[House Prints, 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
107th Congress
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
_______________________________________________________________________
INTERIM REPORT
of the
ACTIVITIES
of the
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
2001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
MARCH 2002
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-505 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
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
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BOB BARR, Georgia DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
DAN MILLER, Florida ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JIM TURNER, Texas
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
DAVE WELDON, Florida JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida DIANE E. WATSON, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia ------
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
------ ------ (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
PREFACE
This report outlines the Committee on Government Reform's
activities for the first session of the 107th Congress. A
separate and final report covering activities during both
sessions will be published at the conclusion of the 107th
Congress in accordance with House Rule XI, 1(d).
Dan Burton, Chairman
(III)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Part One. Committee Organization................................. 1
I. Historical Overview..............................................1
II. Jurisdiction.....................................................3
III. Rules of the Committee on Government Reform......................6
IV. Subcommittees...................................................12
Part Two. Committee Activities................................... 15
I. Legislation.....................................................15
A. Legislation Enacted into Law.......................... 15
B. Legislation Approved by the House..................... 25
C. Legislation Reported by the Committee or Subcommittee. 34
II. Oversight Activities............................................37
A. Committee Reports..................................... 37
B. Oversight Hearings.................................... 37
Full Committee..................................... 37
Subcommittees...................................... 52
Part Three. Publications......................................... 103
I. Committee Prints...............................................103
II. Printed Hearings...............................................104
Views of the Ranking Minority Member
Views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman.................................... 107
INTERIM REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM, 107TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, 2001
PART ONE. COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION
I. Historical Overview
The Committee on Government Reform serves as the House of
Representative's chief investigative and oversight body,
reviewing allegations of waste, fraud and abuse across the
Federal Government. The committee's unique oversight
jurisdiction makes it one of the most influential committees in
the House of Representatives.
Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) currently serves as the
chairman of the committee. The ranking minority member is
Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA).
The Committee on Government Reform first appeared in 1927
as the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments.
It was created by consolidating the 11 Committees on
Expenditures previously responsible for overseeing how taxpayer
moneys were spent at each executive branch department.
Under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the
committee was renamed the Committee on Government Operations.
The name change was intended to communicate the primary
function of the committee--to study ``the operations of
Government activities at all levels with a view to determining
their economy and efficiency.'' The Government Operations
Committee's oversight jurisdiction over all Federal agencies
and departments was unprecedented in the legislative branch.
On January 4, 1995, Republicans assumed control of the
House of Representatives for the first time in over 40 years.
Republicans immediately implemented several internal reforms,
including an initiative to reduce the number of standing
committees in the House and cut committee staffs by one-third.
The Committee on Government Reform exemplified the changes that
took place in the House. Both the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service and the Committee on the District of Columbia
were consolidated into the newly named Government Reform and
Oversight Committee. The name change highlighted the Republican
view that the Federal Government needed reform to ensure
accountability. This consolidation of three committees into one
resulted in millions of dollars in savings and a nearly 50
percent reduction in staff.
During the 104th Congress, under the leadership of Chairman
Bill Clinger (R-PA), the Committee produced three major pieces
of the ``Contract With America'' that became law: 1)
legislation to stop Congress from imposing mandates on State
and local governments without funding; 2) line-item veto
legislation granting the President authority to strike
individual items from tax and spending bills; and 3) an act to
reduce the paperwork burden the Federal Government imposes on
State and local governments, individuals, and private
businesses. The committee also won passage of legislation to
create a financial control board to help bring the District of
Columbia out of its financial crisis.
In addition to his legislative accomplishments, Chairman
Clinger led the committee's investigation of the improper
firings of White House Travel Office workers and the White
House's controversial handling of FBI files.
In 1997, following Chairman Clinger's retirement,
Congressman Burton assumed the chairmanship. He became the
first Republican member from the Hoosier State to chair a full
committee of the House since 1931. Previously, Congressman
Burton had been a senior member of the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service.
At the onset of the 105th Congress, Chairman Burton guided
a committee investigation into illegal foreign contributions
that flowed into Presidential campaigns, the Justice
Department's flawed handling of these allegations, and a series
of controversial Presidential pardons.
Under Chairman Burton's leadership, the committee has also
enacted a number of important pieces of legislation governing
such diverse areas as Federal employee benefits, the District
of Columbia and Federal financial management. Prominent
examples include: 1) The Erroneous Payments Recovery Act, which
requires Federal agencies to use advanced private-sector
auditing procedures to detect and recover mistaken payments; 2)
the District of Columbia Family Court Act, creating a new
Family Court in the wake of shocking revelations about the
handling of foster care cases in the District of Columbia; and
3) the Long-Term Care Security Act, establishing an insurance
program for Federal employees covering long-term care needs.
The committee currently has 44 members: 24 Republicans, 19
Democrats and 1 Independent. It has seven subcommittees.
Committee alumni include distinguished legislators and
national leaders. During his only term in the House of
Representatives, Abraham Lincoln was assigned to one of the
committee's predecessor committees, the Committee on
Expenditures in the War Department. Other alumni of the
committee include Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Majority
Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
(R-IL), former Senate Majority Leader and 1996 Republican
Presidential nominee Bob Dole (R-KS), former Vice-President Dan
Quayle (R-IN), former Presidential candidate John B. Anderson
(R-IL), and former Speakers of the House John McCormack (D-MA)
and Jim Wright (D-TX).
II. Jurisdiction
House Rule X sets forth the committee's jurisdiction,
functions, and responsibilities as follows:
RULE X
Organization of Committees
Committees and their legislative jurisdictions
1. There shall be in the House the following standing
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and
related functions assigned by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and
4. All bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to
subjects within the jurisdiction of the standing committees
listed in this clause shall be referred to those committees, in
accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, as follows:
* * * * *
(h) Committee on Government Reform
(1) The Federal Civil Service, including intergovernmental
personnel; and the status of officers and employees of the
United States, including their compensation, classification,
and retirement.
(2) Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia in
general (other than appropriations).
(3) Federal paperwork reduction.
(4) Government management and accounting measures
generally.
(5) Holidays and celebrations.
(6) Overall economy, efficiency, and management of
government operations and activities, including Federal
procurement.
(7) National Archives.
(8) Population and demography generally, including the
Census.
(9) Postal service generally, including transportation of
the mails.
(10) Public information and records.
(11) Relationship of the Federal Government to the States
and municipalities generally.
(12) Reorganizations in the executive branch of the
Government.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the
proceeding provisions of this paragraph (and its oversight
functions under clause 2(a) (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) The various standing committees shall have general
oversight responsibilities as provided in paragraph (b) in
order to assist the House in--
(1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of--
(A) the application, administration, execution, and
effectiveness of Federal laws; and
(B) conditions and circumstances that may indicate
the necessity or desirability of enacting new or
additional legislation; and
(2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of
changes in Federal laws, and of such additional legislation as
may be necessary or appropriate.
(b)(1) In order to determine whether laws and programs
addressing subjects within the jurisdiction or a committee are
being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent
of Congress and whether they should be continued, curtailed, or
eliminated, each standing committee (other than the Committee
on Appropriations) shall review and study on a continuing
basis--
(A) the application, administration, execution, and
effectiveness of laws and programs addressing subjects
within its jurisdiction;
(B) the organization and operation of Federal
agencies and entities having responsibilities for the
administration and execution of laws and programs
addressing subjects within its jurisdiction;
(C) any conditions or circumstances that may indicate
the necessity or desirability of enacting new or
additional legislation addressing subjects within its
jurisdiction (whether or not a bill or resolution has
been introduced with respect thereto); and
(D) future research and forecasting on subjects
within its jurisdiction.
* * * * *
(c) Each standing committee shall review and study 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 shall--
(A) receive and examine reports of the Comptroller
General of the United States and submit to the House
such recommendations as it considers necessary or
desirable in connection with the subject matter of the
reports;
(B) evaluate the effects of laws enacted to
reorganize the legislative and executive branches of
the Government; and
(C) study intergovernmental relationships between the
United States and the States and municipalities and
between the United States and international
organizations of which the United States is a member.
(2) In addition to its duties under subparagraph (1), the
Committee on Government Reform may at any time conduct
investigations of any matter without regard to clause 1, 2, 3,
or this clause conferring jurisdiction over the matter to
another standing committee. The findings and recommendations of
the committee in such an investigation shall be made available
to any other standing committee having jurisdiction over the
matter involved.
III. Rules of the Committee on Government Reform
Rule XI, clause 2(a)(1) of the House of Representatives
provides, in part:
Each standing committee shall adopt written rules
governing its procedures. * * *
In accordance with this, the Committee on Government
Reform, on February 8, 2001, adopted the rules of the
committee:
Rule 1.--Application of Rules
Except where the terms ``full committee'' and
``subcommittee'' are specifically referred to, the following
rules shall apply to the Committee on Government Reform and its
subcommittees as well as to the respective chairmen.
[See House Rule XI, 1.]
Rule 2.--Meetings
The regular meetings of the full committee shall be held on
the second Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., when the House is
in session. The chairman is authorized to dispense with a
regular meeting or to change the date thereof, and to call and
convene additional meetings, when circumstances warrant. A
special meeting of the committee may be requested by members of
the committee following the provisions of House Rule XI, clause
2(c)(2). Subcommittees shall meet at the call of the
subcommittee chairmen. Every member of the committee or the
appropriate subcommittee, unless prevented by unusual
circumstances, shall be provided with a memorandum at least
three calendar days before each meeting or hearing explaining
(1) the purpose of the meeting or hearing; and (2) the names,
titles, background and reasons for appearance of any witnesses.
The ranking minority member shall be responsible for providing
the same information on witnesses whom the minority may
request.
[See House Rule XI, 2 (b) and (c).]
Rule 3.--Quorums
A 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 XIII, clauses 2-
4.
A proposed report shall not be considered in subcommittee
or full committee unless the proposed report has been available
to the members of such subcommittee or full committee for at
least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays, unless the House is in session on such days)
before consideration of such proposed report in subcommittee or
full committee. Any report will be considered as read if
available to the members at least 24 hours before
consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays
unless the House is in session on such days. If hearings have
been held on the matter reported upon, every reasonable effort
shall be made to have such hearings available to the members of
the subcommittee or full committee before the consideration of
the proposed report in such subcommittee or full committee.
Every investigative report shall be approved by a majority vote
of the committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present.
Supplemental, minority, or additional views may be filed
following House Rule XI, clause 2(l) and Rule XIII, clause
3(a)(1). The time allowed for filing such views shall be three
calendar days, beginning on the day of notice, but excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays (unless the House is in
session on such a day), unless the committee agrees to a
different time, but agreement on a shorter time shall require
the concurrence of each member seeking to file such views.
An investigative or oversight report may be filed after
sine die adjournment of the last regular session of Congress,
provided that if a member gives timely notice of intention to
file supplemental, minority or additional views, that member
shall be entitled to not less that seven calendar days in which
to submit such views for inclusion with the report.
Only those reports approved by a majority vote of the
committee may be ordered printed, unless otherwise required by
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Rule 5.--Proxy Votes
In accordance with the Rules of the House of
Representatives, members may not vote by proxy on any measure
or matter before the committee or any subcommittee.
[See House Rule XI, 2(f).]
Rule 6.--Record Votes
A record vote of the members may be had upon the request of
any member upon approval of a one-fifth vote.
[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 eight 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 X, clauses 6, 7
and 9, the chairman of the full committee shall have the
authority to hire and discharge employees of the professional
and clerical staff of the full committee and of subcommittees.
Rule 11.--Staff Direction
Except as otherwise provided by House Rule X, clauses 6, 7
and 9, the staff of the committee shall be subject to the
direction of the chairman of the full committee and shall
perform such duties as he may assign.
Rule 12.--Hearing Dates and Witnesses
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, clause 2(j)(2), each committee member may
request up to five minutes to question a witness until each
member who so desires has had such opportunity. Until all such
requests have been satisfied, the chairman shall, so far as
practicable, recognize alternately based on seniority of those
majority and minority members present at the time the hearing
was called to order and others based on their arrival at the
hearing. After that, additional time may be extended at the
direction of the chairman.
(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 Hearing Procedures
Investigative hearings shall be conducted according to the
procedures in House Rule XI, clause 2(k). All questions put to
witnesses before the committee shall be relevant to the subject
matter before the committee for consideration, and the chairman
shall rule on the relevance of any questions put to the
witnesses.
Rule 16.--Stenographic Record
A stenographic record of all testimony shall be kept of
public hearings and shall be made available on such conditions
as the chairman may prescribe.
Rule 17.--Audio and Visual Coverage of Committee Proceedings
(1) An open meeting or hearing of the committee or a
subcommittee may be covered, in whole or in part, by television
broadcast, radio broadcast, Internet broadcast, and still
photography, unless closed subject to the provisions of House
Rule XI, clause 2(g). Any such coverage shall conform with the
provisions of House Rule XI, clause 4.
(2) Use of the Committee Broadcast System shall be fair and
nonpartisan, and in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 4(b),
and all other applicable rules of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Government Reform. Members of the
committee shall have prompt access to a copy of coverage by the
Committee Broadcast System, to the extent that such coverage is
maintained.
(3) Personnel providing coverage of an open meeting or
hearing of the committee or a subcommittee by Internet
broadcast, other than through the Committee Broadcast System,
shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television
Correspondents' Galleries.
Rule 18.--Additional Duties of Chairman
The chairman of the full committee shall:
(a) Make available to other committees the findings
and recommendations resulting from the investigations
of the committee or its subcommittees as required by
House Rule X, clause 4(c)(2);
(b) Direct such review and studies on the impact or
probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects
within the committee's jurisdiction as required by
House Rule X, clause 2(c);
(c) Submit to the Committee on the Budget views and
estimates required by House Rule X, clause 4(f), and to
file reports with the House as required by the
Congressional Budget Act;
(d) Authorize and issue subpoenas as provided in
House Rule XI, clause 2(m), in the conduct of any
investigation or activity or series of investigations
or activities within the jurisdiction of the committee;
(e) Prepare, after consultation with subcommittee
chairmen and the minority, a budget for the committee
which shall include an adequate budget for the
subcommittees to discharge their responsibilities;
(f) Make any necessary technical and conforming
changes to legislation reported by the committee upon
unanimous consent; and
(g) 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.
IV. Subcommittees \1\
In order to perform its functions and to carry out its
duties as fully and as effectively as possible, the committee,
under the leadership of chairman Dan Burton at the beginning of
the 107th Congress, established eight standing subcommittees,
which cover the entire field of executive expenditures and
operations. The names, chairpersons, and members of these
subcommittees are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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).
Subcommittee on the Census, Dan Miller, Chairman;
members: Chris Cannon, Mark E. Souder, Bob Barr, Wm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lacy Clay, Carolyn B. Maloney, and Danny K. Davis.
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency
Organization, Dave Weldon, Chairman; members: Constance
A. Morella, John L. Mica, Mark E. Souder, C.L.
``Butch'' Otter, Danny K. Davis, Major R. Owens,
Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Elijah E. Cummings.
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources, Mark E. Souder, Chairman; members:
Benjamin A. Gilman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John L. Mica,
Bob Barr, Dan Miller, Doug Ose, Jo Ann Davis, Dave
Weldon, Elijah E. Cummings, Rod R. Blagojevich, Bernard
Sanders, Danny K. Davis, Jim Turner, Thomas H. Allen,
and Janice D. Schakowsky.
Subcommitte on the District of Columbia, Constance A.
Morella, Chairwoman; members: Todd Russell Platts,
Thomas M. Davis, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Diane E.
Watson, and Stephen F. Lynch.
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and
Regulatory Affairs, Doug Ose, Chairman; members: C.L.
``Butch'' Otter, Christopher Shays, John M. McHugh,
Steven C. LaTourette, Chris Cannon, John J. Duncan,
Jr., John F. Tierney, Tom Lantos, Edolphus Towns, Patsy
T. Mink, Dennis J. Kucinich, and Rod R. Blagojevich.
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Stephen
Horn, Chairman; members: Ron Lewis, Dan Miller, Doug
Ose, Adam H. Putnam, Janice D. Schakowsky, Major R.
Owens, Paul E. Kanjorski, and Carolyn B. Maloney.
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs
and International Relations, Christopher Shays,
Chairman; members: Adam H. Putnam, Benjamin A. Gilman,
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John M. McHugh, Stephen C.
LaTourette, Ron Lewis, Todd Russell Platts, Dave
Weldon, C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Edward L. Schrock, Dennis
J. Kucinich, Bernard Sanders, Thomas H. Allen, Tom
Lantos, John F. Tierney, Janice D. Schakowsky, Wm. Lacy
Clay, Diane E. Watson, and Stephen F. Lynch.
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy,
Thomas M. Davis, Chairman; members: Jo Ann Davis,
Stephen Horn, Doug Ose, Edward L. Schrock, Jim Turner,
Paul E. Kanjorski, and Patsy T. Mink.
PART TWO. COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
I. Legislation
A. LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW
Full Committee
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman
1. H.R. 132, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, HI, as the
``Goro Hokama Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 132 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, HI, as
the ``Goro Hokama Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Patsy
Mink (HI) on January 3, 2001, and referred to House Committee
on Government Reform. Approved by the House of Representatives
under suspension of the rules on February 7, 2001. Passed by
the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on March 21,
2001. Signed by the President on April 12, 2001, and became
Public Law No. 107-6.
d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 364, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 5927 Southwest 70th Street in Miami, FL, as the
``Marjory Williams Scrivens Post Office''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 364 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 5927 Southwest 70th Street in Miami, FL, as
the ``Marjory Williams Scrivens Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Carrie
P. Meek (FL) on January 31, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on March 14,
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August
20, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-29.
d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 395, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2305 Minton Road in West Melbourne, FL, as the
``Ronald W. Reagan Post Office of West Melbourne, Florida''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 395 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 2305 Minton Road in West Melbourne, FL, as
the ``Ronald W. Reagan Post Office of West Melbourne,
Florida.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Dave
Weldon (FL) on February 6, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on February 6,
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on March 21, 2001. Signed by the President on April 12,
2001, and became Public Law No. 107-7.
d. Hearings.--None.
4. H.R. 821, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1030 South Church Street in Asheboro, NC, as the
``W. Joe Trogdon Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 821 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 1030 South Church Street in Asheboro, NC, as
the ``W. Joe Trogdon Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Howard
Coble (NC) on March 1, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on March 14,
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August
20, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-32.
d. Hearings.--None.
5. H.R. 1183, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, GA, as the ``G.
Elliot Hagan Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1183 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 113 South Main Street in Sylvania, GA, as the
``G. Elliot Hagan Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Jack
Kingston (GA) on March 22, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on June 5, 2001.
Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on
August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August 20, 2001, and
became Public Law No. 107-34.
d. Hearings.--None.
6. H.R. 1753, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 419 Rutherford Avenue, NE., in Roanoke, VA, as the
``M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1753 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 419 Rutherford Avenue, NE., in Roanoke, VA,
as the ``M. Caldwell Butler Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Bob
Goodlatte (VA) on May 8, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on June 20, 2001.
Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on
August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August 20, 2001, and
became Public Law No. 107-35.
d. Hearings.--None.
7. H.R. 1761, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 8588 Richmond Highway in Alexandria, VA, as the
``Herb Harris Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1761 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 8588 Richmond Highway in Alexandria, VA, as
the ``Herb Harris Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative James
P. Moran (VA) on May 8, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on September 10,
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on December 6, 2001. Signed by the President on
December 21, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-92.
d. Hearings.--None.
8. H.R. 1766, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, VA, as the ``Stan
Parris Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1766 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 4270 John Marr Drive in Annandale, VA, as the
``Stan Parris Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Frank
R. Wolf (VA) on May 8, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on September 10,
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on November 30, 2001. Signed by the President on
December 18, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-85.
d. Hearings.--None.
9. H.R. 2043, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, IN, as the
``Elwood Haynes `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2043 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 2719 South Webster Street in Kokomo, IN, as
the ``Elwood Haynes `Bud' Hillis Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Steve
R. Buyer (IN) on May 26, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representative under suspension of the rules on June 5, 2001.
Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on
August 3, 2001. Signed by the President on August 20, 2001, and
became Public Law No. 107-36.
d. Hearings.--None.
10. H.R. 2261, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2853 Candler Road in Decatur, GA, as the ``Earl T.
Shinhoster Post Office''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2261 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 2853 Candler Road in Decatur, GA, as the
``Earl T. Shinhoster Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Cynthia A. McKinney (GA) on June 20, 2001, and referred to the
House Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on October 16,
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on November 30, 2001. Signed by the President on
December 18, 2001, and became Public Law No. 107-86.
d. Hearings.--None.
11. H.R. 2454, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 5472 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA, as the
``Congressman Julian C. Dixon Post Office''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2454 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 5472 Crenshaw Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA,
as the ``Congressman Julian C. Dixon Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Diane
E. Watson (CA) on July 10, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House under
suspension of the rules on October 16, 2001. Passed by the
Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on November 30,
2001. Signed by the President on December 18, 2001, and became
Public Law No. 107-88.
d. Hearings.--None.
12. H.R. 3248, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 65 North Main Street in Cranbury, NJ, as the ``Todd
Beamer Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3248 designates U.S. Post
Office located at 65 North Main Street in Cranbury, NJ, as the
``Todd Beamer Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Rush
D. Holt (NJ) on November 7, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on December 5,
2001. Passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on December 20, 2001. Signed by the President on
January 16, 2002, and became Public Law No. 107-129.
d. Hearings.--None.
13. H.R. 3379, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, NY, as the ``Raymond
M. Downey Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3379 designates the postal
facility located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, NY, as the
``Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Steve
Israel (NY) on November 29, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed the House under
suspension of the rules on December 18, 2001, and is pending
before the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
14. S. 737, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 811 South Main Street in Yerington, NV, as the
``Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Post Office''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--S. 737 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 811 South Main Street in Yerington, NV, as
the ``Joseph E. Dini, Jr. Post Office.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Harry M. Reid
(NV) on April 6, 2001, and referred to the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs. Passed the Senate without amendment by
unanimous consent on August 3, 2001. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on February 5,
2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
15. S. 970, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 39 Tremont Street, Paris Hill, ME, as the ``Horatio
King Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--S. 970 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 39 Tremont Street, Paris Hill, ME, as the
``Horatio King Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Susan M.
Collins (ME) on May 25, 2001, and referred to the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent on August 3, 2001. Approved by
the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules on
February 5, 2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
16. S. 1026, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 60 Third Avenue in Long Branch, NJ, as the ``Pat
King Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--S. 1026 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 60 Third Avenue in Long Branch, NJ, as the
``Pat King Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Robert G.
Torricelli (NJ) on June 13, 2001, and referred to the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Passed by the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent on August 3, 2001. Approved by
the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules on
February 5, 2002.
d. Hearings.--None.
17. S. 1714, to provide for the installation of a plaque to honor Dr.
James Harvey Early in the Williamsburg, KY Post Office Building
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--S. 1714 provides for the
installation of a plaque to honor Dr. James Harvey Early in the
Williamsburg, KY Post Office Building.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Mitch
McConnell (KY) on November 15, 2001, and referred to the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Passed by the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent on December 6, 2001. Approved by
the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules on
December 20, 2001. Signed by the President on January 15, 2002,
and became Public Law No. 107-120.
d. Hearings.--None.
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman
1. H.J. Res. 7, Recognizing the 90th Birthday of Ronald Reagan
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the 90th birthday of
Ronald Reagan.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Christopher Cox on January 31, 2001 and referred to House
Committee on Government Reform. Passed House of Representatives
on February 6, 2001 under suspension of the rules. Passed
Senate on February 6, 2001, without amendments, and with a
preamble by unanimous consent. Signed by President on February
15, 2001. Public Law 107-1.
d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 93, Federal Firefighters Retirement Age Fairness Act
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Amends 5, U.S.C. sections 8335 and
8425 to provide that the mandatory separation age for Federal
firefighters be made the same as the age with respect to
Federal law enforcement officers.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Elton
Gallegly on January 3, 2001 and referred to House Committee on
Government Reform. Passed House of Representatives on January
30, 2001 under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate on August
2, 2001, without amendments. Signed by President on August 20,
2001. Public Law No. 107-27.
d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 2133, To establish a commission for the purpose of encouraging
and providing for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of
the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Establishes the Brown v. Board of
Education 50th Anniversary Commission to commemorate the 50th
Anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Oliver L. Brown et
al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas et al.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Jim
Ryun on June 12, 2001 and referred to House Committee on
Government Reform. Passed House of Representatives on June 27,
2001 under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate with
amendments by unanimous consent on August 3, 2001. House
concurred in Senate amendments under suspension of the rules on
September 10, 2001. Signed by President on September 18, 2001.
Public Law No. 107-27.
d. Hearings.--None.
4. H.R. 2456, to provide that Federal employees may retain for personal
use promotional items received as a result of travel taken in
the course of employment
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2456 would allow Federal
employees to retain frequent flyer miles and other promotional
items received as a result of traveling on official government
business, if such items are obtained under the same terms as
those offered to the public and at no additional cost to the
government.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 2456 was reported by the
Committee on Government Reform on July 25, 2001, and passed the
House of Representatives under suspension of the rules by a
voice vote on July 31, 2001. The bill was ordered reported by
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute on November 14, 2001. The bill,
as amended in the Senate, was inserted into S. 1438, the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002,''
which passed the House and the Senate and was signed into law
on December 28, 2001, becoming Public Law 107-107.
d. Hearings.--None.
5. H.R. 2559, To amend chapter 90 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to Federal long-term care insurance
a. Report number and date.--The Committee on Government
Reform did not issue a report. The Judiciary Committee issued
House Report No. 107-235.
b. Summary of measure.--Amends chapter 90 of title 5,
United States Code to permit deferred annuitants to participate
in the Federal long-term care insurance program and exempt
Federal long-term care insurance premiums from State and local
taxes.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Joe
Scarborough on July 18, 2001 and referred to House Committee on
Government Reform. Passed House of Representatives on October
30, 2001 under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate without
amendment on December 17, 2001. Signed by President on December
27, 2001. Public Law No. 107-104.
d. Hearings.--None.
6. S. 1202, To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.) to extend the authorization of appropriations for the
Office of Government Ethics through fiscal year 2006
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Amends the Ethics in Government Act
of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to extend the authorization of
appropriations for the Office of Government Ethics through
fiscal year 2006.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Senator Joseph I.
Lieberman on July 19, 2001 and referred to Committee on
Governmental Affairs. Passed Senate on November 15, 2001,
without amendments, by unanimous consent. Referred to House
Committees on Government Reform and Judiciary on November 16,
2001. Passed House under suspension of the rules on December
19, 2001. Signed by President on January 15, 2002. Public Law
No. 107-119.
d. Hearings.--None.
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
Hon. Mark E. Souder, Chairman
1. H.R. 2291, Reauthorization of the Drug-Free Communities Act
a. Report number and date.--H. Report No. 107-175, July 30,
2001.
b. Summary of measure.--The purpose of the ``Drug-Free
Communities Act of 1997'' (21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1521 et seq.)
(``DFCA'') is to establish a program to support and encourage
local communities that first demonstrate a comprehensive, long-
term commitment to reduce substance abuse among youth. The DFCA
did this primarily by authorizing grants of up to $100,000 to
local community coalitions to assist them in their anti-drug
efforts. H.R. 2291 expanded that highly successful program and
reauthorized it for an additional 5 years (through fiscal year
2007). The reauthorizing legislation includes provisions that
(1) annually increase the total funds authorized for the
program from $50,600,000 in fiscal year 2002 to $99,000,000 in
fiscal year 2007; (2) increase the percentage of the total
funds authorized available for administrative costs from the 3
percent allowed under current law to 6 percent; (3) instruct
the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
[ONDCP] to take steps to ensure that there is no bureaucratic
duplication of effort among the various entities charged with
administering the program and assisting coalitions; (4) allow
coalitions to re-apply for grants even after 5 years, but with
an increased matching requirement; (5) create a new class of
grants that help mature coalitions ``mentor'' newly-formed
coalitions; (6) instruct the Director to give priority for all
grants to coalitions that propose to assist economically
disadvantaged communities; (7) help coalitions serving Native
American communities to meet their private fundraising
``matching requirement'' under existing law by allowing them to
count Federal funds allocated to tribal government agencies as
non-Federal funds raised; and (8) establish a National
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
c. Legislative status.--Signed by President George W. Bush,
December 14, 2001. Approved by Committee on July 25, 2001;
approved by House on September 5, 2001.
d. Hearings.--``H.R. 2291, Reauthorization of the Drug-Free
Communities Act,'' June 28, 2001.
District of Columbia Subcommittee
Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman
1. H.R. 2061, To amend the charter of Southeastern University of the
District of Columbia
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Amends the charter of Southeastern
University by removing the requirement that one-third of its
Board of Trustees members be alumni of the university.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton on June 5, 2001 and referred to House Committee
on Government Reform. Forwarded by the District of Columbia
Subcommittee to full committee on July 9, 2001. Reported out of
Government Reform Committee on July 25, 2001. Approved by House
of Representatives under suspension of the rules on September
20, 2001. Passed Senate without amendment by unanimous consent
on December 6, 2001. Signed by President on December 21, 2001
and became Public Law No. 107-93.
d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 2199, District of Columbia Police Coordination Act of 2001
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Amends the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 to
permit any Federal law enforcement agency to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department
to assist in crime prevention and law enforcement activities in
the District of Columbia. Both the chief of the Metropolitan
Police Department and the U.S. attorney for the District of
Columbia must agree that it is appropriate for such agencies to
enter into cooperative agreements.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton on June 14, 2001 and referred to House Committee
on Government Reform. Forwarded by the District of Columbia
Subcommittee to the full committee by unanimous consent on June
26, 2001. Reported out of Government Reform Committee on July
25, 2001. Approved by House of Representatives under suspension
of the rules on September 25, 2001. Passed Senate with a
technical amendment on December 11, 2001. House agreed to
Senate amendment on December 19, 2001. Signed by President on
January 8, 2002, and became Public Law No. 107-113.
d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 2657, District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--In response to repeated failures of
the District of Columbia child welfare services and the family
division of Superior Court to protect the children of the city,
H.R. 2657 sets out several major reforms of the family
division, including: 1) renames the division as the Family
Court of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; 2)
grants the Family Court exclusive jurisdiction over many family
and child welfare proceedings; 3) requires Family Court judges
to serve 5-year appointments and mandates ongoing training
programs in family law and other matters; 4) establishes
special rules requiring the court to adhere to the principle of
``One Family, One Judge''; 5) encourages the use of alternative
dispute resolution procedures; and 6) allows hearing
commissioners to serve as magistrate judges. The legislation
further requires the Mayor to submit to Congress and the
President a plan to integrate the computer systems of D.C.
government with those of Superior Court, and requires the court
to establish an electronic tracking and management system for
Family Court proceedings.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Majority Whip Tom
DeLay on July 26, 2001 and referred to House Committee on
Government Reform. Forwarded by District of Columbia
Subcommittee to full committee on July 27, 2001. Approved by
House of Representatives on September 20, 2001 on a roll call
vote of 408-0. Reported out of Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee on December 5, 2001, with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute. Passed Senate under unanimous consent on
December 14, 2001. House agreed to Senate amendment on December
19, 2001. Signed by President on January 8, 2002, and became
Public Law No. 107-114.
d. Hearings.--``The Reform of the Family Division of the
District of Columbia Superior Court: Improving Services to
Families and Children,'' June 26, 2001.
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations
Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman
1. H.R. 2547, the ``Erroneous Payment Recovery Act''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R 2547 would require each Federal
department and agency that enters into contracts for goods and
services totaling more than $500 million in a fiscal year to
implement a program to identify errors made in paying
contractors and recovering any amounts erroneously paid.
Amounts recovered would be available to reimburse the agency
for program expenses and to pay for recovery audit services.
Remaining amounts would be credited to the appropriations
accounts from which the payments were made if available or
deposited in the Treasury.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 2547 with an amendment was
inserted into H.R. 2586, the ``National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002,'' which passed the House of
Representatives on September 25, 2001, and was inserted into S.
1438 and was signed into law on December 28, 2001, becoming
Public Law 107-107.
d. Hearings.--None.
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy
Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Chairman
1. H.R. 788, to provide for the conveyance of the excess Army Reserve
Center in Kewaunee, WI
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 788 would direct the
Administrator of General Services to convey an Army Reserve
Center, that is surplus to the needs of the Federal Government,
to the city of Kewaunee, WI. Allows the property to be used by
the city, or another local or State government approved by the
city, and prohibits the use of the property for commercial
purposes.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 788 passed the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on September 10,
2001. It was inserted with an amendment into H.R. 2586/S. 1438,
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002,'' which passed the House and the Senate and was signed
into law on December 28, 2001, and became Public Law 107-107.
d. Hearings.--None.
B. LEGISLATION APPROVED BY THE HOUSE
Full Committee
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman
1. H. Con. Res. 257, expressing the sense of the Congress that the men
and women of the U.S. Postal Service have done an outstanding
job of collecting, processing, sorting, and delivering the mail
during this time of national emergency
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H. Con. Res. 257 expresses the
sense of the Congress that the men and women of the U.S. Postal
Service have done an outstanding job of collecting, processing,
sorting, and delivering the mail during this time of national
emergency
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Danny
Davis (IL), referred to the House Committee on Government
Reform, passed the House of Representatives under suspension of
the rules on November 14, 2001, and is pending before the
Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 1432, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 3698 Inner Perimeter Road in Valdosta, GA, as the
``Major Lyn McIntosh Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1432 would designate the
postal facility located at 3698 Inner Perimeter Road in
Valdosta, GA, as the ``Major Lyn McIntosh Post Office
Building.''
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 1432 introduced by
Representative Sanford Bishop (GA) on April 4, 2001, was
referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill passed
the House under suspension of the rules on December 20, 2001,
and is pending before the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
3. H.R. 1749, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, VA, as the
``Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 1749 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, VA, as
the ``Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Jo Ann
Davis (VA) on May 8, 2001, and referred to the House Committee
on Government Reform. Approved by the House of Representatives
under suspension of the rules on October 9, 2001, and is
currently pending in the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
4. H.R. 2577, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 310 South State Street in St. Ignace, MI, as the
``Bob Davis Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2577 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 310 South State Street in St. Ignace, MI, as
the ``Bob Davis Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Bart
Stupak (MI) on July 19, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform passed the House under
suspension of the rules on February 12, 2002, and is pending
before the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
5. H.R. 2876, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 216 2nd Street, SW., in Harlem, MT as the ``Francis
Bardanouve United States Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2577 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 216 2nd Street, SW., in Harlem, MT, as the
``Francis Bardanouve United States Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Dennis
Rehberg (MT) on September 10, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform passed the House under
suspension of the rules on October 30, 2001, and is pending
before the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
6. H.R. 2910, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 3131 South Crater Road in Petersburg, VA, as the
``Norman Sisisky Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 2910 designates the postal
facility located at 3131 South Crater Road in Petersburg, VA,
as the ``Norman Sisisky Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Randy
Forbes (VA) on September 20, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform passed the House under
suspension of the rules on October 30, 2001. The bill is
pending before the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
7. H.R. 3072, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 125 Main Street in Forest City, NC, as the ``Vernon
Tarlton Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3072 designates the postal
facility located at 125 Main Street in Forest City, NC as the
``Vernon Tarlton Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative
Charles Taylor (NC) on October 9, 2001, and passed the House
under suspension of the rules on December 18, 2001. The bill is
pending in the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
8. H.R. 3379, to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, NY, as the ``Raymond
M. Downey Post Office Building''
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 3379 designates the U.S. Post
Office located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, NY, as the
``Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building.''
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Representative Steve
Israel (NY) on November 29, 2001, and referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. Approved by the House of
Representatives under suspension of the rules on December 18,
2001, and is currently pending in the Senate.
d. Hearings.--None.
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman
1. S. Con. Res. 44, Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding
National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Pays tribute, on the occasion of
the 60th anniversary of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii, by Japanese Imperial Forces, to the U.S.
citizens who died as a result of the attack, and to the service
of the American sailors and soldiers who survived the attack.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House under suspension of
the rules on November 27, 2001. Passed Senate on November 15,
2001.
d. Hearings.--None.
2. H. Con. Res. 56, Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding
National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Pays tribute on the 60th
anniversary of the 60th anniversary of the December 7, 1941,
attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, by Japanese Imperial Forces, to
the citizens who were killed in the attack, and to the service
of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 6, 2001 and
referred to Senate Committee.
d. Hearings.--None.
3. H. Con. Res. 59, Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the
prevention of shaken baby syndrome
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Supports efforts to protect
children from abuse and neglect. Encourages the people of the
United States to educate themselves regarding shaken baby
syndrome and the techniques to prevent it.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on April 3, 2001 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
4. H. Con. Res. 80, Congratulating the city of Detroit and its
residents on the occasion of the tricentennial of the city's
founding
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates the city of Detroit
on the occasion of the tricentennial of its founding, and its
residents for their important contributions to the economic,
social, and cultural development of the United States.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on May 22, 2001 by
unanimous consent. Passed Senate on June 6, 2001 by unanimous
consent.
d. Hearings.--None.
5. H. Con. Res. 88, Expressing the sense of the Congress that the
President should issue a proclamation to recognize the
contribution of the Lao-Hmong in defending freedom and
democracy and supporting the goals of Lao-Hmong Day
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Calls upon the President to issue a
proclamation to recognize the contribution of the Lao-Hmong in
defending freedom and democracy and supporting the goals of
Lao-Hmong Day.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on November 13, 2001
under suspension of the rules. Passed Senate on December 10 by
unanimous consent.
d. Hearings.--None.
6. H. Con. Res. 163, Recognizing the historical significance of
Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of
Congress that history be regarded as a means of understanding
the past and solving the challenges of the future
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the historical
significance of Juneteenth Independence Day (celebrated on June
19 for 136 years to honor the memory of all those who endured
slavery and especially those who moved from slavery to
freedom). Encourages the continued celebration of this day to
provide an opportunity for all people of the United States to
learn more about the past and to better understand the
experiences that have shaped the Nation.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 19, 2001 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
7. H. Con. Res. 179, Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the
establishment of a National Health Center Week to raise
awareness of health services provided by community, migrant,
public housing, and homeless health centers
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Expresses the sense of Congress
that there should be established a National Community Health
Center Week to raise awareness of health services provided by
community, migrant, public housing, and homeless health
centers.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on August 3, 2001 by
unanimous consent.
d. Hearings.--None.
8. H. Con. Res. 190, Supporting the goals and ideals of National
Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congress supports the goals and
ideals of National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on July 30, 2001 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
9. H. Con. Res. 292, Supporting the goals of establishing the Year of
the Rose
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--House supports the goals of
establishing the Year of the Rose.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on December 19, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
10. H. Res. 97, Recognizing the enduring contributions, heroic
achievements, and dedicated work of Shirley Anita Chisholm
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Recognizes the enduring
contributions and heroic achievements of Shirley Anita
Chisholm.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 12, 2001 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
11. H. Res. 116, Commemorating the dedication and sacrifices of the men
and women of the United States who were killed or disabled
while serving as law enforcement officers
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Calls for all peace officers slain
in the line of duty to be honored and recognized.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on May 15, 2001 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
12. H. Res. 172, Honoring John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford,
who lost their lives in the course of duty as firefighters
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honors John J. Downing, Brian
Fahey, and Harry Ford, who lost their lives in the course of
duty as firefighters, and recognizes them for their bravery and
sacrifice. Expresses condolences to their families. Pledges the
support of the House of Representatives to continue to work on
behalf of all of the Nation's firefighters who risk their lives
every day to ensure the safety of all Americans.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 27, 2001 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
13. H. Res. 198, Congratulating Tony Gwynn on the announcement of his
retirement from the San Diego Padres and from Major League
Baseball
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congratulates Tony Gwynn on the
announcement of his retirement from the San Diego Padres and
from Major League Baseball.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 2, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
14. H. Res. 201, Honoring four firefighters who lost their lives
fighting the Thirtymile Fire in the Cascade Mountains of
Washington State
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honoring four firefighters who lost
their lives in the Thirtymile Fire in the Cascade Mountains of
Washington State.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on July 23, 2001 under
suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
15. H. Res. 202, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
regarding the establishment of a Summer Emergency Blood Donor
Season to encourage eligible donors in the United States to
donate blood
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives regarding the establishment of a Summer
Emergency Blood Donor Season to encourage eligible donors in
the United States to donate blood.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on September 5, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
16. H. Res. 235, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
regarding the establishment of a National Words Can Heal Day
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives in support of the goals of National Words
Can Heal Day.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on November 13, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
17. H. Res. 247, Honoring Cal Ripken, Jr., for an outstanding career,
congratulating him on his retirement, and thanking him for his
contributions to baseball, to the State of Maryland, and to the
Nation
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Honoring Cal Ripken, Jr., for an
outstanding career, congratulating him on his retirement, and
thanking him for his contributions to baseball, to the State of
Maryland, and to the Nation.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 2, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
18. H. Res. 254, Supporting the goals of Pregnancy and Infant Loss
Remembrance Day
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--The House supports the goals of
Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 9, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
19. H. Res. 266, Congratulating Barry Bonds on his spectacular, record-
breaking season for the San Francisco Giants and Major League
Baseball
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Congratulating Barry Bonds on his
spectacular, record-breaking season for the San Francisco
Giants and Major League Baseball
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 30, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
20. H. Res. 298, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
that Veterans Day should continue to be observed on November 11
and separate from any other Federal holiday or day for Federal
elections or national observances
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives that Veterans Day should continue to be
observed on November 11 and separate from any other Federal
holiday or day for Federal elections or national observances.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on December 5, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
21. H. Res. 308, Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
regarding the establishment of a National Motivation and
Inspiration Day
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Supports the goals of National
Motivation and Inspiration Day.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on December 18, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
22. H.R. 169, Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and
Retaliation Act of 2001
a. Report number and date.--The committee did not issue a
report on H.R. 169. The Committee on the Judiciary issued House
Report No. 107-101.
b. Summary of measure.--Requires Federal agencies to be
accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and
whistleblower protection laws. Requires agencies and the EEOC
to disclose certain information on their Web sites.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 2, 2001
under suspension of the rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
23. H.R. 1088, Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Amends the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 to reduce Fees collected by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and provides special pay authority for the SEC.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on June 13, 2001.
d. Hearings.--None.
24. H.R. 2362, Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission Act
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Establishes the Benjamin Franklin
Tercentenary Commission.
c. Legislative status.--Passed House on October 31, 2001
under suspension of the Rules.
d. Hearings.--None.
District of Columbia Subcommittee
Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman
1. H.R. 1499, District of Columbia College Access Act Technical
Corrections Act of 2001
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--The D.C. Tuition Assistance
Program, created in 1999, provides financial assistance for
some D.C. residents to pursue undergraduate degrees in eligible
public, private or select historically black institutions of
higher learning. H.R. 1499 expands the program to include D.C.
residents who: 1) graduated from secondary school, or received
the equivalent of such diplomas, prior to 1998; 2) have not
graduated from a secondary school or received the equivalent of
such diplomas, but who are nonetheless accepted for enrollment
as a freshman at an eligible institution; and 3) have lived in
the city for at least 5 years and are re-enrolling in a post-
secondary institution after a break of at least 3 years. The
legislation also includes all historically black colleges and
universities (not just those located in Maryland and Virginia,
as stated in the 1999 act) and prohibits the Mayor of the
District of Columbia from using more than 7 percent of the
program's total budget for administrative expenses.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton on April 4, 2001 and referred to House Committee
on Government Reform. Forwarded by the District of Columbia
Subcommittee to full committee by unanimous consent on June 26,
2001. Reported out of Government Reform Committee on July 25,
2001. Approved by House of Representatives on July 30, 2001
under suspension of the rules. Reported out of Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute on November 29, 2001.
d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 2305, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act
of 2001
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--The Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council [CJCC] is a multi-agency, Federal-District of Columbia
task force that is designed to forge cooperative solutions
regarding criminal justice matters in the District of Columbia,
where law enforcement, prosecution and sentencing activities
are performed by Federal and local entities. This legislation
permits the heads of various Federal and local law enforcement
agencies to meet regularly under the auspices of the CJCC. It
also requires the council to produce an annual report on its
activities.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Subcommittee
Chairwoman Connie Morella on June 25, 2001 and referred to
House Committee on Government Reform. Forwarded by District of
Columbia Subcommittee to full committee, as amended, on
September 21, 2001. Approved by House of Representatives under
suspension of the rules, on December 4, 2001. Referred to
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
d. Hearings.--``Coordination of Criminal Justice Activities
in the District of Columbia,'' May 11, 2001.
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs
Hon. Doug Ose, Chairman
1. H.R. 327, Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
a. Report number and date.--There was no House Report on
H.R. 327 in the 107th Congress. However, there were House
reports for the predecessor bills to H.R. 327 both in the 105th
(H.R. 3310) and 106th (H.R. 391) Congresses: House Report 105-
462, Part 1 and House Report 106-8, Part 1, respectively.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 327 amends 35 U.S.C. Sec. 44
to facilitate compliance by small businesses with certain
Federal paperwork requirements. It creates a single point of
contact at each agency for small businesses. In addition, it
establishes a task force to examine the feasibility of
streamlining paperwork requirements applicable to small
businesses.
c. Legislative status.--H.R. 327 was approved by the House
on March 15, 2001, by a vote of 418 to 0.
d. Hearings.--There was no hearing on H.R. 327 in the 107th
Congress. However, there were many hearings on small business
paperwork relief in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
C. LEGISLATION REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OR SUBCOMMITTEE
District of Columbia Subcommittee
Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman
1. H.R. 2995, The District of Columbia Fiscal Integrity Act of 2001
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--When Congress created the District
of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority (the Control Board) in 1995, it also established the
post of chief financial officer [CFO] for the District of
Columbia. With the Control Board expiring on September 30,
2001, city officials and Members of Congress sought legislation
to maintain the chief financial officer as the primary fiscal
watchdog for the District of Columbia. H.R. 2995 would
establish a 2-year transition period after the end of the
Control Board, during which the CFO would continue to have
broad powers over his own office and deputies in matters of
personnel and procurement and would continue to prepare fiscal
impact statements on all pieces of city legislation. The
legislation also requires the establishment of an ``early-
warning system'' designed to give city and congressional
officials a better long-term picture of the District's
financial health and to identify potential fiscal problems.
Finally, H.R. 2995 would, beginning in fiscal year 2004, give
the District of Columbia full autonomy over its own, locally-
generated revenues.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Subcommittee
Chairwoman Connie Morella on October 2, 2001 and referred to
House Committee on Government Reform. Forwarded by District of
Columbia Subcommittee to full committee on November 15, 2001.
d. Hearings.--``The Outlook for the District of Columbia
Government: The Post-Control Board Period,'' June 8, 2001,
joint hearing with the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the
District of Columbia.
2. H. Res. 125, Re-open Pennsylvania Avenue to Traffic resolution
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--Expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives that the National Capital Planning Commission
should adopt, and the President should implement, a plan to
permanently re-open Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White
House while maintaining adequate security for the President,
First Family, White House staff and visitors.
c. Legislative status.--Introduced by Subcommittee
Chairwoman Connie Morella on April 26, 2001 and referred to
House Committee on Government Reform. Forwarded from District
of Columbia Subcommittee to full committee by unanimous consent
on June 26, 2001. Reported by Government Reform Committee on
July 25, 2001.
d. Hearings.--``America's Main Street: The Future of
Pennsylvania Avenue,'' March 21, 2001.
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations
Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman
1. H.R. 583, a bill to establish the Commission for the Comprehensive
Study of Privacy Protection
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 583 was introduced by
Representative Asa Hutchinson from Arkansas on February 13,
2001. This bill would establish an 18-month, 17-member
commission to study and report to Congress and the President on
issues relating to the protection of individual privacy and the
balance to be achieved between protecting such privacy and
allowing for appropriate uses of information. The bill requires
the commission to conduct at least two hearings in each of the
Nation's five geographical regions. H.R. 583 is similar to H.R.
4049, introduced by Representative Hutchinson in the 106th
Congress. During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on
Government Management, Information, and Technology, chaired by
Representative Stephen Horn, held three legislative hearings on
the bill on April 12, 2000, May 15, 2000 and May 16, 2000. The
subcommittee subsequently marked up H.R. 4049 and forwarded it
to the full committee on June 14, 2000. The full committee
marked up H.R. 4049, with amendments, on June 29, 2000, and
ordered it to be reported to the full House. On October 2,
2000, the full House considered the bill, as amended, under
suspension of the rules. On motion to suspend the rules and
pass the bill, as amended, the bill received a favorable vote
of 250 to 146. However, it failed to receive the two-thirds
vote necessary for passage.
c. Legislative status.--On May 8, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations approved H.R. 583 by a 4 to 1 vote
and referred the legislation to the full committee.
d. Hearings.--None.
2. H.R. 577, a bill to require any organization that is established for
the purpose of raising funds for the creation of a Presidential
archival depository to disclose the sources and amounts of any
funds raised
a. Report number and date.--None.
b. Summary of measure.--H.R. 577 was introduced by
Representative John Duncan from Tennessee on February 12, 2001.
This bill is similar to H.R. 3239, which Representative Duncan
introduced in the 106th Congress. The purpose of H.R. 577 is to
ensure that fundraising for Presidential libraries occurs in
the open, free from possible conflicts of interest and the
appearance of impropriety. H.R. 577 would require any
organization that is raising funds for a Presidential archival
depository to make public the sources and amounts of any funds
received for the depository's creation. The bill was amended to
require disclosure of donations amounting to $200 or more per
year while a President holds office and $5,000 or more after
the President has left office and the Presidential depository
becomes the responsibility of the National Archives and Records
Administration.
c. Legislative status.--On May 8, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations approved H.R. 577, as amended, by a
unanimous voice vote and referred the legislation to the full
committee. On May 15, 2001, the full committee approved H.R.
577 by voice vote with an additional amendment, which expanded
the provisions of the bill to include organizations operating
under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 if
the organization is named after or controlled by a Federal
elected official who is currently holding office.
d. Hearings.--``H.R. 577, a Bill to Require any
Organization that is Established for the Purpose of Raising
Funds for the Creation of a Presidential Archival Depository to
Disclose the Sources and Amounts of any Funds Raised,'' April
5, 2001.
II. Oversight Activities
A. COMMITTEE REPORTS
There were no committee reports during the first session of
the 107th Congress.
B. OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
Full Committee
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman
1. ``The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich,''
Day 1, February 8, 2001
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing was Jack Quinn,
attorney for Marc Rich, Morris ``Sandy'' Weinberg, former
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Martin Auerbach, former Assistant U.S.
Attorney, and Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General. The
witnesses were first questioned about the background of Marc
Rich, and whether he was a suitable candidate for a pardon.
Weinberg and Auerbach detailed the history of the criminal
investigation of Marc Rich, and testified that they believed
that Rich was completely unsuited for a Presidential pardon.
They believed that Rich had committed serious crimes, and was a
fugitive from justice. Jack Quinn, who lobbied the Clinton
White House for Rich's pardon, testified regarding his efforts
to win the Rich pardon. Quinn had a number of contacts with
senior White House staff and President Clinton regarding the
Rich case. He had this access as a result of having been
counsel to the President earlier in the Clinton administration.
Quinn testified that he did not believe Rich was a fugitive,
and believed that a pardon was the only way to resolve the Rich
case.
Quinn and former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder were
questioned regarding the Justice Department's role in the Rich
pardon. The Justice Department was never formally consulted by
the White House, and the prosecutors responsible for the case
did not know the pardon was being considered until after it was
granted. Quinn testified that he notified Holder that he would
be submitting the Rich pardon application directly to the White
House, and that Holder did not object to his plan. For his
part, Holder testified that while he was aware of Quinn's
efforts to obtain the pardon, he did not think that it would
succeed. Holder was also questioned regarding his input on the
pardon. During the last day of the Clinton administration,
White House Counsel Beth Nolan asked Holder for his position on
the Rich pardon, and he stated that he was ``neutral, leaning
toward favorable'' on the pardon. Holder took this position
despite the fact that he knew little about the case, other than
the fact that Rich was a wanted fugitive.
2. ``Special Education: Is IDEA Working as Congress Intended?''
February 28, 2001
a. Summary.--During the 106th Congress, the Committee on
Government Reform initiated an investigation looking at the
dramatic rise in autism rates. Government sources in the past
have estimated that autism rates used to be 1 in 10,000
children. These rates have risen to a current national average
of 1 in 500 children. The investigation to date has focused on
three issues: (1) concerns that childhood vaccines, including
those containing thimerosal (mercury) may be linked to
increased rates of autism spectrum disorders, pervasive
developmental disorder, and speech and learning delays; (2) the
level of research looking at the causes of, and treatments for,
autism; and (3) the challenges of providing a ``free and
appropriate'' education to individuals with autistic spectrum
disorders. This hearing offered a review of the implementation
of the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities
Act, using the experiences of families with autistic children
as the example to evaluate if the program was working as
Congress intended.
In the creation of laws to provide a public education to
individuals with disabilities, Congress sought to develop a
program in which the Federal, State and local governments would
share additional expenses incurred for educating children with
disabilities. Congress determined that the Federal Government
should contribute up to 40 percent of the average per pupil
expenditure of educating children with disabilities. However,
to date, the Federal Government has never contributed more than
14.9 percent. President George W. Bush, with the introduction
of his Education Blueprint, stated: ``The federal role in
education is not to serve the system. It is to serve the
children.'' The President's blueprint offers four objectives:
increasing accountability for student performance, improving
student performance, reducing bureaucracy and increasing
flexibility, and empowering parents.
The committee received more than 2,500 letters from
parents, educators, administrators, and disability-related
organizations regarding the implementation of the Amendments to
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 [IDEA]
[Public Law 105-7]. A majority of the responders felt the
program was not being properly implemented. Most asked that the
Federal Government fully-fund IDEA. Concerns raised by the
majority of responders include children with disabilities being
``warehoused,'' or placed in classes in which they were not
intellectually challenged; the need for accountability of
schools that do not comply with the law; the financial burden
on local school districts for providing services to a sharply
increasing number of children without additional Federal
resources (for example, in the last school year in Indiana,
requests for Special Education services went up 25 percent);
the shortage of properly trained teachers, aides, and
therapists; the failure of schools to fully inform parents of
their rights under the law; the difficulties in coming to a
timely consensus between schools and families on the Individual
Education Plan [IEP] for children; the failure of schools to
comply with established IEPs; and the concerns about school
districts that hire outside counsel at taxpayer expense to take
unresolved IDEA/IEP issues to court. During the hearing, the
committee received testimony from parents, attorneys who are
involved in litigation, local educators and administrators, and
the Department of Education.
3. ``The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich,''
Day 2, March 1, 2001
a. Summary.--Testifying at this hearing were former DNC
Finance Chair Beth Dozoretz, former White House Counsel Beth
Nolan, former Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, former
White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, Marc Rich lawyers Jack
Quinn, Robert Fink, and Peter Kadzik, and former Marc Rich
lawyer I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.
Documents and other information obtained by the committee
indicated that Beth Dozoretz was involved in both lobbying the
President for the Rich pardon, and soliciting contributions to
the DNC and Clinton Presidential Library from Marc Rich's ex-
wife, Denise Rich. Given these facts, the committee had a
number of questions for Dozoretz regarding the influence that
these financial factors might have played in the consideration
of the Marc Rich pardon. Rather than answer any questions from
the committee, Dozoretz invoked her fifth amendment rights
against self-incrimination.
Jack Quinn, Beth Nolan, Bruce Lindsey, and John Podesta
were questioned regarding the consideration of the Rich pardon
at the White House. Nolan, Lindsey, and Podesta all testified
that they were strongly opposed to the Rich pardon, but that
the President granted the pardon despite their advice. They
were also questioned regarding other controversial pardons and
commutations, including those of Carlos Vignali, Edgar and
Vonna Jo Gregory, and pardons lobbied for by Roger Clinton.
Fink, Kadzik, and Libby were questioned regarding their
efforts on behalf of Marc Rich. Fink described his role in
helping Rich obtain the pardon, including the hiring of Jack
Quinn. Kadzik explained his role in lobbying his friend and
client John Podesta. Libby was questioned regarding his role in
the Rich case, which predated any effort to obtain a pardon,
and was instead limited to efforts to settle Rich's criminal
case with prosecutors in New York.
4. ``Six Years After the Enactment of DSHEA: The Status of National and
International Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research,''
March 20, 2001
a. Summary.--During the 106th Congress, the Committee on
Government Reform initiated an oversight investigation looking
at the regulatory environment for dietary supplements in the
United States. A long and well-documented history of
institutional-bias exists within the Federal Government and
conventional medical community toward the use of dietary
supplements for health promotion. This bias has at times
created difficulties for those who manufacture or sell
supplements, particularly smaller companies. Survey's show that
about 50 percent of the American public now use dietary
supplements on a regular basis. Americans have been adamant
that the Federal Government should not restrict access to
dietary supplements. There is growing public concern that
agreements made through the CODEX Alimentarious for Food Safety
will supersede U.S. law and eventually result in reduced access
to dietary supplements.
In 1994, Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act [DSHEA] [Public Law 103-417] which amended the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to define a ``dietary
supplement'' as a product: (1) other than tobacco, intended to
supplement the diet that contains a vitamin, mineral, herb or
botanical, dietary substance, or a concentrate, metabolite,
constituent, extract, or combination of the above ingredients;
(2) that is intended for ingestion, is not represented as food
or as a sole item of a meal or diet, and is labeled as a
dietary supplement; (3) that includes an article approved as a
new drug, certified as an antibiotic, or licensed as a biologic
and that was, prior to such approval, certification or
licensure, marketed as a dietary supplement or food, unless the
conditions of use and dosages are found to be unlawful; and (4)
excludes such articles which were not so marketed prior to
approval unless found to be lawful. Deems a dietary supplement
to be a food. Excludes a dietary supplement from the definition
of the term ``food additive.'' DSHEA clarified and extended the
Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] ability to regulate
dietary supplements. Under the existing law, the FDA has seven
specific points of regulatory authority:
LRefer for criminal action to any company
that sells a dietary supplement that is toxic or
unsanitary [Section 402 (a)].
LObtain an injunction against the sale of a
dietary supplement that has false or unsubstantiated
claims [Section 402(a).(r6)].
LSeize dietary supplements that pose an
``unreasonable or significant risk of illness or
injury'' [Section 402(f)].
LSue any company making a claim that a
product cures or treats a disease [Section 201(g)].
LStop a new dietary ingredient from being
marketed if FDA does not receive enough safety data in
advance [Section 413].
LStop the sale of an entire class of dietary
supplements if they pose an imminent public health
hazard [Section 402(f)].
LRequires dietary supplements to meet strict
manufacturing requirements (Good Manufacturing
Practices), including potency, cleanliness, and
stability [Section 402(g)].
The committee received testimony from dietary supplement
experts as well as from the FDA and members of the U.S.
Delegation to the CODEX Alimentarious for Food Safety. One
concern of particular interest to the committee is that U.S.
businesses may be adversely affected in the international
marketplace if the CODEX negotiations do not protect U.S.
perspectives and existing laws. It was strongly suggested that
the administration ensure that each delegation to an
international regulatory body such as CODEX include experts in
international trade negotiations in addition to scientific
experts.
5. ``The U.S. Postal Service's Uncertain Financial Outlook,'' Part I,
April 4, 2001
a. Summary.--On April 4, 2001, the Committee on Government
Reform held a hearing to examine the financial outlook of the
U.S. Postal Service. This was the first hearing held by the
committee during the 107th Congress to examine postal
operations. At the hearing the committee focused on the
financial challenges facing the Postal Service and options
available to the agency to address those challenges. At the
time of the hearing the Postal Service estimated that it would
lose approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2001. A number of
factors contributed to the Postal Service's dismal financial
projections, including reduced mail volume, increased
competition, management-labor relations problems, and statutory
restrictions. Witnesses at the hearing included the Comptroller
General of the United States, the Postmaster General, and the
Postal Board of Governors.
The Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker,
testified that the Postal Service faces major challenges that
collectively call for a structural transformation if it is to
remain viable in the 21st century. General Walker announced
that because of the Postal Service's rapidly deteriorating
financial situation, the General Accounting Office [GAO] was
placing the Postal Service on its high-risk list. According to
General Walker, several actions need to be taken to address the
Service's continued problems. Such actions include (1)
developing a comprehensive plan to address the financial,
operational, and human capital challenges; (2) providing
quarterly financial reports to Congress and the public; and (3)
identifying, in conjunction with GAO and other stakeholders,
improvement options that will cut costs and improve
productivity. GAO also testified that because there was a
significant shift in the Postal Service's financial outlook in
the last 4 months, Congress and postal stakeholders needed to
have frequent, transparent and reliable information on the
Service's current and projected financial situation.
Postmaster General William Henderson testified that the
Postal Service has few options available to it to address its
financial challenges. The process for adjusting rates is long
and cumbersome and the agency cannot build earnings for the
long term like a private company. According to the Postmaster
General, this makes the Postal Service uniquely vulnerable to
rapid shifts in markets. The current financial challenge arises
against a backdrop of explosive growth in communications
technology and revolutionary restructuring of the commercial
marketplace.
General Henderson said that modernizing the Postal Service
is necessary to allow the agency to address the challenges it
faces. He testified that without the ability to adjust the way
it conducts business, the Postal Service will become
increasingly outmoded, and will have trouble meeting its very
important responsibilities to the public.
6. ``Assessing The California Energy Crisis: How Did We Get To This
Point, And Where Do We Go From Here?'' April 11, 2001
a. Summary.--Following an Energy Policy, Natural Resources
and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee hearing in Sacramento on
April 10, the full committee held 2 days of field hearings on
the California Energy Crisis. The April 11 hearing in San Jose
focused on the causes and effects of California's electricity
crisis, the impact on the California economy, and the State and
Federal response to the situation. Witnesses included: The
Honorable Curt Hebert, chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; Ms. Dede Hapner, vice president, Regulatory
Relations, Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Mr. Stephen Pickett,
vice president and general counsel, Southern California Edison;
Mr. Dean N. Vanech, president, Delta Power Co.; and Mr. Paul E.
Desrochers, director of fuel procurement, Thermo Ecotek.
Chairman Hebert testified about the role of FERC in
mitigating the electricity crisis. He reiterated his opposition
to electricity price caps for California, stating that such a
policy would divert energy supplies to other regions and
exacerbate electricity shortages in the State. Representatives
of Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Southern California Edison
testified on the impact of the crisis on the State's two
largest utilities and the mounting debt they incurred due to
the higher electricity prices. They criticized the State Public
Utilities Commission for erecting barriers to the utilities
entering into long-term contracts for electricity, leaving them
vulnerable to wild price swings in the spot market. Mr. Vanech
and Mr. Desrochers explained to the committee how qualifying
facilities (small electricity generators) were impacted by the
lack of payments from the major utilities, eliminating 3,000
megawatts of power from the market place.
7. ``Assessing The California Energy Crisis: How Did We Get To This
Point, And Where Do We Go From Here?'' April 12, 2001
a. Summary.--The full committee's second field hearing in
San Diego on April 12 again focused on the causes and effects
California's electricity crisis. Witnesses included: Mr. Sam
Hardage, president, Woodfin Suite Hotels, LLC; Mr. John
Wiederkehr, president, Certified Metal Craft, Inc.; Mr. Douglas
Barnhart, president, Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc.; Mr. Richard
Thomas, vice president, Alpine Stained Glass; Mark W. Seetin,
vice president government affairs, New York Mercantile
Exchange; Bill Horn, chairman, San Diego County Board of
Supervisors; P. Gregory Conlon, former California PUC chairman;
Mr. Kevin P. Madden, general counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; Mr. Fredrick E. John, senior vice president
external affairs, Sempra Energy; Mr. Steve Malcolm, president,
Williams Energy Services; and Mr. John Stout, senior vice
president for Asset Commercialization, Reliant Energy.
Mr. Hardage, Mr. Wiederkehr, Mr. Barnhart, Mr. Thomas and
Chairman Horn explained to the committee how San Diego
businesses had been affected by the deregulation of electricity
prices on the retail level in August 2000. Mr. Seetin was
questioned about how markets work and why the system enacted by
California failed. P. Gregory Conlon discussed how the PUC
originally planned for the deregulation of the electricity
markets during Governor Wilson's administration. Mr. Madden
explained FERC's oversight of electricity generators and the
Commission's decision to order the generators to justify
possible overcharges during the crisis. Mr. John testified
about Sempra's experience as the first utility allowed to
deregulate its retail electricity, and the debt the company
incurred due to the skyrocketing electricity prices. Mr. Stout
and Mr. Malcolm answered questions on why electricity prices
rose to such high levels in California and the allegations that
electrical power generators had taken advantage of the crisis
atmosphere to raise prices and boost profits. Mr. John and Mr.
Malcolm also addressed the role of higher natural gas prices
and California's constrained natural gas pipelines in creating
high electricity prices.
8. ``Autism--Why the Increased Rates?'' April 25-26, 2001
a. Summary.--During the 106th Congress, the Committee on
Government Reform initiated an investigation to look at the
dramatic rise in autism rates. Government sources in the past
have estimated national autism rates to be 1 in 10,000
children. Over the last decade those rates have risen to 1 in
500 children. The investigation to date has looked at three
issues: (1) concerns that childhood vaccines, including those
containing thimerosal (mercury) may be linked to increased
rates of autism spectrum disorders, and speech and learning
delays; (2) the level of research looking at the causes of and
treatments for autism; and (3) the challenges of providing a
``free and appropriate'' education to individuals with autistic
spectrum disorders.
Autism, or Autism Spectrum Disorder, is not simply a
learning disability or developmental delay. Autism is a medical
condition--a neurobiological disorder and complex developmental
disability oftentimes also characterized as pervasive
developmental disorders. Autism typically appears during the
first 3 years of life. Individuals with autism typically have
difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication, social
interactions, and leisure or play activities. The disorder
makes it hard to communicate with others and to relate to the
outside world. In some cases, aggressive and/or self-injurious
behavior may be present. Persons with autism may exhibit
repeated body movements such as hand flapping and rocking,
unusual responses to people or attachments to objects and
resistance to changes in routine. Individuals may also
experience sensitivities in any or all of the five senses.
In the last 40 years, in addition to the sharp rise in
autism rates, the type of autism has changed. Dr. Bernard
Rimland, a noted expert, stated in testimony that an increasing
number of cases diagnosed in recent years are acquired autism--
coming on suddenly in the second year of life. The committee
has received a significant number of reports stating that
children were normal prior to vaccination. At the time of
vaccination, children who acquired autism, suffered a variety
of reactions including excessive sleepiness, unmitigated
crying, head banging, gastrointestinal reactions, and a sudden
regression in to behaviors that were eventually diagnosed as
autism. Dr. Andrew Wakefield presented findings from his
clinical research which found through laboratory analysis
measles virus remaining in the intestinal tract of children who
acquired autism shortly after receiving the MMR vaccine and who
also suffered gastrointestinal issues. Many of these children,
when properly treated for the gastrointestinal issues had a
dramatic improvement in the symptoms of autism.
During the course of the investigation, the following
concerns were raised: the need to fully understand the actual
incidence of autism and autism spectrum disorders; the
potential link between thimerosal (mercury)-containing vaccines
and acquired or late-onset autism; late onset autistic
entercolotis and its connection to the measles-mumps-rubella
vaccine; the lack of federally-funded research regarding these
issues; the need for more autism-related research that will
lead to better treatment options and cures; and the need for
more practice-based research to evaluate current treatment
options.
9. ``The FBI's Controversial Handling of Organized Crime Investigations
in Boston,'' May 3, 2001
a. Summary.--On May 3, the committee held its first hearing
to explore allegations of wrongdoing by Federal law enforcement
agents in Boston over the last three decades. The first hearing
focused on the case of Joseph Salvati, who spent 30 years in
prison for a murder he did not commit. The convictions were
based primarily on the testimony of notorious Boston mob killer
turned FBI witness, Joseph ``The Animal'' Barboza. Documents
obtained by the committee prior to the hearing showed that not
only was the prosecution of Joseph Salvati and three others
based on highly dubious testimony, but that Federal and State
law enforcement authorities had information indicating that
they were sending the wrong men to the death chamber or prison
for life.
Participating witnesses included Joseph Salvati, his wife
Marie Salvati, and Attorney Victor Garo, who recounted the 30-
year ordeal of the Salvati family, and Mr. Garo's 26 year pro
bono representation that ultimately resulted in the commutation
and dismissal of all charges resulting from law enforcement's
withholding of critical exculpatory material at the time of
trial and for decades afterward. Attorneys F. Lee Bailey and
Joseph Balliro, Boston defense attorneys with extensive
experience representing New England organized crime defendants,
testified and questioned the veracity of Barboza at trial and
the propriety of the actions of the FBI agents responsible for
Barboza's testimony. Also testifying was retired FBI Special
Agent H. Paul Rico, who developed Barboza as a government
witness to testify against Salvati and others. He denied any
wrongdoing by the FBI and showed little remorse for the part he
played in sending Mr. Salvati to prison. At the same time, he
admitted that, after hearing all the evidence presented at the
hearing, Salvati may have been wrongly convicted.
10. ``Challenges to National Security: Constraints on Military
Training,'' May 9, 2001
a. Summary.--The committee held a hearing into regulatory,
commercial and urban encroachment on military training
affecting installations and ranges across the United States.
These encroachments threaten military readiness and the safety
of those serving in uniform through the loss of training areas
and realistic training. In many cases, requirements under the
Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
other Federal land use regulations have taken priority over the
military training mission on military land. Commercial
interests in airspace and radio frequency spectrum often
threaten the degradation of air training, information
gathering, communications and other operational needs. The
witnesses included top military officials and those commander
responsible for training: Admiral William J. Fallon, Vice Chief
of Naval Operations; General John P. Jumper, Commander, Air
Combat Command, U.S. Air Force; Lt. General Larry R. Ellis,
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, U.S. Army;
Major General Edward Hanlon, Jr., Commanding General, U.S.
Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton; Lt. General Leon J. LaPorte,
Commanding General, III Corps and Fort Hood, U.S. Army;
Brigadier General James R. Battaglini, Deputy Commanding
General, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, U.S. Marine Corps;
Captain William H. McRaven, Commodore, Naval Special Warfare,
Seal Group One; and Colonel Herbert J. Carlisle, Commander,
33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin Air Force Base, U.S. Air Force.
The committee has currently authorized two General
Accounting Office studies in this area. One is a study of the
Department of Defenses' organization for dealing with these
encroachments and the resources committed to following
regulations. The second is an audit of the Fish and Wildlife
Services' Endangered Species program to examine priorities and
shortfalls in carrying out its regulatory mission.
11. ``The U.S. Postal Service's Uncertain Financial Outlook,'' Part II,
May 16, 2001
a. Summary.--The committee held a second hearing to examine
the Postal Service's financial situation on May 16, 2001. At
this hearing the committee heard from various postal
stakeholders, including mailers and postal employee union
representatives. Witnesses discussed the challenges facing the
Postal Service and the impact of those challenges on postal
business and the postal workforce. Since the committee's first
postal hearing, held in April, the Postal Service took some
steps to attempt to address its financial situation. It
suspended capital improvement projects and undertook a study of
5-day delivery service. Additionally, on May 8, 2001, the
Postal Board of Governors announced that on July 1, 2001,
postal rates would increase for some classes of mail. The new
rates modify an earlier increase that went into effect in
January 2001, which raised the price of a first-class stamp to
34 cents.
Representatives of the mailing community testified about
the need for a financially healthy Postal Service because of
its importance to the U.S. economy. However, they cautioned
against rate increases as a way to restore the fiscal health of
the postal system. Jerry Cerasale, vice president of government
affairs for the Direct Marketing Association, testified that
postage increases would be counterproductive to the Postal
Service's goal of raising revenue. According to Mr. Cerasale,
large rate increases devastate mail volume because they cause
mailers to seek alternatives or force them to stop doing
business altogether. He testified that a typical postage
increase for a business that mails invoices, magazines,
newsletters, newspapers or advertisements translates into
thousands or millions of dollars in additional expenses. The
rate increases will also impact consumers. Rate increases could
result in higher costs for products shipped through the mail,
including periodicals and items bought from catalogs or off of
the Internet.
Gene Del Polito, president of the Association for Postal
Commerce, testified that the law governing postal operations
has become an anachronism. In the 30 years since Congress
passed the Postal Reorganization Act, the manner in which
businesses and consumers communicate and transact their affairs
has changed dramatically, however the legislative framework has
not. According to Mr. Del Polito, this mismatch has contributed
to the Postal Service's dismal financial reports and outlooks.
As a result, he said that the passage of meaningful postal
reform is essential. Gene Del Polito joined with Jack Estes,
executive director of the Main Street Coalition for Postal
Fairness in expressing support for the creation of a commission
to study and make recommendations on the future and direction
of the postal system. Pat Schroeder, president and chief
executive officer of the Association of American Publishers
advocated the creation of a postal closing commission modeled
after BRAC, the military base closing commission.
Moe Biller, president of the American Postal Workers Union,
testified that the Postal Service's problems are a revenue
issue rather than a cost issue. The slowdown in the economy and
rising energy costs account for a substantial part of the
current deficit projections of the Postal Service. According to
Mr. Biller, these problems are temporary and will not impact
the Postal Service over the long term. He said that the Postal
Service as presently configured is a strong and vital
institution, and despite its present financial difficulty, has
substantial strength and is capable of performing well,
presently and in the future.
12. ``The Use of Prosecutorial Powers in the Investigation of Joseph M.
Gersten,'' June 15, 2001
a. Summary.--On June 15, the committee held a hearing
regarding an FBI and Miami State Attorney's Office
investigation of Dade County Commissioner Joseph Gersten. A
review of the available evidence by committee staff suggests
that individuals participated in a conspiracy to make
allegations against Gersten involving drug use and consorting
with prostitutes that they knew to be false. It also appears
that government officials came into possession of strong
evidence that the allegations may have been fabricated, and
they either ignored the evidence or covered it up.
The purpose of the hearing was to take testimony from
prosecutors who were involved in the case. Two of the principal
attorneys who conducted the investigation declined to be
interviewed by committee staff, necessitating the hearing. A
secondary purpose of the hearing was to determine when it is
appropriate for U.S. law enforcement agencies to provide
information to foreign governments about U.S. citizens under
investigation. The Justice Department provided uncorroborated
information about Gersten to authorities in Australia, where
Gersten now lives.
Witnesses at the hearing were Richard Gregorie, Assistant
U.S. Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney, Miami-Dade
County; Michael Band, former Assistant State Attorney, Miami-
Dade County; Mary Cagle, Assistant State Attorney, Miami-Dade
County; and Mike Osborn, retired Miami homicide detective.
13. ``Compassionate Use of INDs--Is the Current System Effective?''
June 20, 2001
a. Summary.--If a serious medical condition such as
metastatic cancer is unresolved after the treatment with the
``standard of care'' patients and physicians turn to the
research community for other treatment options. The drug
approval process on average takes between 12 and 15 years.
Medical research information is more widely available to the
public through the Internet and through media discussions.
Patients are increasingly more active in seeking access to
experimental treatments. When an investigational drug shows
promise, patients often seek access to the treatment. Seriously
or terminally-ill patients have reported difficulty gaining
access to experimental therapies when their medical or
demographic characteristics do not match those being sought by
researchers.
The subject of special exemptions or emergency access to
investigational new drugs, commonly referred to as
``compassionate use'' has been a difficult and controversial
one. At present there is no uniformity among companies for
patients who do not qualify for a clinical trial to apply for
and receive access to experimental treatments. The committee
received testimony from families, the FDA, and the manufacturer
of an experimental cancer therapy about the challenges of
compassionate access. In cancer treatments many new therapies
are biological therapies and there are inadequate amounts of
these products to provide wide access to patients outside the
clinical trials. Some companies have an established procedure
for patients to apply for compassionate access and provide
information on their Internet site about their program. The
companies the committee evaluated approach compassionate access
from different perspectives. One company utilizes a lottery to
select from the thousands of applicants. Another company
decided not to provide any product outside clinical trials
because of the disparity between the numbers of requests and
the small amount of additional supplies of the investigational
new drug available.
14. ``Federal Information Technology Modernization: Assessing
Compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act,''
June 21, 2001
a. Summary.--On June 21, the committee held a hearing to
assess executive branch compliance with the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act [GPEA]. In 1998, Congress passed
GPEA, requiring executive branch agencies to give people the
option of filing their most frequently used forms
electronically. The deadline for achieving this goal is October
2003. The ultimate goal of GPEA, and of the committee's
oversight activities, is to prod Federal agencies to use
information technology to create new efficiencies and improve
service to the public.
Testifying before a congressional committee for the first
time since his appointment, Office of Management and Budget
Director Mitch Daniels stated that compliance with GPEA has
been mixed. Director Daniels cited the EPA, the Treasury
Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development
for their successful efforts toward compliance with the law.
Conversely, he cited the Defense Department, the Justice
Department and the Department of Health and Human Services for
failing to have an agency-wide commitment to e-government and
GPEA.
Committee members questioned Defense Department officials
about the apparent lack of an enterprise-wide commitment to e-
government strategic planning at DOD. At the same time, the
committee heard testimony from the Deputy Director of the U.S.
Mint about that agency's successful use of information
technology to improve customer service over the internet,
eliminate stovepipes, and increase efficiency throughout the
organization. Private-sector witnesses included representatives
of Microsoft and Cisco Systems.
15. ``The Benefits of Audio-Visual Technology in Addressing Racial
Profiling,'' July 19, 2001
a. Summary.--On July 19, the committee held a hearing
regarding allegations of racial profiling, and the potential
benefits of using audio-visual technology to prove or disprove
those allegations. The committee heard from Assistant Attorney
General for policy development Viet Dinh, who testified about
Justice Department efforts to promote the use of audio-visual
technology and other methods to discourage racial profiling by
State and local police forces. The committee also heard
testimony from two Texas State lawmakers, Senators Royce West
and Robert Duncan. The two State legislators won passage of
legislation requiring police departments in Texas to collect
racial data on individuals stopped for traffic infractions
unless those departments had applied for State funding to
purchase audio-visual technology.
Testifying on the second panel were Colonel Charles Dunbar,
superintendent of the New Jersey State Police; Attorney Mark
Finnegan; and Attorney Robert Wilkins. Mr. Finnegan testified
about audio-visual evidence from a traffic stop in Ohio that
corroborated his client's charge that a police officer
committed an act of racial profiling against Hispanics. Mr.
Wilkins testified about an incident during which he was stopped
by Maryland State Police officers. Testifying on the third
panel were former U.S. Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly;
Rachel King, legislative director for the American Civil
Liberties Union; and Chris Maloney, president of TriTech
Software Systems. Mr. Kelly testified about efforts at the
Customs Service under his tenure to more effectively conduct
inspections of individuals entering the country without the use
of racial profiling. Mr. Kelly stated that under new procedures
adopted by Customs, seizures of illegal substances had
increased while the number of actual inspections had gone down.
16. ``Preparing For The War On Terrorism,'' September 20, 2001
a. Summary.--This committee hearing examined the extent of
the threat to U.S. interests from international terrorist
organizations and recommended U.S. actions in response to those
threats. Witnesses included: the Honorable Benjamin Netanyahu,
former Prime Minister of Israel; General Anthony Zinni, U.S.
Marines, retired; Dr. Christopher Harmon, professor, U.S.
Marine Corps Command and Staff College; and Dr. Jessica Stern,
Harvard University.
Former Prime Minister Netanyahu gave compelling testimony
about how the Israeli Government has dealt with terrorism and
suggest how the United States should meet the growing threat.
General Zinni told the committee of his experience in the
region as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command,
facing terrorist threats to U.S. military installations across
the Middle East. Dr. Stern and Dr. Harmon, recognized academic
experts on terrorism, explained the goals and probable courses
of action by terrorists today.
17. ``Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: Ensuring the Safety of
Postal Employees and the U.S. Mail,'' October 30, 2001
a. Summary.--On October 30, 2001, the committee convened a
hearing to review efforts being undertaken to protect the
safety and security of postal workers, customers and the mail
in the aftermath of the terrorist-related anthrax attacks. At
the time of the hearing, three people infected with anthrax had
died, including two postal workers. Thousands of others were
being treated with antibiotics. The anthrax attacks also caused
mail delivery to be suspended and businesses, government
offices, and mail processing facilities to shut down.
At the hearing, the committee examined a number of mail
security and safety issues. Witnesses included Kenneth Weaver,
Chief Postal Inspector of the Postal Inspection Service; Dr.
Mitch Cohen of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention;
James Jarboe of the Federal Bureau of Investigations; and the
Honorable John Potter, Postmaster General of the United States.
The committee also heard from a panel of representatives from
the various Postal employee unions who addressed the impact of
mail safety and security on their members.
Postmaster General John E. Potter acknowledged that
although the risks of contamination from opening the mail are
slim, the safety of the mail could not be guaranteed. General
Potter said that the Postal Service was working in conjunction
with the medical community to develop a plan to address the
threats to postal employees of mail containing anthrax.
Additionally, the Postal Inspection Service was working with
the law enforcement community, including the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, to investigate the crimes. General Potter
testified that the Postal Service is taking a number of steps
to protect postal workers and the mail. Thousands of postal
employees were tested and treated for exposure to anthrax.
Protective equipment, including masks and gloves, were provided
to postal workers. The Postal Service also was testing postal
facilities and modifying cleaning equipment to minimize the
spread of dust and spores. General Potter announced that the
Postal Service contracted for the purchase of electron beam
systems to sanitize the mail. In the meantime, he said some
mail would be shipped to private firms in Ohio and New Jersey
so that it could be sanitized using electron beam technology.
Some members of the committee raised questions about the
possibility that mail containing anthrax could cross-
contaminate other mail. Members urged the Postal Service as
well as health and law enforcement officials to take a
proactive approach to determining whether cross contamination
occurs. However, at the time of the hearing, testing of
potentially contaminated mail had yet to begin. James Jarboe of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified that the FBI had
located a facility to examine the mail taken from Capitol Hill
on October 17, 2001, 2 weeks since the anthrax-laced letter to
Senator Daschle was opened. In a letter sent to the Postal
Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the Center
for Disease Control and Prevention, Chairman Burton and Ranking
Minority Member Waxman urged the immediate testing of mail to
determine whether and the extent to which cross-contamination
of the mail occurs.
Members also urged the Postal Service to consider ``low-
tech,'' common-sense safety approaches that could reduce the
volume of anonymous mail needing sterilization, and noted that
the Service had not developed emergency plans to respond to a
bioterrorist attack using the mail. The Postal Service was
encouraged to seek assistance from experts both inside and
outside of the government as they developed a plan to ensure
the safety of the mail for customers and postal workers.
Finally, many members expressed support for emergency funding
to assist the Postal Service in responding to the anthrax
attacks.
18. ``The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Is It Working
As Congress Intended?'' November 1 and December 12, 2001
a. Summary.--As part of the committee's ongoing review of
vaccine safety and policy issues, two hearings were conducted
in 2001 regarding the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and
whether it is operating as Congress intended--as a less
adversarial alternative to civil litigation in which
individuals would be fairly and promptly compensated for
vaccine injuries. In 1986, Congress adopted the Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act to establish a federally sponsored, no-fault
system of compensating individuals who suffer adverse reactions
to vaccines. In 1986, vaccine manufacturers were threatening to
leave the vaccine market because of increased civil litigation
related to vaccine injuries. The law established the Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program [VICP], which is jointly
administered by the Department of Justice and the Department of
Health and Human Services. The Program was designed to serve
three purposes:
1. Provide fair, expedited compensation to those who
suffer vaccine injury;
2. Enhance the operation of our system of childhood
immunizations; and
3. Protect the Nation's vaccine supply by shielding
manufacturers and medical personnel delivering vaccines
from liability.
The committee is concerned about complaints regarding the
management of the program. These complaints fall into three
broad categories:
1. The statute of limitations of 3 years for injuries
and 2 years for death cases is too narrow and excludes
families from the program.
2. The inability to make interim payments to
petitioners for legal fees and expenses places them at
a disadvantage. While the Federal Government has
unlimited resources to pay for medical experts and the
attorneys are on salary, petitioners and their lawyers
often wait for years to be reimbursed for similar
expenses as cases drag on.
3. The program has, in general, become too litigious
and adversarial. Cases drag on for years as petitioners
are required to hire medical experts to attempt to
prove that injuries are vaccine-related.
The committee received testimony regarding on-table injury
cases that dragged on for 6-10 years. At times when the special
master or courts ruled in favor of the petitioner, the
government appealed. Of particular concern to the committee are
two issues relative to the increasing adversarial nature of the
program. Attorneys representing the Government whose behavior
is out of line with the intended compassionate nature of the
program, and utilizing the threat of appeal after a ruling in
favor of the petitioner in order to have the case be
``unpublished'' and thus not about to be cited as precedent in
future cases. A majority of vaccine compensation cases are
``unpublished.''
19. ``The Status of Insurance Restitution for Holocaust Victims and
Their Heirs,'' November 8, 2001
a. Summary.--The committee held a hearing examining the
efforts of the International Commission on Holocaust-Era
Insurance Claims [ICHEIC] to settle unpaid insurance policy
claims of Holocaust victims and their heirs. Holocaust
survivors testified about the difficulties they encountered in
receiving restitution through the Commission. The chairman of
ICHEIC, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger,
acknowledged that the results produced by the Commission to
date have not been satisfactory. However, he pointed out that
participating insurance companies have awarded $21 million to
deserving claimants since ICHEIC's creation.
Participating insurance companies were criticized at the
hearing for refusing to honor a $60 million financial
commitment to the Commission, failing to publish complete lists
of Holocaust-era policyholders, and being unwilling in some
cases to comply with Chairman Eagleburger's decisions. These
insurance companies have also requested a $76 million
reimbursement for expenses incurred in claims processing, which
was unacceptable to Chairman Eagleburger, insurance regulators,
and survivor advocates. Many more claimants would receive
compensation if non-participating German insurance companies
joined the restitution process. The witnesses agreed that the
German Government should exert more pressure on these companies
to compensate unpaid policyholders.
20. ``Comprehensive Medical Care of Bioterrorism Exposure--Are We
Making Evidence Based Decisions?'' November 14, 2001
a. Summary.--As an extension of the committee's ongoing
investigation of the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program, a
hearing was conducted to review the comprehensive medical
options available to deal with bioterrorism exposure. After the
terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent
postal terrorism with anthrax spores, there is an urgent need
to understand the level of valid information about all
treatment options available and under development that may
offer protection against the biological agents that might be
used in a terrorist attack. Witnesses provided expert testimony
regarding nutritional and complementary treatments that can
help individuals cope with the side effects of lengthy
antibiotic treatments. Information was provided regarding
research conducted in military laboratories that showed some
measure of protection with homeopathic remedies for tularemia
and other potential biological agents. There was a general
acceptance from the hearing that nutrition and complementary
approaches are not shown to replace conventional treatments
such as antibiotics and vaccines. It was also generally
accepted that there is research to indicate that there are
opportunities to improve overall health through nutritional and
complementary approaches, and that in the absence of vaccines
for smallpox or other biological agents, that understanding
what else may offer antibacterial or antiviral protection, or
specific protection from the biological agent is important.
More research in the area is certainly called for in order to
provide a valid, evidenced-based response to the medical and
public health community.
21. ``The FBI's Handling of Confidential Informants in Boston: Will the
Justice Department Comply With Congressional Subpoenas?''
December 13, 2001
a. Summary.--On December 13, the committee held a hearing
regarding the Justice Department's failure to comply with
committee document subpoenas. The documents in question were
Justice Department memoranda regarding the Department's
controversial handling of organized crime informants in Boston.
The Government Reform Committee has been conducting an
oversight investigation of widespread allegations of abuses
committed by FBI agents in Boston with respect to organized
crime informants they had cultivated. At a hearing earlier in
the year, the committee received testimony from a Boston man
who spent 30 years in prison for a murder he did not commit
because of the perjurious testimony of FBI informant Joe ``the
Animal'' Barboza. Documents that have recently come to light
strongly suggest that the FBI knew that Barboza's testimony was
false, and that another FBI mob informant had actually
committed the crime.
The committee's investigation of this and numerous other
abuses has been seriously impeded by the Justice Department's
new policy of prohibiting congressional committees from
reviewing DOJ deliberative documents. At the hearing, committee
members protested that the Department's new policy flew in the
face of longstanding precedent of committees receiving access
to such documents when the need arises. Committee members
stated that the ability to review documents goes to the heart
of Congress' ability to conduct meaningful oversight of the
executive branch.
Testifying on behalf of the administration was Michael E.
Horowitz, Chief of Staff of the Criminal Division, Department
of Justice. Just prior to the hearing, the President claimed
Executive privilege over the documents under subpoena, creating
a new barrier to the committee's access to the documents.
SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittee on the Census
Hon. Dan Miller, Chairman
1. ``Oversight of the 2000 Census: The Success of the 2000 Census,''
February 14, 2001
a. Summary.--The 1990 census marked the first time that
decennial census response rates fell from the previous census.
More troubling was the growth of the ``differential
undercount.'' The differential undercount represents the groups
of people, usually minority groups and those of low income,
traditionally missed in the census. The Director of the Census
Dr. Kenneth Prewitt predicted the 2000 census would have
falling response rates and an even larger undercount than 1990.
In fact, many ``experts'' in both the private and public
sectors did not believe further coverage improvements were
possible, citing statistical methodologies such as sampling for
non-response follow-up and adjustment as the only remaining
ways to reduce the undercount. Upon the completion of the 2000
census, however, the Bureau officials determined that census
2000 surpassed the accuracy of the 1990 census. Congress
contributed a great deal to the effectiveness of the census by
apportioning an unprecedented $6.7 billion for the decade and
$4.5 billion for fiscal year 2000 alone.
The Subcommittee on the Census held this hearing to explore
four main topics: to determine the effectiveness of the census;
evaluate the size of the undercount; ascertain the current
status of the ongoing adjustment decision; and, evaluate the
review called for in that year's appropriations language for
the Census Bureau to count Americans abroad. Acting Census
Bureau Director Bill Barron was the main witness of this
hearing.
2. ``BEA: Is the GDP Accurately Measuring the U.S. Economy?'' April 5,
2001
a. Summary.--The hearing covered many topics relating to
the Gross Domestic Product's reflection of the state including
President Bush's fiscal year 2002 budget increase of the Bureau
of Economic Analysis [BEA]. In addition, the subcommittee
considered challenges that the Census Bureau's proposed ACS
survey would pose to BEA data users if enacted due to the
resulting smaller sample group and data calculated on a 3 year
average. Also discussed was the matter of data sharing and
whether standard protocols should be applied to Federal
agencies such as the BEA, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the
Census Bureau. Last, Chairman Miller discussed with the panel
of testifying economists how insufficient the traditional
indicators of industrial productivity were to gauge the value
of goods and services in much of the economy of today and how
BEA is struggling with ways to measure value in the information
age.
3. ``Oversight of the Census Bureau's Proposed American Community
Survey [ACS],'' June 13, 2001
a. Summary.--The Bureau of the Census is currently testing
a proposed alternative to the decennial census long form called
the American Community Survey [ACS]. If funded by Congress, the
ACS will be fully implemented in 2003 and will be distributed
to 250,000 households monthly, for an annual sample size of 3
million households. The 10-year sample size will contain 30
million households. The somewhat problematic 2000 decennial
census long form was delivered to 1 in every 6 households
nationwide (although a greater percentage of rural households
received the form). The long form included the 7 population
questions asked on the decennial census short form and an
additional 46 questions for a total of 53 questions. The ACS
survey asks respondents to answer 69 questions. This second
subcommittee hearing on the ACS served to further analyze the
legal basis and process by which questions should be added or
removed from the ACS survey based on data necessity and
personal privacy concerns. In addition, the hearing served to
discuss the accuracy and timeliness of the data collected
through the ACS. Ultimately, privacy concerns must be
reconciled to determine whether the American Community Survey
is the best means by which to collect the demographic
information required for implementing our Federal programs and
informing public policy decisions.
4. ``Americans Abroad: How Can We Count Them?'' July 26, 2001
a. Summary.--It is estimated that millions of American
citizens live and work abroad. Many of these citizens pay taxes
and vote in the United States and wish to be counted in the
census. The Census Bureau currently enumerates American
military personnel and other Federal employees living overseas,
but does not count private American citizens who live abroad.
The Subcommittee on the Census held a hearing on this topic in
June 1999 and planned to continue the discussions with a panel
comprised of American citizens' organizations abroad.
As directed by language in its fiscal year 2001 budget, the
Census Bureau had been in the process of studying the viability
of including such Americans in future censuses, and it
submitted a written report to Congress at the end of September
outlining the questions that remained regarding counting
Americans living abroad. Among these questions were: Who can be
considered an American citizen, and for what would the data
collected be used (redistricting or reapportionment)?
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman
1. Joint Hearing: ``The National Security Implications of the Human
Capital Crisis,'' March 29, 2001
a. Summary.--The hearing examined how the human capital
crisis is affecting the national security establishment, with a
particular focus on the Department of Defense civilian
workforce, and the projected trend lines for the future.
The witnesses testifying at this hearing were: The
Honorable James R. Schlesinger, Commissioner, U.S. Commission
on National Security/21st Century; Admiral Harry D. Train, USN,
Ret., Commissioner, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st
Century; Mr. Henry L. Hinton, Jr., Managing Director, Defense
Capabilities and Management, U.S. General Accounting Office;
and Mr. Robert J. Lieberman, Deputy Inspector General,
Department of Defense.
2. ``Health Care Inflation and Its Impact on the FEHBP,'' October 16,
2001
a. Summary.--This hearing addressed the causes of premium
increases in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as
well as the continuing exodus of HMOs from the program. The
subcommittee examined limitations in current law and
administrative practice that might stifle competition and
innovation and explored market-based approaches to ameliorating
these problems.
The witnesses testifying at this hearing were: The
Honorable Tom A. Coburn, M.D., former Member of Congress;
William E. Flynn III, Associate Director, Retirement and
Insurance Services, Office of Personnel Management; Stephen W.
Gammarino, senior vice president, BlueCross BlueShield
Association; Colleen M. Kelley, president, National Treasury
Employees Union; Lawrence Mirel, commissioner, District of
Columbia, Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation;
Robert Moffit, director, Domestic Policy Studies, the Heritage
Foundation.
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
Hon. Mark E. Souder, Chairman
1. ``The Study of Plan Colombia: An Assessment of Successes and
Challenges,'' March 2, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony from several
witnesses on the current status of implementation of Plan
Colombia, a Colombian Government initiative that involves drug
interdiction operations, eradication of coca and poppy crops,
alternative development opportunities, and boosting democratic
institutions. Witnesses indicated that the initial equipment
and training provided by the Department of State and Department
of Defense quickly jump-started the Colombian Army and
Colombian National Police's tactical operations. Testimony
suggested that the full impact of Plan Colombia, was not yet
really being seen due to the lead times associated with
ordering and delivering of new equipment and slow progress in
alternative development programs and judicial reform efforts.
Witnesses included Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary Bureau
of International Narcotics [INL] Department of State, General
Peter Pace, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Southern Command
(SOUTHCOM), Donnie Marshall, Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration, and Robert Newberry, Principal Deputy Assistant
of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict,
Department of Defense.
2. `` `Medical' Marijuana, Federal Drug Law and the Constitution's
Supremacy Clause,'' March 27, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee received testimony from
concerned citizens and others regarding the effects which State
laws and initiatives purporting to allow the so-called
``medicinal'' use of marijuana and other federally controlled
substances have had on the enforcement of Federal narcotics
law. Witnesses generally agreed that such initiatives were
founded on questionable medical science, had impaired the
enforcement and function of Federal controlled substances laws,
and that careful consideration was warranted of an appropriate
Federal enforcement strategy.
Witnesses included Mrs. Betty Sembler, foudner and Chair of
the Drug Free America Foundation, Mrs. Joyce Nalepka of America
Cares, Mr. Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project, Ms.
Laura Nagel, Deputy Associate Administrator for Diversion
Control of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Honorable
Bill McCollum, the Honorable Dan Lungren, and Dr. Janet Joy of
the Institute of Medicine.
3. ``What are the Barriers to Effective Intergovernmental Efforts to
Stop the Flow of Illegal Drugs?'' April 13, 2001, San Diego
field hearing
a. Summary.--This hearing was a joint hearing with the
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations as part of a larger series of
hearings on barriers to intergovernmental cooperation. The
hearing specifically focused on barriers to effective
intergovernmental efforts to stop the flow of illegal drugs.
The subcommittee received testimony from local State and
Federal officials on their joint efforts to stop drugs.
Witnesses included: Roosevelt ``Rosey'' Grier, chairman of the
Board, Impact Urban America; Estean Hanson Lenyoun III,
president and chief executive officer, Impact Urban America,
and Errol Chavez, Special Agent-In-Charge, San Diego Division,
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
The witnesses indicated generally that the local, State and
Federal officials worked well together. However all agencies
along the border need additional resources. Rosey Grier
testified about the success of a faith-based drug treatment
program he helped start in the city center of San Diego.
4. ``The Role of Community and Faith-Based Organizations in Providing
Effective Social Services,'' April 26, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony from the
Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives about how and why the Federal Government should
promote faith-based and secular grassroots initiatives in the
provision of social services. State and local service providers
and intermediaries testified about the practical aspects of how
they provide and promote effective services. Generally,
witnesses suggested that community and faith-based
organizations are particularly effective resources in assisting
individuals in need. The issue of charitable choice was raised
by members of the subcommittee, as well as invited Members of
Congress. Questions and comments focused on the potential for
discrimination in hiring practices, excessive entanglement in
congregational affairs, accountability of faith and community-
based organizations, use of Federal funds for proselitization,
and diluting the effectiveness of faith groups.
Witnesses included Dr. John J. DiIulio, Jr., director,
White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives;
Katie Humphreys Secretary, Indiana Family & Social Services
Administration; Debby Kratky, client systems manager, Work
Advantage; Loren Snippe, director, Ottawa County Family
Independence Program; Donna Jones, pastor, Cookman United
Methodist Church; Bill Raymond, president, Faithworks
Consulting Service; and Donna Jones Stanley, executive
director, Associated Black Charities.
5. ``U.S. Air Interdiction Efforts in South America After The Peru
Incident,'' May 1, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee received testimony from
several witnesses on the background, history and importance of
U.S. air interdiction programs and policies, with special
emphasis on the mistaken Peruvian Air Force shoot down of a
missionary plane that resulted in the loss of two American
lives. Witnesses generally agreed that the U.S./Peru air-bridge
denial program had been successful over the past 5 years in
interdicting illegal drug smuggling by air, but suggested that
air-bridge denial programs should be suspended pending a formal
State Department investigation to identify new measures and
safeguards required to avert another tragedy.
Witnesses included Pete Hoekstra, Member of Congress; Curt
Weldon, Member of Congress; Bob Brown, Acting Deputy Director
for Supply Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy;
Donnie Marshall, Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration; Chuck Winwood, Acting Commissioner, U.S.
Customs Service; Joe Crow, Director of Latin American and
Caribbean Programs, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs, Department of State; Rear Admiral David
Belz, USCG, Director of the Joint Interagency Task Force East;
Pete West, National Business Aviation Association; Adam
Isacson, Center for International Policy; and Andy Messing,
National Defense Council Foundation.
6. ``The Effectiveness of Faith Based Drug Treatment,'' May 23, 2001
a. Summary.--During this hearing the subcommittee examined
a variety of large and small faith-based programs to assess
their effectiveness and also whether regulatory barriers exist
that prevent or undermine faith-based organizations from
participating in the provision of these services. On May 10,
President Bush directed Director John DiIulio of the Office of
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to complete an inventory
of existing Federal partnerships with faith-based and community
anti-drug partnerships within 30 days. This hearing was a
sampling of that larger inventory.
Hearing witnesses included a variety of faith-based
providers, including representatives from Teen Challenge, House
of Hope, an Indiana church-based program and an inner city
program receiving Federal dollars. The faith-based witnesses
testified they would not want Federal money if they had to
dilute their faith-based message. All witnesses indicated a
need for resources and a desire to improve evaluation of their
programs. Teen Challenge and House of Hope testified that they
experienced a success rate of 80-90 percent, and attributed
this high success rate to their faith message. Some of the
proponents of faith-based drug treatment programs argued that
these programs can be more effective and often less costly than
publicly funded programs.
7. ``H.R. 2291, Reauthorization of the Drug-Free Communities Act,''
June 28, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony from a number
of witnesses in support of H.R. 2291, the Reauthorization of
the Drug-Free Communities Act. The DFCA (21 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1521 et seq.), an amendment to the National Narcotics
Leadership Act of 1988, provides for direct grants of up to
$100,000 per year to community organizations demonstrating a
comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce substance abuse
among youth. The DFCA program was intended, among other things,
to strengthen collaboration among communities, the Federal
Government, and State, local and tribal governments, to serve
as a catalyst for increased citizen participation in community
anti-drug efforts, and to re-channel Federal anti-drug
resources and information to local communities. The DFCA is
administered by the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy [ONDCP], but the actual evaluation and awarding of
grants to anti-drug coalitions is carried out by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], a division
of the Department of Justice.
As originally drafted and referred to the subcommittee,
H.R. 2291 reauthorized DFCA for an additional 5 fiscal years,
and greatly increased its funding levels (up to a maximum of
$75 million in fiscal year 2007). The bill also increased the
cap on the amount of DFCA funds that could be spent on
administrative overhead from 3 percent to 8 percent per year.
Additional provisions included the creation of a new grant (of
up to $75,000 per year) to support the mentoring of new
coalitions by established coalitions, and the authorization of
$2 million for the establishment of a National Community
Antidrug Coalition Institute (the ``Institute'') by an eligible
national nonprofit organization that represents, provides
technical assistance to, and has expertise and experience in
working with DFCA grant recipients.
At the hearing, the subcommittee heard testimony from H.R.
2291's sponsors, Representative Rob Portman of Ohio and
Representative Sander Levin of Michigan; from representatives
of the principal agencies administering DFCA, Dr. Donald M.
Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy; and Mr. John J. Wilson, Acting Director of the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and from
representatives of the coalitions receiving grants under DFCA,
Gen. Arthur T. Dean (retired), chairman and CEO of the
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America [CADCA]; the Hon.
Michael Kramer, Judge of the Noble County Superior Court,
Indiana, Chair of Drug-Free Noble County and Member of the
Advisory Board of CADCA; and Mr. Lawrence Couch, program
manager of the Montgomery County Partnership, Maryland.
Each of the witnesses expressed their support for H.R. 2291
and testified to the success of the DFCA program. Chairman Mark
Souder and the other members of the subcommittee were
supportive of the DFCA, but asked a number of questions about
how administrative costs could be minimized so that as many
dollars as possible could be given directly to the local
coalitions. Ranking Minority Member Elijah Cummings asked
whether the mentoring grants could be given preferentially to
those assisting coalitions in economically disadvantaged
communities.
Based on the information obtained at the hearing, the
subcommittee made several amendments to H.R. 2291 at markup and
recommended its passage to the full committee. The amendments
included increasing the authorized funding in the final years
(to a maximum of $99 million in fiscal year 2007), capping the
administrative costs at 6 percent per year, requiring that
ONDCP ensure that there be no duplication of administrative
tasks among the agencies and the Institute, and requiring that
preference for mentoring grants be given to those serving
coalitions in economically disadvantaged areas.
8. ``The Methamphetamine Problem in America: Growth and Trends,'' July
12, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony concerning
the growth of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse in the
United States, and potential ways in which this problem could
be addressed. The witnesses explained how methamphetamine use
and production had spread from California to the Pacific
Northwest, the Midwest, and the South, how serious the health
and environmental threats from this drug were, and the ways in
which methamphetamine abuse could be fought through a
combination of law enforcement and treatment options.
Witnesses included Joseph D. Keefe, Chief of Operations of
the Drug Enforcement Administration; Ron Brooks, chairman of
the National Narcotic Officers Associations Coalition; Sheriff
Doug Dukes and Deputy Sheriff Doug Harp of the Noble County,
Indiana Sheriff's Department; Henry Serrano, chief of police of
the Citrus Heights, California Police Department; and Susan
Rook, Public Affairs Director of Step One.
9. ``Opportunities and Advancements in Stem Cell Research,'' July 17,
2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee examined the status of
Federal policy and law regarding stem cell research funding,
the current clinical uses and potential future uses of stem
cells and the alternatives to destroying human embryos to
obtain stem cells. The subcommittee heard from scientific
experts, patient advocates, as well as families with children
who were adopted as embryos.
The witnesses included: Marlene, John and Hannah Strege
(the first ever adopted embryo family); John, Lucinda, Mark and
Luke Borden (adopted embryo family with twins); Joann Davidson
of the Christian Adoption & Family Services Agency (an embryo
adoption agency); Nathan Salley (a leukemia patient
successfully treated with stem cells from cord blood); Ms. Joan
Samuelson of the Parkinson's Action Network; David Arthur
Prentice, PhD of Indiana State University, Department of Life
Sciences; Carl Christopher (Chris) Hook, MD, of the Mayo Clinic
in Rochester, MN; Gerald D. Fischbach, M.D., vice president for
health and biomedical sciences and dean of the Faculty of
Medicine at Columbia University Health Sciences; and Mollie and
Jackie Singer with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
International.
The testimony focused on the alternatives that exist to
stem cell research requiring the destruction of living human
embryos. These alternatives include research using stem cells
from adult sources and cord blood and placentas as well as
opportunities for adoption of ``spare'' embryos. As of today,
the only clinically successful stem cell therapies involve
cells derived from non-embryonic sources and no therapies have
been developed using embryonic stem cells.
This has been the only congressional hearing to date that
has focused on the ethical alternatives to stem cell research
that requires the destruction of living human embryos. It is
also the only hearing that has explored the alternative to
destruction of these embryos, which is adoption.
10. ``The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: How to Ensure the
Program Operates Efficiently and Effectively,'' August 1, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing on
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The hearing
examined the effectiveness and efficiency of the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, now in its 4th year. At roughly $1
billion, this 5-year media campaign is the largest government-
sponsored and government-funded campaign of its kind in
history. The Office of National Drug Control Policy is
responsible for conducting and administering the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Witnesses included the Acting
Director of ONDCP, Ed Jurith; Mr. Bernard L. Ungar, Director,
Physical Infrastructure Team, General Accounting Office;
Captain Mark D. Westin, contract administration, Fleet &
Industrial Supply Center, Norfolk Washington Detachment,
Department of the Navy; Ms. Susan Davis, Deputy Chief of the
Prevention Research Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Mr. Jurith testified that ONDCP would need to evaluate
whether to re-bid the contract or simply continue with the
prime contractor, Ogilvy & Mather. The General Accounting
Office discussed is findings regarding possible irregularities
in the administration of the contract by Ogilvy and Mather.
Some subcommittee members expressed disapproval of even the
possibility of continuing with Ogilvy because of their track
record. The subcommittee recommended that ONDCP continue
heightened diligence with contract administration to assure
that this $1 billion media campaign succeeds.
11. ``Drug Trade and the Terror Network,'' October 2, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony that detailed
the extent to which narcotics trafficking has provided funding
and support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda
terrorist organization headed by Osama Bin Laden, and other
terrorist organizations worldwide. The witnesses confirmed that
the Taliban had directly benefited from all aspects of the
Afghan opium trade, mainly through taxation. Despite a much-
heralded Taliban prohibition on opium poppy cultivation and a
significant decrease in opium production in 2001, testimony
strongly suggested that the Taliban had been engaged in major
stockpiling of opium, forcing the local price to substantially
increase and allowing the Taliban to continue profiting from
the drug trade. The witnesses stressed that the United States
would be ill advised to ignore the extent to which the profits
from the drug trade are directed to finance terrorist
activities.
The witnesses included Asa Hutchinson, Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Agency; and Bill Bach, Director, Office of Asia,
Africa, Europe, and NIS Programs, Department of State.
12. ``Keeping a Strong Federal Law Enforcement Work Force,'' October
17, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee heard testimony concerning
the extent to which manpower, work hours, agent compensation,
infrastructure and other factors affect the ability of the U.S.
Customs Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the U.S. Border Patrol to carry out
their law enforcement functions. Witnesses from each of these
agencies explained to the subcommittee how their agencies were
being challenged to meet the growing burden of counter-
terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks,
even as they struggled to meet their other law enforcement
missions. The subcommittee was presented with several proposals
to improve pay and benefits in order to improve the hiring and
retention of officers at these agencies.
Witnesses included Commissioner James Ziglar of the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Robert M. Smith,
Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Human Resources
Management, U.S. Customs Service; and Gary E. Mead, Assistant
Director of Business Services, U.S. Marshals Service.
13. ``Improving Security And Facilitating Commerce At The Northern
Border,'' field hearings at Highgate Springs, VT, and
Champlain, NY, October 28-29, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held the first of its ongoing
series of field hearings at the Nation's border crossings
concerning ways to improve security while also easing burdens
on trade and travel. These first field hearings were held at
Highgate Springs, VT, and Champlain, NY. The subcommittee heard
testimony from supervisors and employees of the principal
agencies entrusted with manning the border crossings, from a
representative of the Canadian parliament, and from
representatives of community and business leaders from both the
United States and Canadian sides of the border. A number of
proposals to improve security and efficiency at the border were
suggested to the subcommittee.
Witnesses at Highgate Springs, VT, included Mr. Jean
Ouellette, District Director of the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service; Mr. Philip W. Spayd, District Field
Officer of the U.S. Customs Service; Mr. Denis Paradis, Member
of Parliament of Canada, House of Commons; Mr. Sylvain Dion,
president, Distribution Marcel Dion; Mr. Gilles Lariviere,
president, West Brome Mill; Mr. Stephen Duchaine, president of
the Highgate Springs Chapter, American Federation of Government
Employees, Immigration and Naturalization Service Council; Mr.
Tim Smith, executive director of the Franklin County Industrial
Development Corp.; Mr. Chad Tsounis, director of the St. Albans
Chamber of Commerce; and Mr. John Wilda, president of Chapter
142, National Treasury Employees Union. Witnesses at Champlain,
NY, included the Hon. Ron Stafford, New York State Senator; Mr.
Michael Dambrosio, District Field Officer of the U.S. Customs
Service; Ms. Francis Holmes, District Director of the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Mr. Garry Douglas,
executive director of the Plattsburgh-North Country Chamber of
Commerce; Mr. Carl Duford, president of the Champlain Chapter,
American Federation of Government Employees, Immigration and
Naturalization Service Council; and Mr. Thomas Keefe,
president, St. Lawrence Chapter 138, National Treasury
Employees Union.
14. ``Law Enforcement: Are Federal, State, and Local Agencies Working
Together Effectively?'' October 31, 2001
a. Summary.--This joint hearing was held by the
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations; the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources; and the Subcommittee
on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International
Relations. Testimony from Federal agency witnesses suggested a
general willingness to share information with other Federal
agencies, as well as State and local law enforcement agencies.
At the same time, however, Federal officials identified
cultural, technological, and training barriers to information
sharing. Testimony from State and local officials emphasized
that they are on the front lines of homeland defense when
emergencies arise. They noted that the Federal Government could
do more to promote information sharing by increasing funding to
the local level, allowing more access to classified
information, and by seeking State and local participation on
law enforcement task forces.
The panel included Asa Hutchinson, Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Agency; Richard R. Nedelkoff, Director, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Department of Justice; Kathleen L.
McChesney, Assistant Director, Training Division, Federal
Bureau of Investigation; Joe Green, Deputy Associate
Commissioner for Field Operations, Immigration and
Naturalization Service; John F. Timoney, commissioner,
Philadelphia Police Department; Edward T. Norris, commissioner,
Baltimore Police Department; Charles H. Ramsey, chief,
Washington Metropolitan Police Department; William Dwyer,
chief, Farmington Police Department, representing Michigan
Chiefs of Police Association; and Scott L. King, mayor, Gary,
IN.
15. ``Federal Law Enforcement: Long-Term Implications of Homeland
Security Needs,'' December 5, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee discussed with the heads of
several law enforcement agencies the impact that emphasis on
homeland security requirements in the wake of the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks had had on execution of their more
customary missions. The agency heads provided testimony
regarding the immediate impact which increased law enforcement
requirements had on their operations, and discussed the status
of short and long-term planning to ensure that appropriate
resources would be made available for ongoing law enforcement
needs.
The panel included Admiral James Loy, Commandant of the
U.S. Coast Guard; Robert Bonner, Commissioner of the U.S.
Customs Service; James Ziglar, Commissioner of the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service; Asa Hutchinson,
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; and Frank
Gallagher, Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
16. ``Improving Security And Facilitating Commerce At The Northern
Border,'' field hearing at Blaine, WA, December 10, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held another in its ongoing
series of field hearings at the Nation's border crossings
concerning ways to improve security while also easing burdens
on trade and travel, this time at Blaine, WA. As at Highgate
Springs and Champlain, the subcommittee again heard testimony
from supervisors and employees of the principal agencies
entrusted with manning the border crossings and patrolling the
region's borders and waterways, from a representative of the
Canadian parliament, and from representatives of community and
business leaders from both the United States and Canadian sides
of the border. The subcommittee heard similar proposals to
improve security and efficiency at the border.
Witnesses included Rear Admiral Erroll M. Brown, Commander
of the 13th U.S. Coast Guard District; Mr. Thomas W. Hardy,
Director of Field Operations, Northwest Great Plains Customs
Management Center, U.S. Customs Service; Mr. Robert S. Coleman,
Jr., Director of the Seattle District, Immigration and
Naturalization Service; Mr. Ronald H. Henley, Chief Patrol
Agent of the Blaine Sector, U.S. Border Patrol; Ms. Val
Meredith, Member of Canadian Parliament, House of Commons; Mr.
David Andersson, president of the Pacific Corridor Enterprise
Council; Ms. Terry Preshaw, member of the Vancouver Board of
Trade; Mr. Gordon Schaffer, president-elect of the White Rock &
South Surrey Chamber of Commerce; Hon. Georgia Gardner,
Washington State Senator; Mr. Pete Kremen, Whatcom County
executive; Mr. Jim Miller, executive director of the Whatcom
Council of Governments; Ms. Pam Christianson, president of the
Blaine Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Barry Clement, president of the
National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 164; and Mr. Jerry
Emory, vice president of the American Federation of Government
Employees, National INS Council, Local 40.
District of Columbia Subcommittee
Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman
1. ``America's Main Street: The Future of Pennsylvania Avenue,'' March
21, 2001
a. Summary.--Nearly 6 years after then-Treasury Secretary
Robert E. Rubin ordered the U.S. Secret Service to
``temporarily'' close Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic
between 15th and 17th Streets, NW., the subcommittee sought an
update on the closure, including hearing ideas from
architectural and security firms on how the avenue could be re-
opened. The road is an important east-west artery for the
District of Columbia, and was traveled by about 29,000 vehicles
daily before its May 19, 1995 closure.
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, representing the
Federal City Council (a Washington, D.C. civic and business
organization) proposed a plan by which Pennsylvania Avenue
would be reduced to four lanes, the road curved away from the
White House and two pedestrian bridges built to prevent trucks
and other large vehicles from driving in front of the Executive
Mansion.
D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams, the chair of the City Council,
and several business and civic leaders endorsed the idea of re-
opening Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic. Secret
Service Director Brian Stafford repeated the agency's
opposition to opening the road, contending that there is no
adequate method to protect the White House from car or truck
bombs if the road is open to public use. Richard L. Friedman,
the chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission,
testified that the NCPC planned on convening a task force to
examine the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue and other security
issues and pledged to issue a recommendation on the avenue by
the summer. (The report, ``Designing for Security in the
Nation's Capital,'' issued in October, recommended building a
tunnel to carry Pennsylvania Avenue below ground and open
Pennsylvania Avenue to a ``circulator'' bus service to
transport tourists and workers around the city's Monumental
Core.)
2. ``Coordination of Criminal Justice Activities in the District of
Columbia,'' May 11, 2001
a. Summary.--The General Accounting Office, pursuant to the
fiscal year 2000 District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
issued a report in March 2001 recommending better coordination
among criminal justice agencies in the District of Columbia.
The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 brought a number of city functions--
including Superior Court, Pretrial Services, Defender Services
and sentenced felon incarceration--under the auspices of the
Federal Government, leaving the city's criminal justice system
divided among Federal and local entities.
Competing organizational interests have hampered needed
reforms and improvements to the District's criminal justice
process, according to the GAO report and hearing testimony from
the city's public safety, political and judicial officials. One
persistent example cited at the hearing is the millions of
dollars in overtime paid annually to Metropolitan Police
Department officers while they wait in court or to meet with
prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office.
There was a broad consensus among witnesses for the need to
breathe new life into the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council, a multi-agency group that achieved some success when
it had been funded by the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (the Control
Board). The CJCC brings together the heads of the agencies with
criminal justice responsibilities in the District (chief of
police, U.S. attorney, head of Federal Bureau of Prisons, etc.)
to work out problems of coordination.
3. ``The Outlook for the District of Columbia Government: The Post-
Control Board Period,'' June 8, 2001. Joint hearing with the
Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, Restructuring and the District of
Columbia
a. Summary.--With the D.C. Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority (the Control Board) set to
expire on September 30, 2001, the subcommittee held a joint
hearing with its Senate counterparts to get a frank assessment
from city government officials and outside experts on the
current state of the District's fiscal and management
situation. The hearing also was meant to serve as the starting
point for a discussion on what actions would be necessary to
ensure the District's continued financial health. Under the
Control Board, established by Congress in 1995, the District
turned a $518 million deficit into a $464 million surplus, saw
its bond rating improve from junk-level to investment grade,
and made substantial improvements in service delivery.
Control Board chairman Alice Rivlin, Mayor Anthony Williams
and City Council president Linda Cropp jointly testified in
favor of city legislation that would continue to give the
District's chief financial officer (an office created under the
act establishing the Control Board) some oversight of the
city's budget, tax and accounting functions. Several witnesses
expressed concern that the city legislation did not go far
enough in strengthening the position of the CFO, saying that
such an important position required additional safeguards and
explicit powers over the city's finances.
Other witnesses, including representatives from the two
major credit rating agencies, Standard & Poor's and Moody's
Investors Service, testified that ensuring the independence of
the chief financial officer was important to the long-term
fiscal stability of the District. They also noted that it is
very unusual for a city to emerge from a Control Board period
without some kind of ``transition'' back to full fiscal
sovereignty.
4. ``The Reform of the Family Division of the District of Columbia
Superior Court: Improving Services to Families and Children,''
June 26, 2001
a. Summary.--The death of 23-month-old Brianna Blackmond in
January 2000 illustrated the grave failings of the District of
Columbia's child welfare network. The system of social workers,
child advocates and family division judges simply was not doing
enough to protect the rights--and in some cases, the lives--of
the city's children. In Brianna's case, the young girl was
killed just weeks after a family division judge made the
mistake of taking Brianna from a foster home and returning her
to her troubled mother.
Since the 1997 Revitalization Act, the District's Superior
Court (including its family division) has fallen under control
of the Federal Government, and this hearing was aimed at
developing legislation to dramatically reform the family
division and address the backlog of neglect and abuse cases.
The biggest debate, at the hearing and in subsequent
legislative negotiations, was over the length of term for
family court judges. Superior Court Chief Judge Rufus King III
argued in favor of a term of no more than 3 years, saying
anything longer could lead to judicial burnout. Others,
including child advocates and F. Scott McCown, a family court
judge from Texas, strongly favored a 5-year term (which was
ultimately supported by the subcommittee) to ensure judges have
adequate time to learn the ropes of complicated family issues.
There was overall support for the idea of ``One Family, One
Judge,'' under which a judge would gain greater familiarity
with a family's problems because he or she would hear all cases
involving that family.
5. ``Prisoner Release in the District of Columbia: The Role of Halfway
Houses and Community Supervision in Prisoner Rehabilitation,''
July 20, 2001
a. Summary.--More than 2,500 felony inmates are expected to
be released back to the District of Columbia each year for the
next several years, a situation made worse by the fact that the
city has a shortage of about 250 halfway house beds. Drug
treatment and other support services are similarly available
only on a limited basis. Finally, as a completely urban
jurisdiction, the District has a higher incarceration rate than
any of the 50 States, and its inmates are more likely to have
serious drug and/or medical problems.
Congress created the Court Services and Offender
Supervision agency in 1997 to ensure that individuals released
back into the community, either pre-trial or post-sentence,
received proper monitoring, job support and other transitional
services. At the hearing, Chairwoman Connie Morella entered
into the record a chart showing that the number of D.C.
parolees re-arrested on other charges had dropped considerably
in recent years, from 158 in May 1998 to 66 in April 2001. The
figures have fluctuated between 40 and 79 since September 1999.
The shortage of halfway house beds, however, threatens to
impede further progress, according to testimony from
corrections officials and criminal justice observers. The
Federal Bureau of Prisons, which became responsible for felony
incarceration in the District under the 1997 Revitalization
Act, has a policy of releasing its prisoners into halfway
houses--something it cannot always do in the District.
6. ``Spring Valley: Toxic Waste Contamination in the Nation's
Capital,'' July 27, 2001
a. Summary.--During World War I, the U.S. Army leased land
from American University and several other property owners in
an area of Northwest D.C. known as Spring Valley for the
establishment of a weapons testing facility. The American
University Experimental Station became the second-largest
chemical weapons facility in the world, with up to 1,900
military and civilian employees working there. When World War I
ended, and the experiments were over, the chemicals were
supposedly shipped to another site for disposal. But that did
not happen.
In 1993, a construction crew found buried munitions,
starting a process of search-and-cleanup that continues to this
day. Dangerously high levels of arsenic continue to be found in
the soil in Spring Valley. Many residents believe the chemical
remnants have caused cancer and other diseases in their loved
ones, sometimes resulting in death. The Army Corps of Engineers
is responsible for the cleanup, which has impacted hundreds of
homes and the campus of American University. The Corps is
working with residents, the city government and American
University in this process.
This hearing was called to determine how these chemicals
were able to remain a secret for 75 years. Should not have
someone--a landowner, a builder, a military authority, the
university--known about the possible contamination and warned
the public? In 1986, the U.S. Army considered examining the
Spring Valley area for possible munitions as part of American
University's planned construction of a campus building. The
Army Corps decided then, against substantial evidence
suggesting otherwise, that no large-scale investigation was
needed. Likewise, in 1995, after 2 years of cleanup, the Corps
declared the area safe--only to learn that was not the case
when the District of Columbia government challenged the Army's
findings.
Despite calling many witnesses to testify--including
representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Army Audit Agency,
American University and the W.C. & A.N. Miller Development Co.
(the prime builders in Spring Valley)--the subcommittee decided
at the conclusion of the hearing to seek a General Accounting
Office investigation into the matter. That investigation is
currently underway.
7. ``Mass Transit in the National Capital Region: Meeting Future
Capital Needs,'' September 21, 2001
a. Summary.--Just 10 days after the September 11th
terrorist attacks, the subcommittee convened a hearing on the
status of the Washington Metro subway system. While originally
intended to examine Metro's long-term capital needs to continue
to move commuters smoothly around the region, much of the
hearing's focus turned to the system's emergency response and
planning and its capability for handling a bio-terrorist
threat.
Metro general manager Richard White testified that the
subway system is at the forefront nationally of testing out a
new system in which sensors would be able to detect the
presence of a bio-agent in the system and respond accordingly.
But he said such measures are still in the preliminary stage.
A General Accounting Office report, released in July and
the basis for this hearing, noted that the 25-year-old system
is seeing a steadily growing number of riders while also facing
growing pains associated with its age--most notably, broken
escalators and the need to replace train cars. The GAO also
suggested that Metro change its budgeting process by listing
which projects it would not undertake should it receive less
money than requested from local governments. White said Metro
was opposed to this because he believes it would lead to less
funding. But Metro is developing a ``core capacity'' plan to
outline its long-term capital needs.
8. ``Emergency Preparedness in the Nation's Capital,'' November 2, 2001
a. Summary.--The September 11th terrorist attacks on the
Pentagon and the World Trade Center in New York City
highlighted the importance of a coordinated response of local
governments to catastrophic events. At the Pentagon, fire,
police and emergency rescue forces from across the region
worked hand-in-hand to save lives, tend to the injured and
extinguish the fire. They were undoubtedly assisted by their
routine training in ``mutual aid'' situations--emergencies that
require responses from across jurisdictional boundaries.
Unfortunately, the communication and coordination of
regional political leaders were not so evident. At this
hearing, Michael Rogers, the executive director of the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, testified that
regional leaders did not even speak to each other, as a group,
until 6 p.m. on the evening of the 11th--more than 8 hours
after American Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, and long after
most residents had left work and returned to the safety of
their own homes. District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams
testified that he regretted not using the area's Emergency
Broadcast System to give citizens the facts of the situation.
Shortly after the attacks, many people were not sure whether
the Metro subway system was operating, whether roads were
closed, and whether they should stay at work or try to get
home.
Coordination between the Federal and local governments was
lacking as well. At the same time the Office of Personnel
Management was telling Federal employees to go home, the Secret
Service ordered the closure of several of the Potomac River
bridges connecting the District to Virginia, creating a traffic
nightmare. Chairwoman Morella called for the development of a
regional emergency response plan, with a particular emphasis on
bio-terrorist response, one that could help coordinate the
various local and Federal entities in their response to future
calamities.
9. ``Emergency Preparedness in the Nation's Capital: The Economic
Impact of Terrorist Attacks,'' November 15, 2001
a. Summary.--In a continuation of its November 2 hearing,
the District of Columbia Subcommittee looked closely into the
economic damage caused by the September 11 terrorist attacks,
and subsequent discovery of anthrax in the mail system, on the
District and the metropolitan region. Dr. Stephen Fuller, a
noted economist from George Mason University, testified that
the city could be severely hurt by the terrorism events, given
that its economy is heavily dependent on the hospitality and
tourism industries. Because of safety fears and the prolonged
closure of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, more
business travelers are staying in the suburbs rather than
coming downtown, he said. With hotel occupancy at less than
half the normal rate in September and October (usually two of
Washington's three best months for business travel and tourism)
as many as 10,000 of the city's hospitality workers could lose
their jobs, Fuller said.
Fuller and other witnesses, including labor and business
representatives, said they feared that the Federal Government's
decision to close streets, cancel popular public tours of the
White House, FBI building and the Capitol, and put up
barricades at various tourist destinations, would only
exacerbate the problem. William Hanbury, the president and CEO
of the Washington, DC Convention and Tourism Corp., testified
that local officials have prepared an aggressive advertising
and marketing campaign to attract visitors to the Nation's
Capital but did not want to launch the campaign while the news
media was reporting daily on the anthrax situation and security
measures in the District. Hanbury also testified that the new
D.C. Convention Center, scheduled to open in the spring of
2003, will not be delayed because of bad economy brought on by
the terrorist attacks. The Convention Center construction is
funded through a combination of hotel taxes and sales taxes on
food.
10. ``The District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995: Blue Print
for Educational Reform in the District of Columbia,'' December
4, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing was convened just a few weeks
after the District of Columbia Board of Education voted to cut
the public school system's academic year by 7 days in response
to budget shortfalls brought on by lax fiscal management. The
school system had discovered an estimated $80 million
shortfall--which turned out to be $98 million, the city's chief
financial officer revealed at this hearing--shortly before the
end of the city's 2001 fiscal year, which concluded on
September 30, 2001. Chairwoman Morella and Ranking Member
Norton both described the Board of Education plan as
unacceptable, and urged the school board to come up with a
different proposal to save money. Five days after the hearing,
the city government gave the school system $10 million to avoid
the budget cuts.
Fiscal mismanagement and poorly performing schools have
long been a problem in the District. Of late, the schools'
budget has been under severe stress due to the high cost of
transporting and educating special education students. The
District places thousands of its special needs students into
schools in other States, a practice that costs $34,000 per
student--or more than double the cost to educate a special
education student in D.C. schools. Making the problem worse is
that the school system has failed to file proper paperwork with
the Federal Government to recover its rightful Medicaid
contribution. School Board President Peggy Cooper Cafritz and
Superintendent Paul Vance agreed to send to the subcommittee
details of their efforts to reduce special education costs by
educating more special needs students in the District of
Columbia, rather than in private placements.
Vance and Cafritz also testified that the District's
schools are showing some promise in terms of academic
performance. In the 1996-97 school year, 34 percent of DCPS
students tested at ``below basic'' for reading, according to
the Stanford 9 achievement tests. That figure dropped to 25
percent by the 2000-2001 academic year, as more students tested
at ``basic,'' ``proficient,'' or ``advanced'' levels. In
mathematics, the progress was even greater--a reduction in
``below basic'' from 57 percent in 1996-97 to 36 percent last
year.
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs
Hon. Doug Ose, Chairman
1. ``A Rush to Regulate--the Congressional Review Act and Recent
Federal Regulations,'' March 27, 2001
a. Summary.--Congress has a tool to disapprove regulations:
the Congressional Review Act [CRA]. The purpose of the hearing
was to examine some of the late-issued rules (since 1981,
popularly known as ``midnight'' rules) by the Clinton
administration and to ensure that the decisonmaking process was
careful and above reproach. The hearing considered not only
substantive concerns but also procedural flaws in issuance of
these rulemakings. Under law, Congress has two opportunities to
review agency regulatory actions: at the proposed rule stage
and at the final rule stage. Under the Administrative Procedure
Act, Congress can comment on agency proposed and interim rules
during the public comment period. Under the CRA, Congress can
disapprove an agency's final rule after it is promulgated.
In March 2001, the House and the Senate passed a joint
resolution of disapproval for the Department of Labor's major
rule establishing a new comprehensive ergonomics standard. The
reversal of the ergonomics rule was the first instance in which
the CRA resulted in nullification of a rule. The hearing
examined other recent major and significant rules for any rule
which may be an additional candidate for a CRA resolution of
disapproval. The potential candidates discussed included: the
Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's revised
debarment and suspension rule governing a ``satisfactory record
of integrity and business ethics'' for contracting with the
government; the Department of Agriculture's rule protecting
national forest system roadless areas; and, the Environmental
Protection Agency's rule establishing diesel fuel sulfur
control requirements for new motor vehicles. The subcommittee
also heard testimony on the importance of going through a
public rulemaking process when withdrawing or suspending a
rule.
Witnesses included: Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, director,
Regulatory Studies Program, Mercatus Center, George Mason
University and former Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; Marshall
E. Whitenton, vice president, Resources, Environment and
Regulation Department, National Association of Manufacturers;
Dr. Robert H. Nelson, professor, School of Public Affairs,
University of Maryland; Raymond E. Ory, vice president, Baker
and O'Brien, Inc.; Terry F. Gestrin, chairman, Valley County
Commissioners, Cascade, ID; Evan Hayes, wheat farmer, American
Falls, ID, representing the National Association of Wheat
Growers; Sharon Buccino, senior attorney, Natural Resources
Defense Council; and Thomas O. McGarity, W. James Kronzer
Chair, University of Texas School of Law.
2. ``Assessing the California Energy Crisis: How Did We Get to This
Point and Where Do We Go From Here?'' April 10, 2001
a. Summary.--The hearing, held in Sacramento, CA, focused
on the causes and effects of California's energy crisis, the
impact on California's economy, and the State and Federal
responses to the situation. The availability, reliability and
price of power are an integral part of our economic success.
The converse of that statement is also true: an unavailable,
unreliable, and expensive source of power will cause an
economic crisis. The State of California was facing an energy
crisis and had been stricken by rolling blackouts. The
subcommittee investigated the alleged overcharges by
electricity generators, including claims that electric supply
was withheld by generators. At its root, the crisis stemmed
from a dysfunctional market and a fundamental imbalance between
supply and demand. As the economy in California expanded and as
regulatory restrictions continued to make it difficult to build
new power plants and transmission facilities, demand
outstripped supply. A number of factors were expected to
further constrain supplies, such as below average rainfall,
which reduced hydroelectric supply, air emission restrictions,
and the lack of production from alternative energy suppliers
which were not paid for months.
The minority disagreed with the majority's conclusions,
noting that record-setting prices occurred in the absence of
historically high demand, no evidence indicated that clean air
regulations restricted the generation of electricity, and once
permits were submitted for construction of new power plants,
they were quickly approved. The minority pointed to withholding
of supplies and price gouging by electricity generators as
major contributing factors to the energy crisis.
Key witnesses included: Loretta Lynch, president,
California Public Utilities Commission; Terry Winter, president
and CEO, California Independent System Operator; and Kevin
Madden, general counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The subcommittee also heard from a panel of small businessmen
and farmers from the Sacramento area. The final panel featured:
William MacDonald, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior; and other witnesses pertaining to
water management policies for the Trinity River in northern
California.
3. ``Paperwork Inflation--Past Failures and Future Plans,'' April 24,
2001
a. Summary.--The Office of Management and Budget [OMB]
estimates the Federal paperwork burden on the public at 7.2
billion hours, at a cost of $190 billion a year. The purpose of
the hearing was to examine OMB's and the Federal agencies'
efforts to reduce paperwork, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act [PRA]. Much of the information that is gathered
in this paperwork is important, sometimes even crucial for the
government to function. However, much of it is duplicative and
unnecessary. In 1995, Congress passed amendments to the PRA of
1980 that set government-wide paperwork reduction goals of 10
or 5 percent per year from fiscal year 1996 to 2001. The goal
of PRA was to reduce red tape each year. These annual
reductions in paperwork, however, were not achieved. Instead,
paperwork burdens increased in each of the last 5 years.
The hearing discussed efforts to reduce paperwork and OMB's
role in closely scrutinizing paperwork burdens before they are
imposed on the public. Federal agencies should find less
burdensome ways to collect information. With the technology
available today, there is no reason why the burden on the
American public cannot be decreased.
Witnesses included: Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Sean
O'Keefe, Deputy Director, OMB; J. Christopher Mihm,
Governmentwide Management Issues Director, General Accounting
Office; Ken LaGrande, vice president, Sun Valley Rice; James M.
Knott, president and chief executive officer, Riverdale Mills
Corp.; John Nicholson, owner, Company Flowers; and Dr. John L.
Bobis, director of regulatory affairs, Aerojet.
4. ``Unfunded Mandates--A Five-Year Review and Recommendations for
Change,'' May 24, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing on the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act [UMRA] was a joint hearing with the Committee on Rules
Subcommittee on Technology and the House. In some cases
mandates are imposed directly by Congress, such as the minimum
wage, health insurance portability, and clean air. Some
mandates, however, come not from Congress, but from the Federal
agencies. After an outcry about the unfairness and burden of
unfunded mandates, Congress enacted UMRA in 1995. It was
designed ``[t]o curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on States and local governments; [and] to strengthen
the partnership between the Federal Government and State, local
and tribal governments.'' The act established new procedures
designed to ensure that both the legislative and executive
branches fully consider the potential effects of unfunded
Federal mandates before imposing them on State and local
governments or the private sector.
After 5 years, the principal question is, how well is UMRA
working? The hearing discussed the relative effectiveness of
the provisions governing the legislative branch and the
relative ineffectiveness of the provisions governing the
executive branch. In 1998, the General Accounting Office [GAO]
issued a report concluding that UMRA ``has had little effect on
agencies' rulemaking actions.'' GAO concluded that UMRA had
little impact on agency rulemaking because (1) most of the
economically significant rules during UMRA's first 2 years were
not subject to UMRA's requirements and (2) the agency analyses
appeared to meet most of UMRA's substantive requirements. The
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] has issued five annual
reports on agency compliance with UMRA. These reports revealed
from 13 to 17 proposed or final rules each year with a mandate
over $100 million. Some Members are concerned that part of the
reason for the ``little effect'' of UMRA on the executive
branch may be due to OMB's insufficient guidance and
ineffective oversight.
Witnesses included: Dan L. Crippen, Director, Congressional
Budget Office; Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, OMB; Paul S.
Mannweiler, Indiana State Representative and immediate past
president, National Conference of State Legislatures; Dr.
Raymond C. Scheppach, executive director, National Governors'
Association; Scott Holman, Sr., president and chief executive
officer, Bay Cast, Inc., Michigan, and chairman, Regulatory
Affairs Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Williams L.
Kovacs, vice president, Environment and Regulatory Affairs,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
5. ``Gasoline Supply: Another Energy Crisis?,'' June 14, 2001
a. Summary.--Even though demand for gasoline has risen
nearly every year since 1982, refining capacity since then
actually declined more than 10 percent. Added to the complexity
of the demand and supply situation for gasoline are the current
regulatory problems associated with high gasoline prices in
terms of declining refining capacity and the fragility and
instability of the gasoline market. Twenty years ago, the
Nation was essentially one single market for gasoline. Today,
the Nation has been balkanized into more than a dozen boutique
markets with their own specialized blends of gasoline. The
principal question about these boutique islands is not whether
these special blends are more or less expensive to produce than
conventional gasoline, but do they make the entire market less
stable? It seems that this overlay of regulatory barriers on
top of the current supply problems makes the market susceptible
to recurrent price spikes. The minority finds that regulation
is not the root cause of constraints in gasoline supplies--
refining capacity declined in response to low returns on
investment (due in part to excess refining capacity) and the
gasoline industry encouraged the use of boutique fuels.
Beyond this balkanization of the gasoline market is the
overarching regulation of gasoline under the Clean Air Act,
particularly the oxygenate mandate added by Congress in 1990.
Besides the regulatory problems, the hearing also explored
opportunities to change the web of regulations to ensure a
stable and adequate gasoline market. In addition, the
subcommittee looked into efforts to reduce the cost of crude
oil, the Federal Trade Commission's findings that price gouging
contributed to price spikes in the Midwest, and conservation.
Witnesses included: John Cook, Director, Petroleum
Division, Energy Information Administration, Department of
Energy; Robert D. Brenner, Acting Assistant Administrator,
Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency;
Dr. Don L. Coursey, professor, Harris School of Public Policy,
University of Chicago; Robert Slaughter, general counsel,
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association; Ben Lieberman,
senior policy analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute; and A.
Blakeman Early, environmental consultant, American Lung
Association.
6. ``Air Transportation--Customer Problems and Solutions,'' July 31,
2001
a. Summary.--Since Congress enacted the Airline
Deregulation Act in 1978, air fares have fallen, more cities
have more air service, and fatalities in the air have
decreased. However, there are still problems concerning
customer service, especially delays. In 2000, one in four
flights were late, diverted or canceled. There is a growing gap
between the demand for air transportation and the capacity to
meet that demand. Some believe that air transportation problems
can best be addressed by increasing airport capacity. The
Department of Transportation's [DOT] Federal Aviation
Administration [FAA] estimated an average 10 years planning
cycle for new commercial runways--from time of active planning
to the start of construction. In many cases, the process took
15 to 20 years. One factor contributing to this lengthy process
is due to the fact that there are approximately 40 Federal
laws, Executive orders, and regulations governing runway and
airport construction. The hearing explored the timetable for
regulatory streamlining to address airport capacity and the
growing demand for air transportation. It highlighted possible
solutions, such as shortened time lines, a better coordinated
review process that is simultaneous instead of sequential, and
time limits both at the Federal and State/local levels.
The minority also mentioned investment in high-speed rail.
One out of every three flights in the Nation is 350 miles or
less, and some of the most congested airports have a
disproportionate number of these short flights.
Witnesses included: Donna McLean, Assistant Secretary for
the Office of Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer,
DOT; Jane Garvey, Administrator, FAA, DOT; Ed Merlis, senior
vice president, legislative and international affairs, Air
Transport Association of America, Inc.; Todd Hauptli, senior
vice president, legislative affairs, American Association of
Airport Executives; Henry Ogrodzinski, president and chief
executive officer, National Association of State Aviation
Officials; David Krietor, aviation director, Phoenix Sky Harbor
Airport; and Sue Sandahl, council member at-large, Richfield
City Council, Minnesota.
7. ``FERC: Regulators in Deregulated Electricity Markets,'' August 2,
2001
a. Summary.--The root causes of the California energy
crisis include: a flawed market design, lack of supply growth
over the preceding decade, substantial demand growth in
California and the entire West, high natural gas prices, and
historic low hydroelectric levels. These factors contributed to
a serious deficiency in electric power supply and caused
wholesale energy prices to skyrocket. The minority finds that
withholding of supplies and price gouging by electricity
generators were major contributing factors. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission [FERC] had been criticized for its role
in electricity deregulation, especially with regard to
California. The hearing focused on FERC's ability to properly
monitor deregulated markets to ensure that electricity prices
are ``just and reasonable,'' as required under the Federal
Power Act. The purpose of the hearing was to determine how FERC
could improve its procedures to avoid a future crisis, like the
one experienced in California. It assessed FERC's vision for
market monitoring, as it outlined in Order 2000, agency staff
levels and experience, and FERC's plan for addressing unplanned
outages.
Key witnesses included: Kevin Madden, General Counsel,
FERC; Shelton Cannon, Deputy Director, Office of Markets,
Tariffs and Rates, FERC; James E. Wells, Director, Natural
Resources and Environment, General Accounting Office; Terry
Winter, president and chief executive officer, California
Independent System Operator; Phillip Harris, president and
chief executive officer, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; and
William Hogan, professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University.
8. ``Elevating EPA: Creating a New Cabinet Level Department,''
September 21, 2001
a. Summary.--Two bills were introduced to elevate the
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to a cabinet level
department; both were referred to the subcommittee. However,
H.R. 2438 and H.R. 2694 introduced by Congressman Sherwood
Boehlert and Congressman Steve Horn, respectively, take two
vastly different approaches. In addition Congressman Vernon
Ehlers introduced legislation, which would create a specific
Deputy Administrator for Science. Two of these bills suggest
the need for an evaluation of EPA's organization and structure
to achieve its mission. The hearing examined the differences in
the legislation as well as EPA's current organizational
structure. Since its inception in 1970 by a Nixon Executive
order, EPA has been an agency that was created piecemeal.
Although this piecemeal approach was effective at eliminating
numerous past sources of pollution, the Nation faces more
complex environmental challenges. Many have argued that dealing
with these more complicated environmental issues will require a
different approach than that embodied in the environmental laws
of the past and one requiring changes in EPA as well.
Witnesses included: Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert;
Representative Stephen Horn; Representative Vernon Ehlers; Dr.
J. Clarence Davies, senior fellow, Resources for the Future;
Dr. Janet L. Norwood, fellow, National Academy of Public
Administration; Dr. Robert W. Hahn, director, AEI-Brookings
Joint Center for Regulatory Affairs; and Janice Mazurek,
director, Center for Innovation and the Environment,
Progressive Policy Institute.
9. ``Natural Gas Infrastructure and Capacity Constraints,'' October 16,
2001
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the infrastructure and
capacity constraints in California, and the unprecedented high
natural gas prices. It also addressed the steps taken since May
2001 to realign the market and steps which still need to be
taken. During 2000 and 2001, southern California experienced
natural gas prices in the range of twice the national average
and at times up to $60 per million Btus at the California
border trading locations. The hearing also reviewed the factors
that may have contributed to high prices, including out-of-
balance supply and demand, limited interstate and intrastate
natural gas transmission lines, a key pipeline capacity
contract, and market manipulation. Since May 2001, prices have
stabilized due in part to actions taken by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission [FERC], California State agencies, and a
slowing economy. The hearing reviewed further actions and
authority that FERC may need to prevent unbalanced energy
prices from occurring elsewhere in the United States.
Key witnesses included: Pat Wood III, chairman, FERC;
Loretta Lynch, president, California Public Utilities
Commission; Michal C. Moore, commissioner, California Energy
Commission; Lad Lorenz, director, capacity and operational
planning, Southern California Gas Co.; Paul R. Carpenter,
principal, Brattle Group; Professor Joseph Kalt, John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Paul
Amirault, vice president, Marketing, Wild Goose Storage, Inc.;
and Gay Friedmann, senior vice president, legislative affairs,
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
10. ``What Regulations Are Needed to Ensure Air Security?'' November
27, 2001
a. Summary.--In over 5 years, the Department of
Transportation's [DOT] Federal Aviation Administration failed
to issue a final rule on certification of screening companies.
Since September 11, 2001, President Bush and Congress began to
examine the existing air security system, including the laws,
regulations, and actual practices. Much was found lacking. On
November 19th, President Bush signed a comprehensive Aviation
and Transportation Security Act written by Congress. The law
placed responsibility for air security in the hands of DOT.
Within 1 year, DOT is required to primarily use Federal
employees for passenger and baggage screening. In addition, the
law addresses many other areas of air security. The new law
establishes ``emergency procedures'' allowing DOT to issue
interim final regulations without any public notice and
comment. The hearing provided a useful forum for congressional
and public input into the regulatory decisionmaking process.
Witnesses included: Representative John Mica; Issac Yeffet,
former director of security for El-Al Airline; Ed Merlis,
senior vice president, legislative and international affairs,
Air Transport Association of America; Todd Hauptli, senior vice
president, legislative affairs, American Association of Airport
Executives; John O'Brien, director of engineering and air
safety, Air Line Pilots Association; Patricia Friend,
president, Association of Flight Attendants; Mark Roth, general
counsel, American Federation of Government Employees; and Paul
Hudson, executive director, Aviation Consumer Action Project.
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations
Hon. Stephen Horn, Chairman
1. ``Are the Financial Records of the Federal Government Reliable?''
March 30, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing was the first in a series of
oversight hearings to examine the financial management
practices at Federal departments and agencies, including the
Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Defense.
These hearings focused on the actions agencies have taken, or
need to take, to resolve the Federal Government's longstanding
financial management problems. The subcommittee issued its
annual financial management report card at this hearing,
grading each of the 24 major departments and agencies in the
executive branch on their financial management practices. The
Federal Government earned an overall grade of C- for fiscal
year 2000. During this hearing, witnesses stressed the
importance of improving the Government's financial
accountability and reporting.
2. ``Management Practices at the Internal Revenue Service,'' April 2,
2001
a. Summary.--During this hearing, the subcommittee examined
management practices at the Internal Revenue Service [IRS],
which is responsible for collecting 95 percent of the Federal
Government's annual revenue and for enforcing the Nation's tax
laws. This hearing focused on the IRS's progress in
implementing reforms required under the IRS Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 and on the General Accounting
Office's March 30, 2001, audit report. Hearing witnesses
included IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti and Chairman
Larry Levitan of the IRS Oversight Board. During the hearing,
witnesses expressed concern over the security of IRS computer
systems that safeguard the $2 trillion in tax revenue collected
in fiscal year 2000. Although the IRS still has difficulty
performing timely financial statements on an on-going basis,
the GAO reported that progress is being made. The IRS received
a clean audit opinion on its financial statements for fiscal
year 2000.
3. ``Regional Offices: Are they Vital in Accomplishing the Federal
Government's Mission?'' San Francisco, CA, April 9, 2001
a. Summary.--The current Federal Regional Office system was
established in 1969. In recent years, however, advancing
technology and expansion of the Internet has led the Federal
Government to focus more attention on e-government and its
potential to deliver Federal services more quickly. This field
hearing examined whether regional Federal offices are still
needed, given the speed and accessibility of electronic
communications. Witnesses discussed the background and earlier
need for these offices as well as many problems that continue
to exist, including Federal agencies' ``top-down'' management
style, which often imposes overly strict planning requirements
on their regional offices.
4. ``What are the Barriers to Effective Intergovernmental Efforts to
Stop the Flow of Illegal Drugs?'' San Diego, CA, April 13, 2001
a. Summary.--During this joint field hearing with the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources, the subcommittees explored the ways that various
levels of government could better work together to address the
problem of illegal drug trafficking in the Nation. The hearing
included testimony from witnesses representing key Federal,
State and local government organizations involved in narcotics
interdiction who discussed the challenges they confront in
their efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs. The
subcommittees also heard testimony from representatives of
community-based organizations that have successfully eliminated
blatant drug markets in their neighborhoods. The conclusions
drawn from this hearing include the need for better
communication and coordination between the various levels of
government, as well as better government partnering with
successful private sector and non-profit groups that have
demonstrated success in this effort.
5. ``The Alameda Corridor Project: Its Successes and Challenges,'' Long
Beach, CA, April 16, 2001
a. Summary.--This field hearing was held in Long Beach, CA,
to examine the successes and challenges of the Alameda Corridor
Project, a grade-separated rail link between the ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles and railway terminals near downtown Los
Angeles. The subcommittee learned that this $2.4 billion public
works project, one of the largest in the Nation, is proceeding
on time and within budget. Witnesses agreed that the success of
the project was largely due to the need to expedite cargo to
and from the busy port complex. Because the Alameda Corridor
project will benefit both public and private sectors as port
traffic continues to increase, there has been significant
cooperation among the ports, the railroads and the cities
affected by the project. In addition, overall management of the
project by the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority has
been extremely efficient and effective. Witnesses included
representatives from State and local government, the Alameda
Corridor Transportation Authority and the railroads involved in
the project.
6. ``Implementation of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of
1998: Why Haven't Federal Employees Been Held Accountable for
Millions of Dollars of Federal Travel Expenditures?'' May 1,
2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held this hearing to examine
the financial management of the Government travel card program.
Witnesses included representatives from the banks that issue
Government travel cards, the General Services Administration,
which administers the program, several Federal departments and
agencies that participate in the program, and the General
Accounting Office. The subcommittee learned that although the
Government is saving money by using the streamlined program,
the Department of Defense's contracting bank, the Bank of
America, reported that more than 40,000 Defense Department
employees have defaulted on more than $40 million in Federal
travel expenditures since the program began in November 1998.
Bank officials told the subcommittee that it was currently
writing off more than $2 million in Federal travel expenditures
each month. The subcommittee also learned that several Federal
agencies were also having trouble paying their centrally billed
accounts. According to bank officials, the Bank of America had
incurred more than $7.5 million in losses due to slow or non-
payments.
7. ``The Department of Defense: What Must be Done to Resolve DOD's
Longstanding Financial Management Problems?'' May 8, 2001
a. Summary.--During this hearing, the subcommittee examined
how the Defense Department accounts for the billions of tax
dollars it spends annually. The hearing focused on a March 30,
2001, audit report by the General Accounting Office in which
auditors found that, for the 5th consecutive year, the
Department of Defense was unable to maintain effective internal
controls over its financial management systems. Further, the
GAO found that the Defense Department did not comply with the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 and was
unable to account for many of its assets, estimate the costs
for cleaning up and disposing of extensive environmental
contaminants, or accurately document the net cost of its
operations. The subcommittee gave the department a grade of
``F'' on its annual financial management report card. The
Department of Defense receives approximately one-half of the
Federal Government's discretionary budget.
8. ``The Agency for International Development: What Must be Done to
Resolve USAID's Longstanding Financial Management Problems?''
May 8, 2001
a. Summary.--At this hearing, the subcommittee examined
financial management at the U.S. Agency for International
Development [USAID]. During fiscal year 2000, the USAID
received nearly $7 billion in appropriated funds and had a
reported $6.6 billion in net loans receivable outstanding. Yet
the USAID was unable to produce reliable, auditable financial
statements, according to the agency's Inspector General. The
Inspector General also reported that the USAID had several
material weaknesses in its internal controls and did not comply
with significant requirements of laws and regulations relating
to Federal financial management. The agency received an ``F''
on the subcommittee's annual financial management report card.
9. ``The Department of Agriculture: What Must be Done to Resolve USDA's
Longstanding Financial Management Problems?'' May 8, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held this hearing to examine
financial management at the Department of Agriculture, which
spends billions of dollars each year for a broad spectrum of
programs, including farm loans and nutrition programs, such as
Food Stamps. The department administers $124 billion in loans
and loan guarantees, but the subcommittee found that it
maintains some of the poorest financial records in the Federal
Government. At the hearing, representatives from the department
acknowledged the existence of serious financial management
problems and pledged to make improvements.
10. ``H.R. 866, a bill to prohibit the provision of financial
assistance by the Federal Government to any person who is more
than 60 days delinquent in the payment of any child support
obligation,'' June 6, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing examined a bill that would
prohibit financial assistance by the Federal Government to
anyone who is more than 60 days delinquent in the payment of
any child support obligation. Witnesses included Representative
Michael Bilirakis from Florida who introduced the bill,
representatives from Federal agencies that provide health
services and loans, and representatives of non-profit groups
concerned with child welfare. Concerns were raised that the
legislation could adversely affect children's welfare by
cutting financial aid to their non-custodial parents. In
addition, the subcommittee learned that delays in obtaining
timely information from the States could adversely affect non-
custodial parents who were attempting to fulfill their child-
support obligations.
11. ``How Effectively are State and Federal Agencies Working Together
to Implement the Use of New DNA Technologies?'' June 12, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing examined how State and Federal
law enforcement agencies are working together to ensure that
recently developed DNA technology is available and being used
to the fullest extent possible throughout the Nation. The use
of DNA evidence provides criminal investigators with a powerful
forensic tool that may either incriminate or clear a suspect.
The subcommittee learned that hundreds of thousands of DNA
samples have been collected nationwide, which has created
enormous processing backlogs for State and local forensic
laboratories. The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-546) authorized $45 million in grants over 3
years to address the convicted offender backlog and another
$125 million over 4 years to eliminate ongoing casework
backlogs. However, witnesses told the subcommittee that there
are serious shortages of forensic scientists who are trained in
DNA technology and laboratories that are capable of processing
DNA samples.
12. ``The Results Act: Has It Met Congressional Expectations?'' June
19, 2001
a. Summary.--The Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (Public Law 103-62) was enacted to encourage greater
efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in the Federal
Government. The Results Act requires Federal departments and
agencies to set goals and to use performance measures for
management purposes and future budgeting. The law requires
agencies to submit long-range strategic plans that are to be
updated every 3 years, as well as annual performance plans and
reports. The first performance reports comparing actual
performance to agency goals were submitted on March 31, 2000.
At the hearing, the subcommittee reviewed agency performance
plans and reports submitted on March 31, 2001, and discussed
several problem areas found in the reports. Specifically,
agency results were difficult to assess due, in part, to
overlapping programs and inadequate performance data. In
general, witnesses testified that the performance reports and
plans had major deficiencies. Witnesses concluded that
consistent Government oversight is needed to ensure that the
law is properly implemented.
13. ``Is the CIA's Refusal to Cooperate with Congressional Inquiries a
Threat to Effective Oversight of the Operations of the Federal
Government?'' July 18, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a joint hearing with the
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and
International Relations on effective oversight of the Central
Intelligence Agency. The hearing was a result of the Central
Intelligence Agency's unwillingness to cooperate with the
oversight activities of the two subcommittees. The Subcommittee
on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and
Intergovernmental Relations had requested the General
Accounting Office to conduct a survey of computer security
involving classified systems. With the exception of the CIA,
all Federal agencies responded to the survey. The CIA cited a
change in the rules of the House as justification for its
refusal to cooperate. At the hearing, witnesses agreed that the
CIA should be more responsive to congressional inquires.
However, they disagreed about the amount of information the
agency should disclose to committees other than the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The debate centered
on the definition of ``sources and methods.'' CIA advocates
argued that the agency's sources and methods encompass all of
the agency's activities and operations. Other witnesses defined
``sources and methods'' as the direct means of gathering
intelligence information.
14. ``The Defense Department's Illegal Manipulation of Appropriated
Funds,'' July 23, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on a General Accounting
Office [GAO] report, released at the hearing, which found that
the Department of Defense [DOD] made $615 million in illegal
and improper ``adjustments'' to closed appropriations accounts.
These ``adjustments'' enabled the DOD to resurrect and use
funds beyond the time limits imposed by congressional
appropriations and, perhaps, in amounts exceeding congressional
appropriations. The hearing explored how these illegal
adjustments were allowed to occur and what could be done to
prevent such abuses in the future. The DOD witnesses
acknowledged the problem and pledged to take appropriate
corrective actions. The subcommittee has asked the GAO to
determine what corrective actions the department has taken and
whether they are effective.
15. ``The Use and Abuse of Government Purchase Cards: Is Anyone
Watching?'' July 30, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the Federal Government's
purchase card programs at two units within the Department of
the Navy--the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center and the
Navy Public Works Center, both located in San Diego, CA.
Witnesses included the commanding officers at both facilities,
the admiral in charge of the facilities' purchase card program,
and other Defense Department agencies responsible for the
department's financial management. The subcommittee learned
that there was a proliferation of the Government-guaranteed
credit cards issued to employees at the facilities, yet there
was poor financial control over either program. The General
Accounting Office, which audited the programs, found several
cases of fraudulent use of the credit cards, and numerous
instances of questionable purchases, such as flowers, Mary Kay
cosmetics, designer briefcases and gift certificates to
Nordstrom.
16. ``Local Economy, Environment, and Intergovernmental Cooperation:
What Can Be Learned from Ft. Ord?'' Monterey, CA, August 28,
2001
a. Summary.--This field hearing examined the local impact
of the base closure process at Fort Ord in northern California.
During the 1991 Base Closure and Realignment [BRAC] process,
Fort Ord, an active army post from 1917 to 1994, was
recommended for closure. After the fort's closure in 1994, the
local community suffered a severe economic impact. According to
witnesses from cities surrounding the closed facility,
environmental hazards, such as lead paint and unexploded
ordinance, have hampered the reuse process. These witnesses
testified that various levels of government bureaucracy have
also slowed redevelopment. At the time of the hearing, only a
small percentage of the base's more than 27,000 acres had been
redeveloped. Additionally, local witnesses testified that a
plethora of State and Federal environmental laws coupled with
complex laws governing who is responsible for clean-up costs
continue to delay redevelopments and revitalization of the
local economy.
17. ``What Can Be Done to Reduce the Threats Posed By Computer Viruses
and Worms to the Workings of Government?'' San Jose, CA, August
29, 2001
a. Summary.--This field hearing highlighted the reported
damage to the Federal Government's computer systems resulting
from a rash of computer viruses and worms, including Code Red,
Code Red II, and SirCam. In addition, the hearing examined the
extent of the potential threat, emphasizing the need for
proactive measures to protect critical operations and assets
from more damaging attacks. Witnesses stressed the need for
software vendors to improve their development practices and
produce more secure systems. Although progress is being made in
these areas, witnesses emphasized that substantial challenges
remain.
18. ``Information Technology--Essential Yet Vulnerable: How Prepared
Are We for Attacks?'' September 26, 2001
a. Summary.--During this hearing, witnesses discussed the
probability of cyber-attacks against the Nation's critical
computer-dependent infrastructure and the Nation's preparedness
to deal with such attacks. Witnesses detailed the specific
types of security weaknesses that pervade Federal agencies and
demonstrated how these weaknesses increase the potential for
cyber-attacks against targets such as the networks that control
critical information and operations. In addition, witnesses
summarized the lessons learned from the September 11, 2001,
attacks, and made recommendations on the actions that are
necessary to strengthen the overall security of the Nation's
information infrastructure.
19. ``A Silent War: Are Federal, State, and Local Governments Prepared
for Biological and Chemical Attacks?'' October 5, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held this hearing to examine
the Nation's ability to respond to biological or chemical
attacks. Witnesses included Federal, State and local officials
who are responsible for responding to national emergencies and
others who have special expertise in the area of biological/
chemical attacks. The subcommittee learned that although
progress has been made toward coordinating Federal, State and
local efforts to respond to emergencies, several problems
remain that could impede the Nation's ability to respond to a
large-scale emergency. These impediments include an
inadequately funded public health system, hospitals' inability
to handle massive casualties, an inadequate national
pharmaceutical stockpile of vaccines and antibiotics, and the
poor flow of intelligence information from Federal law
enforcement agencies to local police departments.
20. ``The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996: How Well Is It
Working?'' October 10, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing was the latest in a series of
hearings held by the subcommittee to examine Federal debt
collection practices in general and implementation of the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996 [DCIA] in particular. The
DCIA established new tools and expanded existing ones to
enhance the collection of non-tax-related Federal debt. The
subcommittee received testimony from the General Accounting
Office and the Departments of Education, Health and Human
Services, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs on their progress in
implementing the DCIA. The hearing also explored the results of
a survey the subcommittee conducted to examine how effectively
27 major Federal agencies were implementing the DCIA. The
hearing demonstrated that, while some progress has been made,
agencies must do a much better job in collecting delinquent
debts. For example, not one major agency fully complied with
the DCIA's basic mandate to refer eligible debts to the
Treasury Department once they become more than 180 days
delinquent. The subcommittee plans to issue an oversight report
on this subject next year.
21. ``Oversight Hearing on The Presidential Records Act of 1978,''
November 6, 2001
a. Summary.--The Presidential Records Act declared
Presidential records to be Federal property and placed them in
the custody and control of the Archivist of the United States.
The act first applied to the records of the Reagan
administration. In January 2001, many of the Reagan records
became subject to public disclosure under the terms of the act.
However, concerns over how to handle potential ``Executive
privilege'' claims have delayed the release of the records.
Shortly before the subcommittee's hearing, President Bush
issued Executive Order No. 13233 (November 1, 2001), which
established new procedures to deal with Executive privilege
claims of a former or incumbent President concerning records
subject to the act. During the hearing, the subcommittee
examined the impact of the Executive order on the Presidential
Records Act. Administration witnesses defended the new
Executive order. However, other witnesses expressed concern
that the order violates the Presidential Records Act and would
impede disclosure of a former President's records. Subsequent
to the hearing, the subcommittee received many other
expressions of opposition to the order on both legal and policy
grounds. The subcommittee is pursuing this issue and
considering the possibility of corrective legislation.
22. ``Computer Security: How is the Government Doing?'' November 9,
2001
a. Summary.--At this hearing, the subcommittee issued its
second annual computer security report card, grading the 24
major executive branch departments and agencies on their
computer security efforts. With assistance from the General
Accounting Office [GAO], the subcommittee analyzed recent
information security audits and evaluations of Federal agencies
by the GAO and agency Inspectors General. The subcommittee
found that pervasive weaknesses continue to exist in agency
information systems. During the hearing, the GAO identified
serious weaknesses at Federal departments and agencies and
outlined major common weaknesses that agencies need to address
to improve their information security programs. The GAO
emphasized the importance of establishing a strong agencywide
security program at each agency and developing a comprehensive
governmentwide strategy for improvement. Witnesses discussed
the administration's efforts to strengthen the security of the
Nation's computer and communications systems and outlined the
Office of Management and Budget's role in improving agency
security programs by making adequate security a condition for
approving all budget requests.
23. ``Law Enforcement: Are Federal, State and Local Agencies Working
Together Effectively?'' November 13, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing followed up on the subcommittee's
October 5, 2001, hearing in which witnesses testified that
following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Federal
law enforcement agencies failed to provide sufficient
intelligence information to local police departments in a
timely manner. Witnesses included representatives from Federal
law enforcement agencies, local police departments, and a
mayor. Local government officials testified that their
inability to obtain a Government security clearance seriously
impeded their efforts to obtain information and protect their
communities. Representative Horn subsequently introduced
legislation to extend security clearance background checks to
Governors, mayors of cities with a population of 30,000 or
more, and police chiefs of departments that participate in
Federal joint task forces.
24. ``Does America Need a National Identifier?'' November 16, 2001
a. Summary.--The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
renewed calls for a national identification system to improve
national security. The recent lapses in identification security
prompted the subcommittee to hold a hearing to examine the
public policy implications of a national identification system,
including civil liberties, law enforcement, security and
technical issues. At this hearing, witnesses debated the
necessity of an improved national identity system. While both
panels agreed that some improvements to the identity system are
necessary, witnesses did not support a mandatory national
identification card. On the second panel, witnesses voiced
differing views on the technological feasibility of a
centralized national identification database. Subcommittee
members also received testimony from a representative of
Belgium, a country that requires citizens to carry a national
identification card.
25. ``The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996: How Well Is It
Working?'' December 5, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the
subcommittee's October 10, 2001, hearing on implementation of
the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. One of the
witnesses scheduled to testify at that hearing, Deputy
Secretary of Agriculture James R. Moseley, was unable to
attend. The primary purpose of the December 5 hearing was to
receive Mr. Moseley's testimony. As such, it focused on debt
collection at the Department of Agriculture. The subcommittee
also received testimony from the General Accounting Office and
the Treasury Department's Financial Management Service on the
Agriculture Department's debt-collection practices. The hearing
exposed serious deficiencies in the Agriculture Department's
debt-collection efforts. It also elicited a strong personal
commitment from Deputy Secretary Moseley to improve the
department's debt-collection performance during 2002. The
subcommittee intends to track the department's progress during
the coming year.
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International
Relations
Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman
1. ``Defense Security Service: Mission Degradation?'' March 2, 2001
a. Summary.--This was the third hearing the subcommittee
convened on DSS operational problems. The DOD's Defense
Security Service [DSS] administers the Personnel Security
Investigations [PSI] program for conducting security clearance
background investigations. The purpose of March 2, 2001 hearing
was to examine the status of Defense Security Service [DSS]
efforts to eliminate the personnel security investigations
backlog.
The subcommittee wanted to determine what progress the
Defense Security Service [DSS] made in reducing the personnel
security investigations backlog, and how DOD determined DSS
processing delays and system changes have not compromised
national security. Witnesses included Mr. Robert J. Lieberman,
Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General,
Department of Defense; Mr. Arthur L. Money, Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Security and Information Operations, Command,
Control, Communications and Intelligence, Department of
Defense; and, General Charles Cunningham, Director, Defense
Security Service.
In 2000, at the subcommittee's request, the General
Accounting Office [GAO] completed a review of the DSS personnel
security investigation backlog entitled, ``DOD Personnel: More
Actions Needed to Address Backlog of Security Clearance
Reinvestigations,'' (GAO/NSIAD-00-215, August 2000).
In order to reduce the investigations backlog and reduce
the time it takes to close personnel security investigation
cases, DOD has transferred some of the caseload to the Office
of Personnel and Management [OPM] and is considering changing
some investigation standards. However, DSS continues to have
operation problems with the Case Control Management System
[CCMS], which hampers the agency's ability to track security
clearance requests, provide feedback to requestors on case
status, and reduce the personnel security investigation
backlog.
2. ``F-22 Cost Controls: How Realistic are Production Cost Reduction
Plan Estimates?'' August 2, 2001
a. Summary.--This was the second hearing the subcommittee
has convened regarding F-22 cost controls. The purpose of the
hearing was a continuation of the subcommittee's examination of
Production Cost Reduction Plans [PCRP] for the F-22 program to
determine the implementation status of best business practices,
outsourcing and improvements in manufacturing and procurement
processes. Witnesses included Mr. Allen Li, Director; Mr.
Robert Murphy, Assistant Director; and Mr. Donald Springman,
Senior Analyst, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S.
General Accounting Office; Mrs. Darleen A. Druyun, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force-Acquisition and
Management; Dr. George Schneiter, Director of Strategic and
Tactical Systems, Department of the Air Force; and Mr. Francis
P. Summers, Regional Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency.
The subcommittee has been conducting a review of production
cost reduction plans [PCRP] for the F-22 program to determine
the extent of realized cost savings, the potential for
additional savings and the value of improvements in
manufacturing and procurement processes.
As part of the examination, the subcommittee requested that
the General Accounting Office [GAO] review the status of
production cost reduction plans. GAO reported a very sizeable
difference between the Air Force Program Office and the OSD-
Cost Analysis Improvement Group [CAIG] projections of total F-
22 production costs. Comparison of the two estimates, adjusted
for a 339 aircraft buy, indicated a difference of $7 billion as
of December 2000. (GAO-01-782) The $7 billion variance
represents fully 15 percent of the F-22 production budget, a
large margin of error even in the imprecise field of weapon
system cost estimation, and adds substantial risk to the F-22
program.
The Air Force and OSD remain unable to reconcile the
production cost estimates to bring them within a tolerable
range of variance. In an attempt to analyze the difference, GAO
and the subcommittee requested access to cost estimate records
prepared by the OSD-CAIG, including briefings about the
estimates, the methodologies used, and supporting analyses. The
request was denied by the Department.
DOD refusal to provide GAO and the subcommittee access to
production cost estimation data and detailed methodologies
prevent a complete analysis of the factors contributing to the
estimating differences between the two production cost figures.
But it is clear one major area of disagreement is valuation of
PCRPs.
3. ``Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud and Abuse: GAO Views on National
Defense and International Relations Programs,'' March 7, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to
look at high-risk operations and management challenges at the
departments and agencies involved in national security,
veterans' affairs, international relations and international
trade. The hearing examined the major performance and
management challenges confronting the Departments of Defense,
Energy, NASA, Veterans Affairs, State, and USAID, to what
extent these departments and agencies are implementing
management improvements and reforms, and how these departments
and agencies are meeting performance and accountability
measurements and goals under the Results Act.
David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. General
Accounting Office [GAO], testified on recent GAO findings of
significant management challenges and high risks of fraud,
waste and abuse in DOD, VA, Department of State and the other
agencies.
4. ``Vulnerabilities to Waste, Fraud and Abuse: Inspectors General
Views on National Defense, International Relations Programs,''
March 15, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to
look at high-risk operations and management challenges at the
departments and agencies involved in defense, national
security, and veterans' affairs. The hearing examined the major
performance and management challenges confronting the
Departments of Defense, Energy, Veterans Affairs, NASA, FEMA,
State, USAID, the Peace Corps, and the International Trade
Commission, to what extent these departments and agencies are
implementing management improvements and reforms, and how these
departments and agencies are meeting performance and
accountability measurements and goals under the Results Act.
Inspectors General from the Departments of Defense, Energy,
Veterans Affairs, NASA, FEMA, State, USAID, the Peace Corps and
the U.S. International Trade Commission testified on
vulnerabilities and management challenges. They also discussed
Results Act compliance with each department and the application
of Results Act principles and measures to address potential
problems of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.
5. ``Protecting American Interests Abroad: U.S. Citizens, Businesses
and Non-governmental Organizations,'' April 3, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to
look at the types of security threats, particularly terrorist
threats, posed to non-official American interests overseas, and
to review what U.S. Government agencies are doing to address
those threats. The hearing examined the nature of the threat(s)
posed to American citizens, businesses, and non-governmental
organizations overseas, what the U.S. Government is doing to
address the threat(s), and what the U.S. Government can do to
better protect American interests abroad.
Witnesses from private security associations, private
organizations, the Department of State, the FBI, and USAID
testified on programs to make U.S. citizens abroad aware of
security threats. Information sharing and risk assessment
programs were discussed, as well as the need for security
training for citizens and organizations operating abroad.
6. ``Rule of Law Assistance Programs: Limited Impact, Limited
Sustainability,'' May 17, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to
examine whether the U.S. Government has learned from past
mistakes with rule-of-law assistance programs in places such as
Haiti and Latin America, and to examine the impact of existing
funding in the former Soviet Union, evaluating whether or not
funding has been effective and sustainable. The hearing
examined what has been done by USAID and the Departments of
State, Justice, and Treasury to ensure rule-of-law assistance
programs in the former Soviet Union are effective and
sustainable and how effectively rule-of-law assistance programs
have been monitored and evaluated.
GAO testified on the results of work done at the
subcommittee's request regarding the results of aid programs
intended to foster the rule of law and civil society. State
Department, USAID and Treasury Department witnesses also
testified on the planning and evaluation process used to
determine whether rule of law programs are achieving
anticipated results.
7. ``Federal Interagency Data-Sharing and National Security,'' July 24,
2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to
look at the Justice Department's Anti-Drug Network/Nigerian
Crime Initiative [ADNET/NCI] as one example of interagency
data-sharing to learn the most significant obstacles to
information sharing among Federal agencies and to review the
impact of data-sharing on national security. The hearing
examined the status of the Anti-Drug Network/Nigerian Crime
Initiative [ADNET/NCI] pilot project, the most significant
obstacles to interagency data-sharing, and how greater
interagency data-sharing could enhance national security.
The Departments of Defense, State, Justice and Treasury
testified on the status of the ADNET/NCI and the implications
of that effort for broader data sharing to enhance border
security and counter terrorism efforts.
8. ``Combating Terrorism: Management of Medical Stockpiles,'' May 1,
2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to assess the
status of corrective actions taken by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention [CDC], the Office of Emergency
Preparedness [OEP], the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA],
and the U.S. Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response
Force [CBIRF] to address the internal control weaknesses and
General Accounting Office [GAO] recommendations regarding
medical stockpile management. The hearing examined how the
agencies addressed GAO recommendations and whether the
stockpiles are managed effectively.
GAO testified on followup work done for the subcommittee on
management controls over Federal medical and pharmaceutical
stockpiles held for use in the event of a terrorist incident.
Witnesses from VA, HHS, CDC and the Marine Corps testified on
their plans to expand and improve the composition and inventory
management of stockpile programs.
9. ``Hepatitis C: Screening in the VA Health Care System,'' June 14,
2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to assess the
Department of Veterans Affairs' efforts to screen and test
veterans for the Hepatitis C Virus [HCV]. The hearing examined
why screening and testing for HCV has been limited and
inconsistent, and why VA personnel weren't made aware of the
funding available for screening and testing veterans for HCV.
GAO and VA witnesses discussed the limited results to date
of the VA's initiative to screen and test veterans for
Hepatitis C infection. While new data provided at the hearing
suggests 49 percent of veterans using VA health care facilities
since 1999 have been screened, versus only 20 percent by
another indicator, GAO found that up to 90 percent could have
been screened. Weaknesses and inconsistencies in the VA program
were discussed.
10. ``Biological Warfare Defense Vaccine Research and Development
Programs,'' October 23, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to assess the
role vaccines play in civilian preparedness. The hearing
examined the near and long term roles of vaccines in
preparedness against biological warfare and terrorism, and how
adaptable the current regulatory process is to the development
and approval of bio-warfare defense vaccines.
HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, GAO, DOD, and private vaccine
makers testified on the scientific and logistical barriers to
vaccine research and production and the departures from current
regulatory standards required to assess vaccine efficacy
against rare pathogens.
11. ``Chemical and Biological Defense: Department of Defense Medical
Readiness,'' November 7, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held a hearing to assess the
Department of Defense's capacity to provide medical support to
military personnel in the event of a chemical or biological
attack. The hearing examined the extent to which the Department
of Defense and the services adapted their medical specialty mix
to chemical and biological warfare threats, and the extent of
medical personnel training in the treatment of chemical and
biological [CB] casualties.
The General Accounting Office testified on the results of a
GAO report entitled, ``Chemical and Biological Defense: DOD
Needs to Clarify Expectations for Medical Readiness.'' GAO
found DOD and the services had not fully addressed weaknesses
and gaps in modeling, planning, training, tracking, or
proficiency testing for the treatment of CB casualties. Dr.
William Winkenwerder, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs testified on behalf of the Department of Defense, and
was accompanied by the Surgeons General of the Air Force, Army,
and Navy.
12. ``Risk Communication: National Security and Public Health,''
November 26, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to
look at the application of risk communication strategies to
Federal efforts to disseminate information on bioterrorism
threats. The hearing examined how effectively the Federal
Government disseminated information to the public on
bioterrorism threats, and how physicians and public health
experts have been involved in the formulation and
implementation of Federal communication strategies.
Dr. David Satcher, U.S. Surgeon General testified on the
Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] efforts toward
information dissemination and risk communication on
bioterrorism threats. Dr. C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon
General; Dr. Kenneth I. Shine, president of the Institute of
Medicine; Dr. Mohammed Akhter, executive director, for the
American Public Health Association; and Dr. Joseph Waeckerle,
speaking on behalf of the American College of Emergency
Physicians; testified on the government's lack of effective
risk communication on bioterrorism threats.
13. ``Military Aircraft: Cannibalizations Adversely Affect Personnel
and Maintenance,'' May 22, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to
discuss the impact of the U.S. military's practice of
cannibalization of aircraft parts on readiness, costs and
personnel. The hearing examined the extent to which the Air
Force, Navy/Marines, and Army rely on cannibalization of
aircraft parts to maintain readiness, and to what extent the
military has identified the effects of cannibalization on
costs, personnel, operating tempo, and morale. The conclusions
were that cannibalizations have several adverse impacts. They
increase maintenance costs by increasing workloads, may affect
morale and the retention of personnel, and sometimes result in
the unavailability of expensive aircraft for long periods of
time. Cannibalizations can also create unnecessary mechanical
problems for maintenance personnel. Moreover, the service
branches consider cannibalizations a normal practice, contrary
to Pentagon policy, as long as shortages and delayed delivery
schedules exist of new aircraft parts.
Witnesses were from the General Accounting Office, and the
top logistics officers of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and
U.S. Navy.
14. ``Sustaining Critical Military Training Facilities: Avon Park Air
Force Range,'' August 4, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee held an oversight hearing to
look at military training range management issues. The hearing
examined the extent to which the Avon Park Air Force Range has
confronted encroachment issues such as compatibility of range
usage with current and planned local development, airspace
access, natural resource conservation, and environmental
compliance.
Department of Defense military and civilian personnel, the
Federal Aviation Administration, and local officials testified
about the management challenges facing the Avon Park Air Force
Range and the surrounding communities.
15. ``Law Enforcement: Are Federal, State, and Local Agencies Working
Together Effectively?'' November 13, 2001
a. Summary.--The Subcommittee on Government Efficiency,
Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources, and the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans
Affairs and International Relations held a joint oversight
hearing to look at how effectively Federal and local law
enforcement agencies are sharing information. The hearing
examined what actions Federal law enforcement agencies have
taken to improve information sharing with local enforcement
agencies, what further actions are needed, whether Federal
agencies are fully utilizing the resources of local law
enforcement agencies, whether shared information has led to
increased surveillance, arrests, and convictions of criminals,
and whether data-sharing programs have proved cost effective.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Drug Enforcement
Agency, and representatives from several cities testified about
the effectiveness of data sharing in combating crime and
protecting national interests.
16. ``Combating Terrorism: In Search of a National Strategy,'' March
27, 2001
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine why
the Federal effort to combat terrorism remains fragmented and
unfocused. The hearing focused on two questions--What is the
current national strategy to combat terrorism, and who in the
U.S. Government is in charge of coordinating all Federal agency
efforts to counter terrorism?
Representatives from the RAND Corp., U.S. Commission on
National Security/21st Century, Advisory Panel to Assess the
Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons
of Mass Destruction, and Center for Strategic and International
Studies testified.
17. ``Combating Terrorism: Options to Improve the Federal Response,''
April 24, 2001
a. Summary.--The hearing was held in conjunction with the
Committee on Transportation's Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. The
purpose of the hearing was to examine three legislative
proposals, H.R. 525, Preparedness Against Domestic Terrorism
Act of 2001, H.R. 1158, National Homeland Security Agency Act,
and H.R. 1292, Homeland Security Strategy Act of 2001. Each
bill proposes to reorganize the Federal counterterrorism
structure. The hearing focused on two questions--What is the
current organizational structure of the Federal Government to
combat terrorism, and how might the legislative proposals
produce a more effective and efficient organization of the
Federal Government to counter terrorism?
Witnesses testifying included Representative Wayne
Gilchrest (MD), Representative Mac Thornberry (TX),
Representative Ike Skelton (MO), the U.S. General Accounting
Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Advisory Panel
to Assess the Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, the U.S. Commission on
National Security/21st Century, the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, and the Henry L. Stimson Center.
18. ``The Biological Weapons Convention Protocol: Status and
Implications,'' June 5, 2001
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to continue the
subcommittee's review of United States participation in efforts
to develop a compliance protocol for the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their
Destruction [BWC]. The hearing focused on the questions--How
was it determined the BWC Protocol, in its present form, will
improve the verifiability of the BWC, and what additional
mechanisms, under discussion, could be used to strengthen and
improve implementation of the BWC?
Witnesses included representatives from the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America, Sandia National
Laboratory, National War College, Henry L. Stimson Center, and
Federation of American Scientists.
19. ``The Biological Weapons Convention Protocol: Status and
Implications,'' July 10, 2001
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to continue the
subcommittee's review of United States participation in efforts
to develop a compliance protocol for the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their
Destruction [BWC]. The hearing focused the questions--How was
it determined the BWC Protocol, in its present form, will
improve the verifiability of the BWC, and what additional
mechanisms under discussion could be used to strengthen and
improve implementation of the BWC?
Witnesses included representatives from the Department of
State and former officials who represented the United States at
the BWC negotiations.
20. ``Combating Terrorism: Federal Response to a Biological Weapons
Attack,'' July 23, 2001
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
relationship between Federal and State governments during a
biological weapons attack, and highlight the lessons learned
from exercise Dark Winter. The hearing focused on the
questions--How would the Federal Government react to a
biological weapons attack on the United States, and what is the
role of the National Guard during a biological weapons attack
on the United States?
Witnesses included the Governor of Oklahoma,
representatives from the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, Kroll Associates, and
the Adjutant General of Connecticut, the Adjutant General of
Florida, representatives from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, Iowa Department of Public Health, and the
Public Health Department, Seattle & King County, WA.
21. ``Combating Terrorism: Assessing the Threat of Biological
Terrorism,'' October 12, 2001
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
factors that should be considered in assessing the risks of
biological terrorism. The hearing focused on two questions--To
what extent are assessments needed to address the threat of
biological terrorism, and how are the intentions and
capabilities of State and non-state actors measured in
assessing the threat of biological terrorism?
Witnesses included representatives from the U.S. General
Accounting Office, the President of Advanced Bio-Systems, Inc.,
RAND Corp., and George Washington University.
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy
Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Chairman
1. ``Telework Policies,'' March 22, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight
hearing to examine Federal Government agency efforts to create
and promote telecommuting initiatives that permit employees to
work away from the traditional work site, either at home or at
telecommuting centers in compliance with section 359 of Public
Law 106-346. We found that with a few exceptions, Federal
agencies have been reluctant to implement telecommuting
policies due to the radical change in work culture that is
required. OPM expressed its commitment to the initiative, but
was clearly in the beginning stages of establishing a
governmentwide policy. Additionally, the GSA-managed
telecenters were found to be underperforming and we were
unconvinced that GSA has marketed them to the fullest
potential. The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Steve
Cohen, Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management;
Mr. David Bibb, Acting Deputy Director of the General Services
Administration; Mr. Mark Lindsey, Acting Administrator of the
Federal Railway Administration; Mr. Tony Young, director of the
National Industries for the Severely Handicapped; Dr. Bradley
Allenby, vice president of Environment, Health and Safety for
AT&T; and Ms. Jennfier Alcott, director of the Fredericksburg
Regional Telework Center as to the cultural and technological
barriers to successful telework initiatives.
The subcommittee indicated that it would continue to
monitor the development and implementation of a governmentwide
telecommuting policy, including the use of telecenters.
2. ``Enterprise-Wide Strategies for Managing Information Resources and
Technology: Learning from State and Local Governments,'' April
3, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing followed a hearing held by the
then-Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and
Technology [GMIT] in September 2000 that looked at the merits
of establishing a Chief Information Officer [CIO] for the
Federal Government. The GMIT hearing highlighted the
infrastructural complications and deficiencies that now exist
because of the lack of a Federal CIO. The purpose of the
subcommittee's April 3rd hearing was to more closely examine
the potential role of a Federal CIO by looking at the various
approaches that a number of State and local governments have
implemented to manage and oversee information and information
resources, including the use of IT enterprise-wide and the
promotion of electronic government.
The hearing furthered the goal of Chairman Davis and
Ranking Member Turner, who have both expressed deep concerns
about the lack of coordination across government with respect
to IT management and other information resources. As a result
of their efforts to centralize the coordination of their IT
capital planning, funding, personnel, and training across
government, each of the State and local CIO witnesses testified
with respect to the cost-savings, efficiencies, and improved
service to citizens they have been able to achieve. The hearing
provided a clear picture to the subcommittee of the benefits,
obstacles, and solutions that States and local governments have
accomplished by centralizing the management of their
information resources, whether it be through a CIO or a panel
of technology managers, and it demonstrated how those lessons
learned could be applied to similar efforts at the Federal
level. The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. David McClure,
Director of Information Technology Management Issues for the
U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Aldona Valicenti, president
of the National Association of State Information Resources
Executives and chief information officer for the State of
Kentucky; Mr. Donald Upson, secretary of technology for the
Commonwealth of Virginia; Mr. Charlie Gerhards, deputy
secretary for information technology, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; Mr. David Molchany, chief information officer of
Fairfax County, VA; and Mr. Donald Evans, chief information
officer of Public Technology, Inc.
3. ``FTS 2001: How And Why Transition Delays Have Decreased Competition
And Increased Prices,'' April 26, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing addressed the progress of the FTS
2001 program, which provides long distance telecommunication
services to Federal agencies. The FTS 2001 program is managed
by the GSA and it is the follow-on to the FTS 2000 program
which provided long distance telecommunications services to
Federal agencies. The subcommittee sought to discover how the
government had updated its strategy under the FTS 2001 program
to achieve the overall goals of the program. A significant and
growing part of the Federal Government's mission is enhanced
service delivery to citizens, agencies, and State and local
governments. Delays in agency acquisition of end-to-end network
services could impede progress to delivering more information
and services electronically. Insufficient contract management
appears to have slowed this goal. As the manager of FTS 2001,
GSA is responsible for overall contract management and
administration, coordination and procurement of services,
planning, engineering and performance support to agencies, and
customer service. At the hearing, it was not evident that
agencies received the necessary support from GSA to manage
their transitions. Moreover, it was unclear what actions GSA
took to monitor contractor performance and rapidly remedy
transition problems. The GAO states that GSA eliminated
contract performance requirements until the completion of
transition and was not able to establish a database to manage
and track transition until January 2001.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Ms. Linda Koontz,
Associate Director, Governmentwide and Defense Information
Systems of the U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Sandra
Bates, Commissioner of the Federal Technology Service of the
General Services Administration; Brigadier General Gregory
Premo, Deputy Director of Operations for the Defense
Information Systems Agency, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr.
James Flyzik, Chief Information Officer of the U.S. Department
of Treasury; Mr. Jerry Edgerton, senior vice president of
Worldcom Federal Systems; Mr. Anthony D'Agata, vice president
and general manager of Sprint Government Systems Division; Mr.
John Doherty, vice president, AT&T Government Markets; and Mr.
James F.X. Payne, senior vice president of Qwest
Communications.
The subcommittee intends to continue to monitor the
progress of telecommunications procurement and management for
the Federal Government. The subcommittee will continue to
review the progress of FTS 2001 to ensure the Federal
Government is updating its telecommunications acquisition
strategy to secure up-to-date services at the best value.
4. ``The Next Steps in Services Acquisition Reform: Learning from the
Past, Preparing for the Future,'' May 22, 2001
a. Summary.--The hearing addressed and examined the
progress of the acquisition reform initiatives undertaken in
the early to mid-nineties. This hearing assessed the next steps
in services acquisition reform. The streamlining, cost savings,
access to technological advancements, and reduced procurement
cycles have dramatically improved the quality of products and
services purchased by the Federal Government. The subcommittee
reviewed the success or failure of implementation efforts
governmentwide. Additionally, the hearing examined what
subsequent legislation is necessary to further streamline
procurement and achieve greater utilization of commercial best
practices. The Federal Government purchases $87 billion in
services a year. In order to ensure the government is
maximizing efficiency for service contracting, the subcommittee
reviewed workforce training, contract management, and the
utilization of performance-based contracting and share-in-
savings contracting. The subcommittee examined the rapid growth
of service contracting over the past decade. According to the
General Accounting Office [GAO], since fiscal year 1990, the
dollar value of service contracts has increased by 24 percent.
Service contracting accounts for 43 percent of the government's
total contracting expenses--larger than any other contracting
expenditure. While there is no doubt that increased competition
and growth in services contracting has led to greater
efficiency for the Federal Government, there is evidence to
suggest that agencies are having increased difficulty in
managing the growing number of complex, multi-tiered service
contracts.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. David Cooper,
Director, Contracting Issues of the U.S. General Accounting
Office; Mr. David Oliver, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logisitics for the U.S. Department
of Defense; Mr. David Drabkin, Deputy Associate Administrator
for Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy of the
General Services Administration; Dr. Steven Kelman, Albert J.
Weatherhead III and Richard W. Weatherhead professor of public
management at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University; Mr. Michael Mutek, senior vice president,
general counsel and secretary of Raytheon Technical Information
Services testifying on behalf of the Professional Services
Council; and Mr. Mark Wagner, manager, Federal Government
Affairs of Johnson Controls testifying on behalf of Contract
Services Association.
The subcommittee intends to hold additional legislative
hearings on services acquisition reform in spring 2002.
5. ``Ensuring Program Goals Are Met: A Review of the Metropolitan Area
Acquisition Program,'' June 13, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the progress of the MAA
program. The subcommittee explored whether or not the program
has accomplished its primary goals of: (1) ensuring the best
service and price for the government and (2) maximizing
competition for services. Specifically, we reviewed the
problems that Federal Government agencies in phase I and II
cities encountered in transitioning to the MAA program.
Additionally, this oversight hearing focused on what further
action the General Services Administration, working with
Federal agencies, needs to take in order to achieve the
programmatic goals of the MAA. The MAA program was initiated by
GSA in 1997 in order to capitalize on the goals in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. That act was intended to
promote competition and higher quality services for consumers
while reducing regulations to lower prices and facilitate the
deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Accordingly,
GSA's Federal Technology Service designed the ambitious MAA
program in conjunction with Congress and the vendor community.
GSA encountered many program challenges in implementing the
goals of the program and did not adequately attempt to update
the overall acquisition strategy once problems were identified.
Often, there was a failure to communicate between FTS regions
and headquarters. While it is clear that many of the hurdles
that have existed nationwide within the telecommunications
marketplace contributed to MAA program delays, it does not
appear the FTS shared problems and solutions among user cities
to eliminate future impediments to transition.
The subcommittee heard from testimony from Ms. Linda
Koontz, Associate Director, Governmentwide and Defense
Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Sandra
Bates, Commissioner of the Federal Technology Service of the
General Services Administration; Commander Robert Day,
Commanding Officer Coast Guard Electronic Support Boston of the
U.S. Coast Guard; Mr. John Doherty, vice president of AT&T
Government Markets; Mr. James F.X. Payne, senior vice president
of government systems of Qwest Communications; Mr. Randall L.
Lucas, vice president of sales, Federal Markets of Verizon
Federal Inc.; Mr. Jerry Hogge, vice president of government
solutions and enhanced service providers of Winstar; and Mr.
David Page, vice president, Federal Systems of Bell South
Business Systems.
The subcommittee will continue to review what impact the
delays in transition had on the MAA program and additional
solutions for updating the Federal Government's local
telecommunications acquisition strategy.
6. ``The Best Services at The Lowest Price: Moving Beyond a Black-and-
White Discussion of Outsourcing,'' June 28, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight
hearing to examine the Federal Government's implementation of
the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. We reviewed
outsourcing as a means to enhance cost savings and efficient
delivery of services under Federal agency oversight and
management, while ensuring the equitable treatment of the
agencies' employees. The subcommittee also reviewed DOD's
compliance with the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act and
the process by which an agency determines which positions it
will study under an A-76 cost comparison.
While outsourcing through the A-76 process is a means to
achieving cost savings, there exist on-going concerns about the
length and complexity of the process. The subcommittee heard
testimony from the Honorable Pete Sessions (R-TX); the
Honorable Albert Wynn (D-MD); the Honorable Luis Guitierrez (D-
IL); Mr. Barry Holman, Director of Defense Capabilities and
Management of the U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Angela
Styles, Director of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy of
the Office of Management and Budget; and Mr. Ray DuBois,
Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment of
the U.S. Department of Defense along with testimony provided to
the subcommittee from numerous private sector associations,
companies, and trade unions. Currently, the congressionally
mandated GAO Commercial Activities Panel is examining these
issues and will report its findings and recommendations to
Congress in May 2002. The subcommittee will conduct a followup
hearing at that time.
7. ``Toward Greater Public-Private Collaboration in Research and
Development: How the Treatment of Intellectual Property Rights
Is Minimizing Innovation in the Federal Government,'' July 17,
2001
a. Summary.--This hearing addressed one of several barriers
to acquisitions and sourcing by the Government: the treatment
of intellectual property in government-funded research and
development [R&D]. The goals of the hearing were to gather
information about the nature and scope of intellectual property
law and regulation as it relates to procurement. The Government
has had difficulty attracting innovation to meet its R&D needs,
and the hearing investigated existing mechanisms for flexible
contracting, the need for training of the acquisition workforce
on intellectual property issues, reform efforts currently
underway in agencies, and proposals for regulatory and
legislative change. The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr.
Jack Brock, Managing Director of Acquisition and Sourcing
Management at the U.S. General Accounting Office; Ms. Deidre
Lee, Director of Defense Procurement for the U.S. Department of
Defense; Mr. Eric Fygi, Deputy General Counsel of the U.S.
Department of Energy; Mr. Richard Carroll, chief executive
officer of Digital Systems Resources, Inc.; Mr. Richard Kuyath,
counsel for the 3M Corp.; and Dr. Christopher Hill, professor
of public policy and technology and vice provost for research,
George Mason University.
How the Government treats intellectual property has a
profound impact on the competitive environment for R&D. This
hearing revealed that efforts underway in agencies are
progressing, but that more reform may be necessary to attract
top companies. Intellectual property rights are the lifeblood
of commercial firms and are vitally important to universities.
Working to improve the Government's treatment of intellectual
property rights must be a priority in order to ensure the
ability to access the very best technologies for the country's
future civilian and military needs. The subcommittee plans to
hold additional hearings on these subjects in 2002.
8. ``Public Service for the 21st Century: Innovative Solutions to the
Federal Government's Technology Workforce Crisis,'' July 31,
2001
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the information
technology human capital management [HCM] crisis facing the
Federal Government. Government-wide, significant human capital
shortages exist that will only get worse as 35 percent of the
Federal workforce becomes eligible to retire in the next 5
years and an estimated 50 percent of the government's
technology workforce will be eligible to retire by 2006. The
subcommittee heard testimony from the Honorable David Walker,
Comptroller General of the U.S. General Accounting Office; the
Honorable Kay Coles James, Director of the Office of Personnel
Management; the Honorable Stephen Perry, Administrator of the
U.S. General Services Administration; Dr. Steven Kelman,
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Albert J. Weatherhead III and Richard W. Weatherhead professor
of public policy; Mr. Martin Faga, CEO of the Mitre Corp. and
representative of the National Academy of Public
Administration; Dr. Ernst Volgenau, president and CEO of SRA
International, and representative of the Information Technology
Association of America [ITAA]; and Mr. Steve Rohleder, managing
partner, Accenture.
While the administration has requested workforce analysis
reports from all executive agencies that include identifying
personnel needs, succession planning, recruitment and retention
strategies, and human capital is expected to be a part of every
agency's performance plan and budget submissions, the
participation of agencies in HCM may need to be monitored in
2002.
The hearing also focused on legislation sponsored by the
chairman, the Digital Tech Corps Act of 2001 (H.R. 2678). This
bill helps government transform itself by creating a new vision
of public service for the 21st century. The legislation sets up
an exchange program between agencies and the private sector for
mid-level IT managers who can work daily on reviewing the
status of IT modernizations and cross-agency initiatives. This
public-private exchange program will allow for greater
knowledge and understanding between the public and private
sectors, and it will foster greater innovation and partnership
for government and industry.
9. ``Toward a Telework-Friendly Government Workplace: an Update on
Public and Private Approaches to Telecommuting,'' September 6,
2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted a follow-up to its
March 22, 2001, oversight hearing to examine Federal agencies'
progress in developing and implementing telecommuting
initiatives. We found that the cultural change required by
managers, in particular, remains the greatest obstacle to
overcome. OPM and GSA joined forces to create a comprehensive
telework Web site to educate managers and employees, alike. GAO
has recently reported to Congress about the potential tax,
regulatory, liability, and managerial barriers that private
sector companies must address when implementing telecommuting
initiatives. The subcommittee examined the extent to which
these private sector telecommuting barriers may be applicable
to the Federal Government. The subcommittee heard testimony
from Mr. Robert Robertson, Director of Education, Workforce and
Income Security Issues at the U.S. General Accounting Office;
Ms. Teresa Jenkins, Director of the Office of Workforce
Relations at the Office of Personnel Management; Mr. David
Bibb, Deputy Associate Director of the Office of Government-
wide Policy for the U.S. General Services Administration; Mr.
Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology
Association of America [ITAA]; Mr. Mark Straton, vice president
of global marketing for Siemens Enterprise Networks; and Mr.
Robert Milkovich, managing director of CarrAmerica.
The creation and implementation of telecommuting policies
is an on-going process in the Federal agencies. Therefore, the
subcommittee will continue to monitor the work of OPM and GSA
in this area, in addition to the efforts made by individual
agencies.
10. ``The Potential Benefits of Public-Private Partnerships as a Real
Property Management Tool,'' October 1, 2001
a. Summary.--The subcommittee conducted an oversight
hearing to examine the benefits of the Federal Government
entering into public-private partnerships for real property.
The General Services Administration needs to address the
growing challenges created by deteriorating buildings in the
Federal inventory. Currently, billions of dollars are spent to
maintain buildings. However, that is insufficient to reduce the
deferred maintenance backlog. The hearing revealed that since
limited funding is available for repairs and alterations of
Federal buildings, public-private partnerships are potentially
beneficial as a real property management tool. The public-
private partnership provisions of H.R. 2710, the Federal Asset
Management Improvement Act of 2001, were discussed. The
subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Bernard Ungar, Director
of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the U.S. Government
Accounting Office; Mr. Stephen Perry, Administrator of the U.S.
General Services Administration; Mr. Ray DuBois, Deputy
Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment for
the U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Anatolij Kushnir, Director
of the Office of Asset Enterprise Management for the Department
of Veterans Affairs; Ms. Kimberly Burke, principal, Ernst &
Young; and Mr. Sherwood Johnston, designated broker, Arizona of
CarrAmerica Reality Corp.
11. ``Transforming the IT and Acquisition Workforces: Using Market-
Based Pay, Recruiting and Retention Strategies to Make the
Federal Government an Employer of Choice for IT and Acquisition
Employees,'' October 4, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing followed up on the July 31st
hearing's exploration of the human capital management crisis
facing the government and reviewed a draft of legislation to be
introduced later in the session. The subcommittee also reviewed
the findings of the report of the National Academy of Public
Administration [NAPA] from its recent in-depth study of public
and private sector compensation practices for IT employees. At
this hearing, the subcommittee reviewed testimony provided by
Mr. David McClure, Director of IT Management Issues for the
U.S. General Accounting Office; Mr. Mark Forman, Associate
Director for Information Technology and E-government for the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget; Mr. Donald Winstead,
Acting Associate Director of Workforce Compensation and
Performance at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; the
Honorable Don Upson, Secretary of Technology for the
Commonwealth of Virginia; Mr. Arthur Amler, director of
employee compensation, for IBM, representing the Information
Technology Association of America; Ms. Jean Baderschneider,
vice president of procurement for ExxonMobil Global Services
Co.; and Mr. Costis Toregas, president of Public Technology,
Inc., representing the National Academy of Public
Administration [NAPA].
While advances in technology provide an unprecedented
opportunity to improve government service, these gains can only
be made if the Government has a skilled workforce that can
acquire, manage, and implement information technology products
and services. The current human resources management system of
the great majority of Federal workers is built upon rigid 19th
century models. The legislation would draw from the private
sector's near universal use of ``pay-for- performance'' and
would make new flexibilities available for hiring, training,
and retaining employees in order to solve the looming human
capital management crisis. Further hearings on these subjects
are planned in 2002.
12. ``Moving Forward with Services Acquisition Reform: A Legislative
Approach to Utilizing Commercial Best Practices,'' November 1,
2001
a. Summary.--The hearing built on oversight hearings
conducted over the past year on the continuing barriers
government agencies have in acquiring the goods and services
necessary to meet mission objectives. The hearing reviewed
proposed legislative initiatives designed to provide the
Federal Government greater access to the commercial
marketplace. Unfortunately, the subcommittee found the
government is not utilizing commercial best practices or fully
realizing the importance of performance metrics in acquisition
cycles. The legislative proposals reviewed by the subcommittee
are necessary to further streamline procurement and achieve
greater utilization of commercial best practices. The Federal
Government purchases $87 billion in services a year. In order
to ensure the government is maximizing efficiency for service
contracting, the subcommittee reviewed legislation which
included provisions to address workforce training, business
environment reform, contract management, the utilization of
performance-based contracting and share-in-savings contracting.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. William Woods,
Director of Contracting Issues for the U.S. General Accounting
Office; Mr. Stephen Perry, Administrator of the U.S. General
Services Administration; Ms. Angela Styles, Administrator of
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy for the Office of
Management and Budget; Ms. Deidre Lee, Director of Defense
Procurement of the U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Stan Z.
Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council; Dr.
Renato DiPentima, president of SRA Consulting and Systems
Integration, testifying on behalf of the Information Technology
Association of America; Mr. Mark Wagner, manager of Federal
Government Affairs for Johnson Controls, testifying on behalf
of the Contract Services Association; Mr. Charles Mather,
principal at Acquisition Solutions, Inc.; and Dr. Charles
Tiefer, professor at the University of Baltimore Law School.
The subcommittee will be conducting additional legislative
hearings in spring 2002.
13. ``Battling Bioterrorism: Why Timely Information-Sharing Between
Local, State and Federal Governments is the Key to Protecting
Public Health,'' December 14, 2001
a. Summary.--This hearing discussed the response and
information dissemination capabilities of the Nation's public
health systems to a bioterrorism threat or incident. The
hearing reviewed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[CDC] March 2001 report on Public Health's Infrastructure:
Every health department fully prepared; every community better
protected. The best initial defense against public health
threats, whether naturally occurring or deliberately caused,
continues to be accurate, timely recognition and reporting of
problems. To that end, one of our top priorities must be to
ensure we have a strong information-sharing network that
protects privacy while seamlessly connecting local, State, and
Federal Governments. The March 2001 report outlined a number of
goals for improving communication and information technology
capabilities at the Federal, State, and local level. The
hearing examined our progress to date in meeting the goals set
forth in the report and the timeframes for reaching yet unmet
goals. Additionally, it discussed lessons learned from the
recent events related to the anthrax incidents in October and
November 2001 as well as existing pilot programs on the Health
Alert Network [HAN] and the National Electronic Disease
Surveillance System [NEDSS]. The hearing also reviewed best
practices for information sharing among Federal, State, and
local entities to determine our next steps for responding to
future bioterrorism threats. The anthrax attacks in October
2001 showed the need to improve information-sharing
capabilities of the disparate Federal, State, and local health
authorities, as well as private hospitals in the event of a
public health emergency. Both basic IT infrastructure and
communications protocols must be clarified and improved in
order to achieve the efficient system necessary to effectively
respond to an emergency.
Finally, the subcommittee reviewed what effect media
reporting played in the public health communities' response to
the anthrax incidents. As public health professionals attempted
to provide warnings and guidance based on traditional
epidemiological methods, they often found themselves outpaced
by constant media reports. Timely and accurate transmission of
information to the general public will be a vital
communications objective in future health emergencies. Recent
events have shown the slim margin of error in this area before
public mistrust begins to take hold. Thus, future
communications plans must take into account the role the media
will play in shaping public reaction and ensuring that the
correct message emerges immediately from those responsible for
making health policy decisions.
The subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Edward Baker,
M.D., MPH, Director of the Public Health Program Practice
Office for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Dr.
Kevin Yeskey, M.D., Acting Director of the Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Program, National Center for
Infectious Diseases. Additionally the subcommittee reviewed
testimony from a range of State and local government
organizations along with testimony from private sector health
providers, including Mr. Rock Regan, chief information officer
for the State of Connecticut, representing the National
Association of State Chief Information Officers; Dr. Gianfranco
Pezzino, M.D., MPH, State epidemiologist for the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment, representing the Council
for State and Territorial Epidemiologists; Dr. Paul Wiesner,
M.D., MPH, Director for the DeKalb County Board of Health,
representing the National Association of County and City Health
Officials; Mr. Michael H. Covert, president of the Washington
Hospital Center, representing the American Hospital
Association; Dr. Carol S. Sharrett, M.D., MPH, director of
health for Fairfax County, VA; and Dr. Charles E. Saunders,
M.D., president of EDS Health Care Global Industry Group.
The subcommittee will be holding additional hearings on
information sharing best practices throughout 2002.
PART THREE. PUBLICATIONS
I. Committee Prints
Full Committee
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman
1. ``Rules of the Committee on Government Reform,''
February 2001.
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman
1. ``Title 5, United States Code, Government Organization
and Employees,'' May 2001.
II. Printed Hearings
Full Committee
Hon. Dan Burton, Chairman
1. ``Challenges to National Security: Constraints on
Military Training,'' May 9, 2001, Serial No. 107-3.
2. ``The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive
Marc Rich,'' February 8 and March 1, 2001, Serial No. 107-11.
Subcommittee on the Census
Hon. Dan Miller, Chairman
1. ``The Success of the 2000 Census,'' February 14, 2001,
Serial No. 107-7.
2. ``BEA: Is the GDP Accurately Measuring the U.S.
Economy?'' April 5, 2001, Serial No. 107-8.
3. ``The Census Bureau's Proposed American Community Survey
[ACS],'' June 13, 2001, Serial No. 107-9.
4. ``Americans Abroad: How Can We Count Them?'' July 26,
2001, Serial No. 107-13.
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
Hon. Dave Weldon, Chairman
1. ``The National Security Implications of the Human
Capital Crisis,'' March 29, 2001, Serial No. 107-5, held joint
with the Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and
the District of Columbia Subcommittee, Governmental Affairs
Committee, U.S. Senate.
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
Hon. Mark E. Souder, Chairman
1. `` `Medical' Marijuana, Federal Drug Law and the
Constitution's Supremacy Clause,'' March 27, 2001, Serial No.
107-2.
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
Hon. Constance A. Morella, Chairwoman
1. ``America's Main Street: The Future of Pennsylvania
Avenue,'' March 21, 2001, Serial No. 107-6.
2. ``Coordination of Criminal Justice Activities in the
District of Columbia,'' May 11, 2001, Serial No. 107-20.
3. ``The Outlook for the District of Columbia Government:
The Post-Control Board Period,'' June 8, 2001, Serial No. 107-
15.
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International
Relations
Hon. Christopher Shays, Chairman
1. ``Protecting American Interests Abroad: U.S. Citizens,
Businesses and Nongovernmental Organizations,'' April 3, 2001,
Serial No. 107-16.
2. ``Combating Terrorism: Management of Medical Supplies,''
May 1, 2001, Serial No. 107-17.
3. ``Combating Terrorism: In Search of a National
Strategy,'' March 27, 2001, Serial No. 107-18.
Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy
Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Chairman
1. ``Telework Policies,'' March 22, 2001, Serial No. 107-1.
2. ``Enterprise-Wide Strategies for Managing Information
Resources and Technology: Learning from State and Local
Governments,'' April 3, 2001, Serial No. 107-4.
VIEWS OF THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
Views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman
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.
OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
Full Committee
The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich, Day 1,
February 8, 2001
In its description of the February 8, 2001, hearing on
``The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc
Rich,'' the majority makes observations that unfairly
characterize the record of the hearing. The majority writes
that ``the Justice Department was never formally consulted by
the White House, and the prosecutors responsible for the case
did not know the pardon was being considered until after it was
granted.'' In the very same paragraph, however, the majority
acknowledges that ``White House Counsel Beth Nolan asked
[Deputy Attorney General Eric] Holder for his position on the
Rich pardon.'' It is inaccurate to conclude that no
consultation occurred when the counsel to the President
personally consulted the second highest ranking official in the
Justice Department.
The majority writes that Mr. Holder ``stated to Ms. Nolan
that he was `neutral, leaning toward favorable' on the pardon.
Holder took this position despite the fact that he knew little
about the case, other than the fact that Rich was a wanted
fugitive.'' The majority's suggestion that Mr. Holder supported
the pardon and knew only that Mr. Rich was a fugitive is a
distortion of Mr. Holder's hearing testimony. Mr. Holder
testified that by ``neutral,'' he meant that he had no opinion
based on the little he knew about the case. By ``leaning toward
favorable,'' Mr. Holder said he meant that he would be moved in
a positive direction if there were foreign policy benefits that
would be reaped by granting the pardon. He had testified that
he had been told that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak had
weighed in strongly on behalf of the pardon request.
The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich, Day 2,
March 1, 2001
In its summary of the March 1, 2001, hearing on ``The
Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich,'' the
majority omits significant testimony. The majority writes that
former White House Counsel Beth Nolan, former Deputy White
House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, and former White House Chief of
Staff John Podesta ``all testified that they were strongly
opposed to the Rich pardon, but that the President granted the
pardon despite their advice.'' Every one of those witnesses
also testified that while they disagreed with the President's
decision, they all believed that he made a decision based on
his evaluation of the merits. Every one of those witnesses also
testified that they had no reason to believe that a quid pro
quo or any other improper consideration influenced the
President's exercise of the pardon power.
The majority writes that I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice
President Cheney's chief of staff and formerly a lawyer
representing Marc Rich, ``was questioned regarding his role in
the Rich case, which predated any effort to obtain a pardon,
and was instead limited to efforts to settle Rich's criminal
case with prosecutors in New York.'' Mr. Libby made several
other significant points in the hearing. For example, he
testified that:
Lhe agreed with five of the substantive reasons
President Clinton had published to explain the pardon of Marc
Rich;
Lthe U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District
of New York, which had obtained the indictment of Mr. Rich, had
``misconstrued the facts and the law, and looking at all of the
evidence of the defense . . . he had not violated the tax
laws;''
Lif it had been decided to pursue a pardon during his
representation of Mr. Rich, he could have put together a good
and defensible case for the pardon;
Lhe thought his client, Mr. Rich, was a traitor to
the United States; and
Lon January 22, 2001, he called Mr. Rich at home and
congratulated him on reaching a result that Mr. Rich had sought
for a long time.
Six Years After the Enactment of DSHEA: The Status of National and
International Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research, March
20, 2001; and Autism--Why the Increased Rates? April 25-26,
2001
The majority's activities report sections regarding its
investigation into health issues contains several omissions.
Under the hearing, Six Years After the Enactment of DSHEA: The
Status of National and International Dietary Supplement
Regulation and Research, the majority fails to include a
description of testimony that raised concerns about the safety
of some dietary supplements and suggested the need for greater
regulation of these products. Under the hearing, Autism--Why
the Increased Rates?, the majority fails to include
descriptions of testimony of scientific witnesses who have
examined the theory that autism can be caused by the MMR
vaccine and have concluded that there is no evidence to support
the theory and that the theory itself is fragmentary.
The Use of Prosecutorial Powers in the Investigation of Joseph M.
Gersten, June 15, 2001
In its summary of the committee's June 15, 2001, hearing on
The Use of Prosecutorial Powers in the Investigation of Joseph
Gersten, the majority restates conclusions of an April 10,
2001, staff report that were directly contradicted by every
witness who gave testimony in the hearing. The majority first
states, ``A review of the available evidence suggests that
individuals participated in a conspiracy to make allegations
against Gersten involving drug use and consorting with
prostitutes that they knew to be false.'' At the hearing, which
the majority's activities report purports to summarize, every
witness gave testimony directly contradicting the majority's
conclusion of prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, the witnesses
testified that Mr. Gersten was never indicted for any offense,
had been cited for contempt of court for refusing to cooperate
with the State's investigation, and had left the jurisdiction
before a criminal proceeding would have required that he
receive the State's evidence against him.
The current and former prosecutors who appeared at the
hearing all testified that they were aware that the witnesses
who gave information about Mr. Gersten had extensive criminal
records and dubious credibility. They testified that the
existence of incriminating physical evidence nevertheless
caused them to seek corroboration for the witness statements
and to seek information from Mr. Gersten himself. They
testified that despite a subpoena ordering Mr. Gersten to
testify before the Florida State attorney, which conferred upon
him a grant of use immunity from prosecution, Mr. Gersten
refused to testify. The hearing testimony revealed that after
three motions to quash the subpoena, a State court judge held
Mr. Gersten in civil contempt and confined him to jail until he
agreed to testify. Although an appellate court later ordered
him released during the pendency of his appeals, the contempt
order was upheld in all respects in six different State and
Federal judicial proceedings. To date, Mr. Gersten continues to
reside outside the United States and has not submitted to
questioning by Florida authorities.
The majority also writes that ``[t]wo of the principal
attorneys who conducted the investigation declined to be
interviewed by committee staff, necessitating the hearing.''
The majority fails to mention, however, that prior to any
attempt to interview the prosecutors involved in the case, the
majority staff released a report unfairly concluding that State
prosecutors had engaged in serious misconduct. For example, the
majority wrote, ``It appears, as new facts emerge, that the
vast power of the state was used to destroy [Mr. Gersten].''
They also wrote that ``government officials acted in extreme
bad faith'' and ``were more concerned about using allegations
to harm Gersten than to find the truth.'' Mr. Band testified:
``Had [majority] counsel for the committee contacted me some 6
months ago, I believe I would have happily met with him on or
off the record. I was not contacted until after the report was
issued. I believed the report made insinuations which were
unfair.'' Mr. Gregorie testified:
What happened was, I was informed that this committee
wished to speak to me and I was informed of that after
a report had already been written which indicated that
there was wrongdoing, without anyone having spoken to
me. I then contacted someone who knows the system up
here . . . and they told me, Dick, you shouldn't go in
and answer questions where a part of your answer may be
taken--you may not be able to have your full story
told. Make sure you go before the committee, where
there are rules, where everyone will be there and where
the public will be able to hear and see all that is
said to you and all that you answer.
Subcommittees
Subcommittee on the Census
The majority's summary of the February 14, 2001, hearing on
the 2000 census is inaccurate and misleading. The 1990 census
was not the first time that response rates fell, as the summary
indicates. GAO report GAO/GGD-92-94 (page 36) indicates that
the response rate went from 78 percent in 1970 to 75 percent in
1980 to 65 percent in 1990. The response rate was also 65
percent in 2000. The mail return rate, a more accurate measure
of public participation in the census went from 87 percent in
1970 to 83 percent in 1980 to 74 percent in 1990. This decline
continued in 2000 where the return rate was 72 percent.
More importantly, the summary of this hearing is misleading
in suggesting that the 2000 census is more accurate than 1990.
This statement is true only if you believe that counting some
people twice is a sufficient correction for missing others. In
1990, the census missed 8.4 million people and counted 4.4
million people twice. In 2000, the census missed 6.5 million
people and counted 6.1 million people twice. If all the people
missed were in Texas and all the people counted twice were in
California, the majority would not be so happy with the census
results. In fact, those missed in the census tend to be the
poor and minorities, while those counted twice tend to be
affluent and white. We believe that an equitable census should
be our goal, not one which substitutes one kind of error for
another.
-