeting their statutory
obligations.
c. Hearings.--During the first session of the 105th
Congress, the Subcommittee on National Security, International
Affairs, and Criminal Justice held nine hearings on the topic
of the status of this Nation's National Drug Control Policy.
The hearings focused on all aspects of the war on drugs and
demonstrated the importance of a several-tiered strategy,
including source country and transit zone interdiction efforts
to stop the illegal narcotics and precursor chemicals from
entering the United States; a strong law enforcement and
criminal justice system to apprehend and severely punish those
convicted of drug trafficking; prevention efforts that not only
educate our young people about the dangers of drug use but
unite communities against drug use; and finally, an effective
system of treating those already addicted. By encompassing all
facets of the counternarcotics effort, we send a strong ``zero-
tolerance'' message to anyone who considers cultivating,
trafficking, or using illegal narcotics. A detailed description
of the hearings held by the subcommittee follows:
On February 27, 1997, the subcommittee received testimony
from General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP] at a hearing entitled,
``Oversight of the 1997 National Drug Control Strategy.'' The
purpose of this hearing was to examine the short- and long-term
plan described in President Clinton's 1997 National Drug
Control Strategy, and to assess how effectively the Nation is
fighting the illegal drug problem, both domestically and
internationally.
Alarming statistics were cited to portray the status of our
war on drugs. Drug-induced deaths increased 47 percent between
1990 and 1994, and now number approximately 14,000 per year. In
1995, a record high 531,800 drug-related hospital emergency
room episodes occurred. Heroin-related emergency room episodes
increased 124 percent between 1990 and 1995. General McCaffrey
described cocaine use as plummeting and higher purity heroin
use as increasing. He characterized the increase in
methamphetamine use as, ``. . . a potentially worse threat to
America than the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980's.''
Even more threatening to the status of drug use, was the
shocking decline in the average age of drug users, now dipping
below the teen years. The perceived risk associated with drug
use among teens has dropped and consequently the overall number
of young people using drugs has skyrocketed. Use of illegal
narcotics among 8th-graders, 11- and 12-year olds, is up 150
percent over 1989. These numbers were widely viewed as
startling and corroborate the need to educate all young
Americans about the perils of drug use.
General McCaffrey stressed the need to more strongly
support different aspects of the drug war: stopping the
cultivation of drugs at the source; interdicting the drugs in
the transit zones and at the borders; enforcing severe
punishment for those offenders who sell drugs; preventing young
people from ever turning to illegal drug use; and providing
treatment for those already addicted to narcotics. The 1997
Strategy has established five strategic goals: (1) Educate and
enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as
alcohol and tobacco; (2) Increase the safety of America's
citizens by substantially reducing drug-related crime and
violence; (3) Reduce health and social costs to the public of
illegal drug use; (4) Shield America's air, land, and sea
frontiers from the drug threat; and, (5) Break foreign and
domestic drug sources of supply.
With varying degrees of emphasis, all Members, and General
McCaffrey, acknowledged that current Federal antidrug efforts
are, while effective, under strain from reduced funding. The
1997 Strategy will continue to focus on drug-related crime and
violence, as well as shielding our frontiers and reducing
availability. The assumption is that it will also trigger an
aggressive initiative to educate young people on the dangers of
drug use.
Highlighting the work of successful prevention efforts
around the country, the subcommittee held a hearing on February
26, 1997, entitled, ``Civic Volunteers, Youth Service
Organizations, and the War on Drugs.'' This hearing focused on
successful efforts of civic groups and youth service
organizations in the counterdrug effort. As the level of drug
use among 8th and 10th graders has risen over the past few
years, prevention efforts across the country are becoming
increasingly important for young people. Representatives from a
number of civic groups described successful, national programs
that they have developed and sustained without any Federal
money.
In 1997, there were 5.6 million youth and adult members of
the Boy Scouts of America, 260,000 members of the General
Federation of Women's Clubs, and 132,000 members of the Junior
Chamber of Commerce. Combined, these groups achieved hundreds-
of-thousands of volunteer hours and touched the lives of
millions of young people. These organizations have the unique
ability to reach out to all socioeconomic backgrounds and
regions and successfully unite these that may normally not
interact. Notably, each organization has approached the problem
of youth drug abuse in a different and distinct manner. Several
programs focused their exercises on character building, some
follow the faith-based model, while others concentrate on
building ties to the community through sports and community
service projects. These organizations integrate the health
dangers of drug use but the social and criminal perils as well.
On the first panel, testimony was received from Mr. Frank
Sarnecki, director, Loyal Order of Moose; Mr. John Creighton,
Jr., president, Boy Scouts of America; Ms. Faye Dissinger,
international president, General Foundation of Women's Club;
and Mr. Mike Marshall, president, U.S. Junior Chamber of
Commerce. Witnesses detailed the importance of building self-
esteem in our young people. By showing each and every teenager
that they are important and can control the outcome of their
lives, such programs taught responsible and well-reasoned
decisionmaking skills.
The second panel consisted of Mr. Dick Herndobler of the
Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks; Mr. Gordon Thorson,
national youth program director of the Veterans of Foreign
Affairs; Mr. Howard Patterson, vice-president of Lions Club
International; Mr. William Pease, assistant director for
children and teens program of the American Legion Child Welfare
Foundation; Mr. Don Baugher, president, Masonic National
Foundation for Children; Mr. Larry Chisolm, also of the Masonic
National Foundation for Children; and Mr. Dennis Windscheffel,
a prominent drug prevention program consultant. Panel two
brought a different perspective to the hearing. The essence of
their message was that it is imperative that we demonstrate, as
competent and dependable adults, that when you begin success in
your teenage years, it paves the way for a successful
adulthood. This panel emphasized that, too often, society is
eager to point the finger at the young people and say, ``We
need to change your behavior.'' While this may be true, we must
demonstrate how to be an effective, reliable and productive
adult.
On May 14, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing
highlighting the extraordinary efforts of the National Guard in
the antidrug effort entitled, ``National Guard Support in the
Fight Against Illegal Drugs.'' Historically, the National Guard
has performed missions tasked by their respective Governor.
However, as the drug epidemic has increased in this country,
Governors have turned to the National Guard to combat the flow
of illegal narcotics. To continue their high-level of mission
performance, the Guard needs consistent support from Congress
and the Pentagon.
There are serious concerns that the fiscal year 1998 budget
does not adequately support the needs of either their supply or
demand reduction activities. A decrease in funding could result
in severe reductions in aviation capabilities, intelligence,
and engineering support. This hearing highlighted the
successful efforts of the National Guard in tackling the rise
in methamphetamine and heroin use, and their vital border
support.
The subcommittee received testimony from the Honorable Brad
Owen, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Washington; the
Honorable Michael Bowers, attorney general of the State of
Georgia; Major General Russell Davis, Vice Chief of the
National Guard Bureau; Mr. James Copple, president and CEO of
the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; and Mr. Ronald
E. Brooks, chair of the drug policy committee, California
Narcotics Officer's Association. The witnesses all testified
regarding the value of National Guard counterdrug assistance.
According to Attorney General Bowers, in 1996, National Guard
assistance resulted in, ``. . . over 128,000 arrests and the
confiscation of l,371 metric tons of processed marijuana,
12,671 pounds of heroin, and 16,116 weapons.'' These statistics
alone demonstrate the essential nature of the National Guard's
long-term commitment to a drug-free America.
On March 10, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing
entitled, ``Coast Guard Drug Interdiction Efforts in the
Transit Zone.'' The purpose of this hearing was to examine the
national security threat posed by the explosion of maritime
drug trafficking in the transit zone, and better understand
efforts by the U.S. Coast Guard to combat it. Of particular
interest were: (1) the nature of drug trafficking activities in
the transit zone, especially the Eastern Caribbean; (2) host
nation impediments to an effective regional strategy; (3) the
adequacy of the U.S. Coast Guard's capabilities to interdict
drug trafficking; (4) the extent of Federal agency planning,
coordination, and implementation of U.S. interdiction efforts;
and (5) the needs of the ``front-line'' drug agents.
At this hearing, testimony was received from Admiral Robert
E. Kramek, President Clinton's Interdiction Coordinator and the
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as several front-
line Coast Guard personnel, including Lieutenant Commander Mike
Burns, a C-130 aircraft pilot; Lieutenant Commander Randy
Forrester, an HU-25C aircraft pilot; Lieutenant Jim Carlson,
Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard cutter Vashon; Petty
Officer Mark Fitzmorris, a Boarding Officer on the Coast Guard
cutter Tampa. Finally, the subcommittee heard testimony from
Admiral Paul A. Yost, president of the James Madison Memorial
Fellowship Foundation, and former Coast Guard Commandant, on
how the Coast Guard effectively shut down the Caribbean to drug
traffickers in the late 1980's.
The subcommittee found that interdiction is vital. As
stated by Admiral Kramek, ``When the correct resources are
applied, as the Coast Guard has recently demonstrated during
Operation Frontier Shield, we get a lot of bang for our buck''.
Operation Frontier Shield was a ``surge operation'' implemented
on October 1, 1996, was designed to deny smuggling routes into
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Using available
intelligence, this concentrated effort resulted in the
confiscation of almost 14,000 pounds of cocaine. Another 17,000
pounds were jettisoned by smugglers during the first quarter of
fiscal year 1997. Admiral Kramek testified to the importance of
bi-lateral maritime agreements and how essential close
cooperation is to their success. He noted that, currently, we
have no such agreement with Mexico.
The front-line Coast Guard Officers explained firsthand how
intelligence, monitoring, detection, and ``end-game'' are
linked for effective counterdrug operations; one link missing
is failure. The importance of adequate resources for effective
counterdrug operations was identified, including aircraft,
patrol boats, DOD vessels, infrared and aperture radars,
intercept radars, communications equipment, and other
technology.
Admiral Yost testified that, during his tenure as
Commandant, the Coast Guard had more forces dedicated to drug
interdiction (in 1990) than they have presently in 1997. He
stated: ``I think that if you add assets to [the Drug War] you
are going to reduce the amount of drugs coming across the
Caribbean''. Subcommittee Chairman Hastert noted that our
national strategy isn't a war anymore, but that the
administration prefers to call it a cancer. He added, ``When
something is a cancer, you don't usually win that. A war you
can win. You have to put your resources out there and make sure
you do win it''. A dominant theme was the cost-effectiveness of
added resources for interdiction.
On September 15, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing
entitled, ``Needle Exchange, Legalization, and the Failure of
Swiss Heroin Experiments.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
examine the current needle exchange programs in the United
States, Europe, and in British Colombia which began as a way to
deter the spread of HIV among intravenous drug users. Since the
implementation of this program, however, in Europe and here in
the United States, this initial goal has proven to be out of
reach. Moreover, the programs appear to be genuinely harmful in
most, if not all, locations described.
Testimony was received from Ernst Aeschbach, M.D., vice
president, Youth Without Drugs; Dr. Matthias Erne, expert on
Switzerland Drug Policy; Mr. Robert Maginnis, senior policy
advisor, Family Research Council; Ambassador David Jordan,
former Ambassador to Peru, and professor, University of
Virginia; Ms. Nancy Sosman, Coalition for a Better Community;
and Dr. Peter Beilenson, commissioner, Department of Health,
Baltimore City, MD.
The subcommittee found that initiatives in other nations,
which began similarly to programs in the United States, have
proved to be highly destructive. They did not reduce the
transmission of AIDS or HIV; in fact, in the Vancouver and
Montreal studies, the incidence of AIDS transmission actually
rose with the onset of needle giveaways. The programs were
``moral compromises'' that provided drug paraphernalia to drug
addicts for shooting an illegal drug into their veins. This is
clearly the wrong message to send to America's children. The
subcommittee heard testimony of a needle exchange program in
Baltimore which may have had adequate ``exchange'' controls,
but this program is not the norm and is also self-selecting;
Baltimore virtually leads the Nation, today, in heroin
addiction. Nancy Sosman testified that she was able to obtain
needles, paraphernalia, and instructions on how to ``shoot up''
without providing any needles to ``exchange'' at the New York
City program.
Several hearings were held to highlight counterdrug efforts
fought on foreign soil. Foreign efforts are vital to keeping
drugs out of our country. Colombia is the world's leading
producer and distributor of cocaine, and remains a major source
of heroin consumed in the United States. Since fiscal year
1990, the United States has programmed approximately $750
million in assistance and equipment to support Colombian police
and military units involved in counternarcotics activities. On
February 14, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing entitled,
``Oversight of United States Counternarcotics Assistance to
Colombia.'' Witnesses at this hearing included Robert S.
Gelbard, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State; General
Harold Bedoya Pizarro, chairman, Joint Staff, Colombian Armed
Forces; Major General Rosso Jose Serrano Cadena, director
general, Colombian National Police; Honorable Morris Busby,
Former Ambassador to Colombia and Former Ambassador-at-Large
for Counter-Terrorism; and Major F. Andy Messing, Jr. USAR
(Ret.), executive director, National Defense Council
Foundation. At this hearing a number of issues were examined.
These included: what levels of counternarcotics assistance is
the Government of Colombia receiving from the United States
Government; did President Clinton's decision to decertify
Colombia in 1996 have a significant detrimental effect on the
levels of counternarcotics support Colombia received from the
United States via the Department of State and Foreign Military
Sales [FMS]; how involved are the Colombian guerrillas in
narco-trafficking; what are the goals of the Colombian
Government for 1997 in the war against illegal drug production,
manufacturing and the organized narcotics traffickers; what
support will be necessary from the United States to accomplish
these goals; what are the constraints that the United States
Government faces in Colombia; how close is Colombia to civil
war with the narco-guerrillas and how many Colombian National
Police and Military personnel have lost their lives in direct
combat with the narco-traffickers; what should the United
States do to assure the most effective counternarcotics effort
in Colombia by the Colombian National Police and Colombian
Military; and has the administration's decertification of
Colombia caused delays in the delivery of vital
counternarcotics aid? The overarching conclusion was that
additional support for the Colombian National Police is
imperative to permanently winning the United States drug war.
On July 9, 1997, the subcommittee held a second hearing on
counternarcotics activities relating to Colombia entitled,
``International Drug Control Policy: Colombia.'' Witnesses
included Myles Frechette, Ambassador, United States Embassy,
Bogota, Colombia; Jeffrey Davidow, Assistant Secretary of
State, Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Department of State;
Robert Newberry, Principal Director, Drug Enforcement Affairs,
Department of Defense; Donnie Marshall, Chief of Operations,
Drug Enforcement Administration; Jane E. Becker, Acting
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs, Department of State; Henry L. Hinton, Jr.,
Assistant Comptroller General, United States General Accounting
Office; and Jim Thessin, Deputy Legal Advisor, Office of Legal
Advisor, Department of State. At this hearing an examination of
the status of the promised 614 waiver for Colombia; the status
of the placement of fiscal year 1997 appropriated DEA agents
for Colombia; the delay in the production of documents,
requested by General Accounting Office, for an examination of
United States and Colombian efforts to combat drug trafficking
activities; and the proposal by the Department of Defense, for
expanded authority to provide enhanced interdiction
capabilities of the counterdrug forces in Colombia were
discussed. The hearing was characterized by a sense of enormous
disappointment with the United States State Department and
United States Embassy in Colombia during Mr. Frechette's
tenure, both on policy decisions and management issues.
According to estimates by the Department of State's Bureau
for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs [INL],
Mexico is a major transit point for cocaine entering the United
States from South America, and a major source country for
heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. Today, at least 400
tons of cocaine enter the United States annually, 70 percent
across the Mexico-United States border; and 150 tons of
methamphetamine are now produced in Mexico. Cross-border
shipments of these drugs have increased markedly in the past
several years. On February 25, 1997, the subcommittee held a
hearing entitled, ``Drug Interdiction Efforts along the
Southwest Border and Mexico's Efforts to combat Narco-
Trafficking.'' Witnesses at this hearing included Congressman
Henry Bonilla (R-TX); Thomas A. Constantine, Administrator,
Drug Enforcement Administration; Robert S. Gelbard, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs, Department of State; Mary Lee Warren,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice;
Douglas M. Kruhm, Assistant Commissioner, U.S. Border Patrol;
and Tony Castaneda, Chief of Police, Eagle Pass, TX. These
witnesses testified to the fact that the growing influx of
narcotics along the U.S. Southwestern border poses a direct,
palpable, insidious and deepening national security threat.
Drug trafficking through the Caribbean region and into
Florida is a major drug threat to the United States. According
to United States law enforcement officials, up to 30-40 percent
of the cocaine entering the United States may enter through the
Caribbean section of the transit zone. During the past several
years, traffickers in the Caribbean have shifted their
operations from primarily air-related activities to maritime
activities. In addition, traffickers are using improved
technologies to counter efforts by U.S. agencies to identify
and monitor their activities. In an effort to better understand
the dynamic trafficking patterns of the Caribbean, the
subcommittee on July 17, 1997, held a hearing entitled, ``Drug
Interdiction in Florida and the Caribbean.'' Witnesses at this
hearing included Newt Gingrich, Speaker, U.S. House of
Representatives; Samuel Banks, Deputy Commissioner, U.S.
Customs Service; James Milford, Deputy Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration; Rear Admiral Norman Saunders,
Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard;
Peter Girard, group supervisor for Cargo Theft, Miami Seaport,
Office of Investigations, U.S. Customs Service; Mike Sinclair,
Chief of Miami Seaport Cargo Inspection Team, U.S. Customs
Service; James H. Wallwork, commissioner, Waterfront Commission
of New York Harbor; Edward V. Badolato, chairman, National
Cargo Security Council; and Art Coffey, international vice
president, International Longshoremen's Association. This
hearing focused on: 1) the nature and threat of drug-
trafficking activities in the transit zone with particular
emphasis on south Florida and the northern Caribbean; 2) the
capabilities of United States agencies to interdict illegal
drugs in the Caribbean and in Florida's ports of entry; 3) the
extent of Federal agency planning, coordination, and
implementation of United States interdiction efforts in south
Florida and the northern Caribbean; and 4) and the
effectiveness of United States enforcement efforts in Florida's
ports of entry. The importance of increased effort in this
region was plainly corroborated.
Field Hearings.--In addition to the nine hearings held in
Washington, members of the subcommittee traveled to several
regions of the country to examine counternarcotics efforts by
communities, State, and local law enforcement agencies, as well
as cooperation by those groups with Federal counternarcotics
agencies and vice versa. Survey after survey shows that drug
abuse, especially among teens, is an increasing problem in the
United States. Since 1991, teenage use of marijuana, inhalants,
cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, heroin, and other drugs has
increased dramatically. This is a sudden reversal of successful
antidrug policies in the 1980's, lowering cocaine use, for
example, 70 percent in 4 years and reinforcing strong ``no
use'' attitudes. In 1993, the trends began a dramatic reversal.
Over the past several years, many communities--both rural and
urban--have reported increasing difficulties in dealing with
the effects of escalating drug use and drug-related crime.
Local law enforcement authorities have been particularly
frustrated as their communities have been subjected to an
increase in violent crime and drug use. The subcommittee heard
testimony at these field hearings highlighting the cooperative
efforts of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials
who continue to take positive steps toward winning the war on
drugs. Also apparent was the rising threat posed by traffickers
employing more sophisticated technology. These field hearings
highlighted two important conclusions. First, the most
successful way to combat drugs is for entire communities to
become engaged in tackling the issue, working in partnership.
This includes families, schools, law enforcement, business,
church, synagogue, and other community leaders. Second,
interdicting drugs before they cross our border, either at
their source or in transit, is essential to combating drug
abuse and can be highly effective when properly funded.
Effective drug interdiction, the most recent and best science
indicates, raises drug prices, reduces drug availability and
lowers drug purity. Accordingly, source country and transit
zone programs can, if well managed, be highly cost-effective.
On July 7, 1997, the subcommittee held two hearings in
Illinois to examine the threat of drugs and gangs to kids in
rural communities. In DeKalb, at the hearing entitled, ``Report
From the Frontline: The Drug Threat to Teens in Our Rural
Communities,'' testimony was received from the following
witnesses: Ms. Pam Maakestad, whose son was a victim of drug-
related violence; ``Connie''--a teenager who has never used
drugs; ``Jerome''--a teenager who formerly organized drug
dealers; ``Derrick''--a former gang member; Mr. Mike Coghlan,
former States attorney; Kris Povlson, project coordinator of
the DeKalb County Partnership for a Substance Abuse Free
Environment; Mr. John Nakonechny of DeKalb County Schools; Mr.
Michael Haines, a professor at Northern Illinois University;
Mr. Tim Johnson, DeKalb County States attorney; Sheriff Richard
Randall of Kendall County; and Mr. Bob Miller, representing the
Just Say No To Drugs Parade in Lee County.
In Algonquin, at ``Report From the Frontline: Drugs and
Gangs in McHenry County,'' testimony was taken from the
following witnesses: Mr. Jerry Skogmo, the program director of
the Renz Addiction Counseling Center; Mr. Carlos Chavez,
coordinator of Youth Prevention Programs; Mr. Les Lunsmann and
Mr. Bill LeFew, representing Communities Against Gangs; Mr.
Gary Pack, McHenry County State's attorney; Mr. William Morley,
Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement
Administration Chicago Field Office; and Sheriff Nygren of the
McHenry County Sheriff's Department.
When most people think of drugs and teens, they tend to
think of impoverished urban areas crowded with crack dealers
and gangs. Rural areas and small towns, such as DeKalb and
Kendall, are generally not thought of as places where drug
abuse is a problem. Unfortunately, this image no longer
accurately reflects the true nature of the drug scourge in
America. The victim's of this drug war painted a picture of the
true status of drug use in this area. They related stories of
drive-by shootings, kids as young as 11- and 12-years-old using
heroin, and young people afraid to stand up to the gangs that
terrorize their daily routine. This testimony was not meant to
discourage the citizens of DeKalb and Algonquin, it was
intended to send a message to Congress that the deadly epidemic
is continuing and must be handled like the war on drugs it has
become.
Our public safety witnesses highlighted the role of our law
enforcement officers as they face increasingly intense battles
on the streets. With the rapid emergence of drugs such as
heroin and methamphetamine which have been found to have purity
levels high enough to kill a first-time user, the struggles
facing our Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers
multiply and increase in danger each day they report to work.
Testimony from prevention groups and community coalition
representatives described successful efforts being taken by
citizens and members of the community to stop our kids from
ever turning to drugs. As the burden on our law enforcement
community continues to grow, the need for citizens in each and
every community to take responsibility and play an important
role in the battle against drugs is vital. The witnesses at
both hearings have demonstrated that commitment and
perseverance are essential in successfully keeping kids off
drugs.
On July 21, 1997, the subcommittee also held a field
hearing at West Mesquite High School in Mesquite, TX entitled,
``Report From the Frontline: The Status of Dallas' Fight
Against Drugs.'' Witnesses included Paul Coggins, U.S.
attorney, northern District of Texas; Donnie R. Marshall, Chief
of Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration; Julio F.
Mercado, Special Agent in Charge, Dallas Divisional Office,
Drug Enforcement Administration; and Ken Yarbrough, chief of
police, Richardson Police Department. These witnesses confirmed
that cocaine continues to be readily available throughout the
Dallas area; heroin remains available at all levels throughout
northeast Texas; methamphetamine and amphetamine are trafficked
in and around Dallas; and marijuana is encountered regularly by
law enforcement authorities. The link between marijuana and the
other drugs was made painfully clear. Additionally, the
subcommittee visited a former crack house that was being
transformed into usable living space by local business people,
with the active support of the law enforcement community.
On September 22, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing in
Aurora, IL entitled, ``Report From the Frontline: From South
America to South Aurora.'' This field hearing highlighted the
effect our counterdrug efforts in the source countries in South
America have on the communities across the United States, like
Aurora, IL. The subcommittee received testimony from the
following witnesses: the Honorable Juan Carlos Esguerra,
Colombian Ambassador to the United States; Lt. Col. Francis
Kinney, Director of Strategic Planning for the Office of
National Drug Control Policy; Mr. Juventino Cano, president of
the Aurora Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Bob Barwa,
principal of East Aurora High School; Mr. Harold Osby, a former
gang member; Mr. Mike Murphy, executive director of the Prayer
Coalition for Reconciliation; Ms. Judy Kraemer, president of
Illinois Drug Education Alliance; Sgt. Roy Garcia, of the North
Central Narcotics Task Force, Illinois State Police; Chief
Larry Langston of the Aurora Police Department; and Mr. Joseph
Birkett, DuPage County State's attorney.
This hearing focused on the nexus between drug cultivation
in South America and how these deadly narcotics come across our
borders and into our neighborhoods. The Colombian Ambassador
discussed the country's persistent and courageous efforts to
reduce drug cultivation and trafficking of the dangerous
substances. State and local law enforcement witnesses testified
to the various enforcement and prosecution issues inherent in
the drug trade, as well as it's impact on drug-related criminal
activity. Civic leaders described to our Members the various
successful programs underway within the community to halt the
spread of drug use, trafficking, and gang-related violence. All
witnesses provided unique and invaluable information for the
Members to bring back to Washington to assist in evaluating the
current drug policy, as well as creating new legislative
initiatives.
On Monday, October 20, 1997, the subcommittee held a field
hearing at Freehold Borough High School in Freehold, NJ. At
this hearing the subcommittee heard testimony about rising drug
use and violence in the community of Central New Jersey.
Witnesses at this field hearing included Greg Williams, Chief
of Domestic Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration; John
Coleman, Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement
Administration; John Kaye, Monmouth County prosecutor; Michael
Paquette, chief of police, South Brunswick Police; Captain
Howard Butt, Narcotics Division, New Jersey State Police;
Elliot White, director, Local Advisory Committee on Alcohol and
Drug Abuse; Mary Pat Angelini, executive director, Substances
Abuse Resources; Ernestine Winfrey, executive director, Mercer
Council on Alcoholism & Drug Addiction; and Scott Sechrist,
director, Good News Home for Women. In addition, local high
school students contributed testimony regarding the current
state of drug trafficking and abuse in their schools. Witnesses
also testified to the effects drug use and availability had on
their community and what is being done to effectively curb the
spread. The community of Central New Jersey is proof that the
social and economic problems caused by drug trafficking and use
can occur anywhere, and can also be prevented when a community
comes together to prohibit the spread of drug use by their
young people.
2. Department of Defense Inventory Management.
a. Summary.--This investigation is exploring the entire
universe of acquisition, storage, use and disposal of
Department of Defense [DOD] supplies and repair parts,
including everything from field rations and medical supplies to
aircraft engines. The subcommittee's three policy goals were
and are: (1) to identify more modern and efficient inventory
management practices, which can simultaneously save taxpayer
dollars and improve military readiness; (2) to insure that such
practices, once identified, are fully implemented by DOD; and
(3) to achieve substantial financial savings in inventory
management, freeing up defense dollars for military
procurement, research and development, combat training, and
other war fighting necessities which have been under funded in
recent years. By devoting consistent congressional attention to
these issues, and by rendering assistance and applying pressure
when necessary, the subcommittee hopes to assist DOD in
formulating and executing a plan which will result in a
substantially less expensive and more efficient system.
Defense inventory management, for the last 6 years, has
been identified by the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] as
one of the 25 ``high-risk'' areas in the Federal Government.
Defense inventory management was targeted as vulnerable to
waste, fraud and abuse because of the enormous amounts of money
spent on inventory and the inefficiencies which have long been
rampant within the field.
The Defense Logistics Agency [DLA] and the three service
departments maintain extensive support and logistics
infrastructure designed to supply our armed forces.
Headquartered at Fort Belvoir, VA, DLA employs over 50,000
military and civilian personnel worldwide and manages
approximately 560 million cubic feet of storage space. DLA
maintains a stockpile of millions of secondary inventory
items--such as medical supplies, food, clothing and spare
parts--worth an estimated $69.6 billion.
The system continues to be based on ``just-in-case''
practices of overbuying and stockpiling excess inventory at
many different locations and levels. This approach usually
provides good availability of supplies and repair parts, but
only by sacrificing efficiency and savings. However, modern
methods of inventory management can provide both availability
and efficiency, by making timely deliveries from centralized
facilities. This has already been successfully demonstrated in
certain areas of defense inventory management, such as medical
supplies and food items.
There are additional factors which aggravate the
inefficiency of the inventory system. Cumbersome acquisition
practices, which have begun to be reformed by Congress during
the last two sessions, still contribute substantially to the
problem. Furthermore, many of DOD's accounting systems are
outdated and inefficient, which makes it difficult to identify
exactly what inventory is in storage, or exactly how much money
has been spent. This situation is further complicated by the
fact that DLA, as well as the Army, the Air Force, and the
Navy, all maintain their own logistics systems, which often do
not share information in an efficient manner.
As the military budget has decreased steadily, DOD's force
structure and military readiness have suffered more than
supporting infrastructure. At the same time that billions are
wasted through inefficient inventory management and depot
maintenance, there is less and less money for combat troops,
combat training, military procurement, research and
development.
As part of the investigation, committee staff visited seven
different military facilities, each of which added
substantially to the committee's oversight investigation and
plans for reform. On April 8-9, 1997, majority and minority
staff from the committee, accompanied by personnel from the
GAO, traveled to three different military facilities. The first
stop was DLA headquarters at Fort Belvoir, VA, where the group
was briefed by managers who provided an overview of DLA's
current operations and plans for the future. The staff then
traveled to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, in Washington, DC,
to see DOD's innovative virtual prime vendor operations for the
purchase of medical supplies. The group then traveled to the
New Cumberland and Mechanicsburg supply depots in Susquehanna,
PA. There are 90 warehouses at these two depots, each the size
of approximately two or three football fields, and over $6
billion worth of consumable and reparable parts are stored
there. Compounding the acquisition of excess and unnecessary
material is the enormous cost of continued storage for often
obsolete or unnecessary inventory.
On May 2, 1997, the staff and GAO personnel then traveled
to Philadelphia to see the Defense Industrial Supply Center
[DISC] and the Naval Inventory Control Point [NAVICP], where
item managers determine the requirements for supplies, order
new inventory, and give orders for storage and disposal. The
DISC is responsible for hardware items--nuts, bolts, bearings,
metal, electrical wiring, et cetera--and the NAVICP is
primarily responsible for aircraft parts.
From May 27 to May 30, 1997, the subcommittee staff
traveled to the U.S. Army maintenance depot in Corpus Christi,
TX, and the U.S. Air Force maintenance depot in Oklahoma City,
OK. DLA storage and distribution facilities are collocated at
these sites and support the depots. Helicopters and aircraft
are upgraded and repaired at these facilities. The maintenance
depots are major customers of the inventory system.
b. Benefits.--Although there is much dispute about the
complex issues involved in DOD inventory management, one thing
is clear: substantial savings of hundreds of millions, if not
billions, of dollars can be achieved from reform of the
domestic defense infrastructure in general and defense
inventory management in particular. However, the subcommittee
does not suggest that money saved through improving the
logistics system should be cut from the Defense budget.
Rather, any savings that can be realized should be shifted
toward procurement and modernization accounts that have been
cut by more than 70 percent in real dollars as the Defense
budget has been cut for 13 straight years. As the military
budget has declined, the combat forces, or ``tooth,'' have
undergone more severe reductions than the supporting
infrastructure, or ``tail.'' Both DOD and Congress are
committed to improving the ``tooth-to-tail'' ratio, and DOD
recognizes that inventory management is one part of the
``tail'' where significant savings may be realized. In
comprehensive reform of support systems lies the opportunity to
restore needed resources to the war fighters.
In addition, even if DOD's budget was not continuing to
decline, improving inventory management should still be a high
priority. Good financial management and efficient utilization
of resources are extremely important; reform of the system
would be a laudable goal even if financial considerations did
not now dictate it. Thus, saving billions of dollars through
reform of inventory management is not only beneficial for the
military but is compelled by our commitment to responsible
fiscal management.
DOD recognizes that it has to reform inventory management
and is working with the subcommittee, GAO, and other
congressional offices to resolve these long-standing problems.
Serious and thoughtful reforms have been initiated by DOD over
the last few years which should lead to substantial management
improvements and cost-savings over the next several years.
Nevertheless, this will be a long, difficult process which will
certainly require vigorous congressional involvement to
encourage DOD to continue to aggressively pursue reform.
c. Hearings.--On March 20, 1997, the subcommittee held an
introductory hearing on DOD inventory management practices and
related issues entitled, ``Improving Defense Inventory
Management.'' The hearing focused on general defense inventory
management problems, measures undertaken by DOD to address the
problems and the effectiveness of internal reforms, and the
implications that extensive reform might have on DOD's budget,
and ways that the committee, working in cooperation with DOD,
GAO, and outside experts, can work together to address and
solve inventory problems.
Mr. James B. Emahiser, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Materiel and Distribution Management, and Mr.
Jeffrey A. Jones, executive director for Logistics Management,
Defense Logistics Agency, presented DOD's perspective of the
problem and discussed the measures that have been, or are
being, implemented to modernize the logistics system. While
they strongly disagreed with many of GAO's definitions and
conclusions, they acknowledged that DOD is currently holding
billions of dollars' worth of excess inventory. They testified
that the purchase value of current excess inventory is
approximately $12 billion, which for accounting purposes they
value at about $300 million. This inventory is sometimes
difficult to properly dispose of, but DOD recognizes that
disposing of excess inventory, and avoiding purchases of more
excess inventory, will ``free up'' scarce resources. Although
further inquiry will follow in 1998, these DOD witnesses denied
that DOD is continuing to buy inventory in excess of current or
foreseeable requirements.
Both witnesses stated that DOD has proposed incremental
changes to improve support functions and operate more like a
private business, but appeared resistant to dramatic or
sweeping changes. Commercial practices, the DOD witnesses
argued, are not entirely feasible for the military and that the
burden of supplying the military cannot be shifted to the
private sector. They cautioned that excessive outsourcing or
privatization of support functions could adversely affect
national security.
The second panel was composed of personnel from GAO. Mr.
Henry L. Hinton, Jr., Assistant Comptroller General, Mr.
Kenneth R. Knouse, Jr., Assistant Director, and Mr. Robert L.
Repasky, Senior Evaluator, presented an overview of the defense
inventory problem, on which GAO has been reporting for over 30
years and on which it has issued over 100 reports. The panel
addressed problems ranging from adopting commercial sector best
practices to trimming budgets for secondary inventory items.
GAO asserted that inventory oversight is essential, and there
remain weak financial accountability measures and a tendency
toward overstated requirements. Within DOD's vast supply
system, the GAO estimates that roughly half of the $69.6
billion of secondary inventory items that DLA stockpiles--$33.7
billion worth of inventory--is excess to DOD war reserve or
current operating requirements. This excess inventory results
in hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on storage costs each
year. In addition to the problem of excess inventory from past
purchases, it is likely that DOD is continuing to purchase and
store more inventory than is needed for military requirements,
or than would be needed if DOD's inventory management and
maintenance operations were run more efficiently.
Even though GAO asserts that over half of DOD's current
inventory is excess to current operating or wartime
requirements, they decline to advocate massive disposal of
excess stocks. While they assert support for adoption of modern
business practices, they appear somewhat short on action. DOD
acknowledged, however, that the enormous amount spent on
purchasing secondary inventory--approximately $15 billion a
year, more than NASA's entire budget--makes reform imperative.
The third panel was composed of Dr. Jacques A. Gansler (now
serving as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology), vice chairman, Defense Science Board, and Admiral
Luther F. Schriefer (USN, Ret.), executive director, Business
Executives for National Security. Both Dr. Gansler and Admiral
Schriefer testified that ``billions of dollars'' could be saved
through outsourcing and privatization of most domestic military
``infrastructure'' functions. They asserted that moving
commercial functions into the private sector would allow DOD to
save money while putting greater focus on DOD's core mission--
preparing for and fighting wars.
Dr. Gansler discussed the current imbalance in Defense
spending, estimating that 55 percent of the Defense budget, or
$140 billion a year, is spent on support and infrastructure. Of
that, he testified that an estimated $60 billion is spent on
logistics alone. He cited a November 1996 report by the Defense
Science Board, entitled, ``Achieving an Innovative Support
Structure for 21st Century Military Superiority,'' which claims
reform consisting of privatizing and outsourcing most domestic-
based logistics and infrastructure functions could save $30
billion a year, including $2.5 billion from inventory
management accounts. These funds could then be shifted to
modernization and training.
Admiral Schriefer is part of a ``Tail-to-Tooth
Commission,'' focused on ``re-engineering'' the Pentagon and
spending money more efficiently. He argued, with 70 percent of
Defense dollars going to pay for support and infrastructure
``war fighters'' needs are going unmet. He stressed that DOD
must learn from American industry. DOD must dramatically
transform the way it manages inventories in order to be
``globally competitive.'' He believes that, ``Revolution, not
evolution'' is required. Admiral Schriefer recommended that DOD
buy advanced software to manage the inventory; buy off-the-
shelf commercial products as much as possible; rely on
contractor support and outsourcing maintenance as much as
possible with new systems; and that inventory management be
centralized.
On July 24, 1997, the subcommittee held a second oversight
hearing on DOD inventory management entitled, ``Reforming
Inventory Management Through Innovative Business Practices.''
The subcommittee narrowed the focus of this hearing and
specifically addressed the ways in which DOD could employ
``cutting edge business practices'' to improve inventory
management. Witnesses were asked to discuss the success that
DOD has demonstrated with ``virtual prime vendor'' and ``direct
vendor delivery'' practices in acquisition and delivery of
medical and pharmaceutical supplies to over 200 medical
facilities nationwide. Similar successes revolving around food
and clothing items were discussed, and the feasibility of using
virtual prime vendor and direct vendor delivery for other types
of inventory items, such as hardware items, was explored.
The first panel was composed of personnel from GAO. Mr.
David Warren, Director, Defense Management Issues, National
Security and International Affairs Division, Mr. Kenneth R.
Knouse, Jr., Assistant Director, Mr. Robert L. Repasky, Senior
Evaluator, and Mr. Matthew B. Lea, Senior Evaluator, discussed
how American business has developed sophisticated methods for
inventory management, ensuring both efficiency and economy.
Many of these methods--such as ``just-in-time delivery,'' use
of supplier parks, and prime vendor contracts--could be applied
to DOD's inventory management operations for similar
efficiencies and savings. Commercial methods could not be
applied to DOD in a wholesale manner, but must be tailored to
military readiness needs. The cutting edge ``best practices''
that GAO believes DOD should aggressively adopt include virtual
prime vendor in combination with direct vendor delivery
innovations. Using these practices, acquisition personnel are
able to order items electronically. The prime vendor then has
the items delivered directly to buyer, eliminating the need for
inventory backup.
GAO addressed DOD's success in using virtual prime vendor
and direct vendor delivery practices in purchasing medical
supplies, pharmaceuticals, and food. GAO asserted that by using
direct vendor delivery for medical supplies and food items,
which represent about 3 percent of inventory items for which
these practices could be used, DOD saved $714 million over the
past 6 years. GAO suggested that similar techniques be used for
other categories of defense inventory items such as industrial
hardware, fasteners, wiring, construction supplies, and similar
types of common, commercially available material. The estimated
value of these items in the inventory is $7.2 billion. If
implementation of best practices for these items were
successful, DOD could reduce their inventory dollar value by
several billion dollars, as well as reducing future purchases
of such items and improving service to DOD customers.
One of GAO's chief criticisms was that DOD is not moving
aggressively enough to adopt efficient, cost cutting measures
at a time when the Department's budget is continuing to shrink.
GAO cited service parochialism and a DOD supply and maintenance
``culture'' resistant to institutional reform in identifying
``major roadblocks'' to substantial changes. Overcoming these
barriers will be necessary for DOD in the coming years.
Dr. Edward Martin, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs, Mr. James B. Emahiser, Assistant Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Materiel and Distribution
Management, and Mr. Jeffrey A. Jones, Executive Director for
Logistics Management, Defense Logistics Agency, testified for
DOD. They discussed the success of reforms enacted to date and
outlined additional reforms that DOD plans to implement in the
future. Dr. Martin took the opportunity to discuss the history
of the virtual prime vendor use for medical supplies and noted
successes, difficulties encountered to date, and plans to
improve the system in the future. When asked if additional
legislation would be required to hasten reform efforts, Mr.
Emahiser responded emphatically that it would not be required,
and said he considered ``. . . existing legislative authority
as sufficient to continue to appropriately implement innovative
private sector practices.'' This conclusion remains subject to
further scrutiny.
3. Immigration and Naturalization Service's Program Citizenship USA.
a. Summary.--The investigation of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service's [INS] Citizenship USA program [CUSA],
initiated in June 1996, has uncovered a pervasive and alarming
pattern of election-year fraud and abuses within the INS'
naturalization process, the process by which resident aliens
become American citizens. The subcommittee has, so far, held
three public hearings on the program, the second of which
featured INS line-agent whistle-blowers.
This politically-motivated program was evidently intended
to naturalize 1.3 million people during fiscal 1996, concluding
with the close of voter registrations in September 1996, just
prior to the 1996 elections. The program eventually naturalized
1.1 million people. This number represents a massive increase
over previous years; from 1990 to 1994, INS naturalized about
300,000 new citizens per year.
Throughout the course of this program, legal and procedural
requirements governing naturalization were consciously
weakened, discarded or ignored. Immigration law requires each
applicant for citizenship to have ``good moral character.''
This means that the applicant may not become a U.S. citizen if
he has committed certain crimes, or lied to the INS about his
criminal record. To enforce these requirements, the INS
requires each applicant to disclose any criminal history on the
application for citizenship, under penalties of perjury. More
importantly, the INS takes fingerprints of each applicant and
is required to submit them to the FBI. If a candidate's
fingerprints match a criminal record on file with the FBI, the
FBI sends a copy of the criminal record, or ``rap sheet,'' back
to the INS. Because the rap sheet contains criminal charges,
but generally does not report dispositions, the INS must then
investigate the charges to discover resulting convictions and
sentences. At that point, the INS examiner is able to match an
application form with the applicant's complete criminal
history. The examiner can then determine whether citizenship
should be denied based on either (A) the seriousness of the
criminal record, or (B) the applicant's failure to report it on
his application.
Historically, the INS' criminal background check process
has suffered from a number of ingrained problems. They were
described in reports issued in 1994 by both the Department of
Justice Office of the Inspector General [DOJIG] and by the U.S.
General Accounting Office [GAO]. The DOJIG and GAO reports
pointed out that the INS' procedures left open the possibility
that, in some cases, individuals with criminal records could be
improperly naturalized. Both reports made strong
recommendations to correct the serious flaws appearing in the
process. However, for reasons that remain unexplained, the INS
did not adopt the recommendations made by either DOJIG or GAO.
Moreover, in many cases, the INS failed to submit fingerprint
cards to the FBI, or submitted defective fingerprint cards
which were rejected by the FBI. In other cases, the INS
submitted fingerprint cards but failed to await the return of
the rap sheet before granting citizenship. Instead, under the
enormous, knowingly generated load of the Citizenship USA
program, the system broke down completely.
Compounding the crisis, for many months, these problems
were deliberately concealed by the INS. Beginning in September
1996, the subcommittee requested detailed information and
documents on the issue of criminal background checks. The INS
refused to provide any information, and then went so far as to
openly defy two congressional subpoenas. In addition, public
statements made by senior INS officials and the INS press
office were repeatedly misleading, even after receiving
incontrovertible corrections from congressional investigators.
For example, Alexander Aleinikoff, then the INS Executive
Associate Commissioner for Programs (who has left the agency),
told National Public Radio in September that the problem was
restricted to ``. . . perhaps 40 or 50 cases nationwide.'' The
truth was somewhat different. Louis Crocetti, the INS'
Associate Commissioner for Examinations, stated under oath
during a congressional hearing last September that the number
``. . . was 60 for the entire naturalization program.'' To
date, the INS still has not admitted the true scope and nature
of its problems with criminal background checks, which--at a
minimum--involves ten of thousands of applications.
Unfortunately, INS' disregard for its own procedures and
safeguards has had predictable and serious consequences. On May
12, 1997, DOJ, the parent agency over both the INS and FBI,
reported to the subcommittee that out of 1,049,867 persons
naturalized, 81,492 were identified as having FBI records which
include INS administrative actions, dismissals, misdemeanor and
felony arrests and convictions for serious and violent crimes
such as drug trafficking, child molestation, assault, robbery,
burglary, rape and murder; 124,740 persons were further
identified as not having had definitive criminal history checks
conducted because their fingerprint cards were rejected by the
FBI because of poor quality prints; 55,750 persons were
additionally identified for whom it could not and cannot be
determined whether or not FBI record checks were ever
conducted. Of the 81,492 persons identified as having FBI
records, at least 5,500 were identified as convicted felons
with disqualifying criminal histories. The DOJ and INS are
currently trying to denaturalize these people, and determine if
there are additional criminals who were granted citizenship,
and if so, how many were granted citizenship.
DOJ's review process is still underway, and it is not known
exactly how many of the quarter million cases under review
should have been denied citizenship, based on criminal
convictions and misrepresentation of criminal records. In many
cases, especially the 180,000 who became citizens without
having proper background checks, the full truth may never be
known. In addition, fully remedying the problem may prove
difficult or, in many cases, impossible, based on the automatic
attachment of due process rights following naturalization,
regardless of whether the naturalization in question was
legitimate. The legal and logistical obstacles to removal of
citizenship are mammoth, and the INS has historically
denaturalized only 10 or 15 people per year. If thousands, much
less tens of thousands, of people were improperly granted
citizenship, the problem may never be fully remedied.
The subcommittee intends to continue its investigation as
long as it is necessary to expose and correct the fraud, abuse
and recklessness engendered by CUSA, and may hold additional
hearings in the future. One disconcerting aspect of the CUSA
acceleration and waiver of critical regulations is the
documented involvement of the White House, including intense
involvement by the Vice President and several of his senior
staff in the election-year acceleration.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's investigation and hearings
have brought the full scope and nature of CUSA fraud, abuse and
recklessness into the public eye, as media reports from coast
to coast have described criminal activities and abuses of power
wrought by this politically-motivated and undeniably errant
program.
The INS has belatedly enacted new regulations which allow
the agency to conduct administrative denaturalization
proceedings, and to theoretically permit denaturalization of
people who have been erroneously naturalized. The INS has had
statutory authority to enact such regulations since 1990, but
has heretofore neglected to promulgate any such regulations.
Responding to our congressional investigation, this is a small
step in the right direction. These administrative proceedings
will be substantially less time-consuming and burdensome than
judicial denaturalization, which until now was the agency's
only method of denaturalization. Unfortunately, for legal and
logistical reasons, these new procedures are unlikely to be
retroactively applied to the large number of people who were
illegally and improperly naturalized under CUSA during 1996 or
prior. This raises additional legal and national security
concerns beyond the scope of this report.
In addition, the DOJ IG has undertaken its own
investigation to which it is devoting considerable resources.
They should make some preliminary findings by the summer of
1998. At the request of the subcommittee and other
congressional offices, GAO is also conducting its own
investigation. Specifically, they are examining the findings
and recommendations made by Peat Marwick in addition to
reviewing new INS naturalization regulations and procedures.
In sum, the INS, under intense pressure from Congress, the
public, and the media, has taken incremental steps to reform
its badly-damaged naturalization process. However, this is only
a small beginning, and much remains to be done by the INS, DOJ,
and the FBI. Continued congressional oversight is necessary to
ensure the success of reform efforts.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held its third hearing on
mismanagement of the naturalization process on March 5, 1997.
The hearing, held jointly with the Subcommittee on Immigration
of the Committee on the Judiciary, entitled, ``Improper
Granting of U.S. Citizenship Without Conducting Criminal
Background Checks,'' focused on the breakdown of safeguards at
INS that led to the naturalization of at least 5,500 convicted
criminals.
Mr. Stephen R. Colgate, Assistant Attorney General for
administration, testified on behalf of DOJ. He was accompanied
by Ms. Dawn Johnsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, and Mr. Gary
Ahrens, KPMG Peat Marwick LLP. Mr. Colgate discussed the
measures that DOJ was taking both to discover the exact
magnitude of the problem and reinvent the naturalization
process so that such abuses did not happen again. Mr. Ahrens
discussed Peat Marwick's role in the naturalization review. Dr.
Laurie E. Ekstrand, Associate Director for Administration of
Justice Issues, General Accounting Office, discussed GAO's role
in the review, which was to review Peat Marwick's methodology
and implementation strategy.
The Honorable Doris Meissner, Commissioner, Mr. David
Rosenberg, Citizenship USA Program Director, Mr. Louis D.
Crocetti, Associate Commissioner for Examinations, and Mr.
David Martin, General Counsel, testified for the Immigration
and Naturalization Service. Mrs. Meissner denied any political
influence was exerted on the program by the Clinton
administration. She also discussed the new safeguards that INS
instituted on November 29, 1996, that she believed would
prevent such lapses in the future. She did not explain the
apparent connections of the CUSA program to the 1996 Federal
elections; nor did she address, at all, the failure to act on
either past GAO or past DOJ IG criticisms of and
recommendations to INS. She offered no suggestions on how those
responsible within INS should be held accountable, or how to
address the legal and security concerns raised by the INS'
abdication of responsibility in 1996. She explained that the
Citizenship USA program had been implemented to address the
surge in naturalization applications in the last few years
while improving the entire process; she could not, however,
explain why she had also, consonant with White House
memorandums, simultaneously ramped up recruiting of
applications in 1996. While she admitted that mistakes were
made, she believes that new policies and procedures that INS
recently implemented will preclude such errors in the future.
On balance, the Commissioner appeared not to grasp the enormity
of INS' misfeasance, and potential malfeasance, in 1996.
4. Force Protection and Antiterrorism.
a. Summary.--As part of the subcommittee's oversight of
both terrorism and the security of United States personnel
abroad, the subcommittee began an examination of the security
of United States Government personnel, mostly from the
Departments of Defense and State, stationed in South West Asia,
where, as in many other parts of the world, terrorism is a
constant threat. In June 1996, terrorists employing a truck
bomb killed 19 United States airmen and injured hundreds of
others at the United States Air Force base at Khobar Towers in
Saudi Arabia, prompting a major review of force protection
policy. The subcommittee's purpose was to examine the threats
facing U.S. personnel deployed abroad, the changes in force
protection policy made as a result of terrorist attacks, the
status of implementing new force protection policies, and the
success the United States has had in working with host
countries to increase the security of U.S. personnel.
In the aftermath of the Gulf war, there are approximately
30,000 United States military personnel (including naval
personnel stationed off shore) and over 500 State Department
personnel in the Persian Gulf region. Unfortunately, they have
been, and continue to be, the target of terrorist extremists
from countries such as Iraq and Iran that are determined to
force the withdrawal of United States forces from the Persian
Gulf. Two terrorist attacks on United States military bases in
Saudi Arabia, one in November 1995 and the other in June 1996,
killed 24 United States personnel and injured hundreds of
others. The terrorist groups that executed these attacks have
not been definitively linked with any country in the region.
These incidents focused congressional and public attention on
force protection policy.
Following the attacks, the Department of Defense [DOD]
undertook a thorough review of its force protection policies.
The review, conducted by the Downing Assessment Task Force,
completed its work in August 1996. The Downing Report found
that the U.S. military lacked a comprehensive strategy for
combating terrorism based on common guidance, standards and
procedures. The report also includes a series of
recommendations to improve the security of U.S. military
personnel abroad. It stressed that a single entity within DOD
should be responsible for force protection, including
antiterrorism and counterterrorism. Furthermore, the report
called for greater interagency cooperation between the
Departments of Defense and State in coordinating force
protection policy.
The State Department and DOD are responsible for the
security of all U.S. personnel abroad. However, they conduct
their missions differently in accordance with the respective
missions, polices and resources of their departments. For
example, the State Department issues general security
guidelines and instructions to which every State Department
facility must adhere. The Defense Department, on the other
hand, issues some guidance, such as vulnerability assessments,
but is resistant to issuing prescriptive physical security
standards, preferring to leave the decision of which security
measures to implement to the field commanders.
One of the Downing Report findings was that the State
Department and DOD, ``. . . ascribe different Threat Level
assessments for countries of the same region, causing confusion
among recipients of this information.'' It recommended that,
``One interagency methodology for assessing and declaring
Threat Levels, allowing commanders to determine Threat
Conditions in a local area . . .'' be instituted. Reconciling
the differences between the Departments of Defense and State is
just one of the challenges confronting policymakers formulating
comprehensive force protection policy.
Congressional Delegation.--From November 17 through
November 25, 1997, Subcommittee Chairman J. Dennis Hastert (R-
IL) was joined by Representatives Mark Souder (R-IN), Mark
Sanford (R-SC), John Mica (R-FL), John Shadegg (R-AZ), and
Delegate Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS) on a Congressional Delegation
[CODEL] which traveled to Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Greece. The purpose of the trip was
to conduct an in-country assessment of force protection and
antiterrorism policy following the terrorist attack at the
United States Air Force base at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia in June 1996.
The CODEL toured United States military bases and State
Department facilities throughout the Middle East and Persian
Gulf region, and at every stop, CODEL members were briefed on
force protection and antiterrorism policy. The CODEL met with
U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense personnel to
determine what additional measures were necessary to protect
our personnel deployed abroad to the maximum extent possible.
Since the majority of the forces stationed in the countries of
interest are actively involved in the containment of Iraq,
CODEL members were also given mission briefs at all military
facilities. Finally, the CODEL held meetings with civilian and
military officials from host nations to learn about the level
of cooperation and security provided to U.S. personnel from
host nations.
In Jerusalem, CODEL members met with senior officials in
the Israeli Foreign Ministry, after which some members met with
Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai while others met
with Palestinian leader Chairman Yasser Arafat. At these
meetings, Members took the opportunity to discuss the stalled
Middle East peace process and other related issues.
On November 19th, the CODEL traveled to Amman, Jordan,
where the group visited the new United States Embassy and were
briefed by Ambassador Wesley Egan. That evening the CODEL
continued on to Kuwait City, Kuwait, and that night dinned as
guests of Kuwaiti Minister of Information Saud Nasser Al-Sabah.
On November 20th, the CODEL visited Camp Doha, a United States
Army base outside of Kuwait City which maintains enough forward
deployed military vehicles and equipment for an Army brigade.
Colonel Robert Polard, USA, the base commander, briefed Members
on security issues and the Army mission. From there the CODEL
traveled to Ali Al-Salem Air Base, where the U.S. Air Force
operates a radar facility. That afternoon, the CODEL took a
sobering tour of the Khobar Towers complex at Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia. The group saw the bombed-out buildings where 19 U.S.
airmen died and hundreds more were injured when terrorists
detonated a truck bomb in June 1996. That evening the CODEL
arrived in Bahrain and Members and staff had the opportunity to
meet with several United Nations weapons inspectors who had
recently been forced to leave Iraq.
On November 21st, the CODEL was briefed at the headquarters
of United States Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, where the United
States Navy has maintained a presence for almost 50 years.
Following the briefing the group was flown out to the aircraft
carrier U.S.S. Nimitz that was on patrol in the Persian Gulf.
That afternoon the CODEL went on to Prince Sultan Air Force
Base in Saudi Arabia. Following the attack at Khobar Towers,
almost all Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia were relocated
to this remote base, 90 miles south-east of Riyadh. Almost
4,000 men and women are stationed there, and Operation Southern
Watch, which enforces the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, is
run primarily out of this base.
On November 22nd, the CODEL met and were briefed by
Ambassador Wyche Fowler at the United States Embassy in Riyadh,
following which the group traveled to Eskan Village, the Joint
Task Force Southwest Asia headquarters. After meeting with the
commander of the Joint Task Force, Major General Roger
Radcliff, USAF, the group toured Eskan Village. Members then
went to a private meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, the
likely successor to King Fahd. On the evening of November 22nd
the CODEL flew on to Incirlik, Turkey. The next morning the
CODEL toured Incirlik Air Base and were briefed on the mission
of the United States and British air forces operating out of
Incirlik, which is to patrol the northern no-fly zone over
Iraq. That afternoon the group traveled to Izmir, Turkey, and
toured the facilities of an Air Force unit which supports NATO
forces stationed in Turkey. On November 24th the CODEL traveled
to Greece, and were briefed by United States Embassy personnel
as well as Drug Enforcement Agents operating in Greece. The
CODEL returned to the United States on November 25th.
This trip gave Members of Congress and staff the
opportunity to meet with Defense and State Department officials
in-country and see firsthand the conditions under which they
work and better understand their requirements. The Members were
also able to see the strenuous efforts being made to protect
our deployed personnel and ensure that they are protected to
the maximum extent possible. There is no doubt that both
Members and staff returned with a greater appreciation of the
difficult but important missions being carried out by our
professional foreign service and military personnel who fully
deserve the support of the Congress.
b. Benefits.--By focusing attention on this issue and
raising its profile in the eyes of Congress and the general
public, the subcommittee intends to assist DOD in its efforts
to provide for the security of our deployed forces to the
maximum extent possible. During the second session of this
Congress the subcommittee will work with DOD and the
authorizing and appropriating committees to secure adequate
funding for force protection initiatives that have been started
during the last several years. For fiscal year 1998, for
example, DOD requested $31.5 million for the purchase of
commercial, off-the-shelf physical security equipment. However,
that request was eventually reduced to $18.7 million by the
appropriations committees. Furthermore, the subcommittee hopes
to demonstrate that despite the fact that we are at peace and
there are currently no serious military challengers to the
United States, there remain threats to our national interests
and security that require a competent, vigilant and well-funded
military.
c. Hearings.--On October 28, 1997, the subcommittee held a
closed oversight hearing on the security of United States
personnel stationed in South West Asia, entitled, ``Security
Status of U.S. Personnel Overseas.'' The purpose of the hearing
was twofold. First, it allowed the subcommittee to examine the
threat, from both terrorist and conventional military forces,
to all United States Federal Government personnel, but
especially Department of Defense and Department of State
personnel, stationed in South West Asia; measures taken since
the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers to increase the safety of
United States personnel, and; the success that the United
States has had in coordinating with the governments of host
countries in reducing the threat to United States personnel.
Second, this hearing provided background information to the
Members who traveled to Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and Greece in November 1997 to observe
firsthand the threat conditions under which thousands of United
States personnel, mostly military, operate. The congressional
delegation took the opportunity to learn from in-country
military commanders and officials what changes have been made
to increase the security of our personnel in the aftermath of
the Khobar Towers attack.
This hearing was prospective, not retrospective; it
examined current and future force protection policy, not past
policy. Therefore, the hearing did not address the attack on
the United States Air Force base at Khobar Towers, the status
of the continuing investigation, or the disciplinary actions
taken by Secretary of Defense Cohen last year.
Major General James C. King, Director for Intelligence,
Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided an overview of the threat in
the region. The Honorable H. Allen Holmes, Assistant Secretary
for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, was
accompanied by Brigadier General J.T. Conway, Deputy Director
for Combating Terrorism, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Ambassador
Holmes' office has responsibility for counterterrorism and
antiterrorism policy at the Defense Department. The Defense
Department has the majority of U.S. personnel in the countries
of interest and shares the responsibility for the security of
all U.S. personnel in these countries with the Department of
State. The Honorable Eric Boswell, Assistant Secretary for
Diplomatic Security, testified on behalf of the Department of
State who has the second largest contingent of personnel
stationed in the countries of interest. Mr. Boswell discussed
the State Department's ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of
all government personnel abroad who fall under the protection
of the Secretary of State. The Honorable Jacquelyn L. Williams-
Bridgers, Inspector General, Department of State, focused on
the frequent inspections and examinations of the Department of
State's security policies and facilities conducted by her
office. Mr. Mark Gebicke, Director, Military Operations and
Capabilities Issues, National Security and International
Affairs Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, discussed the
examination of force protection policy undertaken by GAO at the
request of Congress following the attack at Khobar Towers.
Since the hearing was closed, the testimony may not be
summarized here. This hearing will not be printed.
5. Oversight of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
a. Summary.--In accordance with the subcommittee's
oversight responsibilities, the subcommittee took a review of
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's [NASA] missions
and long-term vision. In an environment of tight budgets, and
NASA's being repeatedly directed to reduce its future year's
budget levels, it is imperative that NASA have a focused
mission and vision, and be ever-conscious of the costs and
benefits of investments made.
The subcommittee hoped to highlight NASA in the public eye
as still being a symbol of our Nation's preeminent position as
a scientific leader in the world, and illustrate to NASA the
importance of vision, missions, and management. Additionally,
the subcommittee will continue to take a broader look at the
long-term importance of human space exploration, commercial
opportunities in space, solar and alternative energy sources,
the educational impact on kids of restarting space exploration
and space development, and of balancing cost-efficiencies with
long-term vision.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee's review of NASA's missions
and visions focused attention on the overarching importance of
having a well-defined and vision for future space exploration,
potential space related commercial development, and
technological and medical breakthroughs. In this time of down-
spiraling budgets, it is important to ensure that NASA's
programs are properly defined, well-managed, and that the
American taxpayer's expectation of responsible expenditures are
met.
c. Hearings.--The subcommittee held two hearings on this
issue. On May 9, 1997, the subcommittee held it's first hearing
entitled, ``Defining NASA's Mission and Americas Vision for the
Future of Space Exploration.'' Testimony was received from Dr.
Buzz Aldrin, former Apollo 11 astronaut and one of the first
two men to walk on the Moon; Walt Cunningham, former astronaut
who flew the first manned Apollo mission (Apollo 7); Story
Musgrave, NASA astronaut who has flown six shuttle missions
including the repair of the Hubble telescope; Ron Howard, movie
producer/director and producer of the movie ``Apollo 13;'' Dr.
Peter E. Glaser, vice president, Advanced Technology; Dr. David
R. Criswell, director, Institute for Space Systems Operations,
University of Houston; Dr. David Webb, consultant, Science &
Engineering Education Council of Universities Space Research
Association; and Dr. Richard Berendzen, professor of physics,
American University.
On May 19, 1997, the subcommittee held it's second hearing
entitled, ``Defining NASA's Mission and America's Vision for
the Future of Space Exploration--Part II.'' Testimony was
received from Scott Carpenter, former Mercury 7 astronaut;
Captain Eugene A. Cernan, USN (Retired), former Gemini 9,
Apollo 10, and Apollo 17 astronaut, and the last man to have
walked on the Moon; Dr. Buzz Aldrin, former Apollo 11
astronaut; Mr. Joshua Ouellete, 15-year-old student, Academy of
Science and Technology; Dr. Seth Potter, professor of applied
physics at New York University; Dr. Bob Zubrin, president,
Pioneer Astronautics; Mr. Tom Rogers, Near-term Commercial
Space Transport Opportunities; and Dr. John Lewis,
astrogeologist.
Both hearings examined NASA's long-term mission, manned
space travel, and the future vision of space exploration. Also
explored were space station research, the discoveries of
possible water on the Moon, microbes on Mars, breakthrough
space-energy and space-medicine technologies, and the impact of
renewed commitment to science, engineering and math on our
Nation's youth through a renewed commitment to human space
exploration. The hearings had a common theme of promoting a
wise investment in America's future through space research,
development, and exploration. Dr. Buzz Aldrin addressed the
issues of revitalizing the inspiration that the United States
had during the Apollo program which energized children to flock
to math and sciences, reusable space transportation options as
a good investment, private sector rocketry and space
exploration, and the endless spin-off technologies and
commercial development from manned missions to the Moon and
Mars.
6. Oversight of the Census Bureau and Census 2000.
a. Summary.--As per its responsibilities under the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee's oversight plan for
the 105th Congress, the subcommittee has continued its scrutiny
of the Census Bureau's preparations for the 2000 decennial
census. During the first session of the 105th Congress, this
scrutiny focused primarily on the Bureau's controversial plans
to use ``sampling'' and ``statistical adjustment'' in the
decennial census.
Census oversight activities in 1997 by the subcommittee
represented a continuation of efforts begun under the
leadership of Chairman William F. Clinger, Jr., at the full
committee level in the 104th Congress, and actively pursued by
subcommittee staff in 1996. In a report issued by the committee
during the 104th Congress, in September 1996, ``Sampling and
Statistical Adjustment in the Decennial Census: Fundamental
Flaws'', numerous concerns were articulated about the Bureau's
sampling plan. These concerns included, but were not limited
to, the lack of completeness in the Bureau's plan, the
vulnerability of sampled census data to unacceptable rates of
error and to political manipulation, issues such as the
statutory legality and constitutionality of sampling, and the
multi billion-dollar risk posed to American taxpayers if and
when the Bureau's untested scheme was ruled illegal or
unconstitutional by the courts.
The response of the Census Bureau and Commerce Department
to these criticisms was one of arrogant ambivalence, studied
unconcern and, in general, capricious disregard for the
concerns of Congress and the average American taxpayer. In
dismissing the legitimate and bipartisan concerns of this
committee and subcommittee, the Census Bureau arrogantly
indicated that it is entertaining no plans to reconsider its
flawed, risky, and likely unconstitutional approach, or to re-
evaluate its questionable methodologies. Instead, the Bureau
chose to proceed apace with its Decennial Census Plan in an
unmodified form, disregarding both the shortcomings raised by
the committee and palpable concerns of American taxpayers.
Early in 1997, as the subcommittee began its renewed
oversight of the Bureau for the 105th Congress, two significant
events occurred. In February, the General Accounting Office
added the 2000 Decennial Census to its ``High Risk Series,'' a
list of 25 Federal Government programs that present the most
imminent danger of wasting taxpayers' funds while also not
yielding satisfactory results. The primary reason that the
Census plan was added to this list was the Bureau's self-
conceived, risky and controversial plan to use ``sampling'' and
``statistical adjustment'' in the 2000 Decennial Census. The
GAO's report went on to severely criticize the Bureau for not
outlining its plan adequately to Congress, failing to
demonstrate to Congress what effects the new procedures would
have, and failing to plan for the possibility that the use of
``sampling'' and ``statistical adjustment'' might be forbidden
by Congress (or ruled illegal by the Courts), thus leaving the
Bureau with no practical alternatives for taking the 2000
Census. The addition of the 2000 Census to the High Risk Series
was a reaffirmation of criticisms raised by the committee's
1996 report, and further indicated that a drastic revision was
necessary.
The second key event was the March 1997 release by the
Bureau of the ``Census 2000 Operational Plan.'' Upon examining
this document, the subcommittee determined that despite
numerous and varied criticisms of the Bureau's plans to use
sampling and statistical adjustment, the Bureau was continuing
to forge ahead with their plans to implement ill-conceived
measures, heedless of the criticisms by the committee and GAO,
and again with no alternatives or back-up plans available in
the event of legal or practical failure.
The combination of these two events, and on the heels of
acute criticism by the committee's 1996 report, the
subcommittee briefed leadership of the House and Senate on the
dire risk posed to the taxpayers of a failed, inaccurate,
potentially illegal and politically manipulated census in 2000.
This briefing led the joint leadership to determine that the
Bureau must be prohibited from proceeding any further with its
plans to use either ``sampling'' and ``statistical
adjustment''.
At the request of the leaders of the House and Senate, the
subcommittee developed legislative language to prohibit the
Bureau from proceeding further with its plans. This task was a
difficult consensus building effort, as many legal experts
believed that the Bureau's plan was already in violation of the
law (13 U.S.C. 195) and the constitutional requirement that the
Census be an ``actual enumeration.'' Accordingly, the
subcommittee was asked to relegislate in an area where the law
was already established and the Bureau was openly acting in
direct violation of it. After intense legal research, the
subcommittee developed legislative language that reinforced the
current statutory and constitutional ban against ``sampling''
and ``statistical adjustment'', and further prohibited any
Federal funds from being spent to ``sample'' or ``adjust the
census'' in perpetuity. In May, this language was added in
conference to the conference report making supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 1997.
In June, the President vetoed this supplemental
appropriations bill, citing the census language as one of the
principal reasons for his veto. After this Presidential veto,
the subcommittee entered into negotiations with the White House
and Commerce Department to reach a compromise acceptable to
both parties. The result of these negotiations was a
requirement that the Bureau prepare a detailed report of its
plans and activities for Census 2000, including providing data
on the sampling processes that had previously been withheld
from the Congress. These reporting requirements were codified
as Title VIII of Public Law 105-18, and became commonly known
as the ``Riche Report.''
The Riche Report was presented to Congress on July 14,
1997. The subcommittee extensively scrutinized the report,
concluding the Census Bureau did not comply either with the
letter or in spirit with the legal requirements of Title VIII
of Public Law 105-18. The subcommittee further discovered that
the data provided by the Bureau was incomplete, superficial,
and boldly stated claims for the ``accuracy of sampling'' which
were and are unsupported by any corroborating facts. Adding to
Members' concerns regarding the Bureau's claims of accuracy,
the Bureau in August issued a revision of the report indicating
that the estimates made in the July 14 report, concerning the
rate of error for sampling in the 1995 test census, were
understated. Indeed, the revised figures released by the Bureau
indicated that the error rate for sampling was, in some cases,
as high as 243 percent. This fact, coupled with the failure of
the Bureau to objectively report or to accurately inform
Congress on information it had possessed for nearly 2 years,
caused grave and deepening concern among subcommittee members
about the Bureau's basic competence and technical ability to
carry out complex plans for the 2000 decennial census.
When Congress reconvened in September, the subcommittee
briefed the House and Senate leadership on its findings on the
Riche Report. Fresh evidence of the Bureau's inability to
execute its plans, its continued refusal to recognize that
``sampling'' and ``statistical adjustment'' of the census are
of both questionable constitutionality and legality, coupled
with the Bureau's continuing lack of candor or accurate
information led the joint leadership to determine that another
effort to prevent the Bureau from proceeding with this risky
scheme was imperative. At the request of the bicameral
leadership, the subcommittee assisted the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations, in developing
legislation which would address the Census Bureau's cavalier
non-responsiveness to congressional concerns.
The subcommittee worked throughout September and October
with the Appropriations Subcommittee to develop legislation
that would protect the American taxpayer and prevent the Census
Bureau from proceeding with sampling until such time as the
Supreme Court has issued a final ruling on its legality. This
measure was designed to protect taxpayers from the risk of
wasting billions of dollars on an illegal and misguided census.
Additionally, legislation was developed to expedite the Supreme
Court review process and improve the ``standing'' of the
Congress and the administration to sue, as well as to increase
the chances of resolution in 1998 by using precedent from the
recent Byrd v. Rains case.
The subcommittee ultimately entered into high-level
negotiations with the White House and Commerce Department over
the Census bill's language. A compromise was reached and
language was included in the Conference Report on H.R. 2267,
the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 1998. In addition to preserving the expedited court review
and ``standing'' language, this negotiated compromise imposed
new disclosure requirements on all Census Bureau data releases
and created a new, bipartisan Census Oversight Board to monitor
preparations for the 2000 Decennial Census (as an adjunct to
current congressional oversight). The new disclosure
requirements mandate that all data released by the Census
Bureau include the actual numbers of persons actually counted
before any fictitious or estimated persons are added or
subtracted by the device of ``statistical inference.'' This
critical measure greatly assists congressional oversight by
clearly delineating, both for Congress and the public, the
explicit effects of ``sampling'' and ``statistical adjustment''
of previously concrete or ``actual count'' numbers. The
subcommittee believes that this negotiated accord represents a
major legislative accomplishment, and will partially lift the
``veil of secrecy'' which has until recently surrounded the
Bureau's plans.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee was able to assist the U.S.
House leadership in planning and authorizing a new Subcommittee
on the Census, which will receive responsibility for census
oversight from the Subcommittee on National Security,
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice during the second
session of the 105th Congress. The creation of this new
subcommittee recognizes the large and important undertaking
attendant to oversight of the Decennial Census; 1998 is likely
to demand even greater emphasis by Congress on Census Oversight
than did 1997. The new Subcommittee on the Census, free of
demands other than census oversight, will have ample time and
resources to explore all aspects of Census Bureau operations,
including controversial statistical proposals, in the next
session of Congress.
c. Hearings.--Due to the staff and hearing requirements of
other priorities in the first session of the 105th Congress,
the subcommittee was able to hold just one comprehensive
hearing on the census. This hearing was held in April, and
explored the subject of successful outreach for the census in
``hard to enumerate'' minority communities.
The subcommittee heard testimony from expert witnesses from
the city of Milwaukee and the city of Cincinnati, communities
whose efforts to promote the census in 1990 among minority
groups were widely recognized as superior. The subcommittee
learned at this hearing that the key to the high levels of
census participation in those communities was an aggressive
effort to educate the public about the census and the necessity
that all citizens in the community return their census forms
for the benefit of the community. The subcommittee further
learned that these communities began their own local promotion
and outreach efforts far in advance of the Census Bureau's
efforts. This early start was credited for their high level of
response and broad success. The subcommittee was dismayed to
learn that the Census Bureau has not shown any substantial
interest in use of these successful local programs as models
for promotion or outreach relating to the 2000 Decennial
Census; instead the Bureau has focused efforts on statistical
methodologies as a substitute for proper promotion and outreach
efforts.
Subcommittee on the Postal Service
1. General Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The Inspector General
of the Postal Service and the Board of Governors.
a. Summary.--Legislation passed in the 104th Congress
created an independent Office of the Inspector General [OIG] of
the Postal Service. Prior to enactment of Public Law 104-208,
the Inspector General [IG] of the Postal Service concurrently
held the position of the Chief Postal Inspector. In order to
assure organizational independence of the Office of Inspector
General of the Postal Service, the IG has the authority and
responsibilities set out in the Inspector General Act of 1978,
as amended. The duties of this office are separated from the
duties of the office of the Inspection Service, thereby
insuring the mission of the Office of the Inspector General is
not compromised by apparent or actual conflicts of interest.
The newly created office provides for oversight responsibility
for all postal activities, including those of the Postal
Inspection Service. The Postal IG may initiate, conduct and
supervise U.S. Postal Service [USPS] audits and Postal
Inspection Service investigations, however, the IG is directed
to avoid duplication of work undertaken by the Postal
Inspection Service. The Chief Postal Inspector is required to
report to the IG any significant investigations being carried
out by the Inspection Service. The new Inspector General, Karla
W. Corcoran, was appointed on December 23, 1996, within 90 days
of enactment of the law, by the Governors of the U.S. Postal
Service and sworn in on January 6, 1997. The act requires that
all measures necessary for establishing an Office of Inspector
occur no later than 60 days after the Inspector General's
appointment. The Inspector General serves for a period of 7
years in this nonpolitical appointment and may be removed by
written concurrence of at least seven members of the Board of
Governors, and only for cause.
The IG testified that a transition team of 12 officials
with diverse professional experience from the Postal Service
and other Federal agencies was building a foundation for the
OIG. The first priority while developing the staffing and
operational plans of the office was to ensure continuity of the
operations of Inspector General. Additionally, the team
assembled a pay and benefits package comparable to other
offices of Inspectors General, assembled the framework for a
budget to fund the office, and created a memorandum of
understanding with the Chief Inspector. The decision was made
to let the OIG conduct all financial statement audit activities
above the district level. The office would also conduct postal-
wide performance audits, developmental audits, contract
administration audits, and new facilities construction audits
for acquisitions in excess of $10 million. In carrying out
investigations, the OIG will have primary responsibility for
bribery, kickback, conflict of interest and systemic
investigations including issues regarding worker's
compensation. The OIG will provide oversight for embezzlement
cases of more than $100,000 but will conduct investigation or
partner with the Inspection Service on cases involving
executives. In the program area, the OIG will oversee the
Postal Service's rate making programs, revenue generation
activities and labor-management issues. The transfer of
functions between the Office of the Inspector General and the
Inspection Service is envisioned to take place within a 5-year
strategic plan projection. The plan was approved by the
Governors. The Inspector General assured the subcommittee that
nothing in the designation of functions would limit her
authority. In their March 1997 meeting, the Governors approved
a resolution authorizing the Office of Inspector General, in
accordance with the Inspector General Act, to carry firearms,
serve subpoenas and warrants and to make arrests, subject to
the necessary approval of the Attorney General. The Inspector
General said that the Governors had approved a 60-day interim
budget of $5 million.
During questioning by Members, and in response to written
questions, the IG answered that the OIG will review what
whistle blower protections are available for postal employees
who disclose waste, fraud or abuse and that she would support
an effective approach that will enable the OIG to better
protect whistle blowers and enhance reporting of wrongdoing to
the OIG. The chairman of the Board of Governors, Tirso del
Junco, M.D., testified on behalf of the 11-member Board. Nine
of the members are appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate. The other two members are the Postmaster General
and the Deputy Postmaster General. The Governors are chosen
generally to represent the public interest and not as
representatives of specific interests. The Governors oversee
the activities of executive and operating management within the
Postal Service. It reviews business practices, directs and
controls expenditures, conducts long-range planning and sets
major policy on all postal matters. The Governors of the Postal
Service guide the operations of an entity with revenues in
excess of $56 billion and more than 760,000 full-time
employees. The Board functions with four key committees:
audits, compensation, strategic planning and capital projects.
The Board chairman reported that the Board has continually
improved its by-laws to sharpen the focus of the standing
committees.
Dr. del Junco reported that the Postal Service had
completed its two best financial years in postal history, with
about $3.4 billion in net income, or more than the total net
income of all previous years of Postal Service operations. Much
of this income is designated for the restoration of equity and
recovery of prior year's losses. In the previous year, the
Postal Service reduced its negative equity by 37.4 percent,
down to $2.6 billion. The chairman emphasized that the Postal
Service has reduced its negative equity by more than half in 2
years.
The Governors have directed the Postal Service to proceed
with its most ambitious capital investment program, $12 billion
over the next 5 years, in facilities, technology and equipment.
The Governors also instructed the Postal Service to sustain
efforts to control labor and transportation costs and to enter
the next century as a productive and stable entity, enabling
the Service to keep postal rates steady and affordable. Dr. del
Junco emphasized that the basic mission of the Postal Service
was to provide a fundamental, universal public service.
Dr. del Junco reported that the overnight delivery scores
are close to meeting the year's goal of 92 percent on-time
performance. The Postal Service's workload is 603 million
pieces of mail per day (or 182 billion pieces a year) delivered
to 128 million addresses, 6 days per week. This represents 43
percent of the world's total mail volume. Areas for improvement
include meeting 2- and 3-day service standards and better
controlling postal costs--80 percent which are attributed to
labor.
Dr. del Junco testified that the Governors will scrutinize
the strategic and performance plans prepared under the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to help direct
the course of postal management.
The Governors acknowledged the importance of the office of
the new Inspector General and the need for cooperation between
the staffs of the Inspector General and the Inspection Service.
They reported progress in setting up the new OIG and showed
confidence and support in the matter.
b. Benefits.--The appointment of an independent Inspector
General of the Postal Service provides for an autonomous and
strong oversight entity that can conduct and supervise audits
and investigations separate from the control of postal
management. The OIG will be instrumental in providing
leadership and coordination and will be able to recommend
policies to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness
within the Postal Service. Furthermore, an independent OIG of
the Postal Service, as OIGs of other Federal agencies, can
detect waste, fraud and abuse within the Service. Prior to the
establishment of this separate office, these functions were
under the authority of the Inspector General/Chief Postal
Inspector who was responsible to the Postmaster General. It is
apparent that an IG independent from the agency management
hierarchy can more effectively perform oversight duties of the
Postal Service. An indication of support and confidence from
the Board of Governors in establishing the Office of the
Inspector General is essential to its proper functioning.
2. General Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The General Accounting
Office and the Postmaster General.
a. Summary.--During the past 3 fiscal years the Postal
Service reported a surplus of nearly $4.6 billion--$1.770
billion in Representatives 1995, $1.567 billion in fiscal year
1996, and $1.264 billion in fiscal year 1997. Though the bottom
line appears positive, the Postal Service has been plagued with
other problems. The accounting period prior to the hearing
showed volumes and revenues were lower than expected and the
yearly surplus was several million short of the previous year's
total. During fiscal year 1996, five of the Postal Service's
six product lines lost market share and it was expected that
there would be a general rate increase. Additionally, the
Postal Service activities garnered unintended publicity;
specifically, evidence of the marketing department's budget
overruns, questionable ethics of postal officials, and large
compensation and retirement packages for senior management.
Some expressed concerns about the forthcoming changes in
uniform procurement for Postal Service personnel.
Mr. Motley of the General Accounting Office emphasized the
need for improving internal controls and performance of the
Postal Service. He reported that the Postal Service met or
exceeded its on-time delivery goals for Overnight Mail.
However, delivery of 2 and 3-day mail did not score well. Mail
volume grew at half the projected rate and labor costs
continued to account for about 80 percent of the operating
costs, with a projected increase of 6 percent in 1997 for
compensation and benefits.
The GAO opined that the Postal Service's success would
depend on its ability to control operating costs, strengthen
internal controls, and ensure the integrity of its services. It
found weaknesses in the internal controls that contributed
unnecessarily to increased costs. Lack of verification in the
Express Mail corporate accounts caused the Service to lose
about $800,000 from the Express Mail service alone. Similarly,
verifications by supervisors of clerks acceptance of bulk mail
were not performed in about 50 percent of the cases--this
service accounted for almost half of the Postal Service's total
revenue.
The Postal Service has been lax in following required
procedures for acquisitions of real estate and equipment
purchases. The USPS spent about $89 million on penalties and
unusable or marginally usable property.
There were ethical violations in some purchases because the
contracting officer failed to correct situations in which
individuals had financial relationships with the Postal Service
and offerors. The Office of Government Ethics, in reviewing the
Postal Service ethics program, reported that all areas required
improvement and made a number of recommendations and conducted
three reviews to follow up on its recommendations.
GAO studied the process of post office closures and
reported that 3,900 post offices have been closed since 1970;
470 post offices were reported in emergency suspension status.
In addressing the issue of postal reform, GAO emphasized
the importance of recognizing the significance of the Private
Express Statutes. The potential consequences of relaxing them
could result in affecting postal revenues and the ability of
the Postal Service to offer its public service mandates. Though
the public would benefit from improved service through
competition, the Postal Service is facing severe competition in
the communications market. The Postal Service is now competing
in the international mail market and has more flexibility in
setting those rates than rates in the domestic market. However,
it is still losing business because rates are not competitive
and delivery service is not reliable.
Mr. Motley stressed that congressional oversight remains
key to improving the organizational performance of the Postal
Service, particularly in labor-management relations where
unresolved disputes hinder productivity. Grievances which
require formal arbitration have increased 76 percent from
fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1996. Difficulties ensue
because the Postal Service, the unions and management
associations do not agree on how to address the problems. GAO
identified the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] as
a mechanism that could outline common objectives, strategies
and development of a framework of agreement. Since successful
labor-management relations are critical in achieving success,
the GPRA could be instrumental to the Postal Service and its
employees in understanding its mission and developing
strategies to be used in attaining result-oriented goals.
Oversight of the Postal Service's automation program will need
to be continued as billions of dollars have been spent in this
endeavor. The Postal Service has an ambitious, $21 billion, 5-
year capital investment plan for 1997-2001. This will be spent
for technological investments, infrastructure improvements,
upgrading the vehicle fleet and improving customer service.
In his prepared remarks, Postmaster General Marvin Runyon
acknowledged the assistance given by the GAO and for their
advice and recommendations. He reported that the Office of
Government Ethics, after its third follow-up review, wrote to
the Postal Service that all the recommendations contained in
the OGE's report in reference to the Postal Service ethics
program have been implemented. The PMG testified that the
Inspector General had made progress in establishing the office
with the support of the Inspection Service and the Postal
Service and pledged continuing support. He also praised postal
employees responsible for the delivery of mail. He reported the
success of overnight First-Class mail delivery, even during
peak holiday delivery periods and that the Postal Service is
doing financially well even without a rate increase, which
other delivery entities have imposed on their customers. Though
the Postal Service has maintained the same rates for 3 years,
mail volumes, however, are not as great as anticipated.
The Postal Service is modernizing its mail system,
continuing classification reform, expanding process management
and accelerating investments in automation and robotics. He
reported a 5 year plan for investing $14 billion in automation
and ensuring equipment and facilities for consistent service.
He expected bar coding on all mail by the end of 1998 and
adding value to products, such as redesigning the Priority Mail
network to ensure speed, reliability and reasonable price. The
Global Priority Mail Network is expanding to give American
businesses a cost-effective vehicle to deliver goods overseas.
Mr. Runyon ensured commitment to the precept of universal
delivery and an obligation to grow and to sustain the postal
network, as it has done for the past 221 years. Each generation
of communication innovation, such as the telephone, telegraph,
fax and e-mail has challenged the postal system. However, the
challenges are greater today than ever before. Computers,
telephones, electronic funds transfers are cutting directly
into First-Class Mail, the core of postal business and the
basis for universal delivery. Electronic data transactions in
the business-to-business arena is expected to triple. There is
also diversion to electronic banking, payments and
communication of the household to business mail. Additionally,
Federal and State governments are encouraging electronic
transfers in paying taxes by business and individuals and in
the payment of Government funds to individuals.
Mr. Runyon testified that the Postal Service is prepared to
work with the subcommittee on H.R. 22 and shaping final
legislation. The consensus for change would include
preservation of universal service, provide a practical
incentive to control costs, support progressive products that
meet the customer's and marketplace needs and a modernized
ratemaking system that replaces the present complex, costly,
inflexible and time-consuming process. The Postal Service would
support pricing freedom with the appropriate index controls
which reflects the industry it serves, in this case the mix of
labor and technology.
The Postmaster General commented on the ongoing, 8 month,
Department of Justice investigation on the Coca-Cola matter
explaining that he had invested $13,000 in Coca-Cola stock in
1977. When he went to the Tennessee Valley Authority he put the
stock into a blind trust where it remained until 1992 when he
left TVA. His financial advisor encouraged him to get out of
the blind trust because it was not meeting market value. In
1994, the PMG spoke with his general counsel and ethics advisor
to inquire whether it was necessary for a PMG to have a blind
trust. He was advised that it was not customary nor necessary.
The counsel, financial advisor and the Office of Government
Ethics helped to remove the blind trust. The concept of an
alliance between the Postal Service and Coca-Cola originated in
the marketing department, not by the PMG, though he had
attended some meetings. The PMG was advised that he should
recuse himself from the discussions because of ownership of
stocks. He divested himself of the stock and recused himself
from discussions. Ultimately, the project was never instituted.
b. Benefits.--The hearing documented continuing problems
with labor-management policies and its effect on the Postal
Service to function in a competitive communication world. The
hearing emphasized need for the Government Performance and
Results Act, which provides a mechanism to focus on the Postal
Service's mission and to establish its goals for its current
and future role. The hearing put on record the need, and the
Postal Service's support, for change in the 27 year structure
which is proving to be outdated in the current electronic age
and which may restrict the Postal Service from fulfilling its
mandate because of mail volume declines and financial concerns.
The testimony will be useful in refining the language of H.R.
22, the Postal Reform Act of 1997.
c. Hearings.--The General Accounting Office and the
Postmaster General appeared before the subcommittee on April
24, 1997, in a hearing entitled, ``General Oversight of the
U.S. Postal Services.''
3. U.S. Postal Service: Little Progress Made in Addressing Persistent
Labor-Management Problems.
a. Summary.--The General Accounting Office in its 1994
report, U.S. Postal Service: Labor-Management Problems Persist
on the Workroom Floor, reported that the major postal unions,
management associations and the Postal Service agreed that
improvements in labor-management were necessary, however, were
unable to agree on a mutual approach to remedy the problem. In
its September 1997, report, U.S. Postal Service: Little
Progress Made in Addressing Persistent Labor-Management
Problems, GAO discussed the challenges which remain and the
progress which has been made to improve labor-management
relations, and the implementation of some GAO initiatives which
had been suggested. GAO testified that since the 1994 report,
the Postal Service had improved its financial performance and
its First-Class Mail delivery but little had been done in
improving labor-management problems, much of which exists
because of an autocratic management style and an inappropriate
and inadequate performance management system. Service
performance, affecting efficiency and competitiveness, are
adversely affected because of these ongoing relationships.
Many of the problems are acerbated because of the continued
reliance on interest arbitration, a significant rise in the
number of grievances which have been appealed and many awaiting
arbitration, and because the parties cannot agree on common
approaches to rectify the issues. Recurrent issues arising
under interest arbitration include the union's concerns
regarding wage and benefit increases and job security, and
management's concerns regarding cost cutting and flexibility in
hiring. In the interest of efficiency and lower costs,
grievances should be settled at the lowest possible levels.
However, in 1994, 65,062 grievances were at the area office
level, and in 1996, the number increased to 89,931, a 38
percent increase. The number of backlogged grievances awaiting
arbitration by a third-party arbitrator increased from 36,669
cases in 1994 to 69,555 cases in 1996, an increase of almost 90
percent. Management and employee unions blamed each other for
the backlogged cases.
One of the initiatives proposed by the GAO was to establish
a framework of common goals that could help labor and
management improve their relations and working conditions. The
PMG proposed a labor-management relations summit 2 years ago,
however, the identified parties were unable or unwilling to
convene a meeting because of contract negotiations. Because of
difficulties in convening the summit, the Postal Service
contacted the director of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service. Subcommittee Chairman McHugh also
encouraged the director to assist the USPS in bringing the
parties together. The summit ultimately met on October 29,
1997. The GAO stated that such meetings would be helpful to
smoothing labor-management relationships.
The Postal Service, unions and associations implemented, or
attempted to implement, 32 improvement initiatives suggested by
GAO. However, they approved the goals of 10 these initiatives.
GAO reported that it was difficult to determine the results of
the implementations because some had just been implemented,
some were only partially put in place because of disagreements
on how to implement them and some were discontinued because the
participants could not agree on how to use the initiatives to
better the postal work environment. The key, GAO believes, is
for the parties to agree on common approaches for addressing
labor-management problems though continued adversarial
relations could escalate difficulties and hinder efforts for
progress. Presently, there was no clear solution, but the GAO
identified some strategies for dealing with the entrenched
issues: use of a third-party facilitator, the requirement of
the Government Performance and Results Act and the H.R. 22
proposed Postal Employee-Management Commission.
The director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service submitted testimony presented by Eileen B. Hoffman,
director, Office of Special Projects. The FMCS became involved
in the labor-management issues because the GAO suggested a role
for the entity in helping postal management, unions and
associations make changes in adversarial labor-management
relationships and enhancing the quality of work life for postal
employees. Subcommittee Chairman McHugh wrote to the director
encouraging assistance in the matter to the extent the agency's
resources would permit. Careful staff work, extensive
interviews of major participants, briefing sessions, off-the-
record informal meetings and organization of working
committees--requiring extensive preparatory work and time--were
necessary prior to the summit which convened on October 29,
1997. Presidents of each of the four major labor organization,
three management associations, the Postmaster General, chief
operating officer and vice president for labor relations
participated. FMCS reported that tangible results were evident
in dealing with issues of contract administration, grievance
and arbitration backlogs and root causes of labor-management
discord; however, much more needs to be done.
The National Association of Letter Carriers, the American
Postal Workers Union and the Postal Service signed an agreement
to address grievance and arbitration backlogs. The APWU and the
Postal Service agreed to a plan for the previously negotiated
``co-mediation'' process. Training by FMCS of specially trained
labor and management co-mediators started in June 1997. An
evaluation system and a code of conduct for co-mediators will
be established. The APWU and the Postal Service agreed to
experimenting with having some grievances resolved by an
outside party. Following 7 months of discussion, the NALC and
the Postal Service reported successful efforts in testing a
revised dispute resolution process which has fewer steps and
uses specially trained labor-management representatives. The
results will be evaluated after the end of the first test year
to determine if the revised process should replace the system
negotiated in their National Agreement.
FMCS proposed that participants of the summit jointly
engage in strategic planning based on the premise that labor
and management must collectively answer how the Postal Service
wants to compete and succeed to the benefit of the agency,
unions, employees and customers in an era when the information
industry is experiencing unprecedented changes driven by
competitive pressures, new technology and customer demands.
FMCS encouraged Postal Service management and postal union
leaders to be familiar with other industries that have
negotiated and developed changes with their unions to respond
to competitive pressures to ensure the industry's survival.
High performance companies and their unions make an effort to
assure that each employee understands the need for change and
the consequences of inaction. The following companies were
mentioned for their significant roles in meeting challenges:
Saturn and Ford Motor Co.s and the United Auto Workers; Nabisco
Biscuit Co. and the Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers
Union; Harley-Davidson Motor Corp. and the International
Association of Machinists; Kaiser Permanente Corp. and the
Service Employees International Union and other unions
affiliated with the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO.
For cooperative efforts to succeed, management should regularly
share business information with labor and unions should remain
committed to improve relationships.
Postmaster General Runyon agreed with the GAO that little
progress had been made in labor-management relations but was
encouraged by positive changes that are being made and
commitments from postal stakeholders. When he became PMG in
1993, Mr. Runyon instituted the application of the Baldrige
criteria for business excellence and, by 1995, the USPS
instituted its own version, CustomerPerfect!, focusing on
raising service levels and improving finances. This model
provides employees with skills for understanding the Postal
Service goals, creating a safer environment, developing skills
necessary for responsiveness and service, and satisfying
customers. The Postal Service has invested more than $600
million in providing training to employees. Service and
customer satisfaction are up and serious injuries are down.
The PMG has made employee relationships a top priority. He
mentioned that a better method for measuring the workplace
environment needs to be implemented. He reported innovative
approaches to reduce grievances such as: Accelerated
Arbitration, Mediation, and ``Redress''--an Alternative Dispute
Resolution method used in Equal Employment Opportunity
complaints. Through training and systems improvements, the PMG
is working to resolve conflicts before they generate
grievances. In an effort to find solutions to labor-management
problems, Postal management approves the concept of an
independent labor commission as proposed in H.R. 22. The PMG
suggested that the members should come from the private sector,
outside of the postal community, and that the duration should
be limited to 1 year. He concluded that the Postal Service
management was committed to immediate action as everyone in the
Service has a stake in success.
Moe Biller, president of the American Postal Workers Union,
AFL-CIO testified that there were substantial problems with the
analysis and conclusions of the GAO report. He said that the
current, persistent labor-management problems are a result of
top management decisions. He pointed to the number of
unresolved grievances, Merit Systems Protection Board filings,
EEO complaints and the observation that there has been no
negotiated contract with any of the labor unions in the past 10
years. Mr. Biller took exception to GAO's report because it did
not mention Postal management's efforts to persuade postal
employees, Congress and the public that Postal employees are
overpaid and under productive. This has been a source of
diminishing morale. Other sources of antagonism and loss of
morale are the outsourcing of postal work and legislative
proposals for privatization of the Postal Service.
Mr. Biller reported that the Joint Labor-Management
Cooperation Memorandum did not live up to its expectations but,
where there was cooperation, the results could have far
reaching effects. He reported that the Postal Service had its
own agenda in the mediation of grievances instead of joint
understanding as required by the memorandum. APWU agrees that a
better-trained, less-autocratic management team would be more
desirable in ending current Postal Service labor-management
problems. Another identified problem is the ratio of managers
to employees which is 1 to 23 in mail-processing operations. In
this managerial hierarchy, it appears that there is no
mechanism for an improper decision by a supervisor to be
overruled, causing further employee frustration because of
abuse of employee rights. He also alleged union-busting and
harassment and intimidation of union officers by local
management. Mr. Biller said that labor-management relations are
at an all-point low and getting worse because the Postal
Service has rules which are different for employees and
different for supervisors, postmasters and managers.
William H. Young, vice president for the National
Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, testified that GAO's
methodology was fundamentally flawed because labor relations
does not lend itself to numerical methodology; it is
extraordinarily complex. He also objected to government
monitoring and intrusion into collective bargaining. Labor-
management issues should be settled by the parties involved. He
reported that there are strong indications that the parties
have a strong understanding of joint interest stemming from
joint concerns. There is an effort to reduce current backlog of
cases by instituting a 1-year test aimed at reducing the number
of arbitrations and expediting action on grievances. The Postal
Service and NALC will conduct joint testing of how letter
carrier work can be modified to meet future needs by becoming
more efficient, highly productive and more competitive. There
is mutual recognition that management and the union work
cooperatively. Furthermore, the union and the Service have
agreed on procedures to mollify the ``fourth bundle'' dispute
which has been a major cause for dissent.
William H. Quinn, president of the National Postal Mail
Handlers Union testified that the GAO in its 1994 report had
correctly identified the autocratic corporate culture as the
cause of labor-management disputes. In the 1997 report, GAO was
correct in concluding that little progress had been made but
faulted GAO for not elaborating on the underlying reasons for
the autocratic management style. Postal management has
systematically told its employees that they are overpaid, under
productive and that their jobs can be contracted out; they are,
therefore, a disposable part of postal operations.
Simultaneously, the Postal Service has had record delivery
scores and the largest surpluses in its history, and the
managers benefit from bonuses. This leads to managers not
treating the employees with dignity and the rise of labor-
management tensions and grievances. He said that some managers
believe that there is an advantage of having a backlog of cases
because nothing is done, except an occasional GAO report.
Prior to postal reorganization in 1992, grievances were
heard by the first level of appeal beyond the employee's
immediate supervisor; now the manager of distribution
operations hears the grievances. This is generally the same
manager who made the decision or took the action about which
the employee is complaining. Mr. Quinn suggested that the way
to eliminate this would be to provide an early independent
review of each grievance. Managers are not held responsible nor
penalized for deteriorating employee relations in their
organization.
Mr. Quinn said that the programs cited in the GAO report as
helpful in improving labor-management relations and were
initiated unilaterally by the Postal Service without feedback
from the employee organizations. The GAO reported that the
``pay for performance'' programs would improve labor relations.
Mr. Quinn disagreed and stated that his union had no interest
in a pay plan which would be based on piece-work. He stated
that the NPMHU is opposed to an independent commission to
review the state of labor relations. This must be resolved by
the parties involved.
Mr. Smith, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers'
Association [NRLCA] stated that the rural letter carriers have
an evaluated pay system that is made up of three basic
measurements and assigns a time value to each component in the
job: mileage, boxes and mail count--each type of mail has a
different time value. Salaries are set on a time basis. Rural
letter carriers, of all postal employees, have the highest
customer satisfaction index and the highest employee
satisfaction index. They are generally self-supervised and
disagreements do not occur on a daily basis, only at the time
of route evaluation or adjustment, and automation changes.
The union encourages local stewards to be accessible to
members and management to correct problems before they become
grievances and carriers are encouraged to be proactive in
solving problems. Because the union retains ownership of
grievances beyond step 1, when it observes several grievances
regarding the same issue, it encourages them to become a single
class action grievance. The association modified the grievance
process in the 1995 negotiations in an effort to reduce the
number of grievances appealed to step 3. Step 2 grievances are
at the district level thereby taking the grievance out of the
local office. Since 1982, the Postal Service and the NRLCA have
a strong quality of work life/employee involvement process
which has also reduced grievances. Mr. Smith said that although
the association had supported the Economic Value Added program
it is seeing evidence that the EVA is causing pressure on
Postmasters to meet External First-Class [EXFC] scores which
may lead to increased grievances.
The National Association of Postal Supervisors [NAPS],
represented by Vince Palladino, president, reported that there
was some improvement in lower-level labor-management relations
but more work is necessary. In an effort to deal with labor-
management difficulties at the Postal Service, the association
would support, with qualifications, the provision in H.R. 22
which would establish a Presidential Postal Management
Commission. The Commission should be established only if other
methods to rectify the situation from within fail. If that
should happen, Mr. Pallidino recommended that all affected
parties should come to an agreement regarding the extent and
seriousness of outside competition. The legislation states that
the members of the Commission should be from outside the Postal
Service. He suggested that Commission members should have a
historical perspective of and have familiarity with the Postal
Service. The Commission should report its findings within a
year.
Though pre-summit meetings were held, there was no
consensus of the direction in which the Postal Service should
move it was to remain a viable entity. Mr. Smith was doubtful
that there could be a resolution to labor-management problems
from within the Postal Service. However, he was encouraged
after the just-concluded summit that this dialog would be
conducted on a regular basis under the expertise of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service. Two task forces were formed
aimed at promoting better understanding of the collective
bargaining process and to providing strategic planning
initiatives aimed at identifying problems confronting the
Postal Service. The Service will now be holding managers
accountable for labor-management relations through improved
treatment of people on the workroom floor and contract
compliance.
Hugh Bates, president of the National Association of
Postmasters of the United States [NAPUS] reported that
postmasters report mistrust in all regions. Intimidating action
from top management causes unrest among employees. He lauded
congressional oversight and the GAO report, without which
progress would not have occurred. The GAO reported on 10
initiatives, 4 of which affect NAPUS, Associate Supervisor
Program [ASP], Performance-Based Compensation, CustomerPerfect!
and Summit Meetings.
NAPUS agrees with the concept of ASP but is concerned with
the inconsistency as to eligibility and intent of the program.
NAPUS does not subscribe to the Economic Value Added variable
pay program because it excludes all non-exempt employees. Sixty
percent of postmasters are non-exempt. NAPUS is currently
monitory CustomerPerfect! and is generally supportive of the
program as long as the common goals are to provide quality
service. Mr. Bates reported that NAPUS would fully participate
to improve labor-management relationships. He suggested a
management style which permits employees to learn from their
mistakes, which can be corrected through mentoring and
assistance, not punishment.
Joe Cinadr, national executive vice president of the
National League of Postmasters (the League) agreed that labor-
management problems arose from a lack of trust. He was
encouraged by the Memorandum of Understandings signed between
the Postal Service and some unions which are hopeful signs but
too recently signed to evaluate. The League did not endorse the
Economic Value Added [EVA] program because it excluded 60
percent (mostly women and minorities) of the Postmasters who
are considered non-exempt employees. The inequities of the pay
and benefits package create friction between Postmasters and
their superiors. Mr. Cinadr said that traditional levels of
cooperation could be retained by including all Postmasters in
the bonus program. In reference to the labor-management Summit,
the League saw more area of agreement than disagreement. He
explained that the commission as proposed in H.R. 22 should
include the ``voice of the employee'' instead of all
commissioners coming from outside the Postal Service.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee has long monitored labor-
management relations and has great concern about the lack of
morale among employees, the lack of trust between management
and labor, the dehumanization of employees on the workroom
floor and the cost of grievances to the bottom line of Postal
Service revenues. The GAO study leading to a report has
encouraged the Postal Service and its stakeholders to convene a
summit whence the dialog has begun toward a common goal. The
subcommittee hearing was not only informative but created an
additional dialog among the parties and again alerted the
parties that if progress in resolving the problems among
themselves is not possible, legislative action may be the only
corrective action available.
c. Hearings.--A hearing entitled, ``Improving Labor
Management Relations in the Postal Service'' was held on
November 4, 1997.
4. International Mail Market.
a. Summary.--The Postal Service is promoting its
international mail service and competing with foreign and
domestic shipping companies. The rate structure for domestic
mail is highly regulated and the process is time consuming.
However, the international rate structure is more flexible and
the Service is able to compete more aggressively. The Postal
Service has become quite successful in this new venture and a
worthy competitor. Complaints from its rivals suggest that the
Postal Service competition for the international market is
strong. Global Package Link is a new electronic system utilized
by catalog companies that ship more than 10,000 parcels a year.
The Postal Service offers a discount to the shippers,
guarantees delivery within a week and helps the shippers to
clear overseas customs requirements. USPS rivals claim that the
Postal Service is using government privileges in fulfilling its
international business. This matter was addressed by amendment
in the 1998 Treasury, Postal, General Government appropriations
bill but defeated on the House floor because of the nature of
the amendment and the fact that the subcommittee and the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight had requested the
General Accounting Office to report on the Global Package Link
Service to determine whether the Postal Service receives
special treatment from foreign customs offices in countries to
which the Postal Service offers this product. The subcommittee
is also awaiting written answers to inquiries directed to the
Postmaster General. The chairman has requested the General
Accounting Office to evaluate the issue of international mail.
This study is in progress. It will examine the requirements
that foreign customs' administrations place on the Postal
Service's Global Package Link service and will compare those
requirements to those that private carriers face for similar
international package delivery services.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee is intent in ensuring that
the Postal Service competes effectively and fairly in the
international mail market; therefore, it is imperative to know
whether, and to what extent, customs treatment by major trading
partners of items sent via Global Package Link differ from
customs treatment afforded equivalent shipments by private
companies.
c. Hearings.--None.
5. Electronic Commerce.
a. Summary.--The Postal Service is entering into a highly
technological and competitive age that is challenging it for
its products and its delivery mechanisms. In order to survive
the competition, the Postal Service must become more innovative
and efficient. Products which the Postal Service has developed
or anticipates developing were not envisioned when
reorganization took place in 1970. This challenge has brought
forth questions of statutory and regulatory constraints for the
Postal Service which need to be discussed and understood. The
recurring question is what effect the answers may have on the
Postal Service's ability to develop, test and market electronic
products and how it can provide and price these products. The
Postal Service may need to participate in joint ventures or
strategic alliances. These partnerships should be known as
should the costs associated with non-postal activities.
Subcommittee Chairman McHugh has requested the General
Accounting Office to assist in evaluating the issues.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee is refining a major reform
bill which will give the Postal Service greater flexibility and
the ability to become competitive and keep its profits, rather
than breaking even as has been its mandate over the past 27
years. The subcommittee must know what the Postal Service
considers its core products and those it considers its
competitive products and if this will change over the next 5
years. The subcommittee would also like to know how the change
will affect the Postal Service's ability to finance its
universal service obligations.
c. Hearings.--None.
6. Outsourcing.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee is interested in the range of
outsourcing of postal contracts. The General Accounting Office
has been asked to provide an evaluation as to how much
outsourcing of work will reduce costs for the Postal Service
and what areas outside contracts may be utilized.
b. Benefits.--The subcommittee recognizes that a Postal
Service which is efficient and can make cost savings will be in
a better position to fulfill its mandates. To this end, it is
important that the Postal Service be able to institute its
goals in the most efficient manner and build in efficiencies.
The information gathered in this investigation will enable the
Postal Service is serve its stakeholders and customers in the
most cost-effective manner.
c. Hearings.--None.
7. Investigation of the Postmaster General: for knowingly participating
as a Government officer or employee in which he had a financial
interest.
a. Summary.--The subcommittee learned that the Postal
Service was proposing to form an alliance between the U.S.
Postal Service and the Coca-Cola Co. At the same time, it
became known that the Postmaster General had acquired about
1,000 shares in the company in 1977. Therefore, there was an
impression of conflict of interest in the PMG participating in
any discussions and action in this venture.
The subcommittee initiated its own investigation into the
matter but the Department of Justice had commenced a civil
action against the Postmaster General. The Department of
Justice had requested that the Postal Inspection Service carry
out the investigations in this case. One of the issues which
the subcommittee became concerned with was the potential for
inaccurate investigations if they were conducted by a
department of an agency over the head of the agency. Pursuant
to the oversight responsibilities of the subcommittee, the
chairman sent several letters to the Department of Justice, to
the Attorney General and to the Office of the Assistant
Attorney General for Legislative Affairs for a report on the
matter. The Department of Justice, however, was extremely slow
on its investigations and, in tardy responses indicated that it
was unable to provide the information in light of the
Department's criminal investigations, but assuring the
subcommittee that it was conducting its investigations
diligently. The subcommittee had to curtail its inquiry and
investigation in this matter until the case was resolved in a
civil settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice after a
14-month review. The civil settlement concluded that the
Department of Justice found no evidence that the PMG acted with
improper intent or to profit personally. However, to avoid the
appearance of impropriety, Mr. Runyon agreed to a settlement of
$27,550 which represents the gain on his Coca-Cola stock during
the 11-week period in 1996 after he signed his Executive Branch
Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report showing that he
owned Coca-Cola stock and the date on which he formally recused
himself from consideration of the potential marketing alliance.
The Postal Service did not finalize the venture with the
Coca-Cola Co.
b. Benefits.--The American public benefits from the
oversight process which implements a high standard of
accountability for its elected and publicly appointed
officials.
c. Hearings.--None.
III. Legislation
A. NEW MEASURES
Subcommittee on the Civil Service
1. H.R. 240, the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1997.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-40, March
20, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 240, as amended, strengthens
veterans' preference and increases employment opportunities for
veterans. It permits preference eligibles and certain other
veterans to overcome artificial restrictions on the scope of
competition for announced vacancies, establishes an effective
redress system for veterans who believe their rights have been
violated, makes knowing violations of veterans' preference laws
a prohibited personnel practice, provides preference eligibles
with increased protections during reductions in force [RIF],
requires agencies to establish priority placement programs for
employees affected by a RIF and apply veterans' preference when
rehiring from the list, extends veterans' preference to certain
positions at the White House and in the legislative and
judicial branches of Government, requires the Federal Aviation
Administration to apply veterans' preference in reductions in
force, and provides veterans' preference eligibility for
service in Bosnia, Croatia, and Macedonia.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 240 was introduced on
January 7, 1997, by Subcommittee Chairman Mica and referred to
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, in addition
to the Committees on House Oversight, the Judiciary, and
Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. The subcommittee held
a hearing and markup on February 26, 1997, and the subcommittee
favorably forwarded the bill to the full committee for
consideration. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
considered the legislation on March 12, 1997, and ordered
reported, as amended, to the House for consideration. On April
9, 1997, the House passed H.R. 240 as amended and on April 10,
1997, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Veterans
Affairs.
d. Hearings.--H.R. 240, ``Veterans' Employment
Opportunities Act of 1997'' was held on February 26, 1997.
2. H.R. 1316, to amend chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, with
respect to the order of precedence to be applied in the payment
of life insurance benefits.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-134, June
18, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1316, as amended by the
committee, amends 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8705 and 8706. It directs
the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to obey certain
domestic relations orders when paying the proceeds of life
insurance policies under the Federal Employees Group Life
Insurance program [FEGLI] and permits courts to direct the
assignment of such policies to individuals specified in
domestic relations orders.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1316 was introduced by
Representative Collins (GA), on April 14, 1997. It was referred
to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and
subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on the Civil Service
on April 15, 1997. The subcommittee approved the legislation
and forwarded to the full committee on voice vote on June 10,
1997. The bill was approved and ordered reported, as amended,
by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on June 18,
1997. H.R. 1316 passed the House on June 24, 1997, by voice
vote under the Corrections Calendar. The bill was received in
the Senate on June 25, 1997, and referred to the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs. On November 6, 1997, the
Committee on Governmental Affairs reported the legislation to
the Senate without amendments or written report.
d. Hearings.--There were no hearings on H.R. 1316.
3. H.R. 1836, Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act of 1997.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-374,
November 4, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1836 amends several provisions
in title 5, United States Code. It provides the Office of
Personnel Management [OPM] additional tools to fight waste,
fraud, and abuse in the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program [FEHBP]. With these tools, OPM will be able to deal
swiftly with health care providers who try to defraud the
FEHBP. OPM will be better equipped to bar health care providers
who engage in misconduct from participating in the FEHBP or to
impose monetary penalties on them. The bill also provides that
an association of organizations may underwrite health care
plans in the FEHBP, and it broadens the current statutory
language preempting State insurance laws.
In addition, the bill permits certain employees of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] and the Federal
Reserve Board (Fed) to participate in the FEHBP, and it
requires OPM to encourage carriers who contract with third
parties to obtain discounts from health care providers to seek
assurances that the conditions for the discounts are fully
disclosed to such providers. It also establishes statutory
requirements for readmitting health care plans sponsored by
employee organizations that have previously discontinued
participation in the FEHBP. Under current law, when a health
care plan discontinues participation in the FEHBP, OPM must
distribute the remaining contingency reserves to those plans
that remained in the FEHBP in the contract year after the
discontinuance. This bill requires OPM to complete the
distribution by the end of the second contract year after the
plan is discontinued.
The maximum amount of the physicians comparability
allowance under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5948 is increased from $20,000 to
$30,000.
The bill also amends 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8902(k) to explicitly
permit carriers to provide for direct access and direct
payments to licensed health care providers who are not
currently enumerated in the statute.
c. Legislative History/Status.--Chairman Burton introduced
H.R. 1836 on June 10, 1997. It was referred to the Subcommittee
on the Civil Service on June 11, 1997. The subcommittee
favorably forwarded H.R. 1836, as amended, to the full
committee on October 22, 1997. The full committee ordered
reported, as amended, H.R. 1836 to the House on November 4,
1997. The bill passed the House, as amended, on November 4,
1997, under suspension of the rules and was referred to the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
d. Hearings.--There were no hearings held on H.R. 1836.
However, aspects of the bill were examined during the hearing
on FEHBP rate hikes described in part Section II. B. 9.
(Subcommittee on the Civil Service).
4. H.R. 2675, the Federal Employees Life Insurance Improvement Act.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-373,
November 4, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 2675, as amended, improves the
life insurance benefits available to Federal employees under
the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program [FEGLI]. It
directs the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to submit a
legislative proposal for offering Federal employees group
universal life insurance, group variable universal life
insurance, and additional voluntary accidental death and
dismemberment policies. In addition, it permits employees to
continue unreduced additional optional life insurance coverage
beyond their 65th birthday at their own expense and to purchase
larger amounts of optional life insurance on family members.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2675 was introduced by
Subcommittee Chairman Mica on October 21, 1997. It was referred
to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and
subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on the Civil Service.
On October 22, 1997, the subcommittee amended H.R. 2675, and
forwarded it to the full committee for consideration. The full
committee approved H.R. 2675 and ordered reported as amended by
voice vote to the House for consideration on October 31, 1997.
It passed the House on November 4, 1997, under suspension of
the rules, and was referred to the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
d. Hearings.--There were no hearings held on H.R. 2675.
However, the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program was
examined in the hearing described in part Section II. A. 4.
(Subcommittee on the Civil Service).
5. H.J. Res. 56, celebrating the end of slavery in the United States.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--Resolves that the celebration of
the end of slavery is an important and enriching part of our
country's history and heritage and provides an opportunity for
all Americans to learn more about our common past and to better
understand the experiences that have shaped our Nation and
directs that a copy of this joint resolution be transmitted to
the National Association of Juneteenth Lineage as an expression
of appreciation for its role in promoting the observance of the
end of slavery.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.J. Res. 56 was introduced
by Representative Watts (OK) on February 26, 1997, and was
referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
The committee approved and ordered reported to the House, H.J.
Res. 56, on June 11, 1997. The House passed the measure on June
17, 1997, by the Yeas and Nays of 419--0 (Roll Call Vote No.
207). The Senate received the bill on June 18, 1997.
d. Hearings.--None were held.
6. H. Con. Res. 95, recognizing and commending American airmen held as
political prisoners at the Buchenwald concentration camp during
World War II for their service, bravery, and fortitude.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--Recognizes and commends the 82
American airmen held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald
concentration camp during World War II for their faithful
service, personal bravery, and exceptional fortitude; and
requests that the President issue a proclamation recognizing
and commending, by name, the service, bravery, and fortitude of
those airmen.
c. Legislative History/Status.--Representative Weldon (FL)
introduced H. Con. Res. 95 on June 10, 1997. It was referred to
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the
committee discharged the bill on September 5, 1997. H. Con.
Res. 95 was passed by the House, under suspension of the rules,
on September 16, 1997, by voice vote and was received in the
Senate on September 17, 1997.
d. Hearings.--None were held.
7. H. Con. Res. 109, recognizing the many talents of the actor Jimmy
Stewart and honoring the contributions he made to the Nation.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--Congress recognizes the many
talents of the late James M. ``Jimmy'' Stewart and honors the
artistic, military, and political contributions he made to the
Nation.
c. Legislative History/Status.--The legislation was
introduced by Mr. King (NY) on July 8, 1997. The Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight waived jurisdiction on July 10,
1997, and the bill was passed by the House on September 16,
1997, under suspension of the rules. It was referred to the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
d. Hearings.--None were held.
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
1. H.R. 514, District of Columbia Inspector General Improvement Act of
1997.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-29, March
18, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 514, the District of Columbia
Inspector General Improvement Act of 1997, amends the District
of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of
1978 to allow, at the request of the Inspector General of the
District of Columbia, the director of personnel to waive the
residency requirement for employees of the Office of the
Inspector General.
c. Legislative History/Status.--The bill was introduced by
Representative Thomas M. Davis (VA) on February 4, 1997. It was
referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
and subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on the District
of Columbia on February 10, 1997. The subcommittee forwarded
the bill, amended, to the full committee on February 11, 1997.
On March 12, 1997, the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight ordered the bill, as amended, reported to the House,
by voice vote. The House passed the legislation on March 18,
1997, as amended under suspension of the rules, on March 18,
1997. The measure was passed by the Senate on March 20, 1997,
and the President signed the bill on March 25, 1997, becoming
Public Law 105-7.
d. Hearings.--None were held.
2. H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Bill.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-149, June
24, 1997; Conference House Report 105-217, July 30, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--A portion of this bill contained
the entire final version of H.R. 1963, which was named Title
XI--District of Columbia Revitalization, cited as the,
``National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997''.
This section of the bill contained changes made in the
District of Columbia in the following major areas: District of
Columbia Retirement Funds, Management Reform Plans, Criminal
Justice, Privatization of Tax Collection and Administration,
Financing of District of Columbia Accumulated Deficit, District
of Columbia Bond Financing Improvements, and a Miscellaneous
Chapter. Section by section highlights are as follows:
Subtitle A--Unfunded Pension Liability
Subtitle A lifts the burden of the $4.8 billion unfunded
pension liability for police and firefighters, teachers, and
judges of the District of Columbia created when the Federal
Government transferred those pensions plans to the District of
Columbia in 1979. The bill has the Secretary of Treasury assume
the payment of benefits to currently retired DC teachers,
police and firefighters. The judges become a separate Federal
plan under the Federal takeover of the District courts (Chapter
4). There is a ``freeze date'' (June 30, 1997) mandating that
no further benefits may be earned under the existing plan.
Because of the freeze date there can be no ``gaming'' of the
system where people retire normally or on disability and
receive more benefits from the Federal Government than they
would have otherwise.
The Secretary will transfer from the DC Retirement Board
approximately $3.2 billion in assets and deposit them in a new
DC Retirement Fund in the Treasury. Six months after enactment
of this legislation the Treasury will set up another account,
the DC Supplemental Fund, and begin to deposit Treasury bills
in an amount amortized to pay off the liability in 30 years
(Secretary determines exact timing).
The Secretary hires an agent to manage the assets and make
the payments. The retirement benefits are paid out of the
transferred assets until they are used up (approximately 8
years). After the assets are used up, benefits will be paid out
of the Supplemental Fund which will have accumulated more than
$3 billion in Treasury bills by that time.
Within 1 year of enactment, the DC government must adopt a
replacement plan for currently active police and firefighters,
and teachers. The legislation requires this new plan to meet
ERISA standards and be fully funded. Current police and
firefighters and teachers will then have retirement benefits
under 2 pension plans--benefits earned up to the freeze date
under the current plans; and benefits after the freeze date
earned under the replacement plan.
The Secretary is instructed to contract with a consultant
to study alternative methods of financing the Federal
obligation assumed in this chapter. The study must be completed
within 1 year of enactment.
Subtitle B--Management Reform Plans
The Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority (Control Board) and the District of Columbia
government shall develop management reform plans for nine
listed District agencies and for four citywide functions. The
Control Board is to contract with consultants to develop the
management reform plans and the plans will have to be finished
within 90 days. The department heads will be responsible for
implementing the reform plans within their departments and will
report to the Control Board and to no one else. The Control
Board will direct the implementation of the citywide reform
plans. The heads of the nine named departments may only be
dismissed by the control board. Upon enactment there is deemed
to exist a vacancy at the head of each of the agencies. The
mayor may reappoint current department heads or nominate new
persons, but the Control Board must confirm those positions and
if the mayor does not make a nomination within 30 days, the
Control Board shall appoint the head of the nine agencies. The
heads of the nine named agencies will have control and
discretion on personnel matters within their agencies.
Subtitle C--Criminal Justice
Sentenced Felons.--The legislation takes over funding and
operation of the District of Columbia sentenced felon
population. A Trustee is set up to oversee the operation of the
District Department of Corrections operations at the Lorton
Corrections Complex until all inmates are removed from the
District facilities at Lorton and then Lorton is closed (no
later than 2001). The Federal Bureau of Prisons is responsible
for housing all DC sentenced felons and is authorized to
contract with other governments or private companies or to
place them in Federal facilities. The Bureau of Prisons is
ordered to privatize at least 2,000 DC inmates by 1999 and at
least 50 percent of the DC inmate population by 2003. The
Federal Government will pay for the sentenced felon portion of
the DC Department of Corrections, but DC will be responsible
for the rest of the corrections system (juveniles,
misdemeanant, et cetera) both during the Trusteeship and after
BOP assumes responsibility for sentenced felons.
The ``Truth-in-Sentencing'' requirements of the 1994 crime
bill must be met by the District for the takeover to occur. A
Truth in Sentencing Commission, chaired by the Attorney
General, is established and has 6 months to recommend
amendments to the District of Columbia Code for sentencing
certain felony crimes. If the District government has not
enacted any recommended amendments or if the Commission fails
to make any recommendation, the Attorney General is directed to
promulgate amendments to the District Code as necessary under
the provisions of this Subtitle.
Courts.--The Federal Government will assume funding
responsibility for the DC court system, including probation,
public defender service, and pre-trial services, which will
become a Federal agency. The courts will continue to be self-
managed. The District of Columbia parole, probation, and pre-
trial services will be operated by a Federal Trustee until
those agencies meet Federal standards and then will become a
Federal agency.
Subtitle D--Tax Administration
The District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer is
authorized to contract up to the entire processing and
collection of the DC tax system. Such contracting must be done
with the approval of the Control Board.
Subtitle E--Financing Accumulated Operating Deficit
The District of Columbia will have accumulated an operating
deficit of approximately $520 million between 1991 and
September 30, 1997. Carrying this debt is severely impacting
the District's cash position and holding down the ability of
the District to access the private finance market. In other
cities in financial crisis one of the first actions is to
finance the operating deficit to get the city back on an even
cash basis.
This legislation authorizes the District to finance its
accumulated operating deficit (it does not have the authority
to sell bonds for deficit financing otherwise). The legislation
also provides that if no other source is available, the
Treasury is authorized to lend to the District for this purpose
up $300 million on terms up to 10 years. Additionally, Treasury
is authorized to continue to make cash advances to the District
for seasonal cash flow purposes on a term of not more than 11
months.
All moneys borrowed from the Treasury have to be repaid at
the relevant Treasury rate plus one-eighth of a percent
interest. Treasury borrowing is more expensive that private
market borrowing so it is anticipated that this authority would
only be utilized as a last resort.
Subtitle F--District Government Borrowing Authority
The District of Columbia's borrowing authority, including
the use of revenue bonds for economic development purposes, was
written in the 1973 Home Rule Act and has not been
substantially revised or modernized since. The District
authority was also severely restricted because of its
inexperience with the public borrowing. Since 1973 the whole
world has changed regarding the use and structure of municipal
bonds, including revenue bonds. Because of the District's
restricted authority, the District has never been able to
utilize all of its annual allocation of revenue bonds and has
suffered reduced economic development and a competitive
disadvantage to States and other cities. In addition, the
District government has been less able than other jurisdictions
to borrow funds for public purposes and this has contributed to
the serious deterioration of its capital assets.
The legislation modernizes the District of Columbia's
authority to issue both General Obligation and Revenue bonds
and brings it into conformity with other jurisdictions. There
is no effort to give the District more authority than other
jurisdictions nor to continue to restrict or hinder the
District in its ability to use this valuable economic
development tool.
Subtitle G--District of Columbia Budget
The legislation eliminates the existing Federal payment to
the District of Columbia government. The District is required
to balance its budget in fiscal year 1998 as opposed to the
current requirement that this be done by 1999. The debt service
limitation in the Home Rule Act is modified to account for the
loss of the Federal payment. The legislation provides for a
Federal contribution to the operation of the government of the
Nation's Capital with a 1998 level of $190 million.
Subtitle H--Miscellaneous
A number of miscellaneous provisions dealing with diverse
aspects of the District of Columbia are contained in subtitle
H. The Control Board is directed to implement 2 levels of
regulatory reform in DC within 1 year: 1) Gives the Control
Board 6 months to review and use its power to change
regulations it finds to be anti-competitive, anti-business, or
unnecessarily complicated. 2) Gives the Control Board 1 year to
determine why DC's application, permit, and inspection programs
are dysfunctional and take whatever action is needed
(regulatory, personnel, privatization) for DC's processes to be
performed at or above the national average with a further goal
of making DC's permit and application processes the best in the
Nation.
Actions are taken concerning several Federal and DC
statutes and Federal law enforcement agencies are allowed and
encouraged to make agreements with the Metropolitan Police
Department detailing how these Federal agencies will assist MPD
in increasing public safety in the Nation's Capital.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2015 was introduced by
Representative John Kasich on June 24, 1997. It was reported
out of the Committee on Budget on June 24, 1997, House Report
105-149. The House amended and passed the bill on June 25,
1997, and was received and passed the Senate with an amendment
on June 25, 1997. A conference was agreed to and Conference
Report (105-217) filed in the House on July 30, 1997, and
passed the same day. The Senate agreed to the report on July
31, 1997, and the President signed the measure on August 1,
1997, to become Public Law 105-33.
d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held the following hearings
relating to this measure: on February 20, 1997, hearing on
``White House Proposal for the District of Columbia;'' on March
11, 1997, a joint hearing held with the Senate Subcommittee on
Government, Management, Restructuring and the District of
Columbia of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the
Senate Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the
Committee on Appropriations on ``Successes in Urban Problem
Solving, Mayoral Perspectives;'' on March 13, 1997, joint
hearing held with the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Subcommittee on Government, Management, Restructuring, and
District of Columbia on the ``White House Proposal for the
District of Columbia;'' on March 25, 1997, hearing held on the
``White House Proposal for the District of Columbia--Business
and Community Leaders' Perspectives;''on April 25, 1997,
hearing on the ``White House Proposal for the District of
Columbia--Medicaid and Treasury Borrowing;'' on May 1, 1997, a
hearing on ``Education At a Crossroads: What Works and What's
Wasted in the D.C. School System?;'' and on May 22, 1997,
hearing on the ``White House Proposal for the District of
Columbia--Economic Development of the President's National
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Plan.''
3. H.R. 3025, To amend the Federal Charter for Group Hospitalization
and Medical Services, Inc., and for other purposes.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 3025, amends the Federal
charter of Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc.,
to: (1) permit the corporation to have one class of members
consisting of at least one member and not more than 30; and (2)
prohibit dissolution of the corporation without congressional
approval.
c. Legislative History/Status.--This legislation was
introduced by Representative Thomas Davis (VA) on November 12,
1997. It was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight and the bill was considered by the House on November
13, 1997, under suspension of the rules. The legislation was
agreed to and passed the House by voice vote. The Senate passed
this measure on November 13, 1997, and it was signed by the
President on December 16, 1997, Public Law 105-149.
d. Hearings.--None.
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
1. H.R. 173, Authorization To Donate Surplus Law Enforcement Canines to
Their Handlers.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 173 is a non-controversial
measure designed to make Federal property disposal operations
more efficient by allowing surplus Federal canines to be
donated to their handlers. This promotes humane treatment of
surplus canines by shortening the period of time a canine is
away from its handler. It also avoids the lengthy screening
period normally required, thereby reducing Federal costs.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 173 was introduced on
January 7, 1997, and referred to the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology on January 16, 1997.
The subcommittee held a markup on March 11 and voted
unanimously to forward the bill to the full committee. On March
12, 1997, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee held
its markup of H.R. 173, and ordered the bill to be reported to
the House of Representatives. H.R. 173 was approved by the
House under suspension of the rules on April 16, 1997, and sent
to the Senate for consideration. The Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee reported the bill favorably, without
amendments, on June 17, 1997. H.R. 173 passed the Senate by
unanimous consent on June 27, 1997, and was signed by the
President on July 18, 1997; Public Law 105-27.
d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 680, Transfer of Surplus Personal Property For Donation To
Providers Of Necessaries To Impoverished Families and
Individuals.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 680 is a bill for ``the
Transfer of Surplus Personal Property For Donation To Providers
Of Necessaries To Impoverished Families and Individuals.'' This
bill authorizes the transfer of surplus personal property to
organizations that provide assistance to impoverished
individuals. Currently, Federal agencies declare about $6
billion per year in excess Federal personal property. The
property is screened by other Federal agencies to determine
whether the property is needed by another Federal user. The
remaining property is declared surplus and donated to State
governments, law enforcement agencies, and other eligible
groups. Agencies then sell the remaining property--generally
the oldest and most obsolete property--generating very little
in proceeds (about $8 million annually).
H.R. 680 authorizes the donation of surplus property to
charities that provide services to poor families. Under this
measure, these groups are eligible for the property on the same
basis as State government agencies. Private charities such as
food banks and Habitat for Humanity are a major source of
support for the poor. H.R. 680 allows these organizations to
receive surplus Federal personal property in support of their
mission.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 680 was introduced on
February 11, 1997 and referred to the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology on February
13, 1997. The subcommittee marked up the bill and forwarded it
to the full committee by voice vote on March 11, 1997. On March
12, 1997, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
considered the measure and ordered it to be reported. H.R. 680
was called up under suspension of the rules and passed by the
House as amended by a roll call vote of 418-0 on April 29, 1997
(Roll No. 93). The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
favorably reported the bill without amendment on May 22, 1997.
The measure was amended on the floor of the Senate on July 9,
1997. On September 18, 1997, on a motion that the House agree
to the Senate amendments, the amended bill was cleared for the
White House. It was signed by the President on October 6, 1997;
Public Law No. 105-50.
d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 930, Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1997.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 930, the Travel and
Transportation Reform Act of 1997, is designed to remedy poor
management of the Federal Government's massive travel
expenditures. H.R. 930 would clear away obstacles to better
management and encourage a concerted effort by Federal managers
to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of Federal
travel.
In fiscal year 1994 (the last year for which precise
figures are available), the Government spent more than $7.6
billion on travel, including transportation, lodging, rental
cars and other related expenses. There are ample opportunities
to save money from this sum without restricting necessary
travel. Administrative costs, for example, should be
significantly reduced. The cost of completing a travel voucher
is about $15 in the private sector while it can run as high as
$123 in the Federal Government. H.R. 930 would help the
Government adopt successful techniques from the private sector.
It has four major provisions.
The first provision provides for universal use of the
Federal travel charge card throughout the Government.
Relatedly, H.R. 930 seeks to ensure that agencies are able to
verify that charges on the travel card are business related.
The Government's ability to access this information has been in
question because the Right to Financial Privacy Act restricts
the release of an individual's financial records, including
accounts maintained by the credit card issuer. H.R. 930
clarifies that the Government has the authority it needs to
gather this information. This provision would make the Federal
Government a better customer and simplify administration for
Federal agencies. The result would be an increase in the size
of the Federal Government's rebate.
The second major provision concerns prepayment audits of
travel charges. Currently, GSA's Office of Transportation
Audits spends $11 million to recover $6 million in overpayments
using post-payment audits. A GSA pilot program that uses audit
contractors to perform prepayment audits on some transportation
vouchers has identified overpayments worth four times the
amount of the payments to contractors, proving that this is a
cost-effective tool. All other invoices submitted to the
Federal Government are reviewed by the procuring agency for
accuracy prior to payment. The bill authorizes prepayment
audits by contractors to verify that charges are correct prior
to disbursement of transportation expenses. According to the
General Services Administration, this change would save $50
million per year in reduced transportation expenses.
The third major provision corrects an unjust tax liability.
The bill authorizes reimbursement to employees who were
subjected to a tax liability in tax years 1993 and 1994 due to
their service with the Federal Government. This tax liability
was established by the 1992 Energy Act. The Energy Act limited
the income tax deduction for business related travel to
expenses incurred on trips of 1 year or less in duration. Most
Federal agencies were unaware of this requirement because the
IRS did not notify them until December 1993 and did not
withhold tax payments from the employees' salaries. Many of the
affected Federal employees were liable for a lump-sum payment
plus penalty and interest charges.
The fourth major provision encourages innovation in Federal
travel. The sections of the U.S. Code relating to travel are
extremely proscriptive and limit agency flexibility in
developing improved benefit systems. H.R. 930 would allow
Federal agencies to participate in travel pilot tests that
would, it is hoped, save taxpayer dollars.
The Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1997 should
save the taxpayers at least $80 million per year by reducing
expenditures by $50 million or more each year while also
increasing receipts (through the travel card rebate program) by
$30 million annually.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 930 was introduced on
March 5, 1997. The bill was marked up by the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology on March 11,
1997, and by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
on March 12, 1997. It was then considered by the House under
suspension of the rules and passed by voice vote on April 16,
1997. It has been referred to the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee.
d. Hearings.--None.
4. H.R. 404, Authorizing the transfer to State and local governments of
certain surplus property for use for law enforcement or public
safety purposes.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 404 is a bill that would make
it easier for State and local governments to receive excess
Federal property to benefit law enforcement, fire and rescue
purposes. Under current law, surplus Federal property can be
donated to State or local governments through a public benefit
discount for public health, education, recreation, national
service activities, historic monuments, correctional facilities
and shipping ports. H.R. 404 would expand the public benefit
discount for correctional facilities to cover other law
enforcement and fire and rescue activities.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 404 was introduced on
January 9, 1997, and referred to the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology on January 22, 1997.
The subcommittee held a markup of the bill on June 3, 1997, and
voted unanimously to forward the bill to the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight. On September 30, 1997, the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight considered the
measure and voted by voice vote to forward it to the House.
H.R. 404 passed the House under suspension of the rules on
November 4, 1997. On November 13, 1997, it was referred to the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
d. Hearings.--On June 3, 1997, the subcommittee held a
hearing on H.R. 404. Officials from Riverside County, CA,
testified that they wanted to place a coroner's office and a
law enforcement and fire training academy on surplus Federal
property at the March Air Force Base. That surplus property
became available through the actions of the Defense Base
Realignment and Closure Commission. The county officials stated
that they wanted the land and buildings for these functions to
be made available through one, not two, Federal agencies.
Witnesses at the June 3rd hearing included Senator Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA), who has introduced a companion bill to H.R.
404 in the Senate, Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA), who
authored H.R. 404, and Representative Sonny Bono (R-CA).
On June 26, 1997, the subcommittee marked up H.R. 404. The
subcommittee considered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute that made technical corrections to the bill as
introduced. The subcommittee then voted unanimously to forward
the substitute version to the full Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight.
5. H.R. 52, The Fair Health Information Practices Act of 1997.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 52 addresses the challenge of
protecting confidentiality and privacy between doctor and
patient in a rapidly changing health care environment. Managed
health care systems must be able to exchange information
between doctors, insurers, and others. The increasing use of
information technology and the increasing complexity in
provider arrangements are inevitable. The exchange of patient
health care information is an integral part of the existing
health care system. Payments for claims require diagnostic
information. Communications between primary care providers and
other providers such as specialists or hospitals require
patient information to be shared. Pharmacies maintain databases
of past prescriptions.
Despite this highly fluid environment for exchanging health
care information, no uniform national standard currently exists
to protect the confidentiality of this information. Moreover,
there is little uniformity among State statutes regarding the
confidentiality of health care information. Most of these State
laws lack penalties for misuse or misappropriation. Protections
vary according to both the holder and the type of information.
Under the Kassebaum-Kennedy Act of 1996, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services is required to recommend privacy
standards for health care information to Congress by September
1997. If Congress does not enact health care privacy
legislation by August 1999, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services is required to promulgate such privacy regulations.
Under H.R. 52, medical records created or used during the
process of treatment become protected health information.
Furthermore, health care providers are required to maintain
appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards
to protect the integrity and privacy of health care
information. H.R. 52 would allow patients to review their
medical records and correct inaccurate information. It would
also place restrictions on the release of information relating
to the treatment of patients and on the payment for health care
services.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 52 was introduced on
January 7, 1997. It was referred to the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology on February
28, 1997, and the subcommittee held a hearing on the measure on
June 5, 1997. H.R. 52 has also been referred to the Commerce
Committee, Subcommittee on Health, and Environment and the
Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime.
d. Hearings.--On June 5, 1997, the subcommittee held a
hearing on H.R. 52 and the medical privacy issue. Four Members
of Congress who have taken the lead on medical records privacy
issues testified: Representatives Condit, Slaughter, Stearns,
and Green. The subcommittee also heard testimony from privacy
advocates, health care providers, records management
organizations, and medical researchers.
6. H.R. 1962, Presidential and Executive Office Financial
Accountability Act of 1997.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-331,
October 21, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1962 brings the agencies of
the Executive Office of the President [EOP] within the
framework and under the requirements of the Chief Financial
Officers [CFO] Act. H.R. 1962 authorizes the President to
appoint a Chief Financial Officer in a unit or office within
the Executive Office of the President and, to the fullest
extent practicable, mandates adherence to most provisions of
the CFO Act. In recognition of the decentralized structure of
the EOP and the unique functions its agencies perform in
support of the President, H.R. 1962 anticipates that some
exemptions may be necessary. The bill provides considerable
discretion for the President to exempt the new CFO from any of
a number of responsibilities otherwise stipulated by the CFO
Act as authority and functions to be performed by an agency's
Chief Financial Officer.
The intent of this legislation is to foster improved
systems of accounting, financial management and internal
controls throughout the component entities of the Executive
Office of the President. This should facilitate prevention, or
at least early detection, of waste, fraud and abuse within the
Executive Office of the President, as well as in the other
executive branch agencies already covered by the CFO Act.
Implementation of these provisions will promote not only
accountability and proper fiscal management but also efficiency
and cost reductions.
c. Legislative History/Status.--On June 19, 1997,
Subcommittee Chairman Horn introduced H.R. 1962. The
subcommittee marked up the bill on September 4, 1997. One
amendment was offered and adopted at the subcommittee mark-up,
and the bill as amended was approved by voice vote. The
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight marked up the bill
on September 30, 1997, approving the amendment in the nature of
a substitute, and reporting the measure favorably, as amended,
on a voice vote, for consideration by the House of
Representatives. H.R. 1962 passed the House by a vote of 413 to
3 on October 21, 1997. The bill has been referred to the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee.
d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on the
proposed measure on May 1, and marked up the bill on September
4. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight held its
markup of H.R. 1962 on September 30, 1997.
7. H.R. 716, Freedom from Government Competition Act of 1997.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 716 seeks to take the
Government out of the business of doing things that the private
sector can do better. It prohibits Federal agencies from
producing goods or services available from the private sector
unless there is either a national security reason or an
inherently governmental reason for doing so. The bill allows
for agencies to retain functions when the Federal agency is the
best value provider of those functions. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, many government organizations
report a savings of approximately 20 to 35 percent when a
Federal Government function is subject to competition. At the
same time, this efficiency may come at a cost, especially to
Government employees.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 716 was introduced by
Representative Duncan on February 12, 1997, and referred to the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology on February 20, 1997. The subcommittee held a
hearing on the measure on September 19, 1997. H.R. 716 was also
referred to the House Budget Committee.
d. Hearings.--The subcommittee hearing was held September
29, 1997. Numerous issues were addressed, including whether the
Federal Government should maintain expertise in critical areas
and whether the Federal Government has the capacity to manage a
number of new Federal contracts. Witnesses at the hearing
included Senator Craig Thomas, (R-WY), who introduced the
companion measure in the Senate; Representative James Duncan,
(R-TN, who authored H.R. 716; Steve Goldsmith, mayor, city of
Indianapolis; Ms. Shirley Ybarra, deputy secretary for
transportation, State of Virginia; Ed DeSeve, Office of
Management and Budget; Mr. Nye Stevens, Director, Federal
Management and Workforce Issues, General Accounting Office; and
Mr. Bobby L. Harnage, Sr., national secretary-treasurer,
American Federation of Government Employees.
Subcommittee on Human Resources
1. H.R. 399, the Subsidy Termination for Overdue Payments [STOP] Act.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 399 prohibits the payment of
Federal financial assistance to parents who are more than 60
late or delinquent in meeting their child support obligations
unless there is deemed to be ``good cause'' due to factors
beyond their control.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 399 was introduced in
the House on January 9, 1997, by Congressman Michael Bilirakis
(R-FL).
d. Hearings and Committee Actions.--On November 4, 1997,
the Human Resources Subcommittee held a hearing on
privatization of child support enforcement services and H.R.
399. Testimony was received from: Congressman Michael Bilirakis
(R-FL) and representatives from the GAO, Policy Studies Inc.,
Lockheed Martin IMS, Maximus Inc., G.C. Services, the Ventura
County District Attorney's Office, and the Association for
Children for Enforcement of Support.
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice
1. H.R. 956, Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-105, May
20, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 956, amends the National
Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988, to direct the Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy to establish a program
to support communities in the development and implementation of
comprehensive, long-term plans and programs to prevent and
treat substance abuse among youth. The bill represents a major,
new commitment to novel, well-coordinated anti-drug prevention
coalitions on the local level. The bill is also designed to
bring national and State leadership to local communities in a
systematic manner throughout the United States.
The bill requires the Director, in carrying out the
program, to: (1) make and track grants to grant recipients; (2)
provide for technical assistance and training, data collection
and dissemination of information on state-of-the-art practices
that the Director determines to be effective in reducing
substance abuse; and (3) provide for the general administration
of the program. The bill also allows the Director to enter into
contracts with national drug control agencies, including
interagency agreements to delegate authority for the execution
of grants and to carry out this act. H.R. 956 authorizes
appropriations for fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
In addition, H.R. 956 sets forth specified criteria a
coalition shall meet to be eligible to receive an initial or a
renewal grant. It prescribes limitations concerning: (1) grant
amounts; (2) coalition awards; and (3) rural coalition grants.
The legislation grants the Program Administrator general
auditing and data collection authority and requires the
minimization of reporting requirements by grant recipients.
The measure authorizes the Administrator, with respect to
any grant recipient or other organization, to: (1) offer
technical assistance and training and enter into contracts and
cooperative agreements; and (2) facilitate the coordination of
programs between a grant recipient and other organizations, and
entities. Authorizes the Administrator to provide training to
any representative designated by a grant recipient in: (1)
coalition building; (2) task force development; (3) mediation
and facilitation, direct service, assessment and evaluation; or
(4) any other activity related to the purposes of the program.
Finally, H.R. 956 establishes the Advisory Commission on
Drug-Free Communities to advise, consult with, and make
recommendations to the Director concerning activities carried
out under the program. Within the legislation, the duties of
the Advisory Commission are set forth and terminates the
Advisory Commission at the end of fiscal year 2002.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 956 was introduced on
March 5, 1997, by Congressman Rob Portman, and referred to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. On March 12,
1997, H.R. 956 was referred to the Subcommittee on National
Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice and the
subcommittee held a markup and favorably reported H.R. 956, as
amended, to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
On May 16, 1997, the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight favorably reported H.R. 956, as amended, House Report
No. 105-105, Part I. The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997
passed the House of Representatives under suspension of the
rules by Roll Call vote of 420-1 on May 22, 1997. On June 2,
1997, the bill was referred to the Senate. On June 18, 1997,
the Senate passed H.R. 956 by unanimous consent. The Drug-Free
Communities Act of 1997 was signed by the President on June 27,
1997, Public Law 105-20.
d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on March 12,
1997, at which Congressmen Rob Portman and Sander Levin
testified as sponsors of the bill. James E. Copple, president
and CEO of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America [CADCA],
and Robert Francis, executive director of Regional Youth Adult
Substance Abuse Project [RYASAP] based in Bridgeport, CT, also
testified in support of the bill. Congressman Charles B. Rangel
submitted a statement for the record.
Subcommittee Chairman J. Dennis Hastert began the hearing
with a statement on the problems facing communities as they
address the crisis of rising drug abuse and expressed his
support for H.R. 956, a bill on which he worked vigorously and
of which he was, with Congressman Portman, original co-sponsor.
Ranking minority member, Thomas M. Barrett, attributed the rise
in teen drug use to the lack of a strong community position and
expressed his support.
Congressman Portman outlined the provisions in the bill.
Essentially, H.R. 956 rechannels existing resources to
effective community efforts aimed at stemming the increase in
teen drug abuse, and reversing the drug tolerance.
Representative Portman labeled the mounting teen drug epidemic
``a call to action.'' At its core, H.R. 956 provides incentives
for communities to address this problem cost-effectively.
Congressman Sander Levin described the bills enormous
potential contribution to anti-drug efforts and said it would
give way to a renewed national commitment, helping communities
learn from each others activities. Mr. Copple stressed that
``anti-drug'' coalitions are necessary and noted that this bill
would unify whole communities and provide essential resources.
Through an emphasis on outcome evaluation and increased
participation by elected officials and citizens, this
legislation will significantly aid ONDCP in coordinating
domestic anti-drug efforts. Mr. Francis added that young people
must be offered meaningful alternatives, and encouraged to find
long term solutions to their drug problem.
2. H.R. 1553, A bill to amend the President John F. Kennedy
Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 to extend
authorization of the Assassination Records Review Board until
September 30, 1998.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-138, June
19, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--The purpose of H.R. 1553 is to
extend for 1 year the authorization of the Assassination
Records Review Board, in order to allow the Board to finish
reviewing and publicly releasing the Federal Government's
records, relating to the 1963 assassination of President John
F. Kennedy, and to issue its final report. H.R. 1553 extends
the Review Board's September 30, 1997, termination date to
September 30, 1998. This legislation authorizes $1.6 million in
fiscal year 1998 for that purpose. The President's fiscal year
1998 budget requested the 1-year authorization extension and
additional funding.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1553 was introduced by
Chairman Dan Burton on May 8, 1997, and referred to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. On May 13, 1997,
H.R. 1553 was referred to the Subcommittee on National
Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice. The
subcommittee favorably reported H.R. 1553 by voice vote on June
4, 1997, to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
On June 11, 1997, the committee favorably reported H.R. 1553 to
the House of Representatives by voice vote. The bill passed the
House under suspension of the rules on June 23, 1997. On June
25, 1997 the Senate passed H.R. 1553 without amendment by
unanimous consent. The bill was signed by the President on July
3, 1997, becoming Public Law 105-25.
d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1553
on June 4, 1997. The following witnesses testified before the
subcommittee: The Honorable Louis Stokes, U.S. House of
Representatives; the Honorable John R. Tunheim, chair,
Assassination Records Review Board, Washington, DC; Mr. Steven
D. Tilley, chief of the Access and Freedom of Information
Staff, chief of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection, National Archives and Records Administration,
College Park, MD; Mr. Max Holland, author and contributing
editor of Wilson Quarterly, Washington, DC; and Mr. Bruce
Hitchcock, Government and U.S. history teacher, Noblesville
High School, Noblesville, IN.
In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Dennis
Hastert expressed his support for H.R. 1553, as did the ranking
subcommittee minority member, Thomas Barrett. Congressman
Stokes described his experiences as chairman of the House
Select Committee on Assassinations (which investigated the 1968
assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as the
1963 assassination of President Kennedy) in the late 1970's. He
also discussed his sponsorship of the 1992 legislation which
created the Assassination Records Review Board.
John Tunheim, the chair of the Assassination Records Review
Board, outlined the work of the Review Board to date and the
Board's plans for completing its review of the CIA's and FBI's
documents. As noted in House Report 105-138, the section
entitled ``Background and Need for the Legislation,'' the
Review Board has acted to transfer more than 14,000 documents
to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection (JFK Collections) at the National Archives and
Records Administration. Mr. Tunheim stated that the Review
Board needs additional time to review the CIA's sequestered
collections and the FBI's assassination records, as well as to
finish reviewing records from several Federal agencies. These
agencies include the Secret Service, the National Security
Agency, and selected congressional committees, including the
Senate Intelligence Committee. One additional year will allow
the Review Board sufficient time to continue searching for
additional assassination records held by Federal agencies,
local governments, and private citizens. Mr. Tunheim told the
subcommittee that he was confident that the Review Board could
finish its work and issue a final report by the end of fiscal
year 1998, or on September 30, 1998. The Review Board provided
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight with a time
line outlining plans for review completion.
Steven Tilley, chief of the JFK Collection at the National
Archives, expressed his strong support for H.R. 1553. Mr.
Tilley explained how the JFK Collection has grown from
approximately 450 cubic feet in December 1992, to more than
1,600 cubic feet today. He also described how the National
Archives made documents in the JFK Collection available to the
public on the Internet, as well as at the National Archives'
College Park, MD facility.
Max Holland and Bruce Hitchcock both strongly supported
H.R. 1553. Mr. Holland is currently writing a book about the
Warren Commission, and he has found the JFK Collection to be
invaluable to his research. He believed that publicly releasing
the Kennedy assassination documents would show Americans that
the Federal Government has nothing to hide, and while
prematurely ending the board's review would have the opposite
effect. Hitchcock spoke about the enduring public interest in
Kennedy's assassination, and Hitchcock expressed his view that
the Federal Government had a responsibility to release all
President documents about the assassination to the public.
There was general agreement among the witnesses and
subcommittee that the public release of the Kennedy
assassination documents is important in reducing cynicism about
the Government and restoring citizens trust. Additionally,
subcommittee members and witnesses discussed how the Kennedy
assassination and the Review Board's subsequent efforts to
publicly release these documents could affect the Federal
Government's handling of other highly sensitive matters, both
now and in the future.
3. H.R. 2610, Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--Office of National Drug Control
Policy Reauthorization Act of 1997, amends the National
Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) to add
and revise definitions. The bill re-establishes the
responsibilities of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
and revises its responsibilities to include the development of
national drug control policy, coordination and oversight of the
implementation of such policy, assessment and certification of
the adequacy of national drug control programs and the budget
for those programs, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of
such programs. H.R. 2610 revises the provisions concerning the
Deputy Director offices and responsibilities.
H.R. 2610 sets forth or modifies provisions regarding the
responsibilities and coordination of national drug control
program agencies and the drug control budget request
certification process. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture
to annually submit an assessment of the acreage of illegal drug
cultivation in the United States. In addition, the bill revises
provisions regarding the National Drug Control Strategy to
require: (1) the President to submit to the Congress by
February 1, 1997, a strategy which sets forth a comprehensive
plan, covering a period of not more than 10 years, for reducing
drug abuse and the consequences of drug abuse in the United
States, by limiting the availability of and reducing the demand
for illegal drugs; and (2) the Director of Office of National
Drug Control Policy will submit annual reports on progress in
implementing the Strategy. The bill permits the President to
submit a revised Strategy that meets the requirements of this
act under specified conditions.
The measure requires the Director of the National Drug
Control Policy to submit a description of the national drug
control performance measurement system. This will require the
inclusion of a description of any modifications made during the
preceding year to the performance measurement system to be
included in each annual report.
In addition, H.R. 2610 establishes the President's Council
on Counter-Narcotics to advise and assist the President in: (1)
providing direction and oversight for the national drug control
strategy, including relating drug control policy to other
national security interests and establishing priorities; and
(2) ensuring coordination among Federal agencies concerning the
implementation of the President's national drug control
strategy. It also requires the Director to serve as the
executive director of the Council, the senior drug control
policy official in the executive branch, and the chief drug
control policy spokesman for the President.
(Sec. 3) Sets forth drug interdiction reporting
requirements relating to the budget process.
The first of the six additional reporting requirements is a
one-time requirement that ONDCP submit a plan to Congress to
return the United States to what would be considered a 1960's
level of drug use--namely, a return to use by no more than 3
percent of the population, approximately half the rate we are
experiencing today--by December 31, 2001. The second is a semi-
annual evaluation of each National Drug Control Program
agencies progress toward reaching the aforementioned goal,
submitted to Congress by the Director of ONDCP. Third, H.R.
2610 requires that each National Drug Control Program agency
submit annually to ONDCP a detailed accounting of all money
scored as drug money. To ensure the validity of these numbers,
this provision mandates that the report be authenticated by the
Inspector General of each agency. Fourth, this bill requires
the Director of ONDCP to submit annually to Congress a summary
of the pre-OMB budget request of each National Drug Control
Program agency. Fifth, this bill requires the Director to
submit to Congress an annual evaluation of each High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area [HIDTA] including a justification for
continuing resource allocations. Finally, H.R. 2610 requires
the Director of ONDCP to report to Congress any need for future
inter-agency reprogramming, and any which occurred in the
previous quarter.
Additional Positions.--H.R. 2610 creates three additional
positions within ONDCP and reorganizes the office to provide
better leadership in the four areas of coordination: supply
reduction, demand reduction, intelligence, and State and local
affairs. The three additional positions are: Deputy Director
for State and Local Affairs, Deputy Director of Intelligence,
and Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. All of the positions created shall be congressionally
approved and nominations must be submitted to the Senate no
later than 90 days after the enactment of this bill.
Expansion of Powers and Responsibilities of the Director.--
This Congress has established a realistic end goal that has
long been missing---specifically, ONDCP must achieve 3 percent
drug use (or a lower figure) across the United States within 4
years. In order to effectively coordinate this goal, this bill
augments the Director's authority over the National Drug
Control Program agencies and increases the responsibility he
holds as the Nations Drug Czar.
One of the fundamental powers imbued in any Director is a
degree of influence over the funding of all anti-drug agencies.
With this in mind, H.R. 2610 allows the Director of ONDCP, with
the consent of the authorizing and appropriating committees of
Congress, to reprogram 5 percent of the effected National Drug
Control Program agencies budgets. This allows the Director to
increase funding for programs which prove to be affective and
cut funding for those that do not.
As coordinator of the U.S. national drug control effort, it
is also imperative that the Director be apprised of all
relevant appointments to anti-drug positions. This bill assures
that the Director is consulted prior to any formal nomination
relating to drug control.
H.R. 2610 tasks the Director with establishing Federal
policies, goals, and performance measures (including specific,
precise, annual targets) for each of the National Drug Control
Program agencies. These targets and goals must specify
``milestone dates'' by which a portion of the ultimate goal is
achieved, in order to track the progress (or lack of progress)
of each agency. This bill lays the foundation for a system that
will allow Congress to foresee and address any deviation from
time frame.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2610 was introduced by
Congressman J. Dennis Hastert on October 6, 1997, and referred
to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight the
same day. On October 7, 1997, the committee approved H.R. 2610,
as amended, favorably by voice vote and forwarded it to the
House. On October 21, 1997, H.R. 2610 was called up by the
House and passed by voice vote under the suspension of the
rules.
The Senate received the bill and referred it to the
Committee on the Judiciary on October 22, 1997. On November 6,
1997, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered the bill to be
favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute. Also on November 6, 1997, the bill was placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar
No. 273.
d. Hearings.--The subcommittee held two hearings relating
to the ONDCP Reauthorization bill. The first hearing was held
on May 1, 1997, entitled, ``Reauthorization of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy.'' Testimony was received from
General Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, and Norman J. Rabkin, Director of
Administration of Justice Issues of the General Accounting
Office [GAO]. General McCaffrey outlined his responsibility to
coordinate the National Drug Control Program agencies and their
involvement in the war on drugs. He discussed the 32 objectives
and 5 goals of ONDCP in 1997, and progress made toward them
since his ascension to office in February 1996. ONDCP stated
goals are: to reduce the availability of drugs; reduce drug-
related crime; reduce health and social problems associated
with drug use; shield U.S. borders from drug transshipment; and
focus on educating young people about the dangers of drug
abuse. Mr. Rabkin briefed Members on the numerous reports that
the GAO had completed over the recent years on the Nation's
drug control efforts. He reiterated the need for centralized
coordination and accountability for the Nation's efforts.
On June 25, 1997, the subcommittee held a hearing entitled,
``Effectiveness of Counterdrug Technology Coordination at
ONDCP.'' Testimony was received from Mr. Albert Brandenstein,
chief scientist, Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
[CTAC] at the Office of National Drug Control Policy; Mr. Ray
Mintz, Director, Applied Technology Division, U.S. Customs
Service; Mr. Leonard Wolfson, Director, Demand Reduction
Systems, Department of Defense Drug Enforcement Policy and
Support, Office of the Secretary of Defense; and Mr. David
Cooper, Associate Director, National Security and International
Affairs Division, General Accounting Office. Mr. Brandenstein
reiterated the mission of CTAC, which is to ``. . . identify,
define, and prioritize short-, medium-, and long-term
scientific and technological needs of Federal, State, and local
drug enforcement agencies to oversee and coordinate drug
technology initiatives with Federal, civilian, and military
departments . . .'' Both Mr. Mintz and Mr. Wolfson testified of
their cooperation with CTAC and the successful and unsuccessful
missions that they have embarked upon to assist in the
counterdrug effort. Mr. Cooper discussed the differing views
that ONDCP and Customs have had on the direction of long-range
technology. Mr. Cooper noted the need for ONDCP to be able to
exert authority as a coordinating agency over the Nation's
counterdrug efforts.
Subcommittee on the Postal Service
1. H.R. 22, The Postal Reform Act of 1997.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--The subcommittee held extensive
hearings on Postal Reform during the 104th Congress and a broad
range of postal stakeholders testified at that time.
(Activities of the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, Report 104-874, January 1997.) The current bill,
H.R. 22, was introduced at the beginning of this session and
reflected the previous legislation which had been enacted in
the 104th Congress, including increased salaries for the
Governors of the Postal Service and the establishment of the
Office of the Inspector General. A major focus of the
legislation is reform of the current ratemaking process. The
current structure as enacted by the Postal Reorganization Act
of 1970, removed Congress from the ratemaking process by
implementing a cost-based ratemaking system whereby rates are
based on the cost of providing a specific service. The
legislation divides postal products into competitive and
noncompetitive categories. For noncompetitive postal products,
H.R. 22 updates this rate cap pricing system.
The purpose of this hearing was to determine what, if any,
inflation index should be used as the benchmark and whether a
factor representing productivity gains in the economy should be
applied against this inflation marker. The legislation gives
new authorities to the Postal Rate Commission for ensuring
against service and delivery degradation. It is imperative to
achieve a rate-setting procedure which protects captive
customers from undue bias in rates while recognizing demand
factor in pricing postal products. Expectations for postal
service have changed over the past 27 years and conflicting
demands have been placed on the Postal Service due to
technological and competitive changes. H.R. 22 addresses these
concerns. Six nationally renowned economists testified and
responded to oral and written questions for the record. John
Kwoka of George Washington University testified that over the
past 10 to 15 years price caps have rapidly replaced cost-based
ratemaking as the plan for monopolies and companies. Most State
public utility commissions have adopted price caps or similar
performance-based plans. The example of AT&T's success with
price caps was touted. However, not all price cap regimes work
equally well, depending on the circumstances of the company
utilizing the method. A good price cap plan should work to the
benefit of both the consumer and the provider. The consumer
looks for lower prices which the company must provide by
instituting efficiencies without eroding service quality, while
motivating managers and employees to attain these efficiencies
through compensation and rewards.
Kenneth Rose, senior economist at the National Regulatory
Research Institute, testified that price caps are seen as a
superior way to regulate as opposed to traditional cost of
service methods. In the field of electricity regulation, price
caps have held down costs and prices and increased
productivity; though possibility for degradation of service
quality exists it is not regarded as an insurmountable problem.
There are differences between electric utilities and the
Postal Service which may cause different results in utilizing
price caps. However, generally, price caps create better
incentives for cost reduction and control by severing the link
between the rate which can be charged and the costs. Price caps
are simple to administer compared with cost-based regulation;
it allows for more price flexibility to arrange terms with
customers and protects customers with few or no practical
alternatives; and price caps can be used as a transition tool
to a competitive market. Price caps work best in a competitive
market. However, if there was significant competition, price
caps would not be necessary and the market could be deregulated
but, depending on the product, it may not be feasible to have a
completely deregulated market. An additional impediment in
implementing a price cap regime to the Postal Service is the
fact that the Service has no stockholders to whom dividends are
paid when the company gains profit and are penalized when
profits are lower.
Joel Popkin, president of Joel Popkin and Co. testified
that the performance of the Postal Service since its
reorganization in 1971 has been a bit better than the U.S.
private business. The wage earnings of a typical postal worker
(at level 5) lags behind private sector wages. He said that
postal market shares have been growing, labor productivity has
risen, postal rates have risen below the Consumer Price Index,
but less than CPI for services. Mr. Popkin suggested that since
the Postal Service is a service industry, should a price cap
regime be instituted, the index selected should be CPI for
consumer services. However, he concluded that price caps in an
industry which is labor intensive is equivalent to wage caps
and there is no need to alter the regulatory environment since
the Postal Service is doing well.
Gregory Sidak, resident scholar, American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research, stated that because the
Postal Service is a not-for-profit enterprise, it is difficult
to relate how a for-profit, shareholder price-cap experience
would work for a not-for-profit business. Though H.R. 22
replicates some private-sector incentives, it does not go far
enough to maximize profits and minimize costs. He asked why not
privatize the Postal Service. Mr. Sidak discussed the two
monopolies enjoyed by the Postal Service: Private Express
Statutes (enacted in the 1840's) and the mailbox monopoly
(enacted in 1934). In defining ``letters'' and ``packets'' the
Postal Service has the power to define the scope of its own
monopoly. He raised the issue that both these monopolies appear
in the U.S. Criminal Code because they are criminal
prohibitions. Because the definitions are vague, as a matter of
due process the statute may be void and unenforceable.
Furthermore, he asserted, the mailbox monopoly makes it
possible for the Postal Service to raise the costs of its
rivals in making deliveries to their customers. He testified in
favor of repealing the Private Express Statutes, the mailbox
monopoly and other statutory privileges. He also recommended
that the burden of universal service be removed and all
services of the Postal Service be subject to antitrust
oversight, pointing to commercialization of the Postal Service.
However, if that was not expedient he recommended that there
should be an increase of regulatory oversight of the Service,
including enhancing the powers of the Postal Rate Commission,
and the ability for the Service to initiate and offer postal
products.
Professor Michael Crew of Rutgers University and Professor
Paul Kleindorfer of the University of Pennsylvania presented
joint testimony. Changes to the Postal Service are due because
of exogenous factors such as technological change which are
revolutionizing traditional communications systems. To remain
viable, postal administrations worldwide are undergoing reform
and becoming more businesslike. Mr. Crew suggested
privatization of the Postal Service with a labor force subject
to the right to strike and lock out provisions--not binding
arbitration. He reported that price cap regulations have worked
in Great Britain because the industries are now privatized. For
price cap regulations to succeed, there must be residual
claimants. Absent these residual claimants, management lacks
proper incentives to make profits and increase the value of
shareholders' investments. Therefore, price caps for a publicly
held enterprise whose employees are subject to binding
arbitration may prove to be problematic.
Mr. Kleindorfer referred to concerns he had with the
product baskets and the uniform applicability of adjustment
factors within these baskets. He proposed a more flexible
definition which would be used only for monopoly products and
price regulation would be applicable only to monopoly services.
The more flexible definition and the use of indexing within the
regulated basket would give the Postal Service an opportunity
to compete and innovate. Products would be divided into
regulated and nonregulated groups.
c. Benefits.--Improvements in ratemaking, with assurance of
nondiscrimination in rates to users of monopoly products of the
Postal Service, will enhance mail service to all users.
Instituting a flexible ratemaking structure should make postal
products more competitive, which benefits all Americans.
Witnesses further testified that a properly constructed price
cap regime initiates incentives to control costs, thereby
helping attract and retain postal customers. It is important
that all stakeholders come together to preserve the one
institution charged with providing universal mail service to
all 50 States and territories.
d. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 22, was introduced by
Subcommittee Chairman John M. McHugh, (R-NY), on January 7,
1997. The legislation was referred to the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight on January 22, 1997, and
referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal Service. A
legislative hearing was held on April 16, 1997.
e. Hearings.--Hearing entitled, ``H.R. 22, The Postal
Reform Act of 1997'' was held on April 16, 1997.
2. H.R. 282, To Designate the United States Post Office building
located at 153 East 110th Street, New York, New York, as the
``Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office Building''.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--The bill designates the U.S. Post
Office building located at 153 East 110th Street, New York, NY,
as the ``Oscar Garcia Rivera Post Office Building.'' This
legislation honors the first Puerto Rican elected to public
office in the continental United States. After graduating from
high school, Mr. Rivera came to New York and worked at the post
office in City Hall while attending college. He was
instrumental in organizing and establishing the Association of
Puerto Rican and Hispanic Employees within the Post Office
Department. He was elected assemblyman in the State of New York
in 1937, and served until 1940. Mr. Rivera returned to Puerto
Rico where he continued to be known for his commitment to
protect the rights of manual laborers and remained a role model
and a community leader.
c. Legislative History/Status.--The legislation was
introduced January 7, 1997, by Representative Serrano of New
York and was cosponsored by the entire New York House
Delegation, as required by the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight. The subcommittee forwarded the measure to the
committee. On October 7, 1997, H.R. 282 was considered by the
committee and ordered reported by voice vote. On October 21,
1997, the bill was called up by the House under suspension of
the rules and it passed by voice vote. The Senate received the
bill on October 22, 1997, and the Committee on Governmental
Affairs ordered the bill to be reported favorably on November
5. H.R. 282 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November
9, 1997, and became Public Law No. 105-87.
d. Hearings.--None were held on this legislation.
3. H.R. 499, To designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service under construction at 7411 Barlite Boulevard in San
Antonio, Texas, as the ``Frank M. Tejeda Post Office
Building''.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 499 designates the facility of
the U.S. Postal Service under construction at 7411 Barlite
Boulevard in San Antonio, TX, as the ``Frank M. Tejeda Post
Office Building''. The measure honors the late Representative
Frank Tejeda who died in office while serving his 2nd term as
the first elected Representative from the 28th District of
Texas. Representative Tejeda was awarded the Purple Heart, the
Bronze Star, the Commandant's Trophy, the Marine Corps
Association Award, among others, for his service with the
Marine Corps during the Vietnam conflict. Although he was a
high school drop out, Representative Tejeda earned the highest
academic average in Marine Corps history when he attended
officer candidate school. He later received a J.D. from the
University of California, Berkeley, a master's degree in public
administration from Harvard and a master of law from Yale. He
served in the Texas' State Legislature in both the House and
Senate from 1977 until 1992, when he came to Congress.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 499 was introduced by
Representative Bonilla on February 4, 1997, and supported by
all members of the House delegation of the State of Texas. The
bill was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight on February 4, 1997, and then referred to the
Subcommittee on the Postal Service on February 5, 1997. The
House called up the legislation under suspension of the rules
on February 5th, and the measure was passed by a recorded vote
of 400-0 (Roll No. 9). The Senate received the bill on February
6, 1997, and was referred to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs. The committee discharged the bill, and the Senate
passed H.R. 499 by unanimous consent and the bill was cleared
for the White House. The President signed the measure on March
3, 1997, to become Public Law No. 105-4.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.
4. H.R. 681, To designate the United States Post Office building
located at 313 East Broadway in Glendale, California, as the
``Carlos J. Moorhead Post Office Building''.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 681 designates the U.S. Post
Office building located at 313 East Broadway in Glendale, CA as
the ``Carlos J. Moorhead Post Office Building''. The
legislation honors Representative Moorhead who served in the
U.S. House of Representatives from 1972 until he retired in
1997. While a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr.
Moorhead became chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property. He is a veteran of World War II and a
retired Judge Advocate Lieutenant Colonel.
c. Legislative History/Status.--This legislation was
introduced by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois on February
11, 1997, and was cosponsored by all Members of the California
House delegation, (the State in which the post office will be
located). H.R. 681 was referred to the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight and subsequently referred to
the Subcommittee on the Postal Service. On October 7, 1997, the
committee considered and favorably order the bill to be
reported to the House by voice vote. The measure was called up
by the House on October 21, 1997, under suspension of the
rules, and was passed on voice vote. H.R. 681 was received by
the Senate on October 22, 1997, and referred to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs, which reported the bill favorably on
November 5. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on
November 9, and the President signed the legislation on
November 19, 1997, to become Public Law No. 105-88.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this measure.
5. H.R. 1057, To designate the building in Indianapolis, Indiana, which
houses operations of the Indianapolis Main Post Office as the
``Andrew Jacobs, Jr. Post Office Building''.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1057 designates the building
in Indianapolis, IN, which houses the operations of the Circle
City Station Post Office as the ``Andrew Jacobs, Jr. Post
Office Building''. The legislation honors Representative Andrew
Jacobs who served in the House for 30 years. After serving in
the Marine Corps during the Korean conflict, he received his
undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Indiana.
He served in the Indiana State House and was elected to
represent his district in the 89th Congress through the 104th
Congress, with a break during the 93rd Congress. During his
tenure in Congress, he chaired the Social Security Subcommittee
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1057 was introduced by
Chairman Burton on March 13, 1997, and was cosponsored by the
House delegation of the State of Indiana. It was referred to
the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and
subsequently to the Subcommittee on the Postal Service. The
subcommittee considered and marked up the bill on April 8,
1997. H.R. 1057 was amended by the subcommittee to reflect the
name of the facility, from ``Circle City Station Post Office''
to ``Indianapolis Main Post Office''. The legislation, as
amended, was passed favorably by voice vote by the subcommittee
and ordered forwarded to the committee for consideration. The
committee considered and marked up the bill on May 16, 1997,
and ordered it reported to the House. H.R. 1057 was called up
by the House under suspension of the rules, and the bill as
amended was adopted by the House on a Yea-Nay Vote (413-0). The
bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee
on Governmental Affairs. On October 9, the committee discharged
the bill and was passed by the Senate on November 9, 1997, by
unanimous consent. The President signed the legislation on
November 19, 1997, and it became Public Law No. 105-90.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on the legislation.
6. H.R. 1058, To designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service under construction at 150 West Margaret Drive in Terre
Haute, Indiana, as the ``John T. Myers Post Office Building''.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1058 designates the facility
of the U.S. Postal Service under construction at 150 West
Margaret Drive in Terre Haute, IN, as the ``John T. Myers Post
Office Building''. The legislation honors Representative John
T. Myers, who was elected by the 7th District of Indiana to
serve in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 90th Congress
and served until his retirement following the 104th Congress.
He served on the Committee on Appropriations, and was chairman
of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for 2
years. He was ranking member of the House Ethics Committee in
the 1980's, and served as ranking member of the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service in 1993 and 1994.
c. Legislative History/Status.--The bill was introduced by
Chairman Burton on March 13, 1997. It was referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on March 13 and
subsequential to the Subcommittee on Postal Service on March
14, 1997. The subcommittee considered and marked-up the
legislation on April 8, 1997, and forwarded it to the full
committee by voice vote. On May 16, 1997, the committee
considered and marked-up the legislation and ordered it
favorably reported by voice vote to the House. The House called
up the legislation under suspension of the rules on June 17,
1997, and H.R. 1508 passed the House by Yea-Nay Vote: 416-0
(Roll No. 205). The legislation was received by the Senate on
June 18, 1997, and referred to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs. On October 9, 1997, the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs discharged the bill and the Senate passed
the bill by unanimous consent on November 9, 1997. The
President signed the legislation on November 19, 1997, and it
became Public Law No. 105-91.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were on the legislation.
7. H.R. 1231, the ``Post Office Relocation Act of 1997.''
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--This legislation amends title 39,
United States Code, to establish guidelines for the renovation,
relocation, closing, or consolidation of post offices, and for
other purposes. Generally, this legislation addresses the issue
of emergency closings of post offices. The GAO submitted
comments on this issue on April 23, 1997.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1231 was introduced by
Representative Blumenauer on April 8, 1997. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
and subsequential referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal
Service.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were conducted on this
legislation.
8. H.R. 1254, A bill to designate the United States Post Office
building located at Bennett and Kansas Avenue in Springfield,
Missouri, as the ``John N. Griesemer Post Office Building''.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1254 designated the U.S. Post
Office building located at Bennett and Kansas Avenue in
Springfield, MO, as the ``John N. Griesemer Post Office
Building''. The measure honors John N. Griesemer, a native of
Missouri who served as an engineering officer in the U.S. Air
Force from 1954 until 1956. After his discharge from the Air
Force, he joined his family's business where he served as
president and as director until his death in 1993. Mr.
Griesemer also founded and served as director and president of
several companies in Missouri and was an active participant in
his community. In 1984, President Reagan named John Griesemer
to serve on the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors. He was
elected chairman of the Board in 1987 and 1988, and served for
3 years as the Board's vice chairman.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 1254 was introduced by
Representative Blunt on April 9, 1997, and was supported by all
members of the House delegation of the State of Missouri. The
bill was referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal Service on
April 14, 1997, of the committee. The subcommittee considered
the legislation on June 5, 1997, and amended the legislation to
reflect the accurate address of the facility, 1919 West Bennett
Street, which was designated by the city after the legislation
was introduced. The subcommittee voted on the legislation as
amended by voice vote and forwarded it to the full committee.
The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
discharged the bill and H.R. 1254 was called up by the House
under suspension of the rules. It was considered by the House
and the measure passed the House as amended by voice vote on
September 16, 1997. H.R. 1254 was received in the Senate on
September 17, 1997, and referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs. On November 13, the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs discharged the bill and it passed the
Senate by unanimous consent the same day and cleared for the
White House. The President signed the bill on December 2, 1997,
to become Public Law No. 105-131.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.
9. H.R. 1585, A bill to allow postal patrons to contribute to funding
for breast cancer research through the voluntary purchase of
certain specially issued United States postage stamps.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 1585, the Stamp Out Breast
Cancer Act, as amended permits postal patrons to contribute to
funding for breast cancer research through the voluntary
purchase of specially issued U.S. postal stamps. The rate will
be determined by the Governors of the Postal Service and
offered as an alternative to the regular First-Class rate of
postage. Such rates will be equal to regular First-Class rate
of postage, plus a differential not to exceed 26 percent of the
First Class rate. After the sale of specially designated
stamps, 70 percent of the funds are designated to be available
for breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health
and the remainder to the Department of Defense, payments to be
made at least twice a year. The Postmaster General is required
to include information regarding the operation of the act in
each annual report to the Board of Governors. The act is
terminated at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the
date on which the postage stamps are first made available to
the public. The Comptroller General is required to report to
Congress regarding the act, no later than 3 months, but not
earlier than 6 months, before the end of the period covered by
the act.
b. Legislative History/Status.--This legislation was
introduced by Representative Susan Molinari (R-NY) on May 13,
1997. It was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, in addition to the Committees on Commerce, and
National Security, for a period to be determined by the Speaker
for consideration of the provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the respective committees. On May 19, 1997, the
legislation was referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal
Service and on May 21, it was referred to the Committee on
Commerce, Subcommittee on Health and Environment. H.R. 1585 was
also referred to the Committee on National Security,
Subcommittee on Military Readiness on June 5, 1997. The House
called up the bill under suspension of the rules on July 22,
1997, and passed the Houses as amended by Subcommittee Chairman
McHugh by a record vote of 422-3 (Roll No. 299). The Senate
received the legislation on July 23, 1997, and the measure
passed the Senate by unanimous consent and it was cleared for
the White House. The President signed the legislature on August
13, 1997, to become Public Law No. 105-41.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on the measure.
10. H.R. 2013, To designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 551 Kingstown Road in South Kingstown, Rhode
Island, as the ``David B. Champagne Post Office Building''.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 2013 designates the facility
of the U.S. Postal Service located at 551 Kingstown Road in
South Kingstown, RI, as the ``David B. Champagne Post Office
Building''. The bill recognizes the valiant efforts of David B.
Champagne, a 19 year old Marine, born in Wakefield, RI, and
after completing high school, joined the Marine Corps and lost
his life in the Korean conflict after saving the lives of his
fellow Marines. Corporal Champagne was posthumously awarded the
Medal of Honor by President Eisenhower for his gallantry above
the call of duty in action against the enemy.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2013 was introduced by
Representative Weygand on June 23, 1997, and cosponsored by the
House delegation from the State of Rhode Island. The bill was
referred to the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on June 23, 1997, and referred to the Subcommittee on
the Postal Service on June 26, 1997. The committee considered
the bill on October 7, 1997, and was favorably ordered reported
to the House by voice vote. The House called up the bill under
suspension of the rules on October 21, 1997, and it passed by
voice vote. H.R. 2013 was received in the Senate on October 22,
1997, and was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on
October 24, 1997. The President signed the bill on November 10,
1997, becoming Public Law No. 105-70.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.
11. H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (also known as the Budget
Reconciliation bill).
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-149, June
24, 1997.
b. Summary of Measure.--This bill provides for
reconciliation pursuant to subsections (b)(1) and (c) of
section 105 of the House Concurrent Resolution 84 on the budget
for fiscal year 1998. The Subcommittee on the Postal Service
considered legislation repealing the authorization of
appropriations for transitional expenses to the U.S. Postal
Service pursuant to 39 U.S.C. Sec. 2004. This section provides
reimbursement for payments to the employee compensation fund
based on obligations incurred when the U.S. Postal Service was
the Post Office Department. Until enactment of H.R. 2015, the
Postal Service received an annual appropriation of
approximately $35 million to cover expenses associated with
workers' compensation liabilities incurred prior to Postal
Reorganization in 1970.
This portion of the Budget Reconciliation bill, Section
6001, does not relieve the Postal Service from having to
reimburse the Employee Compensation Fund. Under this measure,
the financial obligations of the former Post Office Department
pertaining to the Employee Compensation Fund becomes those of
the U.S. Postal Service and the Postal Service Fund. This
provision mandates that the Postal Service be required to make
payments for employees of the former Post Office Department to
the Department of Labor from its own revenues, without Federal
reimbursement. Enactment of the legislation will not affect the
payment made to individuals receiving benefits from the
Employee Compensation Fund. The measure stipulated that if the
appropriation for funding the transitional appropriations is
enacted prior to the enactment of this measure, then the Postal
Service Fund will reimburse the U.S. Treasury an amount equal
to the appropriation it has received. In addition, technical
changes were made in this legislation.
c. Legislative History/Status.--The subcommittee considered
the proposal and held a markup of the legislation on June 5,
1997, and favorably ordering it reported to the House Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight, where the measure was
approved the same day. The committee forwarded the provision to
the House Committee on the Budget and it was included as
Section 6001 of H.R. 2015. The Committee on the Budget reported
the legislation to the House, as report No. 105-149, on June
24, 1997, and it was called up by special rule and considered
by the House on June 25, 1997. The measure passed the House as
amended by a vote of 270-162 (Roll Call Vote No. 240). After
passing the Senate, the House and Senate agreed to the
Conference Report and the measure was presented to the
President who signed H.R. 2015. The legislation became Public
Law 105-33 on August 5, 1997.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this provision.
12. H.R. 2129, To designate the United States Post Office located at
150 North 3rd Street in Steubenville, Ohio, as the ``Douglas
Applegate Post Office''.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 2129 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 150 North 3rd Street in Steubenville, OH as
the ``Douglas Applegate Post Office''. Mr. Applegate was
elected to the 95th Congress by Ohio's 18th Congressional
District and re-elected each term until his retirement after
the 103d Congress. Representative Applegate was known as an
advocate of America's veterans and was the chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Compensation, Pensions, and
Insurance.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2129 was introduced by
Representative Traficant on July 9, 1997, and the bill was
referred to the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. On July 15, the legislation was referred to the
subcommittee on the Postal Service. The committee considered
the legislation on October 7, 1997, and was ordered to be
reported by voice vote to the House. The House considered the
legislation under suspension of the rules on October 21, 1997,
and it was passed by voice vote. The Senate received the bill
on October 22, 1997, and referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs. The committee ordered the legislation to
be reported favorably to the Senate on November 5, 1997. On
November 9, 1997, H.R. 2129 was passed by the Senate by
unanimous consent and was cleared for the White House. The
President signed the legislation on November 19, 1997, and it
became Public Law No. 105-97.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.
13. H.R. 2378, Making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the
United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the
President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.
a. Report Number and Date.--House Report No. 105-240,
August 5, 1997. Supplemental report filed September 3, 1997;
Pt. II. Supplemental report filed September 11, 1997; Pt. III.
Conference Report filed September 29, 1997; 105-284.
b. Summary of Measure.--Title II of H.R. 2378, the
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations
bill relates to payments to the Postal Service Fund for revenue
foregone on free and reduced rate mail for non-funded
liabilities. The Postal Service operates on funds generated
through the sale of its goods and services and has not received
an appropriation for operating expenses since 1982. The current
appropriation is directed for specific programs and not
intended for general postal operation and programs.
Section 519 of the bill provided that no funds appropriated
for the U.S. Postal Service under this or any other act may be
expended by the Postal Service to expand the Global Package
Link Service [GPL]. This language applied to the current
appropriations and incorporated by reference the permanent
appropriation authority contained in title 39 of the United
States Code section 2401(a), thus violating the Rules of the
House of Representatives clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits
reporting a provision which changes existing law. Subcommittee
Chairman McHugh raised a point of order on the House floor,
which was conceded by Mr. Kolbe, chairman, Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, Committee on
Appropriations.
The subject of the amendment, Global Package Link Service,
is a specialized bulk shipping service for mail order goods
which provides international air export parcel delivery service
for postal customers. These companies rely on the U.S. Postal
Service to provide timely services to worldwide customers. The
program is funded solely through ratepayer revenues. GPL's
enhanced technology is utilized by American companies in
conducting their business in international markets. These
companies rely on the U.S. Postal Service to provide timely
services to worldwide customers. Affected companies, and those
who do not as yet utilize the service, claim that curtailing
the program would adversely impact their ability to compete and
expand in lucrative international markets.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2378 was introduced by
Mr. Kolbe, chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service,
and General Government, Committee on Appropriations on August
5, 1997. The measure was called up as a privileged matter in
the House on September 17, 1997, and was passed as amended by
Roll Call Vote No. 403 of 231-192. The measure was passed the
same day in the Senate, as amended, in lieu of S. 1023.
Conferences were held and both the Senate and House agreed to
the conference report and signed the enrolled measure. The
measure was presented to the President, and became Public Law
105-61.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were conducted by the
subcommittee on this legislation.
14. H.R. 2564, To designate the United States Post Office located at
450 North Centre Street in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, as the
``Peter J. McCloskey Postal Facility''.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--H.R. 2564 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 450 North Centre Street in Pottsville, PA, as
the ``Peter J. McCloskey Postal Facility''. The naming of the
Post Office honors Peter McCloskey, a Pennsylvania native who
joined the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II. In 1967, he
was selected to join the Post Office Department as Acting
Postmaster of the city of Pottsville and then was appointed
Postmaster. Mr. McCloskey has been active in the Pottsville
community for more than 60 years.
c. Legislative History/Status.--H.R. 2564 was introduced on
September 26, 1997, by Representative Holden and cosponsored by
the entire Pennsylvania House delegation. It was referred to
the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and then
referred to the Subcommittee on the Postal Service on September
30, 1997. On October 7, 1997, the legislation considered and
favorably reported to the House by voice vote. The measure was
called up by the House under suspension of the rules on October
21, 1997, and it passed the House by voice vote. The Senate
received the bill on October 22, 1997, and referred it to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs. The bill was ordered
reported favorably to the Senate without a report. The
legislation was passed by the Senate on November 9, 1997, by
unanimous consent and presented to the President who signed the
measure into law on November 19, 1997, to become Public Law
105-99.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this measure.
15. S. 1378, A bill to extend the authorization of use of official mail
in the location and recovery of missing children, and for other
purposes.
a. Report Number and Date.--None.
b. Summary of Measure.--S. 1378 extends the authorization
for use of official mail in the location and recovery of
missing children through December 31, 2002. Authorization was
initially approved on August 9, 1985, and extended in October
1992. The present authorization is due to expire at the end of
1997. The legislation enables Members of Congress to mail a
photo and description of missing children, as provided by the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in their
franked mail in efforts to raise public awareness to locate
these children. Currently, 20 Members use this authority.
c. Legislative History/Status.--S. 1378 was introduced by
Senator Warner in the Senate on November 5, 1997, and passed
the Senate by unanimous consent. On November 6, the House
received the measure and referred same to the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, and to the Committee on House
Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. The
House called up the legislation under suspension of the rules
on November 12, 1997, and it passed the House by voice vote.
The measure was presented to the President on November 19,
1997, and signed by the President on December 1, 1997, to
become Public Law 105-126.
d. Hearings.--No hearings were held on this legislation.
B. REVIEW OF LAWS WITHIN COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTION
Standing Committee
1. Review of the Implementation of the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62
During the first session of the 105th Congress, the
committee continued its review of the implementation of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act).
The first phase of the Results Act requires Federal agencies to
submit 5 year strategic plans to Congress by September 30,
1997. The strategic plan is to articulate the agency's
missions, goals, and strategies and serve as the benchmark for
evaluating its future success or failure. Agencies were
required by the Results Act to consult with Congress in
developing their strategic plans.
Congress meant for the Results Act to be a tool for: (1)
measuring the success or failure of government programs; (2)
identifying waste and duplication; and (3) better allocating
resources to get the best return for taxpayers. Lawmakers hoped
the Results Act would fundamentally improve the accountability
and management of Federal programs.
The Republican leadership of the 105th Congress has
encouraged all congressional committees to make Results Act
implementation a priority in their day to day oversight,
authorizing, and appropriating activities, and has taken
additional steps throughout the year to educate and coordinate
Congress in overseeing effective implementation of the Results
Act by executive agencies. The Government Reform and Oversight
Committee has played a crucial role in this process, helping
develop and coordinate the House-wide effort to ensure
congressional consultations with agencies, review draft
strategic plans, and communicate congressional feedback to the
agencies.
As a member of the Results Act coordinating team, the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee also helped author
two bi-cameral congressional reports on the Results Act. The
first was issued in September after congressional teams
conducted a comprehensive examination of draft agency strategic
plans. Congressional staff teams from all congressional
committee jurisdictions were established to consult with and
review the draft strategic plans of the 24 so-called Chief
Financial Officers [CFO] Act agencies, whose combined
expenditures total 98 percent of all Federal outlays. The
September report (``The Results Act: It Matters Now, an Interim
Report'') details the findings of that review and makes
recommendations regarding future Results Act implementation.
A second congressional report was issued in November after
congressional staff teams reviewed agencies' final strategic
plans. That report (``Results Act: It's the Law'') revealed
that, in general, agencies final plans had improved somewhat
over their draft efforts. However, Chairman Dan Burton has
since introduced legislation (H.R. 2883) that would require
agencies to re-submit more compliant plans by the end of
September 1998.
In addition to the coordinating efforts with the
leadership, during the year, the committee held two full
committee hearings on the Results Act in 1997, one on February
12 and the other on October 30. These are described in more
detail in the section entitled I. Matters of Interest, Full
Committee, A. General, 2. Investigations, a.
2. President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992, Public
Law 105-25
This law amends the President John F. Kennedy Assassination
Records Collection Act of 1992 to: (1) extend the termination
date of the Assassination Records Review Board until September
30, 1998; and (2) authorize appropriations for fiscal year
1998.
3. Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as
amended--June 30, 1949, 63 Stat. 377 (the Act) (40 U.S.C.
Section 471 et seq.; Public Law 152, 81st Congress)
This law provides the Federal Government with a system for
procurement of personal property and non-personal services, for
storage and issues of such property, for transportation and
traffic management; for further utilization and disposal of
surplus property, and for management authority was modified in
1985. GSA's original responsibilities were enacted as part of
title 44, U.S. Code. The committee has amended certain sections
of the 1949 Act.
With respect to Title III (Procurement Procedure), H.R.
1670, reported by the committee on August 1, 1995, as House
Report 104-222, Part I, would amend contract solicitation
provisions, provide for preaward debriefings, amend preaward
qualification requirements and replace these provisions with a
contractor performance system; amend all commercial items from
the Truth in Negotiations Act; and apply simplified acquisition
procedures to all commercial items regardless of their dollar
value.
Division D of Public Law 104-106, the Federal Acquisition
Reform Act of 1996, retains the provisions regarding commercial
item purchasing in modified form. The law also maintains the
original language authorizing preaward debriefings for excluded
offerors where appropriate.
Division E of Public Law 104-106, the Information
Technology and Reform Act of 1996, includes a Senate provision
that would require agencies to inventory all agency computer
equipment and to identify excess or surplus property in
accordance with title II of the act. The statement of the
committee of conference on S. 1124, which became Public Law
104-106, contains a direction of the conferees that GSA,
exercising current authority under title II of the act, should
issue regulations that would provide for donation of such
equipment under title II on the basis of this priority: (1)
elementary and secondary schools and schools funded by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs; (2) public libraries; (3) public
colleges and universities; and (4) other entities eligible for
donation under the act.
4. Brooks Automatic Data Processing Act (40 U.S.C. 759)
This provision of law is found at section 111 of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (the Act). It
provides the authority to coordinate and provide for the
purchase, lease, and maintenance of automatic data processing
equipment for all Federal agencies through the Administrator of
General Services. It also provides authority for the General
Services Board of Contract Appeals to review any decision by a
contracting officer that is alleged to violate a statute, a
regulation, or the conditions of a delegation of procurement
authority.
Division E of Public Law 104-106 repeals section 111 of the
Act. It provides authority for the acquisition of information
technology within each of the Federal agencies and gives the
Office of Management and Budget the responsibility for
coordinating government-wide information technology management
and purchasing. It also establishes the General Accounting
Office as the sole independent administrative forum for bid
protests.
5. Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. Section 401 et
seq., 88 Stat. 796, Public Law 93-400)
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy [OFPP] Act
established OFPP within the Office of Management and Budget to
promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the
procurement of property and services by and for the executive
branch of the Federal Government and to provide government-wide
procurement policies, regulations, procedures, and forms.
H.R. 1760, reported by the committee on August 1, 1995, as
House Report 104-222, Part I, would revise the current OFPP Act
to provide for improved definitions of competition
requirements; to establish an alternative quality-based pre-
qualification system for meeting the Government's recurring
needs; to exempt commercial items from the Truth in
Negotiations Act and the Cost Accounting Standards; to add a
new section to encourage the Government's reliance on the
private sector sources for goods and services; to revise and
simplify Procurement Integrity provisions; to remove certain
certification requirements currently in statute and other
regulatory certifications (unless justified); to add a new
section providing that each executive agency establish and
maintain effective value engineering processes and procedures;
and to establish a series of policies and procedures for the
management of the acquisition workforce in civilian agencies.
Division D of Public Law 104-106 contains many of the
provisions of House Report 104-222 in addition to other changes
to the OFPP Act. The provisions of Public Law 104-106 include:
exempting commercial item purchases from the Truth in
Negotiations Act and cost accounting standards; removing
certain unnecessary certification requirements; providing for
the inapplicability of certain procurement laws to commercially
available off-the-shelf items; extending authority for
executive agencies to establish and maintain cost-effective,
value engineering procedures and processes; establishing a
series of policies and procedures for the management of the
acquisition workforce in the civilian agencies. It also repeals
the current procurement integrity provisions and their
certification requirements. New language provides for the
protection of confidential procurement information by
prohibiting both the disclosure and receipt of such information
and imposing criminal and civil penalties for violations. There
also is a limited ban on contacts between Government officials
and industry contractors, as well as government-wide
``revolving door'' restrictions.
6. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (41 U.S.C. 253, 98 Stat.
1175, Public Law 98-369, July 18, 1984)
The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 amended title
III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 to establish a statutory preference for the use of
competitive procedures in awarding Federal contracts for
property or services; to require the use of competitive
procedures by Federal agencies when purchasing goods or
services--sealed or competitive bids; and to direct the head of
each agency to appoint an advocate for competition who will
challenge barriers to competition in the procurement of
property and services by the agency and who will review the
procurement activities of the agency.
Division D of Public Law 104-106 contains language which
retains the current statutory competition standard, but adds a
requirement that the standard is to be implemented in a manner
which is consistent with the government's need to
``efficiently'' fulfill its requirements. Further provisions
are added to allow contracting officials more discretion in
determining the number of proposals in the ``competitive
range,'' to provide for preaward debriefings of unsuccessful
offerors, and to authorize the use of special two-phase
procedures for design and construction of public buildings.
7. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
355, October 13, 1994
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act [FASA] of 1994 was
developed to provide the foundation for establishing
``commercial-like'' procedures within the Federal procurement
system. FASA established a preference for commercial items and
simplified procedures for contracts under $100,000 as well as
addressing a wide spectrum of issues regarding the
administrative burden--on all sides--associated with the
Government's specialized requirements.
H.R. 1670, reported by the committee on August 1, 1995, as
House Report 104-222, Part I, would amend section 5061 of FASA
(41 U.S.C. 413 note) to permit the OFPP Administrator to
exercise the authority granted in FASA to test ``innovative''
procurement procedures without having to wait for the
implementation of other FASA provisions.
Public Law 104-106 authorizes OFPP to test alternative
procurement procedures and removes a requirement that the
testing of these procedures be contingent upon the full
implementation of the Federal Acquisition Computer Network
Electronic Commerce [FACNET] procedures. It also would limit
the linkage between the use of the simplified acquisition
procedures and the full implementation of FACNET.
Subcommittee on the Civil Service
1. The Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 387)
This law provides preferences for veterans in obtaining and
retaining Federal employment. In connection with its
legislative actions regarding H.R. 240 (see section III. A. 1.
of the Subcommittee on the Civil Service), the subcommittee
continued the review of this law that it began in the previous
Congress. The subcommittee concluded that veterans' rights in
reductions in force are often circumvented and, most
importantly, that veterans do not have access to an effective
redress system when their rights have been violated. In
addition, the subcommittee also concluded that veterans
entitled to preference and others who have served honorably in
the armed forces are frequently shut out of competition for
Federal jobs by artificial restrictions on competition. H.R.
240, which Subcommittee Chairman Mica introduced, remedies
these deficiencies.
2. Chapter 87 of Title 5, United States Code
This chapter establishes the Federal Employees Group Life
Insurance program. The subcommittee reviewed these laws in
connection with its examination of FEGLI (see section II. B. 4.
of the Subcommittee on the Civil Service) and its consideration
of H.R. 1316 (see section III. A. 2. of the Subcommittee on the
Civil Service). As a result of its review of this review, the
subcommittee concluded employees should have additional choices
and improved benefits, including the option to choose life
products other than term insurance. Subcommittee Chairman Mica
introduced H.R. 2675 (see section III. A. 4. of the
Subcommittee on the Civil Service) in order to provide those
choices and improvements. In addition, the subcommittee
determined that sections 8705 and 8706 should be amended to
cure an inequity in the FEGLI program by directing OPM to pay
the proceeds of FEGLI life insurance policies in accordance
with certain domestic relations orders and permitting courts to
direct the assignment of such policies to individuals specified
in domestic relations orders.
3. Chapter 89 of Title 5, United States Code
This chapter establishes the FEHBP. The subcommittee
reviewed various provisions in this chapter in connection with
its consideration of H.R. 1836 (see section III. A. 3. of the
Subcommittee on the Civil Service). The subcommittee concluded
that several provisions should be amended to protect the
integrity of the FEHBP, permit certain plans to reenter the
FEHBP after terminating their participation, expedite the
distribution of the reserves of terminated plans, and broaden
the scope of the preemption of State laws in order to
strengthen the ability of national plans to offer uniform
benefits and rates nationwide. In addition, the subcommittee
provided statutory authority to permit certain current and
former employees of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to
receive health care benefits through the FEHBP.
4. Statutes reviewed in connection with Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education appropriations, H.R. 2264, Public Law
105-78
The subcommittee reviewed several title 5 provisions in
connection with its examination of the personnel provisions of
section 211(e) of the ``Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Appropriations Act,
1998,'' relating to the transfer of the Gillis W. Long Hansen's
Disease Center to the State of Louisiana. These provisions
included subchapter III of chapter 83, chapter 84, and 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 5545. In addition, the subcommittee also reviewed Public
Law 104-208 Sec. 101(f) (section 663 of the Treasury, Postal
Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1997) in
connection with this transfer. The subcommittee agreed to
special rules for certain employees at the center to facilitate
the transfer.
5. Statutes reviewed in connection with the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1997, H.R. 2676
a. Chapters 23, 33, 35, 43, 45. 51, 53, 55, 71, 73, and 75
of title 5, United States Code.--The subcommittee reviewed
these statutes in connection with proposed personnel
flexibilities that purport to reform the Internal Revenue
Service in light of abuses revealed during Senate hearings.
6. Statutes reviewed in connection with the Defense Authorization Act
of 1997, H.R. 1119, Public Law 105-85
a. 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2108, 3309(2).--These statutes, which
deal with veterans' preference, were amended to provide
veterans' preference to veterans who served during the Desert
Shield/Desert Storm period (August 2, 1990 to January 2, 1992)
and to authorize veterans' preference for Vietnam Era veterans
by statute.
b. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3329(b).--This statute was amended to
remove the 6-month deadline for the Department of Defense to
provide priority employment consideration for certain former
military reserve technicians.
c. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5334(d).--This statute was amended to
increase management flexibility and avoid excessive costs when
an overseas educator moves from a teaching position to a
position covered by the General Schedule by permitting the
Secretary of Defense to authorize pay increases of up to 20
percent.
d. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5520a.--This statute was amended to permit
agencies to collect the administrative cost of garnishment from
the employee whose wages are garnished.
e. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5597 and the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-226).--These statutes
were amended to extend the Department of Defense's authority to
offer buyouts through September 30, 2001 (or, for certain
positions under the Defense Conversion, Reinvestment, and
Transition Assistance Act of 1992, through January 1, 2002) and
to require the Department to pay the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund 15 percent of the final basic pay of each
employee receiving a buyout.
f. Chapter 71 of title 5 and various provisions of title
22, United States Code relating to personnel of the Panama
Canal Commission.--The subcommittee approved special personnel
and labor relations rules for the Commission in order to
facilitate the transfer of the Panama Canal to the Government
of Panama in accordance with the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977.
7. Statutes reviewed in connection with the civil service provisions of
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33
a. Chapters 83 & 84 of title 5, United States Code.--The
civil service provisions amended these statutes to increase the
retirement contributions of all agencies other than the Postal
Service and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority by
1.51 percent for each employee covered by the Civil Service
Retirement System [CSRS], beginning on October 1, 1997, and
continuing through September 30, 2002. These provisions also
gradually raise individual contributions to the CSRS and the
Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS] by 0.25 percent
beginning January 3,1999, an additional 0.15 percent in 2000,
and another 0.10 percent in 2001; the full 0.5 percent
increased contribution remains throughout 2002. The
subcommittee examined the impact of such increases in the
hearing described in part II. B. 1. of the Subcommittee on the
Civil Service.
b. 50 U.S.C. Sec. 2021, 22 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4045 and
4071.--These statutes were amended to impose corresponding
increases in the agency and employee contributions to the
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System,
the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System, and the
Foreign Service Pension System.
c. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8906.--This statute was amended to
establish a permanent formula for computing the Government's
share of health insurance premiums under the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program [FEHBP]. Under this formula, the
Government's contribution will be based upon 72 percent of the
weighted average of the subscription charges for enrollments
for all options of all plans participating in the FEHBP.
Separate calculations will be performed for self alone and self
and family enrollments. Current law regarding part-time
employees and the prohibition against the Government share
exceeding 75 percent of any premium are retained.
8. Statutes reviewed in connection with the ``Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1998,'' Public Law 105-61
a. 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8334, 8337, 8339, 8343a, 8344, 8415,
8422, and 8468.--These statutes were amended to permit former
Members of Congress who served in an executive branch position
at reduced pay in order to remove the impediment to the
appointment of the Member imposed by article I, section 6,
clause 2 of the Constitution to be computed as if he had not
served at reduced pay. The former Member must make an
appropriate deposit with interest to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund.
b. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5948 and the Federal Physicians
Comparability Allowance Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 5948 note).--
These statutes were amended to extend agencies' authority to
pay physicians comparability allowances until September 30,
2002.
c. 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 8341, 8339, 8442, and 8445.--These
statutes were amended to provide that a survivor annuity of a
former spouse who was married to a Federal employee for at
least 30 years will not be terminated if, on or after January
1, 1995, the former spouse remarries before age 55.
d. Chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code.--
These statutes were reviewed in connection with the ``Federal
Employees' Retirement System Open Enrollment Act of 1997,''
which established an open season during which individuals
covered by the CSRS may elect coverage under FERS.
e. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5545.--The subcommittee reviewed this
statute in connection with a provision in the appropriations
act prohibiting the payment of Sunday premium pay unless an
employee actually performed work on Sunday. The previous year's
appropriation act prohibited the payment of both Sunday premium
pay and night differential pay to an employee who did not
perform work during the appropriate period. This year's House
bill proposed to relax the prohibition on night differentials
for individuals who have been performing night work for a
period of 26 weeks or more. However, the conference agreement
permits the payment of night differentials in the absence of
work.
9. Statutes reviewed in connection with the ``Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1998,'' Public Law 105-119
a. Chapters 43, 47, 51, and 53 of title 5, United States
Code.--These statutes were reviewed in connection with the
limited authority provided by section 122 of the act to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms, the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Secret
Service to adopt alternative personnel management systems
covering certain positions. The FBI may exercise its authority
to establish for 3 years an alternative system to cover not
more than 3,000 non-Special Agent employees to fill critical
scientific, technical, engineering, intelligence analyst,
language translator, and medical positions. The Secretary of
the Treasury may establish a 3-year demonstration project,
covering not more than 950 employees, who fill the same
positions in the other agencies.
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
1. District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization
Act, Public Law 93-198.
An act to reorganize the government structure of the
District of Columbia, to provide a charter for local government
in the District of Columbia, to provide a charter for local
government in the District of Columbia subject to acceptance of
the majority of the registered qualified electors in the
District of Columbia, to delegate certain legislative powers to
the local government, to implement certain recommendations of
the commission on the organization of the government of the
District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
2. District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Act, Public Law 104-8.
To eliminate budget deficits and management inefficiencies
in the government of the District of Columbia through the
establishment of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and for
other purposes. (See II., Investigations, B.)
3. Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, Title XI.
``National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997.'' (See part III., Legislation, A.)
COUNCIL ACTS TRANSMITTED IN 1997 AND BECAME LAW IN 1997
1. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-310, ``Rhema Christian Center
Property Tax Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide equitable real
property tax relief to the Rhema Christian Center, a tax-exempt
religious organization. Act 11-310 was published in the August
16, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4357) and
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-164, effective April 9, 1997.
2. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-311, ``Simpson-Hemline United
Methodist Church Property Tax Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide
equitable real property tax relief to the Simpson-Hemline
United Methodist Church. Act 11-311 was published in the August
16, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4359) and
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-165, effective April 9, 1997.
3. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-312, ``Holy Comforter Episcopal
Church, Saint Andrew Parish Equitable Real Property Tax Relief
Act of 1996.'' To provide equitable real property tax relief to
the Holy Comforter Episcopal Church, Saint Andrew Parish. To
provide equitable real property tax relief to Holy Comforter
Episcopal Church, a tax-exempt religious organization. Act 11-
312 was published in the August 16, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4361) and transmitted to Congress on
January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-166, effective April
9, 1997.
4. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-314, ``St. Matthew's Evangelical
Lutheran Church Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of
1996.'' To provide equitable real property tax relief to St.
Matthew's Evangelical Lutheran, a tax-exempt religious
organization. Act 11-314 was published in the August 16, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4365) and
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-167, effective April 9, 1997.
5. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-315, ``Upper Room Baptist Church
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide
equitable real property tax relief to Upper Room Baptist
Church, a tax-exempt religious organization. Act 11-315 was
published in the August 16, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 43 page 4367) and transmitted to Congress on January 10,
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this
act became D.C. Law 11-168, effective April 9, 1997.
6. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-316, ``Commission on Mental Health
Services Psychologists Protection Amendment Act of 1996.'' To
amend the District of Columbia Employee Non-Liability Act to
provide for the indemnification of psychologists in certain
circumstances. Act 11-316 was published in the August 23, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4478) and
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-169, effective April 9, 1997.
7. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-317, ``Child Support Enforcement
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia
Child Support Enforcement Amendment Act of 1985 to require the
court to base findings of good cause not to impose immediate
withholding of earnings or income for child support on a
written determination that immediate withholding is not in the
best interest of the child, and, in cases where support orders
are being modified, to also require proof of timely payment of
previously ordered child support; to require child support
court orders to include a provision that directs absent parents
to keep the IV-D Program informed of the parent's health
insurance coverage and policy information; to require the court
to issue to the absent parent advance notice of intent to
impose wage withholding in cases where wages are not subject to
immediate withholding; to require the court to issue to
employers a notice to withhold within 15 calendar days of the
date of the support order in the case of immediate withholding;
and to establish notice requirements consistent with Federal
law in interstate withholding cases where the District of
Columbia is the initiating or responding state. Act 11-317 was
published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 43 page 4480) and transmitted to Congress on January 10,
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this
act became D.C. Law 11-170, effective April 9, 1997.
8. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-318, ``Community Development
Corporation Money Lender License Tax Exemption Amendment Act of
1996.'' To amend an act to regulate the business of loaning
money on security of any kind by person, firms, and
corporations other than national banks, licensed banker, trust
companies, savings banks, building and loan associations, and
real estate brokers in the District of Columbia to authorize
the Mayor to waive certain bonding requirements and to exempt
certain community development corporations acting as money
lenders from the money lender license tax. Retransmitted. Act
11-318 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4484) and transmitted to Congress
on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-171, effective April
9, 1997.
9. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-320, ``Early Intervention Services
Sliding Fee Scale Establishment Act of 1996.'' To establish a
program to provide early intervention services designed to meet
the developmental needs of infants and toddlers, from birth
through 2 years of age and their families, and to require the
Mayor to establish a sliding fee scale for early intervention
services based on the income of eligible families. Act 11-320
was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4491) and transmitted to Congress on
January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-172, effective April
9, 1997.
10. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-321, ``Anti-Loitering/Drug Free
Zone Act of 1996.'' To authorize the Chief of the Metropolitan
Police Department to determine and declare a drug enforcement
zone and to prohibit the congregation of two or more persons on
public space on public property, for the purpose of
participating in the use, purchase, or sale of illegal drugs,
within the perimeter of the drug enforcement zone. Act 11-321
was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4493) and transmitted to Congress on
January 10, 1997 for a 60-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-270, effective June 3,
1997.
11. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-322, ``Expulsion of Students Who
Bring Weapons Into Public Schools Temporary Act of 1996.'' To
require, on a temporary basis, the expulsion, for not less than
1 year, of any student who brings a weapon into a District of
Columbia public school, absent extenuating circumstances as
determined on a case-by-case basis by the Superintendent of
Schools, and consistent with the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act. Act 11-322 was published in the August 23, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4497) and
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-173, effective April 9, 1997.
12. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-323, ``Expulsion of Students Who
Bring Weapons Into Public Schools Act of 1996.'' To require the
expulsion, for not less than 1 year, of any student who brings
a weapon into a District of Columbia public school, absent
extenuating circumstances, as determined on a case-by-case
basis by the Superintendent of Schools, and consistent with the
Individuals With disabilities Education Act. Act 11-323 was
published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 43 page 4500) and transmitted to Congress on January 10,
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this
act became D.C. Law 11-174, effective April 9, 1997.
13. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-325, ``Free Clinic Assistance
Program Extension Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Free
Clinic Assistance Program Act of 1986 to extend the life of the
Program until September 23, 2001. Act 11-325 was published in
the August 16, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page
4371) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-175, effective April 9, 1997.
14. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-326, ``Abatement of Controlled
Dangerous Substances Nuisance Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend
the Residential Drug-Related Evictions Amendment Act of 1990 to
authorize the Corporation Counsel, civic association, or
community association within whose boundary the nuisance is
located to bring a civil action to abate a nuisance of
controlled dangerous substances located on privately owned
residential property. Act 11-326 was published in the August 9,
1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4234) and
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-176, effective April 9, 1997.
15. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-327, ``Vending Site Lottery
Assignment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia
Municipal Regulations to authorize the Metropolitan Police
Department to designate vending sites and assign them by
lottery, and to require the Mayor to attempt to designate
additional vending spaces to replace vending spaces that have
been eliminated as a result of recent Federal measure to
increase the security of the White House Complex and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters. Act 11-327 was
published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 43 page 4238) and transmitted to Congress on January 10,
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this
act became D.C. Law 11-177, effective April 9, 1997.
16. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-328, ``Bicyclist Responsibility
Regulation Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend chapter 12 of
title 18 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations to
clarify the rights and duties of bicyclists. Act 11-328 was
published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 43 page 4240) and transmitted to Congress on January 10,
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this
act became D.C. Law 11-178, effective April 9, 1997.
17. Jan. 10. 1997--Act 11-329, ``Juvenile Detention and
Speedy Trial Act of 1996.'' To amend title 16 of the District
of Columbia Code to limit the length of time a juvenile remains
in secure detention. Act 11-329 was published in the August 9,
1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4243) and
transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-179, effective April 9, 1997.
18. Jan 10, 1997--Act 11-331, ``Establishment of the John
A. Wilson Building Foundation Act of 1996.'' To establish the
John A. Wilson Building foundation, a nonprofit corporation,
for the purpose of developing long-term plans for the use of
the Wilson Building and to develop long-range fundraising plans
to pay for the renovation of the Wilson Building. Act 11-331
was published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4246) and transmitted to Congress on
January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-180, effective April
9, 1997.
19. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-332, ``Nonprofit Corporation Two-
Year Report Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of
Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act to provide for the filing of
a 2-year report instead of a 5-year report, to change the
normal filing date from April 15th to January 15th effective
January 15, 1998, and to add certain fees. Act 11-332 was
published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 43 page 4503) and transmitted to Congress on January 10,
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this
act became D.C. Law 11-181, effective April 9, 1997.
20. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-333, ``District of Columbia
Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947 Conformity Amendment Act
of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia Income and
Franchise Tax Act of 1947 to provide for greater conformity
with Federal income tax law. Act 11-333 was published in the
August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page
4251) and transmitted to Congress on January 10, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-182, effective April 9, 1997.
21. Jan. 10, 1997--Act 11-334, ``Comprehensive Merit
Personnel Act Health And Life Insurance Clarification Amendment
Temporary Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the
District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel
Act of 1978 to clarify eligibility for continuation of health
and life benefits for certain employees of the District
government first employed after September 30, 1987. Act 11-334
was published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4253) and transmitted to Congress on
January 10, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-183, effective April
9, 1997.
22. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-337, ``Highway Trust Fund
Establishment Act and the Water and Sewer Authority Amendment
Act of 1996.'' To establish the District of Columbia Highway
Trust Fund to comply with the requirement for the creation of a
dedicated highway fund mandated by the District of Columbia
Emergency Highway Relief Act, to require the Mayor to deposit
into the fund an amount equivalent to revenue received from the
motor vehicle fuel tax and associated fees and fines; to amend
the Water and Sewer Authority Establishment and Department of
Public Works Reorganization Act of 1996 to add one additional
board member, to improve the Authority's bond rating, and to
clarify the Authority's relationship to the District
government. Act 11-337 was published in the August 9, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4265) and
transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-184, effective April 9, 1997.
23. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-338, ``Business Corporation Two-
Year Report Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of
Columbia Business Corporation Act of 1954 to provide for the
filing of a 2-year report instead of a 5-year report, and to
make conforming amendments to the sections governing a
proclamation of revocation. Act 11-338 was published in the
August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page
4510) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-185, effective April 9, 1997.
24. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-339, ``Fire Code Amendment Act of
1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia Fire Prevention Code
and the District of Columbia Building Code to permit District
of Columbia public schools to permanently close certain exit
doors. Act 11-339 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4513) and transmitted to
Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-186, effective
April 9, 1997.
25. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-340, ``Alcoholic Beverage
Underage Penalties Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the
District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act to provide
for criminal and civil penalties for misrepresentation of age
or purchase, possession, or consumption of alcoholic beverage
by persons under 21 years of age. Act 11-340 was published in
the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page
4515) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-187, effective April 9, 1997.
26. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-341, ``District of Columbia
Employee Vatical Settlement Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.''
To amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia
Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to provide
authority for the offering of Vatical settlements to terminally
ill employees and former employees enrolled in the District of
Columbia Group Life Insurance Program. Act 11-341 was published
in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43
page 4273) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for
a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 11-188, effective April 9, 1997.
27. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-342, ``International Registration
Plan Agreement Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To provide,
on an temporary basis, for membership in the International
Registration Plan pursuant to the Federally mandated reciprocal
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 31704. Act 11-342 was published
in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43
page 4275) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for
a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 11-189, effective April 9, 1997.
28. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-343, ``Council Contract Approval
Modification Temporary Amendment Act of 1995 Temporary
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the
District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to
establish additional criteria for Council review and approval
of contracts for expenditures in excess of $1 million during a
12-month period, and to further expedite the review and
approval of Federal-aid highway contracts. Act 11-343 was
published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 43 page 4279) and transmitted to Congress on January 31,
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-190, effective April
9, 1997.
29. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-347, ``Health Services Planning
Program Re-establishment Act of 1996.'' To re-establish a
health services planning and certificate of need regulatory
program in the District of Columbia. Act 11-347 was published
in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43
page 4535) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 11-191, effective April 9, 1997.
30. Jan. 23 1997--Act 11-348, ``Emergency Assistance
Clarification Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of
Columbia Right to Overnight Shelter Act of 1984 and the
District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982 to clarify
the circumstances under which the District of Columbia
government claims Federal financial participation. Act 11-348
was published in the August 9, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4285) and transmitted to Congress on
January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-192, effective April
9, 1997.
31. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-349, ``Oak Hill Youth Center
Educational Contracting Temporary Act of 1996.'' To provide, on
an temporary basis, that the Mayor may contract for services to
operate an education program at the Oak Hill Youth Center
without adhering to the District's procurement laws and to
establish procedures for the contracting of such services. Act
11-349 was published in the August 16, 1996, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4373) and transmitted to Congress
on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-193, effective
April 9, 1997.
32. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-354, ``Board of Real Property
Assessments and Appeals Membership Qualification Act of 1996.''
To amend the District of Columbia Real Property Tax Act
Revision Act of 1974 to require numerical diversity in the
requirements for membership on the Board of Real Property
Assessments and Appeals. Act 11-354 was published in the August
23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4557) and
transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-194, effective April 9, 1997.
33. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-355, ``Holy Comforter-Saint
Cyprian Roman Catholic Church Equitable Real Property Tax
Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide equitable real property tax
relief to Holy Comforter-Saint Cyprian Roman Catholic Church, a
tax-exempt religious organization. Act 11-355 was published in
the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page
4559) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-195, effective April 9, 1997.
34. Jan. 13 1997--Act 11-358, ``Extension of the Moratorium
on Retail Service Station Conversions and the Gas Station
Advisory Board Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Retail
Service Station Act of 1976 to extend the moratorium on the
conversion of full service retail service stations to limited
service retail stations until October 1, 1999, to extend the
life of the Gas Station Advisory Board, and to modify the
petition for exemption process. Act 11-358 was published in the
August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page
4564) and transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-196, effective April 9, 1997.
35. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-359, ``Housing Finance Agency
Loan Forgiveness Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District
of Columbia Housing Finance Agency Act to provide that the
District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency's loan, advanced
from the General Fund to cover the operating and program
expense of the Agency from 1980 to 1992, be forgiven. Act 11-
359 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4567) and transmitted to Congress on
January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-197, effective April
9, 1997.
36. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-360, ``Fiscal Year 1997 Budget
Support Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia Real
Estate Deed Recordation Tax Act to require that the amount of
recordation tax be based on the higher of the assessed value or
the sales price of the deed and other amendments. Act 11-360
was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4569) and transmitted to Congress on
January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-198, effective April
9, 1997.
37. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-361, ``Adjustment Process for
Nonviolent Juvenile Offenders and Parent Participation in
Court-Ordered Act of 1996.'' To amend title 16 of the District
of Columbia Code to provide for an alternative to adjudication
for juveniles charged with certain nonviolent offenses and to
authorize the court to hold parents and guardians in contempt
for not participating in a court-ordered proceeding or program.
Act 11-361 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4385) and transmitted to Congress
on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-199, effective April
9, 1997.
38. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-362, ``Commercial Counterfeiting
Criminalization Act of 1996.'' To prohibit counterfeiting of
trademarks, service marks, or other intellectual property,
permit the seizure of counterfeit intellectual property and
personal property used in the manufacture of counterfeit
property, and prohibit the knowing possession of material for
the reproduction of counterfeit intellectual property. Act 11-
362 was published in the August 23, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4585) and transmitted to Congress on
January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-271, effective June 3,
1997.
39. Jan. 13, 1997--Act 11-363, ``Modified Reduction-in-
Force Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend on a
temporary basis, the District of Columbia Government
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to modify the
reduction-in-force procedures to allow only one round of
lateral bumping within a competitive level, to set a deadline
of February 1, 1997, for personnel authorities to make final
decisions on the identification of positions to be abolished
through a reduction-in-force to add 5 years to creditable
service for District residency for purposes of a reduction-in-
force, and to require the Mayor to submit to the Council by
March 1, 1997, a list of positions to be abolished through a
reduction-in-force. Act 11-363 was published in the August 23,
1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 5427) and
transmitted to Congress on January 13, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-200, effective April 9, 1997.
40. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-364, ``Boating While Intoxicated
Temporary Act of 1996.'' To prohibit, on a temporary basis, the
operation of any watercraft while under the influence of, or
intoxicated by, alcohol or any controlled substance. Act 11-364
was published in the August 16, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4390) and transmitted to Congress on
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-201, effective April
9, 1997.
41. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-367, ``Medicare Supplement
Insurance Minimum Standards Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend
the Medicare Supplement Insurance Minimum Standards Act of 1992
in order to implement requirements of the Medicare supplement
minimum standards as mandated by the Social Security Act
Amendments of 1994. These changes to the regulatory programs
will ensure that the District of Columbia maintains approval as
meeting minimum Federal standards. Act 11-367 was published in
the November 15, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43
page 6054) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 11-202, effective April 9, 1997.
42. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-370, ``Closing of Public Alleys
and Abandonment and Establishment of Easements in Square 878,
S.O. 95-38, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing of public
alleys and abandonment and establishment of easements in Square
878, bounded by I Street, SE, 6th Street, SE, and 7th Street,
SE, in ward 6. Act 11-370 was published in the August 30, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4670) and
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-203, effective April 9, 1997.
43. March 27, 1997--Act 11-371, ``Lottery Games Amendment
Act of 1996.'' To amend the law to legalize lotteries, daily
numbers games, and bingo and raffles for charitable purposes in
the District of Columbia to permit Maryland lottery advertising
in the District on a reciprocal basis and to clarify that
lottery ticket receipts are held in trust by lottery sales
agents until transferred to the Lottery Board. Act 11-371 was
published in the January 15, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 43 page 4672) and transmitted to Congress on March 27,
1997 for a 60-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this
act became D.C. Law 11-272, effective June 3, 1997.
44. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-372, ``Testing of District
Government Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles for Alcohol and
Controlled Substances Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To
amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia
Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to
authorize and require that District employees and candidates
for employment with the District government who need to have a
commercial driver's license, as a condition of employment, be
tested for the use of alcohol and controlled substances. Act
11-372 was published in the August 30, 1996, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4674) and transmitted to Congress
on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-204, effective
April 9, 1997.
45. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-374, ``Public Assistance Fair
Hearing Procedures Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend,
on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Public
Assistance Act of 1982 to change the requirement that a
verbatim written transcript be prepared for every fair hearing
and to require recorded testimony instead, and to authorize
transcripts when requested by a claimant, if ordered by the
hearing officer or for purposes of judicial review, with costs
of transcription to be borne by the Mayor. Act 11-374 was
published in the September 13, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4935) and transmitted to Congress on
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-205, effective April
9, 1997.
46. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-378, ``Paternity Acknowledgment
and Gas Station Advisory Board Re-establishment Temporary Act
of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, chapter 9 of title
16 of the District of Columbia Code to require each public and
private birthing hospital in the District of Columbia to
operate a hospital-based program that provides services to
facilitate the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity
immediately before and after the birth of a child to an
unmarried woman, to require each birthing hospital to transmit
completed voluntary acknowledgment of paternity forms to the
Mayor, and to require the Mayor to provide to the staff of each
birthing hospital the forms, materials, and training required
to operate the program; and to amend the Retail Service Station
Act of 1976 to re-establish the Gas Station Advisory Board. Act
11-378 was published in the August 30, 1996, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4684) and transmitted to Congress
on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-206, effective
April 9, 1997.
47. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-380, ``Real Property Tax
Reassessment Temporary Act of 1996.'' To extend, on a temporary
basis, time deadlines in the District of Columbia Real Property
tax revision Act of 1974 for the assessment of class 1 and
class 2 real property for the tax year 1997, to extend the time
for the appeal of a real property tax assessment for the tax
year 1997, to provide that the latest assessment shall be
considered the final assessment for purposes of appeal, and to
increase the limit on the compensation of the members of the
Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals for the District
of Columbia. Act 11-380 was published in the August 30, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4691) and
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-207, effective April 9, 1997.
48. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-381, ``District of Columbia
Housing Authority Police Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To
amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Housing
Authority Act of 1994 to create a public housing police force.
Act 11-381 was published in the August 30, 1996, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4695) and transmitted to Congress
on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-208, effective
April 9, 1997.
49. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-384, ``Preservation of
Residential Neighborhoods Against Nuisances Temporary Act of
1996.'' To deem, on a temporary basis, that new restaurants in
any residentially zoned area within the boundaries of the
Georgetown Historic District that engage in carry out or
delivery services that comprise more than 5 percent of their
business operations constitute a public nuisance. Act 11-384
was published in the August 30, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4700) and transmitted to Congress on
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-209, effective April
9, 1997.
50. Jan 15. 1997--Act 11-386, ``Cable Television Franchise
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Cable Television
Communications Act of 1981 to establish a procedure to award
additional cable service franchises. Act 11-386 was published
in the August 30, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43
page 4700) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 11-210, effective April 9, 1997.
51. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-387, ``Closing of a Public Alley
in Square 375, S.O. 95-54, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing
of a public alley in Square 375, bounded by H Street, NW, 9th
Street, NW, G Place, NW, and 10th Street, NW, in ward 2.
52. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-389, ``Health and Hospitals
Public Benefit Corporation Act of 1996.'' To establish a public
benefit corporation to be known as the District of Columbia
Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corp. to provide
comprehensive community centered health care to residents of
the district and assume the functions and personnel
responsibilities of the D.C. General Hospital and the
Commission on Public Health community clinics. Act 11-392 was
published in the September 13, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4992) and transmitted to Congress on
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-214, effective April
9, 1997.
53. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-391, ``Drug Paraphernalia
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Drug Paraphernalia Act of
1982 by including glassy bags and zip-lock bags of certain
sizes within the definition of ``drug paraphernalia'', creating
an inference that glassy bags and zip lock bags of certain
sizes sold by a commercial establishment are drug
paraphernalia, and requiring the license and certification of
occupancy for the commercial establishment be suspended upon
conviction. Act 11-391 was published in the September 13, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 4990) and
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-213, effective April 9, 1997.
54. Jan 15, 1997--Act 11-392, ``Reorganization Plan No. 5
for the Department of Human Services and Department of
Corrections Temporary Act of 1996.'' To reorganize on a
temporary basis, the Department of Human Services to transfer
the Bureau of Correctional Services from the Department of
Human Services to the Department of Corrections. Act 11-392 was
published in the September 13, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 4992) and transmitted to Congress on
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-214, effective April
9, 1997.
55. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-413, ``Oyster Elementary School
Modernization and Development Project Temporary Act of 1996.''
To provide, on a temporary basis, authorization to modernize
the James F. Oyster Elementary School, to privately develop a
portion of the Oyster School site, and to fund the improvements
to Oyster School and other public school facilities through
payments in lieu of taxes on the privately developed portion of
the Oyster School site. Act 11-413 was published in the
November 15, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page
6070) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-
day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 11-215, effective April 9, 1997.
56. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-414, ``Economic Recovery
Conformity Temporary Act of 1996.'' To prohibit, on a temporary
basis, the increase in the individual income tax, the sales and
use tax, and real property tax rates contingent on the
enactment of an act of Congress which would reduce the
percentage of Federal income tax applicable solely to residents
of the District of Columbia under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986. Act 11-414 was published in the November 15, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6074) and
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-216, effective April 9, 1997.
57. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-415, ``Real Property Tax Rates
for Tax Year 1997 Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' Act 11-415
was published in the November 15, 1996, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 43 page 6076) and transmitted to Congress on
January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-217, effective April
9, 1997.
58. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-431, ``Zero Tolerance for Guns
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 to provide for civil forfeiture for
weapons offenses; title 23 of the District of Columbia Code to
permit pretrial detention for individuals charged with weapons
offenses and individuals who pose a risk of flight or other
serious risk; and the District of Columbia Work Release Act to
permit the director of the Department of Corrections to grant
work release and to increase the fine and days of incarceration
for violations of work release plans. Act 11-431 was published
in the November 15, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43
page 6168) and transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for
a 60-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 11-273, effective June 3, 1997.
59. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-432, ``New Hires Police Officers,
Fire Fighter, and Teachers Pension Modification Amendment Act
of 1996.'' Act 11-414 was published in the November 15, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6172) and
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-218, effective April 9, 1997.
60. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-433, ``BNA Washington Inc., Real
Property Tax Deferral Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To
amend, on an temporary basis, the real property tax deferral
procedure to provide for the deferral of real property taxes on
certain real property. Act 11-433 was published in the November
15, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6176) and
transmitted to Congress on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-219, effective April 9, 1997.
61. Jan. 15, 1997--Act 11-434, ``District of Columbia
Moratorium on the 1997 Real Property Assessments for Real
Property Tax year 1998 Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' Act
11-434 was published in the November 15, 1996, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6181) and transmitted to Congress
on January 15, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire
on the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-220, effective
April 9, 1997.
62. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-438, ``Lead-Based Paint Abatement
and Control Act of 1996.'' To establish a program to reduce,
eliminate, and abate lead-based paint hazards in the District
of Columbia Act 11-438 was published in the December 27, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6854) and
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-221, effective April 9, 1997.
63. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-441, ``Real Property Tax Rates
for Tax Year 1997 Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the
District of Columbia Real Property Tax Revision Act of 1974 to
establish real property tax rates and the real property special
tax rates for real property tax year 1997 and to update reports
adopted by the Council. Act 11-441 was published in the January
10, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 108) and
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-222, effective April 9, 1997.
64. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-442, ``District of Columbia
Moratorium on the 1997 Real Property Assessments for Real
Property Tax Year 1998 Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the
District of Columbia Real Property Tax Revision Act of 1974 to
provide that the Mayor shall publish in the District of
Columbia Register the proposed 1997 real property tax rate son
the third Friday following the date 1997 real property
assessment roll is certified and to provide that the assessed
value of all real property located in the District of Columbia
for real property tax year 1998 shall be the assessed value for
real property tax year 1997 and the valuation date for real
property tax year 1998 real property assessments shall be
January 1, 1997. Act 11-442 was published in the January 10,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 111) and
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-223, effective April 9, 1997.
65. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-443, ``Tax Revision Commission
Establishment Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a
temporary basis, the Tax Revision Commission Establishment Act
of 1996 to increase the number of members of the Commission.
Act 11-443 was published in the January 10, 1997, edition of
the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 114) and transmitted to
Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act
shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken effect.
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-
224, effective April 9, 1997.
66. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-452, ``Insurers' Records Access
and Control Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Law on
Examinations Act of 1993 to clarify that an insurer may use
reliable electronically stored data or other process which
accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for storing
records and under what circumstances the original may be
destroyed. Act 11-452 was published in the January 10, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 122) and transmitted
to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress
not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-225,
effective April 9, 1997.
67. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-453, ``Fiscal Year 1997 Budget
Temporary Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the
District of Columbia Real Property Tax Revision Act of 1974 to
provide that real property assessments shall be made on a
biennial basis. Act 11-453 was published in the January 10,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 124) and
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-226, effective April 9, 1997.
68. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-455, ``Insurance Agents and
Brokers Licensing Revision Act of 1996.'' To specify the
qualifications and procedures for the licensing of insurance
agents and insurance brokers in all lines of insurance. Act 11-
455 was published in the January 10, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 140) and transmitted to Congress on
January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-227, effective April
9, 1997.
69. March 27, 1997--Act 11-458, ``Initiative 51 Real
Property Assessment and Tax Initiative of 1996.'' To allow any
taxpayer to challenge tax assessments on the public's behalf,
or to intervene in assessment appeals before the Board of Real
Property Assessments and Appeals; require that all proceedings
of the Board be held in public and that all information
presented to the Board be publicly available; and establish a
``Public Advocate'' to represent the public interest before the
Board and the courts on matters, including, but not limited to,
property assessments; to conduct investigations; to appeal any
assessments; and to advise the public of its rights under the
tax laws. Act 11-458 was published in the December 27, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 43 page 6868) and
transmitted to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-269, effective April 9, 1997.
70. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-460, ``Eldebrooke United
Methodist Church Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of
1996.'' To provide equitable real property tax relief to
Eldebrook Untied Methodist Church, a tax-exempt religious
organization. Act 11-460 was published in the January 24, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 386) and transmitted
to Congress on January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress
not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-228
effective April 9, 1997.
71. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-461, ``Chevy Chase Baptist Church
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1996.'' To provide
equitable real property tax relief to Eldebrooke United
Methodist Church, a tax-exempt religious organization. Act 11-
461 was published in the January 24, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 388) and transmitted to Congress on
January 23, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-229, effective April
9, 1997.
72. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-462, ``Department of Corrections
Criminal Background Investigation Authorization Temporary Act
of 1996.'' To authorize, on a temporary basis, the director of
the Department of Corrections to conduct criminal background
investigations on all employees, including non-probationary
employees, of the Department of Corrections. Act 11-462 was
published in the January 23, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 44 page 390) and transmitted to Congress on January 23,
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-230, effective April
9, 1997.
73. Jan. 23, 1997--Act 11-463, ``Check Identification Fraud
Prevention Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a
temporary basis, the Use of Consumer Identification Information
Act of 1991 to allow a person to request the display of a
second form of identification such as a credit card or other
form of identification. Act 11-463 was published in the January
24, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 392) and
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-231, effective April 9, 1997.
74. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-490, ``Closing of Portions of 3rd
Street, NW, and L Street, NW, Adjacent to Squares 525, 526,
556, and 558, SO 90-18, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing of
portions of 3rd Street, NW, and L Street, NW, adjacent to
Squares 525, 526, and 558, collectively bounded by New York
Avenue, NW, New Jersey Avenue, NW, K Street, NW, and 4th
Street, NW, in ward 2. Act 11-490 was published in the January
10, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 217) and
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-232, effective April 9, 1997.
75. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-493, ``Risk-Based Capital Act of
1996.'' To enact a Model Risk-Based Capital Act for insurers
and to protect the confidentiality of reports filed with the
Insurance Administration by both property and casualty and life
and health insurance companies. Act 11-493 was published in the
February 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
765) and transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-233, effective April 9, 1997.
76. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-494, ``Uniform Partnership Act of
1996.'' To enact the Revised Uniform Partnership Act in the
District of Columbia. Act 11-494 was published in the February
14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 777) and
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-234, effective April 9, 1997.
77. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-495, ``Health Maintenance
Organization Act of 1996.'' To set forth standards for the
formation, operation, and regulation of Health maintenance
Organizations in the District of Columbia. Act 11-495 was
published in the February 14, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 818) and transmitted to Congress on
January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-235, effective April
9, 1997.
78. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-496, ``Naming of Public Spaces
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Street and Alley Closing
and Acquisition Procedures Act of 1982 to permit symbolic
naming of public spaces, to establish additional standards for
naming public spaces, and to require payment of fees for the
naming of public spaces. Act 11-496 was published in the
February 21, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
917) and transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-236, effective April 9, 1997.
79. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-497, ``Uniform Commercial Code
Negotiable Instruments Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend
article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code by adding a provision
concerning lost, destroyed, or stolen cashier's checks,
teller's checks, or certified checks. Act 11-497 was published
in the February 21, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44
page 920) and transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-237, effective April 9, 1997.
80. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-498, ``Uniform Commercial Code--
Letters of Credit Act of 1996.'' Act 11-498 was published in
the February 21, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44
page 923) and transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-238, effective April 9, 1997.
81. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-499, ``Uniform Commercial Code--
Bulk Sales Act of 1996.'' To revise article 6 of the Uniform
Commercial Code and to make conforming amendments to articles 1
and 2. Act 11-499 was published in the February 21, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 936) and transmitted
to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress
not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-239,
effective April 9, 1997.
82. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-500, ``Uniform Commercial Code
Investment Securities Revision Act of 1996.'' To enact revised
Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial code in the District of
Columbia and to make conforming amendments to articles 1, 4, 5,
9, and 10. Act 11-500 was published in the February 28, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1087) and
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-240, effective April 9, 1997.
83. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-501, ``Newborn Health Insurance
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To require that all individual and
group health insurance policies provide coverage for a minimum
stay in a hospital or other birthing facility for a mother and
child following the birth of a child, and for other purposes.
Act 11-501 was published in the February 28, 1997, edition of
the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1125) and transmitted to
Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-241, effective
April 9, 1997.
84. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-502, ``Real Estate Licensure
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia Real
Estate Licensure Act of 1982 relating to the duties of real
estate brokers, salespersons, and property managers. Act 11-502
was published in the February 28, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 1128) and transmitted to Congress on
January 24, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-242, effective April
9, 1997.
85. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-503, ``Victims of Violent Crime
Compensation.'' To establish a Crime Victims Compensation
Program in the District of Columbia and to designate the
administration of the program to the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia. Act 11-503 was published in the February
28, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1142) and
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-243, effective April 9, 1997.
86. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-504, ``Mandatory Use of Seat
Belts Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the Mandatory Use of
Seat Belts Act of 1985 to require the driver and all passengers
in a motor vehicle to wear a properly adjusted and fastened
safety belt while the driver is in control of the vehicle, to
provide an exemption for passengers in a vehicle if all seating
positions with seat belts in the vehicle are occupied by other
persons, provided that the driver shall insure that children 16
years of age and under shall have preference to seating
positions with seat belts, to provide for an enforcement date,
to provide that efforts to educate the public about the
requirements and purpose of this act shall be multi-lingual and
in alternative formats, to increase the monetary fine for a
violation, to provide for primary enforcement, to provide for
the assessment of 2 points to the driving record of a driver
found in violation, to make the driver of the vehicle, except
the operator of a passenger vehicle for hire, responsible for
ensuring that passengers comply with this act; to amend title
31 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations to
establish a mandatory seatbelt usage signage requirement for
passenger vehicles for hire; and to provide for a $100 fine for
drivers of public vehicles for hire who fail to comply with the
signage requirement. Act 11-504 was published in the February
28, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1155) and
transmitted to Congress on January 24, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-244, effective April 9, 1997.
87. Jan. 24, 1997--Act 11-505, ``Hospital and Medical
Services Corporation Regulatory Act of 1996.'' Act 11-505 was
published in the February 28, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 1158) and transmitted to Congress on
January 24, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-245, effective April
9, 1997.
88. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-506, ``Collateral Reform
Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on a temporary
basis, title 18 of the District of Columbia Municipal
Regulations to establish the amount of collateral to be paid by
a person charged with failure to obey under 18 DCMR 2000.2
based upon the number of times the person has committed the
offense. Act 11-506 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1223) and transmitted to
Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act
shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken effect.
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-
246, effective April 9, 1997.
89. Jan. 30, 1997--Act 11-507, ``Mortgage Lender and Broker
Act of 1996 Time Extension Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.''
To amend, on a temporary basis, the Mortgage Lender and Broker
Act of 1996 to extend the time for mortgage lenders and brokers
to obtain a license and to allow the superintendent of the
Office of Banking and Financial Institutions the authority, if
necessary, to issue provisional licenses. Act 11-507 was
published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 44 page 1225) and transmitted to Congress on January 31,
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-247, effective April
9, 1997.
90. Jan. 30, 1997--Act 11-510, ``Sex Offender Registration
Act of 1996.'' To establish a sex offender registration program
in the District of Columbia that will operate in accordance
with the recommendations of a newly created advisory council,
and to provide for selective community disclosure of
registration information that is relevant and necessary to
protect the public and to counteract the assessed dangerousness
of convicted sex offenders who have returned to the community.
Act 11-510 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1232) and transmitted to Congress
on January 31, 1997 for a 60-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-274, effective June 3,
1997.
91. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-511, ``Boating While Intoxicated
Act of 1996.'' To prohibit the operation of any watercraft
while under the influence of, or intoxicated by, alcohol or any
controlled substance, to establish no-wake zones, and increase
registration fees. Act 11-511 was published in the March 7,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1242) and
transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-248, effective April 9, 1997.
92. Feb. 6, 1997--Act 11-512, ``Recorder of Deeds
Recordation Surcharge Amendment Act of 1996.'' Act 11-512 was
published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 44 page 1247) and transmitted to Congress on February 6,
1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this
act became D.C. Law 11-257, effective April 15, 1997
93. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-513, ``Closing of a Public Alley
in Square 107, S.O. 95-56, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing
of a public alley in Square 107, bounded by K Street, NW, 19th
Street, NW, L Street, NW, and 18th Street, NW, in ward 2. Act
11-513 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 1251) and transmitted to Congress on
January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-249, effective April
9, 1997.
94. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-514, ``BNA Washington, Inc., Real
Property Tax Deferral Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend the
real property tax deferral procedure to provide for the
deferral of real property taxes on certain real property. Act
11-514 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 1253) and transmitted to Congress on
January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-250, effective April
9, 1997.
95. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-515, ``Joseph H. Cole Fitness
Center Designation Act of 1996.'' To rename the recreation
center located at 1200 Morse Street, NE, presently known as the
Wheatley Recreation Center, as the Joseph H. Cole Fitness
Center. Act 11-515 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1259) and transmitted to
Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-251, effective
April 9, 1997.
96. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-516, ``Closing of a Portion of M
Street, SW, Adjacent to Square 651, SO 95-239 Act of 1996.'' To
order the closing of a portion of M Street, SW and
establishment of an easement, at the intersection of M Street,
SW, and South Capitol Street, adjacent to Square 651, in ward
2. Act 11-516 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of
the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1260) and transmitted to
Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-252 effective
April 9, 1997.
97. Jan. 31, 1997-- Act 11-517, ``Closing of a Portion of
Ingraham Street, NE, and Public Alleys Adjacent to Squares 3700
and 3701, SO. 96-27, Act of 1996.'' To order the closing of a
portion of Ingraham Street, NE, east of First Place, NE, and
adjacent to Square 3700 and Square 3701, and the closing of a
public alley between Ingraham Street, NE, and Lot 806 in Square
3700, in ward 5. Act 11-517 was published in the March 7, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1262) and
transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-253, effective April 9, 1997.
98. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-518, ``Title 47, D.C. Code
Enactment Act of 1996.'' To enact and amend title 47 of the
District of Columbia Code and District of Columbia Enactment
Act of 1996. Act 11-518 was published in the March 7, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1264) and
transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-253, effective April 9, 1997.
99. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-519, ``Second Technical
Amendments Act of 1996.'' To amend the District of Columbia
Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative Act of 1979 to
correct a grammatical error; to amend the District of Columbia
Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 to correct a grammatical error.
Act 11-519 was published in the March 7, 1997, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1271) and transmitted to Congress
on January 31, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-255, effective April
9, 1997.
100. Jan. 30, 1997--Act 11-520, ``Second Criminal Code
Technical Amendments Act of 1996.'' To amend an act to
establish a code of law for the District of Columbia to correct
a punctuation error and to delete extraneous language. Act 11-
520 was published in the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 1464) and transmitted to Congress on
January 30, 1997 for a 60-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-275, effective June 3,
1997.
101. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11-521, ``Air Pollution Control
Temporary Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend, on at temporary
basis, the District of Columbia Air Pollution Control Act of
1984 to authorize the Mayor to issue or amend the air pollution
control rules to implement the act. Act 11-521 was published in
the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
1414) and transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 30-
day review. Act 11-520 was published in the March 14, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1464) and
transmitted to Congress on January 30, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-275, effective June 3, 1997.
102. Jan. 31, 1997--Act 11 523, ``Correctional Treatment
Facility Act of 1996.'' Act 11-523 was published in the March
14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1416) and
transmitted to Congress on January 31, 1997 for a 60-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-276, effective June 3, 1997.
103. March 21, 1997--Act 11-524, ``Department of Insurance
and Securities Regulation Establishment Act of 1996.'' Act 11-
524 was published in the March 28, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 1730) and transmitted to Congress on
March 21, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-268, effective May 21,
1997.
104. Feb. 6, 1997--Act 11-525, ``Alcohol Beverage Control
Act Private Club Exception Amendment Act of 1996.'' Act 11-525
was published in the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 1421) and transmitted to Congress on
February 6, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-258, effective April
15, 1997.
105. Feb. 6, 1997--Act 11-526, ``Procurement Reform
Amendment Act of 1996.'' To amend an act to establish a code of
law for the District of Columbia to establish a $5 surcharge to
be collected at the time a document is submitted for
recordation at the Recorder of Deeds: to amend an act providing
for the expenses of the offices of the recorder of deeds and
register of wills of the District of Columbia to provide that
the funds generated by the surcharge shall be used exclusively
to cover the costs of purchasing a state-of-the-art automated
system at the Recorder of Deeds, maintaining the new computer
system, training staff to implement and operate the new
computer system and repairing an upgrading the infrastructure
components at the Recorder of Deeds which are necessary and
essential to meet its overall mission; to provide that the
funds generated by the surcharge shall be deposited in a fund
entitled the Recorder of Deeds Automation and Infrastructure
Improvement Fund; to require the Mayor to make an annual budget
request for the restricted use of the funds collected pursuant
to this act; to amend the District of Columbia Income and
Franchise Tax Act of 1947 to encourage the establishment of new
business enterprises in the District of Columbia by enacting a
deduction for dividends received by a corporation from a
wholly-owned subsidiary after March 1, 1997; and to amend the
District of Columbia Sales Tax Act to tax the sale of prepaid
telephone calling card as the sale of tangible personal
property, subject only to such taxes as are imposed on the sale
or use of tangible personal property, even if no card has been
issued. Act 11-526 was published in the March 14, 1997, edition
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1423) and transmitted to
Congress on February 6, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-259, effective
April 15, 1997.
106. Feb. 25, 1997--Act 11-527, ``Natural and Artificial
Gas Gross Receipts Tax Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' Act
11-524 was published in the March 28, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 1452) and transmitted to Congress on
February 25, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-260, effective April
25, 1997.
107. Feb. 25, 1997--Act 11-528, ``Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority Safety Regulation Temporary Act of
1997.'' To regulate, on a temporary basis, the safety and
security of the rail fixed guideway system operated by the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority by creating and
operating a joint entity among the District of Columbia,
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland to oversee
this regulation and by authorizing the Mayor of the District of
Columbia to enter into and implement an agreement with Virginia
and Maryland to achieve these purposes. Act 11-528 was
published in the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 44 page 1455) and transmitted to Congress on February 25,
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-261, effective April
25, 1997.
108. Feb 25, 1997--Act 11-529, ``Washington Convention
Center Authority Act of 1994 Time Extension Temporary Amendment
Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the Washington
Convention Center Authority Act of 1994 to change the time in
which the Authority has to submit final financial requirements
and a feasibility analysis to the Mayor and the Council. Act
11-529 was published in the March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 1460) and transmitted to Congress on
February 25, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-262, effective April
25, 1997.
109. Feb. 25, 1997--Act 11-530, ``Designation of Excepted
Services Positions Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend,
on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Government
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, to increase, to a
total of 200 the number of all positions under the Mayor's
authority and the number of Excepted Service employees that the
Mayor may appoint to subordinate agencies, to allocate up to 40
of the positions subject to appointment by the Mayor to the
Office of the Inspector General and, during a Control year up
to 20 positions to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
and to repeal the requirement that lists of Excepted Service
positions and incumbents in those positions be published in the
District of Columbia Register. Act 11-530 was published in the
March 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
1462) and transmitted to Congress on February 25, 1997 for a
30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 11-263, effective April 25, 1997.
110. Feb 25, 1997--Act 11-531, ``Supplemental Security
Income Payment Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on
a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Public Assistance
Act of 1982 to eliminate the supplement to the Federal
Supplemental Security Income payment for District residents who
live independently and re-direct the supplemental payment to
persons who receive the Supplemental Security Income benefits
and who live in community residential facilities; and to codify
the current special living arrangement rates that have been
established by rule. Act 11-531 was published in the March 14,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1464) and
transmitted to Congress on February 25, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 11-264, effective April 25, 1997.
111. Feb 25, 1997--Act 11-532, ``Cooperative Association
Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary
basis, the District of Columbia Cooperative Association Act to
permit regular corporations to become members of an association
formed under that act; to apply some sections of the District
of Columbia Business Corporation Act to associations formed
under the District of Columbia Cooperative Association Act; to
permit a trade association representing cooperative
organizations to use the word ``cooperative'' in its name; and
to amend the D.C. Nonprofit Corporation Act to permit nonprofit
cooperatives to be organized under the act. Act 11-532 was
published in the March, 14, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 44 page 1467) and transmitted to Congress on February 25,
1997 for 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day
of its having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved,
this act became D.C. Law 11-265, effective April 25, 1997.
112. March 6, 1997--Act 11-533, ``Unemployment Compensation
Federal Conformity Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend,
on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia Unemployment
Compensation Act to conform with the Federal requirement to
permit the withholding of Federal income taxes from
unemployment compensation benefits at the request of the
claimant. Act 11-533 was published in the March 21, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1576) and
transmitted to Congress on March 6, 1997 for 30-day review.
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 11-266, effective May 7, 1997.
113. March 6, 1997--Act 11-534, ``Equal Opportunity for
Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Temporary
Act of 1997.'' To establish new size standards for small
business enterprise categories, require an assessment every 3
years of the continued need for the local, small, and
disadvantage programs, establish a 2 tier set-aside program for
small business enterprises, establish affiliated interest
standards for small and disadvantaged business enterprises, and
to amend the Minority Contracting Act of 1976 to authorize
board members participation at Minority Business Opportunity
Commission meetings by conference telephone. Act 11-534 was
published in the March 21, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 44 page 1579) and transmitted to Congress on March 6,
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 11-267, effective May 7,
1997.
114. March 6, 1997--Act 12-5, ``General Obligation Note Act
of 1997.'' This act authorizes the issuance of general
obligation notes of the District of Colombia for the purposes
of financing certain appropriations for which unappropriated
revenues are not available. Act 12-5 was published in the March
14, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1469) and
transmitted to Congress on March 6, 1997 for 30-day review.
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-1,
effective May 7, 1997.
115. March 6, 1997--Act 12-15, ``District of Columbia
Unemployment Compensation Tax Stabilization Temporary Amendment
Act of 1997.'' The purpose of the act is to amend, on a
temporary basis, the District of Colombia Unemployment
Compensation Act to reduce the taxable wage base, lower the
maximum weekly benefit amount, and eliminate the dependent's
allowance. Act 12-15 was published in the March 28, 1996,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 1751) and
transmitted to Congress on March 6, 1997 for a 30-day review.
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-2, effective May 7, 1997.
116. April 8, 1997--Act 12-45, ``Mortgage Lender and Broker
Act of 1996 Temporary Amendment of 1997.'' To amend, on a
temporary basis, the Mortgage Lender and Broker Act of 1996 to
clarify certain requirements of the act and to conform certain
definitions to Federal law; the District of Columbia Real
Estate Licensure Act of 1982 to exempt mortgage brokers and
lenders from the requirements of the act; and an act to
regulate the business of loaning money on security of any kind
by persons, firms, or corporations other than national banks,
licensed bankers, trust companies, savings banks, building and
loan associations, and real estate brokers in the District of
Columbia to add certain exemptions. Act 12-45 was published in
the March 28, 1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
2098) and transmitted to Congress on April 8, 1997 for a 30-day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 12-3, effective May 23, 1997.
117. April 8, 1997--Act 12-46, ``Fiscal Year 1997 Budget
Support Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a
temporary basis, the fiscal year 1997 budget support tax of
1996 to repeal the requirement that deed recordation tax and
transfer taxes be based on the higher of the assessed value of
the sale price of the deed, to repeal the requirement the
employees file returns for withholdings on a quarterly basis,
to repeal the requirement that returns for gross receipt taxes
and toll telecommunication service taxes be made on a quarterly
basis, and to repeal the requirement that all requests for
proposals for public schools include a clause giving the
schools the option to accept contracted services or to receive
funds representing their proportionate share of the costs for
contracted services. Act 12-46 was published in the April 8,
1996, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 2101) and
transmitted to Congress on April 8, 1997 for a 30-day review.
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-4, effective June 5, 1997.
118. April 17, 1997--Act 12-61, ``Tenant Representative
Services Lease Negotiation and Review Temporary Amendment Act
of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary basis, the District of
Columbia Revenue Act of 1970 to expedite Council review of new
leases or renewals as existing leases where the District is a
tenant and the Mayor is obligated to expend funds for
construction or alteration of tenant improvements in excess on
$1 million or average annual gross rental in excess of $1
million over the lease period, and to allow the direct
negotiation of new leases or renewals of existing leases where
the District represented by a duly licensed private sector
commercial real estate broker. Act 12-61 was published in the
April 25, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
2410) and transmitted to Congress on April 17, 1997 for a 30-
day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 12-5, effective June 5, 1997.
119. April 17, 1997--Act 12-63, ``District of Columbia
Taxicab Commission Establishment Act of 1985 Temporary
Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend on a temporary basis, the
District of Columbia Taxicab Commission Establishment Act of
1985 to authorize hearing examiners to hear and decide
complaints against taxicab owners, operators, companies,
associations, fleets, and radio dispatch operations. Act 12-63
was published in the April 25, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 2432) and transmitted to Congress on
April 17, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-6, effective June 5,
1997.
120. June 11, 1997--Act 12-79, ``Public Assistance
Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend on a temporary
basis, the District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982
to comply with provisions of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193, by repealing
the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program,
establishing the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families as a
non entitlement program of assistance, and making the following
conforming amendments: (1) imposing a time limit for receipt of
benefits under TANF; (2) revising certain eligibility
requirements related to children absent from the home; (3)
revising the duty to assign child support rights while on
assistance; (4) defining the duty to cooperate in pursuing
child support; (5) defining the ``good cause'' exception to the
cooperation requirement; (6) establishing alien eligibility for
TANF and Medicaid; (7) extending the current payment level and
amount of assistance; (8) revising the living at home
requirements for pregnant and parenting teens; (9) broadening
the application of the school attendance provisions of the
Demonstration Project for pregnant and parenting teens; (10)
denying assistance to recipients engaging in certain kinds of
fraud, fugitive felons, and parole violators; (11) making
technical amendments to reflect the termination of the pass-
through of the first $50 of child support; and, (12)
establishing confidentiality provisions; and to amend an act to
enable the District of Columbia to receive Federal financial
assistance until title XIX of the Social Security Act for a
medical assistance program, and for other purposes to make
conforming changes to the Medicaid law. Act 12-79, was
published in the June 13, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 44 page 3353) and transmitted to Congress on June 11,
1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-7, effective August 1,
1997.
121. June 11, 1997--Act 12-80, ``District of Columbia
Regional Airports Authority Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend
the District of Columbia Regional Airports Authority Act of
1985 to increase the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
from 11 to 13 members. Act 12-80 was published in the June 13,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3371) and
transmitted to Congress on June 11, 1997 for a 30-day review.
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-8,
effective August 1, 1997.
122. June 25, 1997--Act 12-83, ``Procurement Reform
Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary
basis, the Procurement Reform Amendment Act of 1996 to increase
the penalties of Civil False Claims and Qui Tam provisions and
to change the title of the head of the Office of Contracting
Procurement. Act 12-83 was published in the July 4, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3721) and
transmitted to Congress on June 25, 1997 for a 30 day review.
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-17, effective September 12, 1997.
123. June 25, 1997--Act 12-84, ``BNA Washington, Inc., Real
Property Tax Deferral Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To
amend the real property tax deferral procedure to provide for
the deferral of real property taxes on certain real property.
Act 12-84 was published in the July 4, 1997, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3740) and transmitted to Congress
on June 25, 1997 for a 30-day review. This act shall expire on
the 225th day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-18, effective
September 12, 1997.
124. Jun 18, 1997--Act 12-85, ``Children's Defense Fund
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Temporary Amendment Act of
1997.'' To provide, on a temporary basis, equitable real
property tax relief to the Children's Defense Fund, a tax-
exempt organization. Act 12-85 was published in the June 27,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3610) and
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review.
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-9, effective September 5, 1997.
125. June 18, 1997--Act 12-86, ``Closing of a Public Alley
in Square 253, S.O. 88-107, Temporary Act of 1997.'' To order,
on a temporary basis, the closing of a public alley in Square
253, bounded by F Street, NW, 13th Street, NW, G Street NW, and
14th Street NW, in ward 2. Act 12-86 was published in the June
27, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3612) and
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review.
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-10, effective September 5, 1997.
126. June 18, 1997--Act 12-87, ``Assessments Initiative
Procedures Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a
temporary basis, the Real Property Assessment and Tax
Initiative of 1997 to delay its applicability until the real
property tax year 1999. Act 12-87 was published in the June 27,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3614) and
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review.
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-11, effective September 5, 1997.
127. June 18, 1997--Act 12-88, ``Closing of a Public Alley
in Square 484, S.O. 90-272, Temporary Act of 1997.'' To order,
on a temporary basis, the closing of a public alley in Square
484, bounded by K Street NW, 5th Street, NW, Massachusetts
Avenues, NW, and 6th Street NW, in ward 2. Act 12-88 was
published in the June 27, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 44 page 3616) and transmitted to Congress on June 18,
1997 for a 30 day review. This act shall expire on the 225th
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-12, effective
September 5, 1997.
128. June 18, 1997--Act 12-90, ``Motor Vehicle Biennial
Inspection fund Act of 1997.'' To amend an act to provide for
the annual inspection of all motor vehicles in the District of
Columbia to establish a dedicated fund for the District of
Columbia Enhanced Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program as
mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Act
12-90 was published in the June 27, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 3618) and transmitted to Congress on
June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-13, effective
September 5, 1997.
129. June 18, 1997--Act 12-91, ``International Registration
Plan Agreement Act of 1997.'' To provide for membership in the
International Registration Plan pursuant to the Federally
mandated reciprocal registration requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 31704. Act 12-91 was published in the June 27, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3620) and
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review.
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-
14, effective September 5, 1997.
130. June 18, 1997--Act 12-92, ``Ivy City Yard Fixed Right-
of-Way Mass Transit System Designation Temporary Act of 1997.''
To designate, on a temporary basis, all buildings, structures,
and other improvements located at the Ivy City Yard as related
to a fixed right-of-way mass transit system which is exempt
from the subdivision requirement for certain proposed actions
pertaining to the erection or construction of buildings,
structures, and other improvements. Act 12-92 was published in
the June 27, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
3625) and transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 12-15, effective September 5, 1997.
131. June 18, 1997--Act 12-93, ``Motor Vehicle Excessive
Idling Fine Increase Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To
amend, on temporary basis, 16 DCMR 3224 and 18 DCMR 2601.2 to
increase the civil infractions fine for violating the engine
idling provisions of the District of Columbia Air Pollution
Control Act of 1984 and the Traffic Adjudication Act of 1978
and to amend the idling restriction of 18 DCMR 2418.3 to make
it comply with the District of Columbia Air Pollution Control
Act of 1984. Act 12-93 was published in the June 27, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3627) and
transmitted to Congress on June 18, 1997 for a 30 day review.
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-16, effective September 5, 1997.
132. July 11, 1997--Act 12-95, ``Ivy City Yard Fixed Right-
of-Way Mass Transit System Designation Act of 1997.'' To
designate all buildings, structures, and other improvements
located at the Ivy City Yard as related to a fixed right-of-way
mass transit system which is exempt from the subdivision
requirement for certain proposed actions pertaining to the
erection or construction of buildings, structures, and other
improvements. Act 12-95 was published in the July 18, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3998) and
transmitted to Congress on July 11, 1997 for a 30 day review.
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-
19, effective September 23, 1997.
133. July 11, 1997--Act 12-97, ``Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority Safety Regulation Act of 1997.'' To
regulate the safety and security of the rail fixed guide way
system operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority by creating and operating a joint entity among the
District of Columbia. Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State
of Maryland to oversee this regulation and by authorizing the
Mayor of the District of Columbia to enter into and implement
an agreement with Virginia and Maryland to achieve these
purpose. Act 12-95 was published in the July 18, 1997, edition
of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 3998) and transmitted to
Congress on July 11, 1997 for a 30 day review. Congress not
having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-19, effective
September 23, 1997.
134. July 11, 1997--Act 12-98, ``General Public Assistance
Program Termination Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To
amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia General
Public Assistance Act of 1982 to terminate the General Public
assistance program. Act 12-98 was published in the July 18,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4028) and
transmitted to Congress on July 11, 1997 for a 30 day review.
This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having taken
effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-21, effective September 23, 1997.
135. July 11, 1997--Act 12-99, ``Washington Convention
Center Authority Collective Bargaining Amendment Act of 1997.''
To amend the Washington Convention Center Authority Act of 1994
to provide for coverage of the Washington Convention Center
Employees by the Public Employee Relations Board and by the
labor-management relations title of the District of Columbia
Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978. Act 12-99
was published in the July 25, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 4168) and transmitted to Congress on
July 11, 1997 for a 30 day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-22, effective
September 23, 1997.
136. July 11, 1997--Act 12-100, ``Business Improvement
District Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a
temporary basis, the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996
to authorize the establishment and administration of business
improvement districts in the District of Columbia and the
assessment and collection of taxes for the improvement of
business improvement districts. Act 12-100 was published in the
July 25, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4170)
and transmitted to Congress on July 11, 1997 for a 30 day
review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its having
taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 12-23, effective September 23, 1997.
137. July 29, 1997--Act 12-107, ``Closing of a Public Alley
in Square 253, S.O. 88-107, Reinstatement Act of 1997.'' To
reinstate an act that ordered the closing of a public alley in
Square 253, bounded by F Street, NW, 13th Street, NW, G Street,
NW, and 14th Street, NW, in ward 2. Act 12-107 was published in
the August 1, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
4316) and transmitted to Congress on July 29, 1997 for a 30 day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-24, effective October 8, 1997.
138. July 29, 1997--Act 12-108, ``Closing of a Public Alley
in Square 484 S.O. 90-272, Reinstatement Act of 1997.'' To
reinstate an act that ordered the closing of a public alley in
Square 484, bounded by K Street, NW, 5th Street, NW,
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, and 6th Street, NW in ward 2, and to
amend the closing of a public alley in Square 107, S.O. 95-56,
Act of 1996 to clarify a provision requiring an affordable
housing contribution. Act 12-108 was published in the August 1,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4318) and
transmitted to Congress on July 29, 1997 for a 30 day review.
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-
25, effective October 8, 1997.
139. July 29, 1997--Act 12-109, ``Business Improvement
Districts Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend the Business
Improvement Districts Act of 1996 to authorize the
establishment and administration of business improvement
districts in the District of Columbia and the assessment and
collection of taxes for the improvement of business improvement
districts in the District of Columbia and the assessment and
collection of taxes for the improvement of business improvement
districts. Act 12-109 was published in the August 1, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4320) and
transmitted to Congress on July 29, 1997 for a 30 day review.
Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-
26, effective October 8, 1997.
140. July 29, 1997--Act 12-113, ``Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Federal Law Conformity Temporary
Act of 1997.'' To provide, on a temporary basis, individual and
group health insurance subscribers in the District of Columbia
the benefits and protections mandated by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Act 12-113 was
published in the August 1, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register
(Vol. 44 page 4345) and transmitted to Congress on July 29,
1997 for a 30 day review. This act shall expire on the 225th
day of its having taken effect. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-27, effective October
8, 1997.
141. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-117, ``Sex Offender Registration
Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend, on a temporary
basis, the Sex Offender Registration Act of 1996 to require the
Metropolitan Police Department to update its registry promptly,
and to require new residents to the District of Columbia who
fall within the registration requirements to register with the
Metropolitan Police Department within 10 days of establishing
residence in the District of Columbia. Act 12-117 was published
in the August 8, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44
page 4506) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for
a 30-day review. This act shall expire on the 225th day of its
having taken effect. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 12-28, effective October 23, 1997.
142. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-119, ``Iglesia Del Dios Vivo
Columna Y Apoya De La Verdad La Lux Del Mundo Equitable Real
Property Tax Relief Act of 1997.'' To provide equitable real
property tax relief to the Iglesia Del Dios Vivo Columna Y
Apoya De La Verdad ``La Lux Del Mundo'', a tax exempt religious
organization. Act 12-119 was published in the August 15, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4641) and
transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-29, effective October 23, 1997.
143. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-125, ``Living Word Church
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1997.'' To provide
equitable real property tax relief to the Living Word Church, a
tax exempt religious organization. Act 12-125 was published in
the August 15, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
4656) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 12-30, effective October 23, 1997.
144. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-126, ``Faith Tabernacle Church
Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1997.'' To provide
equitable real property tax relief to Faith Tabernacle Church,
a tax exempt religious organization. Act 12-126 was published
in the August 15, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44
page 4658) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 12-31, effective October 23, 1997.
145. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-128, ``Healthcare Entity
Conversion Act of 1997.'' To establish procedures to ensure the
protection of charitable assets held in the public trust by
Healthcare entities when those assets are transferred to
entitles that are for-profit and to make conforming amendments
to the Health Services Planning Program Reestablishment Act of
1996, the Hospital and Medical Services Corporation Regulatory
Act of 1996, and the Health Maintenance Organization Act of
1996, and to authorize the Corporation Counsel to approve all
conversions. Act 12-128 was published in the August 22, 1997,
edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4819) and
transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-32, effective October 23, 1997.
146. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-129, ``Washington Home for
Incurables Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act of 1997.'' To
provide equitable real property tax relief to the Washington
Home for Incurables a tax exempt. Act 12-129 was published in
the August 15, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
4660) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 12-33, effective October 23, 1997.
147. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-130, ``Real Property Interest
Reporting Improvement Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend an act
to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia to
require the owner mortgagee, secured party under a deed of
trust, trustee, and lienholder of any real property to notify
the Recorder of Deeds when there is a name or address change,
and to authorize an administrative fee to cover the cost of
additional research to locate an owner, a mortgagee, a secured
party under a deed of trust, a trustee, or a lienholder after
an unsuccessful attempt using available information. Act 12-130
was published in the August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C.
Register (Vol. 44 page 4827) and transmitted to Congress on
September 3, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-34, effective October
23, 1997.
148. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-131, ``Health Care for the
Homeless Project, Inc., Equitable Real Property Tax Relief Act
of 1997.'' To provide equitable real property tax, and transfer
tax relief to the Health Care for the Homeless Project, Inc.,
the National Health Plan, and the Community Group Health
Foundation, tax exempt organizations. Act 12-131 was published
in the August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44
page 4662) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 12-35, effective October 23, 1997.
149. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-132, ``Comprehensive Merit
Personnel Act Pay Limit Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.'' To
amend, on a temporary basis, the District of Columbia
Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to repeal
the prohibition on an employee receiving a rate of basic pay in
excess of the rate of pay for the Mayor; and to amend the
District of Columbia Police and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 to
authorize the Council to change or suspend by resolution the
compensation provisions for officers and members of the
Metropolitan Police Department and the Fire and Emergency
Medical Services Department. Act 12-132 was published in the
August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page
4829) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a
30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became
D.C. Law 12-36, effective October 23, 1997.
150. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-139, ``Real Property Tax sale
Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend Title 47 of the District of
Columbia Code to prevent owners of real property with
delinquent real property taxes from participating in real
property tax sales. Act 12-139 was published in the August 22,
1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4850) and
transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for a 30-day
review. Congress not having disapproved, this act became D.C.
Law 12-37, effective October 23, 1997.
151. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-140, ``Homestead Exemption
Penalty Expansion Amendment Act of 1997.'' To amend title 47 of
the District of Columbia Code to establish as a misdemeanor the
failure to notify the Mayor of termination of eligibility for
the Homestead tax exemption program. Act 12-140 was published
in the August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44
page 4852) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 12-38, effective October 23, 1997.
152. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-143, ``Human Rights Amendment
Act of 1997.'' To amend the Human Rights Act of 1977 to
establish a mandatory mediation process prior to the formal
investigation of a complaint by the Office of Human Rights, to
provide for a period of up to 60 days for completion of the
conciliation process after the Office of Human Rights completes
its formal investigation, to permit the Commission to order the
payment of civil penalties, to provide for a 1-year statute of
limitations for filing a court action, and to provide for the
tolling of the 1-year statute of limitations during the
pendency of a complaint before the Office of Human Rights. Act
12-143 was published in the August 22, 1997, edition of the
D.C. Register (Vol. 44 page 4856) and transmitted to Congress
on September 3, 1997 for a 30-day review. Congress not having
disapproved, this act became D.C. Law 12-39, effective October
23, 1997.
153. Sept. 3, 1997--Act 12-144, ``Real Property Assessment
Process and Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes Amendment Act of
1997.'' To amend title 47 of the District of Columbia Code to
provide for an administrative appeal process for supplemental
assessments, provide that real property shall be assessed at
least once every 3 years, establish an administrative appeal
process for triennial assessments, establish a process for
appeals filed outside of the triennial assessment period,
establish an appeal process for new owners, provide that the
assessment role shall be estimated instead of certified, and
authorize the issuance of District of Columbia general
obligation tax revenue anticipation notes of the District of
Columbia to finance general governmental expenses for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997. Act 12-144 was published
in the August 22, 1997, edition of the D.C. Register (Vol. 44
page 4859) and transmitted to Congress on September 3, 1997 for
a 30-day review. Congress not having disapproved, this act
became D.C. Law 12-40, effective October 23, 1997.
Subcommittee on Human Resources
1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 104th
Congress, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 67
This law imposes parliamentary barriers to discourage the
imposition of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal
governments without adequate funding if the mandates would
displace other essential governmental priorities. It also
requires the legislative and executive branches to identify and
quantify costs incurred by those governments in complying with
Federal statutory and regulatory mandates. In addition, it
required a study of existing mandates.
The Human Resources Subcommittee is continuing to monitor
Federal department compliance with the legislation, with
special attention to two portions--the title II requirement
that Federal agencies review proposed and final regulations for
mandate impacts and consider less burdensome alternatives, and
the title III requirement that a review of existing mandates be
conducted.
2. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Public Law 104-
191, 104th Congress, signed into law August 21, 1996
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 [HIPAA] provided for changes in the health insurance
market and imposed certain requirements on health insurance
plans offered by public and private employers. It guaranteed
the availability and renewability of health insurance coverage
for certain employees and individuals, limiting the use of pre-
existing condition restrictions. It created Federal standards
for insurers, health maintenance organizations [HMOs] and
employer plans, including those who are self-insured. It
ensures greater availability of health coverage plans for small
employers. Medical Savings Accounts--personal savings accounts
for unreimbursed medical expenses--were created by the act.
The law also created a new program to combat health care
fraud and abuse, established the Medicare Integrity Program,
set up a new Medicare anti-fraud and abuse control account
within the Medicare hospital trust fund, extended criminal
sanctions under the Social Security Act for Medicare, Medicaid
and other Federal health care programs and established new
rules and penalties for fraud and abuse in Medicare and
Medicaid.
The Human Resources Subcommittee has been monitoring the
implementation of the legislation, particularly the fraud and
abuse provisions, tracking the amount of recouped resources as
a result of successful collaborative anti-fraud initiatives on
the part of the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS],
the Office of the Inspector General [OIG], the Department of
Justice [DOJ], and State agencies' efforts. The subcommittee
has been monitoring the implementation of the new Adverse
Action Data Base, the Medicare Integrity Program, and following
the OIG expansion of its Operation Restore Trust initiative.
Subcommittee on the Postal Service
1. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, Public Law 91-375, August 12,
1970, 84 Stat. 719
The Subcommittee on the Postal Service has legislative
jurisdiction and oversight over the U.S. Postal Service, U.S.
Postal Rate Commission and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
These entities operate under the authority granted pursuant to
the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 [PRA] which traces
congressional authority for postal services to Article I,
Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which direct Congress
``(t)o establish Post Offices and Post Roads.''
The U.S. Postal Service is governed by an 11 member Board
of Governors; 9 of whom are appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate who in turn employ a Postmaster General
and Deputy Postmaster General who also become members of the
Board. The U.S. Postal Service handles 40 percent of the
world's mail volume; it had total revenues in 1995 of $54.3
billion; it employs 1 out of every 170 Americans; and processed
181 billion pieces of mail or about 580 million pieces per day
and delivered to 128 million addresses in 1995.
The U.S. Postal Rate Commission, independent of the U.S.
Postal Service, is governed by five, full-time, Presidentially-
appointed and Senate-confirmed Commissioners. It is responsible
by hearing a request of the U.S. Postal Service for an increase
in postage rates, reclassification of its postage schedule and
for making a recommended decision upon such a request. The
Commission also hears complaints from outside parties regarding
postal rates or services.
The Postal Inspection Service is the law enforcement branch
of the U.S. Postal Service and is responsible for enforcing the
Mail Fraud Act, Mail Order Consumer Protection Amendments of
1983, Drug and Household Substance Mailing Act of 1990, and for
enforcing the Private Express Statutes which give the Postal
Service its letter-mail monopoly. It is also entrusted with
insuring the security and safety of postal facilities and
employees and for serving in the dual role of Inspector General
for the agency.
The subcommittee continued its in-depth oversight of the
operations of these entities. During the first session, the
subcommittee conducted a series of in-depth oversight hearings
which highlighted the need for reform of postal operations.
These hearings laid the foundation for the reforms contained in
H.R. 3717, the Postal Reform Act of 1996, the first
comprehensive postal reform legislation in a quarter century.
H.R. 3717 focused constructive debate in the postal community
on the future of the Postal Service in meeting its statutory
mandate of provision of universal mail service. The
subcommittee believes that shifting mail volumes and stagnant
postal revenue growth requires an examination of the statutory
structure under which our current postal system now operates if
the Service is to maintain this important public service
mission.
The oversight hearings identified several weaknesses in the
current statutory structure of the Postal Service. One weakness
highlighted is the Postal Service's inability to compete under
the procedures required by the current, 25 year old ratemaking
structure. According to the General Accounting Office, the U.S.
Postal Service controlled virtually all of the Express Mail
market in the early 1970's; by 1995 its share had dropped to
approximately 13 percent. Similarly, the Postal Service is
moving considerably fewer parcels today than 25 years ago. In
1971 the Postal Service handled 536 million parcel pieces and
enjoyed a 65 percent share of the ground surface delivery
market. This is in comparison to 1990 when the Postal Service
parcel volume had dropped to 122 million pieces with a
resulting market share of about 6 percent.
Even first-class financial transactions and personal
correspondence mail--monopoly protected areas under the Private
Express Statutes--are showing the effect of electronic
communications competition. Financial institutions are
promoting computer software to consumers as a method of
conducting their bill-paying and general banking, while
Internet service providers and online subscription services are
offering consumers the ability to send electronic messages to
anyone in the world or around the corner. Similarly, many
postal users have become accustomed to the immediacy of the
facsimile machine. These new communication technologies all
carry correspondence that formerly flowed through the Postal
Service. These former sources of revenues supported a postal
infrastructure dedicated to the mission of universal service.
This shift in postal revenues will have a negative long-
term effect on the financial well being of the Postal Service.
The subcommittee believes that should the Service continue to
labor under the restrictions established by the 1970 act, its
inability to compete, develop new products and respond to
changing market conditions jeopardizes its ability to continue
to provide universal service to the diverse geographic areas of
our Nation. Congress must review reforms to the current postal
statutory structure which will provide the Postal Service more
competitive flexibility while assuring all postal customers of
a continued universal mail service at reasonable and affordable
rates. H.R. 3717 meets this goal by replacing the zero-sum game
of the current ratemaking structure with a system that insures
reasonable postal rates while allowing the Postal Service the
flexibility it needs to compete in today's changing
communication markets.
As evidenced in our review of data quality, the act has
fostered an entrenched distrust between the Postal Service and
the Postal Rate Commission and allowed the two agencies to
develop an inter-agency antagonism which fosters a sense of
favoritism between postal customers. This problem is
exacerbated by the existing cost-based ratemaking process.
The subcommittee will continue to study, monitor and report
on the effectiveness of the Postal Reorganization Act and will
continue to seek needed reforms to improve the overall
performance of the Postal Service and provide better service to
all postal customers.
IV. Other Current Activities
A. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTS
Standing Committee
1. ``Financial Audit: Independent Counsel Expenditures for the Six
Months Ended September 30, 1996,'' March 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-64
a. Summary.--The Department of Justice and the independent
counsels are required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 594(d)(2), (h)
and 596(c)(1) to report on expenditures from a permanent,
indefinite appropriation established within Justice to fund
independent counsel activities. In order to satisfy the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 596(c)(2) and Public Law 100-
202, which established a permanent, indefinite appropriation
within Justice to fund independent counsels, the GAO is
required to audit the independent counsels' expenditures from
the appropriation for each 6-month period in which they have
operations and report those findings to the appropriate
congressional committees.
The GAO found that the statements of expenditures for the
offices of independent counsel Arlin M. Adams/Larry D.
Thompson, David M. Barrett, Joseph E. diGenova/Michael F.
Zeldin, Daniel S. Pearson, Donald C. Smaltz, and Kenneth W.
Starr were reliable in all material respects.
2. ``Financial Audit: Independent Counsel Expenditures for the Six
Months Ended March 31, 1997,'' September 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-164
a. Summary.--The Department of Justice and the independent
counsels are required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 594(d)(2), (h)
and 596(c)(1) to report on expenditures from a permanent,
indefinite appropriation established within Justice to fund
independent counsel activities. In order to satisfy the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 596(c)(2) and Public Law 100-
202, which established a permanent, indefinite appropriation
within Justice to fund independent counsels, the GAO is
required to audit the independent counsels' expenditures from
the appropriation for each 6-month period in which they have
operations and report those findings to the appropriate
congressional committees.
The GAO found that the statements of expenditures for the
offices of independent counsel Arlin M. Adams/Larry D.
Thompson, David M. Barrett, Joseph E. diGenova/Michael F.
Zeldin, Daniel S. Pearson, Donald C. Smaltz, Kenneth W. Starr,
and a sealed independent counsel were reliable in all material
respects.
3. ``GPRA: Managerial Accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work
As Intended,'' April 1997, GAO/GGD-97-36
a. Summary.--This report was addressed to the chairman and
ranking member of the House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee. The report was developed in
partial response to the Government Performance and Results
Act's requirement that GAO report on the act's implementation
during the initial pilot phase--fiscal years 1994 to 1996--and
on the prospects for its government-wide implementation.
The Results Act provides for a series of pilot projects so
that Federal agencies can gain experience in using the act's
provisions and provide lessons to other agencies before
government-wide implementation. One set of these pilot projects
focused on managerial accountability and flexibility.
GAO found that the managerial accountability and
flexibility pilot did not work as intended. OMB did not
designate any of the 7 departments and 1 independent agency
that submitted a total of 61 waiver proposals as pilots. For
about three-quarters of the waiver proposals, OMB or other
central management agencies determined that the waivers were
not allowable for statutory or other reasons or that the
requirement for which the waivers were proposed no longer
existed. For the remaining proposals, OMB or other central
management agencies approved waivers or developed compromises
by using authorities that were already available independent of
GPRA.
GAO found that three major factors contributed to the
failure of the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot
phase. First, changes in Federal management practices and laws
that occurred after the Results Act was enacted affected
agencies' need for the Results Act process. Second, the Results
Act was not the only means by which agencies could receive
waivers from administrative requirements, and thereby obtain
needed managerial flexibility. And third, OMB did not work
activity with agencies that were seeking to take part in the
managerial accountability and flexibility pilot.
As of November 1996, almost 11 months after OMB had
received the endorsements by the central management agencies,
OMB had not formally notified two of the eight agencies that
nine of their requested waivers had been approved outside of
the Results Act pilot process or that a compromise had been
developed. Overall, officials in five of the eight agencies
that submitted a waiver proposal to OMB said that they never
received feedback from OMB on the status of their waiver
proposals, or notification of specific concerns that OMB may
have had about the quality and scope of the proposals, or
explicit instructions from OMB on how their proposals could be
improved to better meet OMB's expectations.
b. Benefits.--This report was helpful to Congress in
overseeing agency and OMB compliance with the Results Act, and
in determining which pilot phases of the act would be
instructional for government-wide implementation of the act.
4. ``The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Government-wide
Implementation Will Be Uneven,'' June 1997, GAO/GGD-97-109
a. Summary.--This report was addressed to the chairman and
ranking members of the following: the House Government Reform
and Oversight Committee, the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, the House Committee on Budget, the Senate Committee
on Budget, the House Committee on Appropriations, and the
Senate Committee on Appropriations. This report is in response
to the Results Act requirement that GAO report to Congress on
the prospects for government-wide implementation of the act.
GAO's report indicated that the Results Act's
implementation up to that point had achieved mixed results,
which would lead to highly uneven government-wide
implementation in the 1997. While agencies would likely meet
statutory deadlines for producing initial strategic plans and
annual performance plans, GAO found that those documents will
not be of a consistently high quality or as useful for
congressional and agency decisionmaking as they could be.
GAO observed the following challenges for government-wide
implementation: (1) Overlapping and fragmented crosscutting
program efforts can undermine efforts to establish clear
missions and goals; (2) The often limited or indirect influence
that the Federal Government has in determining whether desired
results is achieved complicates the effort to identify and
measure the discrete contribution of the Federal initiative to
a specific program result; (3) The lack of quality and the
dearth of results-oriented performance information in many
agencies hampers efforts to identify appropriate goals and
confidently assess performance; and, (4) Instilling within
agencies an organizational culture that focuses on results
remain a work in progress across the Federal Government.
b. Benefits.--This report helps Congress anticipate and
oversee the administration's implementation of the Results Act.
It gives a realistic view of the compliance to expect from
agencies, the challenges agencies face. Congress can then
better know where, when, and how to apply pressure on the
administration to try and get the best compliance possible.
5. ``Managing for Results: Regulatory Agencies Identified Significant
Barriers to Focusing on Results,'' June 1997, GAO/GGD-97-83
a. Summary.--While addressed to the chairman and ranking
member of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee
and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee, this report was initiated by GAO to support
the broader responsibility of the GAO to report to Congress on
the prospects for the Results Acts's implementation government-
wide, as required by the act.
GAO found that officials at many regulatory agencies cited
numerous barriers to their efforts to establish results-
oriented goals and measures. These barriers included
significant problems in identifying and collecting the data
they needed to demonstrate their agencies' results. Agencies
also cited as a barrier the fact that diverse and complex
factors affect agencies' results (e.g., business cycles,
technological innovations, or the need to deliver Federal
program initiatives and thus achieve results through third
parties), and their lack of control or influence over those
factors. Finally, agency officials observed that the long time
period needed to see results in some areas of Federal
regulation was a barrier to identifying and managing toward
those results in the framework of annual performance plans and
budgets. The impact of some agencies' regulatory actions, such
as limiting exposure to a hazardous chemical, may not be
evident for years. GAO thinks these barriers suggest that the
implementation of the Results Act in a regulatory environment
may prove more difficult in some cases than in others.
b. Benefits.--This GAO report is important in aiding
Congress to oversee and anticipate agency compliance with the
Results Act. It is also important in helping executive branch
agencies themselves prepare for government-wide implementation
of the act.
6. ``Managing For Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap,'' August 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-
146
a. Summary.--As requested by Majority Leader Armey,
Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton,
Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, and Appropriations
Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, GAO compiled its
documentation of mission fragmentation and program overlap and
reported on the specific ways in which the Results Act can
focus attention on these management challenges and help to
develop strategies to harmonize Federal responses.
GAO found that the Results Act should offer a new and
structured framework to address crosscutting issues. Each of
its key stages--defining missions and desired outcomes,
measuring performance, and using performance information--
offers a new opportunity to address fragmentation and overlap.
The Results Act is intended to foster a dialog on strategic
goals involving the Congress as well as agency and external
stakeholders. This dialog should help to identify agencies and
programs addressing similar missions and associated performance
implications. The act's emphasis on results-based performance
measures should lead to more explicit discussions of
contributions and accomplishments within crosscutting programs
and encourage related programs to develop common performance
measures. Finally, if the Results Act is successfully
implemented, performance information should become available to
clarify the consequences of fragmentation and the implication
of alternative policy and service delivery options, which, in
tern, can affect future decisions concerning department and
agency missions and the allocation of resources among those
missions.
b. Benefits.--This report helped confirm the requestors
expectation that the Results Act would be a useful tool for
addressing program overlap and fragmentation. As each stage of
the Results Act is implemented by executive branch agencies, it
is critical for Congress to know if its expectations are
realistic so that oversight can be as effective as possible.
7. ``Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal
Agencies' Strategic Plans,'' September 1997, GAO/GGD-97-180
a. Summary.--In response to a request from Majority Leader
Dick Armey, Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman
Dan Burton, Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, and
Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, GAO reviewed
and evaluated the latest available version of the draft
strategic plans that were submitted to Congress for
consultation by cabinet departments and selected independent
agencies. Those reviews of the draft plans: (1) assessed the
draft plans' compliance with the act's required elements and
their overall quality; (2) determined if the plans reflected
the key statutory requirements for each agency; (3) identified
whether the plans reflected discussions about crosscutting
activities and coordination with other agencies having similar
activities; (4) determined if the draft plans addressed major
management challenges; and, (5) provided a preliminary
assessment of the capacity of the departments and agencies to
provide reliable information about performance.
GAO found in their review that several critical strategic
planning issues are in need of sustained attention if agencies
are to develop the dynamic strategic planning processes
envisioned by the Results Act. First, most of the draft plans
did not adequately link required elements in the plans. Second,
long-term strategic goals often tended to have weaknesses.
Third, many agencies did not fully develop strategies
explaining how their long-term strategic goals would be
achieved. Fourth, most agencies did not reflect in their draft
plans the identification and planned coordination of activities
and programs that cut across multiple agencies. Fifth, the
questionable capacity of many agencies to gather performance
information has hampered efforts to identify appropriate goals
and confidently assess performance. And sixth, the draft
strategic plans did not adequately address program evaluations.
b. Benefits.--While Congress had set up congressional staff
teams to review the individual draft strategic plans submitted
by agencies, it was critical for congressional planning and
oversight of the Results Act to have a review of all the plans
taken as a whole. GAO's assessment again gave Congress a better
sense of what expectations of agencies could be and where the
weaknesses in the plans were.
8. ``The Results Act: Observations on the Draft Strategic Plans of the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,
Energy, Health and Human Services', Housing and Urban
Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation,
Treasury, Veterans Affairs, EPA's, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, General Services Administration, NASA, National Science
Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business
Administration, Social Security Administration, the Postal
Service, USAID, and USTR's''
a. Summary.--As requested by Majority Leader Dick Armey,
Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton,
Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich, and Appropriations
Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, GAO performed reviews on an
individual basis of the draft strategic plans of all of the
Chief Financial Officers Act agencies and a handful of other
important Federal entities. These entities included: Labor,
Treasury, Postal Service, HHS, Commerce, OPM, Interior,
Transportation, DOD, OMB, HUD, NASA, Energy, Justice, EPA,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SBA, FEMA, NSF, GSA,
Agriculture, USTR, State, USAID, SSA, Education, and the
Veterans Administration.
b. Benefits.--GAO's individual reviews aided the
congressional teams that were set up to examine specific agency
strategic plans and consult with those agencies regarding the
direction and implications of those plans. GAO's individual
reviews were necessary especially in cases where the team was
pressed for time in reviewing the draft plan itself or did not
know the agencies programs in as great detail as the GAO. GAO
also brought a great deal of expertise to their examination,
which helped in many cases ask and answer important Results Act
questions for the congressional teams.
Subcommittee on the Civil Service
1. Tax Administration: Lessons Learned From IRS' Initial Experience in
Redeploying Employees, January 9, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-24)
a. Summary.--Thousands of Federal employees faced the
possibility of losing their positions with the Internal Revenue
Service [IRS] as a result of the agency's efforts to modernize
its operations. The IRS developed a ``Redeployment
Understanding'' in November 1993 after extensive negotiations
with the National Treasury Employees Union [NTEU]. This
agreement described procedures for filling vacancies through
voluntary reassignments and seniority. Although this
redeployment strategy was intended to facilitate the movement
of employees whose positions were considered at risk, GAO found
that, in the early stages, the redeployment strategy was used
to move thousands of employees whose jobs were not in immediate
jeopardy into positions that were expected to be needed in the
new environment. GAO concluded that the ``Redeployment
Understanding'' exacerbated the normal inefficiencies
associated with such transitions by making many employees
eligible for redeployment years before their jobs were expected
to be eliminated and by not allowing IRS to fill jobs with
people with related experience before bringing in volunteers
from unrelated areas. Many employees cited concerns about the
assistance provided to help employees find jobs.
b. Benefits.--This report demonstrates the inefficiencies
associated with premature redeployment strategies and documents
ineffective operations with regard to IRS' personnel management
practices. The costs associated with this premature and
inefficient redeployment effort were exacerbated in November
1997, when the IRS--after hearings in both chambers addressed
major human resource management problems at the agency--
canceled the reduction in force that the redeployment strategy
was designed to address. The report and subsequent events
reinforce previous Federal and private experience that
emphasize the importance of accomplishing significant
organizational changes as quickly as possible in order to
prevent expensive and inefficient coping strategies.
2. U.S. Customs Service: Varied Reaction to the Labor-Management
Partnership Concept, March 11, 1997 (GAO/T-GGD-97-54)
a. Summary.--Both the Customs Service and the National
Treasury Employees Union [NTEU] claimed that labor-management
relations have improved at the agency since the institution of
Executive Order 12871, creating ``partnership councils'' in
Federal agencies. This testimony before the Committee on Ways
and Means Subcommittee on Trade indicates that Customs had only
begun to evaluate the results of the new relationship, and
expected that 5 years would be necessary to make the
partnership concept the agency's normal operating environment.
The agency is still in the process of developing performance
measures and an evaluation schedule for this major change in
approach to human resource management during the agency's
restructuring.
b. Benefits.--This testimony reflects the length of time
and intensity of planning commonly recognized as required to
effect extensive organizational change. It confirms the
challenges involved in implementing major initiatives, and is
consistent with studies assessing the impact of corporate
culture changes in the private sector.
3. Privatization: Lessons Learned By State and Local Governments, March
14, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-48)
a. Summary.--This report to the House Republican Task Force
discussed privatization efforts in Georgia, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New York, and Virginia and the city of Indianapolis,
IN. Governments in each of those jurisdictions had made
extensive, recent use of privatization, primarily by increasing
reliance on competition and contracting, rather than government
employees. Each of the governments had tailored their
approaches to privatization to local requirements, but GAO
identified six lessons from their experiences. First,
successful privatization requires effective political
leadership. To be successful, privatization requires an
effective organization that is committed to solid analysis of
the conversion. Frequently, the changes will require
legislative support. Those changes also need reliable cost data
to support informed privatization. In approaching the
transition, government organizations need to develop workforce
transition strategies. GAO also contended that an agency needs
to perform more sophisticated monitoring and oversight when its
role in service delivery is reduced through privatization.
b. Benefits.--This report provides a framework that can
assist the subcommittee in examining any privatization plans
and transition strategies that might be advanced by Federal
agencies. It observed the important role that competition has
played in successful State and local efforts to provide
government employees continued opportunities to pursue their
careers and highlighted the importance of effective transition
planning for both the agencies and their affected employees.
4. GPRA: Managerial accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work
As Intended, April 10, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-36)
a. Summary.--Through the Government Performance and Results
Act (Result Act), Congress intended to shift agencies'
perspectives from procedures and regulations to performance and
results as they assess their operations. This report assessed
pilot projects to evaluate whether managerial accountability
and flexibility worked as intended in the pilot programs, and
to identify lessons learned from these experiences with an eye
toward government-wide application. These flexibilities did not
work as intended in the seven departments and one independent
agency that submitted 61 waiver proposals to the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB]. OMB found that the waivers
requested were not allowable for statutory or other reasons.
For example, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act, enacted
after the Results Act, enacted new personnel ceilings for
agencies that limited requests to waive those ceilings. Other
waivers, however, were approved through the National
Performance Review or other executive channels, resulting in a
multitude of avenues to implement changes in organizations and
limiting the extent to which changes could be attributed to the
Results Act. Easier procedures, for example, facilitated the
creation of 185 ``reinvention labs'' outside of the Results Act
procedures. OMB was found to be slow in responding to waiver
requests filed through Results Act procedures, thus favoring
those organizations that used other channels. Agencies found
that most benefits derived from preparing waiver requests under
the Results Act resulted from recognizing that many of the
burdensome requirements were imposed internally, rather than by
oversight agencies or by statute. This assessment proved useful
in developing flexibilities internally rather than through
Results Act procedures.
b. Benefits.--This report highlighted several of the
internal factors that tend to limit organizational flexibility.
It demonstrated that agencies can work toward improvements in
their procedures through a variety of channels, and indicated
that OMB was pursuing most changes through administrative
mechanisms rather than the statutory waivers available under
the Results Act.
5. Federal Retirement: Federal And Private Sector Retirement Programs
Vary, April 7, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-40)
a. Summary.--This report describes the comparative features
of the retirement benefit programs available to Federal
employees and their private sector counterparts. Bureau of
Labor Statistics' Data report thousands of retirement plans
covering over 75 percent of full time employees in private
firms with more than 100 employees. Although all private sector
programs build on a Social Security base, employers offer
varieties of defined benefit and defined contribution programs.
Both GAO and the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] contracted
with Watson Wyatt Worldwide, which has surveyed retirement
programs at Fortune magazine's list of the 1,000 largest
employers. Those data indicate that 70 percent of these
employers combined defined benefit and defined contribution
features in their retirement programs, comparable to the
structure of the Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS].
However, few private sector plans are structured to provide for
an unreduced benefit at the completion of a 30-year career as
early as age 55, a hallmark of most public sector retirement
systems. When Federal employees retire at age 62, with 30
years' service, their benefits are comparable with private
sector retirees' total packages. Civil Service Retirement
System [CSRS] employees who retire at 62 with 20 years of
service receive annuities equal to approximately 36 percent of
final salaries. This assumes no Thrift Savings Plan
participation for these [CSRS] employees and no earned Social
Security benefit from prior employment. This CSRS benefit is
smaller than available to 63 percent of private programs with
defined benefit and defined contribution components to their
pension systems. It is also less than benefits available under
the FERS package. FERS employees who retire after 20 years of
service at age 62 receive about 66 percent of final salary,
made up of a Social Security component, FERS defined benefit
component, and withdrawals from a Thrift Savings Plan account.
FERS employees retiring at 62 with 30 years of service receive
annuities totaling approximately 81 percent of pre-retirement
income. These projections, of course, differ with variable
rates of participation in the Thrift Savings Plan and with
salary levels.
b. Benefits.--This report demonstrates that Federal
retirement programs remain very attractive in comparison with
those available to private sector employees. This report,
however, did not provide a full and accurate portrayal of the
level of benefits available to Federal employees. Its primary
bases of comparison centered on people who retire at age 62,
rather than those who retire at age 55, and the methodology
section reflects that the private sector data base used for
comparison did not include average age of retirement for
private sector employees. Where Federal employees are eligible
for full pensions at age 55 with 30 years service, those
benefits did not get calculated in developing the comparison.
Private sector retirees who leave their employers before age 62
are not eligible for either Social Security benefits or other
offsetting compensation comparable to that provided to FERS
retirees until they reach age 62. The report, as a result,
tends to understate the relative strength of the benefits of
Federal employees in comparison with private sector
counterparts.
6. Farm Service Agency: Additional Actions Needed to Address Employee
Conflict-of-Interest Issues, April 25, 1997 (GAO/RCED-97-104)
a. Summary.--The creation of the Farm Service Agency [FSA]
in 1994 consolidated programs of the Farmers Home
Administration, many functions of the former Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and other agencies
created the potential for conflicts of interest because it
incorporated as Federal employees many people who had been
participants in the Department of Agriculture's loan programs.
FSA has been working to review cases where its employees have
gained eligibility for loan programs and to identify cases
requiring attention to avoid conflict of interest problems. As
of September 30, 1996, about 414 of 16,300 FSA Federal and non-
Federal employees and about 1,209 of 8,150 county employees had
4,089 FSA loans, with an outstanding principal that amounted to
$265 million of the FSA's $16.9 billion portfolio. GAO
recognized that FSA had made progress in identifying these
situations, but concluded that it had not provided State
offices with clear and consistent guidance to identify and
resolve conflict of interest situations.
b. Benefits.--This report is useful in describing potential
vulnerabilities associated with the consolidation of agencies,
especially in situations where responsibilities might result in
conflicts of interest.
7. Federal Retirement: Comparison of High-3, 4, and 5 Salary Factors,
April 25, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-84R)
a. Summary.--Until 1969, Federal employees' annuities were
calculated on the basis of earnings in the 5 highest years of
service (``high-5''). That year, the pension calculation
formula was shifted to a ``high-3'' basis, and some analysts
have speculated about the effects of reverting to the earlier
standard. In an effort to assess the impact of modifying the
high-3 salary factor currently used to calculate Federal
pensions, the subcommittee chairman asked GAO to compare the
pension calculations of current law with options involving a
``high-4'' and a ``high-5'' factor. GAO created a variety of
scenarios reflecting different age and service requirements
applicable to CSRS and FERS employees at different grade and
step levels. CSRS employees with 30 years service would have to
work an additional 4 to 5 months to earn a comparable pension
if a ``high-4'' calculation were adopted, and 7 to 9 additional
months with a ``high-5'' formula in effect. For most employees,
the ``high-4'' formula would result in a need to work an
additional 3 to 4 months to earn an equivalent pension. These
same employees would have to work an additional 5 to 8 months
to gain an equivalent pension under a ``high-5'' standard.
b. Benefits.--This report demonstrated that should the
``high-3'' salary factor used in computing retirement benefits
be changed, Federal employees could acquire identical
retirement benefits with comparatively little additional
service. Although no such change was included in the fiscal
year 1998 Budget Reconciliation, this report provides a
foundation for evaluating such proposals for consideration in
the future.
8. The Excepted Service: A Research Profile, May 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-72)
a. Summary.--Efforts to reinvent government and to respond
to the Government Performance and Results Act, the Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act, and other reform initiatives have
frequently raised criticisms that cumbersome civil service
procedures are leading obstacles in the path toward more
effective and efficient government. This report documents that
only 52 percent of Federal employees remain in the competitive
civil service. The remaining 48 percent of Federal employees
are in some variety of ``excepted service.'' GAO, however,
could not provide a coherent framework for the ``exceptions''
that define this component of the Federal service. More than
100 agencies employ some segments of excepted employees, but no
accurate catalog of the exceptions has been compiled. Some
agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, have had
all employees excepted from major portions of title 5, while
other agencies have only a few employees in such positions. GAO
also was unable to develop a coherent rationale for the variety
of exceptions that it found, and described most of them as
responses to particular conditions defined by agencies. The
staff study identified additional research that would be needed
to clarify concerns about the variety of exceptions in Federal
service.
b. Benefits.--This staff study begins to define some of the
criteria of the excepted service and to identify the extent of
flexibilities already inherent in Federal management of
personnel. The report falls short in not defining the range of
exceptions nor the rationale for the exceptions that exist.
9. Federal Civilian Personnel: Cost of Lump-Sum Annual Payments to
Employees Separating From Government, May 29, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-
100)
a. Summary.--The Committee on the Budget requested GAO to
review recent trends in Federal expenditures associated with
paying lump-sum amounts reflecting the current value of accrued
annual leave to Federal employees who separate from Government.
Between 1985 and 1996, these payments averaged $595 million per
year (in constant dollars), with a high of $700 million in 1992
and a low of $355 million in 1991. GAO reported that OPM has
not provided consistent guidance to agencies for paying these
sums. Although Congress in 1992 granted OPM authority to issue
regulations to promote consistency in these payments, those
regulations remain in draft form. GAO reported a CBO estimate
that agencies could realize $18 million in savings over 5 years
by paying this leave at its value when the employee separates,
rather than extending the payment period so that the employee
benefits, for example, from a raise in pay at the start of the
calendar year.
b. Benefits.--This report highlighted another area of
inefficient operations at OPM. It provides a basis for
considering legislation to address reforms that might enhance
savings and promote consistent administration where OPM has
been unable to issue regulations over a period of 5 years after
legislative authority was granted.
10. Federal Pensions: Judicial Survivors' Annuities System Costs and
Benefit Levels, June 27, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-87)
a. Summary.--The Judicial Survivors' Annuities System
provides annuities to surviving spouses and dependent children
of deceased Federal judges and other participants in the
system. In 1992, Congress enacted legislation increasing the
benefits available through the system and reducing the
contributions required of Federal judges to participate in it.
That legislation required GAO to compare benefits available to
judicial survivors to other Federal survivors' benefits and to
determine the level of contributions that would be necessary to
ensure that contributions provide one-half of the program's
costs. Under current program requirements, participating judges
contribute about 36 percent of the full normal cost of these
benefits. Achieving the 50 percent level would require an
increase of 0.9 percent to the 2.5 percent of pay currently
contributed by active judges and the 3.5 percent of pay
contributed by judges in senior status. GAO cautioned, however,
that such increases could reduce participation rates, thus
countering the legislative objective of increasing
participation. This participation had declined from 90 percent
in 1976 to 40 percent overall (and only 25 percent of new
judges) in 1991. By 1995, participation rates had increased to
67 percent of all judges and 73 percent of new appointees. GAO
confirmed that these benefits are greater than those available
to the majority of Federal employees.
b. Benefits.--This report demonstrates the difficulties of
designing benefit systems for people who enter Federal
employment at advanced stages of their careers. The report
confirms the obvious, that by making the benefit more
attractive, the courts succeeded in increasing judges'
participation rates. The attractiveness of the benefit,
however, made it more difficult to maintain the system's
financial reliance on the payroll tax base.
11. Federal Downsizing: Effective Buyout Practices and Their Use in
Fiscal Year-1997, June 30, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-124)
a. Summary.--The Civil Service Subcommittee conducted
hearings in 1995 and 1996, that demonstrated that the buyout
program authorized by the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act
of 1994, had been administered in a poorly-planned and
inconsistent manner. In a June 6, 1996, hearing the
subcommittee learned that OMB had allowed agencies to extend
``reoffers of unused buyouts'' in a manner that violated the
March 31, 1995 date terminating the program. As part of the
reauthorization of buyouts written into the Omnibus Continuing
Resolution of 1996, the Congress required a series of
management controls intended to curb such abuses of the program
in the future. In response to a request for oversight of these
practices, GAO developed an inventory of 13 sound management
practices, 10 of which were incorporated in the legislation
extending buyouts for most non-Defense agencies to December 30,
1997. GAO concluded that these management practices had
resulted in better planning and implementation of the buyouts
used by six agencies during fiscal year 1997 than had been the
case in the previous 2 years.
b. Benefits.--This report demonstrates the effectiveness of
the subcommittee's oversight of this program in identifying
weaknesses in the management of the first round of buyout
programs, and in developing management criteria by which to
evaluate subsequent activities in this area.
12. Federal Law Enforcement: Investigative Authority and Personnel at
32 Organizations, July 22, 1993 (GAO/GGD-97-93)
a. Summary.--This report completes a series that the
Judiciary Committee requested to ascertain the extent of law
enforcement personnel at various agencies that perform an
increasing variety of investigative and police functions. This
report summarizes the personnel of 32 agencies employing
between 25 and 699 law enforcement investigative personnel. The
report identifies the range of authorities exercised by these
individuals, including many in Inspectors General offices in
these agencies. At the end of fiscal year 1996, these agencies
employed 4,262 investigative personnel, a 70 percent increase
since 1987.
b. Benefits.--This report assists the subcommittee's
efforts to monitor the growth of law enforcement personnel in
Federal agencies and to assess the consequences for related
Federal workforce planning.
13. Federal Downsizing: Buyouts at the Farm Service Agency, July 23,
1997 (GAO/GGD-97-133)
a. Summary.--The Farm Service Agency was slated to reduce
its workforce by 1,339 to accommodate staffing changes
resulting from farm reform legislation. The agency conducted a
cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate its perception that
buyouts are a cheaper method of workforce reductions than RIFs,
over a 5-year period, then used 926 buyouts for these
separations. GAO observed, however, that buyouts were not
necessary to separate retirement-eligible employees who were in
offices that were scheduled to be closed. GAO also reported
that 697 buyouts were paid to non-Federal county employees,
less than anticipated because some overstaffed county offices
did not receive enough applications. GAO could not confirm that
the funds used for these buyouts had been diverted improperly
from funds dedicated to conservation programs by law. The
agency admitted that, with future buyout amounts reducing each
year, the lower incentives were likely to make buyouts less
attractive in the future.
b. Benefits.--This report contributes to the subcommittee's
efforts to monitor the workforce reduction strategies used by
different agencies.
14. Federal Workforce: Agencies' Policies and Views on Flexiplace in
the Federal Government, July 3, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-116)
a. Summary.--This report reviewed Federal efforts to
promote flexiplace, including agencies' policies on flexiplace,
to determine the extent to which Federal employees took
advantage of this flexibility, ascertain whether agencies and
unions identified barriers to the implementation of flexiplace,
and determine whether agencies have witnessed difficulties
implementing flexiplace. GAO reviewed 21 agency policies
adopted consistent with the National Telecommuting Initiative
Action Plan of 1996. Those plans covered nearly half of the
employees that GAO visited, but found that about one-fourth of
the personnel at these agencies were excluded from the
flexiplace initiative for a variety of reasons. It reported
that use of flexiplace has increased since 1993, with employee
organizations identifying management resistance as the one
barrier to expansion of the program. Agencies reported no
difficulties implementing the program, but one manager noted a
drop in productivity where it was used.
b. Benefits.--This report provides a general oversight
review of the operation of flexiplace so that the subcommittee
can consider these effects as it addresses reauthorizing
legislation in 1998.
15. Personnel Practices: Improper Personnel Actions on Selected CPSC
Appointments, June 27, 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-131)
a. Summary.--At the request of Subcommittee Chairman Mica,
GAO investigated allegations of ``burrowing in'' at the
Consumer Products Safety Commission [CPSC] received by the
subcommittee. GAO found there was no ``burrowing in'' in the
six instances covered by the allegations because the
individuals involved did not convert from noncareer political
appointments to career appointments. However, GAO did find
irregular or improper personnel practices in each of the six
instances. These improprieties included violations of veterans'
preference, questionable awards of higher starting pay than
usually allowed by law, and the questionable use of term
appointments. GAO also investigated 20 other instances
involving advanced rates of pay. Of those, it could only
examine the Official Personnel Folders in 18. Its examination
of those 18 revealed that advanced pay rates in 8 cases were
based upon previous salary levels, 9 were based upon alleged
superior qualifications, and the basis could not be determined
in one instance. GAO could not find supporting documentation in
four of the cases based upon superior qualifications.
b. Benefits.--As a result of this investigation, OPM
ordered the CPSC to take corrective actions. However, the
inadequacy of the remedy directed for violations of veterans'
preference rules--priority consideration for the next available
similar position--highlights the need for the more effective
redress mechanism for veterans contained in H.R. 240. Since
CPSC received delegated hiring authority in 1996, this study
also highlights the importance of increased oversight activity
by OPM. As hiring and other personnel matters are
decentralized, OPM must increase oversight governmentwide in
order to ensure compliance with merit principles.
16. Pharmacy Benefit Managers: FEHBP Plans Satisfied With Savings and
Services, but Retail Pharmacies Have Concerns, February 21,
1997 (GAO/HEHS-97-47)
a. Summary.--GAO examined the use by FEHBP plans of
pharmacy benefit managers [PBM], which manage pharmacy benefits
on behalf of plan sponsors. OPM estimates that about 9 million
Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents are covered
by the FEHBP, and approximately 58 percent of these enrollees
were covered by a PBM. To conduct its investigation, GAO
examined 3 FEHBP plans covering about 50 percent of all FEHBP
employees and retirees that contract with one of the 6 largest
PBMs. According to GAO, these plans estimate that PBMs saved
them over $600 million in 1995, reducing the pharmacy benefit
costs they otherwise would have incurred by 20-27 percent. The
PBMs met most of their 1995 contract performance standards, and
between 93 percent and 98 percent of those who responded to
plans' customer satisfaction surveys were satisfied with their
pharmacy benefits. Retail pharmacists, however, are concerned
about the loss of business. GAO reports that Blue Cross/Blue
Shield's 1996 benefit change, which encouraged the use of a
mail order pharmacy, reduced affected enrollees' payments to
retail pharmacies by 36 percent, or about $95 million. Total
payments to retail pharmacies for all enrollees declined by 7
percent, or about $34 million. Officials of PBMs and
participating plans, as well as other industry experts, did
agree that future efforts to impose additional controls on
pharmacy costs could require more restrictive cost-containment
procedures, limit enrollees' access to drugs and pharmacy
services, and lessen enrollees' satisfaction with their
pharmacy benefits.
b. Benefits.--This report, as well as previous GAO studies,
provide a useful framework for analyzing the role and impact of
mail order pharmacies in the FEHBP.
17. Federal Pensions: Relationship Between Retiree Pensions and Final
Salaries, GAO/GGD-97-156 (August 11, 1997)
a. Summary.--In fiscal year 1996, civilian employee pension
benefits were one of the largest mandatory spending programs,
excluding interest on the public debt. Nearly $40 billion in
payments were made to 2.3 million retirees and survivors. Based
upon its examination of data on a sample of Federal retirees,
GAO estimated that about 27 percent of the 1.7 million retirees
on the rolls as of October 1, 1995 receive pensions that exceed
their final salaries. However, when the retirees' final
salaries were adjusted for inflation, no retiree was receiving
a pension greater than his final salary. GAO maintained that
the use of constant dollars yields more meaningful results
because it corrects for the effects of inflation or deflation.
According to GAO, three factors played an important role in
explaining why retirees' pensions grew to exceed their final
salaries: the number and size of cost of living adjustments
[COLAs] that retirees received, the number of years they had
been retired, and their years of Federal service. The longer
annuitants have been retired, explains GAO, the more COLAs they
would have received and the more likely their annuity would
exceed their final salary. Likewise, the longer an annuitant
worked for the Federal Government the more likely his pension
will exceed his final salary. This is because the initial
pension of a retiree with many years of service would have
equaled a higher percentage of his final salary than one with
few years of service. Thus, it would take fewer years to close
the gap. GAO also concluded that COLA policies have had an
important impact on the size of Federal pensions, but that the
effects cannot be summarized easily because of numerous changes
in COLA policies over the past 35 years. GAO did conclude,
however, that, other things being equal, a majority of those
who retired before 1970, when COLA policies overcompensated for
inflation, would have smaller pensions if current COLA policy
had been in effect over the entire period of time. But about 90
percent of those who retired after 1970 would have received
larger pensions. GAO also points out that COLAs, which compound
over time, permanently affect the size of an individual's
annuity.
b. Benefits.--This report will be useful in comparing the
generosity of the Federal retirement systems with private
sector pension plans, particularly considering automatic COLA
provisions. Private pension plans do not typically provide
annual, automatic COLAs.
18. Federal Pensions: Relationship Between Pensions and Final Salaries
for Retired Members of Congress, (GAO/GGD-97-156)
a. Summary.--The research for this report was performed in
connection with the previous study described in section 17
above, and much of the analysis parallels that study's.
However, the results were reported separately. GAO found that
76, or roughly 19 percent, of the former Members of Congress on
the rolls as of October 1, 1995, received pensions greater than
their final salaries. When final salaries were adjusted for
inflation, however, only one former Member's pension exceeded
his final salary. That Member had an unusual salary history.
GAO identified the same factors described in the previous study
to explain why these pensions were higher than final salaries.
In addition, GAO identified an additional factor: whether the
former Member elected survivor annuity benefits, which reduces
the amount of the principle annuity. The percentage of former
Members whose pensions exceed their final salaries would have
increased by two points if current COLA policy had been in
effect during the entire period.
b. Benefits.--This report, in connection with the previous
report, will be useful in comparing the generosity of the
Federal retirement systems with private sector pension plans.
19. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Employer's Experiences With ADR in
the Workplace, GAO/GGD-97-157 (August 12, 1997)
a. Summary.--GAO examined the use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution [ADR] procedures by private companies and Federal
agencies. GAO determined that many private companies and
Federal agencies have used ADR to avoid more formal processes,
such as lawsuits and the administrative procedures available to
Federal employees. Several factors contributed to the use of
ADR. Traditional processes have become increasingly costly, in
both time and money, especially since the number of
discrimination complaints rose sharply in the early 1990s. New
laws and regulatory changes also have encouraged use of ADR. In
addition, ADR often focuses on disputant's underlying interests
rather than on the legal validity of their positions in a
specific matter.
GAO identified 5 main ADR techniques available in both
private and Federal sectors: ombudsmen; mediation; peer panels;
management review and dispute resolution boards; and
arbitration. In 1994, about 52 percent of private companies
reported having some form of ADR for discrimination complaints
in place. But, according to EEOC surveys, only 31 percent of 75
Federal agencies covered made ADR available, a figure that had
grown to 49 percent of 87 agencies covered in a 1996 survey.
However, GAO determined that ADR use was not pervasive, or even
widespread, in agencies that reported having some ADR
capability.
Private companies generally reported employing a wider
variety of ADR methods than did Federal agencies. About 80
percent of private firms using ADR used mediation, 39 percent
used peer review panels, and about 19 percent used arbitration.
Most Federal agencies used only mediation.
No comprehensive data were available on ADR results in the
private and Federal sectors. However, experts and officials at
organizations using ADR generally considered it to be
successful in resolving workplace disputes without resorting to
more formal procedures. They also believed that avoiding
litigation or more formal redress processes produced savings.
With one exception, the five companies and five agencies
GAO studied as case illustrations reported varied but generally
positive experiences with ADR. The Department of Agriculture
was the only one finding serious flaws with its ADR program.
Officials with 9 of these 10 organizations said they had made
efforts to involve employees in developing their ADR programs,
to train key participants, and to publicize their ADR programs
throughout their organizations. Private companies had more
flexibility than Federal agencies in adopting ADR practices,
especially arbitration, not available to the Federal workforce.
Most of the organizations studied did not comprehensively
evaluate the results of their ADR programs or the time and cost
savings they may have generated. However, the data available
appeared to show that all forms of ADR contributed to resolving
workplace disputes. Mediation appeared to be particularly
successful, resolving a high percentage of disputes in all but
one organization. No companies and only two agencies reported
data on time savings. Both agencies indicated that ADR lowered
the time necessary to resolve disputes by one-third to one-
half. Only one company and one agency had evaluated cost
savings. The company reported that the overall cost of dealing
with employment disputes, including the cost of ADR, was less
than half what the company had spent on legal fees for
employment-related lawsuits. The agency concluded it was not
clear whether ADR was less costly than the traditional EEO
process when settlements were factored in.
GAO reported the following lessons from its study: the
importance of top management commitment in establishing and
maintaining the program, the importance of involving employees
in developing the program, the advantages of intervening in the
early stages of disputes, the necessity to balance the desire
to settle and close cases with the need for fairness to all
concerned, and that ADR can help managers improve their
understanding of the roots of conflict in their organizations.
b. Benefits.--This study will greatly assist the
subcommittee as it continues to examine ways to encourage the
use of ADR to simplify and streamline the appellate procedures
available to Federal employees.
20. Personnel Practices: Career Appointments of Former Political and
Congressional Employees, GAO/GGD-97-165 (September 2, 1997)
a. Summary.--GAO examined appointments of former political
appointees and legislative branch employees to career positions
in the executive branch at or above GS-13 between January 1996
and March 1997. GAO was asked to determine whether agencies
used appropriate authorities and followed proper procedures in
making such appointments and whether, the circumstances
surrounding such appointments created the appearance of
favoritism or preferential treatment. According to this report,
18 agencies appointed a total of 36 former political appointees
and legislative branch employees during this period. In all
cases, GAO found the agencies used appropriate authorities and
complied with proper procedures. However, GAO also determined
that six appointments could create the appearance of favoritism
or preferential treatment. In two of these cases, the agencies
appeared to tailor the qualifications required of applicants to
fit the political appointees selected. In two other cases,
political appointees obtained career positions to which they
had been reassigned shortly after receiving their political
appointments, raising questions as to whether their initial
political appointments were mere subterfuges. In the fifth
case, the then-Chief of Staff to the OPM Director obtained a
career SES appointment to the position of Director, Partnership
Center. The Chief of Staff had been instrumental in
establishing the position, and he was selected for the position
by the OPM Director. His appointment surprised high ranking
agency officials because of its potential for creating negative
public perceptions. The sixth case involved a Schedule C
political appointee, who had served as a GS-15 Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, who secured an
appointment to a career SES appointment as Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Congressional Affairs. This position was
advertised three times. The political appointee did not apply
under the first two announcements. Rather, he served on the
panels that rated the applications received under those
announcements. The political appointee applied under the third
announcement and was selected.
b. Benefits.--The high-level conversions revealed by this
report illustrate the need for legislative restrictions on the
ability of political appointees to secure career appointments.
Currently, political appointees are not barred from ``burrowing
in'' to career positions during the administration in which
they were appointed. When political appointees convert to
career status under these circumstances, both the public and
the Federal workforce often reasonably conclude that
favoritism, not merit, is behind the selection, thus
undercutting the merit system. In addition, the appointment of
political appointees who owe their jobs to political allegiance
to a particular administration into career positions is
incompatible with the very idea of a permanent, apolitical
career workforce. The subcommittee intends to consider
legislation to curb the practice of converting political
appointees to career status.
21. Federal Labor Relations: Survey of Official Time Used for Union
Activities, GAO/GGD-97-182R (September 30, 1997)
a. Summary.--This study was undertaken in order to
determine the extent to which Federal employee unions use
Federal resources to conduct union business. During the 104th
Congress, the Subcommittee on the Civil Service held hearings
on taxpayer subsidies for Federal unions, examining selected
agencies. That hearing revealed that Federal agencies typically
provide taxpayer-provided resources (e.g., as paid time for
union work, office space, office equipment, and supplies) to
unions and that the amount of this subsidy has increased
dramatically under the current administration. In an effort to
develop a more complete picture, GAO surveyed 34 agencies that
employed approximately 87 percent of Federal employees
represented by a union. Agencies were asked to provide the
following information for fiscal years 1989 through 1996: the
amount of official time used by employees for union activities,
the number of employees using official time, the number of
employees who spent all of their time on union activities, the
dollar value of time used for union activities, the dollar
value of travel used for union activities, the dollar value of
office space and related items, and the benefits and
disadvantages, according to the agencies, of using official
time for union activities. Most of the agencies responding to
the survey did not provide comprehensive data on resources used
for union activities. None provided data for all 8 of the
fiscal years covered by the survey. In some cases, agencies
provided data for only portions of fiscal years or on a
calendar-year basis. Fifteen agencies provided information on
official time during at least 1 of the fiscal years covered.
Twelve reported a total of 1,028,544 hours of official time for
fiscal year 1996. Overall, GAO concluded, the data received
were insufficient to portray the total amount of resources
these agencies used for union activities. Some of the Federal
agencies said that use of official time (1) improved labor-
management relations, (2) decreased the number of grievances,
and (3) helped with the implementation of organizational
changes. However, the disadvantage cited by some agencies was
that use of official time caused employees to set aside their
regular work.
b. Benefits.--GAO's work demonstrated the need for greater
control and accountability in the use of official time and
other Federal resources for union activities. It also provides
useful information for evaluating H.R. 986, the Workplace
Integrity Act, and other legislative proposals for controlling
expenditures for official time. This study, and previous
investigations by this subcommittee and the Social Security
Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, indicate that
tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to
subsidize Federal unions. (Assuming that individuals on
official time in 1996 earned the average pay rate for that
year, the dollar value of the official time reported by only 12
agencies was $20,795,119.) However, because agencies are not
required to accurately record or report the use of official
time and other resources provided to unions, it is difficult to
quantify the full extent of this subsidy. Since these costs are
unknown it becomes impossible to determine whether the
purported benefits of official time and other union subsidies
outweigh the costs. At the request of this subcommittee, GAO is
developing more detailed estimates of the total costs of
Federal resources used by unions. At the same time, the House
report on the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1998 directed OPM to collect detailed information on the
use of Federal resources to subsidize unions during the first 6
months of 1998.
22. Private Pensions: Plan Features Provided By Employers That Sponsor
Only Defined Contribution Plans, GAO/GGD-98-23, (December 1,
1997)
a. Summary.--This report describes patterns in private
sector defined contribution plans' (1) eligibility requirements
for employee participation, (2) arrangements for employer and
participant contributions, (3) eligibility requirements for
employee rights to accrued benefits, (4) employee investment
options, (5) loan and other provisions for participant access
to plan assets while still employed, and (6) options for
withdrawal of benefits upon separation or retirement. It also
compares features of these private plans with the Thrift
Savings Plan [TSP] available to Federal employees. GAO
concluded that the designs of the 3,297 employers with 100 or
more employees that sponsored only single-employer plans varied
so greatly that no single design could be identified as a
``typical'' defined contribution plan.
Eligibility requirements: Employers generally established
requirements employees must meet before participating in their
plans. In 1993, 51 percent of employers required their
employees to meet a combination of age and service
requirements--usually age 21 and 1 year of service. Of the 100
larger employers with 10,000 or more employees, 55 percent
reported that employees must meet length of service
requirements, generally 1 year of service, with no age
requirement. Under the TSP, newly hired employees covered by
FERS must have from 6 to 12 months of Federal service to be
eligible.
Contribution arrangements: Almost all of the employers
provided for employer contributions to the plan rather than
require participants to fully fund their own pensions. Most
commonly, employers made automatic, or nonmatching,
contributions to the plan with no participant contributions
required or permitted. Larger employers were more likely to
allow participants to contribute to their plans on a pretax
basis, generally in an arrangement similar to the TSP, in which
the employer makes both nonmatching and matching contributions,
and employees are able to make pretax contributions. Slightly
more than half of employers that permit employees' pretax
contributions (and 60 percent of larger employers) allowed
employees to contribute more than 10 percent of their salaries.
Federal employee contributions to the TSP are limited to 10
percent of their basic pay. GAO was unable to determine the
maximum employer contribution for the vast majority of private
plans. However, where GAO could make that determination, the
maximum contribution ranged from 5 percent to 6 percent of
participants' pay. The government's maximum contribution under
the TSP is 5 percent, which matches the participant's first 5
percent of contributions.
Vesting requirements: By law, participants own their own
contributions (and earnings on those contributions). But
employers generally establish minimum service requirements
employees must satisfy to obtain title to employer
contributions. Employees usually must work longer to vest in
nonmatching contributions than in matching contributions.
However, about one-third of the employers provided for
immediate vesting of matching contributions, and one-eighth
provide immediate vesting of nonmatching contributions. Larger
employers were more likely to use immediate vesting for
matching and nonmatching contributions. Under the TSP, Federal
employees vest immediately in matching contributions and after
3 years of service in the 1 percent nonmatching contribution.
Investment options: A majority of employers who described
the investment options available provided at least 4 investment
options. These frequently included: employer stock, stock
mutual funds, and bond mutual funds. Federal employees in the
TSP may currently choose from 3 options--a nonmarketable
government securities fund, a common stock index fund, and a
diversified bond fund. Within 2 to 3 years, two additional
options will be added, an international fund and a small
company stock fund.
Loans and withdrawals: Nearly two-thirds of the employers
permitted employees to access a portion of their accounts
before separation from employment. Half allowed participants to
borrow from their accounts up to certain legal limits, and some
allowed participants to withdraw some or all of their own
contributions, usually in the event of a personal financial
hardship. Larger employers were somewhat more likely to allow
participants to borrow from their accounts or make financial
hardship withdrawals. But they were less likely to allow
withdrawals in the absence of financial hardship. The TSP
includes a loan program and allows participants to make
hardship withdrawals and a one-time withdrawal at age 59\1/2\
or later without separating from Federal service.
Withdrawal options upon separation or retirement: Nearly
all employers permitted employees to take their account
balances as a lump-sum distribution when they retire. Two
thirds permit withdrawals in even installments over a specified
period, and about half provide the option of a lifetime
annuity. Larger employers were less likely to permit
installment or annuity options. The same options were generally
available to employees who separated for reasons other than
retirement, but most of these employees could also elect to
defer withdrawals. The TSP allows employees to choose lump-sum
distributions, installment payments, or an annuity. Federal
employees may also defer withdrawal until the year after they
turn 70\1/2\ years old.
About 12 percent of the approximately 490,000 employers
with 2 or more employees that sponsored only single-employer
defined contribution plans also sponsored more than one such
plan for the same groups of employees. Employers with less than
100 employees were more likely to sponsor multiple plans.
Experts GAO consulted suggested that smaller employers might be
better able to sponsor multiple plans than larger employers.
But larger employers might be more likely to sponsor additional
plans in order to compete with other employers.
GAO concluded that private employers design their pension
programs to control costs, maximize Federal tax incentives, and
comply with ERISA, while structuring their compensation and
benefits to support their overall business and financial goals.
b. Benefits.--The information in this study will be useful
as the subcommittee reviews potential changes to the structure
of Federal employee retirement plans.
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
1. ``Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA
Implementation.'' March 27, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-46
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to investigate
the likely effectiveness of the Government Performance and
Results Act [GPRA] based on input from previous public and
private sector experiences. Using the lessons learned from
these experiences, the subcommittee was able to direct the
Office of Management and Budget and the Federal agencies in
more profitable directions.
b. Benefits.--Since 1950, the Federal Government has
attempted several government-wide initiatives designed to
better align spending decisions with expected performance,
commonly known as ``performance budgeting.'' Congress enacted
the Government Performance and Results Act in 1993 to improve
the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of Federal
programs by having agencies focus on program results. In this
way, GPRA can be viewed as the most recent effort to closely
link resources to performance expectations.
Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the
implementation of GPRA. Its report compares and contrasts the
key design elements and approaches of GPRA with those of past
initiatives to identify past lessons that have been
incorporated into GPRA and issues that continue to pose
significant challenges to successful implementation.
GAO noted that: (1) in its overall structure, focus, and
approach, GPRA incorporates critical lessons learned from
previous efforts, but many of the same issues encountered in
previous initiatives remain and will likely pose significant
challenges if GPRA is to achieve its aim of better linking
resource decisions to performance levels; (2) where past
efforts failed to link executive branch performance planning
and measurement with congressional resource allocation
processes, GPRA requires explicit consultation between the
executive and legislative branches on agency strategic plans;
(3) past initiatives' experiences suggest that efforts to link
resources with results must begin in the planning phase with
some fundamental understanding about program goals; (4) where
past initiatives devised unique performance information formats
often unconnected to the structures used in congressional
budget presentations, GPRA requires agencies to plan and
measure performance using the ``program activities'' listed in
their budget submissions; (5) where past initiatives were
generally unprepared for the difficulties associated with
measuring the outcomes of Federal programs and often retreated
to simple output or workload measures, GPRA states a preference
for outcome measurement while recognizing the need to develop a
range of measures; (6) GAO's discussions with selected
legislative staff and agency officials revealed fundamental
differences in perspectives and expectations that are often a
necessary consequence of the system of separated powers; (7)
past initiatives often foundered because no mechanism existed
to reconcile or even to address these legitimate, but at times
competing, views; (8) GPRA, through required consultations and
formal, public documents, is intended to encourage an explicit
and periodic exchange of views between the branches; (9) GPRA
differs from prior initiatives in that past performance
budgeting initiatives were typically implemented governmentwide
within a single annual budget cycle, while GPRA defines a multi
year and iterative governmentwide implementation process that
incorporates pilot tests and formal evaluations of key
concepts; and (10) GPRA also differs from prior initiatives in
that it will face an operating environment unknown to its
predecessors: persistent efforts to constrain spending.
2. ``GPRA: Managerial Accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work
As Intended,'' April 10, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-36
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to investigate
the success of the Government Performance and Results Act
authorized pilot tests. GAO was asked to investigate these
pilots in order for the subcommittee to make recommendations
regarding the extension of GPRA flexibility provisions to other
agencies. Based upon the results to date the subcommittee does
not recommend extension of GPRA flexibility pilots or
provisions to other agencies.
b. Benefits.--Congress intended for the Government
Performance and Results Act to fundamentally shift the focus of
Federal managers from processes to outcomes and results. In
crafting GPRA, Congress recognized that if Federal managers
were to be held accountable for achieving results, they would
need the authority and flexibility to achieve those results.
GPRA provides for a series of pilot projects so that Federal
agencies can gain experience in using the act's provisions and
provide lessons to other agencies before GPRA's implementation
governmentwide. One set of these GPRA projects focused on
managerial accountability and flexibility. This report (1)
determines whether the managerial accountability and
flexibility pilot worked as intended and the reasons why it did
or did not, and (2) identifies the lessons learned from this
pilot and their possible implications for the governmentwide
implementation of GPRA.
GAO noted that: (1) the GPRA managerial accountability and
flexibility pilot did not work as intended; (2) the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB] did not designate any of the 7
departments and 1 independent agency that submitted a total of
61 waiver proposals as GPRA managerial accountability and
flexibility pilots; (3) three major factors contributed to the
failure of GPRA's managerial accountability and flexibility
pilot phase to work as intended: first, changes in Federal
management practices and laws that occurred after GPRA was
enacted affected agencies' need for the GPRA process; second,
GPRA was not the only means by which agencies could receive
waivers from administrative requirements, and thereby obtain
needed managerial flexibility; third, OMB did not work actively
with agencies that were seeking to take part in the managerial
accountability and flexibility pilot, in contrast to its more
proactive posture toward other GPRA requirements, such as the
pilots for the performance planning and reporting requirements;
(4) overall, officials in five of the eight agencies that
submitted a waiver proposal to OMB said that they never
received feedback from OMB on the status of their waiver
proposals, notification of specific concerns that OMB may have
had about the quality and scope of the proposals, or, most
important, explicit instructions from OMB on how their
proposals could be improved to better meet OMB's expectations;
(5) even though the pilot process did not result in any GPRA-
authorized waivers and thus did not work as intended, the
process provided lessons for agencies and may have important
implications for governmentwide GPRA implementation; (6) while
preparing their waiver requests, several participating agencies
learned that the burdens and constraints that confronted their
managers often were imposed by the agency itself or its parent
department and were not the result of requirements imposed by
central management agencies; (7) the administration's effort to
develop Federal management ``templates'' that, in part,
document the range of flexibility agencies have under existing
central management agency requirements is a promising means for
disseminating knowledge about available flexibility among
Federal agencies; and (8) in addition, the pilot experience
should provide useful information for Congress to consider as
GPRA is implemented governmentwide.
3. ``Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring
Performance,'' May 30, 1997, GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing focusing on
the second phase, performance plans, of the Government
Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. After agency strategic
plans are delivered in September 1997, the agencies will
deliver performance plans in February 1998. The performance
plans will require the agencies to collect and report on data
that they had not previously tracked. The subcommittee
identified problems that agencies will encounter and made
relevant recommendations. The subcommittee encouraged the
agencies to take these GPRA requirements quite seriously and to
develop meaningful performance plans for both agency management
and congressional oversight.
b. Benefits.--The Government Performance and Results Act
requires agencies to identify program goals and report on their
progress in achieving them. GPRA includes a phase during which
about 70 programs, ranging from the U.S. Geological Survey's
National Water Quality Assessment Program to the entire Social
Security Administration, were designated as GPRA pilot
projects. These and other Government programs have been gaining
experience with the act's requirements. GPRA requires GAO to
review implementation of the pilot phase and to comment on the
prospects for compliance by Federal agencies when
governmentwide implementation begins. This report answers the
following questions: What analytic and technical challenges are
agencies experiencing as they try to measure program
performance? What approaches have they taken to address these
challenges? How have agencies made use of program evaluations
or evaluation expertise in implementing performance
measurement?
GAO noted that: (1) the programs included in GAO's review
encountered a wide range of serious challenges; (2) 93 percent
of the officials GAO surveyed reported at least one challenge
as a great or very great challenge, and some were not very far
along in implementing the steps required by the Results Act;
(3) 8 of the 10 tasks rated most challenging emerged in the two
relatively early stages of the performance measurement process,
identifying goals and developing performance measures; (4) in
developing both goals and performance measures, respondents
found it difficult to move beyond a summary of their program's
activities, such as the number of clients served, to
distinguish the desired outcome or result of those activities;
(5) sometimes selecting an outcome measure was impeded,
instead, by conflicting stakeholder views of the program's
intended results or by anticipated data collection problems;
(6) issues in the data collection stage were rated as less
serious and revolved around the programs' lack of control over
data that third parties collected, but programs may have
avoided some data issues through selection of measures for
which data already existed; (7) the greatest challenge in the
analysis and reporting stage was separating a program's impact
on its objectives from the impact of external factors,
primarily because many Federal programs' objectives are the
result of complex systems or phenomena outside the program's
control; (8) in such cases, it is particularly challenging for
agencies to confidently attribute changes in outcomes to their
program, the central task of program impact evaluation; (9) the
programs GAO reviewed had applied a range of analytic and other
strategies to address these challenges; (10) because they had
either volunteered to be GPRA pilots or had already begun
implementing performance measurement, the programs included in
GAO's review were likely to be better suited or prepared for
conducting performance measurement than most Federal programs;
and (11) the challenges experienced by the projects that are
pilot testing the act's requirements suggest that: (a) more
typical Federal programs may find performance measurement to be
an even greater challenge, particularly if they do not have
access to program evaluation or other technical resources; and
(b) full-scale implementation will require several iterations
to develop valid, reliable, and useful performance reporting
data systems.
4. ``The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Government-wide
Implementation Will be Uneven,'' June 2, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-109
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing on the
Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] to pressure the
agencies to improve the quality of their strategic plans. Draft
versions of agency strategic plans are required by GPRA to be
drafted in consultation with Congress. The subcommittee made
sure that the agencies fully understood their obligations to
Congress; that the agencies understood the six legally required
topics; that agency plans would be considered in appropriations
and authorizing decisions; and that Congress would look
unfavorably upon strategic plans that were not both substantive
and realistic.
b. Benefits.--GAO found that implementation of the
Government Performance and Results Act has so far yielded mixed
results, which will lead to highly uneven government-wide
implementation in the fall of 1997. Some agencies, such as the
Social Security Administration and the Veterans Health
Administration, have already seen significant performance
improvements after they adopted a disciplined approach to
setting goals, measuring performance, and using performance
information to improve effectiveness. In general, however,
substantial performance improvements at Federal agencies have
been relatively few, and many agencies seemed ill prepared to
answer the fundamental question posed by the act: What are we
accomplishing? Agencies face various challenges to implementing
the act, some of which will not be resolved quickly. One set of
challenges arises from the complications of Government
structure and from program proliferation. Others involve
methodological difficulties in identifying performance measures
or the lack of data needed to establish goals and assess
performance.
GAO noted that: (1) GPRA's implementation has achieved
mixed results; (2) while agencies are likely to meet the
upcoming statutory deadlines for producing initial strategic
plans and annual performance plans, those documents will not be
of a consistently high quality or as useful for congressional
and agency decisionmaking as they could be; (3) the Office of
Management and Budget selected over 70 performance planning and
reporting pilots that far exceeded the number required by GPRA
and that should provide a rich body of experience for agencies
to draw on in the future; (4) the experiences of some of GPRA's
pilot agencies and related efforts by nonpilot agencies showed
that significant performance improvements were possible, even
in the short term, when an agency adopted a disciplined
approach to setting results-oriented goals, measuring its
performance, and using performance information to improve
effectiveness; (5) however, the reported examples of
substantial performance improvements were relatively few; (6)
one set of challenges to effectively implementing GPRA arises
from the complications of government structure and from program
proliferation; (7) others involve methodological difficulties
in identifying performance measures or the lack of data needed
to establish goals and assess performance; (8) the following
are among the challenges that GAO observed: (a) overlapping and
fragmented crosscutting program efforts present the logical
need to coordinate efforts to ensure that goals are consistent
and, as appropriate, that programs efforts are mutually
reinforcing; (b) the often limited or indirect influence that
the Federal Government has in determining whether a desired
result is achieved complicates the effort to identify and
measure the discrete contribution of the Federal initiative to
a specific program result; (c) the lack of results-oriented
performance information in many agencies hampers efforts to
identify appropriate goals and confidently assess performance;
(d) instilling within agencies an organizational culture that
focuses on results remains a work in progress across the
Federal Government; and (e) linking agencies' performance plans
directly to the budget process may present significant
difficulties.
Finally, GAO believes that GPRA's success or failure should
not be judged on the strategic plans for the first year.
Rather, it will take several years for Federal agency strategic
plans to fulfill congressional intent.
5. ``Managing for Results: Regulatory Agencies Identified Significant
Barriers to Focusing on Results,'' June 24, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-83
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing focusing on
implementation difficulties of the Government Performance and
Results Act. GAO was asked to study five regulatory agencies in
depth and analyze any difficulties they were encountering. The
subcommittee was able to make these difficulties known so they
could be addressed early and presumably rectified before agency
plans were delivered to OMB and Congress. Further, the
subcommittee made recommendations for OMB and agency management
actions to overcome these implementation difficulties as soon
as possible.
b. Benefits.--The Government Performance and Results Act
seeks to boost the performance of Federal agencies by focusing
on program performance and measuring results. Because
establishing results-oriented goals and performance measures
will not be easy, GPRA provides for a phased implementation
period. Beginning in fiscal year 1994 and extending over
several years, agencies are to develop strategic goals,
identify performance measures, and by fiscal year 1999
implement annual results-oriented performance reports linked to
budget requests. The President has directed regulatory agencies
to change the way they measure their performance and to focus
on results. This report focuses on the efforts of five agencies
to focus on results: the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Food
and Drug Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and the
Environmental Protection Agency. GAO describes the (1) five
agencies' strategic goals and related program performance
measures as well as employee performance standards as of
January 1997; (2) extent to which agency officials and GAO
believe that these goals, program performance measures, and
employee performance standards focus on results; and (3) aids
and barriers that agency officials said that they faced in
trying to focus on results.
GAO noted that: (1) as would be expected in the early
stages of implementing a new and difficult initiative, GAO
observed that some of the five regulatory agencies were further
along in the development of strategic goals, program
performance measures, and employee performance standards than
others; (2) the agencies also varied in the degree to which
their goals, associated sets of program performance measures,
and employee performance standards that were in use as of
January 1, 1997, focused on results as judged by both agency
officials and GAO; (3) in this regard, it is important to note
that although GPRA was intended to encourage agencies to focus
their goals and measures on results, the act does not require
that all of an agency's goals or performance measures be
explicitly results-oriented; (4) similarly, the President's
directive to orient frontline regulators' performance standards
toward results does not appear to require that every standard
be results-oriented; (5) there were differences in the extent
to which agency officials characterized their goals, program
performance measures, and employee performance standards as
``results-oriented'' and the extent to which GAO did; (6) in
general, agencies frequently concluded that their goals,
measures, and standards were more results-oriented than GAO
did; (7) at the broader and more conceptual level of strategic
goals, there were relatively few differences between agency
officials' assessments of the extent of results-orientation and
GAO's; (8) in enacting GPRA, Congress realized that the
transition to results-oriented management would not be easy;
(9) for that reason, the act provided for a phased approach to
implementation, during which time agencies have been able to
identify the obstacles that need to be overcome and some
factors they found helpful; (10) the factor that agency
officials most commonly said aided the establishment of a
results-orientation in the agencies was the enactment of GPRA;
(11) although agency officials identified some aids to focusing
their agencies on results, they cited numerous barriers to
their efforts to establish results oriented goals and measures;
(12) these barriers included significant problems in
identifying and collecting the data they needed to demonstrate
their agencies' results; and, (13) agencies also cited as a
barrier the fact that the diverse and complex factors affect
agencies' results, and their lack of control or influence over
external events and factors.
6. ``Managing For Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap,'' August 29, 1997, GAO/AIMD-
97-146
a. Summary.--Congress is particularly interested in
comparing ``bang for the buck'' for duplicate programs. GAO was
asked to study how the Government Performance and Results Act
could be used to address this need. GPRA, if implemented as
intended by Congress, can deliver the required performance and
related cost information that Congress needs to compare the
relative desirability of duplicate and overlapping programs.
The subcommittee made recommendations to OMB and the Federal
Departments and agencies that facilitate the correct
implementation of GPRA. Further, the subcommittee made
recommendations to congressional authorization and
appropriation committees to seriously consider the agency
strategic plans and performance reports when making both
budgetary and policy decisions.
b. Benefits.--As the Government searches for ways to do
more with less, mission fragmentation and program overlap at
Federal agencies have become increasingly important issues.
Congress, the administration, and GAO have all cited the
fragmented nature of many Federal activities, along with the
need to reduce the deficit, as compelling reasons to undertake
a fundamental reexamination of Federal programs and structures.
The Government Performance and Results Act presents an
opportunity to begin such a reexamination. This report
summarizes earlier GAO work on mission fragmentation and
program overlap and describes specific ways in which the
Results Act can focus attention on these management challenges
and can help develop strategies to harmonize Federal responses.
GAO noted that: (1) GAO's work has documented the
widespread existence of fragmentation and overlap from both the
broad perspective of Federal missions and from the more
specific viewpoint of individual Federal programs; (2) GAO's
work has shown that as the Federal Government has responded
over time to new needs and problems, many Federal agencies have
been given responsibilities for addressing the same or similar
national issues; but GAO's work also suggests that some issues
will necessarily involve more than one Federal agency or more
than one approach; (3) taken as a whole, this body of work
indicates that fragmentation and overlap will present a
particular and persistent challenge to the successful
implementation of the Results Act; (4) but at the same time,
the Results Act should offer a new and structured framework to
address crosscutting issues; (5) each of its key stages--
defining missions and desired outcomes, measuring performance,
and using performance information--offers a new opportunity to
address fragmentation and overlap; (6) for example, the Results
Act is intended to foster a dialog on strategic goals involving
the Congress as well as agency and external stakeholders; (7)
this dialog should help to identify agencies and programs
addressing similar missions and associated performance
implications; (8) the act's emphasis on results-based
performance measures should lead to more explicit discussions
of contributions and accomplishments within crosscutting
programs and encourage related programs to develop common
performance measures; (9) if the Results Act is successfully
implemented, performance information should become available to
clarify the consequences of fragmentation and the implications
of alternative policy and service delivery options, which, in
turn, can affect future decisions concerning department and
agency missions and the allocation of resources among those
missions; (10) emphasizing missions, goals, and objectives, as
envisioned by the Results Act, should facilitate a broader
recognition of the nature and extent of fragmentation and
overlap; and (11) however, past efforts to deal with
crosscutting Federal activities and recent developments in both
the executive branch and Congress underscore the need for
specific institutions and processes to sustain and nurture a
focus on these issues.
7. ``Managing For Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal
Agencies' Strategic Plans,'' September 16, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-180
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to review the
quality of OMB's strategic plan as prepared under the
Government Performance and Results Act. In preparation the
subcommittee reviewed OMB's draft GPRA strategic plan and found
it insufficient. The subcommittee met with key OMB officials to
provide consultative advice and as a result the final OMB
strategic plan submitted at fiscal year end was noticeably
improved. The subcommittee also participated with congressional
leadership in the review and evaluation of all agency draft
strategic plans prepared in accordance with GPRA. As a
consequence the average score of the agency strategic plans
almost doubled between the drafts provided in August and the
final GPRA strategic plans delivered at the end of September
1997.
b. Benefits.--In part of its effort to introduce
performance-based management into the Federal Government, the
Government Performance and Results Act requires agencies to
develop strategic plans. GAO evaluated the latest available
versions of the draft strategic plans that agencies submitted
to Congress and found that many of them were missing key
elements required by the legislation. For example, the plans
often did not (1) link required elements, (2) fully develop
strategies to achieve their results, (3) identify cross-cutting
issues and programs, (4) gather and use performance
information, or (5) address program evaluations. This report
summarizes GAO's reviews of agency draft strategic plans and
discusses strategic planning issues in need of sustained
attention.
GAO noted that: (1) a significant amount of work remained
to be done by executive branch agencies if their strategic
plans are to fulfill the requirements of the Results Act, serve
as a basis for guiding agencies, and help congressional and
other policymakers make decisions about activities and
programs; (2) although all 27 of the draft plans included a
mission statement, 21 plans lacked 1 or more of 5 other
required elements; (3) overall, one-third of the plans were
missing two required elements; and just over one-fourth were
missing three or more of the required elements; (4) GAO's
reviews of agencies' draft strategic plans also revealed
several critical strategic planning issues that are in need of
sustained attention if agencies are to develop the dynamic
strategic planning processes envisioned by the Results Act; (5)
most of the draft plans did not adequately link required
elements in the plans; (6) these linkages are important if
strategic plans are to drive the agencies' daily activities and
if agencies are to be held accountable for achieving intended
results; (7) furthermore, 19 of the 27 draft plans did not
attempt to describe the linkages between long-term strategic
goals and annual performance goals; (8) long-term strategic
goals often tended to have weaknesses; (9) although the Results
Act does not require that all of an agency's strategic goals be
results oriented, the intent of the act is to have agencies
focus their strategic goals on results to the extent feasible;
(10) many agencies did not fully develop strategies explaining
how their long-term strategic goals would be achieved; (11)
most agencies did not reflect in their draft plans the
identification and planned coordination of activities and
programs that cut across multiple agencies; (12) the
questionable capacity of many agencies to gather performance
information has hampered, and may continue to hamper, efforts
to identify appropriate goals and confidently assess
performance; (13) the draft strategic plans did not adequately
address program evaluations; and (14) evaluations are important
because they potentially can be critical sources of information
for ensuring that goals are reasonable, strategies for
achieving goals are effective, and that corrective actions are
taken in program implementation.
8. ``Defense Computers: LSSC Needs to Confront Significant Year 2000
Issues,'' September 26, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-149
a. Summary.--The subcommittee has taken the lead in the
Federal Government in raising the year 2000 issue. The
subcommittee has applied pressure on the administration--OMB,
agencies in general, and laggard agencies in particular. The
subcommittee continued to pressure the various Federal agencies
to achieve year 2000 compliance before the deadline of January
1, 2000 by holding a press conference and issuing grades for
each of the 24 largest agencies based upon their progress to
date. Over half of the agencies failed to demonstrate
sufficient progress on this issue. The ``Report Card of Year
2000 Progress'' received considerable publicity and achieved
its objective of forcing many agency heads to pay attention to
this serious problem.
b. Benefits.--This report focuses on the Logistics Systems
Support Center's [LSSC] program for solving its year 2000
computer system problem, which stems from the inability of
computer programs to interpret the correct century from
recorded or calculated data having only two digits to indicate
the year. LSSC's Commodity Command Standard System supports the
Army's wholesale logistics supply management business effort,
which buys more than $23 billion worth of supplies and
equipment each year for troops around the world. Unless LSSC
overcomes its year 2000 problem, the Commodity Command Standard
System could malfunction or generate incorrect information,
potentially jeopardizing military missions. GAO discusses the
status of LSSC's effort to correct year 2000 problems and the
appropriateness of LSSC's strategy for addressing year 2000
problems affecting the Commodity Command Standard System.
GAO noted that: (1) the year 2000 problem is one of the
most comprehensive and complex information management projects
ever faced by LSSC; (2) if not successfully completed, the
procurement of weapon systems and their spare parts, accounting
for the sales of Army equipment and services to allies, and the
financial management of $9 billion of inventory could be
disrupted; (3) as a result, it could be extremely difficult to
efficiently and effectively equip and sustain the Army's forces
around the world; (4) LSSC has completed several actions to
address the CCSS year 2000 problem; (5) a year 2000 project
manager and management staff have been designated, a project
manager charter and schedule were developed, and supplementary
contractor support was acquired to assist with assessment
tasks; (6) regularly scheduled quarterly meetings are held by
the Army Materiel Command [AMC] headquarters to report LSSC
year 2000 status; (7) these steps are compatible with the
Department of Defense's [DOD] suggested approach and consistent
with those found in GAO's five-phased approach for planning,
managing, and evaluating year 2000 projects; (8) although LSSC
commenced its year 2000 project over a year ago, there are
several issues facing LSSC that, if not completely addressed,
may result in the failure of CCSS to successfully operate at
the year 2000; (9) LSSC has yet to completely address: (a)
competing workload priorities and staffing issues; (b) the
appropriate mix and scheduling of needed testing data and
expertise as well as the development of test plans; (c) the
scope and substance of written interface agreements with system
interface partners to ensure that CCSS subsystems will be
capable of exchanging data at the year 2000; and (d)
contingency plan development to help assure that Army missions
will be accomplished if CCSS is not fully available to users by
the year 2000; (10) LSSC's risk of failure is increased because
the agency has not attained the level of software development
and maintenance maturity that would provide the foundation
needed for successful management of large-scale projects such
as the year 2000 initiative; and (11) because CCSS is used to
support military readiness, these critical elements must be
resolved and aggressively pursued to enable LSSC to achieve a
year 2000 compliant environment prior to the year 2000.
9. ``Defense Computers: DFAS Faces Challenges in Solving the Year 2000
Problem,'' August 11, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-117
a. Summary.--The subcommittee continues to pressure all
Federal Departments and agencies to reach year 2000 computer
compliance before the deadline of January 1, 2000. Overall, the
Department of Defense [DOD] has not achieved a rate of progress
that will lead to success. The subcommittee continues to
pressure DOD in general and also to commission GAO studies to
focus on particular portions of DOD that are both critical and
behind schedule. This brings the pressure of governmentwide
year 2000 report cards to bear on particular mission-critical
systems and conversely provides the specificity to assure the
subcommittee that its overall perspective is well grounded in
reality.
b. Benefits.--The year 2000 problem refers to the inability
of computer programs to interpret the correct century from a
recorded or calculated date having only two digits to indicate
the year. Unless this shortcoming is corrected, the Defense
Financing and Accounting Service's [DFAS] computer systems
could malfunction or produce incorrect information. The impact
of these failures would be widespread, costly, and potentially
debilitating to the DFAS accounting and financial reporting
mission. This report discusses (1) the status of DFAS' efforts
to identify and correct its year 2000 systems problems and (2)
the appropriateness of DFAS' strategy and actions for ensuring
that problems will be successfully addressed.
GAO noted that: (1) DFAS managers have recognized the
importance of solving the year 2000 problem; (2) to help ensure
that services are not disrupted, DFAS has developed a year 2000
strategy based on the generally accepted five-phased Government
methodology for addressing the year 2000 problem; (3) this
approach is also consistent with GAO's guidelines for planning,
managing, and evaluating year 2000 programs; (4) in carrying
out its year 2000 strategy, DFAS has assigned accountability
for ensuring that year 2000 efforts are completed, established
a year 2000 systems inventory, implemented a quarterly tracking
process to report the status of individual systems, estimated
the cost of renovating systems, begun assessing its systems to
determine the extent of the problems, and started to renovate
and test some applications; (5) DFAS also established a year
2000 certification program that defines the conditions that
must be met for automated systems to be considered year 2000
compliant; (6) while initial progress has been made, there are
several critical issues facing DFAS, that if left un-addressed,
may well result in the failure of its systems to successfully
operate in 2000: (a) DFAS has not identified in its year 2000
plan all critical tasks for achieving its objectives or
established milestones for completing all tasks; (b) DFAS has
not performed formal risk assessments of all systems to be
renovated or ensured that contingency plans are in place; (c)
DFAS has not identified all system interfaces and has completed
written interface agreements with only 230 of 904 interface
partners; and (d) DFAS has not adequately ensured that testing
resources will be available when needed to determine if all
operational systems are compliant before the year 2000; (7)
risk of failure in these areas is increased due to reliance on
other DOD components; and, (8) DFAS is also dependent on
military services and DOD components to ensure that its systems
are year 2000 compliant.
10. ``Defense Computers: Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000
Problems,'' August 12, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-106
a. Summary.--The subcommittee continues to push for
attention to the year 2000 computer problem throughout the
Federal Government. One critical issue that is being ignored by
many Federal agencies is the ``ripple effect.'' As GAO
discovered in this commissioned study, the Defense Logistics
Agency [DLA] systems are connected to each other, to systems in
other Federal agencies, and to systems outside the Government.
If one of these systems fails, it can pass contaminated data to
connected systems and thereby cause them to also fail. This
failure can be passed from system to system, like ripples in a
pond. Conversely, even though DLA may have fixed its own
systems, its computers can still fail because of contaminated
data received from outside the agency. The subcommittee has
raised this aspect of the year 2000 issue for the entire
Government and for DLA in particular.
b. Benefits.--If the military does not resolve its year
2000 computer problem in time, computer systems at the Defense
Logistics Agency, which supplies the military with supply,
technical, logistics, and contract services, could malfunction
or produce incorrect information. The impact of these failures
could be widespread, costly, and debilitating to important
logistics functions. This report discusses (1) the status of
DLA's efforts to correct its year 2000 problems, and (2) the
appropriateness of DLA's strategies and actions for ensuring
that the problem will be successfully addressed.
GAO noted that: (1) DLA has recognized that the year 2000
problem has the potential to be the largest information
technology dilemma it has encountered to date and that if not
successfully resolved, the supply, technical, logistics, and
contract services that DLA provides to the military services
could be severely disrupted; (2) to its credit, DLA has already
assessed the year 2000 impact on its operations, inventoried
its systems, conducted pilot projects to determine year 2000
effects on some of its major systems, and developed and issued
policies, guidelines, standards, and recommendations on year
2000 correction for the agency; (3) these steps are consistent
with GAO's guidelines and the Department of Defense's five-
phase approach for planning, managing, and evaluating year 2000
programs; (4) however, DLA has not yet completed several
critical steps associated with the assessment phase of year
2000 correction that are designed to ensure the agency is well-
positioned to deal with delays or other problems encountered in
the remaining phases; (5) DLA has not been working enough with
its customers and others who have established system
connections or interfaces to ensure consistency in handling
date information passed between systems; (6) the agency has not
included thousands of field-developed, unique programs as part
of its year 2000 systems inventory or made these programs part
of its year 2000 program office's responsibility; (7) these
unique programs can introduce errors into DLA's automated
information systems just as easily as those systems that have
external interfaces with DLA systems; (8) in addressing these
two issues, DLA can help ensure the success of its efforts to
correct the systems within its control; (9) DLA has not: (a)
prioritized the 86 automated information systems that it plans
on being operational in the year 2000 to ensure that the most
mission critical systems are corrected first; or (b) developed
contingency plans to establish the course of action that should
be followed in the event that any of DLA's mission critical
systems are not corrected on time; and (10) since DLA
activities are critical to supporting military operations and
readiness, GAO believes that the agency should begin
prioritizing its systems and developing contingency plans so
that logistics operations can continue even if unforeseen
problems or delays in year 2000 corrective actions arise.
11. ``Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Risks of VBA's Year-2000
Efforts,'' May 30, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-79
a. Summary.--The subcommittee has pushed the Federal
Departments and agencies to make informed decisions about their
alternatives in rectifying the year 2000 computer problem. Some
systems are already compliant. Some systems can be retired as
no longer necessary. However, most systems will need to be
fixed. There are several alternatives available: the
programming code within a system can be changed; the entire
system can be replaced with a new system; or a ``smart-tool''
can provide a work-around for lower cost. The best alternative
for each system will depend on many factors. Each agency must
assess every system in order to know the total amount of work
to be done. The Veterans Benefits Agency [VBA] is a good
example of this situation. The subcommittee has recommended to
OMB and the Federal agencies that they perform a complete
assessment on each system; determine the best alternative for
each system; and then plan their workload and schedule for
being year 2000 compliant before the deadline.
b. Benefits.--Unless timely, corrective action is taken,
the Veterans Benefits Administration, like other Federal
agencies, could face widespread computer failures at the turn
of the century because of the year 2000 problem. In many
computer systems, the year 2000 is undistinguishable from 1900.
This could make veterans who are due to receive benefits appear
ineligible, disrupting the issuance of benefits checks. VBA has
tried to address this problem, but it can do more. First, the
year 2000 management office's structure and technical
capabilities are inadequate. Second, key year 2000 readiness
assessment processes--determining the potential severity of the
year 2000 impact on VBA operations, inventorying its
information systems, and developing contingency plans--have not
been completed. Third, VBA lacks enough information on the
costs or potential problems associated with its approach to
making systems year 2000 compliant. As a result, it cannot make
informed choices about which systems must be funded to avoid
disruptions in service and which can be deferred. Addressing
these problems requires top management attention. Contributing
to the challenges are the loss of key computer personnel,
difficulties in obtaining information on whether interfaces and
third-party products are year 2000 compliant, and delays in
upgrading systems at VBA data centers.
GAO noted that: (1) correcting the year 2000 problem is
critical to VBA's mission of providing benefits and services to
veterans and their dependents; (2) if not corrected,
calculations based on incorrect dates could result in
inaccurate and late payment of benefits to veterans, prompting
financial stress to millions across the country; (3) VBA has
acted to address the problem, but can do more; (4) the year
2000 management office structure and technical capabilities are
insufficient; (5) key year 2000 readiness assessment processes
have not been completed; (6) both VBA's initial and revised
strategies are risky in that without sufficient information on
the costs or potential problems associated with its approach to
making systems year 2000 compliant, it cannot make informed
choices as to which systems must be funded to avoid disruptions
in service, versus which can be deferred; (7) deficiencies in
these three areas add risk to an already difficult challenge;
(8) addressing these problems will require close and continual
top management attention and leadership; (9) contributing to
the challenge facing VBA are the loss of key computer
personnel, difficulties in obtaining necessary information from
external sources on whether interfaces and third-party products
are year 2000 compliant, and delays in upgrading systems at VBA
data centers; (10) the issue of whether third-party products
are year 2000 compliant is being faced by other Federal
agencies as well; (11) the Department of Veterans Affairs'
chief information officer told GAO that VBA will: (a) revise
its year 2000 strategy to focus on converting the existing
noncompliant benefits payment systems rather than replacing
them; and (b) acquire contractual support to assist in managing
the year 2000 effort and in making necessary changes; (12)
these are positive developments, and GAO looks forward to
seeing VBA's plans to implement these steps; and (13) the
implementation of these recommendations will put VBA in a
better position to avoid these types of problems in the future.
12. ``Air Traffic Control: Improved Cost Information Needed to Make
Billion Dollar Modernization Investment Decisions,'' January
22, 1997, GAO/AIMD-97-20
a. Summary.--In 1981, the Federal Aviation Administration
[FAA] began an air traffic control modernization program that
the agency now expects will cost more than $34 billion by 2003.
The vast majority of these air traffic control capital
investment projects, both in terms of money and number, involve
software-intensive information acquisition, processing, and
display systems. GAO found that the program's cost-estimating
and accounting practices are badly flawed, resulting in an
absence of reliable cost and financial information needed to
make informed investment decisions. This report examines the
cost-estimating and accounting practices that FAA has used for
its air traffic control project. GAO discusses whether (1) air
traffic control cost estimates are based on good estimating
processes and (2) actual air traffic control project costs are
being properly captured and reported.
b. Benefits.--The Federal Aviation Administration has had
perennially troubled procurement. Procurement issues in general
and information technology procurement in particular are of
direct, ongoing concern to the taxpayers. The soundness of
procurement choices is critical to both the size and quality of
Government services. This report assisted the subcommittee in
its review of procurement reforms.
13. ``Acquisition Reform: DOD Faces Challenges in Reducing Oversight
Costs,'' January 29, 1997, GAO/NSIAD-97-48
a. Summary.--The Pentagon considers acquisition reform
(lowering the cost of acquiring weapon systems) to be one of
its highest priorities. In an era of shrinking military
budgets, the Department of Defense plans to use the savings
from acquisition reform to pay for forces modernization. The
DOD established a reinvention laboratory in September 1994 to
help reduce nonvalue-added oversight requirements, thereby
lowering contractors' compliance costs and the Government's
oversight costs. Overall, the reinvention laboratory has made
only limited progress in reducing the cost of contractors'
compliance with Government regulations and oversight
requirements. In particular, laboratory participants reported
little success in addressing 9 of the top 10 cost drivers. DOD
officials said that the reinvention laboratory tended to
receive little top-level support from elsewhere in DOD. Other
factors that limited various projects included statutory and
non-DOD regulatory requirements, disagreements between DOD and
contractors over the value of some oversight requirements, and
difficulties coordinating and obtaining approval for proposed
changes that involved multiple customers. These results,
however, should not deter DOD from continuing its efforts to
reduce nonvalue added oversight requirements. Sustained support
from DOD leadership is essential. From a budgetary perspective,
the laboratory results underscore the need for caution in
estimating cost savings from oversight reform.
b. Benefits.--The Department of Defense faces serious
challenges in acquisition reform to reduce costs and redirect
savings to other higher priority areas. This report outlines
those challenges and describes the major issues for the
committee's review. Cooperation between Congress and the
Department of Defense is crucial if these challenges are going
to be met successfully.
14. ``Privatization: Lessons Learned by State and Local Governments,''
March 14, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-48
a. Summary.--A number of State and local governments have
successfully shifted functions or responsibilities to the
private sector, usually through contracting or managed
competition. Lessons learned from these experiences may be
helpful to the Federal Government as it pursues its own
privatization efforts. This report discusses privatization
efforts in the States of Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
York, and Virginia as well as the city of Indianapolis, IN.
b. Benefits.--The report assisted the subcommittee in its
review of Government organization and management. Privatization
within the Federal Government has occurred only in isolated
instances, so it is important to look to the State and local
government where the primary activity is occurring for guidance
and lessons.
15. ``Cooperative Purchasing: Effects Are Likely to Vary Among
Governments and Businesses,'' February 10, 1997, GAO/GGD-97-33
a. Summary.--The National Performance Review reported in
1993 that consolidating Government purchasing would benefit the
taxpayer through greater volume discounts and simplified
administration. The following year, Congress established a
cooperative purchasing program to allow State and local
governments, as well as Indian tribes and Puerto Rico, to
purchase from Federal supply schedules. However, Congress
suspended the program in 1996 until its impact could be
assessed. This report assesses the effects of the cooperative
purchasing program on these non-Federal Governments and Federal
agencies and on industry, including small businesses and
dealers. GAO also assesses the preliminary implementation plan
prepared by GSA. GAO concludes that although there is little
risk to Federal interests, the benefits for non-Federal
Governments and the consequences for industry will likely vary.
b. Benefits.--The report assisted the committee in its
review of cooperative purchasing, which was repealed by the
Congress in 1997.
16. ``Telecommunications Management: More Effort Needed by Interior and
the Forest Service to Achieve Savings,'' May 8, 1997, GAO/AIMD-
97-67
a. Summary.--Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO
reviewed efforts by the Department of the Interior and the
Forest Service to reduce costs by consolidating their
telecommunications services, focusing on whether: (1) the
Interior Department has consolidated and optimized
telecommunications services to eliminate unnecessary services
and maximize savings; and (2) the Interior Department and the
Forest Service are sharing telecommunications services where
they can.
GAO noted that: (1) to its credit, Interior has undertaken
a number of telecommunications cost-savings initiatives that
have produced significant financial savings and helped reduce
the Department's more than $62 million annual
telecommunications investment; (2) however, Interior is not
systematically identifying and acting on other opportunities to
consolidate and optimize telecommunications resources within
and among its bureaus or its 2,000-plus field locations; (3)
the cost-savings initiatives that have been undertaken have
generally been done on an isolated and ad hoc basis, and have
not been replicated throughout the Department; (4) GAO did not
review consolidation and sharing opportunities at all of
Interior's field locations; (5) however, at the four sites GAO
visited, GAO found that telecommunications resources were often
not consolidated or shared, and bureaus and offices were paying
thousands of dollars annually for unnecessary services; (6)
Interior does not know to what extent similar
telecommunications savings may exist at its other offices
because it lacks the basic information necessary to make such
determinations; (7) Interior and the Department of Agriculture
[USDA] may also be missing opportunities to save millions of
dollars by not sharing telecommunications resources; (8) even
though the Departments have a 2-year old agreement to identify
and act on sharing opportunities, little has been done to
implement this agreement and, accordingly, only limited savings
have been realized; and (9) moreover, while Interior and the
Forest Service currently plan to collectively spend up to
several hundred million dollars to acquire separate radio
systems over the next 8 years, the Departments have not jointly
determined the extent to which they can reduce these costs by
sharing radio equipment and services.
b. Benefits.--The report has assisted the committee in its
review of Federal telecommunication programs and procurement of
those services.
17. ``Courthouse Construction: Better Courtroom Use Data Could Enhance
Facility Planning and Decisionmaking,'' May 19, 1997, GAO/GGD-
97-39
a. Summary.--Trial courtrooms, because of their size and
configuration, are expensive to build. The judiciary's current
policy is, whenever possible, to assign a trial courtroom to
each district judge. GAO's work in seven cities--Dallas, Miami,
Albuquerque, Sante Fe, Las Cruces, San Diego, and Washington,
DC--found that courtrooms were idle, on average, about 46
percent of the days available for courtroom activities. In
other words, these courtrooms were vacant 115 days out of 250
Federal workdays in 1995. Courtrooms were used for trials less
than one-third of the days, and the use of courtrooms for
trials varied by location. At the six locations with more than
one trial courtroom, all courtrooms at any one location were
seldom used for trials the same day. Senior judges--district
judges who were eligible to retire but chose to continue to
perform judicial duties, often at reduced caseloads--used the
courtrooms assigned to them for trials considerably less
frequently than did active district judges. The judiciary
recognizes that it has not developed the data or done the
research to support its practice of providing a separate trial
courtroom for every district judge. Although it has taken some
steps to help it better understand courtroom usage, the
judiciary has yet to develop a plan to gather data on actual
use of courtrooms for trials or to systematically quantify the
latent and other usage factors.
b. Benefits.--The problems of overspending in courthouse
construction is serious and longstanding. This report helps
focus agency attention on the issue.
18. ``Debt Collection: Improved Reporting Needed on Billions of Dollars
in Delinquent Debt and Agency Collection Performance,'' June 2,
1997, GAO/AIMD-97-48
a. Summary.--Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO
reviewed debt collection issues for nontax debts, focusing on:
(1) reported government-wide data on credit receivables and
delinquencies for loans managed by the Federal Government; (2)
the status of efforts at four major credit agencies to resolve
delinquencies; (3) the dollars collected using various
legislatively-established collection tools; and (4) ways debt
collection reporting can be enhanced to evaluate progress in
collecting debt, and thereby assess agency efforts to meet the
mandates of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. GAO
did not verify the accuracy of the information provided to it
by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], the Financial
Management Service [FMS], or by the four agencies included in
the review.
b. Benefits.--The committee originated the Debt Collection
Improvement Act, which is the most recent effort to provide
additional tools to collect debts of the Federal Government.
This report aided the committee's deliberations at the November
12, 1997 hearing on this issue.
In the report, GAO noted that: (1) government-wide
reporting to Congress indicates that the amount of debt Federal
agencies are directly managing has remained about $200 billion
for the 5 years ended September 30, 1996; (2) during that time,
reported delinquencies for these Federal credit receivables
varied between $31 billion to $38 billion; (3) at September 30,
1995, the most recent data available on program-level
collection performance at the time of GAO's field work, the
housing agencies were dealing with more than half of their
delinquent debt through various involuntary collection tools
and, for almost a third of their delinquent debt, were
attempting to contact borrowers to get them to resume payments
on the original or revised terms; (4) the Department of
Education and its agents were attempting to locate and confirm
or revise repayment agreements associated with about 70 percent
of Education's delinquent debt; (5) contacting borrowers with
delinquent student loans is an especially difficult task since
they tend to be younger and thus more transient; (6) collection
on such unsecured loans tends to be more difficult because
there is no collateral to be seized if borrowers do not pay;
(7) delinquent student loans accounted for 40 cents of every
dollar of delinquent nontax debt directly managed by the
Government and over half of the delinquent Federal credit
receivable debt; (8) GAO identified several enhancements that
would facilitate valid assessments of agency collection
efforts; (9) better data and key analyses are crucial aspects
of Federal efforts to measure success in accomplishing the
charter for a more business-like credit management environment
as set out by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996; (10)
progress in this area will be especially critical to the
success of FMS as it assumes new debt collection management and
reporting responsibilities under the act; (11) such data is
central to effective day-to-day management in terms of
selecting collection strategies and deploying available staff
and contract resources; and (12) among the enhancements are:
(a) developing a reporting framework to identify and assess the
status of agency efforts to collect delinquent balances; (b)
providing more information on how actively, successfully, and
cost-effectively agencies are using individual collection
tools; reporting actual delinquent amounts that agencies are
trying to collect.
19. ``Contract Management: Fixing DOD's Payment Problems Is
Imperative,'' April 10, 1997, GAO/NSIAD-97-37
a. Summary.--The Defense Department has made hundreds of
millions of dollars in overpayments to contractors, many
undetected for years, because it uses inadequate computer
systems requiring manual entry of often erroneous or incomplete
data and a burdensome document-matching process. Improving
DOD's payment system will take sustained attention and support
from the highest levels of management for years to come.
Although DOD is taking some steps to overcome its payment
problems, it remains to be seen how effective these steps will
be. Emulating the best practices used by the private sector
could help DOD re-engineer its payment system.
b. Benefits.--The problem of inaccurate disbursements at
the Department of Defense is an ongoing and serious problem.
Without improvements in this area, the Federal Government will
be unable to have audited financial statements pursuant to the
CFO Act.
20. ``Relocation Travel: Numbers and Costs Reported by Federal
Organizations for Fiscal Years 1991 Through 1995,'' June 30,
1997, GAO/GGD-97-119
a. Summary.--Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO
provided information on the number of civilian employees
relocated during fiscal years (fiscal year) 1991 through 1995
and the associated costs of these relocations, focusing on: (1)
the total number of civilian employees who were relocated at
the Federal Government's expense; (2) the total cost of these
relocations to the Government; (3) the agencies that had
rotational policies requiring their civilian employees to
relocate; and (4) trends for the number and cost of civilian
employee relocations during this period.
b. Benefits.--This survey request was conducted pursuant to
a requirement of a law passed by the committee. The Travel
Reform and Savings Act of 1996 was designed to save $320
million when fully implemented. In order to ensure that such
savings occur, a baseline of such costs was needed. That is the
purpose of this report.
GAO noted that, for fiscal year 1991 through 1995: (1) 97
Federal organizations reported authorizing about 132,800
relocations, and 23 other organizations reported making about
40,200 relocations; (2) a small number of organizations
accounted for the bulk of the relocations authorized or made;
(3) while the total numbers of relocations authorized and made
fluctuated yearly across the organizations that provided data
for all 5 fiscal years, there was moderate change in these
totals between fiscal year 1991 and 1995; (4) across the
organizations that provided data for all 5 fiscal years, the
total number of relocations authorized decreased by less than 1
percent (89 organizations) and the total number of relocations
made increased by about 12.5 percent (19 organizations) from
fiscal year 1991 to 1995; (5) 97 Federal organizations reported
obligating about $3.4 billion for relocations, and 23 other
organizations reported expending about $363 million for
relocations; (6) a small number of organizations accounted for
the bulk of the relocation obligations or expenditures; (7)
across the organizations that provided data for all 5 fiscal
years, total relocation obligations varied and total relocation
expenditures increased yearly; (8) there was noticeable change
in these totals between fiscal year 1991 and 1995; (9) in
constant 1995 dollars, total relocation obligations increased
about 16 percent (83 organizations) and total relocation
expenditures increased about 88 percent (22 organizations) from
fiscal year 1991 to 1995; (10) for the 22 organizations, this
increase was due to the Department of the Navy's expenditures;
(11) excluding the Navy's expenditures, the 21 remaining
organizations' total expenditures decreased by less than 1
percent during the period; (12) 15 Federal organizations
reported that they had mandatory rotational policies requiring
some of their employees to rotate on a prescribed schedule;
(13) most of these organizations attributed their policies to
Federal regulations that limit overseas tours of duty; and (14)
based on data provided by these 15 organizations, GAO estimated
that these rotational policies accounted for about 19 percent
of the total relocations reported as authorized and about 7
percent of the total relocations reported as made during this
period.
Subcommittee on Human Resources
1. ``Medicare Transaction System: Success Depends Upon Correcting
Critical Managerial and Technical Weaknesses, May 16, 1997,
GAO/AIMD-97-78
a. Summary.--Operating nine separate automated information
systems to process Medicare claims, an increasing volume of
claims, and an outdated operating system, the Health Care
Financing Administration [HCFA] announced in 1991 they were
going to spend approximately $200 million to replace their
existing systems with a single, unified system, the new
Medicare Transaction System [MTS]. MTS was to be implemented in
1998, providing improved service, reducing operating costs,
facilitating better contractor oversight, and ensuring greater
protection against waste, fraud and abuse, at the same time
handling the growing volume of managed care and alternative
payment methodologies. Due to ongoing changes in the planning,
development and implementation strategy for MTS since its
inception, at the request of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources, GAO initiated a review of the initiative to
determine to what extent HCFA was managing its interim claims
processing, whether the agency was using required practices to
assess the proposed MTS initiative on a cost-benefit basis,
whether the project was being managed as an investment and
whether HCFA was applying sound systems development practices
so as to minimize risk. GAO concluded the original projected
cost of the MTS project had expanded to close to $1 billion and
that the hoped for benefits of modernizing its management
information tool and claims processing function would not be
achieved unless HCFA was able to overcome serious management
and technical weaknesses in three areas. (1) improvement of the
interim Medicare processing environment, correcting the year
2000 computer related problem, consolidation of existing
processing sites and conversion from the current nine systems
to two; (2) management of the MTS project as an investment and
adherence to practices known to be essential in making good
technology investment decisions, including preparing a valid
cost-benefit analysis, looking at viable alternatives, and
identification of how the proposed project would contribute to
improvements in agency mission performance; and (3) the
implementation of sound systems-development practices necessary
to reduce risk and assure success in the development of system
requirements and software; agency oversight of the contractor's
software development strategy, management of the project's
schedule, and implementation of a program to address risk.
b. Benefits.--Earlier GAO reports on the MTS project
highlighted subcommittee concerns and called attention to the
deficiencies in the planning, development and management of the
project, resulting in HCFA modifying portions of the original
MTS plan to address the concerns. This report reinforced the
view of the subcommittee that the project was not well
conceived, suffered from shifting requirements, was threatened
by slippage in due dates and had far exceeded initial cost
estimates. As a result, HCFA made the decision to sever its
relationship with the contractor at the completion of one phase
of the project and determined it needed to reassess the project
before proceeding further. The report reinforces the view that
HCFA should implement GAOs recommendations to improve the
management of its modernization effort and increase the
assurance that the future approach taken will be cost-
effective, of limited risk, and supportive of the agency's
mission.
2. ``Gulf War Illnesses: Improved Monitoring of Clinical Progress and
Re-examination of Research Emphasis Are Needed,'' Report to the
Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security,
June 1997, GAO/NSIAD-97-163. (Note: This report responds to the
mandate of the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization act. The
report was also presented in testimony before the House
Subcommittee on Human Resources hearing on June 24, 1997,
entitled ``Gulf War Illnesses: Enhanced Monitoring of Clinical
Progress and of Research Priorities Needed,'' GAO/T-NSIAD-97-
190)
a. Summary.--The 1997 defense authorization act mandated
the General Accounting Office [GAO] to analyze the
effectiveness of the Government's clinical care and medical
research programs relating to Gulf War veterans' illnesses. The
GAO evaluated: (1) DOD and VA efforts to assess the quality of
treatment and diagnostic services provided to Gulf War veterans
and their provisions for follow-up of initial examinations; (2)
the Government's research strategy to study the veterans'
illnesses and the methodological problems posed in its studies;
and, (3) the consistency of key official conclusions with
available data on the causes of veterans' illnesses.
The report, prepared by GAO's Special Studies and
Evaluations Group, found that (1) although efforts have been
made to diagnose veterans' problems and care has been provided
to many eligible veterans, neither DOD nor VA has
systematically attempted to determine whether ill Gulf War
veterans are any better or worse today than when they were
first examined; (2) while the ongoing epidemiological research
will provide descriptive data on veterans' illnesses,
formidable methodological problems are likely to prevent
researchers from providing precise, accurate, and conclusive
answers regarding the causes of veterans' illnesses; and (3)
support for some official [VA and DOD] conclusions regarding
stress, leishmaniasis, and exposure to chemical agents was weak
or subject to alternative interpretations.
b. Benefits.--The GAO report provides important information
about the VA and DOD response to the Gulf War veterans'
illnesses. The report points out that the hundreds of millions
of dollars in research being spent by the Federal Government to
identify the causes of the illnesses may result in little
return, that exposure to toxic agents is the likely cause of
the illnesses not stress, and that medical treatment outcomes
on sick veterans is unknown. This information, if acted upon,
could prevent the waste of millions of dollars and improve the
chances of helping sick veterans return to better health
sooner.
3. ``Gulf War Illnesses: Public and Private Efforts Relating to
Exposures of U.S. Personnel to Chemical Agents,'' Report to the
Ranking Minority Member of the House Veterans Affairs
Committee, October 1997, GAO/NSIAD-98-27
a. Summary.--The GAO report reviewed: (1) the potential
exposure of U.S. military personnel to chemical warfare agents
before, during and after the Gulf War, and (2) the
circumstances surrounding the missing Nuclear, Biological and
Chemical [NBC] logs maintained by the U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM) during the war. The report, prepared by the GAO's
Military Operations and Capabilities Issues Group, concluded
that 14 Federal and private organizations (8 Federal and 6
private) have efforts underway examining potential exposure of
U.S. troops to chemical agents, and 1 Federal organization was
examining missing NBC logs.
b. Benefits.--This GAO report provided some new information
on organizations examining potential chemical agent exposures
to Gulf War troops and the missing NBC logs. The subcommittee
has investigated the illnesses since February 1997, including
11 hearings, and its report on findings and recommendations has
been approved by the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. The committee's investigative record and report deal
extensively with potential exposure of U.S. troops to chemical
agents and the missing NBC logs, and this GAO report provides a
brief summary and overview of those same topics.
4. ``Social Service Privatization: Expansion Poses Challenges in
Ensuring Accountability for Program Results,'' October 27,
1997, GAO/HEHS-98-6
a. Summary.--Since 1990, more than half the States surveyed
have begun to redesign the roles that Government plays in
providing social services through efforts to assign, or
contract, some or all aspects of service delivery to private
entities. The GAO concludes this trend will continue as
political leaders and program managers seek ways to meet the
demand for high-quality services at reduced cost. Most States
reported being satisfied with the number of qualified bidders
for outsourcing projects. However, the GAO reports State and
local governments often have little experience in developing
contracts that adequately specify desired program results and
performance measures. This deficit raises the question how HHS
will meet GPRA mandates to measure outcomes and hold grantees
accountable for program results.
b. Benefits.--The GAO reports that, under the proper
conditions, privatization of social services may result in
improved services and increased cost-effectiveness. The report
provided the subcommittee, the Congress and the public with
current information on the extent, problems and prospects for
privatization of social service delivery systems. This
information will be useful as welfare reform and other
initiatives are evaluated through continuing oversight.
5. ``Proprietary Schools: Poorer Student Outcomes at Schools That Rely
More on Federal Student Aid,'' June 13, 1997, GAO/HEHS-97-103
a. Summary.--Proprietary schools are private non-profit
institutions primarily offering vocational training. The
General Accounting Office [GAO] found proprietary schools that
rely more heavily on Federal student aid tend to have poorer
student outcomes. On average, the greater a school's reliance
on Federal funds, the lower its students' completion and
placement rates and the higher its students' default rates.
Requiring proprietary schools to obtain a higher percentage of
their revenues from other sources could save millions in
default claims. Achieving this result, however, would require a
substantial increase to the current 15 percent threshold, which
requires that proprietary institutions obtain at least 15
percent of their revenues from sources other than Federal
student financial aid programs. Yet raising the threshold
significantly might cause schools to make changes, such as
admitting fewer poorer students, that might compromise students
access to post secondary education.
b. Benefits.--By identifying the relationship between
Federal student financial aid and poor student outcomes, GAO
provides important information to help Congress and the
executive branch evaluate and develop program performance
standards, and target student aid programs more effectively to
achieve their congressionally-mandated purposes.
6. ``Proprietary Schools: Millions Spent to Train Students for
Oversupplied Occupations,'' June 10, 1997, GAO/HEHS-97-104
a. Summary.--Proprietary schools are private, non-profit
institutions primarily offering vocational training. Under the
Higher Education Act's title IV programs, the Federal
Government spends billions of dollars each year on job training
at proprietary schools, which prepare students for such
occupations as automobile mechanic, electronic technician, and
cosmetologist. The General Accounting Office [GAO] found that
the Federal Government is spending millions of dollars to train
students for occupations that already have an oversupply of
workers. In the 12 States GAO reviewed, more than 112,000
proprietary school students received more than $273 million in
Federal funds to be trained in fields with projected labor
surpluses. Several major Federal job training programs, such as
the Job Training Partnership Act, restrict training to fields
with favorable job prospects. In passing the Student Right-to-
Know Act, Congress recognized the need to improve the quality
of information that students receive. The act stops short,
however, of requiring schools to report employment outcomes of
recent graduates, such as training-related job placements. In
addition, no mechanism currently exists to ensure that students
get important information on local labor market conditions.
b. Benefits.--The report provides Congress with information
pointing to the need to expand the Student Right-to-Know Act to
require proprietary schools to report recent graduates'
training-related job placements and local job market
conditions. The report also should help Federal and local
program officials to target student aid programs toward areas
of greater job opportunities.
7. ``Job Corps: Need for Better Enrollment Guidance and Improved
Placement Measures,'' October 21, 1997, GAO/HEHS-98-1
a. Summary.--The Job Corps is one of the few remaining
Federal training programs, serving 68,000 disadvantaged youths
annually at a cost of about $1 billion. However, the program
still loses a quarter of its participants shortly after
enrollment. One reason may be ambiguous eligibility
requirements, which lead recruitment contractors to enroll
youths who are ill-suited for what the program has to offer.
The General Accounting Office [GAO] concludes that the Job
Corps needs to identify participants who have the commitment,
the attitude, and the motivation to complete the training and
benefit from Job Corps' comprehensive and intensive services.
Furthermore, although the Labor Department uses performance
measures to make decisions about renewing placement
contractors, GAO found two of the four measures that Labor uses
do not provide information needed to assess the performance of
placement contractors. In addition, related measures on overall
program performance are flawed. Although the Job Corps reported
that about 65 percent of its participants are placed in jobs
and that about 46 percent of these placements are linked to Job
Corps training, GAO questions the accuracy and the relevancy of
both of these figures.
b. Benefits.--As the Department of Labor continues efforts
to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act, this
report documents the need for better management of contractors
and for adherence to statutory eligibility and placement
criteria for Job Corps participants to ensure continued program
success.
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice
1. ``Drug Control: Long-Standing Problems Hinder U.S. International
Efforts,'' February 1997, GA/NSIAD-97-75
a. Summary.--GAO summarized the findings from its previous
work on international drug control and interdiction efforts,
focusing on: (1) the effectiveness of U.S. efforts to combat
drug production and the movement of drugs into the United
States; (2) obstacles to implementation of U.S. drug control
efforts; and (3) suggestions to improve the operational
effectiveness of the U.S. international drug control efforts.
GAO noted that: (1) despite long-standing efforts and
expenditures of billions of dollars, illegal drugs still flood
the United States; (2) although these efforts have resulted in
some successes, including the arrest of traffickers and the
eradication, seizure, and disruption in the transport of
illegal drugs, they have not materially reduced the
availability of drugs; (3) a key reason for U.S.
counternarcotics programs' lack of success is that
international drug-trafficking organizations have become
sophisticated, multi-billion dollar industries that quickly
adapt to new U.S. drug control efforts; (4) as success is
achieved in one area, the drug-trafficking organizations change
tactics, thwarting U.S. efforts; (5) other significant, long-
standing obstacles also impede U.S. and drug-producing and
transit countries' drug control efforts; (6) in the drug-
producing and transit countries, counternarcotics control
efforts are constrained by competing economic and political
policies, inadequate laws, limited resources and institutional
capabilities, and internal problems such as terrorism and civil
unrest; (7) moreover, drug traffickers are increasingly
resourceful in corrupting the countries' institutions; (8) U.S.
efforts have been hampered by competing U.S. foreign policy
objectives, organizational and operational limitations,
difficulty in obtaining bilateral and multilateral support for
U.S. drug control efforts, inconsistency in the funding for
U.S. international drug-control efforts, and the lack of ways
to tell whether or how well counternarcotics efforts are
contributing to the goals and objectives of the national drug
control strategy, which results in an inability to prioritize
the use of limited resources; (9) there is no panacea for
resolving all of the problems associated with illegal drug
trafficking; (10) however, a multi-year plan that describes
where, when, and how U.S. agencies intend to apply resources
would provide a more consistent approach; (11) this plan should
include performance measures and long-term funding needs linked
to the goals and objectives of the international drug control
strategy; (12) ONDCP should, at least annually, review the plan
and make appropriate adjustments; and, (13) with this multiyear
plan, program managers and policymakers can make more-informed
decisions on priorities.
b. Benefits.--The United States has spent billions of
dollars on international drug control and interdiction efforts
but illegal drugs still flow into this country. A major factor
is that international drug-trafficking organizations have
become sophisticated, multibillion-dollar industries capable of
changing tactics to elude new U.S. drug control efforts and
corrupting the institutions of drug-producing and transit
countries. U.S. efforts have also been hampered by competing
foreign policy objectives, inconsistent funding for U.S.
international drug control plans, and a lack of ways to measure
the success of counternarcotics efforts. Although no panacea
exists that will curb illegal drug trafficking, a multi-year
plan that sets out funding needs linked to goals and objectives
would provide a more consistent approach to drug control
efforts. GAO also believes that improved uses of technology and
intelligence and the development of a centralized ``lessons
learned'' system could bolster counter-narcotics efforts.
2. ``Environmental Cleanup at DOD: Better Cost-Sharing Guidance Needed
at Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated Sites,'' March 1997,
GAO/NSIAD-97-32
a. Summary.--This report examines Department of Defense
[DOD] policies and practices regarding cleanup of environmental
contamination at government-owned, contractor-operated [GOCO]
plants, as a follow-up to previous reports which demonstrated
inconsistent policies and practices on cost sharing. GAO
reviewed nine higher-cost case studies at the Defense Logistics
Agency [DLA] and the military services (1) to assess the
consistency of cost-sharing practices across DOD and (2) to
compare the service cleanup estimates against DOD's.
Specifically, GAO identified the actions taken and the types of
arrangements for sharing cleanup costs between the Government
and other responsible parties, and examined site-specific
cleanup cost data.
The services' policies and practices for having contractors
share cleanup costs still vary widely. Not withstanding GAO
recommendations to do so, DOD has not given the services
adequate guidance for making decisions on whether and when to
seek recovery of environmental cleanup costs incurred by DOD
from contractors and other parties at GOCO facilities. The Army
authorized indemnifying its operating contractors from cleanup
costs at ammunition plants; the Navy policy requires cost-
recovery efforts, but has not initiated timely requests for
cost sharing or followed up; and the Air Force is beginning to
seek participation in cleanup costs from its operating
contractors.
Regarding cleanup at GOCO facilities visited by GAO, DOD's
fiscal year 1994 report to Congress included costs that were
closer to the military services' supporting data than DOD's
reported fiscal year 1993 estimates. DOD's estimates for
cleaning up the 78 GOCO facilities increased from $1.4 billion
in fiscal year 1993 to $3.6 billion in 1994, but decreased
somewhat to $3.3 billion in 1995. Although DOD and the services
have addressed GAO's recommendations to improve cost
information, their estimates of past and projected costs still
differ, and not all costs were included.
Because Superfund holds parties liable for the billions of
dollars needed to remedied past contamination regardless of
wrongdoing, it is important that DLA and the services deal with
potentially responsible parties on the basis of consistent
policy and accurate data. However, the lack of DOD guidance on
cost sharing has permitted inconsistencies in approaches to
cost sharing, and the potential for some parties to be held
responsible for cleanup costs, while others in similar
situations are not. If cost sharing agreements are reached,
omissions in historical information and cost data may inhibit
the recovery of all appropriate costs.
b. Benefits.--This report highlights DOD's lack of accurate
accounting data and a coherent and consistent department-wide
policy for determining cleanup costs at GOCO sites. In
addition, this reports the likelihood of higher and previously
unplanned cleanup costs to the Congress. To address the
inconsistencies in cost sharing approaches and the potential
for disparate treatment of other responsible parties described
in this report, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
issue guidance to DOD components to resolve current disparities
and to promote future consistent treatment of all parties in
cost recovery decisions. So that sufficient data will be
available for cost sharing negotiations and program oversight,
GAO also recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the
military services and DLA to: (1) Identify, to the extent it
has not already been done, whether parties other than the
government were involved with any contamination, as part of
environmental cleanup preliminary assessments at GOCO
facilities; (2) Obtain all relevant data regarding other
responsible parties identified, whether or not wrongdoing is an
issue; (3) Gather and maintain the most timely and accurate DOD
cost data available in DLA, military service, and other
agencies' records; and (4) Provide consistent estimates,
including all cleanup costs for DOD's environmental reports to
Congress, regardless of the source of funds.
3. ``Drug Control: Update on U.S. Interdiction Activities in the
Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.'' October 1997, GAO/NSIAD-98-30
a. Summary.--Since GAO's April 1996 report ``Drug Control:
U.S. Interdiction Efforts in the Caribbean Decline [NSIAD-96-
119]'' the amount of drugs smuggled and the counternarcotics
capabilities of host countries and the United States have
remained largely unchanged. Cocaine trafficking through the
Caribbean and Eastern Pacific regions continues, and drug
traffickers are still relying heavily on maritime modes of
transportation. Recent information shows that traffickers are
using ``go-fast'' boats, fishing vessels, coastal freighters,
and other vessels in the Caribbean and fishing and cargo
vessels with multiton loads in the Eastern Pacific. Also,
recent estimates indicate that, of all cocaine moving through
the transit zone, 38 percent (234 metric tons) is being shipped
through the Eastern Pacific. Although the United States has
continued to provide technical assistance and equipment to many
Caribbean and other transit zone countries, the amount of
cocaine seized by most of the countries is small relative to
the estimated amounts flowing through the area. The counterdrug
efforts of many transit zone countries continue to be hampered
by limited resources and capabilities. Moreover, the United
States does not have bilateral maritime agreements with 12
transit zone countries to facilitate interdiction activities.
Also, since the April 1996 report, the United States has
increased funding but has had limited success in detecting
monitoring, and interdicting air and maritime trafficking in
the transit zone. JIATF-East assets devoted to these efforts
have stayed at almost the same level. However, drug-trafficking
events are usually not detected and, when detected, often do
not result in narcotics seizures. U.S. counternarcotics
officials believe that the Eastern Pacific, ``a major drug-
threat area.'' could benefit from greater attention. JIATF-East
has requested additional resources from DOD to address Eastern
Pacific drug trafficking, believing that cocaine seizures it
supports could be doubled. DOD has not determined, what, if
any, additional support will be allocated to the Eastern
Pacific above current force levels. In 1996, the U.S. Customs
Service and the U.S. Coast Guard initiated two intensive
operations in and around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands that resulted in increased cocaine seizures and a
disruption in drug-trafficking patterns.
b. Benefits.--In response to GAO's recommendation in their
April 1996 report that ONDCP develop a regional plan of action,
ONDCP officials told GAO that it developed an overall strategy
that identifies agency roles, missions, and tasks to execute
the drug strategy and establish task priorities. However, the
strategy does not include quantitative objectives for
activities that would establish a defined baseline for
developing operational plans and resource requirements.
According to GAO, ONDCP's performance measurement system
remains incomplete, as of October 1, 1997, because proposed
measurable targets, the core of ONDCP's system, were still
under review. Until these measurable targets are developed, it
will not be possible to hold agencies accountable for their
performance. In addition, law enforcement agencies with
jurisdiction in the Caribbean are in the process of developing
a regional plan led by DEA, the FBI, and the U.S. Customs
Service. This plan was expected to be completed by January
1998.
4. ``Safe and Drug-Free Schools: Balancing Accountability With State
and Local Flexibility.'' October 1997, GAO/HEHS-98-3
a. Summary.--The Safe and Drug-Free Schools program is one
of several substance abuse- and violence-prevention programs
funded by the Federal Government. The act that authorizes the
program requires a variety of Federal, State, and local actions
to ensure accountability. These actions involve four major
types of accountability mechanisms: (1) an application process,
requiring approval of State and local program plans; (2)
monitoring activities by State agencies; (3) periodic reports
and evaluations; and (4) the use of local or substate regional
advisory councils. In combination, these mechanisms address
accountability for both how funds are spent and progress toward
achieving national, State, and locally defined goals.
The Department of Education oversees State programs
directly and local programs indirectly through required State
actions. Its State oversight is a combination of activities
required by the act and other generally applicable
requirements. Working along with States, Education reviews,
helps States to revise, and, finally, approves State plans--
which include a description of planned State-level activities,
criteria for selecting high-need districts that will receive
supplemental funds, and plans for monitoring local activities--
before disbursing funds. In addition, Education conducts on-
site monitoring visits. To allow States and localities enough
flexibility to meet their needs, Education has issued no
program-specific regulations on the act. Education does,
however, require States to conform to general and
administrative regulations and advises States on program
matters, such as allowable expenditures, through nonbinding
guidance. In addition, the Department may get involved in
resolving allegations of impropriety in the use of funds. For
example, Education, in response to allegations about Drug-Free
Schools programs, reviewed programs in West Virginia and
participated in resolving adverse audit findings in Michigan.
To date, however, no overall evaluations of the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools program have been completed.
b. Benefits.--The major purpose of the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools programs is to help the Nation's schools provide a
disciplined environment conducive to learning by eliminating
violence in and around schools and preventing illegal drug use.
States and localities have wide discretion in designing and
implementing programs funded under the act. They are held
accountable for achieving the goals and objectives they set as
well as for the Federal dollars they spend. As permitted under
the act, States and localities are delivering a wide range of
activities and services. Likewise, accountability mechanisms
have been established and appear to be operating in ways
consistent with the act.
The lack of uniform information on program activities and
effectiveness may, however, create a problem for Federal
oversight. First, with no requirement that States use a
consistent set of measures, the Department faces a difficult
challenge in assembling the triennial reports so that a
nationwide picture of the program's effectiveness emerges.
Second, although Education provides a mechanism for States to
report information annually, under the act, nationwide
information on effectiveness and program activities may only be
available every 3 years, which may not be often enough for
congressional oversight.
Subcommittee on the Postal Service
1. ``Information on Post Office Closures, Appeals, and Affected
Communities,'' March 1997. GAO/GGD-97-38BR
a. Summary.--At the request of Subcommittee Chairman
McHugh, the General Accounting Office reported on the Postal
Service's closure of post offices. A Post Office closure is
when the Postal Service permanently closes the operations of an
independent post office [IPO], eliminates the position of the
postmaster associated with that office, and provides the
customers with alternative postal services, such as highway
contract routes, rural route services, or community post
offices.
In a 1996 report, GAO reported that of 39,140 post offices,
stations branches and other postal outlets, about 45 percent
reported total revenues that were about $1.1 billion lower than
their total expenses in fiscal year 1995.
The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 provides that no
small post office can be closed for economic reasons alone. For
some years after the act, Congress appropriated funds to
reimburse the Postal Service for the ``public service costs''
that the Postal Service incurred in retaining postal operations
in communities where the post offices were not self-sustaining.
In 1976, Congress added to the provisions to govern whether and
how the Service is to close post offices. These provisions
included that prior to closing a post office, the USPS must
consider the effects on the community served, the postal
employees affected by the closure, the Government policy to
provide effective and regular postal service to all areas of
the country as well as any economic savings to the Service
resulting from the closure. The customers must be provided with
a written proposal and adequate notice at least 60 days prior
to the proposed date for the closure of the post office and
what lead to the decision to close the post office. About
28,000 post offices, headed by a postmaster, are subject to the
statutory closing restrictions. The Postal Rate Commission is
authorized to affirm the proposal or remand the issue to the
Postal Service for reconsideration, using Postal Service data.
Though the Postal Service is not required to notify the PRC of
the outcome of the reconsideration, the PRC must rule on
appeals no later than 120 days after receiving it.
The Postal Service has closed 3,924 post offices since
1970. There have been 296 appeals of closures to the PRC which
affirmed 170 of the Postal Service's proposals. Three
circumstances may prompt the Postal Service to consider whether
to close a post office: vacancy in the postmaster position (due
to promotion, transfer, retirement or death); emergency
suspension of a post office's operations (as in circumstances
such as a fire, natural disaster or termination of a lease);
and special circumstances (such as incorporation of two
communities into one). In fiscal year 1995, 239 post offices
were closed, and in 1996, 161 post offices were closed.
b. Benefits.--By commissioning this study, the Postal
Service is alerted to the subcommittee's oversight concerns
about retention of small and rural post offices. This report
provides important information to Congress and to the
communities facing postal closures. It encapsulates the process
for closing post offices.
2. ``Postal Reform in Canada: Canada Post Corporation's Universal
Service and Ratemaking,'' March 1997. GAO/GGD-9745/BR
a. Summary.--The General Accounting Office responded to
Subcommittee Chairman McHugh's request to provide information
on the 1981 reform initiative of the Canadian postal system
which ultimately became the Canadian Post Corp. [CPC], a Crown
Corp.--a commercial function operating for public purposes in
which the Canadian Government is the only shareholder--which
was given broad authority to address existing problems within
the Canadian postal system. The GAO report covered matters
relating to universal mail service, CPC ratemaking and key
events affecting the CPC since its establishment.
The CPC Act provided that the CPC Board of Directors would
be selected by the Canadian Government, designate a minister to
oversee the CPC and approve proposed CPC regulations, approve
its 5 year-plans, annual operating and capital budgets. The CPC
is subject to antitrust law which is executed by Canada's
Bureau of Competition Policy. The CPC is required to endeavor
to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis.
It is reported that the CPC incurred operating losses from
its inception through fiscal year 1988. In 1989 it reported its
first profit and also reported profits in 4 of the 7 fiscal
years 1990 through 1996. CPC has now paid dividends. In 1994,
it became subject to Federal income tax. The term ``universal
service'' is not mentioned in the CPC Act but it does cite
``maintaining basic customary postal service,'' and must
consider several conditions in providing a standard of service
which will meet the needs of communities of similar size. The
CPC does not require basic letter mail service at uniform
price, but it is CPC policy to do so. The CPC Act provides that
the Canadian Post has the ``exclusive privilege'' of collecting
and delivering most letter mail in Canada; this accounts for
about 50 percent of CPC's operating revenue. In an attempt to
improve mail service, the CPC reduced mail delivery from 6 to 5
days a week and dropped mail delivery for businesses in urban
areas from several times a day to once a day. CPC provides mail
delivery less frequently, as infrequently as once a week, to
about 200 communities in the remote regions of northern Canada.
CPC reduced the number of post offices it owned by closing post
offices and privatizing 50 percent of its post offices, which
are now typically in conveniently located, privately owned
outlets like grocery stores, which can provide longer operating
hours and a wider range of services. Most of the conversions
took place prior to February 1994 when the Government put a
moratorium on the conversion program.
The CPC sets some of its postal rates by regulation. These
are generally single-piece domestic and international letters,
and prescribing rates of postage discounts on mailable matter
prepared in the form defined by regulation. Under the CPC Act,
reasonable opportunity is provided for interested parties to
comment on the regulations subject to government approval,
though it does not specify how these comments are to be
addressed. The comments are analyzed and sent to the Minister
responsible for CPC and then the proposed regulation is
approved by the Board of Directors. In 1996, the only postal
rates established by regulation were for basic domestic and
international single-piece letters, international printed
matter--including newspapers and periodical--literature for the
blind and some registered mail products. Non-regulated rates,
those set by agreement, must be approved by the CPC Board of
Directors or others within the CPC. These rates may relate to
variations of postage rates based on bulk mailing or
preparation of mail in a manner which would expedite processing
and provision of experimental services for periods not
exceeding 3 years. The CPC, over the years, has sought and
received government approval to remove a number of rate
categories from the regulatory process and now most of the
postal rates are established without regulation and without
government approval. These products include bulk mail,
overnight or urgent delivery, unaddressed advertised mail and
parcels. Nonregulated postage rates fall into generic and
nongeneric rates. Generic rates apply to discounted bulk-
business letter mail, advertising mail, parcels, and courier
services. These rates are available to anyone who meets bulk
mail requirement. Nongeneric postage rates are established
though negotiated, confidential agreements, customized for
individual, large-volume business customers and approved by CPC
officials below the top level through authority delegated by
the Board of Directors. These are generally for mail other than
letter, such as parcels and unaddressed advertising mail.
The CPC Act provides that rates issued by regulation must
be fair, reasonable and consistent. The rates are established
by taking into account the basic customary service obligation,
providing uniform basic letter rates and limiting rates to the
rise in the Consumer Price Index. The total revenues provided
must be sufficient to defray expenses incurred by the CPC in
the conduct of its operations. The established pricing policies
comply with the CPC Act and the antitrust provisions of the
Competition Act. An independent auditing firm ensures that the
CPC is allocating and distributing costs properly for
ratemaking purposes. The detailed cost and revenue data is
considered to be commercially sensitive.
b. Benefits.--The information reported in this study
provides useful information to the subcommittee in its efforts
to reform the U.S. Postal Service to make it more competitive
in an era when it is facing extreme competition because of
advances made in the electronic and technological fields.
3. ``U.S. Postal Service: Information on Emergency Suspensions of
Operations at Post Offices,'' April 1997, GAO-GGD-97-70R
a. Summary.--Subcommittee Chairman McHugh requested
information on emergency suspension of operations at post
offices by the Postal Service. The Postal Reorganization Act of
1970 mandates that no post office can be closed for economic
reasons alone. In 1976, Congress added provisions that govern
whether and how the Postal Service can close post offices and
give the customers the right to appeal the determination to the
Postal Rate Commission. However, emergency suspensions cannot
be appealed because they are not governed by statute. These
closures are set within the Postal Operations Manual and the
Post Office Discontinuance Guide (Handbook-101). They provide
that Service district managers, Customer Service and Sales, may
suspend the operations of any post office under their
jurisdiction when an emergency or other condition requires such
action. An emergency is defined as an occurrence that creates a
threat to the safety and health of postal employees or
customers, or to the security of the mail. This may include,
among other situations, a natural disaster; termination of a
lease or rental agreement when other suitable accommodations
are unavailable; lack of qualified personnel to operate the
post office; severe health or safety hazard in the work
environment; severe damage to, or destruction of, the post
office building; and lack of adequate measures to safeguard the
office or its revenues. Service procedures require that the
senior vice president, Marketing be notified immediately by the
district managers, who must also notify affected customers by
individual letter of the effective date and the reason for the
suspension, the alternative service available, the nearest post
office and its hours of operation, and the name and telephone
number of a person to contact for more information. Alternative
postal service must be established as soon as possible after a
suspension and, if there is time, a community meeting should be
convened. District managers are required to decide within 6
months of a suspension whether to reopen the post office or to
initiate a study to determine the feasibility of permanently
closing the post office. The post office remains in suspension
status while the study is initiated and there is no set time
for completion of the study. The Postal Service reports that
since the beginning of 1992 through March 1997, the operations
of 651 post offices were suspended, the greatest number
occurring in 1993, primarily because of the early out
retirement incentive which resulted in a number of postmasters
retiring early in 1993. Many of the post offices lost their
lease at that time because the retiring postmaster owned the
building or qualified people were not available to continue the
operations of the post office. As of March 1997, 470 post
offices were under emergency suspensions. The average time of
the suspension was 4.3 years.
b. Benefits.--There was much postal patron concern
regarding the emergency closing of post offices because of the
inconveniences they caused. This study by the GAO puts into
concise form the number of emergency suspensions and why the
post offices were closed.
4. ``U.S. Postal Service: Information About Restrictions on Mailbox
Access,'' May 1997. GAO/GGD-97-85
a. Summary.--At the request of Subcommittee Chairman
McHugh, the GAO responded to subcommittee concerns to evaluate
if changes are needed to 18 U.S.C. 1725, the law that gives the
Postal Service exclusive access to mailboxes, known as the
``mailbox restriction.'' The Postal Service relies on the
provision to protect postal revenue, facilitate efficient and
secure delivery of mail and ensure the privacy of postal
customers. Some postal competitors believe that the provision
is unnecessary, unfair and restricts their business and,
therefore, should be repealed. No studies have been made to
substantiate the claims of either the Postal Service or the
competitors. GAO reported that Congress adopted the mailbox
restriction rule in 1934 to prevent the delivery of unstamped
matter in mailboxes, which was occurring during that time and
adversely impacting postal revenues. Civic groups which had
placed the unstamped material in the mailboxes claimed that the
restriction abridged their first amendment rights to free
speech and the press.
In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the mailbox restriction, ruling that the
law and enforcement actions were not geared to the content of
the message place in mailboxes. It also found that mailboxes
are essential to mail delivery and that postal customers agree
to abide by laws and regulations that apply to mailboxes in
exchange for the Postal Service agreeing to deliver and pick up
mail in them. Based on their national study, the GAO found
about 66 percent reported that their household received mail in
unlocked mailboxes. About 82 percent of the adults surveyed are
opposed to allowing just anyone to put materials into their
mailbox. However, 58 percent favored granting mailbox access to
express mail companies such as Federal Express and United
Parcel Service. About 49 percent endorsed allowing other
companies, such as utilities, to have access; 38 percent
favored magazines and newspapers, and 29 percent agreed to
having catalogs, coupons or ads. The Postal Service, postal
labor unions and management associations, and a contractors'
association expressed that the mailbox restriction should not
change. The Justice Department also opposed change because the
restriction deters the distribution of sexually explicit
materials to mailboxes because there are some laws and
regulations governing the distribution of these materials only
to mail delivered by the Postal Service and would not be
applicable to others if they utilized the mailboxes for
delivery. Most mailer groups also agreed with the mailbox
restriction should remain but others differed.
The Postal Inspection Service which is responsible for
enforcing postal laws, did not have data on the number of mail
thefts but reported that it was not a serious problem because
the mailbox restriction deters mail theft and makes it easier
to resolve the cases. Under current law a violation of the
mailbox restriction provision can be punished by a fine but not
by imprisonment. The maximum fine for each offense is $5,000
for individuals and $10,000 for organizations.
b. Benefits.--In its deliberations on postal reform, the
subcommittee considered a demonstration project to relax the
mailbox rule. This provision became a hotly debated issue but
no empirical data was available until this GAO study was
completed. As a result of the GAO finding, this measure has
been dropped from the legislative proposal.
5. ``The Results Act: Observations on the Postal Service's June 1997
Draft Strategic Plan,'' July 1997, GAO/GGD-97-163R
a. Summary.--The majority leader, chairmen of the
Committees on the Budget, Appropriations and Government Reform
and Oversight asked for GAO review of the drafts prepared by
cabinet departments of strategic plans as required by the
Government Performance and Results Act. Subcommittee Chairman
McHugh requested that the Postal Service be included in this
review. This report assessed whether the Postal Service was in
compliance with the Results Act, whether the major statutory
responsibilities were reflected in the submitted text, whether
the Postal Service addressed major management problems, whether
the Service had capacity to provide reliable information for
measuring results and whether the strategic plan shows input
from consultation and interagency coordination for cross-
cutting functions. For several years, the Postal Service has
been using its own strategic planning system, CustomerPerfect!,
based on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, to set
its goals and it provided a strong basis for addressing the
Results Act requirements. Recognizing that the strategic
planning process is ongoing and iterative, the GAO observed
that the Postal Service draft plan generally included the six
components required by the act and provided useful information,
but that the discussion could be strengthened to meet the
requirements of the act. Though the plan showed the major
statutory responsibilities, GAO determined that the Service
should have elaborated on and discussed major management
problems and submitted a more complete mission statement,
general goals and objectives, and strategies to achieve the
goals and objectives.
The Results Act requires that strategic plans contain a
description of how goals and objectives are to be achieved
including a description of operational processes, skills and
technology, and human, capital information and other resources
necessary to meet these goals. The GAO also suggested that the
plan could better discuss how these components may be affected
by key management problems, such as labor-management relations,
the need to strengthen internal controls to protect revenues
and ensuring the integrity of acquisitions. The Postal Service
provided multiple goals. GAO commented that the Postal Service
faces a difficult challenge in successfully implementing all
the projected goals. Even though it recognizes the challenges,
the Postal Service needs to explain how its executives will
manage the process.
b. Benefits.--This overview by the GAO will provide the
Postal Service with an objective, unbiased assessment of its
presentation of goals and projections for the future. A more
refined product from the Postal Service will enable Congress to
perform its oversight duties with clearer direction and, by
charting its course with more refinement, Postal Service
customers will be served by a more efficient and goals oriented
agency. Clearly, the Postal Service stakeholders will have a
better vision of how the Postal Service will compete in an
electronic communications market. The Postal Service will
benefit from the expressed clarity of purpose, expressing
accuracy and effectiveness of delivery performance,
appropriateness of measurements of postal productivity and the
measurement of business and residential customer satisfaction.
6. U.S. Postal Service: ``Issues Related to Governance of the Postal
Service,'' August 1997, GAO/GGD-97-141
a. Summary.--Subcommittee Chairman McHugh requested that
GAO furnish information regarding the governance of the Postal
Service which would be beneficial in the subcommittee's efforts
to reform the Postal Service. The objectives were to identify
major areas of concern or issues that former and current
Governors of the Postal Service may have regarding the Board
and to compare the major characteristics, similarities or
differences, of the Postal Service Board of Governors with the
characteristics of other boards of government-created
corporations or corporation-like organizations. Nine other
entities were chosen for comparison (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
TVA, RTB, FDIC, AMTRAK, CPB, Canada Post, Australia Post).
Additionally, the GAO provided information on governance issues
to assist in the postal reform endeavor. Present and former
Governors of the Postal Service indicated that attention should
be given to several areas: the limitations on the Board to
establish postage rates; the inability of the Board to pay the
PMG more than the level I of the Executive Schedule; the lack
of pay comparability of the Board; and amending the
qualification requirements of Board appointees to ensure they
have the necessary experience to oversee a major Government
entity.
b. Benefits.--Prior to the issuance of this report, no
other study was available to answer questions pertinent to the
subcommittee's interest in comparison of the Postal Service
with other entities of like characteristics. This report
contains invaluable information for the subcommittee's use.
7. ``Little Progress Made in Addressing Persistent Labor-Management
Problems,'' October 1997, GAO/GGD-97-85 and GAO/T-GGD-98-7
a. Summary.--This report was submitted in response to
Subcommittee Chairman McHugh's request that the GAO review the
efforts of the Postal Service to enhance employee working
conditions and the overall performance of the Service. This
report contains updated material to GAO's 1994 report, ``U.S.
Postal Service: Labor-Management Problems Persist on the
Workroom Floor.'' The GAO had made several recommendations to
the Service to improve labor-management relations. The current
report determined the status and results of the identified
concerns in the previous report and made recommendations to
help alleviate the problems. The GAO ascertained that the
problems still exist because the Postal Service and the unions
and management groups cannot concur on how best to address the
concerns; therefore, the GAO recommendations have not been
implemented in most cases, though employee officials indicated
that some of the initiatives would be workable. Improving
relations between labor and management continues to be an
ongoing challenge and concern, particularly since the
communications arena is becoming inevitably competitive. This
material was the subject of a subcommittee hearing on November
4, 1997 at which GAO testified.
b. Benefits.--Employee salaries represent 80 percent of the
cost for services for the USPS. Additionally, as the Postal
Service faces increased competition, and in an effort to
contain costs associated with employee grievances, it is
imperative that labor-management relations be improved and
costs contained. The GAO report of 1994 prompted the Postal
Service to call a summit in October 1997, in an effort to start
implementing some of the recommendations that it proposed to
improve relations and expedite the grievance process.
V. Prior Activities of Current or Continuing Interest
Standing Committee
1. Line Item Veto.--As part of its comprehensive effort to
reduce the Federal deficit and control runaway Federal
spending, the 104th Congress sought to strengthen the power of
the President to rescind appropriations by passing the Line
Item Veto Act, Public Law 104-130, 110 Stat. 1200, (codified at
2 U.S.C. Sec. 691 et. seq.) as an amendment to the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974, Public Law 93-344 (codified as amended at
2 U.S.C. Sec. 683); Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight Report No. 104-11, Pt. II, January 30, 1995.
Once the President signed the act into law, and utilized
the new authority afforded by the act, several Members of
Congress sought relief in Federal District Court, asserting the
act offends Article 1 of the Constitution. The committee is
following the activity of the executive, judicial and
legislative branches concerning the continuing viability and
utilization of the authority of the act.
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
1. Review public safety in the District of Columbia.
2. Continue investigation into the District of Columbia's
financial condition, to include the District's accumulated
operating deficits.
3. Oversight of the District of Columbia's education
emergency Board of Trustees and temporary superintendent/CEO
Julius Becton.
4. Continue monitoring the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Facility and the operation and performance of the Water and
Sewer Authority.
5. Investigation of the Washington Aqueduct.
6. Review the operations of the Lorton Corrections
Facility.
7. Continue to monitor the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue
and the impact of the Federal Government's security reviews.
Subcommittee on Human Resources
1. Department of Veterans Affairs handling of medical
claims by Gulf War veterans.
2. Federal and State child support enforcement program
implementation and coordination.
3. HUD takeover of the Chicago Housing Authority and the
department's capacity to manage that and other distressed
housing authorities.
4. Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
5. Efforts to combat fraud against Medicare and Medicaid in
the home health care industry and in nursing homes.
6. Maximizing the use and efficiency of computers in the
Social Security system.
7. FDA drug advertising, promotion and labeling policies.
8. Operation of the Vaccines for Children program.
9. Department of Labor enforcement authority and activities
with regard to sweat shops, racketeering and organized crime.
10. HUD management of public housing tenant initiatives.
11. FDA standards for assessment of risk, safety and
efficacy of medical devices, including breast and jaw implants.
12. Health Care Finance Administration efforts to control
the growth of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures.
13. AIDS funding.
14. Monitoring of emerging infectious diseases by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
15. Health Care Finance Administration's proposed
``Medicare Transaction and Information Systems.''
16. HUD compliance with statutory deadline to end the use
of ``welfare hotels'' and other unfit transient facilities.
17. Mission and level of coordination between the NLRB,
National Mediation Board, the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service and the Railroad Retirement Board.
18. Social Security Disability Income claims screening for
alcohol and drug abuse.
19. FDA regulation of health claims for dietary
supplements.
20. Organizational structure of the Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission.
21. Review of rural health programs.
22. Status of FDA action on the backlog of food additive
petitions.
23. Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense
Hospital coordination.
24. Preventing teen pregnancy.
25. Department of Labor management of Multiemployer Welfare
Arrangements with regard to health care fraud.
26. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Public Law 104-4)
compliance.
27. Organizational structure and effectiveness of the
Office of Workers Compensation Program.
28. Pre-emption of State governments by Federal health and
safety agencies.
29. Safety of the Nation's blood supply.
30. Department of Education's direct student lending
program.
31. Quality of health care provided by the Indian Health
Service.
32. Medicare reimbursement for durable medical equipment.
33. National Institute of Health grant allocations process.
34. Ensuring medical records privacy.
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice
The subcommittee will continue its investigations and
oversight work in the following areas within its jurisdiction:
1. The activities of the Drug Enforcement Administration in
the drug war.
2. The efforts of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy in coordinating the National Drug Control Program
agencies.
3. The Department of Defense with respect to areas which
fall under subcommittee jurisdiction.
4. The U.S. Coast Guard's active involvement in
international drug interdiction.
5. The U.S. Customs Service and their involvement in the
drug war.
6. The use of the National Guard in multi-jurisdictional
areas.
7. Oversight of the National Aeronautic and Space
Administration.
8. The efficiency of the National Archives and Records
Administration.
9. Issues relating to Operation Lightning Strike.
10. The operations of the Department of State with respect
to the drug war.
11. The efficiency of the drug treatment programs.
12. The Immigration and Naturalization Program
``Citizenship USA.''
13. Oversight of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program.
14. Investigation of the waste in defense inventory
management at the Defense Logistics Agency.
15. Oversight of counternarcotics intelligence
coordination, analysis and dissemination.
16. Oversight of Federal sentencing guidelines.
Subcommittee on the Postal Service
The subcommittee will continue its investigations and
oversight work in the following areas within its jurisdiction.
1. Operation of the U.S. Postal Service. The subcommittee
will continue to exercise its general oversight authority
through the conduct of general oversight hearings.
2. Postal Service labor-management relations. The
subcommittee is interested in keeping the avenues of
communication open between labor and management in an effort to
minimize grievance related activities and raising the levels of
productivity among all levels of employees within the Postal
Service.
3. Cooperation between the Postal Service and the Postal
Inspection Service and the Postal Service Inspector General's
Office. The Inspector General's Office was created a year ago.
The effectiveness of the IG's office is dependent on mutual
respect and professionalism between the offices, and adequate
funding for that office. The subcommittee is fully committed to
ensuring that the integrity and effectiveness of the office is
protected so that it will ensure oversight responsibilities of
the Postal Service and help to protect the Service from waste,
fraud and abuse.
VI. Projected Programs for the 105th Congress, 2nd Session
Subcommittee on the Civil Service
A. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
A number of civil service matters have come before the
subcommittee requiring passage of legislation. Some are
addressed in bills already introduced, while others are being
drafted. The subcommittee expects to deal with the following
legislative matters:
1. H.R. 240, the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of
1997, which passed the House in April 1997. The subcommittee
will work to seek passage in the Senate.
2. H.R. 1836, Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act
of 1997, which passed the House in November 1997. The
subcommittee will work to seek passage in the Senate.
3. H.R. 2675, Federal Employees Group Life Insurance
Improvement bill, which passed the House in November 1997. The
subcommittee will seek passage in the Senate.
4. H.R. 2676, The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1997, which passed the House in November
1997. The subcommittee anticipates significant changes to the
personnel provisions during Senate deliberations and will
participate in subsequent reviews.
5. H.R. 1337, Haskell Indian Nations University and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Administrative
Systems Act. The subcommittee anticipates early passage of this
bill.
6. A bill to correct the problem of Federal employees
having been placed in the wrong retirement system. The
subcommittee proposes to address this issue jointly with the
Committee on Ways and Means.
7. A bill to provide improved access to health care for
military families and retirees. H.R. 1631 among several other
bills has been introduced to address this problem. The
subcommittee proposes to address this issue jointly with the
Committee on National Security.
8. An omnibus civil service bill to address matters in the
following areas:
a. strengthen performance management requirements--
reward good performance; deal more readily with poor
performers;
b. streamline and consolidate the employee grievance
and appeals process;
c. provide greater flexibility in personnel
management rules and procedures;
d. enhance the security of Federal retirement funds
and employee contributions;
e. provide more choices for Federal employees in
their health and life insurance benefits;
f. reform the Federal worker's compensation system
(FECA--Worker's Comp) to provide greater equity and
eliminate fraud and abuse.
9. A bill to create a new benefit option for Federal
employees to purchase long term care for themselves or members
of their immediate families.
10. As in previous years the subcommittee anticipates
having to deal with civil service related provisions in the
annual Budget Resolution and Budget Reconciliation Acts for
fiscal year 1999.
11. As in previous years the subcommittee anticipates
having to deal with civil service related provisions in the
annual Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999.
12. As in previous years the subcommittee anticipates
having to deal with civil service related provisions in various
appropriations acts for fiscal year 1999.
13. Following investigative hearings over violations of the
Pendleton Act and the Hatch Act in the course of recent
Presidential election campaigns, the subcommittee will consider
legislative reforms to these acts.
B. OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE PROGRAM
The subcommittee has a number of matters under
consideration in its oversight program. Hearings will be
scheduled on a number of these topics in order to more fully
develop the public record. These issues include the following:
1. Violations of the Hatch Act and Pendleton Act.
2. Sexual harassment in the Federal workplace.
3. Use and abuse of authorities to hire temporary Federal
employees.
4. The practice of paying Federal employees for doing no
constructive work.
5. Abuses in Intergovernmental Personnel Act appointments.
6. Federal affirmative action programs and employment
discrimination in the Federal workplace.
7. The use of official time by Federal employees to pursue
union work and to lobby; examine the extent of Federal
subsidies to Federal unions.
8. Frequency and extent of problems in OPM processing of
retirement claims.
9. OPM's management of the FEHB program.
10. Accuracy and validity of wage and salary surveys used
to set annual Federal pay adjustments (Federal Employees' Pay
Comparability Act of 1990).
11. Oversight of human resource issues in the National
Performance Review [NPR] and Performance Based Organizations
[PBOs].
12. Oversight of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
13. Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel.
14. Oversight of the Federal Labor Relations Board.
15. Oversight of the Federal division of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
A. LEGISLATION
1. Economic Development; Convention Center.
B. OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
1. District of Columbia Public Schools--facilities,
enrollment, academic performance.
2. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department--
reorganization and crime fighting programs management and
personnel.
3. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority--
operation and improvement of facilities, privatization review,
facility and personnel management, and selling bonds.
4. District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer--financial
management, financial status tax collection, vendor payments
and management initiatives.
5. Corrections Trustee for the Lorton Prison closure--
review progress of duties of the Corrections Trustee as
identified in Public Law 105-33, Title XI, Subtitle C.
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology
1. Year 2000 Problem.--The subcommittee will continue its
active oversight of the Government's effort to prepare for the
year 2000 date change. A series of hearings will begin in
February with oversight of the Federal Aviation
Administration's year 2000 problem. The subcommittee will also
work with the Office of Management and Budget to continue to
strengthen and expand quarterly reporting requirements from all
Federal agencies. Further, the subcommittee will work with the
General Accounting Office and agency Inspectors General to
improve verification of the quality of reporting.
2. The Government Performance and Results Act.--The
subcommittee will continue its oversight of implementation of
the Results Act as performance plans are produced government-
wide for the first time. The subcommittee will hold the first
in a series of hearings in mid-February. The subcommittee will
consider legislation that will amend both strategic and
performance planning provisions of the Results Act.
3. Oversight of Federal Property Laws.--The subcommittee
will hold a series of hearings on Federal property laws. The
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act has not been
reauthorized since its inception in 1949. This law and its
authorities will be re-examined with a view to determining
whether economy and efficiency would be enhanced by amendments.
4. Federal Debt Collection.--The subcommittee will continue
its activities in the area of debt collection improvement. It
will hold a series of hearings on implementation of the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and will consider
legislation aimed at benefit fraud reduction and promotion of
asset sales.
5. Oversight of the U.S. Customs Service.--The subcommittee
will continue its investigation into an imbalance in staffing
by the U.S. Customs Service between the East and West Coasts.
The subcommittee plans field hearings in Miami and New York as
well as further hearings in Washington, DC.
6. The Federal Election Commission.--The subcommittee will
examine the management practices at the Federal Election
Commission. The hearing will focus on issues of enforcement,
including the audit process, and disclosure, among others.
7. The Federal Advisory Committee Act.--With the assistance
of the General Accounting Office, the subcommittee will examine
the current use of Federal advisory committees by the Federal
Government. Hearings are anticipated.
8. The Electronic Freedom of Information Act.--The
subcommittee has jurisdiction over several government-wide
information laws, including the Freedom of Information Act, the
Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the
Government in the Sunshine Act. The subcommittee conducts
regular oversight of the compliance of Federal departments and
agencies with the requirements of these laws.
The subcommittee will conduct oversight hearings on the
Freedom of Information Act with particular focus on the role of
electronic reporting in the timeliness of responses to Freedom
of Information requests.
9. The Inspectors General Act.--The Inspectors General Act
became law in 1978. The subcommittee will observe the 20th
anniversary of this important law with a series of hearings.
The hearing will focus on ways to make the Offices of
Inspectors General more efficient and effective in
implementation of the act.
10. Federal Financial Management.--The subcommittee will
continue a variety of oversight initiatives in the area of
financial management. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
required agencies to audit revolving funds, trust funds and all
funds that resembled commercial enterprises. The 1994
Government Management Reform Act extended the CFO requirements
to cover all agency resources, with agency-wide audited
financial statements due in March 1997, and Federal Government-
wide audited financial statements due in March 1998. The act is
an important tool in improving the financial management of
Federal departments and agencies.
The subcommittee will examine with particular care the
financial management problems at the Department of Defense and
the Internal Revenue Service. The subcommittee also plans
hearings on financial management at the Social Security
Administration and the Health Care Financing Administration.
11. Medical Records Privacy.--The Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 gave Congress a
deadline of August 1999 to enact legislation protecting the
privacy of medical records. Several bills have been introduced
on this issue and referred to the subcommittee. The
subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``Medical Records
Privacy'' in the 1st session. It will hold further hearings and
play an active role in shaping legislation in the 2d session.
Subcommittee on Human Resources
A. LEGISLATION
1. Comprehensive Preventive Health and Promotion Act of
1997 (H.R. 177, 105th Congress).
2. Family Services Improvement Act of 1997 (H.R. 1480,
105th Congress).
3. Health Care Fraud and Abuse Act of 1997 (H.R. 362, 105th
Congress).
4. Subsidy Termination for Overdue Payments Act of 1997
(H.R. 399, 105th Congress).
5. Unfunded Federal Mandates Relief Act of 1997 (H.R. 62,
105th Congress).
B. OVERSIGHT
1. VA efforts to diagnose and treat Gulf War veterans.
2. VA health care enrollment priorities.
3. Blood supply safety and Hepatitis-C notification.
4. Adequacy of informed consent in Federal research.
5. Management of organ and tissue donation programs.
6. Regulation of medical foods and clinical nutrition.
7. Impacts of antibiotic resistance on public health.
8. Effects of Federal mandates on local education.
9. The Department of Labor's ``one stop'' career centers
initiative.
10. Job Corps curriculum and training contractors.
11. Management of the Early Head Start program.
12. Privatization of social service delivery in the context
of welfare reform.
13. Management of teen pregnancy prevention and abstinence
promotion programs.
14. The use of compliance plans in reducing health care
fraud.
15. Regulation of managed care.
16. DOL pension security enforcement.
17. HUD contracting practices and contract management
capacity.
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice
Drug policy oversight will continue, with a heavy emphasis
on source and transit zone interdiction, source country
programs, prevention, treatment, and law enforcement.
1. Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy will continue to require accountability from the
counterdrug efforts and will be completed in the upcoming
session.
2. Oversight of the 1998 National Drug Control Strategy.
3. Oversight of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
and it's corresponding responsibility to coordinate the
counterdrug efforts of the National Drug Control Program
agencies.
4. Investigation of the waste in defense inventory
management at the Defense Logistics Agency.
5. Investigation of the ``Citizenship USA'' program
implemented by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
promote voter registration. Specific focus on the role the
Office of the Vice President in developing and maintaining this
program.
6. Review of President's annual decision to certify or
decertify countries which he determines to be either ``major
drug-transit countries'' or ``major illicit drug producing
countries.''
7. Review of defense appropriations for fiscal year 1998.
8. Oversight of disaster relief programs managed by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
9. Continued oversight of the National Archives and Records
Administration.
10. Oversight of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program.
11. Review of Southwest Border narcotics interdiction,
support, and coordination.
12. Examination of the effectiveness of Federal, State, and
local drug prevention programs.
13. Oversight of Federal law enforcement and military
efforts along the Southwest Border.
14. Oversight of counternarcotics intelligence
coordination, analysis and dissemination.
15. Oversight of Federal efforts to combat domestic and
international money laundering.
16. Federal information security procedures and
maintenance.
17. Federal sentencing guidelines.
Subcommittee on the Postal Service
A. INVESTIGATIONS
The subcommittee will continue its review of selected
programs and activities that are under its jurisdiction. The
subcommittee will commence investigation of issues which occur
and problems that are brought to its attention.
Ongoing investigations are:
1. Presort Mail Fraud.--The subcommittee received
information from time to time regarding the Postal Service's
lax monitoring of Presorted Mail. The information obtained from
this investigation will help the Postal Service to focus on
revision of their policies for acceptance of mail and payment
for services.
2. Investigation of Disparate Treatment in Discipline
Between Craft and Management Employees.--Craft employees have
alleged disparate levels of disciplinary treatment between
labor and management. The subcommittee has observed and has
been informed of situations where management personnel are
treated with greater leniency when it comes to standards of
discipline as compared with rank-and-file employees whose
infractions may have been minor in comparison. The subcommittee
has identified the following specific instances: for example, a
Postmaster was found to have been involved in a hit and run
accident in a Postal vehicle after hours and failed to report
the accident as required. He subsequently was found to have
lied to Postal Inspectors and officials when questioned
regarding the incident. He ultimately was transferred to a
smaller postal facility without any degradation in pay or
grade. In contrast, a craft employee who requested leave to
watch her son play in the Little League World Series was denied
such leave. When she attended the game, she was subsequently
disciplined for her action.
Union officials have reported numerous cases of alleged
disparate disciplinary treatment vis-a-vis craft and management
employees. Disparate treatment frustrates employees and results
in more grievances. Such treatment also raises questions
regarding management responsibility and accountability for such
action. Subcommittee Chairman McHugh raised these concerns with
the Postmaster General and the Deputy Postmaster General.
The dialog which as been opened between labor and
management, and under the oversight of the subcommittee, should
provide frank discussions to hold management and workers to the
same standards. This will remove some of the existing friction
which presently exists between labor and management and will
provide mutual benefits to both parties.
3. Outsourcing.--The subcommittee is concerned regarding
the Postal Service's management of employing outside contract
employees to perform core Postal Service functions. Recognizing
that labor costs currently exceed 80 percent of total Postal
Service operating costs, the subcommittee encourages the
Service to identify ways to better control its operating
expenses. However, the subcommittee wants to ensure that any
cost-cutting measures do not result in a degradation of
service. The subcommittee will focus on whether, and to what
extent, the Postal Service is utilizing outsourcing contracts,
whether such costs result in long-term savings, the impact such
measures have on service and future plans for outsourcing.
4. Monitoring Data Quality.--The subcommittee is continuing
its oversight of the quality of data submitted by the Postal
Service to the Postal Rate Commission during the conduct of
rate and reclassification proceedings. This issue was first
raised during the conduct of the general oversight hearings in
the 104th Congress. The subcommittee subsequently worked with
the Service, the Rate Commission and GAO in facilitating the
choice of an independent contractor to study and recommend ways
of improving the quality of Postal Service data.
5. Delivery Point Sequencing.--Delivery Point Sequencing
[DPS] is the final phase of the letter automation program. DPS
completes the automation program by replacing the carriers
manual sorting with automated sequencing of letters to
eliminate in-office work hours and increase delivery hours. The
Postal Service has invested about $5 billion in letter
automation since the program began in 1982, with approximately
38 percent of these funds devoted toward research, development
and implementation of DPS.
To date, GAO had identified Postal Service savings of
approximately about $6.5 billion from letter automation and it
projects about the Service to achieve $20.5 billion in savings
by 2005. Though the 1992 Postal reorganization slowed the
installation of equipment and some of the projects, USPS
implementation of DPS appears to be on schedule. USPS credits
DPS for the avoidance of 1,300 new routes that would have been
needed to accommodate address growth in 1997. Though there are
savings in these areas, employee grievances regarding the
implementation of DPS need to be resolved before real savings
are realized.
The study will determine whether the nationwide
implementation of delivery point sequencing is on schedule and
whether the project is producing the cost savings in carrier
work hours that have been anticipated. The chairman has
requested the GAO to evaluate the system. Full implementation
of DPS should enable Postal Service personnel to significantly
reduce the time postal carriers spend manually sorting letter
mail. The quicker the procedure is implemented, the quicker the
Postal Service can realize savings. The chairman has requested
the GAO to evaluate whether DPS is on schedule and the system
whether it will achieve its anticipate savings.
6. International Mail Market.--The subcommittee will study
how Congress can ensure that the Postal Service competes
effectively and fairly in the international mail market. In
particular, the subcommittee is interested in knowing whether
customs treatment by major trading partners of items sent
through Global Package Link differs from customs treatment
afforded equivalent shipments by private companies.
Subcommittee Chairman McHugh has written to the General
Accounting Office to examine this issue.
7. Electronic commerce/new and non-postal products.--The
chairman has requested the General Accounting Office to
evaluate the statutory and regulatory constraints for the
Postal Service regarding the Service's provision of electronic
products and how it affects the Service's ability to develop,
test, and market these products. This study would also review
and define what non-postal activities, joint ventures and
strategic alliances the Postal Service may be engaged in and
the past, present and future costs associated with these non-
postal activities. The subcommittee is interested in the
current array of postal products that the Postal Service
considers to be the core or traditional products, how and in
what ways this array may change over the next 5 years and the
impact such revenues as derived from the provision of these
products have on the ability to provide and support the
Service's universal delivery obligations.
8. U.S. Postal Service' Participation in the Universal
Postal Union.--Postal Service competitors have brought
complaints before the subcommittee concerning the USPS acting
as sole representative of U.S. interests before international
governmental bodies and tribunals. The subcommittee recognizes
the USPS as the leading provider of postal services in our
country. However, many agreements and decisions flowing from
representation at these international bodies affect competitor
concerns as well. The subcommittee is interested in learning
whether a neutral authority, such as the U.S. Trade
Representative, representing all U.S. interests, both the USPS
and competitors, would better benefit our postal structure.
B. LEGISLATION
1. The subcommittee will continue working on H.R. 22, the
Postal Reform Act of 1997. Extensive hearings were held by the
subcommittee on this legislation in the 104th and thus far in
the 105th Congress. It is expected that the legislation will be
voted on by late spring or early summer.
2. The subcommittee will continue to consider such bills
and resolutions as may be referred to it.
VIEWS OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
While I agree with elements of the chairman's Interim
Report, there are several sections that warrant a response as
discussed below. It should also be pointed out that this report
should not be considered an official committee report, because
it was not approved by the committee.
Comments on Matters of Interest, Full Committee
OVERSIGHT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS
ACT OF 1993
The Interim Report substantially distorts the October 30,
1997, hearing record on ``The Results Act: Are We Getting
Results?'' By failing to mention the testimony of the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget and the written
testimony of the Acting Comptroller General, James Hinchman,
the report leaves the impression that the agency strategic
plans submitted under the Government Performance and Results
Act conflicted with the statute. In fact, OMB Director Raines
made the point in his testimony that the executive branch made
a commitment early in 1997 to deliver agency strategic plans
that were both timely and compliant with the statute. Based on
the submissions to Congress October 1, 1997, OMB believed that
commitment had been kept. Acting Comptroller General Hinchman
made the point in his written statement that agency strategic
plans were much improved over earlier drafts. He concluded that
the final strategic plans of the agencies provide a workable
foundation for the next stages of GPRA implementation.
CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING INVESTIGATION
The section of the Interim Report regarding the campaign
fundraising investigation distorts the record of the committee
and has little relation to any actual events. An objective
evaluation of the record will indicate that the committee spent
$5 million on its partisan investigation in 1997 and uncovered
virtually nothing that was not already reported by the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee or media organizations, such as
the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, or the Wall
Street Journal.
Comments on Other Investigations
REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ACQUISITION STRATEGY REGARDING THE
FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM OF 2001 PROGRAM
The Interim Report distorts the committee's record with
regard to the Cooperative Purchasing Program. The report states
that the committee strongly supported the complete repeal of
Section 1555 of FASA, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act.
In general, this section should probably be deleted in its
entirety, as the committee has held no hearings nor taken any
legislative action with regard to the provision in the 105th
Congress. The Cooperative Purchasing Program authorized by this
section of law has never been implemented, and insufficient
data exists to make any definitive conclusion about its impact
on the private sector.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY
The Interim Report's section on the activities of the
Government Management, Information, and Technology Subcommittee
contains a gratuitously partisan and completely unsubstantiated
comment which presumably refers to the committee's
investigation into the White House Travel Office in the 104th
Congress. The contention that those hearings ``demonstrated''
that associates of the President used their access to promote
their own business interests is not supported by the record.
Allegations, innuendo and hearsay may have been repeated by
some Members of the majority, but little, if anything, was ever
``demonstrated.''
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND
REGULATORY AFFAIRS
The Investigation of the White House Database
This investigation is ostensibly part of the committee's
campaign finance investigation. Contrary to the majority's
conclusions, this investigation has not produced any concrete
benefits--other than eating up enormous sums of taxpayer
dollars since it began in June 1996.
This investigation has also prevented the subcommittee from
fulfilling its legislative and oversight responsibilities.
Despite having a staff of seven, the subcommittee marked up no
legislation and held only three hearings in 1997.
Investigation of OIRA's Review of the NAAQS Rules
Contrary to the majority's conclusions, OIRA's review of
the NAAQS appears to have been thorough and legal. Its analysis
estimated that the health and environmental benefits of the
NAAQS would be between $20 and $100 billion a year,
significantly more than the costs. Furthermore, OIRA has been
cooperative by answering numerous production requests, requests
for interviews, and other information requests. In fact, former
Administrator of OIRA, Sally Katzen, testified in front of the
subcommittee on this issue and answered all of its questions.
Securities and Exchange Commission
The subcommittee's investigation of the Securities and
Exchange Commission is an example of the extraordinary abuse of
the subcommittee's powers and procedures. These abuses are
described in the July 15, 1997, Wall Street Journal opinion
column, ``Business World: Fly First Class (With the Other
Criminals).''
Oversight of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Programs
In its report, the majority fails to note that wetlands
have numerous benefits: they improve water quality by filtering
out pollutants; they provide a home for a large variety of
plants and animals; they are important to the fishing industry;
and they prevent flooding.
In 1780, the lower 48 States had about 220 million
wetlands; today we have about 104 million. Protections such as
the Clean Water Act and the Swampbuster Program have
significantly slowed the rate at which we lose wetlands;
however, we have not yet reached a level of no net loss. A
recent study found we are losing about 117,000 acres a year.
About 78 percent of the current conversions of wetlands to non-
wetlands are conversions to agricultural uses.
Moreover, it is not always the number of acres that is
important, but the quality of the wetlands. One large protected
area may be more important than a number of very small wetlands
that add up to more acreage. Furthermore, a smaller but older
wetland area can be more valuable because of the diversity of
flora and fauna it supports. Others are important because of
their proximity to polluted waterways.
Oversight of the Security and Exchange Commission's ``Disclosure of
Accounting Policies for Derivative Financial Instruments and
Derivative Commodity Instruments''
The conclusions in this section of the report are
controversial and not necessarily supported by the record
before the subcommittee.
EPA's Particulate and Ozone Rulemaking
This section of the report is full of erroneous conclusions
and is contradicted by much of the evidence and testimony
presented to the subcommittee.
GAO Findings on Superfund Cleanup
This section of the report relies heavily on a GAO analysis
of EPA's Superfund Program. At the subcommittee's hearing,
however, substantial problems were raised with GAO's
methodology. The majority's conclusions are not warranted.
Office of Management and Budget's ``Report to Congress on the Costs and
Benefits of Federal Regulations''
The subcommittee's conclusions are not justified. Given the
limited time and available resources, many feel OMB did an
adequate job. In 1997, OMB estimated that benefits of
regulations in 1997 exceeded costs by about $19 billion.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL
JUSTICE
National Drug Control Policy
In this section the report gives short shrift to the
Baltimore needle exchange program, which is a model for the
country in terms of community support, safeguards, and public
health impact. By describing the program as ``self-selecting,''
the majority seems to be dismissing out of hand the program's
documented successes. With regard to the discussion of the Drug
Control Policy hearing on Columbia, the report reads, ``The
hearing was characterized by a sense of enormous disappointment
with the United States State Department and United States
Embassy in Colombia during Mr. Frechette's tenure, both on
policy decisions and management issues.'' The majority, by
criticizing Mr. Frechette, appears to be personalizing a larger
disagreement over policy, primarily the administration's
decision to decertify Colombia and its insistence on the
Government of Colombia's acquiescence to end-use monitoring
agreements (to ensure that our military assistance isn't used
to perpetrate human rights abuses).
Department of Defense Inventory Management
The Interim Report's section on the activities of the
National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice
Subcommittee describes the subcommittee's oversight of
inventory management problems at the Department of Defense.
There are serious problems with that system, and the
opportunity exists to save billions of taxpayer dollars. The
conclusion that such savings should be plowed back reflexively
into the Department of Defense is not necessarily justified.
Such policy decisions may well be opposed by Republican and
Democratic members of the committee.
Immigration and Naturalization Service Program Citizenship USA
In this section the report contains unsupported, conclusory
observations that the INS ``consciously weakened, discarded or
ignored'' legal and procedural requirements and ``deliberately
concealed'' problems with the program. Although problems with
the program are well-documented and largely undisputed, the
majority's characterization that the INS intentionally
naturalized ineligible applicants or knowingly mismanaged the
naturalization program for political gain is unfair and
inaccurate.
Oversight of the Census Bureau and Census 2000
The majority report conveniently ignores the facts and
substitutes for those facts inflammatory rhetoric designed to
bolster their fears that an accurate census count might
endanger their majority in Congress.
The plan for the 2000 census is not ill conceived nor does
it ``present the most imminent danger of wasting taxpayers'
funds'' as claimed by the majority report. In fact, just the
opposite is true. The Census Bureau has proposed a plan that
will produce a census that is more accurate than 1990. In
response to that plan the majority has repeatedly claimed it
would spend any amount necessary for a census with old
fashioned methods, even though those methods would produce a
census with a error rate in excess of 10 percent.
In 1991, Representative Rogers, now chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State,
testified before Congress that there is a need for:
an independent review of the Census that is
fundamental in nature. A back-to-basics, zero-based
study that begins with no preconceived notions about
what we collect or how we collect it. For that reason,
I have pursued the idea of having the National Academy
of Sciences conduct such a review. The Academy is
credible, experienced, and more importantly,
independent. Plus, I have been satisfied they can pull
together a panel of reputable minds, capable of
blending fresh, policy view points, with an
understanding of statistical methods.
In 1992 Congress passed H.R. 3280, ``A bill to provide for
a study, to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences,
on how the Government can improve the decennial census of
population, and on related matters.'' That study laid out the
blueprint for the 2000 census.
The Census Bureau took the recommendations from the two
National Academy of Sciences panels of experts and crafted them
into a plan for the 2000 census that improved the accuracy of
the census and was less expensive than doing it the old way.
That plan was presented to Congress, and in hearings held by
the National Security Subcommittee in 1995, the only criticism
was not that the plan included the use of sampling, but rather
that it did not go far enough in using sampling to augment a
traditional count. Both the GAO and the Inspector General
testified that the plan was too conservative in the use of
sampling and should go further.
The inclusion of the 2000 census on the GAO high risk
report series was not because the census plan included the use
of sampling, which the GAO supports. GAO views the 2000 census
as a high risk because of the failure of Congress to either
give legislative direction for the census or accept the
administration's plan. It is the indecision of Congress which
creates the risk, not the use of sampling. Congress has further
put the census at risk by funding the planning activities in
1996 and 1997 at only 80 percent.
The majority report asserts that the use of sampling is
both illegal and unconstitutional. However, that assertion
ignores both court cases and legal opinions from the Department
of Justice. Every court that has ruled on the legality and
constitutionality of sampling has ruled in favor of its use.
The Department of Justice under Presidents Carter, Bush, and
Clinton has expressed in writing the opinion that the use of
sampling is both legal and constitutional.
In 1996 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had ceded its
authority to run the Census to the Secretary of Commerce, and
in doing so, gave the Secretary broad latitude to determine how
the census would be conducted. The majority has attempted
several times to modify that authority, but in each case has
failed to generate sufficient support for their position to
suggest that they could override a Presidential veto. In the
spirit of cooperation, the administration has agreed to move
forward planning for two censuses: one that uses sampling to
achieve a fair and accurate census; and one that excludes
modern scientific methods, and repeats the errors of the past
which disadvantage the poor and minorities. The administration
has agreed to this dual planning process despite the fact that
it places an extreme burden on the Census Bureau, and
ultimately is likely to be a waste of taxpayers funds.
While the majority report professes great concern about the
2000 census, the subcommittee held only one hearing on the
census during the first session of the 105th Congress. At that
hearing it was suggested that vigorous outreach could count
those who were missed in the 1990 census, and the efforts of
the cities of Milwaukee and Cincinnati were presented as
examples. Unfortunately, both of those cities had undercounts
significantly higher than the national average, and both had
undercounts nearly 4 times the level of undercount in its
respective State. It was also suggested that local outreach
should start earlier for the 2000 census than it did for the
1990 census. The Census Bureau agreed with that assessment, and
included in their budget request for fiscal 1997 funds for
outreach and promotion. Unfortunately, the 20 percent reduction
in funding provided by the Congress forced postponement of
those efforts.
The administration has put forward a plan for the 2000
census that will achieve a fair and accurate result while
containing the costs to the American public. The Government
Reform majority has objected to those plans, but has failed to
put forward any alternative that will correct the errors that
occurred in 1990. Their only advice is to ``spend more money.''
Experts overwhelmingly say that throwing money at the problem
will not work. The solution lies in applying sound scientific
methods, as developed in the Census Bureau's plan. The
administration has been a sound steward of the taxpayer's
funds, while the House majority has repeatedly called for
squandering taxpayer's dollars on a census that will be less
accurate, and unfair to millions of Americans.
-