[House Report 109-739]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-739
_______________________________________________________________________
Union Calendar No. 441
ACTIVITIES
of the
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS
2005-2006
(Pursuant to House Rule XI, 1(d)(4))
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
December 29, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
David Marin, Staff Director
Benjamin Chance, Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
?
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 29, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause
1(d)(4), I submit the enclosed the activities report of the
Committee on Government Reform for the 109th Congress.
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FORWARD.......................................................... 1
I. Jurisdiction and History of the Committee........................2
II. Rules of the Committee...........................................4
III. Members and Organization........................................11
PART ONE: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES................................. 13
I. Legislative Accomplishments.....................................13
A. Legislation Enacted Into Law.......................... 16
B. Legislation Considered by House....................... 24
C. Legislation Reported by Committee..................... 29
D. Postal Facility Designations Considered by the
Committee or the House............................... 32
E. Resolutions Considered by the Committee or the House.. 48
II. Legislative Hearings............................................64
PART TWO: OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES................................... 67
I. Full Committee..................................................67
II. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resourc98
III. Subcommittee on Energy and Resources...........................116
IV. Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census......................138
V. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization......154
VI. Subcommittee on Government Management and Accountability.......165
VII. Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations........................................183
VIII.Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs.............................202
APPENDIX
I. Committee Prints...............................................211
II. Investigative Reports..........................................211
III. Legislative Reports............................................211
IV. Committee Meetings.............................................213
1V. Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress..........................217
VIEWS
Views of Ranking Minority Member Henry A. Waxman................. 250
Union Calendar No. 441
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-739
======================================================================
ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
_______
December 29, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Davis of Virginia, from the Committee on Government Reform,
submitted the following
REPORT
ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, 109TH CONGRESS,
1ST AND 2D SESSIONS, 2005 AND 2006
FORWARD
In the 109th Congress, the committee and its seven
subcommittees convened 256 investigative hearings on a very
diverse portfolio of subjects, from contracting in Iraq to
steroids in professional baseball.
On the legislative front, the Committee on Government
Reform was very active promoting stronger management practices
at Federal departments and agencies and improving the
operations and effectiveness of Federal programs. Whether
transforming the organizational structure of the General
Services Administration or granting the right to vote to
citizens of the Nation's Capitol, the committee remained
focused on making the Federal Government more responsive to the
needs of the people it serves.
At the committee's request, the Government Accountability
Office [GAO] produced 359 reports, testimonies and briefings in
support of oversight investigations and program reviews. As a
result of the Government Reform Committees oversight, billions
of dollars worth of outright savings, avoidable costs and
increased revenues have been identified and captured.
In the course of that oversight, the committee and
subcommittees uncovered wasteful spending, mismanagement,
ineffective policy implementation, and poor interagency
coordination. Direct savings and other financial benefits
identified as a result of the committee's GAO work alone now
total $6.5 billion.\1\ Current oversight yielded savings in
areas such as the Department of Defense excess property
reutilization system ($42 million) and information technology
investments at the Department of Interior ($80 million). Other
quantifiable fiscal achievements accrued from earlier GAO
reports to the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The total represents the net present value in fiscal year 2006
of financial benefits identified and accrued as a result of GAO
findings and recommendations contained in work on which the Government
Reform Committee was a requestor. The process used to calculate and
review savings and other financial benefits attributed to GAO
recommendations is described at length in the Performance and
Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2005 at http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d061sp.pdf. Accessed Oct. 10, 2006. Savings and other
benefits may be captured over 5 fiscal years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Jurisdiction and History of the Committee
The Committee on Government Reform serves both as the House
of Representative's government operations committee and also as
its chief investigative and oversight body, reviewing
allegations of waste, fraud and mismanagement across the
Federal Government. Alone among the House committees, the
Committee on Government Reform has legislative jurisdiction
over the operations of all Federal agencies including, human
resources, information technology, procurement, and financial
and general management policy. Unlike other House committees,
the committee has the authority to conduct oversight and
investigations outside of its legislative jurisdiction. The
committee's unique legislative jurisdiction and oversight
authority make it one of the most influential committees in the
House of Representatives.
Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) served as the chairman of the
committee in the 108th and 109th Congress. The ranking minority
member was 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. At the start of the 107th Congress,
the committee's name was shortened to the Committee on
Government Reform.
House Rule X, clause 1(h) sets forth the committee's
jurisdiction, functions, and responsibilities as follows:
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.
Every standing committee, including the Committee on
Government Reform, has general oversight responsibilities
pursuant to House Rule X, clause 2. These responsibilities
include the analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of Federal laws
including the necessity or desirability of enacting new or
additional legislation. The committees are also charged with
determining whether laws and programs 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 is required to review and study on a
continuing basis the application, administration, execution,
and effectiveness of laws and programs addressing subjects
within its jurisdiction as well as the organization and
operation of agencies within its jurisdiction.
In addition to its general oversight responsibilities, the
Committee on Government Reform has the following special and
additional functions:
Special oversight functions, Rule X, clause 3(e)
The Committee on Government Reform shall review and study
on a continuing basis the operation of Government activities at
all levels with a view to determining their economy and
efficiency.
Additional functions of committees, Rule X clause 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.
In the 109th Congress, the committee was composed of 39
members (21 Republicans, 17 Democrats and 1 Independent). The
committee had seven subcommittees.
II. Rules of the Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
109th Congress
Rule XI, clause 1(a)(1)(A) of the House of Representatives
provides:
The Rules of the House are the rules of its
committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.
Rule XI, clause 2(a)(1) of the House of Representatives
provides, in part:
Each standing committee shall adopt written rules
governing its procedure. * * *
In accordance with this, the Committee on Government
Reform, on February 9, 2005, 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) 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.
(b) The chairman of the committee may, at the request of a
subcommittee chairman, make a temporary assignment of any
member of the committee to such subcommittee for the purpose of
constituting a quorum at and participating in any public
hearing by such subcommittee to be held outside of Washington,
DC. Members appointed to such temporary positions shall not be
voting members. The chairman shall give reasonable notice of
such temporary assignment to the ranking members of the
committee and subcommittee.
[See House Rule XI, 2(h).]
Rule 4.--Committee Reports
Bills and resolutions approved by the committee shall be
reported by the chairman following House Rule XIII, clauses 2-
4.
A proposed report shall not be considered in subcommittee
or full committee unless the proposed report has been available
to the members of such subcommittee or full committee for at
least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays, unless the House is in session on such days)
before consideration of such proposed report in subcommittee or
full committee. Any report will be considered as read if
available to the members at least 24 hours before
consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays
unless the House is in session on such days. If hearings have
been held on the matter reported upon, every reasonable effort
shall be made to have such hearings available to the members of
the subcommittee or full committee before the consideration of
the proposed report in such subcommittee or full committee.
Every investigative report shall be approved by a majority vote
of the committee at a meeting at which a quorum is present.
Supplemental, minority, or additional views may be filed
following House Rule XI, clause 2(l) and Rule XIII, clause
3(a)(1). The time allowed for filing such views shall be three
calendar days, beginning on the day of notice, but excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays (unless the House is in
session on such a day), unless the committee agrees to a
different time, but agreement on a shorter time shall require
the concurrence of each member seeking to file such views.
An investigative or oversight report may be filed after
sine die adjournment of the last regular session of Congress,
provided that if a member gives timely notice of intention to
file supplemental, minority or additional views, that member
shall be entitled to not less than seven calendar days in which
to submit such views for inclusion with the report.
Only those reports approved by a majority vote of the
committee may be ordered printed, unless otherwise required by
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
Rule 5.--Proxy Votes
In accordance with the Rules of the House of
Representatives, members may not vote by proxy on any measure
or matter before the committee or any subcommittee.
[See House Rule XI, 2(f).]
Rule 6.--Record Votes
A record vote of the members may be had upon the request of
any member upon approval of a one-fifth vote of the members
present.
Rule 7.--Record of Committee Actions
The committee staff shall maintain in the committee offices
a complete record of committee actions from the current
Congress including a record of the 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
(a) There shall be seven standing subcommittees with
appropriate party ratios. The chairman shall assign members to
subcommittees. Minority party assignments shall be made only
with the concurrence of the ranking minority member. The
subcommittees shall have the following fixed jurisdictions:
(i) Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats, and International Relations--All matters
relating to the oversight of national security,
emerging threats, veterans affairs, homeland security,
and international relations, including anti-terrorism
efforts, both foreign and domestic, and international
trade.
(ii) Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy,
and Human Resources--All matters relating to the
criminal justice system, the Nation's counter-narcotics
programs, both foreign and domestic, and food and drug
safety; all matters relating to the oversight of the
Judiciary, public health and welfare, education, arts,
the humanities, publicly sponsored media, and the
National Parks.
(iii) Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance,
and Accountability--All matters relating to financial
management of executive departments and agencies,
excluding acquisition; all matters relating to
governmental accounting measures; all matters relating
to the overall efficiency and management of government
operations including program assessment and review and
excluding Federal property; all matters relating to
public records, including Presidential records, the
public access to records, advisory committees, and the
Archives; and all matters relating to the oversight of
financial services, government-sponsored enterprises,
and the Nation's economic growth.
(iv) Subcommittee on and Regulatory Affairs--All
matters relating to regulatory reform, congressional
review, the costs of regulation, and paperwork
reduction measures; and all matters relating to the
oversight of tax policy.
(v) Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census--All
matters relating to inter-governmental relations and
aid to the States and localities, including unfunded
mandates, grant management reform, brownfields clean-up
and redevelopment, and infrastructure; all matters
relating to population and demography generally,
including the Census, and the Bureau of Economic
Analysis. All matters relating to the oversight of
housing and urban development.
(vi) Subcommittee on Energy and Resources--All
matters related to the oversight of environmental
policy, natural resources, and Federal land; and all
matters related to the oversight of energy policy,
commerce, housing, and urban development.
(vii) Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and
Agency Organization--All matters relating to the
Federal Civil Service, including personnel,
compensation, employment benefits and employee
relations; all matters relating to reorganizations of
the executive branch including the study of redundancy;
and all matters relating to the oversight of workforce,
retirement, and health policy.
(b) The full committee shall retain jurisdiction over
Federal acquisition policy, Federal property, information
management, technology policy, the Postal Service, and the
District of Columbia.
(c) Bills, resolutions, and other matters shall be
expeditiously referred by the chairman to subcommittees for
consideration or investigation in accordance with their fixed
jurisdictions. Where the subject matter of the referral
involves the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee or does
not fall within any previously assigned jurisdiction, the
chairman shall refer the matter as he may deem advisable.
Bills, resolutions, and other matters referred to subcommittees
may be reassigned by the chairman when, in his judgment, the
subcommittee is not able to complete its work or cannot reach
agreement therein. In a subcommittee having an even number of
members, if there is a tie vote with all members voting on any
measure, the measure shall be placed on the agenda for full
committee consideration as if it had been ordered reported by
the subcommittee without recommendation. This provision shall
not preclude further action on the measure by the subcommittee.
Rule 9.--Ex Officio Members
The chairman and the ranking minority member of the
committee shall be ex officio members of all subcommittees.
They are authorized to vote on subcommittee matters; but,
unless they are regular members of the subcommittee, they shall
not be counted in determining a subcommittee quorum other than
a quorum for taking testimony.
Rule 10.--Staff
Except as otherwise provided by House Rule X, clauses 6, 7
and 9, the chairman of the full committee shall have the
authority to hire and discharge employees of the professional
and clerical staff of the full committee and of subcommittees.
Rule 11.--Staff Direction
Except as otherwise provided by House Rule X, clauses 6, 7
and 9, the staff of the committee shall be subject to the
direction of the chairman of the full committee and shall
perform such duties as he may assign.
Rule 12.--Hearing Dates and Witnesses
(a) Each subcommittee of the committee is authorized to
meet, hold hearings, receive testimony, mark up legislation,
and report to the full committee on any measure or matter
referred to it.
(b) No subcommittee of the committee may meet or hold a
hearing at the same time as a meeting or hearing of the
committee.
(c) The chairman of each subcommittee shall set hearing and
meeting dates only with the approval of the chairman with a
view toward assuring the availability of meeting rooms and
avoiding simultaneous scheduling of committee and subcommittee
meetings or hearings.
(d) Each subcommittee chairman shall notify the chairman 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.
(e) Witnesses appearing before the committee shall so far
as practicable, submit written statements at least 24 hours
before their appearance and, when appearing in a non
governmental capacity, provide a curriculum vitae and a listing
of any Federal Government grants and contracts received in the
previous fiscal year.
[See House Rules XI, 2 (g)(3), (g)(4), (j) and (k).]
Rule 13.--Open Meetings
Meetings for the transaction of business and hearings of
the committee shall be open to the public or closed in
accordance with Rule XI of the House of Representatives.
[See House Rules XI, 2 (g) and (k).]
Rule 14.--Five-Minute Rule
(a) A committee member may question a witness only when
recognized by the chairman for that purpose. In accordance with
House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(2), each committee member may
request up to five minutes to question a witness until each
member who so desires has had such opportunity. Until all such
requests have been satisfied, the chairman shall, so far as
practicable, recognize alternately based on seniority of those
majority and minority members present at the time the hearing
was called to order and others based on their arrival at the
hearing. After that, additional time may be extended at the
direction of the chairman.
(b) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking
minority member, or the committee by motion, may permit an
equal number of majority and minority members to question a
witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each
side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side.
(c) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking
minority member, or the committee by motion, may permit
committee staff of the majority and minority to question a
witness for a specified, total period that is equal for each
side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side.
(d) Nothing in paragraph (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
(a) An open meeting or hearing of the committee or a
subcommittee may be covered, in whole or in part, by television
broadcast, radio broadcast, Internet broadcast, and still
photography, unless closed subject to the provisions of House
Rule XI, clause 2(g). Any such coverage shall conform with the
provisions of House Rule XI, clause 4.
(b) Use of the Committee Broadcast System shall be fair and
nonpartisan, and in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 4(b),
and all other applicable rules of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Government Reform. Members of the
committee shall have prompt access to a copy of coverage by the
Committee Broadcast System, to the extent that such coverage is
maintained.
(c) Personnel providing coverage of an open meeting or
hearing of the committee or a subcommittee by Internet
broadcast, other than through the Committee Broadcast System,
shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television
Correspondents' Galleries.
Rule 18.--Additional Duties and Authorities 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;
(g) Designate a vice chairman from the majority
party; and
(h) The chairman is directed to offer a motion under
clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of the House
whenever the chairman considers it appropriate.
Rule 19.--Subjects of Stamps
The committee has adopted the policy that the determination
of the subject matter of commemorative stamps and new semi-
postal issues is properly for consideration by the Postmaster
General and that the committee will not give consideration to
legislative proposals specifying the subject matter of
commemorative stamps and new semi-postal issues. It is
suggested that recommendations for the subject matter of stamps
be submitted to the Postmaster General.
Rule 20.--Panels and Task Forces
(a) The chairman of the committee is authorized to appoint
panels or task forces to carry out the duties and functions of
the committee.
(b) The chairman and ranking minority member of the
committee may serve as ex-officio members of each panel or task
force.
(c) The chairman of any panel or task force shall be
appointed by the chairman of the committee. The ranking
minority member shall select a ranking minority member for each
panel or task force.
(d) The House and committee rules applicable to
subcommittee meetings, hearings, recommendations and reports
shall apply to the meetings, hearings, recommendations and
reports of panels and task forces.
(e) No panel or task force so appointed shall continue in
existence for more than six months. A panel or task force so
appointed may, upon the expiration of six months, be
reappointed by the chairman.
III. Members and Organization
ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES
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 Tom Davis at the beginning of
the 109th Congress, established seven standing subcommittees,
which cover the entire field of executive expenditures and
operations.
MEMBERSHIP OF SUBCOMMITTEES
The committee appointed the chairmen and members of the
subcommittees as follows:
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources, Mark E. Souder, chairman; members: Patrick T.
McHenry, Dan Burton, John L. Mica, Gil Gutknecht, Steven C.
LaTourette, Chris Cannon, Candice S. Miller, Virginia Foxx,
Jean Schmidt, Elijah E. Cummings, Bernard Sanders, Danny K.
Davis, Diane E. Watson, Linda T. Sanchez, C.A. Dutch
Ruppersberger, Major R. Owens, and Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources, Darrell E. Issa,
chairman; members: Lynn A. Westmoreland, John M. McHugh,
Patrick T. McHenry, Kenny Marchant, Brian P. Bilbray, Diane E.
Watson, Brian Higgins, Tom Lantos, and Dennis J. Kucinich.
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census, Michael R.
Turner, chairman; members: Charles W. Dent, Christopher Shays,
Virginia Foxx, Brian P. Bilbray, Wm. Lacy Clay, Paul E.
Kanjorski, and Carolyn B. Maloney.
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency
Organization, John C. Porter, chairman; members: John L. Mica,
Tom Davis, Darrell E. Issa, Kenny Marchant, Patrick T. McHenry,
Jean Schmidt, Danny K. Davis, Major R. Owens, Eleanor Holmes
Norton, Elijah E. Cummings, and Chris Van Hollen.
Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance, and
Accountability, Todd Russell Platts, chairman; members:
Virginia Foxx, Tom Davis, Gil Gutknecht, Mark E. Souder, John
J. Duncan, Jr., Edolphus Towns, Major R. Owens, Paul E.
Kanjorski, and Carolyn B. Maloney.
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations, Christopher Shays, chairman; members:
Kenny Marchant, Dan Burton, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, John M.
McHugh, Steven C. LaTourette, Todd Russell Platts, John J.
Duncan, Jr., Michael R. Turner, Jon C. Porter, Charles W. Dent,
Dennis J. Kucinich, Tom Lantos, Bernard Sanders, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Chris Van Hollen, Linda T. Sanchez, C.A. Dutch
Ruppersberger, Stephen F. Lynch, and Brian Higgins.
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Candice S. Miller,
chairwoman; members: Chris Cannon, Michael R. Turner, Lynn A.
Westmoreland, Jean Schmidt, Stephen F. Lynch, Wm. Lacy Clay,
and Chris Van Hollen.
PART ONE: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
I. Legislative Accomplishments
The Committee on Government Reform was very active in the
109th Congress improving the operations and effectiveness of
the Federal Government. Significant reforms were made to
modernize the U.S. Postal Service, promote stronger management
practices at Federal departments and agencies, revitalize the
Nation's emergency response infrastructure, protect employees
from discrimination, prevent the undue influence of outside
interest groups in the operations of the Federal Government,
advance our Nation's efforts to reduce the presence of illegal
narcotics in society, improve the transportation system serving
the Nation's Capital, and advance voting representation in the
House of Representatives for the District of Columbia. All of
these initiatives were crafted with an eye toward making the
Federal Government more efficient and effective, thereby saving
taxpayer dollars.
Modernizing the U.S. Postal Service
H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act,
was passed by both houses of Congress on the last day of the
109th Congress. H.R. 22, the original version of the ``Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act,'' passed the House in July
2005 by a vote of 410-20, and the Senate passed its version of
H.R. 22 by unanimous consent in February 2006. H.R. 6407
reflects a recent bipartisan agreement between the House,
Senate and administration on postal reform legislation. This
landmark legislation mandates transparency in the Service's
finances, costs, and operations; creates a modern system of
rate regulation; establishes fair competition rules and a
powerful new regulator to oversee operations; addresses the
Postal Service's universal service obligation and the scope of
the mail monopoly, and institutes improvements to the
collective bargaining process. The U.S. Postal Service is the
center of a $900 billion industry employing 9 million workers
nationwide. Each year, USPS processes and delivers over 200
billion peices of mail to more than 130 million households and
businesses in the United States. However, the last major
overhaul of the statutes governing the Postal Service occurred
in 1970, before the Internet and emails, before letters became
``snail mail,'' before the de-regulation of the airline
industry, before competitors like FedEx even existed. Today,
this critical component of our Nation's economy is being
challenged by a variety of factors including decreasing volume,
insufficient revenue, mounting debts, and new technologies such
as Internet advertising, electronic bill payments, emails and
faxes. As a result, the GAO has included the Postal Service on
its ``High-Risk Series'' since 2001.
Promoting Stronger Management Practices at Federal Departments and
Agencies
The committee took a proactive role in improving government
efficiency by approving the Program Assessment and Results Act,
the Government Efficiency Act, and the Truth in Regulating Act
reauthorization. These measures, along with several others
adopted by the committee, demonstrated the committee's
commitment to championing improved management practices at
Federal departments and agencies.
Revitalizing the Nation's Emergency Response Infrastructure
The committee played an integral role in congressional
efforts to establish a new, stronger Federal Emergency
Management Agency within the Department of Homeland Security
following the investigation conducted by the Select Bipartisan
Committee on Katrina. As a result of those efforts, FEMA now
has a direct line of communication to the President in the
event of an emergency to prevent communication breakdowns at
the Federal level in future disasters. In addition, the
committee included in the legislation key provisions to address
waste, fraud and mismanagement challenges that plagued the
Department of Homeland Security in its response and recovery
efforts after Hurricane Katrina.
Protecting Employees from Discrimination
By a vote of 34-1, the committee adopted legislation to
modernize, clarify and expand the Federal employee
whistleblower protection laws. One of the most significant
reforms included in the legislation was allowing a Federal
employee to have his or her claim decided in Federal district
court if the Office of Special Counsel [OSC] does not take
action within 180 days in response to a whistleblower complaint
filed with them. This would include a right to a jury trial.
Under current law, the only recourse for most Federal
whistleblowers is the Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB]. In
addition to this structural change, the legislation includes
provisions aimed at clarifying congressional intent in response
to Federal court rulings regarding whistleblower claims that
have been issued over the past decade.
Preventing the Undue Influence of Outside Interest Groups in the
Operations of the Federal Government
In response to reports of undue influence by lobbyists upon
Members of Congress and other Federal officials, the committee
approved legislation to deny Federal pensions for Federal
officials convicted of accepting bribes, defrauding the Federal
Government, embezzling Federal property, or falsifying Federal
documents. In addition, by a vote of 32-0, the committee
approved legislation to provide enhanced transparency to the
operations of the executive branch by ensuring that the
behavior of our public servants is above reproach and worthy of
the public trust. The legislation struck a balance between
reasonable and focused rules of ethical behavior and arbitrary
restrictions and prohibitions that hamstring our officials and
prevent them from exercising the discretion needed to perform
their missions on behalf of our citizens. The intent of both
initiatives was to enhance the public's trust in our Federal
Government.
Advance Our Nation's Efforts to Reduce the Presence of Illegal
Narcotics in Society
The committee unanimously adopted legislation to
reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy and to
make it more efficient by reducing outdated reporting and
structural requirements required by law. The legislation also
improves ONDCP and its programs by enhancing effectiveness and
accountability in drug treatment and requiring greater
diligence in addressing our Nation's methamphetamine epidemic.
Ultimately the legislation gave ONDCP the necessary tools to
reduce elicit drug use, manufacturing, trafficking, drug-
related crime and violence and drug-related health
consequences. In doing so, the legislation reaffirmed our
Nation's commitment to continuing the war on the supply side of
the drug equation while reaffirming our commitment to
addressing the demand side as well.
Improving the Transportation System Serving the Nation's Capital
The committee unanimously approved legislation to establish
critical new oversight and accountability mechanisms for the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA],
including an Inspector General and an increased Federal
presence on WMATA's Board of Directors. In addition, for the
fifth time since President Eisenhower signed the original
legislation in 1960, the legislation reauthorizes the Federal
Government's commitment to authorizing Federal funding for
WMATA maintenance and operations. With over half of Metro's
riders at peak times being Federal employees and contractors,
and Metro's record riderships occurring during historic events
where people from all over the country flock to the Nation's
Capital to honor their Federal Government, it is essential that
the Federal Government continue to contribute to the transit
system's operations. However, unlike previous authorizations,
this WMATA authorizes makes the Federal funds contingent upon
the three localities of Virginia, Maryland and the District of
Columbia matching any Federal contribution to WMATA.
Advancing Voting Representation in the House of Representatives for the
District of Columbia
By a vote of 29-4, the committee approved bipartisan
legislation to give citizens of the District of Columbia direct
representation in the House of Representatives. The legislation
contained two main features. First, it treated the District as
a congressional district for the purpose of granting full House
representation. Second, it increased the size of the House by
two Members. In increasing the size of the House, the bill
follows the historic House tradition of increasing
representation in a non-partisan manner.
Strengthening Professional Sports Drug Testing Policies
H.R. 2565, the Clean Sports Act of 2005, was approved by
the Committee on Government Reform by unanimous consent in May
2005. The legislation sought to strengthen the testing
procedures and toughen the penalties for the use of
performance-enhancing drugs in professional American sports.
H.R. 2565 was the product of months of commitee work--three
congressional hearings and an ongoing investigation into the
use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. As a
result of the pressure imposed upon the professional sports
leagues by the committee's investigative and legislative work,
the leagues strengthened their internal drug testing programs
and policies. Consequently the committee decided not to pursue
enactment of the Clean Sports Act during the 109th Congress.
However, the committee intends to monitor the situation and may
decide to take action in the future if necessary.
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy
H.R. 6344, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act, was passed by both houses of Congress on
the second to last day of the 109th Congress. H.R. 2829, the
original version of the ``Office of National Drug Control
Policy Reauthorization Act,'' passed the House in March 2006 by
a vote of 399-5. H.R. 6344 reflects a recent bipartisan
agreement between the House, Senate and administration on
reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
[ONDCP]. The legislation makes ONDCP more efficient by reducing
outdated reporting and structural requirements required by
current law. The bill also improves ONDCP and its programs by
enhancing effectiveness and accountability in drug treatment
and requiring greater dilligence in addressing out Nation's
methamphetamine epidemic. The legislation reforms the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign--which coordinates anti-drug
advertising--and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
program--which involves coordination among Federal, State and
local law enforcement--to make them more effective. Both
programs have grown in ways that were not originally intended,
and the bill reflects the desire to ensure they remain
accountable and dedicated to their core purposes.
A. LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW
1. H.R. 368: To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State
driver's license and identification document security standards
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 1/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--1/26/2005: Referred to the
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned. 1/26/2005: Referred to House Committee on
Government Reform 1/26/2005: Referred to House Committee on
Judiciary 3/2/2005: Referred to the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
*Related legislation was enacted into law as Division B of
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005REAL ID Act of
2005. Public Law 109-13.
2. H.R. 2066: To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish a
Federal Acquisition Service, to replace the General Supply Fund
and the Information Technology Fund with an Acquisition
Services Fund, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 5/4/2005).
b. Legislative History.--5/4/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 5/5/2005: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 5/5/2005: Ordered to be
Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 5/23/2005 2:14 p.m.: Reported
(Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-
91. 5/23/2005 2:14 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar
No. 48. 5/23/2005 3:42 p.m.: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 5/23/2005 3:42 p.m.:
Considered under suspension of the rules. 5/23/2005 3:52 p.m.:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended
Agreed to by voice vote. 5/23/2005 3:52 p.m.: Motion to
reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 5/24/
2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 5/2/
2006: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably. 5/25/2006:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Reported by Senator Collins with amendments. With written
report No. 109-257. 5/25/2006: Placed on Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 449. 9/6/2006:
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. 9/6/2006:
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. 9/7/2006:
Message on Senate action sent to the House. 9/25/2006 4:59
p.m.: Mr. Davis, Tom moved that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the Senate amendments. 9/25/2006 5:04 p.m.: On motion
that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate
amendments Agreed to by voice vote. 9/25/2006 5:04 p.m.: Motion
to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 9/
25/2006: Cleared for White House. 9/29/2006: Presented to
President. 10/6/2006: Signed by President. 10/6/2006: Became
Public Law No: 109-313.
3. H.R. 2385: To extend by 10 years the authority of the Secretary of
Commerce to conduct the quarterly financial report program
a. Sponsor.--Representative Turner, Michael R. [R-OH-3]
(introduced 5/17/2005).
b. Legislative History.--5/17/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 5/17/2005: Referred to the
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census. 6/14/2005:
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 6/14/2005:
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by
Unanimous Consent. 6/16/2005: Committee Consideration and Mark-
up Session Held. 6/16/2005: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by
Voice Vote. 7/12/2005 3:13 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-164. 7/12/2005
3:13 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 101. 7/
13/2005 11:13 a.m.: Mr. Turner moved to suspend the rules and
pass the bill, as amended. 7/13/2005 11:13 a.m.: Considered
under suspension of the rules. 7/13/2005 11:24 a.m.: On motion
to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by
voice vote. 7/13/2005 11:24 a.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on
the table Agreed to without objection. 7/13/2005 11:24 a.m.:
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without
objection. 7/14/2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. 7/19/2005: Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent. 7/
19/2005: Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. 7/19/2005: Senate vitiated previous
referral and discharge by Unanimous Consent. 7/21/2005: Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged
by Unanimous Consent. 7/21/2005: Referred to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 9/26/2005: Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
discharged by Unanimous Consent. 9/26/2005: Passed Senate
without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 9/26/2005: Cleared for
White House. 9/27/2005: Message on Senate action sent to the
House. 9/29/2005: Presented to President. 9/30/2005: Signed by
President. 9/30/2005: Became Public Law No: 109-79.
4. H.R. 3508: To authorize improvements in the operation of the
government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 7/28/2005).
b. Legislative History.--7/28/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 9/15/2005: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 9/15/2005: Ordered to
be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 11/3/2005 6:30 p.m.:
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. H.
Rept. 109-267. 11/3/2005 6:31 p.m.: Placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 146. 12/14/2005 7:22 p.m.: Mr. Porter
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 12/
14/2005 7:23 p.m.: Considered under suspension of the rules.
12/14/2005 7:31 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and pass
the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. 12/14/2005 7:31
p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without
objection. 12/15/2005: Received in the Senate. 1/27/2006: Read
twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. 2/28/2006: Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District
of Columbia. Hearings held. 3/28/2006: Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and
the District of Columbia. 6/15/2006: Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. 7/25/
2006: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Reported by Senator Collins with an amendment in the nature of
a substitute. Without written report. 7/25/2006: Placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No.
534. 8/3/2006: Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent.
8/3/2006: The committee substitute agreed to by Unanimous
Consent. 8/3/2006: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous
Consent. 8/4/2006: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
9/25/2006 5:04 p.m.: Mr. Davis, Tom moved that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment. 9/25/2006
5:08 p.m.: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree
to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. 9/25/2006 5:08
p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without
objection. 9/25/2006: Cleared for White House. 10/5/2006:
Presented to President. 10/16/2006: Signed by President. 10/16/
2006: Became Public Law No. 109-356.
5. H.R. 3699: To provide for the sale, acquisition, conveyance, and
exchange of certain real property in the District of Columbia
to facilitate the utilization, development, and redevelopment
of such property, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 9/8/2005).
b. Legislative History.--9/8/2005: Referred to the
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned. 9/8/2005: Referred to House Government
Reform 9/29/2005: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session
Held. 9/29/2005: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice
Vote. 9/8/2005: Referred to other House committees. Reported
(Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. Placed on the
Union Calendar, Calendar No. 200. 9/30/2006 12:33 a.m.: Mr.
Davis, Tom asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's
table and consider. 9/30/2006 12:33 a.m.: Considered by
unanimous consent. 9/30/2006 12:34 a.m.: On passage Passed
without objection. 9/30/2006 12:34 a.m.: Motion to reconsider
laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 9/30/2006:
Received in the Senate. 11/15/2006: Read twice and referred to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
11/16/2006: Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent. 11/16/
2006: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. 11/16/2006: Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent. 11/16/2006: Passed
Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 11/17/2006:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
6. H.R. 4436: To provide certain authorities for the Department of
State, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]
(introduced 12/6/2005).
b. Legislative History.--12/6/2005: Referred to the
Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the
Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned. 12/6/2005: Referred to House International
Relations 12/6/2005: Referred to House Government Reform 12/14/
2005 9:01 p.m.: Mr. Smith (NJ) moved to suspend the rules and
pass the bill, as amended. 12/14/2005 9:02 p.m.: Considered
under suspension of the rules. 12/14/2005 9:08 p.m.: On motion
to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by
voice vote. 12/14/2005 9:08 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on
the table Agreed to without objection. 12/15/2005: Received in
the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and
passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 12/15/2005:
Message on Senate action sent to the House. 12/15/2005: Cleared
for White House. 12/17/2005: Presented to President. 12/22/
2005: Signed by President. 12/22/2005: Became Public Law No.
109-140.
7. H.R. 5316: To reestablish the Federal Emergency Management Agency as
a cabinet-level independent establishment in the executive
branch that is responsible for the Nation's preparedness for,
response to, recovery from, and mitigation against disasters,
and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Young, Don [R-AK] (introduced
5/9/2006).
b. Legislative History.--5/9/2006: Referred to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition
to the Committees on Homeland Security, and Government Reform,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 5/9/2006: Referred
to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 5/10/2006:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings and Emergency Management. 5/17/2006: Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management
Discharged. 5/17/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up
Session Held. 5/17/2006: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by
Voice Vote. 5/9/2006: Referred to House Homeland Security
Committee 5/9/2006: Referred to House Government Reform
Committee 5/18/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up
Session Held. 5/18/2006: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by
Voice Vote. 6/22/2006 6:22 p.m.: Mr. Shuster asked unanimous
consent that the Committee on Transportation have until
midnight on June 23 to file a report on H.R. 5316. Agreed to
without objection. 6/22/2006 6:33 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by
the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-519, Part I.
*Related legislation was enacted into law as Title VI,
Subtitle A, Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act. Public Law 109-295.
8. H.R. 5877: To amend the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 to
extend the authorities provided in such Act until September 29,
2006
a. Sponsor.--Representative Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18]
(introduced 7/25/2006).
b. Legislative History.--7/25/2006: Referred to the
Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the
Committees on Financial Services, Ways and Means, and
Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned. 7/25/2006: Referred to House International Relations
Committee 7/25/2006: Referred to House Financial Services 7/25/
2006: Referred to House Ways and Means 7/25/2006: Referred to
House Government Reform 7/26/2006 10:07 p.m.: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. 7/26/2006 10:07
p.m.: Considered under suspension of the rules. 7/26/2006 10:15
p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed
to by voice vote. 7/26/2006 10:15 p.m.: Motion to reconsider
laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 7/27/2006:
Received in the Senate, read twice. 7/31/2006: Passed Senate
without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 7/31/2006: Cleared for
White House. 8/1/2006: Message on Senate action sent to the
House. 8/2/2006: Presented to President. 8/4/2006: Signed by
President. 8/4/2006: Became Public Law No. 109-267.
9. H.R. 6344: To reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Act
a. Sponsor.--Representative Souder, Mark [R-IN-3]
(introduced 12/5/2006).
b. Legislative History.--12/5/2006: Referred to the House
Committees on Government Reform, Energy and Commerce,
Judiciary, Armed Services Committee, Intelligence (Permanent
Select). 12/7/2006 3:49 p.m.: Mr. Souder, Mark moved to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 12/7/2006 3:50 p.m.:
Considered under suspension of the rules. 12/7/2006 4:19 p.m.:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Agreed to by voice vote. 12/7/2006 4:19 p.m.: Motion to
reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 12/7/
2006: Received in the Senate, read twice. 12/8/2006: Passed
Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 12/8/2006:
Cleared for White House.
10. H.R. 6407: To reform the postal laws of the United States
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 12/7/2006).
b. Legislative History.--12/7/2006: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 12/8/2006 10:10 p.m.: Mr.
Davis, Tom moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as
amended. 12.8.2006 10:11 p.m.: Considered under suspension of
the rules. 12/8/2006 10:33 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill, as amended. Agreed to be voice vote. 12/8/
2006 10:33 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed
to without objection. 12/8/2006: Received in the Senate, read
twice. 12/9/2006: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous
Consent. 12/9/2006: Cleared for White House.
11. S. 37: to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer
research for 2 years
a. Sponsor.--Senator Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] (introduced
1/24/2005).
b. Legislative History.--1/24/2005: Introductory remarks on
measure. 1/24/2005: Read twice and referred to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 6/22/2005:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably. 9/26/2005:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Reported by Senator Collins without amendment. With written
report No. 109-140. 9/26/2005: Placed on Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 221. 9/27/2005:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 9/28/2005
11:06 a.m.: Received in the House. 9/28/2005: Message on Senate
action sent to the House. 9/28/2005: Referred to the Committee
on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on
Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 9/28/2005: Referred to
House Government Reform 10/20/2005: Committee Consideration and
Mark-up Session Held. 10/20/2005: Ordered to be Reported by
Unanimous Consent. 9/28/2005: Referred to House Energy and
Commerce 10/7/2005: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the chairman. 9/28/
2005: Referred to House Armed Services 10/5/2005: Referred to
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 10/27/2005 4:26 p.m.:
Committee on Government Reform discharged. 10/27/2005 4:26
p.m.: Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged. 10/27/2005
4:26 p.m.: Committee on Armed Services discharged. 10/27/2005
4:26 p.m.: Ms. Foxx asked unanimous consent to discharge from
committee and consider. 10/27/2005 4:26 p.m.: Considered by
unanimous consent. 10/27/2005 4:26 p.m.: On passage Passed
without objection. 10/27/2005 4:26 p.m.: Motion to reconsider
laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 10/27/2005:
Cleared for White House. 10/31/2005: Presented to President.
11/11/2005: Signed by President. 11/11/2005: Became Public Law
No. 109-100.
12. S. 384: A bill to extend the existence of the Nazi War Crimes and
Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group
for 2 years
a. Sponsor.--Senator DeWine, Mike [R-OH] (introduced 2/15/
2005).
b. Legislative History.--2/15/2005: Introduced in the
Senate. Read twice. Ordered Placed on Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 6. 2/16/2005:
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. 2/16/2005:
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. 2/17/2005 10:03
a.m.: Received in the House. 2/17/2005: Message on Senate
action sent to the House. 2/17/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 3/10/2005: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 3/10/2005: Ordered to
be Reported. 3/14/2005 4:25 p.m.: Mr. Shays moved to suspend
the rules and pass the bill. 3/14/2005 4:25 p.m.: Considered
under suspension of the rules. 3/14/2005 4:41 p.m.: At the
conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and
ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the
Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be
postponed. 3/14/2005 7:03 p.m.: Considered as unfinished
business. 3/14/2005 7:19 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3
required): 391-0. 3/14/2005 7:19 p.m.: Motion to reconsider
laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 3/14/2005:
Cleared for White House. 3/18/2005: Presented to President. 3/
25/2005: Signed by President. 3/25/2005: Became Public Law No.
109-5.
13. S. 1736: A bill to provide for the participation of employees in
the judicial branch in the Federal leave transfer program for
disasters and emergencies
a. Sponsor.--Senator Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] (introduced
9/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--9/20/2005: Read twice and referred
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
9/22/2005: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably. 9/
27/2005: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins without amendment. Without
written report. 9/27/2005: Placed on Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 227. 10/19/2005:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. 10/20/
2005 10:00 a.m.: Received in the House. 10/20/2005: Message on
Senate action sent to the House. 10/20/2005: Referred to the
House Committee on Government Reform. 3/9/2006: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 3/9/2006: Ordered to be
Reported by Voice Vote. 10/20/2005: By Senator Collins from
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs filed
written report. Report No. 109-158. 5/2/2006 6:42 p.m.:
Reported by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-
449. 5/2/2006 6:42 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar
No. 251. 5/22/2006 3:07 p.m.: Mr. Shays moved to suspend the
rules and pass the bill. 5/22/2006 3:07 p.m.: Considered under
suspension of the rules. 5/22/2006 3:12 p.m.: On motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. 5/
22/2006 3:12 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table
Agreed to without objection. 5/22/2006: Cleared for White
House. 5/25/2006: Presented to President. 5/31/2006: Signed by
President. 5/31/2006: Became Public Law No. 109-229.
14. S. 2146: A bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for
Federal employees
a. Sponsor.--Senator Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] (introduced
12/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--12/20/2005: Read twice and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. 1/27/2006: Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District
of Columbia. 6/15/2006: Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment
favorably. 7/21/2006: Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins without
amendment. With written report No. 109-289. 7/21/2006: Placed
on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar
No. 528. 8/1/2006: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous
Consent. 8/2/2006 11:04 a.m.: Received in the House. 8/2/2006:
Message on Senate action sent to the House. 8/2/2006: Referred
to the House Committee on Government Reform. 9/28/2006 3:29
p.m.: Mr. Westmoreland moved to suspend the rules and pass the
bill. 9/28/2006 3:30 p.m.: Considered under suspension of the
rules. 9/28/2006 3:33 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and
pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. 9/28/2006 3:33 p.m.:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without
objection. 9/28/2006: Cleared for White House. 10/2/2006:
Presented to President. 10/11/2006: Signed by President. 10/11/
2006: Became Public Law No. 109-325.
15. S. 2590: A bill to require full disclosure of all entities and
organizations receiving Federal funds
a. Sponsor.--Senator Coburn, Tom [R-OK] (introduced 4/6/
2006).
b. Legislative History.--4/6/2006: Introductory remarks on
measure. 4/6/2006: Read twice and referred to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 7/18/2006:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, and International Security. Hearings held. 7/27/
2006: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute favorably. 8/2/2006: Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written
report. 8/2/2006: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Calendar No. 576. 9/7/2006: Passed Senate with
an amendment by Unanimous Consent. 9/8/2006: Message on Senate
action sent to the House. 9/8/2006: By Senator Collins from
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs filed
written report. Report No. 109-329. Additional views filed. 9/
8/2006 2:03 p.m.: Received in the House. 9/8/2006 3:42 p.m.:
Held at the desk. 9/13/2006 7:34 p.m.: Mr. Davis, Tom moved to
suspend the rules and pass the bill. 9/13/2006 7:34 p.m.:
Considered under suspension of the rules. 9/13/2006 7:50 p.m.:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by
voice vote. 9/13/2006 7:50 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on
the table Agreed to without objection. 9/13/2006 7:51 p.m.:
Pursuant to the provisions of S. Con. Res. 114, enrollment
corrections on S. 2590 have been made. 9/13/2006: Cleared for
White House. 9/18/2006: Presented to President. 9/26/2006:
Signed by President. 9/26/2006: Became Public Law No. 109-282.
*House version of legislation was H.R. 5060.
B. LEGISLATION CONSIDERED BY HOUSE
1. H.R. 22: To reform the postal laws of the United States
a. Sponsor.--Representative McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23]
(introduced 1/4/2005).
b. Legislative History.--1/4/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 4/13/2005: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/13/2005: Ordered to
be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 39-0. 4/28/2005
10:23 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on 109-66, Part
I. 4/28/2005: Referred sequentially to other House committees.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 55. 7/26/2005 9:52
p.m.: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 410-20. 7/27/2005:
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 176. 2/
9/2006: Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. 2/9/
2006: Senate struck all after the Enacting Clause and
substituted the language of S. 662 amended. 2/9/2006: Passed
Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. 2/9/2006: Senate
insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints
conferees Collins; Stevens; Voinovich; Coleman; Bennett;
Lieberman; Akaka; Carper. 2/10/2006: Message on Senate action
sent to the House.
2. H.R. 1817: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Cox, Christopher [R-CA-48]
(introduced 4/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--4/26/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Homeland Security. 4/27/2005: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/27/2005: Ordered to
be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 5/3/2005 9:49 p.m.:
Reported (Amended) by the committee on 109-71, Part I. 5/3/
2005: Referred jointly and sequentially to the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than May
13, 2005 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee
pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X. 5/11/2005: Ordered to be
Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 5/3/2005: Referred jointly
and sequentially to the House Committee on Government Reform
for a period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for
consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as
fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to
clause 1(h), rule X. 5/3/2005: Referred jointly and
sequentially to the House Committee on the Judiciary for a
period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for consideration of
such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(l), rule X.
5/12/2005: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 5/
12/2005: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 5/3/
2005: Referred jointly and sequentially to the House Committee
on Science for a period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for
consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as
fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to
clause 1(o), rule X. 5/3/2005: Referred jointly and
sequentially to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for a period ending not later than May 13, 2005
for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment
as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to
clause 1(r), rule X. 5/3/2005: Referred jointly and
sequentially to the House Committee on Ways and Means for a
period ending not later than May 13, 2005 for consideration of
such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(t), rule X.
5/3/2005: Referred jointly and sequentially to the House
Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) for a period
ending not later than May 13, 2005 for consideration of such
provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 11(b) of rule
X. 5/13/2005 5:50 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 109-71, Part II. 5/13/2005 11:44
p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H.
Rept. 109-71, Part III. 5/13/2005 11:44 p.m.: Committee on
Government Reform discharged. 5/13/2005 11:44 p.m.: Committee
on Science discharged. 5/13/2005 11:44 p.m.: Committee on
Transportation discharged. 5/13/2005 11:44 p.m.: Committee on
Ways and Means discharged. 5/13/2005 11:45 p.m.: Committee on
Intelligence (Permanent) discharged. 5/13/2005 11:45 p.m.:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 40. 5/18/2005 6:47
p.m.: The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a
substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union. 5/18/2005 7:25 p.m.: On passage Passed
by recorded vote: 424-4 (Roll No. 189). 5/18/2005 7:25 p.m.:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without
objection. 5/19/2005: Received in the Senate and Read twice and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
3. H.R. 3496: To amend the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969
to authorize additional Federal contributions for maintaining
and improving the transit system of the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 7/28/2005).
b. Legislative History.--7/28/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 10/20/2005: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 10/20/2005: Ordered to
be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 4/26/2006 9:30 p.m.:
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Government Reform. 4/26/
2006 9:31 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 245.
7/17/2006 2:25 p.m.: Mr. Davis, Tom moved to suspend the rules
and pass the bill, as amended. 7/17/2006 2:26 p.m.: Considered
under suspension of the rules. 7/17/2006 3:09 p.m.: At the
conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and
ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the
Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be
postponed. 7/17/2006 6:56 p.m.: Considered as unfinished
business. 7/17/2006 7:06 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays:
(2/3 required): 242-120. 7/17/2006 7:06 p.m.: Motion to
reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 7/18/
2006: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 7/19/
2006: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.
4. H.R. 4057: To provide that attorneys employed by the Department of
Justice shall be eligible for compensatory time off for travel
under section 5550b of title 5, United States Code
a. Sponsor.--Representative Porter, Jon C. [R-NV-3]
(introduced 10/17/2005).
b. Legislative History.--10/17/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 10/20/2005: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 10/20/2005: Ordered to
be Reported by Voice Vote. 3/14/2006 4:16 p.m.: Reported by the
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-390. 3/14/2006
4:16 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 212. 3/
28/2006 3:16 p.m.: Mr. Porter moved to suspend the rules and
pass the bill, as amended. 3/28/2006 3:16 p.m.: Considered
under suspension of the rules. 3/28/2006 3:21 p.m.: On motion
to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by
voice vote. 3/28/2006 3:21 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on
the table Agreed to without objection. 3/29/2006: Received in
the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
5. H.R. 4416: To reauthorize permanently the use of penalty and franked
mail in efforts relating to the location and recovery of
missing children
a. Sponsor.--Representative Millender-McDonald, Juanita [D-
CA-37] (introduced 11/18/2005).
b. Legislative History.--11/18/2005: Referred to the
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on House Administration, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 11/18/2005: Referred
to House Government Reform 6/8/2006: Committee Consideration
and Mark-up Session Held. 6/8/2006: Ordered to be Reported by
Voice Vote. 11/18/2005: Referred to House Administration 6/26/
2006 6:48 p.m.: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend the rules and
pass the bill. 6/26/2006 6:48 p.m.: Considered under suspension
of the rules. 6/26/2006 6:53 p.m.: On motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. 6/26/2006 6:53
p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without
objection. 6/27/2006: Received in the Senate and Read twice and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
6. H.R. 4586: To extend the life of the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary
Commission
a. Sponsor.--Representative Castle, Michael N. [R-DE]
(introduced 12/16/2005).
b. Legislative History.--12/16/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 3/30/2006: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 3/30/2006: Ordered to
be Reported by Unanimous Consent. 9/20/2006 6:23 p.m.: Ms. Foxx
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 9/20/
2006 6:24 p.m.: Considered under suspension of the rules. 9/20/
2006 6:30 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the
bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. 9/20/2006 6:30 p.m.:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without
objection. 9/20/2006 6:30 p.m.: The title of the measure was
amended. Agreed to without objection. 9/21/2006: Received in
the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
7. H.R. 4846: To authorize grants for contributions toward the
establishment of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library
a. Sponsor.--Representative Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6]
(introduced 3/2/2006).
b. Legislative History.--3/2/2006: Introductory remarks on
measure. 3/2/2006: Referred to the House Committee on
Government Reform. 7/20/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-
up Session Held. 7/20/2006: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous
Consent. 9/28/2006 Mr. Westmoreland moved to suspend the rules
and pass the bill, as amended. 9/28/2006 Considered under
suspension of the rules. 9/28/2006 On motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. 9/
28/2006 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to
without objection. 9/28/2006 The title of the measure was
amended. Agreed to without objection. 9/28/2006: Received in
the Senate.
8. H.R. 4975: To provide greater transparency with respect to lobbying
activities, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Dreier, David [R-CA-26]
(introduced 3/16/2006).
b. Legislative History.--3/16/2006: Referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees
on House Administration, Rules, Government Reform, and
Standards of Official Conduct, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned. 3/16/2006: Referred to House Judiciary 4/
4/2006: Subcommittee on the Constitution Held Hearings Without
Referral. 4/5/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session
Held. 4/5/2006: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas
and Nays: 18-16. 3/16/2006: Referred to House Administration 4/
6/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/6/
2006: Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 5-2. 3/16/
2006: Referred to House Rules 3/30/2006: Committee Hearings
Held. 4/5/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session
Held. 4/5/2006: Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote. 3/16/
2006: Referred to House Government Reform 4/6/2006: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/6/2006: Ordered to be
Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 3/16/2006: Referred to House
Standards of Official Conduct 4/25/2006 11:06 p.m.: Reported
(Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-439, Part
I. 4/25/2006 11:09 p.m.: Reported by the Committee on House
Administration. H. Rept. 109-439, Part II. 4/25/2006 11:18
p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Rules. H. Rept.
109-439, Part III. 4/25/2006 11:23 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by
the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-439, Part IV.
4/25/2006 11:24 p.m.: Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct discharged. 4/25/2006 11:24 p.m.: Placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 244. 5/3/2006 5:31 p.m.: On passage
Passed by recorded vote: 217-213 (Roll No. 119).
9. H.R. 5060: To amend the Federal Financial Assistance Management
Improvement Act of 1999 to require data with respect to Federal
financial assistance to be available for public access in a
searchable and user friendly form
a. Sponsor.--Representative Blunt, Roy [R-MO-7] (introduced
3/30/2006).
b. Legislative History.--3/30/2006: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 6/21/2006 10:34 a.m.: Mr.
Davis, Tom moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as
amended. 6/21/2006 10:35 a.m.: Considered under suspension of
the rules. 6/21/2006 10:57 a.m.: On motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. 6/21/
2006 10:57 a.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed
to without objection. 6/22/2006: Received in the Senate and
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
10. H.R. 5835: To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve
information management within the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Buyer, Steve [R-IN-4]
(introduced 7/19/2006).
b. Legislative History.--7/19/2006: Referred to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the
Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned. 7/19/2006: Referred to House Veterans'
Affairs 7/19/2006: Committee Hearings Held Prior to
Introduction and Referral (July 18, 2006). 7/20/2006: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 7/20/2006: Ordered to
be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Voice Vote. 9/18/
2006: Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from Veterans'
Affairs. 7/19/2006: Referred to House Government Reform 9/13/
2006 7:09 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. H. Rept. 109-651, Part I. 9/13/2006 7:09
p.m.: Committee on Government Reform discharged. 9/13/2006 7:09
p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 387. 9/26/2006
9:46 p.m.: Mr. Buyer moved to suspend the rules and pass the
bill, as amended. 9/26/2006 9:46 p.m.: Considered under
suspension of the rules. 9/26/2006 10:21 p.m.: On motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by
voice vote. 9/26/2006 10:21 p.m.: Motion to reconsider laid on
the table Agreed to without objection. 9/27/2006: Received in
the Senate.
11. H.R. 6160: To recruit and retain Border Patrol agents
a. Sponsor.--Representative Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3]
(introduced 9/25/2006).
b. Legislative History.--9/25/2006: Referred to the
Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the
Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned. 9/25/2006: Referred to House Homeland
Security 9/26/2006: Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic
Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity. 9/25/
2006: Referred to House Government Reform 9/26/2006 7:01 p.m.:
Mr. Rogers (AL) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
9/26/2006 7:01 p.m.: Considered under suspension of the rules.
9/26/2006 7:19 p.m.: On motion to suspend the rules and pass
the bill Agreed to by voice vote. 9/26/2006 7:19 p.m.: Motion
to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 9/
27/2006: Received in the Senate.
C. LEGISLATION REPORTED BY COMMITTEE
1. H.R. 185: To require the review of Government programs at least once
every 5 years for purposes of evaluating their performance
a. Sponsor.--Representative Platts, Todd Russell [R-PA-19]
(introduced 1/4/2005).
b. Legislative History.--1/4/2005: Introductory remarks on
measure. 1/4/2005: Referred to the House Committee on
Government Reform. 3/10/2005: Committee Consideration and Mark-
up Session Held. 3/10/2005: Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas
and Nays: 19-14. 3/17/2005 6:00 p.m.: Reported by the Committee
on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-26. 3/17/2005 6:01 p.m.:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 12.
2. H.R. 1167: To amend the Truth in Regulating Act to make permanent
the pilot project for the report on rules
a. Sponsor.--Representative Kelly, Sue W. [R-NY-19]
(introduced 3/8/2005).
b. Legislative History.--3/8/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 6/8/2006: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 6/8/2006: Ordered to be
Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote. 6/15/2005: Introductory
remarks on measure. 9/13/2006 9:03 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by
the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-652. 9/13/2006
9:03 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 388.
3. H.R. 1317: To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which
disclosures of information are protected from prohibited
personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure
policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such
policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain
disclosure protections; and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Platts, Todd Russell [R-PA-19]
(introduced 3/15/2005).
b. Legislative History.--3/15/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 9/29/2005: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. Ordered to be Reported
(Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 34-1. 6/29/2006 4:16 p.m.:
Reported (Amended) by the committee on 109-544, Part I. 6/29/
2006: Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Armed
Services for a period ending not later than September 11, 2006
for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment
as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to
clause 1(c), rule X. 10/10/2006: Referred to the Subcommittee
on Readiness. 6/29/2006: Referred sequentially to the House
Committee on Homeland Security for a period ending not later
than September 11, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of
the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that
committee pursuant to clause 1(i), rule X. 7/11/2006: Referred
to the Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight.
9/11/2006 6:02 p.m.: House Committee on Armed Services Granted
an extension for further consideration ending not later than
September 29, 2006. 9/11/2006 6:03 p.m.: House Committee on
Homeland Security Granted an extension for further
consideration ending not later than September 29, 2006. 9/29/
2006 8:18 p.m.: House Committee on Armed Services granted an
extension for further consideration ending not later than
November 17, 2006. 9/29/2006 8:18 p.m.: House Committee on
Homeland Security Granted an extension for further
consideration ending not later than November 17, 2006.
4. H.R. 2656: To reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Act and to establish minimum drug testing standards for major
professional sports leagues
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11].
b. Legislative History.--5/24/2005: Referred to the
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Education and the
Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 5/26/
2005: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent. (No report
filed.)
5. H.R. 3128: To affirm that Federal employees are protected from
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to
repudiate any assertion to the contrary
a. Sponsor.--Representative Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA-30]
(introduced 6/30/2005).
b. Legislative History.--6/30/2005: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 9/15/2005: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 9/15/2005: Ordered to
be Reported by Voice Vote. 11/18/2005 10:05 p.m.: Reported by
the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-313. 11/18/
2005 10:05 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
170.
6. H.R. 4809: To amend the provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United
States Code, commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction
Act, to ensure usability and clarity of information
disseminated by Federal agencies, and to facilitate compliance
with Federal paperwork requirements
a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, Candice S. [R-MI-10]
(introduced 2/28/2006).
b. Legislative History.--2/28/2006: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 6/8/2006: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 6/8/2006: Ordered to be
Reported by Voice Vote. 9/14/2006 6:15 p.m.: Reported by the
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-660. 9/14/2006
6:16 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 393.
7. H.R. 4855: To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of
1999 to reauthorize for 5 additional years the public and
private school tuition assistance programs established under
the Act
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 3/2/2006).
b. Legislative History.--3/2/2006: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 3/9/2006: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 3/9/2006: Ordered to be
Reported by Voice Vote. 7/11/2006 3:39 p.m.: Reported by the
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-553. 7/11/2006
3:39 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 310.
8. H.R. 5112: To provide for reform in the operations of the executive
branch
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 4/6/2006).
b. Legislative History.--4/6/2006: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 4/6/2006: Committee
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 4/6/2006: Ordered to be
Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 32-0. 4/27/2006 4:58 p.m.:
Reported by the Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-
445. 4/27/2006 4:59 p.m.: Placed on the Union Calendar,
Calendar No. 249.
9. H.R. 5711: To permit the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration
in the District of Columbia to establish a program of voluntary
separation incentive payments for nonjudicial employees of the
District of Columbia courts
a. Sponsor.--Representative Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC]
(introduced 6/29/2006).
b. Legislative History.--6/29/2006: Referred to the House
Committee on Government Reform. 6/29/2006: Ordered to be
Reported by Unanious Consent. (No report filed.)
10. H.R. 5766: To provide for the establishment of Federal Review
Commissions to review and make recommendations on improving the
operations, effectiveness, and efficiency of Federal programs
and agencies, and to require a schedule for such reviews of all
Federal agencies and programs
a. Sponsor.--Representative Tiahrt, Todd [R-KS-4]
(introduced 7/12/2006)
b. Legislative History.--7/12/2006: Referred to the
Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the
Committees on Rules, and the Budget, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 7/12/2006: Referred to
House Government Reform 7/19/2006: Committee Hearings Held. 7/
20/2006: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. 7/
20/2006: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays:
15-12. 7/12/2006: Referred to House Rules 7/12/2006: Referred
to House Budget 7/24/2006 7:41 p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the
Committee on Government Reform. H. Rept. 109-594, Part I. 7/24/
2006 7:42 p.m.: Committee on Rules discharged. 7/24/2006 7:43
p.m.: Committee on the Budget discharged. 7/24/2006 7:43 p.m.:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 344.
D. POSTAL FACILITY DESIGNATIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE OR THE
HOUSE
1. H.R. 120: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 30777 Rancho California Road in Temecula, CA, as the
``Dalip Singh Saund Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49]
(introduced 1/4/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-22.
2. H.R. 289: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, CA, as the
``Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Waters, Maxine [D-CA-35]
(introduced 1/6/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-23.
3. H.R. 324: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, FL, as the
``Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Feeney, Tom [R-FL-24]
(introduced 1/25/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-24.
4. H.R. 438: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2000 Allston Way in Berkeley, CA, as the ``Maudelle
Shirek Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9]
(introduced 2/1/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/27/2005 Failed of passage/not agreed to in
House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill
Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 190-215 (Roll No.
495).
5. H.R. 504: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA,
as the ``Ray Charles Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Watson, Diane E. [D-CA-33]
(introduced 2/1/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-25.
6. H.R. 627: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 40 Putnam Avenue in Hamden, CT, as the ``Linda
White-Epps Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3]
(introduced 2/8/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-26.
7. H.R. 1001: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 301 South Heatherwilde Boulevard in Pflugerville,
TX, as the ``Sergeant Byron W. Norwood Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]
(introduced 3/1/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/21/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-36.
8. H.R. 1072: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 151 West End Street in Goliad, TX, as the ``Judge
Emilio Vargas Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Hinojosa, Ruben [D-TX-15]
(introduced 3/3/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-27.
9. H.R. 1082: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 120 East Illinois Avenue in Vinita, OK, as the
``Francis C. Goodpaster Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Boren, Dan [D-OK-2] (introduced
3/3/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-28.
10. H.R. 1236: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 750 4th Street in Sparks, NV, as the ``Mayor Tony
Armstrong Memorial Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Gibbons, Jim [R-NV-2]
(introduced 3/10/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-29.
11. H.R. 1287: Designating the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 312 East North Avenue in Flora, IL, as the ``Robert
T. Ferguson Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Shimkus, John [R-IL-19]
(introduced 3/14/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-184.
12. H.R. 1460: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 6200 Rolling Road in Springfield, VA, as the
``Captain Mark Stubenhofer Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 4/5/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-30.
13. H.R. 1472: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 167 East 124th Street in New York, NY, as the ``Tito
Puente Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Rangel, Charles B. [D-NY-15]
(introduced 4/5/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
14. H.R. 1524: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 12433 Antioch Road in Overland Park, KS, as the ``Ed
Eilert Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Moore, Dennis [D-KS-3]
(introduced 4/6/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-31.
15. H.R. 1542: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 695 Pleasant Street in New Bedford, MA, as the
``Honorable Judge George N. Leighton Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Frank, Barney [D-MA-4]
(introduced 4/12/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-32.
16. H.R. 1760: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison,
WI, as the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI-2]
(introduced 4/21/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 6/17/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-15.
17. H.R. 2062: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 57 West Street in Newville, PA, as the ``Randall D.
Shughart Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9]
(introduced 5/3/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 12/1/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-122.
18. H.R. 2113: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2000 McDonough Street in Joliet, IL, as the ``John
F. Whiteside Joliet Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Weller, Jerry [R-IL-11]
(introduced 5/5/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-185.
19. H.R. 2183: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 567 Tompkins Avenue in Staten Island, NY, as the
``Vincent Palladino Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Fossella, Vito [R-NY-13]
(introduced 5/5/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 12/1/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-123.
20. H.R. 2326: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 614 West Old County Road in Belhaven, NC, as the
``Floyd Lupton Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3]
(introduced 5/12/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/12/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-33.
21. H.R. 2346: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 105 NW Railroad Avenue in Hammond, LA, as the ``John
J. Hainkel, Jr. Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Jindal, Bobby [R-LA-1]
(introduced 5/12/05).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-186.
22. H.R. 2413: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1202 1st Street in Humble, TX, as the ``Lillian
McKay Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Poe, Ted [R-TX-2] (introduced
5/17/2005) Cosponsors: 31.
b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government
Reform; Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Latest Major Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-187.
23. H.R. 2490: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 442 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, PA, as the
``Mayor Joseph S. Daddona Memorial Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Dent, Charles W. [R-PA-15]
(introduced 5/19/2005) Cosponsors: 18.
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 11/22/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-107.
24. H.R. 2630: To redesignate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1927 Sangamon Avenue in Springfield, IL, as the
``J.M. Dietrich Northeast Annex''
a. Sponsor.--Representative LaHood, Ray [R-IL-18]
(introduced 5/25/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-188.
25. H.R. 2894: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 102 South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, KY, as the
``Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Lewis, Ron [R-KY-2] (introduced
6/14/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-189.
26. H.R. 2977: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 306 2nd Avenue in Brockway, MT, as the ``Paul Kasten
Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Rehberg, Dennis R. [R-MT]
(introduced 6/17/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-252.
27. H.R. 3256: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 3038 West Liberty Avenue in Pittsburgh, PA, as the
``Congressman James Grove Fulton Memorial Post Office
Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Murphy, Tim [R-PA-18]
(introduced 7/12/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-190.
28. H.R. 3339: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2061 South Park Avenue in Buffalo, NY, as the
``James T. Molloy Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Higgins, Brian [D-NY-27]
(introduced 7/19/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 11/22/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-109.
29. H.R. 3368: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 6483 Lincoln Street in Gagetown, MI, as the
``Gagetown Veterans Memorial Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Kildee, Dale E. [D-MI-5]
(introduced 7/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-191.
30. H.R. 3439: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 201 North 3rd Street in Smithfield, NC, as the ``Ava
Gardner Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Etheridge, Bob [D-NC-2]
(introduced 7/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-192.
31. H.R. 3440: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 100 Avenida RL Rodriguez in Bayamon, Puerto Rico, as
the ``Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Fortuno, Luis G. [R-PR]
(introduced 7/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-253.
32. H.R. 3548: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located on Franklin Avenue in Pearl River, NY, as the ``Heinz
Ahlmeyer, Jr. Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-17]
(introduced 7/28/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-193.
33. H.R. 3549: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, PA, as the ``William
F. Clinger, Jr. Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative English, Phil [R-PA-3]
(introduced 7/28/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-254.
34. H.R. 3667: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 200 South Barrington Street in Los Angeles, CA, as
the ``Karl Malden Station''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA-30]
(introduced 9/7/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 10/4/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-84.
35. H.R. 3703: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 8501 Philatelic Drive in Spring Hill, FL, as the
``Staff Sergeant Michael Schafer Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Brown-Waite, Ginny [R-FL-5]
(introduced 9/8/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-194.
36. H.R. 3767: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2600 Oak Street in St. Charles, IL, as the ``Jacob
L. Frazier Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Hastert, J. Dennis [R-IL-14]
(introduced 9/14/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 10/4/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-85.
37. H.R. 3770: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 205 West Washington Street in Knox, IN, as the
``Grant W. Green Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Chocola, Chris [R-IN-2]
(introduced 9/14/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-195.
38. H.R. 3825: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 770 Trumbull Drive in Pittsburgh, PA, as the
``Clayton J. Smith Memorial Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Murphy, Tim [R-PA-18]
(introduced 9/19/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-196.
39. H.R. 3830: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 130 East Marion Avenue in Punta Gorda, FL, as the
``U.S. Cleveland Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Foley, Mark [R-FL-16]
(introduced 9/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-197.
40. H.R. 3853: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 208 South Main Street in Parkdale, AR, as the
``Willie Vaughn Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Ross, Mike [D-AR-4] (introduced
9/21/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 12/1/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-124.
41. H.R. 3934: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, NY, as the ``Gerard
A. Fiorenza Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative King, Peter T. [R-NY-3]
(introduced 9/28/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-255.
42. H.R. 3989: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 37598 Goodhue Avenue in Dennison, MN, as the
``Albert H. Quie Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Kline, John [R-MN-2]
(introduced 10/6/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-198.
43. H.R. 4053: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 545 North Rimsdale Avenue in Covina, CA, as the
``Lillian Kinkella Keil Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Sponsor: Representative Solis, Hilda L. [D-CA-
32] (introduced 10/7/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-199.
44. H.R. 4054: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 6110 East 51st Place in Tulsa, OK, as the ``Dewey F.
Bartlett Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Sullivan, John [R-OK-1]
(introduced 10/7/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/8/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received
in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
45. H.R. 4101: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, NY, as the
``Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Bishop, Timothy H. [D-NY-1]
(introduced 10/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-256.
46. H.R. 4107: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1826 Pennsylvania Avenue in Baltimore, MD, as the
``Maryland State Delegate Lena K. Lee Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7]
(introduced 10/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-200.
47. H.R. 4108: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 3000 Homewood Avenue in Baltimore, MD, as the
``State Senator Verda Welcome and Dr. Henry Welcome Post Office
Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7]
(introduced 10/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/1/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-257.
48. H.R. 4109: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 6101 Liberty Road in Baltimore, MD, as the ``United
States Representative Parren J. Mitchell Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7]
(introduced 10/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-327.
49. H.R. 4152: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 320 High Street in Clinton, MA, as the ``Raymond J.
Salmon Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative McGovern, James P. [D-MA-3]
(introduced 10/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-201.
50. H.R. 4246: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 8135 Forest Lane in Dallas, TX, as the ``Dr. Robert
E. Price Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32]
(introduced 11/7/2005) Cosponsors: 29.
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 7/27/2006 Senate committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
51. H.R. 4295: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 12760 South Park Avenue in Riverton, UT, as the
``Mont and Mark Stephensen Veterans Memorial Post Office
Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Cannon, Chris [R-UT-3]
(introduced 11/10/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 3/20/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-202.
52. H.R. 4456: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 2404 Race Street in Jonesboro, AR, as the ``Hattie
W. Caraway Station''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Berry, Marion [D-AR-1]
(introduced 12/7/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-258.
53. H.R. 4515: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 4422 West Sciota Street in Scio, NY, as the
``Corporal Jason L. Dunham Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Kuhl, John R. ``Randy'', Jr.
[R-NY-29] (introduced 12/13/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 3/14/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-180.
54. H.R. 4561: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, TX, as the ``Francisco
`Pancho' Medrano Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Johnson, Eddie Bernice [D-TX-
30] (introduced 12/15/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-259.
55. H.R. 4646: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 7320 Reseda Boulevard in Reseda, CA, as the ``Coach
John Wooden Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Sherman, Brad [D-CA-27]
(introduced 12/18/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-273.
56. H.R. 4674: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 110 North Chestnut Street in Olathe, KS, as the
``Governor John Anderson, Jr. Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Moore, Dennis [D-KS-3]
(introduced 1/31/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-328.
57. H.R. 4688: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1 Boyden Street in Badin, NC, as the ``Mayor John
Thompson `Tom' Garrison Memorial Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Hayes, Robin [R-NC-8]
(introduced 2/1/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-260.
58. H.R. 4720: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 200 Gateway Drive in Lincoln, CA, as the ``Beverly
J. Wilson Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4]
(introduced 2/8/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
59. H.R. 4768: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 777 Corporation Street in Beaver, PA, as the
``Robert Linn Memorial Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Hart, Melissa A. [R-PA-4]
(introduced 2/16/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 10/13/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-345.
60. H.R. 4786: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 535 Wood Street in Bethlehem, PA, as the ``H. Gordon
Payrow Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Dent, Charles W. [R-PA-15]
(introduced 2/16/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-261.
61. H.R. 4805: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 105 North Quincy Street in Clinton, IL, as the
``Gene Vance Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Johnson, Timothy V. [R-IL-15]
(introduced 2/28/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 10/13/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-346.
62. H.R. 4811: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 215 West Industrial Park Road in Harrison, AR, as
the ``John Paul Hammerschmidt Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Boozman, John [R-AR-3]
(introduced 2/28/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-274.
63. H.R. 4962: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 100 Pitcher Street in Utica, NY, as the ``Captain
George A. Wood Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Boehlert, Sherwood [R-NY-24]
(introduced 3/15/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-275.
64. H.R. 4995: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 7 Columbus Avenue in Tuckahoe, NY, as the ``Ronald
Bucca Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Lowey, Nita M. [D-NY-18]
(introduced 3/16/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-262.
65. H.R. 5104: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1750 16th Street South in St. Petersburg, FL, as the
``Morris W. Milton Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Jim [D-FL-11]
(introduced 4/5/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-276.
66. H.R. 5107: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1400 West Jordan Street in Pensacola, FL, as the
``Earl D. Hutto Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, Jeff [R-FL-1]
(introduced 4/5/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-277.
67. H.R. 5108: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1213 East Houston Street in Cleveland, TX, as the
``Lance Corporal Robert A. Martinez Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Poe, Ted [R-TX-2] (introduced
4/5/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Received in the Senate.
68. H.R. 5169: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1310 Highway 64 NW. in Ramsey, IN, as the ``Wilfred
Edward `Cousin Willie' Sieg, Sr. Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Sodrel, Michael E. [R-IN-9]
(introduced 4/25/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-278.
69. H.R. 5224: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 350 Uinta Drive in Green River, WY, as the ``Curt
Gowdy Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Cubin, Barbara [R-WY]
(introduced 4/27/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-329.
70. H.R. 5245: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, VT, as the ``Matthew
Lyon Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]
(introduced 4/27/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/2/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-263.
71. H.R. 5428: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 202 East Washington Street in Morris, IL, as the
``Joshua A. Terando Morris Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Weller, Jerry [R-IL-11]
(introduced 5/19/2006).
b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government
Reform; Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Latest Major Action: 10/13/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-349.
72. H.R. 5434: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, OH, as the
``Larry Cox Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Ney, Robert W. [R-OH-18]
(introduced 5/19/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 10/13/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-350.
73. H.R. 5504: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, KS, as the ``Larry
Winn, Jr. Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Moore, Dennis [D-KS-3]
(introduced 5/25/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-330.
74. H.R. 5540: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 217 Southeast 2nd Street in Dimmitt, TX, as the
``Sergeant Jacob Dan Dones Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX-19]
(introduced 6/7/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 8/17/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-279.
75. H.R. 5664: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 110 Cooper Street in Babylon, NY, as the ``Jacob
Samuel Fletcher Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative King, Peter T. [R-NY-3]
(introduced 6/21/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 10/10/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-315.
76. H.R. 5736: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 101 Palafox Place in Pensacola, FL, as the ``Vincent
J. Whibbs, Sr. Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, Jeff [R-FL-1]
(introduced 6/29/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
77. H.R. 5857: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1501 South Cherrybell Avenue in Tucson, AZ, as the
``Morris K. `Mo' Udall Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Grijalva, Raul M. [D-AZ-7]
(introduced 7/20/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/26/2006 Received in the Senate.
78. H.R. 5923: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 29-50 Union Street in Flushing, NY, as the ``Dr.
Leonard Price Stavisky Post Office''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Ackerman, Gary L. [D-NY-5]
(introduced 7/27/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/26/2006 Received in the Senate.
79. H.R. 5929: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, IL, as the
``Katherine Dunham Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Costello, Jerry F. [D-IL-12]
(introduced 7/27/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-333.
80. H.R. 5989: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 10240 Roosevelt Road in Westchester, IL, as the
``John J. Sinde Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]
(introduced 7/28/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
81. H.R. 5990: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 415 South 5th Avenue in Maywood, IL, as the
``Wallace W. Sykes Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]
(introduced 7/28/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
82. H.R. 6033: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 39-25 61st Street in Woodside, NY, as the ``Thomas
J. Manton Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Crowley, Joseph [D-NY-7]
(introduced 9/6/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Latest Major
Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-334.
83. H.R. 6075: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 101 East Gay Street in West Chester, PA, as the
``Robert J. Thompson Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Pitts, Joseph R. [R-PA-16]
(introduced 9/14/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 10/12/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-336.
84. H.R. 6078: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 307 West Wheat Street in Woodville, TX, as the
``Chuck Fortenberry Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Brady, Kevin [R-TX-8]
(introduced 9/14/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
85. H.R. 6102: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 200 Lawyers Road, NW in Vienna, VA, as the ``Captain
Christopher Petty Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 9/19/2006).
b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government
Reform. Latest Major Action: 9/26/2006 Received in the Senate.
86. H.R. 6151: To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 216 Oak Street in Farmington, MN, as the ``Hamilton
H. Judson Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Kline, John [R-MN-2]
(introduced 9/21/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/29/2006 Received in the Senate.
87. S. 571: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1915 Fulton Street in Brooklyn, NY, as the
``Congresswoman Shirley A. Chisholm Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Senator Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] (introduced
3/9/2005).
b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major
Action: 8/2/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-50.
88. S. 775: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, OK, as the ``Boone
Pickens Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Senator Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] (introduced 4/
13/2005).
b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major
Action: 8/2/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-51.
89. S. 904: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service
located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, NJ, as the
``Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Senator Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ]
(introduced 4/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major
Action: 8/2/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-52.
90. S. 1275: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 7172 North Tongass Highway, Ward Cove, AK,
as the ``Alice R. Brusich Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Senator Stevens, Ted [R-AK] (introduced 6/21/
2005).
b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major
Action: 10/5/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-300.
91. S. 1323: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located on Lindbald Avenue, Girdwood, AK, as the
``Dorothy and Connie Hibbs Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Senator Stevens, Ted [R-AK] (introduced 6/28/
2005).
b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major
Action: 10/5/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-301.
92. S. 1445: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 520 Colorado Avenue in Arriba, CO, as the
``William H. Emery Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Senator Salazar, Ken [D-CO] (introduced 7/21/
2005).
b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major
Action: 6/23/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-237.
93. S. 1989: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, RI, shall be
known and designated as the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office
Building''
a. Sponsor.--Senator Reed, Jack [D-RI] (introduced 11/10/
2005).
b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major
Action: 2/27/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-175.
94. S. 2690: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, VA, as the
``Harry J. Parrish Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Senator Allen, George [R-VA] (introduced 5/2/
2006).
b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform Latest Major
Action: 10/5/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-302.
95. S. 3613: A bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park,
NY, as the ``Major George Quamo Post Office Building''
a. Sponsor.--Senator Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY]
(introduced 6/29/2006).
b. Legislative History.--Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs; House Government Reform. Latest Major
Action: 10/6/2006 Became Public Law No. 109-311.
E. RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE OR THE HOUSE
1. H. Con. Res. 25: Recognizing the contributions of Jibreel Khazan
(Ezell Blair, Jr.), David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin
McCain, the ``Greensboro Four'', to the civil rights movement
a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, Brad [D-NC-13]
(introduced 1/25/2005).
b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government
Reform; Senate Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 2/16/2005
Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
2. H. Con. Res. 41: Recognizing the second century of Big Brothers Big
Sisters, and supporting the mission and goals of that
organization
a. Sponsor.--Representative Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA-29]
(introduced 2/1/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 4/29/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status:
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a
preamble by Unanimous Consent.
3. H. Con. Res. 59: Recognizing the contributions of African-American
basketball teams and players for their achievements,
dedication, and contributions to the sport of basketball and to
the Nation
a. Sponsor.--Sponsor: Representative Kilpatrick, Carolyn C.
[D-MI-13] (introduced 2/14/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Latest Major Action: 12/
22/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed
to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous
Consent.
4. H. Con. Res. 71: Expressing the sense of Congress that there should
be established a Caribbean-American Heritage Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9]
(introduced 2/17/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 2/14/2006 Passed/agreed to in
Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without
amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
5. H. Con. Res. 181: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Life
Insurance Awareness Month, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13]
(introduced 6/17/2005) Cosponsors: 66.
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 7/26/2005 Referred to Senate
committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
6. H. Con. Res. 209: Supporting the goals and ideals of Domestic
Violence Awareness Month and expressing the sense of Congress
that Congress should raise awareness of domestic violence in
the United States and its devastating effects on families
a. Sponsor.--Representative Green, Al [D-TX-9] (introduced
7/14/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/28/2005 Received in the Senate.
7. H. Con. Res. 218: Recognizing the centennial of sustained
immigration from the Philippines to the United States and
acknowledging the contributions of our Filipino-American
community to our country over the last century
a. Sponsor.--Representative Case, Ed [D-HI-2] (introduced
7/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 12/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status:
Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment by Unanimous
Consent.
8. H. Con. Res. 222: Supporting the goals and ideals of National
Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Latham, Tom [R-IA-4]
(introduced 7/27/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Received in the Senate.
9. H. Con. Res. 240: Supporting the goals and ideals of a national day
of prayer and remembrance for the victims of Hurricane Katrina
and encouraging all Americans to observe that day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]
(introduced 9/13/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 9/15/2005 Referred to Senate
committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
10. H. Con. Res. 269: Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the White
House Fellows Program
a. Sponsor.--Representative Barton, Joe [R-TX-6]
(introduced 10/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 11/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in
Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without
amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
11. H. Con. Res. 273: Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the
Montgomery bus boycott
a. Sponsor.--Representative Rogers, Mike D. (AL) [R-AL-3]
(introduced 10/25/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 12/12/2005 Referred to Senate
committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
12. H. Con. Res. 281: Congratulating the Chicago White Sox on winning
the 2005 World Series
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]
(introduced 10/27/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Latest Major Action: 1/
27/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
13. H. Con. Res. 289: Supporting the goal and mission of America
Recycles Day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Inslee, Jay [D-WA-1]
(introduced 11/2/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 11/16/2005 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
14. H. Con. Res. 315: Urging the President to issue a proclamation for
the observance of an American Jewish History Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-
FL-20] (introduced 12/14/2005).
b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government
Reform; Senate Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 2/14/2006
Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in
Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
15. H. Con. Res. 383: Supporting the goals and ideals of the National
Arbor Day Foundation and National Arbor Day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE-1]
(introduced 4/6/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 5/1/2006 Referred to Senate
committee. Status: Received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
16. H. Con. Res. 399: Recognizing the 30th Anniversary of the victory
of U.S. winemakers at the 1976 Paris Wine Tasting
a. Sponsor.--Representative Thompson, Mike [D-CA-1]
(introduced 5/3/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Latest Major Action: 8/2/
2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to
in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous
Consent.
17. H. Con. Res. 422: Supporting the goals and ideals of the Vigil for
Lost Promise day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 6/6/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Latest Major Action: 6/
7/2006 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the
Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
18. H. Con. Res. 449: Commemorating the 60th anniversary of the
historic 1946 season of Major League Baseball Hall of Fame
member Bob Feller and his return from military service to the
United States
a. Sponsor.--Representative LaTourette, Steve C. [R-OH-14]
(introduced 7/19/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 9/11/2006 Passed/agreed to in
Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without
amendment by Unanimous Consent.
19. H. Con. Res. 471: Congratulating the Professional Golfers'
Association of America on its 90th anniversary and commending
the members of the Professional Golfers' Association of America
and the PGA Foundation for the charitable contributions they
provide to the United States
a. Sponsor.--Representative Foley, Mark [R-FL-16]
(introduced 9/13/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/26/2006 Received in the Senate.
20. H. Con. Res. 473: Supporting the goals and ideals of Gynecologic
Cancer Awareness Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49]
(introduced 9/14/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Received in the Senate.
21. H. Res. 15: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Campus
Safety Awareness Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN-2]
(introduced 1/4/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 10/6/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
22. H. Res. 40: Honoring the career and philanthropic contributions of
Johnny Carson
a. Sponsor.--Representative Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE-1]
(introduced 1/25/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 1/26/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
23. H. Res. 41: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
that a day should be established as ``National Tartan Day'' to
recognize the outstanding achievements and contributions made
by Scottish-Americans to the United States
a. Sponsor.--Representative McIntyre, Mike [D-NC-7]
(introduced 1/25/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 3/9/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
24. H. Res. 69: Honoring the life and accomplishments of the late Ossie
Davis
a. Sponsor.--Representative Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [D-GA-
2] (introduced 2/8/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 2/9/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
25. H. Res. 80: Commending fire chiefs associations
a. Sponsor.--Representative Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [R-VA-5]
(introduced 2/9/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 2/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
26. H. Res. 85: Supporting the goals and ideals of ``National MPS Day''
a. Sponsor.--Representative Kind, Ron [D-WI-3] (introduced
2/10/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 3/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
27. H. Res. 86: Congratulating the New England Patriots for winning
Super Bowl XXXIX
a. Sponsor.--Representative Frank, Barney [D-MA-4]
(introduced 2/10/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 2/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
28. H. Res. 124: Congratulating Jewish communities on their seven year
completion of the 11th cycle of the daily study of the Talmud
a. Sponsor.--Representative Weiner, Anthony D. [D-NY-9]
(introduced 3/1/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 3/1/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
29. H. Res. 142: Supporting the goals and ideals of a ``Rotary
International Day'' and celebrating and honoring Rotary
International on the occasion of its centennial anniversary
a. Sponsor.--Representative Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]
(introduced 3/8/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 5/10/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413-0 (Roll No. 163).
30. H. Res. 148: Supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy
Month, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13]
(introduced 3/10/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 4/6/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 409-2 (Roll No. 95).
31. H. Res. 184: Recognizing a National Week of Hope in commemoration
of the 10-year anniversary of the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma
City
a. Sponsor.--Representative Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [R-OK-5]
(introduced 4/5/2005).
b. Legislative History.--Committees: House Government
Reform. Latest Major Action: 4/20/2005 Passed/agreed to in
House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
32. H. Res. 185: Honoring Johnnie Cochran, Jr. for his service to the
Nation, and expressing condolences to his family, friends,
colleagues, and admirers on his death
a. Sponsor.--Representative Waters, Maxine [D-CA-35]
(introduced 4/5/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 5/5/2005 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
33. H. Res. 188: Recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many
contributions throughout the history of the Nation
a. Sponsor.--Representative Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2]
(introduced 4/5/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 4/6/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
34. H. Res. 189: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
that a day ought to be established to bring awareness to the
issue of missing persons
a. Sponsor.--Representative Sweeney, John E. [R-NY-20]
(introduced 4/5/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/29/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
35. H. Res. 197: Honoring Franklin Delano Roosevelt
a. Sponsor.--Representative Miller, George [D-CA-7]
(introduced 4/6/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 4/13/2005 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
36. H. Res. 227: Recognizing and honoring the contributions of Indian
Americans to economic innovation and society generally
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 4/21/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 4/26/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
37. H. Res. 231: Recognizing and celebrating the life and
accomplishments of the great African American jockey Jimmy
``Wink'' Winkfield and the significant contributions and
excellence of other African American jockeys and trainers in
the sport of horse racing and the history of the Kentucky Derby
a. Sponsor.--Representative Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL-1]
(introduced 4/21/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 5/5/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
38. H. Res. 266: Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers
Memorial Day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5]
(introduced 5/5/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 5/16/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 391-0 (Roll No. 172).
39. H. Res. 276: Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer
Awareness Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Platts, Todd Russell [R-PA-19]
(introduced 5/12/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 10/6/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415-0 (Roll No. 510).
40. H. Res. 280: Celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 5/17/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 5/23/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
41. H. Res. 289: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Health
Center Week in order to raise awareness of health services
provided by community, migrant, public housing, and homeless
health centers, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]
(introduced 5/19/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 7/25/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
42. H. Res. 294: Supporting the goals of ``A Day of Commemoration of
the Great Upheaval,'' and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [R-
LA-7] (introduced 5/24/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 7/25/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
43. H. Res. 327: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Passport
Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Lee, Barbara [D-CA-9]
(introduced 6/16/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
44. H. Res. 329: Honoring former President William Jefferson Clinton on
the occasion of his 59th birthday
a. Sponsor.--Representative Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-14]
(introduced 6/17/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 7/25/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
45. H. Res. 339: Congratulating the San Antonio Spurs for winning the
2005 National Basketball Association Championship
a. Sponsor.--Representative Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21]
(introduced 6/24/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/30/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
46. H. Res. 352: Providing that the House of Representatives will focus
on removing barriers to competitiveness of the U.S. economy
a. Sponsor.--Representative Tiahrt, Todd [R-KS-4]
(introduced 7/11/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Education and the Workforce;
House Government Reform Latest Major Action: 7/12/2005 Failed
of passage/not agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and
Nays: (2/3 required): 242-177 (Roll No. 367).
47. H. Res. 355: Celebrating Walt Disney's contributions to our Nation
a. Sponsor.--Representative Sanchez, Loretta [D-CA-47]
(introduced 7/11/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 7/14/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
48. H. Res. 389: Supporting the goals and ideals of the Year of the
Museum
a. Sponsor.--Representative Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [D-
NY-28] (introduced 7/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 2/8/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
49. H. Res. 402: Supporting the goals and ideals of Infant Mortality
Awareness Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26]
(introduced 7/28/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
50. H. Res. 429: Congratulating the West Oahu Little League Baseball
team for winning the 2005 Little League Baseball World Series
a. Sponsor.--Representative Abercrombie, Neil [D-HI-1]
(introduced 9/7/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/21/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
51. H. Res. 483: Supporting the ideals of National Teen Dating Violence
and Prevention Week
a. Sponsor.--Representative Millender-McDonald, Juanita [D-
CA-37] (introduced 10/6/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 12/19/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
52. H. Res. 487: Supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 10/7/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 12/13/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 405-0 (Roll No. 623).
53. H. Res. 498: Supporting the goals and ideals of School Bus Safety
Week
a. Sponsor.--Representative Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN-2]
(introduced 10/18/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 7/18/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424-0 (Roll No. 381).
54. H. Res. 517: Recognizing the life of Wellington Timothy Mara and
his outstanding contributions to the New York Giants Football
Club, the National Football League, and the United States
a. Sponsor.--Representative Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-8]
(introduced 10/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 3/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
55. H. Res. 518: Honoring professional surveyors and recognizing their
contributions to society
a. Sponsor.--Representative Putnam, Adam H. [R-FL-12]
(introduced 10/26/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 3/30/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
56. H. Res. 556: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
that a National Methamphetamine Prevention Week should be
established to increase awareness of methamphetamine and to
educate the public on ways to help prevent the use of that
damaging narcotic
a. Sponsor.--Representative Baird, Brian [D-WA-3]
(introduced 11/16/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 4/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421-2 (Roll No. 98).
57. H. Res. 574: Congratulating the Los Angeles Galaxy on their victory
in the 2005 Major League Soccer championship
a. Sponsor.--Representative Becerra, Xavier [D-CA-31]
(introduced 11/18/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 12/13/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
58. H. Res. 579: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be
protected for those who celebrate Christmas
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Jo Ann [R-VA-1]
(introduced 12/6/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 12/15/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as
amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 401-22,
5 Present (Roll No. 637).
59. H. Res. 586: Commemorating the life, achievements, and
contributions of Alan Reich
a. Sponsor.--Representative Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2]
(introduced 12/6/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 12/19/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
60. H. Res. 587: Congratulating Tony Stewart on winning the 2005 NASCAR
Nextel Cup Championship
a. Sponsor.--Representative Sodrel, Michael E. [R-IN-9]
(introduced 12/6/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 12/14/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
61. H. Res. 605: Recognizing the life of Preston Robert Tisch and his
outstanding contributions to New York City, the New York Giants
Football Club, the National Football League, and the United
States
a. Sponsor.--Representative Fossella, Vito [R-NY-13]
(introduced 12/14/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 399-0 (Roll No. 428).
62. H. Res. 626: Congratulating Albert Pujols on being named the Most
Valuable Player for the National League for the 2005 Major
League Baseball season
a. Sponsor.--Representative Carnahan, Russ [D-MO-3]
(introduced 12/16/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
63. H. Res. 627: Congratulating Chris Carpenter on being named the Cy
Young Award winner for the National League for the 2005 Major
League Baseball season
a. Sponsor.--Representative Carnahan, Russ [D-MO-3]
(introduced 12/16/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 5/9/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
64. H. Res. 629: Supporting the goals and ideals of a Day of Hearts,
Congenital Heart Defect Day in order to increase awareness
about congenital heart defects, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Price, Tom [R-GA-6] (introduced
12/16/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 2/14/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
65. H. Res. 670: Congratulating the National Football League champion
Pittsburgh Steelers for winning Super Bowl XL and completing
one of the greatest postseason runs in professional sports
history
a. Sponsor.--Representative Murphy, Tim [R-PA-18]
(introduced 2/7/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 2/8/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 384-0, 10 Present
(Roll No. 5).
66. H. Res. 721: Supporting the goals and ideals of a Salvadoran-
American Day (El Dia del Salvadoreno) in recognition of all
Salvadoran-Americans for their hard work, dedication, and
contribution to the stability and well-being of the United
States
a. Sponsor.--Representative Solis, Hilda L. [D-CA-32]
(introduced 3/9/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 7/18/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
67. H. Res. 729: Supporting National Tourism Week
a. Sponsor.--Representative Foley, Mark [R-FL-16]
(introduced 3/16/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
68. H. Res. 737: Supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy
Month, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13]
(introduced 3/28/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 4/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 423-1 (Roll No. 97).
69. H. Res. 745: Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer
Awareness Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Platts, Todd Russell [R-PA-19]
(introduced 3/29/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
70. H. Res. 748: Recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and
French victory at Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary
War
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Jo Ann [R-VA-1]
(introduced 3/30/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
71. H. Res. 752: Requesting the President to transmit to the House of
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of
adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the
President relating to the receipt and consideration by the
Executive Office of the President of any information concerning
the variation between the version of S. 1932, the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005, that the House of Representatives passed
on February 1, 2006, and the version of the bill that the
President signed on February 8, 2006
a. Sponsor.--Representative Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA-30]
(introduced 3/30/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. House
Reports: 109-457. Latest Major Action: 5/9/2006 Placed on the
House Calendar, Calendar No. 172.
72. H. Res. 753: Commending American craft brewers
a. Sponsor.--Representative Boehlert, Sherwood [R-NY-24]
(introduced 4/4/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
73. H. Res. 763: Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Children
and Families Day, in order to encourage adults in the United
States to support and listen to children and to help children
throughout the Nation achieve their hopes and dreams, and for
other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Davis, Tom [R-VA-11]
(introduced 4/5/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
74. H. Res. 764: Recognizing and honoring firefighters for their many
contributions throughout the history of the Nation
a. Sponsor.--Representative Weldon, Curt [R-PA-7]
(introduced 4/5/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 4/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
75. H. Res. 773: Commending the American Jewish Committee for its
century of leadership, and for other purposes
a. Sponsor.--Representative Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32]
(introduced 4/25/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 5/4/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
76. H. Res. 788: Supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers
Memorial Day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5]
(introduced 5/2/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 5/16/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
77. H. Res. 826: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
that a National Youth Sports Week should be established
a. Sponsor.--Representative McIntyre, Mike [D-NC-7]
(introduced 5/19/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/19/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 311-0, 1 Present (Roll
No. 291).
78. H. Res. 867: Honoring the life and accomplishments of James Cameron
a. Sponsor.--Representative Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4]
(introduced 6/14/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/20/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
79. H. Res. 881: Congratulating the National Hockey League Champions,
the Carolina Hurricanes, on their victory in the 2006 Stanley
Cup Finals
a. Sponsor.--Representative Price, David E. [D-NC-4]
(introduced 6/20/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
80. H. Res. 887: Congratulating the Miami Heat for winning the 2006 NBA
Championship
a. Sponsor.--Representative Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18]
(introduced 6/22/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 6/26/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
81. H. Res. 901: Honoring former President William Jefferson Clinton on
the occasion of his 60th birthday
a. Sponsor.--Representative Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-14]
(introduced 6/29/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 7/20/2006 House committee/subcommittee actions.
Status: Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
82. H. Res. 912: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Life
Insurance Awareness Month
a. Sponsor.--Representative Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13]
(introduced 7/12/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/6/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
83. H. Res. 973: Recognizing Financial Planning Week, recognizing the
significant impact of sound financial planning on achieving
life's goals, and honoring families and the financial planning
profession for their adherence and dedication to the financial
planning process
a. Sponsor.--Representative Hinojosa, Ruben [D-TX-15]
(introduced 7/28/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as
amended Agreed to by voice vote.
84. H. Res. 974: Supporting the goals and ideals of National Myositis
Awareness Day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Israel, Steve [D-NY-2]
(introduced 7/28/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/25/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
85. H. Res. 983: Honoring the life and accomplishments of the late
Robert E. O'Connor, Jr.
a. Sponsor.--Representative Doyle, Michael F. [D-PA-14]
(introduced 9/6/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/12/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
86. H. Res. 99: Congratulating the Columbus Northern Little League
Baseball Team from Columbus, GA, on its victory in the 2006
Little League World Series Championship games
a. Sponsor.--Representative Westmoreland, Lynn A. [R-GA-8]
(introduced 9/7/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed
to by voice vote.
87. H. Res. 994: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched
against the United States on September 11, 2001
a. Sponsor.--Representative King, Peter T. [R-NY-3]
(introduced 9/12/2006).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; House
International Relations; House Armed Services; House
Transportation and Infrastructure; House Homeland Security;
House Judiciary; House Intelligence (Permanent Select). Latest
Major Action: 9/13/2006 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 395-
22, 1 Present (Roll No. 440).
88. H.J. Res. 59: Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the
establishment of an appropriate day for the commemoration of
the women suffragists who fought for and won the right of women
to vote in the United States
a. Sponsor.--Representative Berkley, Shelley [D-NV-1]
(introduced 7/14/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform. Latest
Major Action: 8/2/2005 Became Public Law No. 109-49.
89. H.J. Res. 61: Supporting the goals and ideals of Gold Star Mothers
Day
a. Sponsor.--Representative Gutknecht, Gil [R-MN-1]
(introduced 7/20/2005).
b. Legislative History.--House Government Reform; Senate
Judiciary. Latest Major Action: 10/7/2005 Referred to Senate
committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
II. Legislative Hearings
1. ``Wasted Space, Wasted Dollars: The Need for Federal Real Property
Management Reform--Federal Real Property Disposal Pilot Program
and Management Improvement Act of 2005,'' June 22, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine
legislative solutions to the challenges of vacant,
underutilized, and deteriorating Federal real property.
b. Witnesses.--Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for
Management, Office of Management and Budget; and David M.
Walker, Comptroller General of the United States.
2. ``Cutting Out the Waste: An Overview of H.R. 5766, the Government
Efficiency Act; and H.R. 3282, the Abolishment of Obsolete
Agencies and Federal Sunset Act of 2005,'' July 19, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to discuss two
bipartisan legislative proposals intended to improve the
operations and effectiveness of Federal programs and agencies:
(1) H.R. 3282, the Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal
Sunset Act of 2005, introduced by Representative Kevin Brady
(R-TX); and (2) H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act,
introduced by Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS).
b. Witnesses.--Todd Tiahrt, Member of Congress; Kevin
Brady, Member of Congress; James R. Horney, senior fellow,
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Charles M.
Loveless, director of legislation, American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees.
PART TWO: OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
I. Full Committee
1. ``Confronting Recidivism: Prisoner Re-entry Programs and a Just
Future for All Americans,'' February 2, 2005
a. Summary.--The hearing provided an opportunity to discuss
the work of organizations that help to prevent recidivism and
similar efforts of State and local governments. This hearing
also examined the role of the Federal Government in assisting
State and local incarceration systems in order to reduce
recidivism. H.R. 4676, the Second Chance Act of 2004 offered by
Rob Portman (OH) and Danny Davis (IL), was also discussed
during this hearing. The Second Chance Act of 2004 would
reauthorize current Department of Justice prisoner re-entry
projects and establish or rewrite other programs. In addition,
the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services are required to establish
consolidated monitoring centers and to perform greater
oversight of cooperation with state and local authorities.
b. Witnesses.--Representative Rob Portman; Representative
Danny Davis; Felix Mata, Baltimore City's Ex-Offender
Initiative, Mayor's Office of Employment Development; Reginald
A. Wilkinson, Ed.D., Ohio Rehabilitation and Corrections
Agency; Paul A. Quander, District of Columbia Court Services
and Offender Supervision Agency; Jim McNeil and David Russell,
Mentor and Protege in the InnerChange Freedom Initiative; Pat
Nolan, Prison Fellowship; Joseph Williams, Transition of
Prisoners; Chaplain Robert Toney, Angola Prison, Louisiana;
Frederick A. Davie, senior vice president of public policy,
Public/Private Ventures; Lorna Hogan, mother advocate, Rebecca
Project for Human Rights, Washington, DC; and George A.H.
Williams, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities, Chicago,
IL.
2. ``The Perplexing Shift from Shortage to Surplus: Managing This
Season's Flu Shot Supply and Preparing For the Future,''
February 10, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to consider
how public perceptions and needs were managed and addressed for
the remainder of the 2004-2005 flu season and to discuss what
actions were taken to plan for the flu season. In addition, the
committee received a status report from FDA regarding the
implementation of Chiron's remediation plan and how it is
worked with both British health officials and Chiron to ensure
Chiron's capability to manufacture vaccine for the next flu
season.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, Director, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention; Dr. Jesse L. Goodman,
Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food
and Drug Administration; Dr. Fay W. Boozman III, president-
elect, Association for State and Territorial Health Officials;
Dr. Robert B. Stroube, commissioner, Virginia Department of
Health; Dr. Walter A. Orenstein, associate director, Emory
Vaccine Center; and Dr. Alan G. Wasserman, chairman, Department
of Medicine, George Washington University Medical Center.
3. ``Wounded Army Guard and Reserve Forces: Increasing the Capacity to
Care,'' February 17, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. Army medical
administrative processes and procedures that govern injured
Army Guard and Reserve soldiers. The hearing focused on:
examining current administrative processes in medical treatment
facilities that effect injured Guard and Reserve soldiers and
their families; the Army's continuing challenges with
oversight, management, infrastructure, automated system
integration, and resources affecting the care and morale of
injured Army Guard and Reserve; and presented GAO's findings
and recommendations of its report: Military Pay: Gaps in Pay
and Benefits Create Financial Hardships for Injured Army
National Guard and Reserve Soldiers.
b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Director, Financial
Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Brigadier General Raymond C. Byrne, Jr., Acting State
Adjutant General of Oregon; Sergeant First Class John Allen, B/
3/20th Special Forces Group, North Carolina National Guard;
Sergeant Joseph Perez, 72nd Military Police Company, Nevada
National Guard; Chief Warrant Officer Rodger L. Shuttleworth,
Chief, Reserve Component Personnel Support Services Branch,
Army Human Resources Command, Maryland National Guard; Master
Sergeant Daniel Forney, Reserve Component Liaison, Medical
Hold, Walter Reed Medical Center, U.S. Army Reservist from
Pennsylvania; Specialist Brian Robinson and Mrs. Nicole
Robinson, 72nd Military Police Company, Nevada National Guard
(written testimony only); Ellen Embrey, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Deployment Health, U.S. Department of
Defense; Dr. Daniel Denning, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs;
Lieutenant General Franklin L. Hagenbeck, Deputy Chief of
Staff, G-1, U.S. Army; Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, M.D.,
U.S. Army Surgeon General; Major General Charles Wilson, Deputy
Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Command; and Philip E. Sakowitz,
Jr., Deputy Director, U.S. Army Installations Management
Agency.
4. ``The Capital Region's Critical Link: Ensuring Metrorail's Future as
a Safe, Reliable and Affordable Transportation Option,''
February 18, 2005
a. Summary.--The Washington Metro Area Transit system has
become a vital part of everyday life in the Nation's Capital,
providing an indispensable commuting option for hundreds of
thousands of the area's workers and out-of-town visitors each
day. Given the reliance of the Federal workforce on Metro, the
committee examined Metro's expressed needs as well as its
operational and management performance.
b. Witnesses.--Richard A. White, chief executive officer,
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Dana Kauffman,
chairman of the Board, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority; William Millar, president, American Public
Transportation Association; Mortimer L. Downey, chairman of the
Board, PB Consult; and John J. Corbett, Jr., co-founder,
Metroriders.org.
5. ``Making Networx Work: Countdown to the RFP for the Federal
Government's Telecommunications Program,'' March 3, 2005
a. Summary.--The third in a series of oversight hearings on
the General Services Administration's [GSA] Networx
telecommunications program, this hearing focused on the
acquisition strategy of the program as proposed by GSA. The
committee was interested in whether the strategy would provide
robust competition from the entire spectrum of the marketplace,
including the largest industry players and smaller non-
traditional technology firms that offer innovative solutions,
to meet the government's increasingly complex
telecommunications requirements.
b. Witnesses.--Stephen Perry, Administrator, GSA,
accompanied by Barbara Shelton, Acting Commissioner, Federal
Technology Service, and John Johnson, Assistant Commissioner
for Service Development and Delivery, Federal Technology
Service; Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office; Jerry Hogge, senior vice
president, Level 3 Communications LLC; Robert Collet, vice
president, engineering, AT&T Government Solutions; Shelley
Murphy, vice president, Federal markets, Verizon; Jerry A.
Edgerton, senior vice president, Government markets, MCI;
Jeffery Storey, CEO, WilTel Communications; Tony D'Agata, vice
president and general manager, Sprint GSD; Don Scott, senior
vice president, EDS U.S. Government Solutions; David
Bittenbender, vice president, Network Services, Computer
Sciences Corp., Federal Sector; James Courter, CEO and vice
chairman IDT Corp.; Mike Cook, senior vice president and
general manager, Hughes Network Systems; Diana Gowen,
president, Broadwing Government Solutions, Broadwing
Communications LLC; and Gregory Baroni, president, Global
Public Sector, Unisys Corp.
6. ``Is Uncle Sam Still Passing the Buck? The Burden of Unfunded
Mandates on State, County, and City Governments,'' March 8,
2005
a. Summary.--The committee held a hearing to examine
financial burdens on State, local, and tribal governments and
private sector parties. In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The purpose of this landmark
legislation was to promote informed decisions by the Congress
and the executive branch about the effects of Federal mandates
on other levels of government and the private sector. In so
doing, the act would help ensure the Federal Government
provided the appropriate level of funding. As State and local
budgets have come under increasing stress in recent years,
unfunded mandates have become increasingly burdensome. The
committee took testimony to examine the actions of the Federal
Government entities charged with carrying out the provisions of
UMRA as well as the impact of Federal legislative and
regulatory action on State and local jurisdictions since UMRA's
passage.
b. Witnesses.--Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director, Congressional
Budget Office; Angelo Kyle, president, National Association of
Counties; Gerald W. Hyland, supervisor, Fairfax County Board of
Supervisors; John Hurson, president, National Conference of
State Legislatures; Mick Cornett, mayor, Oklahoma City, OK;
John D. Graham, Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; and Orice
Williams, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
7. ``Getting the Lead Out: The Ongoing Quest for Safe Drinking Water in
the Nation's Capital,'' March 11, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of this oversight hearing was to
provide a forum for the committee to assess the coordinated
actions of EPA, which is responsible for the Public Water
System Supervision Program for the District of Columbia, the
Washington Aqueduct of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which
treats the water supplied to the District, and WASA, which
purchases the water from the Aqueduct and distributes it to
District residents. The committee also explored whether the
current Safe Drinking Water program is adequate to assure safe
drinking water for the consuming public or whether it needs to
be changed.
b. Witnesses.--Benjamin Grumbles, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water, EPA, and Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region III; Thomas P. Jacobus,
P.E., General Manager, Washington Aqueduct, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; Glenn S. Gerstell, chairman, D.C. WASA; Erik D.
Olson, Sr. Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; Dr.
Ellen K. Silbergeld, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns
Hopkins University; and Dr. Marc Edwards, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech.
8. ``Service Oriented Streamlining: Rethinking the Way GSA Does
Business,'' March 16, 2005
a. Summary.--This oversight hearing examined the possible
restructuring of the General Services Administration's [GSA]
operations--particularly its Federal Supply Service [FSS] and
Federal Technology Service [FTS]--in order to meet the demands
of the modern government market and to address GSA's management
challenges. Out of this hearing, the committee developed H.R.
2066, the ``General Services Administration Modernization Act
of 2005.''
b. Witnesses.--Stephen Perry, Administrator, GSA; Deidre
Lee, Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy,
U.S. Department of Defense; Eugene Waszily, Assistant Inspector
General for Auditing, U.S. General Services Administration;
Thomas Hewitt, CEO, Global Government, on behalf of the
Information Technology Association of America; Vic Avetissian,
corporate director, Northrop Grumman Corp. on behalf of the
Contract Services Association; Mike Davison, director and
general manager, Canon Government Marketing Division on behalf
of the Coalition on Government Procurement; Elaine Dauphin,
vice president GSA programs, Computer Sciences Corp. on behalf
of the Professional Services Council; and Richard Brown,
president, National Federation of Federal Employees.
9. ``Restoring Faith in America's Pastime: Evaluating Major League
Baseball's Efforts to Eradicate Steroid Use,'' March 17, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing evaluated MLB's recently
negotiated drug policy; how the testing policy would be
implemented; how it would effectively address the use of
prohibited drugs by players; and the larger societal and public
health ramifications of steroid use.
b. Witnesses.--Jim Bunning, U.S. Senator (Kentucky) and
member of the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame; Mr. Raymond
and Dr. Denise Garibaldi, parents of former USC baseball
player, Rob Garibaldi, who committed suicide after steroid use;
Donald Hooton, Sr., director, chairman, and president of Taylor
Hooton Foundation, and father of high school baseball player,
Taylor Hooton, who committed suicide after steroid use; Dr.
Nora D. Volkow, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse,
National Institutes of Health; Dr. Gary I. Wadler, associate
professor of clinical medicine, New York University School of
Medicine; Dr. Kirk Brower, associate professor of psychiatry,
University of Michigan Medical School, and executive director,
Chelsea Arbor Addiction Treatment Center; Jose Canseco, former
Oakland Athletic and Texas Ranger; Mark McGwire, former Oakland
Athletic and St. Louis Cardinal; Rafael Palmeiro, current
Baltimore Oriole and former Texas Ranger; Curt Schilling,
current Boston Red Sox; Sammy Sosa, current Baltimore Oriole
and former Chicago Cub; Frank Thomas, current Chicago White
Sox, via video conference; Commissioner Allan H. Selig, Major
League Baseball, accompanied by Robert D. Manfred, Jr.,
executive vice president labor and human resources, Major
League Baseball; Don Fehr, executive director and general
counsel, Major League Baseball Players Association; Sandy
Alderson, executive vice president of baseball operations,
Major League Baseball and former general manager, Oakland
Athletics; and Kevin Towers, general manger, San Diego Padres.
10. ``No Computer System Left Behind: A Review of the Federal
Government's D+ Information Security Grade,'' April 7, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the status of the
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 [FISMA]
implementation and the results of the 2004 FISMA scorecards to
help gauge Federal agencies' progress in securing their
information systems.
b. Witnesses.--Greg Wilshusen, Director, Information
Security Issues, Government Accountability Office; Karen S.
Evans, Administrator, Office of E-Government and Information
Technology, Office of Management and Budget; Bruce N.
Crandlemire, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, U.S. Agency
for International Development; John Streufert, Acting Chief
Information Officer, U.S. Agency for International Development;
Frank Deffer, Assistant Inspector General for Information
Technology, Department of Homeland Security; Steve Cooper,
Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Ted
Alves, Assistance Inspector General for IT and Financial
Management, Department of Transportation; and Daniel Matthews,
Chief Information Officer, Department of Transportation.
11. ``OMB Management Watch List: $65 Billion Reasons to Ensure the
Federal Government is Effectively Managing Information
Technology Investments,'' April 21, 2005
a. Summary.--For the fiscal year 2005 budget, the Office of
Management and Budget [OMB] developed processes and criteria
for including information technology investments on its
Management Watch List. This hearing examined how OMB used the
Watch List to identify opportunities to strengthen investments
and promote improvements in IT management, how OMB's use of the
Watch List impacts daily operations in select agencies, and the
efforts agencies have taken to have their projects removed from
the Watch List.
b. Witnesses.--Karen Evans, Administrator, Electronic
Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and
Budget; David Powner, Director, Information Technology
Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; Dan
Matthews, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of
Transportation; Robert McFarland, Assistant Secretary for
Information Technology, Department of Veterans Affairs; Rosita
Parkes, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Energy;
and Lisa Schlosser, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
12. ``Digging Up the Facts: Inspecting the Big Dig and the Performance
of Federal and State Government in Providing Oversight of
Federal Funds,'' April 22, 2005 (Boston, MA)
a. Summary.--This field hearing was held in Boston, MA to
assess the status of the Central Tunnel/Artery Project, or the
``Big Dig,'' one of the largest and most expensive Federal
highway projects in the United States, that began in 1980 at a
cost of $2 billion and grew to an estimated $14.625 billion.
The Boston project was scheduled for completion in late 2005.
The purpose of the hearing was to assess the status of the Big
Dig and the efforts to remedy the tunnel leaks, what has been
learned from this mega-highway project, and implementation of
safeguards for other federally funded projects.
b. Witnesses.--D.J. Gribbin, Chief Counsel, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; Kenneth
Meade, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation;
Tom Reilly, attorney general, Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
Matthew J. Amorello, chairman, Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority; John MacDonald, chairman of the Board of Control for
Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, accompanied by Morris Levy,
senior vice president, Parsons Brinckerhoff, and Keith S.
Sibley, program manager, Central Artery Tunnel Project,
Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff; and George J. Tamaro, partner,
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers.
13. ``Steroid Use in Sports, Part II: Examining the National Football
League's Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances,''
April 27, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing evaluated the NFL's drug policy;
how the testing policy was implemented; how it would
effectively address the use of prohibited drugs by players; and
the larger societal and public health ramifications of steroid
use.
b. Witnesses.--Willie Stewart, head football coach,
Anacostia High School, Washington, DC; Dr. Linn Goldberg,
professor of medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University; Dr.
Gary I. Wadler, associate professor of clinical medicine, New
York University School of Medicine; Dr. John A. Lombardo, NFL
advisor on anabolic steroids and related substances; Dr. Bryan
Finkle, NFL consulting toxicologist on anabolic steroids and
related substances; Steve Courson, ex-NFL player, Pittsburgh
Steelers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers; Paul Tagliabue, commissioner,
National Football League; Harold Henderson, executive vice
president, labor relations, National Football League; and Gene
Upshaw, executive director, National Football League Players
Association.
14. ``Who's Watching the COOP? A Re-Examination of Federal Agencies'
Continuity of Operations Plans,'' April 28, 2005
a. Summary.--The hearing was a follow-up to the hearing on
April 22, 2004 and reviewed executive branch progress since
that hearing in developing effective continuity of operations
plans [COOP] to ensure continuation of essential agency
functions in the event of a disruptive disaster or attack.
Specifically, the hearing assessed how FEMA is monitoring and
measuring COOP readiness, the status of Federal agencies'
compliance with COOP planning directives and whether the new
guidance contained in FPC 65 is helping agencies clarify their
essential functions. The committee also focused on how telework
can be used to enhance Federal COOP readiness.
b. Witnesses.--Reynold N. Hoover, Director, Office of
National Security Coordination, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Marta Brito
Perez, Associate Director, Human Capital Leadership and Merit
System Accountability, U.S. Office of Personnel Management;
Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; James A. Kane, president and CEO,
Systems and Software Consortium; and Julie Williams, director,
Internet Business Solutions Group, Federal Civilian Agency
Practice, Cisco Systems.
15. ``Risk and Responsibility: The Roles of FDA and Pharmaceutical
Companies in Ensuring the Safety of Approved Drugs, Like
Vioxx,'' May 5, 2005
a. Summary.--The hearing purpose was to gain a better
understanding of drug safety. Specifically, the committee
examined the post approval actions taken by both the Food and
Drug Administration and Merck and Co., Inc. as it related to
the drug Vioxx (rofecoxib).
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Steven Galson, Director, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
accompanied by Dr. John Jenkins, Director, Office of New Drugs,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, and Dr. Paul Seligman, Director, Office of
Pharmacoepidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration and former Acting Director, Office
of Drug Safety; Dennis M. Erb, Ph.D., vice president of global
strategic regulatory development for Merck and Co., Inc.; John
E. Calfee, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute; and
Dr. Michael Wilkes, MD, PhD, vice dean for medical education
and professor of internal medicine, University of California,
Davis.
16. ``Securing Our Borders: What Have We Learned From Government
Initiatives and Citizen Patrols?'' May 12, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the Federal Government's
ability, strategy, and tactics used to secure U.S. borders.
b. Witnesses.--Robert C. Bonner, Commissioner, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Chris Simcox, co-founder, the Minuteman Project; T.J. Bonner,
president, National Border Patrol Council; and Janice Kephart,
former counsel, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States.
17. ``Domestic Source Restrictions Threaten Free Trade: What is the
Federal Government Doing to Ensure a Level Playing Field in the
Global Economy?'' May 13, 2005
a. Summary.--As the Chinese government overhauls its
standards-setting process, there are inevitable changes to the
country's procurement policies and regulations that may protect
Chinese interests but are potentially burdensome to non-Chinese
companies that wish to sell their goods and services in China.
This hearing examined the potential impact of China's pending
regulation as it affects the Chinese government's acquisition
of software, the Federal Government's efforts to persuade China
to abandon discriminatory policies, and the implications of
this procurement regulation on U.S. companies and the U.S.
economy as a whole.
b. Witnesses.--Benjamin H. Wu, Assistant Secretary for
Technology and Acting Director for National Technical
Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce; Charles
Freeman, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative of China Affairs,
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; Mark Bohannon,
Software Information Industry Association; Robert Cresanti,
vice president, Business Software Alliance; and John Frisbie,
president, US-China Business Council.
18. ``Steroid Use in Sports Part III: Examining the National Basketball
Association's Steroid Testing Program,'' May 19, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing assessed the NBA's drug policy;
how the testing policy was implemented; how effectively it
addressed the use of prohibited drugs by players; and the
larger societal and public health ramifications of steroid use.
b. Witnesses.--David Stern, commissioner, National
Basketball Association; Richard W. Buchanan, senior vice
president and general counsel, National Basketball Association;
William Hunter, executive director, National Basketball Players
Association; Keith Jones, V.P. of basketball operations/
athletic trainer, Houston Rockets; and Juan Dixon, player,
Washington Wizards.
19. ``Declaration of Education: Toward a Culture of Achievement in D.C.
Public Schools,'' May 20, 2005
a. Summary.--The District of Columbia Public School system
has been plagued by management problems, declining enrollment,
crumbling facilities, escalating violence, and poor academic
achievement. Witnesses testified about the collaborative effort
among school staff, parents, policymakers, agencies, and
organizations to improve student participation and performance.
The committee acknowledged that the lack of performance
improvement is a major threat to the future growth and
stability of the city.
b. Witnesses.--Robert C. Bobb, deputy mayor/city
administrator, government of the District of Columbia; Kathleen
Patterson, chairperson, Committee on Education, Libraries, and
Recreation, Council of the District of Columbia; Clifford B.
Janey, superintendent, District of Columbia Public Schools;
Peggy Cooper Cafritz, president, District of Columbia Board of
Education; Charles Ramsey, chief of police, Metropolitan Police
Department; Brenda Donald Walker, Director, Child and Family
Services Agency; Jason Kamras, National Teacher of the Year;
Iris Toyer, Chair, Parents United for the District of Columbia
Public Schools; and Carolyn Dallas, executive director, Youth
Court.
20. ``Federal Student Loan Programs: Are They Meeting the Needs of
Students and Schools?'' May 26, 2005
a. Summary.--The Federal Government operates two major
student loan programs: the Federal Family Education Loan
Program [FFELP] and the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program
[FDLP]. This hearing examined the Department of Education's
record in managing the student aid programs; its initiatives to
enhance management and delivery of services to students,
families, and schools; and highlighted the important role of
competition between FFELP and FDLP in promoting better service
to students and schools and streamlined delivery of both
programs.
b. Witnesses.--Theresa S. Shaw, Chief Operating Officer,
Federal Student Aid Office, U.S. Department of Education; John
P. Higgins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Education; Dr. Alan Merten, president, George Mason University;
Sarah Bauder, director of student financial aid, University of
Maryland; Natala Hart, director of student financial aid, Ohio
State University; Cynthia Thornton, director of student
financial aid, Dillard University; and Nancy Coolidge,
coordinator, Federal Student Financial Support, Office of the
President, University of California.
21. ``Assessing the Department of Homeland Security's Mission
Effectiveness: Is it Enough to Meet the Terrorist Threat?''
June 9, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to hear the new
Secretary of Homeland Security's assessment of the Department's
overall effectiveness in meeting its core mission--specifically
its operations, management, and opportunities for performance
improvement. Implementation of specific programs was also
addressed, including the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, US VISIT, and implementation of the Support Anti-
Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002.
b. Witness.--Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security.
22. ``Eradicating Steroid Use, Part IV: Examining the Use of Steroids
by Young Women to Enhance Athletic Performance and Body
Image,'' June 15, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing considered the potential health
risks associated with illicit steroid use by females, the
pervasiveness of this problem, and the need for prevention
programs targeting middle and high school-aged females who
might use steroids for purposes of athletic excellence and/or
aesthetic enhancement.
b. Witnesses.--Kelli White, former World Champion sprinter;
Dr. Diane Elliot, professor of medicine, Oregon Health and
Science University; Dr. Todd Schlifstein, clinical instructor,
New York University School of Medicine; Dr. Harrison Pope,
professor of psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA; Dr.
Avery Faigenbaum, professor of health and exercise science, the
College of New Jersey; and Dr. Charles Yesalis, professor of
health policy and administration, the Pennsylvania State
University.
23. ``Under Fire: Does the District of Colombia's Gun Ban Help or Hurt
the Fight Against Crime?'' June 28, 2005
a. Summary.--In 1976, District of Columbia Council passed
the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a law prohibiting
the possession of unregistered firearms, and banned the
registration of all handguns, as well as automatic and high-
capacity semi-automatic firearms. Witnesses were asked to
provide testimony on the effect of the District's gun laws, the
effect of repeal of the District's gun laws, and the legal and
constitutional issues relating to the District of Columbia's
gun laws.
b. Witnesses.--John R. Lott, resident scholar, American
Enterprise Institute; Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in
constitutional studies, the Cato Institute; Robert Peck,
president, Greater Washington Board of Trade; Reverend Lionel
Edmonds, co-chair, Washington Interfaith Network; Sandra
Seegers, District of Columbia resident; Tyrone Parker,
executive director, Alliance of Concerned Men; and Francine
Lowe, District of Columbia resident.
24. ``To Lead or To Follow: The Next Generation Internet and the
Transition to IPv6,'' June 29, 2005
a. Summary.--The hearing provided an overview Internet
Protocol version 6 [IPv6] and the Federal Government's
transition to the new standard. OMB outlined its timeline for
agency planning and transition. GAO highlighted the
opportunities and risks that the Federal Government faces with
the transition, and discussed the findings of its study on
Federal agency transition efforts. In addition, the hearing
provided a review of current transition efforts, international
migration to the new protocol, commercial opportunities and
challenges, and the implications of the transition for content
and services.
b. Witnesses.--Karen Evans, Administrator for Electronic
Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and
Budget; David Powner, Director of Information Technology
Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; Keith
Rhodes, Chief Technologist and Director, Center for Technology
and Engineering, Government Accountability Office; George G.
Wauer, Director, Architecture and Interoperability, Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information
Integration and Office of Chief Information Officer accompanied
by Major General Dennis Moran, Vice Director of Command,
Control, Communications, and Computer Systems, Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Department of Defense; Jawad Khaki, corporate vice
president, Microsoft Corp.; Stan Barber, vice president, NTT/
Verio Inc.; and Alex Lightman, chief executive officer, Charmed
Technologies, Inc.
25. ``The Next Flu Pandemic: Evaluating U.S. Readiness,'' June 30, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing evaluated U.S. preparedness
levels and the ability to respond to the global infectious
disease threat of influenza pandemic. The past few annual
influenza seasons, as well as recent avian flu activity in
Asia, have raised the urgent question of whether the United
States is prepared to deal with the threat of a flu pandemic.
The purpose of this hearing was to assess our public health
system's response capabilities at the Federal, State, and local
levels, and to determine what additional measures are needed in
order to improve preparations and reduce risks posed by an
avian flu outbreak.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. James W. LeDuc, Director, National
Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National Institute
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of
Health; Dr. Bruce Gellin, Director, National Vaccine Planning
Office, Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Marcia
Crosse, Director, Health Care Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Mary C. Selecky, Washington State
Secretary of Health, testifying on behalf of the Association of
State and Territorial Health Officials; Dr. Dominick Iacuzio,
medical director, Roche Laboratories, Inc.; Dr. Shelley A.
Hearne, executive director, Trust for America's Health; and Dr.
John F. Milligan, executive vice president and chief financial
officer, Gilead Sciences, Inc.
26. ``One Year Later: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Project
BioShield,'' July 14, 2005
a. Summary.--This oversight hearing assessed the
implementation of Project BioShield thus far. The purpose of
this hearing was to consider whether the Project BioShield
program is being adequately implemented to accelerate the
research, development, and purchase of effective
countermeasures against agents of bioterrorism.
b. Witnesses.--Stewart Simonson, Assistant Secretary for
Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Department of Health and
Human Services; Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National
Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services;
Dr. John Vitko, Director, Homeland Security Science and
Technology Advisory Committee, Department of Homeland Security;
Robert G. Kramer, CEO, BioPort Corp.; Richard B. Hollis, CEO,
Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals; and Gerald L. Epstein, senior
fellow for science and security, Homeland Security Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
27. ``Controlling Restricted Airspace: An Examination of the Management
and Coordination of Our National Air Defense,'' July 21, 2005
a. Summary.--Securing and defending U.S. airspace is
critically dependent upon rapid interagency coordination and
information sharing between the FAA, the Department of Homeland
Security [DHS], and the Department of Defense [DOD].
Ineffective coordination leaves the Federal Government
incapable of determining whether an aircraft violating
restricted airspace presents hostile intent, resulting in
little or no time to stop a terrorist threat. This hearing
examined how effectively these agencies are monitoring
restricted air space, specifically addressing coordination,
information sharing, common protocols, procedures and
leadership challenges since the September 11th terrorist
attacks. The hearing also presented the unclassified version of
the Government Accountability Office's study entitled: Homeland
Security: Agency Resources Address Violations of Restricted
Airspace, but Management Improvements Are Needed.
b. Witnesses.--Davi M. D'Agostino, Director, Defense
Capabilities and Management, Government Accountability Office;
Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Defense, Department of Defense; Major General Marvin S. Mayes,
Commander, 1st Air Force and Continental U.S. North American
Aerospace Defense Command Region, Department of Defense; Robert
A. Sturgell, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration; and Kenneth S. Kasprisin, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Homeland Security, Transportation Security
Administration, Department of Homeland Security.
28. ``BRAC and Beyond: An Examination of the Rationale Behind Federal
Security Standards for Leased Space,'' July 27, 2005
a. Summary.--The committee reviewed the development and
implementation of security standards for Federal leased space
including the guidelines established by the Interagency
Security Committee and DOD's Anti-terrorism Force Protection
standards. The committee examined whether the DOD Anti-
terrorism Force Protection standards were improperly used as a
de facto ninth criteria in the 2005 round of base closings
pursuant to the Base Realignment and Closure Act.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Jim Moran, U.S. House of
Representatives (VA-8); Dwight M. Williams, Chief Security
Officer, Department of Homeland Security; F. Joseph Moravec,
Commissioner of Public Buildings Service, General Services
Administration; John Jester, Director, Pentagon Force
Protection Agency, Department of Defense; and Get Moy,
Director, Installation Requirements and Management, Department
of Defense.
29. ``Keeping Metro on Track: The Federal Government's Role in
Balancing Investment with Accountability at Washington's
Transit Agency,'' July 28, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of a hearing
held in February 2005, and will examine the role of the Federal
Government in helping Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority
address its funding challenges and management operations. The
hearing also assessed whether additional oversight is needed,
especially in light of the sizeable request Metro has made for
Federal assistance.
b. Witnesses.--Katherine Siggerud, Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues, GAO; Richard White, chief executive
officer, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Dana
Kauffman, chairman of the Board, Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority; William Millar, president, American Public
Transportation Association; Robert Puentes, fellow,
Metropolitan Policy, Brookings Institute; and Pauline
Schneider, partner, Hunton and Williams, member, Federal City
Council.
30. ``Part Two: Interior Department: A Culture of Managerial
Irresponsibility and Lack of Accountability,'' September 14,
1006
31. ``Back to the Drawing Board: A First Look at Lessons Learned From
Katrina,'' September 15, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to investigate
the emergency plans in major cities other than New Orleans that
are most vulnerable to natural disasters or man-made
catastrophic events. The hearing focused on local government
experiences and expertise in preparing for emergencies,
developing plans, coordinating with other jurisdictions, and
recommendations for improving emergency preparedness planning.
b. Witnesses.--Marc Morial, president and chief executive
officer, National Urban League, Inc.; Constance Perett,
administrator, Office of Emergency Management, County of Los
Angeles, CA; Ellis Stanley, manager, Emergency Preparedness
Department, city of Los Angeles, CA; David J. Robertson,
executive director, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments; Robert C. Bobb, city administrator, District of
Columbia; Tony Carper, director, Broward Emergency Management
Agency, Broward County, FL; Chief Carlos Castillo, director,
Miami-Dade Office of Emergency Management Miami-Dade County,
FL; Dr. John R. Harrald, professor of engineering management,
the George Washington University and director, Institute for
Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management; and Dr. James J.
Carafano, senior fellow for National Security and Homeland
Security, Heritage Foundation.
32. ``The Last Frontier: Bringing the IT Revolution to Healthcare,''
September 29, 2005
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the progress and
challenges associated with the development of a national health
IT strategy. In addition, the hearing provided a review of the
development of standards for the collection and use of health
information to facilitate information sharing, as well as the
challenges to achieving interoperability among health IT
systems.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. David Brailer, National Coordinator for
Health Information Technology, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services; Dr. Robert M. Kolodner, Chief Health
Informatics Officer, Veterans Health Administration; David
Powner, Director, Information Technology Management Issues,
Government Accountability Office; Dr. Carol Diamond, managing
director, Markle Foundation; Janet M. Marchibroda, chief
executive officer, eHealth Initiative and Foundation; Diane M.
Carr, associate executive director, Healthcare Information
Systems, Queens Health Network; and Larry Blue, vice president
and general manager, Symbol Technologies.
33. ``The Critical Role of the National Guard at Home and Abroad,''
October 20, 2005
a. Summary.--While it is clear Army and Air National Guard
personnel are making significant contributions to the Nation's
security, it is less certain that they will continue to be
resourced and equipped to fulfill their massive Federal
responsibilities, as well as the expressed needs of the States.
This hearing examined the current National Guard equipment
situation and how Department of Defense [DOD] and Department of
the Army transformation policies affect the Guard's level of
readiness to meet overseas and homeland missions. At this
hearing, the Government Accountability Office released its
report entitled: ``Reserve Forces: Plan Needed to Improve Army
National Guard Equipment Readiness and Better Integrate Guard
into Army Force Transformation Initiatives.''
b. Witnesses.--Edward Rendell, Governor, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; Dirk Kempthorne, Governor, State of Idaho; David
Walker, Comptroller General of the Unites States, accompanied
by Janet A. St. Laurent, Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, Government Accountability Office; Thomas F. Hall,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S.
Department of Defense; Lieutenant General Davis F. Melcher,
Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; Lieutenant General H Steven
Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau; Major General Allen
Tackett, State Adjutant General of West Virginia; and Major
General Raymond Rees, State Adjutant General of Oregon.
34. ``Justice for All: An Examination of the District of Columbia
Juvenile Justice System,'' October 28, 2005
a. Summary.--The Committee on Government Reform conducted a
hearing on youth crime and efforts to reduce recidivism in the
District of Columbia. The hearing focused on D.C.'s juvenile
justice system, with emphasis on the Youth Rehabilitation
Services and the agency reorganization the city is undertaking
to comply with the requirements of the Jerry M. v. District of
Columbia, et al. case. At the heart of the Jerry M. case is the
effort not only to ensure the civil rights of the city's
committed youth, but to modernize the District's approach to
juvenile justice. The committee also examined H.R. 316, a bill
that would provide for the disposition of land in Laurel, MD
that is currently used by the District of Columbia to house the
Oak Hill Youth Center, the District's secure facility for
committed and securely detained youth.
b. Witnesses.--Benjamin L. Cardin, Congressman from the
State of Maryland; Steny H. Hoyer, Congressman from the State
of Maryland; Lee F. Satterfield, presiding judge, District of
Columbia Family Court; Eugene Hamilton, senior judge, District
of Columbia Superior Court; Charles H. Ramsey, chief of police,
Metropolitan Police Department; and Vincent Schiraldi,
director, District of Columbia Youth Rehabilitation Services.
35. ``The National Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan:
Is the United States Ready for Avian Flu?'' November 4, 2005
a. Summary.--This was the committee's second hearing of the
year to evaluate U.S. preparedness levels and the Nation's
ability to respond to the global infectious disease threat of
influenza pandemic. The committee learned more about recent
actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services
[HHS] to prepare for the possibility of a flu pandemic,
including the finalizing of the administration's pandemic plan,
the procurement of additional vaccines and antivirals, and the
promise to help develop greater vaccine manufacturing capacity
in the United States.
b. Witnesses.--Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, Department of
Health and Human Services, accompanied by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci,
Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, National Institutes of Health; Dr. Bruce Gellin,
Director, National Vaccine Planning Office, Department of
Health and Human Services; Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Dr. William
Raub, Science Advisor to the Secretary, Department of Health
and Human Services.
36. ``Restoring the Public Trust: A Review of the Federal Pension
Forfeiture Act,'' February 1, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing considered legislation intended to
restore the public trust in the Federal Government by ensuring
that top policymakers in the executive and legislative branches
are sufficiently deterred from yielding to outside influences.
The ``Federal Pension Forfeiture Act'' would provide such a
deterrent by denying Federal retirement benefits for Federal
policymakers convicted of accepting bribes, defrauding the
Federal Government, embezzling Federal property, or falsifying
Federal documents.
b. Witnesses.--Linda Springer, Director, Office of
Personnel Management; Chellie Pingree, president, Common Cause;
and Joan Claybrook, president, Public Citizen.
37. ``Sharpening Our Edge--Staying Competitive in the 21st Century
Marketplace,'' February 9, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing studies the challenges America
faces in staying competitive in the 21st century global
economy.
b. Witnesses.--Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez;
Hector de J. Ruiz, president and CEO of Advanced Micro Devices;
M. Brian O'shaughnessy, president and CEO or Revere Copper
Products; Richard S. Garnick, president, North American
Services for Keane, Inc.; Deborah Wince-Smith, president of the
Council on Competitiveness; and former Congressman Dave
McCurdy, president of the Electronic Industries Alliance.
38. ``Installation of In-Line Baggage Screening Systems: Increasing
Safety and Efficiency for Travelers to and from our Nation's
Capital,'' February 17, 2006 (Dulles International Airport)
a. Summary.--In response to the September 11th attacks,
Congress mandated that, by December 31, 2002, all checked
baggage would be screened using explosive detection systems
[EDS]. EDS are most efficient when integrated ``in-line'' into
baggage conveyor belt systems and are believed to speed up
baggage and travel processing. To support their mandate,
Congress authorized TSA to issue Letters of Intent [LOI] to
financially support the acquisition and installation of in-line
EDS, however, as at the time of the hearing, only nine LOI had
been issued. The purpose of this hearing was to find out the
status of acquisition and installation of in-line baggage
screening systems at the Nation's airports, with a particular
focus on airports serving the Nation's Capital. TSA testified
that they are prioritizing airports to receive funding and are
working with private industry and airports authorities to
devise and implement creative financing options. MWAA testified
they had offered TSA creative financing options, which TSA had
not accepted. BWI airport discussed their experience paying for
and installing in-line systems without any financial assistance
from TSA and how this has increased efficiency at BWI.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Randal Null, Assistant Administrator for
Operational Process and Technology, Transportation Security
Administration; James E. Bennett, president and chief executive
officer, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority; and
Timothy L. Campbell, A.A.E., executive director, Maryland
Aviation Administration.
39. ``The Regulation of Dietary Supplements: A Review of Consumer
Safeguards,'' March 9, 2006
a. Summary.--The committee's interest in this issue stemmed
from its investigation into the use of performance enhancing
drugs and steroids in professional sports. An October 2005
Washington Post article about steroids in dietary supplements
raised concerns for the committee about FDA regulation of the
supplement industry. The purpose of this hearing was to examine
the Federal Government's responsibility and role in regulating
dietary supplements, the certification programs available for
dietary supplements, and how consumers can educate themselves
to make responsible decisions when purchasing and consuming
dietary supplements. Witnesses at the hearing agreed that the
public needs to be assured of the safety of dietary supplement
products and the reliability of their labeling.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Robert E. Brackett, Director, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration; Dr. Paul M. Coates, Director of Dietary
Supplements, National Institutes of Health; C. Lee Peeler,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade
Commission; Kathleen Jordan, general manager, Dietary
Supplements and Functional Foods Program, NSF International;
Dr. V. Srinivasan, vice president, verification program, U.S.
Pharmacopeia; Dr. Tod Cooperman, president and founder,
Consumerlab.com; and Janell Mayo Duncan, senior counsel,
Consumers Union.
40. ``No Computer System Left Behind: A Review of the 2005 Federal
Computer Security Scorecards,'' March 16, 2006
a. Summary.--Each year, the committee, with technical
assistance from the Government Accountability Office, releases
scorecards based on the information provided by agency Chief
Information Officers and Inspectors General in their Federal
Information Security Management Act [FISMA] reports. This year,
the committee's analysis reveals that the scores for the
Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security,
Justice, State, and others remained unacceptably low or dropped
precipitously. Meanwhile, several agencies improved their
information security or maintained a consistently high level of
security from previous years, such as the Agency for
International Development, Environmental Protection Agency, the
General Services Administration, Department of Labor, Office of
Management and Budget, and the Social Security Administration.
The 2005 FISMA grades indicate that agencies have made
significant improvements in developing configuration management
plans, employee security training, developing and maintaining
an inventory, certifying and accrediting systems, and annual
testing. Despite these advances, there are still some areas of
concern to the committee, including implementation of
configuration management policies, specialized security
training for employees with significant security
responsibilities, inconsistent incident reporting,
inconsistencies in contingency plan testing, annual testing of
security controls, and agency responsibility for contractor
systems.
b. Witnesses.--Gregory C. Wilshusen, Director, Information
Security Issues, Government Accountability Office; Karen S.
Evans, Administrator, Office of E-Government and Information
Technology, Office of Management and Budget; Patrick Pizzella,
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management,
Department of Labor; Tom Hughes, Chief Information Officer,
Social Security Administration; Robert F. Lentz, Director of
Information Assurance, Department of Defense; and Scott Charbo,
Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
41. ``The Need to Know: Information Sharing Lessons for Disaster
Response,'' March 30, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing addressed information sharing and
situational awareness during the management of an emergency,
opened public discussion and debate on barriers to information
sharing among agencies, and highlighted best practices,
methods, and procedures for sharing information. The committee
examined how the lessons learned regarding information sharing
in the context of law enforcement, counter-terrorism, and
defense can be applied to disaster response. In particular, the
hearing focused on the methods, policies, principles and
techniques found to be effective in encouraging and enhancing
information sharing among diverse entities. The hearing
addressed ways to avoid the inadequate information sharing and
murky situational awareness that characterized the governmental
response to Katrina. The committee learned whether impediments
to effective information sharing are primarily technological,
or structural, cultural, and bureaucratic in nature.
b. Witnesses.--Peter F. Verga, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense), U.S. Department of
Defense; Dr. Linton Wells II, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration),
U.S. Department of Defense; Vance Hitch, Chief Information
Officer, U.S. Department of Justice; John Brennan, president
and CEO, the Analysis Corp.; Dr. Donald F. Kettl, Director,
Fels Institute of Government, University of Pennsylvania; and
Dr. Brian A. Jackson, physical scientist, RAND Corp.
42. ``The Impact of Visa Processing Delays on the Arts, Education, and
American Innovation,'' April 4, 2006
a. Summary.--While the visa review process is often the
Nation's first line of defense, requirements implemented
subsequent to the September 11th attacks have placed strains on
the application and review process. The results are substantial
delays--in some instances, more than 160 days for interviews--
and the consequences are negative for American businesses and
cultural organization--to say nothing of the U.S. travel and
tourism industry. The committee received testimony from the
Department of State and from GAO about these challenges and
some possible solutions. The committee also received testimony
from associations unable--or, in some cases, simply no longer
willing--to bring foreign nationals to the United States for
trade fairs and organizational meetings because of the length
and unpredictability of visa processing delays. The committee
received testimony from internationally acclaimed cellist Yo-Yo
Ma regarding his organization's difficulties in bringing
foreign performers who simply want to share their talents with
U.S. audiences. Subsequent to this hearing, the committee
requested GAO study delays in processing and issuing non-
immigrant visas.
b. Witnesses.--Tony Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Jess T. Ford,
Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Yo-Yo Ma, artistic director, the Silk
Road Project, Inc., accompanied by Sandra L. Gibson, president
and CEO, Association of Performing Arts Presenters; Dennis J.
Slater, president, Association of Equipment Manufacturers;
Kevin Schofield, general manger, Strategy and Communications,
Microsoft Research; and Elizabeth C. Dickson, advisor,
Immigration Services, Ingersoll-Rand Co. and the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce.
43. ``Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth: a Post-Katrina Review of
International Disaster Assistance,'' April 6, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine how
prepared the Federal Government was to accept the unprecedented
level of aid from foreign governments after Hurricane Katrina
and whether the ad-hoc procedures for accepting aid put in
place after Katrina were sufficient.
b. Witnesses.--Davi M. D'Agostino, Director, Defense
Capabilities and Management, accompanied by McCoy Williams,
Director, Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Deborah McCarthy, Director, Katrina
Working Group, U.S. Department of State; Gregory Gottlieb,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, Bureau
for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S.
Agency for International Development; Casey Long, Acting
Director, Office of International Affairs, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Hudson
La Force III, Senior Counselor to the Secretary, U.S.
Department of Education; and Scott W. Rowell, Deputy Assistant
Secretary (Strategy, Plans, and Resources) for Homeland
Defense, U.S. Department of Defense.
44. ``Out at Home: Why Most Nats Fans Can't See Their Team on TV,''
April 7, 2006
a. Summary.--The committee held a hearing to examine the
dispute between Comcast Corp. and the Mid-Atlantic Sports
Network [MASN] that was preventing 75 percent of the Washington
Nationals baseball games from being carried by Comcast in the
Washington area. As the largest cable provider in the
Washington region with 1.3 million subscribers, Comcast's
failure to carry MASN prevented the majority of the Washington
cable market from having access to their home baseball team's
games. The committee was specifically interested in
understanding why as many as 75 percent of the Nationals
regular season games will not be available to customers of
Comcast. Officials from the corporate entities involved
appeared at the hearing to explain their position in this
dispute. The committee also took testimony from local
governmental officials in the Washington area, whose
constituents were adversely affected by the standoff between
Comcast and MASN. Following the hearing, in response to a
letter from the chairman, the FCC ruled that MASN and Comcast
were to submit to binding arbitration to settle their dispute.
Less than 1 month later, on the heels of this decision, Comcast
and MASN settled their dispute. MASN is now carried by Comcast,
and the majority of the team's games are available in the
Washington market.
b. Witnesses.--Bob Dupuy, president and chief operating
officer, Major League Baseball; Peter Angelos, chairman and
chief executive officer, Baltimore Orioles; David L. Cohen,
executive vice president, Comcast Corp.; Gary McCollum, vice
president and regional manager, Cox Northern Virginia; Anthony
Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia; Peter V.R. Franchot,
Delegate, Maryland House of Delegates; Douglas M. Duncan,
Montgomery County executive; Jack B. Johnson, Prince George's
County executive; Sean Connaughton, chairman, Prince William
County Board of Supervisors; Chris Zimmerman, chairman,
Arlington County Board of Supervisors; and Ian Kosky,
NationalsPride.com.
45. ``Financial Friendly Fire: A Review of Persistent Military Pay
Problems,'' April 27, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
effectiveness of the Department of Defense's management of pay
processes and procedures that govern Army Guard and Reservists
who are injured or wounded in action. Internal control
weaknesses in Department processes, human capital, and the lack
of integrated systems are causing overpayments to wounded
soldiers through no fault of their own. Specifically, the
committee focused on errors that have resulted in the referral
of injured soldiers to debt collection agencies and steps the
Department of Defense and the Department of the Army are taking
to stop this.
b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Director, Financial
Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Lt. Colonel John M. Lovejoy, U.S. Army Reserve, 364th
Civil Affairs Brigade, Portland, OR; Specialist Frank Mangum,
former Alabama Army National Guard, 279th Signal Battalion,
accompanied by his wife, Paulette Mangum; Specialist Brandy
Taylor, former U.S. Army Reserves, 296th Transportation Co.,
Brookhaven, MI; David Patterson, Principal Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense, Office of the Comptroller; Nelson Ford,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial
Management and Comptroller; Zach E. Gaddy, Director, Defense
Finance Accounting Service, U.S. Department of Defense; Mark R.
Lewis, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, U.S. Department of
the Army; and Colonel Mark McAlister, Finance Officer, 18th
Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, U.S. Army.
46. ``Making the Grade? Examining District of Columbia Public Schools
Reform Proposals,'' April 28, 2006
a. Summary.--District of Columbia Public Schools [DCPS]
continues to be plagued by management problems, declining
enrollment, crumbling facilities, escalating violence, and
substandard academic achievement. The past decade's
revitalization of the Nation's Capital cannot be sustained
without a strong and healthy public school system. The
Committee on Government Reform is committed to working with the
District to improve the state of affairs at DCPS. Therefore, we
conducted an oversight hearing to examine strategies to improve
DCPS and how these plans have been implemented and how they are
proceeding. The hearing highlighted developments that create an
atmosphere for positive change and reform within DCPS and how
students, teachers, administrators, parents, and elected
officials can support the plan. In addition, the committee
reviewed the U.S. Department of Education's recent designation
of DCPS as a ``high-risk'' grantee. On April 21, 2006, the
Department notified DCPS that the Department is concerned about
DCPS's ability to use Federal funds to support teaching and
learning in District of Columbia schools. The committee
examined the Department's actions by exploring the
determination process and implications of this designation.
b. Witnesses.--Henry L. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of
Education for Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S.
Department of Education, accompanied by Hudson La Force III,
Senior Counselor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of
Education; Dr. Clifford B. Janey, superintendent, District of
Columbia Public Schools; John Musso, chief financial officer,
District of Columbia Public Schools; Charles J. Willoughby,
inspector general, District of Columbia, accompanied by William
J. DiVello, assistant inspector general for audits, Office of
the Inspector General, District of Columbia; and Cedric
Jennings, District of Columbia Public School graduate.
47. ``Sifting Through Katrina's Legal Debris: Contracting in the Eye of
the Storm,'' May 4, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the Federal Government's
contracting policies, practices, preparations, and response to
determine whether the proper procedures, vehicles, and
mechanisms are in place to meet the challenges of catastrophic
events. The hearing focused on an evaluation of: 1) the
contracts in place prior to Katrina's landfall and planning
efforts that took place in anticipation of a large-scale
catastrophic event; 2) the rationale and process for awarding
disaster relief and recovery contracts in the immediate
aftermath of Katrina; 3) the internal controls in place to
ensure that Federal acquisition laws were followed and that
effective contracting practices were and are used; 4) the terms
and performance of Katrina relief contracts; and 5) ways in
which the management and oversight of disaster-related
contracting could be strengthened in response to lessons
learned after Katrina.
b. Witnesses.--William Woods, Director, Acquisition and
Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office; Matthew
Jadacki, Special Inspector General for Gulf Coast Hurricane
Recovery, Office of the Inspector General, Department of
Homeland Security; Emily Murphy, Chief Acquisition Officer,
General Services Administration; Maj. Gen. Don T. Riley,
Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Elaine
Duke, Chief Procurement Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Deidre Lee, Deputy Director of Operations, Federal
Emergency Management Agency; Randall R. Perkins, CEO, AshBritt,
Inc.; George Schnug, CEO, AmeriCold Logistics, LLC; Neal Fox,
Member, Board of Advisors, FedBid, Inc.; and James Necaise,
vice president, Necaise Brothers Construction.
48. ``Working Through an Outbreak: Pandemic Flu Planning and Continuity
of Operations,'' May 11, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to assess our
public health system's response capabilities at the Federal,
State, and local levels, and to determine what additional
measures are needed in order to improve preparations and reduce
risks posed by an avian flu outbreak. The past few annual
influenza seasons, as well as avian flu activity in Asia,
continued to raise the urgent question of whether the United
States is prepared to deal with the threat of a flu pandemic
and whether the country is capable of working through a
pandemic.
The committee learned more about actions taken by the
Department of Health and Human Services and Department of
Homeland Security to prepare for the possibility of a flu
pandemic, including the finalizing of the administration's
multi-agency proposal to ensure coordination among all Federal
agency activities. Additionally, the committee sought
information on the government's progress in developing
Continuity of Operations plans, including telework, or
distributed work programs, to be used during a pandemic.
b. Witnesses.--John O. Agwunobi, M.D., Assistant Secretary
for Health, Department of Health and Human Services; Linda
Springer, Director, Office of Personnel Management; David M.
Walker, Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office;
Dr. Jeffery W. Runge, Chief Medical Officer, Department of
Homeland Security; Dr. Alonzo Plough, Board of Directors, Trust
for America's Health; Scott Kriens, chairman and CEO, Juniper
Networks; and Paul B. Kurz, executive director, Cyber Security
Industry Alliance.
49. ``Low Clearance: Why Did DOD Suddenly Stop Processing Private
Sector Security Clearances?'' May 17, 2006
a. Summary.--On April 28, 2006, the committee learned that
the Department of Defense element responsible for security
clearance processing, the Defense Security Service [DSS],
planned to impose a moratorium on submission of applications
from contractors. The stoppage would prevent both submission of
new applications and requests for required periodic
reinvestigation of those cleared to access classified material
in the course of their work on Defense contracts. This abrupt
disruption in a critical national security process was not the
first problem the committee uncovered at DSS. Previous
inquiries, GAO reports and hearings examined a growing backlog
of clearance cases, uneven adherence to investigative standards
and a chronic inability to forecast the demand for
investigations. Many of those issues were thought to have been
addressed in 2005 when DSS transferred key investigative
functions to the Office of Personnel Management which conducts
background checks for many other Federal agencies. Testimony at
this hearing described high-level management attention to DSS
problems at both DOD and OPM. In particular, new leadership was
installed at DSS, process improvements were implemented and
budget resources identified within DOD to allow DSS to lift the
moratorium on contractor clearance investigations. The
moratorium ended in July.
b. Witnesses.--Clay Johnson, Acting Director, U.S. Office
of Management and Budget; Robert Rogalski, Special Assistant,
Office of the Under Secretary (Intelligence) U.S. Department of
Defense; Kathy Killaman, Associate Director, Federal
Investigative Services Division, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management; Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Defense; Doug Wagoner, chairman, Intelligence
Subcommittee, Information Technology Association of America (on
behalf of the Security Clearance Coalition); William L. Gunst,
vice president for business operations, Anteon International
Corp.; and Nicholas Karangelen, president, Trident Systems,
Inc.
50. ``Getting Ready for the 2006 Hurricane Season,'' May 24, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to assess steps
taken by the executive branch agencies responsible for disaster
recovery in response to the findings and recommendations by the
House Select Committee on Katrina, the Senate Homeland Security
Committee, the White House, GAO, Inspectors General, and others
to make sure we will be as prepared as possible when disaster
strikes. The Select Committee on Katrina found preparedness
gaps and deficiencies at the Federal, State and local levels of
government and cited inadequate preparedness as the cause of
inexcusable weaknesses and failures in the disaster response.
b. Witnesses.--George W. Foresman, Under Secretary for
Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Robert
Shea, Acting Director of Operations, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; MG
Terry Scherling, Director, Joint Staff, National Guard Bureau;
RADM W.C. Vanderwagen, M.D., Special Assistant to the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Robert
R. Latham, chairman, Legislative Committee, National Emergency
Management Association and director, Emergency Management
Agency, State of Mississippi; Walter S. Dickerson, Director,
Emergency Management Agency/Homeland Security, Mobile County,
AL; Joe Becker, senior vice president, preparedness and
response, American Red Cross; Maura W. Donahue, chairman, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; and Patricia McGinnis, president and CEO,
the Council for Excellence in Government.
51. ``Once More Into the Data Breach: The Security of Personal
Information at Federal Agencies,'' June 8, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the privacy and data
security policies of Federal agencies. The committee reviewed
agency data security policies and procedures with respect to
personal information, and reviewed recent data security
breaches and incidents. In this context, the committee examined
the adequacy of existing laws, regulations, and policies
regarding privacy, information security, and data breach
notification. In particular, the committee reviewed whether
Federal agency data breach notification laws and policies are
adequate and what, if any, revisions should be made to Federal
information security laws, including the Federal Information
Management Security Act. Finally, the committee heard lessons
learned and suggestions for improving response efforts in the
event of future information security breaches.
b. Witnesses.--Clay Johnson, Acting Director, Office of
Management and Budget; Linda D. Koontz, Director, Information
Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; R. James
Nicholson, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs; William
E. Gray, Deputy Commissioner for Systems, Social Security
Administration; and Daniel Galik, Chief Mission Assurance and
Security Services, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
Treasury.
52. ``Regional Insecurity: DHS Grants to the National Capital Area,''
June 15, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to bring
greater transparency to the homeland security grants
administered by the Department of Homeland Security.
b. Witnesses.--George W. Foresman, Under Secretary for
Preparedness, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Edward D.
Reiskin, deputy mayor for public safety and justice, District
of Columbia; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., assistant to the Governor
for commonwealth preparedness, Commonwealth of Virginia; Dennis
R. Schrader, director of the Governor's Office of Homeland
Security, State of Maryland; and David J. Robertson, executive
director, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
53. ``Disabled Services in the District of Columbia: Who Is Protecting
the Rights of D.C.'s Most Vulnerable Residents?'' June 16, 2006
a. Summary.--The committee conducted a hearing on the
status of the District of Columbia's Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities Administration [MRDDA], which is the
subject of a 30-year lawsuit, Evans v. Williams. Decades after
the court entered its first remedial order, problems remain
concerning health care delivery services to class members and
the failure to implement a meaningful quality assurance system.
The committee held a hearing to learn about the status of
reforms at MRDDA and throughout the D.C. government and the
city's efforts to meet the criteria established in the 2001
Compliance Plan. The hearing examined MRDDA's management,
operations, policies, procedures, and the challenges the
District must tackle to end the court case.
b. Witnesses.--Robert C. Bobb, Deputy Mayor/city
administrator, government of District of Columbia; Brenda
Donald Walker, Deputy Mayor of Children, Youth, Families, and
Elders, Government of District of Columbia; Marsha Thompson,
former Director, Mental Retardation Development and
Disabilities Administration; Robert M. Gettings, executive
director, National Association of State Directors of
Developmental Disabilities Services; and Holly Morrison, vice
president for organizational learning, the Council on Quality
and Leadership.
54. ``Northern Lights and Procurement Plights: The Effect of the ANC
Program on Federal Procurement and Alaska Native
Corporations,'' June 21, 2006
a. Summary.--This joint-hearing with the Small Business
Committee examined the award of contracts by Federal agencies
to Alaska Native Corporations [ANC] participating in the Small
Business Administration's [SBA] 8(a) program, as highlighted in
a GAO report requested by the two committees. Through the
hearing, the committees explored the impact of the special
exemption to the standard of full and open competition granted
ANCs on our competitive acquisition system, whether the program
is being properly managed by SBA, and whether the Alaska Native
people are receiving the appropriate benefits from the
acquisition advantages they have been given.
b. Witnesses.--Don Young, chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure; David Cooper, Director,
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability
Office; Calvin Jenkins, Deputy Associate Deputy Administrator,
Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, U.S.
Small Business Administration; Frank Ramos, Department of
Defense; Melodee Stith, Associate Director, Acquisition and
Financial Assistance, Office of Acquisition and Property
Management, U.S. Department of Interior; Harry Alford,
president and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce; Ann
Sullivan, president, Madison Services Group, Inc. on behalf of
Women Impacting Public Policy; Chris E. McNeil, Jr., chairman,
Native American Contractors Association and president and CEO
Sealaska Corp.; Helvi Sandvik, president, NANA Development
Corp.; Bart Garber, Tyonek Services Group; Julie Kitka,
president, Alaska Federation of Natives; and Charles Totemoff,
president and CEO, Chenega Corp.
55. ``What Price Free Speech: Whistleblowers and the Ceballos
Decision,'' June 29, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the
Supreme Court's recent decision regarding whistleblowers in the
case of Garcetti v. Ceballos.
b. Witnesses.--Stephen M. Kohn, Chair, National
Whistleblower Center; Roger Pilon, Ph.D., J.D., vice president
of legal affairs, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional
Studies, director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato
Institute; Richard Ceballos, Deputy District Attorney, County
of Los Angeles, CA; William L. Bransford, general counsel,
Senior Executives Association; Mimi Dash, council president
(retired), Fairfax Education Association; Lisa E. Soronen,
staff attorney, National School Boards Association; Barbara
Atkin, deputy general counsel, National Treasury Employees
Union; Richard J. Bergstrom, partner, Morrison and Foerster,
LLP; and Joe Goldberg, assistant general counsel for
litigation, American Federation of Government Employees.
56. ``Can You Clear Me Now? Weighing `Foreign Influence' Factors in
Security Clearance Investigations,'' July 13, 2006
a. Summary.--The current personnel security clearance
process has come under increasing criticism since the attacks
of September 11, 2001 created an ever-greater demand for
security clearances and other types of background
investigation. Investigative work by the Government
Accountability Office in May 2004 revealed a backlog of
investigations of private sector clearance applicants of almost
190,000 and that the total time for these applicants to receive
their clearance had ballooned to 375 days. To modernize the
clearance process, provisions of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and applicable Executive
orders directed consolidation of responsibility for security
clearances processes and policies. In this hearing, the
committee sought to evaluate implementation of updated criteria
to be used in determining the security implications of foreign
influences and contacts by clearance applicants. In particular,
it appeared the Department of Defense had not fully implemented
new guidance from the National Security Advisor regarding
foreign influence factors. Variable implementation of
investigative and adjudicative standards raises security
concerns and impeded effort to affect inter-agency reciprocity
regarding clearance decisions. Testimony by Department of
Defense witnesses indicated the guidance was being implemented
but that the process to standardize security criteria across
Defense agencies and the military services was slow and had met
some resistance.
b. Witnesses.--Robert Andrews, Deputy Under Secretary for
Counterintelligence and Security, U.S. Department of Defense,
accompanied by Robert Rogalski, Special Assistant to the Under
Secretary for Intelligence, U.S. Department of Defense; J.
William Leonard, Director, Information Security Oversight
Office, National Archives and Records Administration; Mark S.
Zaid, esq.; Doug Wagoner, chairman, Intelligence Subcommittee,
Information Technology Association of America (on behalf of he
Security Clearance Coalition); and Walter S. Nagurny, Director,
Industrial Security Office, EDS U.S. Government Solutions.
57. ``MS-13 and Counting: Gang Activity in Northern Virginia,'' July
14, 2006 (Fairfax, VA)
a. Summary.--The Washington, DC region has seen a dramatic
increase in gang incidents during the past decade, many of
which have been attributed to the Central American gang, MS-13.
The purpose of this hearing was to examine the relationship
between law enforcement and public and private organizations in
combating transnational street gangs with a particular focus on
northern Virginia. The committee heard from the federally-
funded Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force, which brings
to the table Federal, State, and local lawenforcement as well
as the prevention and intervention communities about their
successes and challenges. Many called this Task Force a model
for the Nation. The committee also heard from Federal law
enforcement about how the Task Force facilitates the
transmission of intelligence. The committee heard from elected
officials that, behind California, Virginia laws the toughest
in the Nation for fighting gang violence. Recognizing the
regional problem of gangs due to their transience, the
committee also received testimony from Montgomery and Prince
George's County, MD representatives regarding their enforcement
and prevention programs. Subsequent to this hearing, the gang
prevention coordinators from Maryland and Virginia met and also
conducted reciprocal site visits, and many credit this hearing
with strengthening their relationship and collaboration.
b. Witnesses.--David Albo, Delegate for the 42nd District,
State Legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Robert A.
Bermingham, Jr., coordinator, Fairfax County Gang Prevention
Program; Luis Cardona, Youth Violence Prevention Coordinator,
Department of Health and Human Services, Montgomery County;
Gerry Connolly, chairman, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors;
Marla Decker, deputy attorney general for public safety,
Virginia Office of the Attorney General; Elizabeth Guzman,
assistant area executive director, Boys and Girls Clubs, Prince
William Region; Captain Milburne Lynn, commander, Violent
Crimes Task Force/Gang Unit, Prince George's County Police
Department; Diego G. Rodriguez, Assistant Special Agent in
Charge, Criminal Division, Washington Field Office, Federal
Bureau of Investigations; James Spero, Acting Assistant Special
Agent in Charge, Special Agent in Charge Office, Washington,
DC, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; and Chief
Toussaint Summers, Jr., Chair, Northern Virginia Regional Gang
Task Force, city of Herndon Police Department.
58. ``Climate Change: Understanding the Degree of the Problem,'' July
20, 2006
a. Summary.--Currently, there is a growing concern that
anthropogenic--or human--activities are affecting the heat and
energy-exchange balance between Earth, the atmosphere, and
space. Specifically, some scientists assert that human
activities--most specifically the burning of fossil fuels--have
contributed to increased levels of carbon dioxide--CO2--and
other ``greenhouse'' gases in the atmosphere. This ``greenhouse
effect'' is thought to be the root cause of a change in the
Earth's climate inducing ``global warming,'' which, in turn, is
inducing an overall ``global climate change.'' Chairman Davis
convened this hearing to introduce Members of Congress to the
climate change issue, including the current state of climate
science in the United States, the administration's policies,
and to explore the policy approaches available to policymakers.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. John R. Christy, professor and director
of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in
Huntsville; Jim Connaughton, chairman, Council on Environmental
Quality; Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology; Marshall
Herskovitz, producer/director/writer, Television and Film; Dr.
Thomas Karl, Director, National Climatic Data Center, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Dr. Roger A. Pielke,
Jr., Center for Science and Technology Policy Research,
University of Colorado at Boulder; Theodore Roosevelt IV,
chairman, Strategies for the Global Environment/Pew Center on
Global Climate Change; Andy Rubens, vice president of corporate
strategy and sustainability, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
59. ``Policing Capital Sites: Improving Coordination, Training and
Equipment,'' July 21, 2006
a. Summary.--The committee conducted the hearing to assess
the levels of preparedness and coordination of Federal police
units serving in the Nation's Capital. Members were interested
in learning about the standards and efforts to secure and
protect Federal sites. The committee heard from representatives
from several Federal agencies about the current readiness,
interoperability, adequacy of equipment and training, and the
level of coordination in their core law enforcement missions.
b. Witnesses.--Rear Admiral Terence McKnight, Commandant,
Naval District Washington; Major General Guy C. Swan III, U.S.
Army, Military District of Washington; Joseph W. Trindal,
Regional Director, National Capital Region, Federal Protective
Service; and Michael D. Fogarty, assistant chief of police,
U.S. Park Police.
60. ``Code Yellow: Is the DHS Acquisition Bureaucracy a Formula for
Disaster?'' July 27, 2006
a. Summary.--This oversight hearing focused on the sorely
challenged acquisition function of the Department of Homeland
Security [DHS]. Problems with DHS acquisitions have, over the
last few years, been the subject of numerous reports by the
Government Accountability Office [GAO], various Inspector
General [IG] offices, as well as countless press reports. These
reports all seem to tell different versions of the same sad
story; failed programs, huge cost overruns, and little or no
effective contract management. The hearing targeted several
troubled acquisitions as a guide to explore the reasons behind
the failures.
b. Witnesses.--Mike Sullivan, Director, Acquisition
Sourcing and Management, Government Accountability Office;
Elaine Duke, Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland
Security accompanied by John Ely, Chief Procurement Officer,
Customs and Border Protection and Richard Gunderson, Acting
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Acquisition,
Transportation Security Administration; David M. Zavada, CPA,
Assistant Inspector General, Office of Audits, Department of
Homeland Security; and Clark Kent Ervin, director, Homeland
Security Initiative, the Aspen Institute.
61. ``Porous Borders and Downstream Costs: The Impact of Illegal
Immigration on State, County, and Local Governments,'' August
14, 2006 (San Diego, CA)
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to focus on the
efficacy and efficiency of enforcement efforts at the
``interior border'' where immigrants apply for official
documents, employment, or public benefits. Hearing testimony
from county and Federal law enforcement officials, the
committee was informed of the unique law enforcement-related
issues border regions confront. The committee heard testimony
from San Diego-area health care professionals. The specific
impact on communities of illegal immigration can be harshly
felt at local hospitals. In the San Diego area, four hospitals
have closed in recent years, in part due to the unsustainable
burden of uncompensated care to the uninsured, a substantial
portion of whom are undocumented aliens. The committee
continued the important nationwide dialog about immigration
reform. Decades-long neglect of the sovereign responsibility to
adequately police national boundaries and enforce national laws
has transferred immense burdens downstream to local taxpayers.
Any serious immigration reform must take account of those
intergovernmental impacts and protect States and localities
from fiscal shockwaves. From that perspective, effective
external and internal enforcement programs are essential
prerequisites to broader immigration reforms.
b. Witnesses.--Miguel Unzueta, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Special Agent In Charge, San Diego; William B.
Kolender, sheriff, San Diego County; Bill Horn, chairman, San
Diego Board of Supervisors; Steven A. Escoboza, president and
CEO, Hospital Association of San Diego and Imperial County;
State Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny, 40th District, San Diego,
CA; Bronwen Anders, MD, professor of pediatrics, University of
California at San Diego, former president of San Diego Chapter
of American Academy of Pediatrics.
62. ``BRAC in Northern Virginia: Base Realignment and Calamity? Review
of BRAC's Impact on Traffic Congestion and Quality of Life in
Our Region,'' August 31, 2006 (Springfield, VA)
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
Army's plans for implementation of the recommendations of the
BRAC Commission and how they will affect northern Virginia, the
Metropolitan, DC area, and the Army's ability to accomplish its
mission.
b. Witnesses.--Timothy M. Kaine, Governor, Commonwealth of
Virginia; Keith Eastin, Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Management; Jeff Shane, Undersecretary of
Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation;
David M. Albo, 42nd District, Virginia House of Delegates;
Gerald Hyland, member, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors;
Dana Kaufman, member, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; Dean
Tistdat, COO and assistant superintendent for facilities and
transportation, Fairfax County Public Schools; Kevin Kirk,
president, West Springfield Civic Association; and Vivian
Watts, 39th District, Virginia House of Delegates.
63. ``MS-13 and Counting: Gang Activity in Montgomery and Prince
George's Counties,'' September 6, 2006 (Takoma Park, MD)
a. Summary.--The Washington, DC region has seen a dramatic
increase in gang incidents during the past decade, many of
which have been attributed to the Central American gang, MS-13.
As with a similar hearing in northern Virginia, the purpose of
this hearing was to examine the relationship between law
enforcement and public and private organizations in combating
transnational street gangs in suburban Maryland. The committee
heard from elected officials and representatives from
government agencies regarding intervention programs in schools
and in the community. The committee also heard from the warden
of the Montgomery County jail about their unique and successful
youthful offender program. The committee also heard from a
former gang member about his experience in getting out of the
gang and the type of critical support that helped him make his
successful transition.
b. Witnesses.--Jack B. Johnson, county executive, Prince
George's County, MD; George Leventhal, Chair, Montgomery County
Council; John King, assistant chief, Montgomery County Police
Department; Captain Milburne Lynn, commander, Violent Crimes
Task Force/Gang Unit, Prince George's County Police Department;
Carolyn Colvin, director of Department of Health and Human
Services, Montgomery County, MD; Warden Robert L. Green, warden
of Montgomery County Correctional Facility, Montgomery County,
MD; Mike Butler, gang prevention coordinator, Prince George's
County, MD; Luis Cardona, youth violence prevention
coordinator, Montgomery County, MD; Daniel Arretche, director
of development, Crossroads Youth Opportunity Center; and
Richard Brown, small business owner.
64. ``Climate Change Technology: Do We Need a `Manhattan Project' for
the Environment?'' September 21, 2006
a. Summary.--The Federal Government spends $3 billion per
annum on climate change technology research spanning over 13
agencies. To date, research on climate technology in the United
States has been focused on near and mid-term technologies
discounting ``innovative'' or long-term solutions to the global
climate change problem. Chairman Davis convened this hearing to
examine the need for exploratory climate technology research as
well as discuss the potential for establishing an advanced
research projects agency in order to facilitate such
initiatives.
b. Witnesses.--Stephen D. Eule, Director, Climate Change
Technology Program; John B. Stephenson, Director, Government
Accountability Office; Lee Lane, executive director, Climate
Policy Center; Dr. Richard Van Atta, senior research analyst,
Institute for Defense Analyses; Dr. Martin Hoffert, emeritus
professor, New York University; Dr. Robert Socolow, former
director, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies,
Princeton University; and Dr. Daniel Kammen, director,
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of
California at Berkeley.
65. ``CSI Washington: Does the District Need Its Own Crime Lab?''
September 22, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to consider the
creation of a full-service forensics lab in the District of
Columbia.
b. Witnesses.--Ken Wainstein, U.S. attorney, District of
Colombia; Joseph A. DiZinno, Director, FBI Investigation
Laboratory; Edward D. Reiskin, D.C. Deputy Mayor for Public
Safety and Justice; Charles H. Ramsey, chief of police,
Metropolitan Police Department; and Valencia Mohammed.
66. ``Medical Device Safety: How FDA Regulates the Reprocessing of
Supposedly Single-Use Devices,'' September 26, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to assess
FDA's regulation of the medical device reprocessing industry
and to determine what, if any, additional measures are needed
to ensure reprocessed single-use devices [SUDs] are safe and
efficacious. The witness for the original device manufacturers
said they cannot guarantee the safety of their SUD once it is
reprocessed and reused. Witnesses for the reprocessors, however
argued insufficient credible data and evidence exist to
demonstrate the use of reprocessed medical devices is riskier
than the use of new ones. Despite concerns from other
witnesses, FDA testified that reprocessed SUDs are
substantially equivalent to the original device.
Additionally, concerned about the lack of independent
information available about the safety of reprocessing of SUDs,
the committee asked the Government Accountability Office [GAO]
to update its June 2000 report on SUDs. GAO's 2000 report found
little harm from reuse but FDA oversight was warranted. Because
FDA regulation of the industry has increased significantly
since 2000, the committee asked GAO to examine the safety of
SUDs reprocessing, the adequacy of FDA's oversight of
reprocessing, and how reprocessed SUDs compared to original
devices.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Daniel G. Schultz, Director, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration;
Don Selvey, senior vice president, regulatory affairs and
quality assurance, Ascent Healthcare Solutions, Inc.; Dennis
Toussaint, director, regulatory affairs, SterilMed, Inc.; and
Stephen J. Ubl, president and CEO, Advanced Medical Technology
Association.
67. ``Acquisition Under Duress: Reconstruction Contracting in Iraq,''
September 28, 2006
a. Summary.--This oversight hearing examined the
reconstruction contracting efforts in Iraq. The committee has
engaged in continuous and vigorous oversight of contract
activities in Iraq over the past 3 years. The oversight
involved four hearings on the challenges of contracting in a
war zone, numerous briefings from the agencies involved in the
contracting efforts, as well as the review of thousands of
documents the committee has requested from relevant agencies
over the last couple of years. Those efforts were, for the most
part, oriented toward contractor logistics support for the war
efforts. The committee's focus in this hearing was on the
contracting activities related to the reconstruction program in
Iraq.
b. Witnesses.--Katherine Schinasi, Managing Director,
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Inspector General,
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; Ambassador
David Satterfield, Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Iraq,
U.S. Department of State; James Bever, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Iraq, Bureau for Asia and the Near East, U.S.
Agency for International Development; Tina Ballard, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Procurement, U.S. Army;
Joseph Tyler, Chief, Programs Integration Division, Military
Programs Directorate, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Ernest O.
Robbins II, senior vice president and manager, International
Division, Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group; and
Cliff Mumm, president, Bechtel Infrastructure Corp.
68. ``Ova-Pollution in the Potomac: Egg-Bearing Male Bass and
Implications for Human and Ecological Health,'' October 4, 2006
a. Summary.--Male smallmouth bass in the Potomac River--the
drinking water source for many West Virginia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Washington, DC, and Maryland communities--were
recently reported to be bearing eggs. The cause of this
``intersex'' phenomenon is thought to be endocrine disrupting
chemicals in the Potomac River. Although in 1996, Congress
mandated that EPA study endocrine disruptors, to date, testing
has not begun. The committee convened this hearing to review
the status of the EPA program and other federally-funded
research and also to determine what steps government at all
levels is taking to ensure effective protection of human and
ecological health in the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay.
EPA reported that perceived delays in the program were due in
large part to the complexity of this completely new field of
science, and EPA promised it would try to accelerate this
program. Representatives from local water utilities reported
they continue to meet and, in many instances, exceed EPA
standards for drinking water. Finally, NRDC stressed the
seriousness of these endocrine disrupting chemicals.
b. Witnesses.--Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency; Mark
Myers, Director, U.S. Geological Survey; Dr. Sue Haseltine,
Associate Director of Biology, U.S. Geological Survey; Dr.
Gregory Masson, Chief, Branch of Environmental Contaminants,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Andrew D. Brunhart, general
manager, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission; Joseph
Hoffman, executive director, Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin; Thomas Jacobus, general manger, Washington
Aqueduct; Ed Merrifield, director, Potomac Riverkeepers;
Charles Murray, general manager, Fairfax Water; and Erik Olson,
attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council.
II. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
1. ``Fiscal Year 2006 Drug Budget,'' February 10, 2005
a. Summary.--The hearing was the first in a series of
hearings providing oversight of the President's budget
proposals for drug control programs, as well as for legislation
to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This
hearing also served as an opportunity for Members to discuss
the policies outlined in the National Drug Control Strategy for
2005 with Director John Walters.
The current statutory authorization for ONDCP, enacted in
1998, expired on September 30, 2003. In addition, statutory
authorization for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
expired at the end of fiscal year 2002. As a branch of the
Executive Office of the President, ONDCP--together with its
programs--falls within the authorizing jurisdiction of this
committee. This hearing launched the process of evaluating
ONDCP and its programs for reauthorization this year.
b. Witnesses.--John Walters, Director, Office of National
Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President; and
Peter Reuter, Ph.D., professor, School of Public Policy,
University of Maryland.
2. ``Harm Reduction or Harm Maintenance: Is There Such a Thing as Safe
Drug Abuse?'' February 16, 2005
a. Summary.--It is the goal of the Bush administration, as
illustrated in the National Drug Control Strategy that we
should all work for ``Healing America's Drug Users.'' ``Harm
reduction,'' however, does not have the goal of getting people
off of drugs. ``Harm reduction'' is an ideological position
that assumes certain individuals are incapable of making
healthy decisions. Advocates of this position hold that
dangerous behaviors, such as drug abuse, therefore must simply
be accepted by society and those who choose such lifestyles--or
become trapped in them--should be enabled to continue these
behaviors in a manner less ``harmful'' to themselves and
others. Often, however, these lifestyles are the result of
addiction, mental illness, or other conditions that should and
can be treated rather than accepted as normal, healthy
behaviors.
The purpose of this hearing was to examine the overall
impact of ``harm reduction'' programs such as needle exchange,
``safe'' injection sites and heroin maintenance. This hearing
also answered the question: ``Do these approaches reduce the
risks associated with drug abuse or enable and condone
addiction?''
b. Witnesses.--Zainuddin Bahari, CEO, Humane Treatment
Home, Malaysia; Tay Bian How, director, Drug Advisory
Programme, the Colombo Plan Secretariat, Sri Lanka; Fadilan
Kayong, Colombo Plan, Afghanistan; Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Yunus Pathi,
Pengasih Treatment Program, Malaysia; Robert G. Newman, MD,
director, International Center for Advancement of Addiction
Treatment, Continuum Health Partners, Inc.; Dr. H. Syahrizal
Syarif, MPH, PhD, Colombo Plan, Indonesia; Robert Peterson,
PRIDE International Youth Organization; Reverend Edwin Sanders,
Metropolitan Interdenominational Church, member, President's
Advisory Commission on HIV/AIDS; Peter L. Beilenson, M.D.,
commissioner, Baltimore City Department of Health; Peter
Bensinger, president and CEO, Bensinger, Dupont and Associates;
Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP, chairman, the Institute on Global
Drug Policy; and Dr. Andrea Barthwell, Former Deputy Director,
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
3. ``Fiscal Year 2006 Drug Control Budget and the Byrne Grant, HIDTA
and Other Law Enforcement Programs: Are We Jeopardizing
Federal, State and Local Cooperation?'' March 10, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the President's budget
proposals for Federal, State, and local drug enforcement
cooperation programs, including the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program, and the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (``Byrne Grants''). The
hearing was the second in a series of hearings providing
oversight of the President's budget proposals for drug control
programs, as well as for legislation to reauthorize the Office
of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP] and the HIDTA program.
One of the most significant policies reflected in that
budget is a sweeping proposal to scale back most Federal
support for State and local drug enforcement. Among other
things, the administration is proposing to eliminate the Byrne
Grants to the States; to cut the HIDTA program by more than 50
percent and transfer its remaining funds to the Justice
Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
[OCDETF] program; to cut the ``Meth Hot Spots'' program
administered by the Justice Department's Community Oriented
Policing Services [COPS] office by more than 60 percent; and to
significantly reduce the funding for the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center [CTAC] Technology Transfer program. The
subcommittee shares the administration's concerns about
excessive Federal subsidization of State and local law
enforcement. The administration's proposed cuts, however, would
create massive shortfalls in the budgets of State and local law
enforcement agencies across the country. The administration
should instead propose reforms, where needed, to some of the
Federal Government's assistance grants.
b. Witnesses.--Tracy A. Henke, Associate Deputy Attorney
General, Office of Justice Programs [OJP], U.S. Department of
Justice; Catherine M. O'Neil, Associate Deputy Attorney General
and Director of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
[OCDETF], U.S. Department of Justice; John Horton, Associate
Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs, Office of National
Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]; Ron Brooks, president, National
Narcotics Officer's Associations Coalition; Tom Carr, director,
Washington-Baltimore HIDTA; Tom Donahue, director, Chicago
HIDTA; Chief Jack Harris, Phoenix Police Department and Vice-
Chair, Southwest Border HIDTA; Leonard Hamm, acting Baltimore
police commissioner; Mark Henry, president, Illinois Drug
Enforcement Officer's Association; and Sheriff Jack L. Merritt,
Greene County, MO.
4. ``The National Parks: Will They Survive for Future Generations?''
March 14, 2005 (Gettysburg, PA)
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the National Park
Service's mission of maintaining and preserving America's
cultural and natural heritage for future generations. This
Gettysburg hearing, set in a popular historical park, focused
on preserving civil war-related sites, and interpreting these
sites in a meaningful way. It also examined the role of outside
groups acting as partners with the National Park Service. A
component of the hearing was to address the National Park
Service's funding of various parks and preservation efforts in
an era of tight budgets, as well as how important adequate
funding is for the preservation of the National Park Service
for future generations.
b. Witnesses.--Robert W. McIntosh, Associate Regional
Director for Planning and Partnerships, Northeast Region,
National Park Service; Richard Thornburgh, member, the
Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation; David Booz,
Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg; Joy Oakes,
director, National Parks Conservation Association; and O. James
Lighthizer, Civil War Preservation Trust.
5. ``Federal Health Programs and Those Who Cannot Care for Themselves:
What Are Their Rights, and Our Responsibilities?'' April 19,
2005
6. ``The National Parks: Will They Survive for Future Generations?''
April 22, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing was the second in a series of
hearings held to examine the state of the National Parks. The
series is examining funding issues, preservation and
maintenance, and law enforcement and homeland security. This
hearing focused on these issues National Park Service-wide,
with particular attention paid to funding, management, and
homeland security. The homeland security component focused on
the protection of the National Capital Area, including the
National Mall and other important icons of the Park Service in
the Washington, DC area.
b. Witnesses.--Steven Martin, Deputy Director, National
Park Service; Gretchen Long, past Chair, Board of Trustees,
National Parks Conservation Association; Vin Cipolla,
president, National Parks Foundation; Emily E. Wadhams, vice
president of public policy, National Trust for Historic
Preservation; Denis Galvin, retired Park Ranger, former
superintendent of Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Everglades
National Parks; and Peyton Knight, American Land Rights
Association.
7. ``Drug Prevention Programs and the Fiscal Year 2006 Drug Control
Budget: Is the Federal Government Neglecting Illegal Drug Use
Prevention?'' April 26, 2005
8. ``How Can the Federal Government Support Local and State Initiatives
to Protect Citizens and Communities Against Drug-Related
Violence and Witness Intimidation?'' May 2, 2005 (Baltimore,
MD)
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to explore
strategies to improve protection for witnesses in criminal
cases, with an emphasis on criminal drug cases. Witnesses
described the scope and severity of witness intimidation
problems in Baltimore City and their impact on prosecutions and
quality of life in the affected communities. Witnesses also
described existing measures and resources devoted to protect
witnesses and offered perspectives on how the Federal
Government can work most effectively with State and local
authorities to prevent obstruction of justice through violence
and intimidation directed against individual witnesses and the
community at large. The hearing included discussion of Federal
legislation, including the Dawson Family Community Protection
Act of 2005 (H.R. 812), introduced by Representative Cummings
with Chairman Souder as an original cosponsor.
b. Witnesses.--Michael S. Steele, Lt. Governor, State of
Maryland; Martin O'Malley, mayor, city of Baltimore; Floyd O.
Pond, assistant director, Washington-Baltimore HIDTA; Lt. Craig
Bowers, Baltimore County Police Department; Patricia Jessamy,
State attorney, city of Baltimore; Judge Kenneth Johnson,
former associate judge, Baltimore City Circuit Court; David
Wright, president, Charles Village Community Benefits District;
and Ricky P., resident, West Baltimore.
9. ``2006 DOD Counternarcotics Budget: Does it Deliver the Necessary
Support?'' May 10, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the budget proposals for
the military's contributions to the national counterdrug
efforts. The President's Drug Strategy Budget requests nearly
$900 million to be dispersed through the Counternarcotics
Central Transfer Account.
b. Witnesses.--Marybeth Long, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, Department of
Defense; Colonel John D. Nelson, Director of Plans, Joint Task
Force North, U.S. Northern Command; Captain Edmund Turner,
Deputy Director for Current Operations, U.S. Southern Command;
Captain Jim Stahlman, Assistant Operations Officer, U.S.
Central Command; and Lennard Wolfson, Assistant Deputy
Director, Office of Supply Reduction, Office of National Drug
Control Policy.
10. ``Threat Convergence Along the Border: How Does Drug Trafficking
Impact Our Borders?'' June 14, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined how the flow of drugs
through our borders has directly and indirectly impacted our
ability to secure our borders. In addition to the obvious loss
of lives and productivity to narcotic usage, smuggling
transportation groups are capable of smuggling not only drugs,
but also aliens, terrorists and weapons. Therefore, if we
increase our abilities to interdict narcotics at the border we
also increase our effectiveness at stopping the smuggling of
aliens, terrorists and weapons.
b. Witnesses.--Ralph Utley, Acting Director Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security;
Anthony Placido, Assistant Administrator for Intelligence, Drug
Enforcement Administration; Gregory Passic, Director, Office of
Drug Interdiction, Customs and Border Protection; and John P.
Torres, Deputy Assistant Director Office of Investigations,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
11. ``H.R. 2829, The Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' June 15, 2005
a. Summary.--The bill, H.R. 2829, introduced by Chairman
Souder and Chairman Davis, reauthorizes the Office of National
Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], as well as most of the programs
administered by ONDCP, including the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program, the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center [CTAC], and the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign (the ``Media Campaign''). This hearing gave
representatives of ONDCP and other affected organizations the
opportunity to provide their insight into the Office, its
programs, and the legislation.
b. Witnesses.--John Walters, Director, Office of National
Drug Control Policy; Tom Carr, director, Washington-Baltimore
HIDTA, on behalf of the National HIDTA Directors' Association;
and Stephen J. Pasierb, president and CEO, Partnership for a
Drug-Free America [PDFA].
12. ``H.R. 1054, Authorizing Presidential Vision: Making Permanent the
Efforts of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative,'' June 21,
2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to consider
Representative Mark Green's H.R. 1054, the Tools for Community
Initiatives Act, which has been referred to the subcommittee.
In addition, the subcommittee reviewed programmatic successes
and failures of the President's Initiative and the Office's
future plans, including State and local cooperation, legal
barriers, data collection and other legislative priorities.
This legislative hearing also examined H.R. 1064, the Tools for
Community Initiatives Act, which would authorize the Federal
agencies charged with implementing the Faith-Based and
Community Initiative.
b. Witnesses.--Mark Green, Member of Congress (WI); Robert
C. Scott, Member of Congress (VA); Stanley Carlson-Thies,
director of Social Policy Studies at the Center for Public
Justice; David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House
Faith-Based and Community Initiative; Bobby Polito, former-
Director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives, Department of Health and Human Services; Gregg
Petersmeyer, vice-chairman, Board of Trustees at America's
Promise; Bob Woodson, president of the National Center for
Neighborhood Enterprise; Dennis Griffith, director of Teen
Challenge in Southern California; Rabbi David Saperstein,
director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and
Reverend C. Welton Gaddy, president, Interfaith Alliance.
13. ``Fighting Meth in America's Heartland: Assessing Federal, State,
and Local Efforts,'' June 27, 2005 (St. Paul, MN)
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the state of
methamphetamine trafficking, production and abuse in Minnesota
and the Midwest region of the United States, and how the
Federal Government can assist State and local authorities in
combating this growing problem through law enforcement,
environmental clean-up, and drug treatment and prevention
programs. This hearing provided an opportunity for
representatives of Federal and local agencies with experience
in fighting methamphetamine trafficking, as well as
organizations that specialize in the environmental aspects of
the problem, and the treatment and prevention of meth addiction
and abuse, to discuss these issues and suggest solutions.
b. Witnesses.--Timothy Ogden, Associate Special Agent in
Charge, Chicago Field Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration; Julie Rosen, Minnesota State Senator; Sheriff
Terese Amazi, Mower County Sheriff's Office; Sheriff Brad
Gerhardt, Martin County Sheriff's Office; Lt. Todd Hoffman,
Wright County Sheriff's Office; Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County
attorney; Bob Bushman, senior special agent, Minnesota Bureau
of Criminal Apprehension and president, Minnesota State
Association of Narcotics Investigators and president, Minnesota
Police and Peace Officers' Association; Dennis D. Miller, drug
court coordinator, Hennepin County Department of Community
Corrections; Kirsten Lindbloom, social program specialist,
Parenting Resource Center, coordinator, Mower County Chemical
Health Coalition; and Buzz Anderson, president, Minnesota
Retailers Association.
14. ``Interrupting Narco-terrorist Threats on the High Seas: Do We Have
Enough Wind in Our Sails?'' June 29, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the effectiveness of the
U.S. drug enforcement efforts in the transit zone. In addition
to the obvious loss of lives and productivity to narcotic
usage, smuggling transportation groups are capable of smuggling
not only drugs, but also aliens, terrorists, and weapons.
Therefore, if we increase our abilities to interdict narcotics
in the transit zone, we also increase our effectiveness at
stopping the smuggling of aliens, terrorists and weapons.
b. Witnesses.--Ralph Utley, Acting U.S. Interdiction
Coordinator; Admiral Dennis Sirois, Assistant Commandant for
Operations, U.S. Coast Guard; Admiral Jeffrey J. Hathaway,
Director, Joint Interagency Task Force South; Charles E.
Stallworth II, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air and
Marine Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and
Thomas M. Harrigan, Chief of Enforcement Operations, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
15. ``Threat Convergence at the Border: How Can We Improve the Federal
Effort to Dismantle Criminal Smuggling Organizations?'' July
12, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing continued the subcommittee's
ongoing study of how criminal smuggling organizations have
directly and indirectly impacted our ability to secure our
borders, and the resource, management, and legal gaps that
frustrate our efforts to dismantle these organizations.
Smuggling organizations are capable of transporting not only
drugs, but also aliens, terrorists, and weapons.
b. Witness.--Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland Security
and Justice, Government Accountability Office [GAO].
16. ``Fighting Meth in America's Heartland: Assessing the Impact on
Local Law Enforcement and Child Welfare Agencies,'' July 26,
2005
a. Summary.--This hearing continued the subcommittee's
ongoing study of how meth is affecting our Nation. The impact
of methamphetamine on local law enforcement agencies and
welfare support agencies is severe and growing. The hearing
provided an opportunity for representatives of Federal and
local agencies with experience in fighting methamphetamine
trafficking, as well as organizations that specialize in the
child welfare aspects of the problem, to discuss these issues
and suggest solutions.
b. Witnesses.--Scott Burns, Deputy Director for State and
Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Joseph
Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement, Drug
Enforcement Administration; Laura Birkmeyer, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, San Diego, CA and chairperson, National Alliance for
Drug Endangered Children; Nancy K. Young, Ph.D., Director,
National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare; and
Director, Children and Family Futures; Valerie Brown, National
Association of Counties; Freida S. Baker, deputy director,
Family and Children's Services, Alabama Department of Human
Resources; Chief Deputy Phil Byers, Rutherford County Sheriff's
Office (NC); Sylvia Deporto, deputy director, Riverside County
Children's Services (CA); Betsy Dunn, investigator, peer
supervisor, Tennessee Department of Children's Services, Child
Protective Services Division; Chief Don Owens, Titusville
Police Department (PA); and Sheriff Mark Shook, Watauga County
Sheriff's Department (NC).
17. ``Law Enforcement and the Fight Against Methamphetamine: Improving
Federal, State, and Local Efforts,'' August 23, 2005
(Wilmington, OH)
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the state of
methamphetamine trafficking, production and abuse in
southwestern Ohio and the Midwest region of the United States,
and how the Federal Government can assist State and local
authorities in combating this growing problem. This hearing
provided an opportunity for representatives of Federal and
local agencies with experience in fighting methamphetamine
trafficking and abuse, to discuss these issues and suggest
solutions.
b. Witnesses.--Gary W. Oetjen, Assistant Special Agent in
Charge, Louisville, KY District Office, Drug Enforcement
Administration; John Sommer, director, Ohio High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area [HIDTA]; Randy Riley, Clinton County
Commissioner; Ralph Fizer, Jr., Clinton County sheriff; Tom
Ariss, Warren County sheriff; Dave Vore, Montgomery County
sheriff; Commander John Burke, Greater Warren County Drug Task
Force; and Jim Grandey, esq., Highland County Prosecutor.
18. ``The National Parks: Preservation of Historic Sites and the
Northeast Region,'' August 24, 2005 (Boston, MA)
a. Summary.--This hearing was the third in a series of
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks.
This series has examined preservation, maintenance, law
enforcement and homeland security. This hearing focused on
these issues in the Northeast Region, with particular attention
to funding and management of parks in the region, and the
preservation of historic sites under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service. Historic preservation is a large
component of the NPS' mission. Maintaining and restoring
important historical sites is often expensive. This hearing
also examined the NPS' efforts to adequately maintain such
important sites as Longfellow Historic Site and Adams National
Historic Site.
b. Witnesses.--Robert W. McIntosh, Associate Regional
Director for Planning and Partnerships, Northeast Region,
National Park Service; Roger Kennedy, National Council
chairman, National Parks Conservation Association; Marilyn
Fenollosa, National Trust for Historic Preservation; Ken Olson,
president, Friends of Acadia National Park; and Lt. John
McCauley, museum curator, Ancient and Honorable Artillery
Company of Massachusetts.
19. ``Women and Cancer: Where Are We in Prevention, Early Detection and
Treatment of Gynecologic Cancers?'' September 7, 2005
a. Summary.--September was ``Gynecologic Oncology Awareness
Month.'' This hearing addressed national efforts to raise
awareness among patient and medical communities of gynecologic
cancers, and effectively educate relevant communities about
gynecologic cancers, as well as address the funding path for
innovative and cutting edge research for gynecologic cancers.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Edward L. Trimble, M.D., M.P.H., Head of
the Surgery Section, Division of Cancer Treatment and
Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute; Dr. Ed Thompson, M.D.,
M.P.H., Chief of Public Health Practice, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention; Dr. Richard Pazdur, MD, Director,
Division of Oncology Drug Products, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Dr. Beth
Karlan, president, Society of Gynecologic Oncologists; Dr. Mark
Jay Rosenfeld, scientist/researcher; Sheryl Silver, sister of
Johanna Silver; and Kolleen Stacey, ovarian cancer survivor.
20. ``National Parks in the Pacific Northwest,'' September 12, 2005
(Bellevue, WA)
a. Summary.--This hearing was the fourth in a series of
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks.
The series examined preservation, maintenance, law enforcement
and homeland security. This hearing focused on these issues in
the Pacific Northwest, with particular attention to funding and
management of parks in the region, and environmental
stewardship. The hearing also examined partnerships between
State park systems and the National Park Service and the U.S.
Forest Service and the National Park Service.
b. Witnesses.--Cicely Muldoon, Deputy Regional Director for
Public Use, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; Rex
Derr, director, Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission; Tim Wood, director, Oregon State Parks; Sally
Jewell, trustee, National Parks Conservation Association; Russ
Dickenson, Former Director, National Park Service; and Rod
Fleck, city attorney/planner, Forks, WA.
21. ``Management of the National Parks and the Parks of the
Southwest,'' October 13, 2005 (Flagstaff, AZ)
a. Summary.--This hearing was the fifth in a series of
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks.
The series will continue to examine preservation and
maintenance, and law enforcement and homeland security. This
hearing focused on management of the national parks with a
special focus on the National Park Service's core operations
analysis. The hearing also examined the parks of the American
Southwest.
b. Witnesses.--Richard M. Frost, Associate Regional
Director, Communications and External Relations, Intermountain
Region of the National Park Service; Deborah Tuck, president,
Grand Canyon National Park Foundation; Bob Keiter, board
member, National Parks Conservation Association; Kimberly
Spurr, board member, Arizona Archeological Council; and Rick
Smith, former Associate Regional Director, Natural and Cultural
Resources, Southwest Regional Office of the National Park
Service.
22. ``Stopping the Methamphetamine Epidemic: Lessons from the Pacific
Northwest,'' October 14, 2005 (Portland, OR)
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the state of
methamphetamine trafficking, production and abuse in the States
of Oregon and Washington, and how the Federal Government can
assist State and local authorities in combating this growing
problem. The hearing provided an opportunity for
representatives of Federal and local agencies with experience
in fighting methamphetamine trafficking and abuse, as well as
experts in drug treatment and prevention, to discuss these
issues and suggest solutions.
b. Witnesses.--Rodney G. Benson, Special Agent in Charge,
Seattle Field Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Chuck
Karl, director, Oregon High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
[HIDTA]; Dave Rodriguez, Director, Northwest High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area [HIDTA]; Karen Ashbeck, mother and
grandmother of recovering methamphetamine addicts; Sheriff John
Trumbo, Umatilla County Sheriff's Office; Sheriff Tim Evinger,
Klamath County Sheriff's Office; Rick Jones, Choices Counseling
Center; Kaleen Deatherage, director of public policy, Oregon
Partnership, Governor's Meth Task Force; Tammy Baney, Chair,
Deschutes County Commission on Children and Families; and Shawn
Miller, Oregon Grocery Association.
23. ``Sick Crime: Counterfeit Drugs in the United States,'' November 1,
2005
a. Summary.--Selling fake prescription drugs within the
United States is a serious public health threat, and a growing
problem. FDA counterfeit drug investigations rose more than 150
percent in 2004 from the previous year. According to the World
Health Organization, 10 percent of global pharmaceutical
commerce this year will be counterfeit. That number is expected
to double by the year 2010, as international criminal
organizations become more sophisticated. This hearing
investigated the threat of counterfeit drugs within the United
States and measures to prevent counterfeit drug importation and
distribution.
b. Witnesses.--Randall W. Lutter, PhD., Acting Associate
Commissioner for Policy and Planning, Food and Drug
Administration; Katherine Eban, author, Dangerous Doses; Kevin
Fagan, father of Timothy Fagan, counterfeit drug victim
(Epogen); Max Butler, brother of Maxine Blount, counterfeit
drug victim (Procrit); Peter Pitts, Center for Medicines in the
Public Interest; Carmen Catizone, executive director, National
Association of Boards of Pharmacy; Jim Dahl, former Assistant
Director, Investigations, FDA Office of Criminal
Investigations; and Donald deKieffer, deKieffer and Horgan.
24. ``National Parks of California,'' November 28, 2005 (San Francisco,
CA)
a. Summary.--This hearing was the sixth in a series of
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks.
The series continued to examine preservation and maintenance,
and law enforcement and homeland security. This hearing focused
on the park units of California, with particular attention to
National Recreation Areas, State and Federal management of park
units, and Yosemite National Park.
b. Witnesses.--Brian O'Neill, General Superintendent,
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, National Park Service;
Theodore Jackson, Deputy Director for Park Operations,
California State Parks; Gene Sykes, Chair, National Parks
Conservation Association; Greg Moore, Executive Director,
Golden Gate Conservancy; and Daphne Kwok, executive director,
Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation.
25. ``National Parks of Hawaii,'' December 1, 2005 (Honolulu, HI)
a. Summary.--This hearing was the seventh in a series of
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks.
The series examined preservation and maintenance, and law
enforcement and homeland security. This hearing focused on the
park units of Hawaii, with particular attention to visitor
services and invasive species.
b. Witnesses.--Frank Hays, Pacific Area Director, National
Park Service; Craig Obey, vice president for government
affairs, National Parks Conservation Association; Suzanne Case,
executive director, the Nature Conservancy, Hawaii; George
Sullivan, chairman, Arizona Memorial Museum Association; and
Casey Jarman, board member, Friends of Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park.
26. ``National Parks of Florida,'' January 11, 2006 (Miami, FL)
a. Summary.--This hearing is the eighth in a series of
hearings focusing on the critical issues facing the National
Park Service, examining the preservation, maintenance, law
enforcement, and homeland security of National Parks. This
particular hearing focused on the park units of Florida, with
special attention paid to Everglades National Park. The
National Park Service is facing many challenges and problems.
Management and funding are of constant concern to all park
units. Underneath these issues are problems unique to each park
unit. In Florida, environmental degradation is of particular
concern. In addition, this hearing examined the effectiveness
of the restoration and rehabilitation process pursued to
counter the ecological effects of hurricanes.
b. Witnesses.--Sherri Fields, Chief of the Natural
Resources Division, Southeast Region, National Park Service;
Nathaniel Reed, member of the National Council, National Parks
Conservation Association; and Dexter Lehtinen, senior member,
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
27. ``National Drug Control Budget for Fiscal Year 2007,'' February 16,
2006
a. Summary.--This served as an oversight hearing to examine
the administration's priorities and goals for the Federal
Government's overall drug strategy for 2006. It also examined
the overall Federal drug budget proposed by the administration
for fiscal year 2007.
b. Witnesses.--John Walters, Director, Office of National
Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President.
28. ``Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research After Seoul:
Examining Exploitation, Fraud and Ethical Problems in the
Research,'' March 7, 2006
a. Summary.--The scientific scandal at the World Stem Cell
Hub in Seoul, South Korea, revealed that cloning research
widely acclaimed by proponents of human cloning and embryonic
stem cell research was a fraud. The scandal also brought to
light the fact that female assistants were coerced to
``donate'' their eggs for the stem cell and cloning research.
In light of the scandal, this hearing addressed the ethical
challenges resulting in potential exploitation, fraud and
coercion in the research areas of human cloning and embryonic
stem cell research.
b. Witnesses.--James F. Battey, Jr., M.D., Ph.D., Chair,
NIH Stem Cell Task Force, Director, National Institute on
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Bernard Schwetz,
Director, Office for Human Research Protections; Chris B.
Pascal, Director, Office of Research Integrity; Richard A.
Chole, M.D, Ph.D Lindberg professor and chairman, Department of
Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St.
Louis; Judy Norsigian, executive director, Our Bodies
Ourselves, co-author of ``Our Bodies, Ourselves''; Diane
Beeson, M.A., PhD, professor emerita, Department of Sociology
and Social Services, California State University, East Bay;
Richard Doerflinger, deputy director, Secretariat for Pro-Life
Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Debra J.H.
Mathews, M.A., Ph.D, Assistant Director for Science Programs,
the Phoebe R. Berman Bioethics Institute; and Joe Brown,
Parkinson's Action Network State Coordinator, Texas.
29. ``Appalachian Ice: The Methamphetamine Epidemic in Western North
Carolina,'' April 11, 2006 (Lenoir, NC)
a. Summary.--This hearing will explore the impact of the
methamphetamine epidemic in North Carolina and the response of
law enforcement at the Federal, State and local level to the
trafficking and abuse of this drug.
b. Witnesses.--John J. Emerson, Assistant Special Agent-in-
Charge, Charlotte District Office, Drug Enforcement
Administration; James Gaither, district attorney, 25th Judicial
District; Van Shaw, special agent, State Bureau of
Investigation, Clandestine Labs Response Program; Sheriff Gary
Clark, Caldwell County; Sheriff C. Phillip Byers, Rutherford
County; and Lynne Vasquez, mother of convicted meth dealer and
addict.
30. ``Gangs, Fraud and Sexual Predators: Struggling with the
Consequences of Illegal Immigration,'' April 12, 2006 (Winston-
Salem, NC)
a. Summary.--Inadequate vigilance against illegal
immigration is creating opportunities for criminals to
victimize individuals and taxpayers in general. This hearing
will examine these problems, probe the response of Federal,
State and local governments and solicit solutions.
b. Witnesses.--Jeffrey S. Jordan, Special Agent,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; State Representative Dale
Folwell; Thomas Keith, district attorney, 21st Judicial
District; Debra Conrad-Shrader, vice-chair, Forsyth County
Board of Commissioners; and Brandon Holland, Forsyth County
director, Zero Armed Perpetrators [ZAP] Program.
31. ``Transit Zone Operations: Can We Sustain Record Seizures with
Declining Resources?'' April 26, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the effectiveness of the
U.S. drug enforcement efforts in the transit zone. In addition
to the obvious loss of lives and productivity to narcotic
usage, smuggling transportation groups are capable of smuggling
not only drugs, but also aliens, terrorists, and weapons.
Therefore, if the United States increases its ability to
interdict narcotics in the transit zone, we also increase our
effectiveness at stopping the smuggling of aliens, terrorists
and weapons.
b. Witnesses.--James F.X. O'Gara, Deputy Director of Supply
Reduction, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Rear Admiral
Jeffrey Hathaway, Director, Joint Interagency Task Force,
South; Michael Braun, Director of Operations, Drug Enforcement
Administration; Rear Admiral Wayne Justice Assistant Commandant
for Enforcement and Incident Management, USCG; Major General
Michael Kostelnik, USAF (retired), Assistant Commissioner for
Customs and Border Protection, Office of Air and Marine; and
Rear Admiral Alvaro Echandia, Chief of Naval Intelligence,
Colombian Navy.
32. ``RU-486: Demonstrating a Low Standard for Women's Health?'' May
17, 2006
a. Summary.--The Food and Drug Administration in September
2000 approved RU-486, aka mifepristone or Mifeprex--trade
name--as a form of abortion through 49 days of pregnancy. Since
its approval, at least seven women have died subsequent to
taking RU-486; there have been at least 857 reported unique
adverse events--as of August 2005--associated with this drug,
at least 46 of which were life-threatening, and over 500 of
which required surgical interventions. The risk of death using
RU-486 is 10 times that of surgical abortion during the first 7
weeks of pregnancy. The most recent death associated with this
drug was reported by the FDA on March 17, 2006. This hearing
examined the unsafe characteristics of RU-486, the reported
maternal deaths and adverse events associated with it, and
FDA's actions regarding the RU-486 abortion regimen since its
approval.
b. Witnesses.--Janet Woodcock, M.D., Deputy Commissioner
for Operations, Food and Drug Administration [FDA]; Monty
Patterson, father of Holly Patterson who was 18 years old when
she died after taking RU-486; Susan Wood, Ph.D., Former FDA
Assistant Commissioner for Women's Health; Lisa D. Rarick,
M.D., RAR Consulting, LLC; Donna Harrison, M.D., member,
Mifeprex Subcommittee of American Association of Prolife
Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and O. Carter Snead, associate
professor of law, University of Notre Dame, former general
counsel for the President's Council on Bioethics.
33. ``Fiscal Year 2007 Drug Control Budget and the Byrne Grant, HIDTA,
and Other Law Enforcement Programs: Are We Jeopardizing
Federal, State and Local Cooperation?'' May 23, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal as it relates to
programs designed to help State and local drug enforcement,
including the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants
(``Byrne Grants''), the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
[HIDTA] and modifications to Office of Justice Programs [OJP]
at the Justice Department. The subcommittee analyzed the
strategy for Federal, State and local cooperation underlying
these proposals.
b. Witnesses.--Regina Schofield, Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Justice Programs [OJP], U.S. Department of
Justice; Stuart Nash, Associate Deputy Attorney General and
Director, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force [OCDETF],
U.S. Department of Justice; Scott Burns, Deputy Director for
State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control
Policy; Ron Brooks, president, National Narcotics Officers'
Associations' Coalition, director, Northern California HIDTA;
Tom Carr, director, Washington-Baltimore HIDTA; Tom Donahue,
director, Chicago HIDTA; Abraham Azzam, director, Southeast
Michigan HIDTA; and John Burke, director, Southwest Ohio
Regional Drug Task Force [SWORD].
34. ``Evaluating the Synthetic Drug Control Strategy,'' June 16, 2006
a. Summary.--The long-awaited Synthetic Drug Control
Strategy--with an anticipated emphasis on methamphetamine--was
due to be released by the Office of National Drug Control
Policy on June 1st. With the near-universal recognition that
methamphetamine addiction has become an epidemic, it was
imperative that the Federal Government provide the best
possible leadership and vision on this pressing social and law
enforcement problem. This hearing sought to examine the new
strategy and gather input on it from various Federal, State and
private agencies who have played key roles in the fight against
this drug.
b. Witnesses.--Scott Burns, Deputy Director for State and
Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy; Uttam
Dhillon, Director, Office of Counter-Narcotics Enforcement,
Department of Homeland Security; Joseph Rannazzissi, Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug
Enforcement Administration; Dr. Don Young, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and
Human Services; Eric Coleman, Oakland County commissioner (MI),
National Association of Counties; Dr. Lewis E. Gallant,
executive director, National Association of State Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Directors; Sherry Green, executive director,
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws; Sue Thau, public
policy consultant, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America;
and Ron Brooks, president of the National Narcotics Officers'
Associations' Coalition and director of Northern California
HIDTA.
35. ``Clinical Lab Quality: Oversight Weaknesses Undermine Federal
Standards,'' June 27, 2006
a. Summary.--At the joint request of subcommittee Chairman
Mark Souder and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, the GAO studied
oversight of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of
1998 [CLIA] by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
[CMS].
CLIA strengthened and extended quality requirements for
labs that perform tests to diagnose or treat disease. About
36,000 labs that perform certain complex tests must be surveyed
biennially by either a State or one of six private accrediting
organizations. CMS oversees implementation of CLIA requirements
and the activities of survey organizations. The GAO examined
(1) the quality of lab testing; (2) the effectiveness of
surveys, complaint investigations, and enforcement actions in
detecting lab problems; and (3) the adequacy of CMS oversight
of the CLIA program. This hearing explored GAO's findings and
recommendations.
b. Witnesses.--Leslie Aronovitz, Director, Health Division,
Government Accountability Office; Dr. Thomas Hamilton,
Director, Survey and Certification Group, Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; Dennis S. O'Leary, M.D., president, Joint Commission
on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; Thomas Sodeman,
M.D., president, College of American Pathologists; and Doug
Beigel, chief executive officer, COLA.
36. ``Availability and Effectiveness of Programs to Treat Victims of
the Methamphetamine Epidemic,'' June 28, 2006
a. Summary.--Methamphetamine use in the United States
continues at epidemic levels. This highly addictive drug is
difficult to overcome in treatment, and the relapse rate for
meth users seeking treatment is very high. This hearing
examined the availability and success of treatment programs
seeking to help recovering methamphetamine addicts.
b. Witnesses.--Bertha Madras, Deputy Director for Demand
Reduction, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy;
Nora D. Volkow, M.D., Director, National Institute on Drug
Abuse, National Institutes of Health; Charles Curie,
Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration [SAMHSA], Department of Health and Human
Services; Russell Cronkhite, recovered meth addict; Darren and
Aaronette Noble, recovered meth addicts, and son Joey Binkley;
Richard A. Rawson, Ph.D., associate director, Integrated
Substance Abuse Programs, UCLA; Leah Heaston, MSW, LCSW, ACSW,
SAP, Noble County director, Otis R. Bowen Center for Human
Services; Michael Harle, president and CEO, Gaudenzia, Inc.;
and Pat Fleming, director, Salt Lake County Substance Abuse
Services.
37. ``The Methamphetamine Epidemic in Colorado,'' July 7, 2006
(Loveland, CO)
a. Summary.--This hearing, the 15th in a series of hearings
held by the subcommittee since 2001 on methamphetamine abuse,
continued our work on this significant and growing problem. The
subcommittee examined the state of methamphetamine trafficking,
production and abuse in Colorado and how the Federal Government
can assist State and local authorities in combating this
growing problem. The hearing provided an opportunity for
representatives of Federal, State and local agencies with
experience in fighting methamphetamine trafficking and abuse to
discuss these issues and suggest solutions.
b. Witnesses.--Jeff Sweetin, Assistant Special Agent-in-
Charge, Denver District Office, Drug Enforcement
Administration; Larry Abrahamson, district attorney, 8th
Judicial District; Ken Buck, district attorney, 19th Judicial
District; John Cooke, Weld County Sheriff; Lt. Craig Dodd,
commander, Larimer County Drug Task Force; Janet Rowland, Mesa
County commissioner; Robert Watson, district attorney, 13th
Judicial District; and Donita Davenport.
38. ``Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Security,'' July 11, 2006
a. Summary.--Counterfeit prescription drugs are illegal and
unsafe, and pose a serious threat to the public health and
safety. Recent estimates by various researchers and the World
Health Organization indicate counterfeit drugs represent as
high as 50 percent of the total pharmaceutical supply. Global
trade and the Internet have increased the international
accessibility and movement of counterfeit drugs.
The U.S. drug supply chain has become increasingly
vulnerable to a variety of threats. Counterfeit drugs often
travel through a distribution network of wholesalers,
distributors, pharmacies, online shell companies, and criminal
organizations buying, selling and re-selling through unofficial
channels with little product integrity.
There are a number of measures that can be taken to provide
integrity to the drug supply chain. This hearing focused on the
scope of counterfeit drugs entering the supply chain and anti-
counterfeiting measures that can be taken to eliminate the
problem.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Randall W. Lutter, Acting Associate
Commissioner for Policy and Planning, Food and Drug
Administration; Kevin Delli-Colli, Deputy Assistant Director,
Financial and Trade Investigations Division, Office of
Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Carmen Catizone, executive director, National Association of
Boards of Pharmacy; Susan C. Winckler, esq., vice president,
Policy and Communications, American Pharmacists Association;
John M. Gray, president and CEO, Healthcare Distribution
Management Association [HDMA]; and Rick Raber, project manager,
Northern Apex, RFID.
39. ``Fencing the Border: Construction Options and Strategic
Placement,'' July 20, 2006
a. Summary.--In light of immigration legislation passed by
the Senate and the House, a sense has clearly developed in
Congress that fencing along the southwest border should be
expanded and strengthened as a means of deterring drug
traffickers and illegal aliens. This hearing examined the
latest proposals in light of recent experience, particularly
regarding the fencing in the San Diego sector of the border.
Fencing the border in precise areas proposes particular
challenges. On December 16, 2005, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed a new immigration bill, H.R. 4437. More
specifically, the Hunter Amendment, H. Amdt. 648, it mandates
the construction of 854 miles of double-layer, security-
specific fencing--not vehicle barriers--including lights and
cameras, along the southwest border. It requires the Secretary
of Homeland Security to provide at least two layers of
reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical
barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors at five
specified locations. Moreover, on May 17, 2006, the Senate
voted 83-16 on S. 2611 to construct, within 2 years, 370 miles
of triple-layer fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in
areas along the southwest border that DHS determines are most
often used by smugglers and illegal aliens attempting to gain
illegal entry. These proposals demand serious investigation
into construction options and the challenges that may arise.
b. Witnesses.--Representative Duncan Hunter; Representative
Stevan Pearce; Representative Silvestre Reyes; Kevin Stevens of
Customs and Border Protection; Representative Steve King of
Iowa; Douglas Barnhart, president of Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc.,
vice-president of the Association of General Contractors;
Carlton Mann, Chief Inspector of the Office of Inspections and
Special Reviews of the Department of Homeland Security's Office
of Inspector General; Art Mayne, specifications writer for
Merchants Metals; Don Williams of Roadrunner Planning and
Consulting, consultant for Power Contracting, Inc.; and T.J.
Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council.
40. ``Prescription Drug Abuse: What is Being Done to Address this New
Drug Epidemic?'' July 26, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing addressed a very important aspect
of drug abuse in our country: the non-medical use of
prescription drugs as a form of drug abuse. Prescription drug
abuse is second only to marijuana abuse. In the most recent
Household Survey, initiations to drug abuse started with
prescription drugs--especially pain medications--more often
than with marijuana. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has
emphasized the significance of the problem of prescription drug
abuse, engaging in research to address the problem, and calling
for development of abuse-resistant medications; the Food and
Drug Administration and Drug Enforcement Agency have both noted
their efforts to work together to address prescription drug
abuse, but the practical steps taken by FDA and DEA together
are unclear. Indirect costs associated with prescription drug
abuse and diversion include product theft, commission of other
crimes to support addiction, law enforcement costs, and
encouraging the practice of defensive medicine.
Witnesses from the Food and Drug Administration and the
Drug Enforcement Administration discussed those agencies'
efforts to address this growing drug epidemic. The Office of
National Drug Control Policy also participated in the hearing
on demand reduction and policies targeting prescription drug
abuse. A representative from the National Institute on Drug
Abuse discussed that Institute's research portfolio and
initiatives in the area of prescription drug abuse. Other
witnesses included mothers who lost their children to
prescription drug abuse; a representative from a pharmaceutical
company developing an abuse-resistant formulation of highly-
abused oxycodone; a representative from an interventional pain
physicians group; and representatives from anti-drug
organizations.
b. Witnesses.--Bertha Madras, Deputy Director for Demand
Reduction, White House Office of National Drug Policy; Nora D.
Volkow, M.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse,
National Institutes of Health; Sandra Kweder, M.D., Deputy
Director, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Review, Food and Drug Administration; Joe Rannazzisi, Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug
Enforcement Administration; Misty Fetco, registered nurse who
lost her 18-year-old son Carl to DXM and Fetanyl abuse; Linda
Surks, lost her 19-year-old son Jason to a prescription drug
overdose related death; Barbara van Rooyan, lost her 24-year-
old son Patrick to Oxycontin use; Mathea Falco, J.D.,
president, Drug Strategies; Stephen E. Johnson, executive
director, commercial planning, Pain Therapeutics, Inc.;
Laxmaiah Manchikanti, M.D., chief executive officer, American
Society for Interventional Pain Physicians; and Steve Pasierb,
president and CEO, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
41. ``The National Parks of Alaska,'' August 14, 2006 (Anchorage, AK)
a. Summary.--This hearing was the ninth in a series of
hearings being held to examine the state of the National Parks.
The series examined park preservation and maintenance, as well
as law enforcement and homeland security issues. This hearing
focused on the park units of Alaska and the unique role and
challenges of NPS units in Alaska.
b. Witnesses.--Marcia Blazsak, Regional Director, Alaska
Region, National Park Service; Michael Menge, commissioner,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources; James Stratton,
regional director for the Alaska Office, National Park
Conservation Association; Ron Peck, president, Alaska Travel
Industry Association; Rick Kenyon, publisher, Wrangell St.,
Elias News; and John Shively, vice president, government and
community relations, Holland America.
42. ``Empowering Local Law Enforcement to Combat Illegal Immigration,''
August 25, 2006 (Gastonia, NC)
a. Summary.--This hearing explored what is needed for State
and local law enforcement to make a greater impact on the
problem of illegal immigration, particularly with regard to
those aliens who are committing crimes. One promising method is
the Sec. 287(G) training provided by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement which, when completed, delegates authority to State
and local officers to make administrative arrests of illegal
aliens.
b. Witnesses.--Kenneth A. Smith, Special Agent-in-Charge,
Atlanta Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]; Alan
Cloninger, sheriff of Gaston County; Michael Lands, district
attorney of Gaston County; Jim Pendergraph, sheriff of
Mecklenburg County; and Emily Moose.
43. ``Combating Youth Violence: What Federal, State and Local
Governments are Doing to Deter Youth Crime,'' October 3, 2006
(Los Angeles, CA)
a. Summary.--Many of the factors that contribute to the
rise of gang culture and youth violence are present in southern
California, particularly in Los Angeles County. The purpose of
this hearing was to explore what government officials at all
levels--as well as various private entities and community
leaders--are doing to suppress gang activity and to prevent the
culture of gangs and violence from taking root in the hearts of
vulnerable young people.
b. Witnesses.--Robert B. Loosle, Special Agent in Charge,
Criminal Division, Los Angeles FBI; John A. Torres, Special
Agent in Charge, LA Field Division, ATF; Danny Trejo, film
actor and former gang member; Chief Ronnie Williams, Los
Angeles Sheriff's Department; Jerald Cavitt, former gang
member; Captain Regina Scott Patrol Commanding Officer,
Southwest Division, Los Angeles Police Department; Charlotte
Jordan, CEO, Mothers on the March; Dan Isaacs, chief operating
officer, Los Angeles Unified School District; Eddie Jones,
president, LA Civil Rights Association; and Reverend Dr. Clyde
W. Oden, Jr., senior pastor at Bryant Temple AME Church, board
member of the African American Summit on Violence Prevention.
OTHER
1. Abstinence and its Critics.--First posted on our Web
site on October 27th, this 33-page staff report is a
comprehensive response to the so-called ``Waxman Report,''
which was put out by the Democrat staff of the Government
Reform Committee in December 2004. The Waxman Report attacked
Federal funding of abstinence-based education and sought to
discredit the most widely-used abstinence curricula. Despite
its shallow research and reliance on misleading or erroneous
statements, the Waxman Report has been trumpeted as the
definitive indictment of abstinence curricula.
The subcommittee's report is a thorough, well-researched
debunking of the minority effort. To enable readers to make
their own judgment, a copy of the Waxman Report is attached as
an appendix.
2. FDA and RU-486: Lowering the Standards for Women's
Health.--First posted on our Web site in October, this 40 page
staff report is a comprehensive study of the failure of the FDA
to apply required standards when it approved this dangerous
abortion regimen. With meticulous research and analysis, the
report documents the unacceptable consequences for women's
health and demonstrates why action ought to be taken to
withdraw FDA's hurried and ill-considered approval of this
drug.
3. Afghanistan and Opium: A Primer.--Posted on our Web site
in October 2006, this 37 page staff report provides a
comprehensive overview of opium poppy cultivation and heroin
production in Afghanistan. The report draws on a wide range of
resources to provide the reader with an understanding of the
magnitude of the problem faced in Afghanistan. It includes a
review of U.S. Government agencies and programs engaged in the
counter-drug effort in that country, as well as a view of the
obstacles.
4. 2006 Congressional Drug Control Budget and Policy
Assessment: A Review of the 2007 National Drug Control Budget
and 2006 National Drug Control Strategy.--This 146-page report
was approved and adopted by the full committee on March 9,
2006. It is an exhaustive investigation of the drug control
efforts of every Federal agency that is involved in drug
control, with policy analysis and assessment of the National
Drug Control Strategy.
III. Subcommittee on Energy and Resources
1. ``Energy Demand in the 21st Century: Are Congress and the Executive
Branch Meeting the Challenge?'' March 16, 2005
a. Summary.--The United States consumes 25 percent of the
world's energy supply. Of the global supply, we consume 43
percent of motor gasoline, 25 percent of crude petroleum, 25
percent of natural gas, and 26 percent of electricity. Our
appetite for energy has certainly led to a dynamic economy and
economic growth, with suppliers eager to meet U.S. energy
requirements. However, rapidly growing demand from the
developing world, particularly China, has helped contribute to
volatility in fuel prices.
The current continuing volatility in fuel supplies and
prices, which began in late spring of 1999, has been the fourth
significant episode since 1973. By necessity, Americans are
more aware of the extent to which the U.S. economy and
lifestyle depends on inexpensive and plentiful energy. Although
it may be accurate to view this 30-year period as one of
general price and supply stability that is periodically broken
by shorter periods of supply disruption and price volatility,
further analysis reveals the current situation we are
experiencing is substantially different from the previous
episodes in a number of critical respects, especially taking
into account increasing demand in the world market.
Considering price instability and the potential for
continued high prices in the context of the current domestic
and international energy situation--increasing world demand and
declining U.S. oil production--it is exceedingly important that
Congress focus on the key energy issues confronting the United
States. Is Congress asking the right questions, including
whether Federal Government agencies are taking the right kind
of actions to meet U.S. needs?
Over the past three decades it has been difficult to
achieve widespread consensus on national energy policy.
Achieving a delicate balance between competing interests is a
time consuming process. The impact of energy development on the
environment, the structure of economic incentives for
increasing exploration and the development of new technologies,
and different regional interests largely account for the lack
of an enacted energy bill in the 108th Congress, despite a
conference report being filed for H.R. 6.
The hearing addressed: a) whether or not Congress focused
on the key energy issues confronting the United States at that
time; b) whether or not Federal Government agencies took the
right actions to meet U.S. energy requirements in the 21st
century; c) how domestic supply and increasing international
demand for energy were affecting the United States; d) the
factors that contributed to volatility in fuel supply prices;
and e) how the United States could continue to meet domestic
demand for energy while simultaneously ensuring the future
reliability, affordability, and sustainability of the energy
supply.
b. Witnesses.--Jim Wells, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO]; Guy
Caruso, Administrator, Energy Information Administration,
Department of Energy; and Paul Portney, president, Resources
for the Future.
2. ``America's Energy Needs as Our National Security Policy,'' April 6,
2005
a. Summary.--Miguel Unzueta, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Special Agent in Energy is a critical driver of
the United States and world economies. United States and global
living standards cannot continue to rise without increasing
energy consumption. Affordable, reliable, and sustainable
energy supplies are essential to our national security and
global commitments. Meeting rising energy needs is not just a
domestic problem. It is now a global problem and issue.
The U.S. economy is becoming more energy efficient, and
this trend will continue. Since 1950, the amount of energy
needed to produce each dollar of U.S. GDP has been reduced by
48 percent. Since 1970, U.S. GDP increased 164 percent as
energy consumption increased 42 percent. Innovation in
developing new technologies plays a large part in both better
efficiency and driving further energy demand as we integrate
items such as the personal computer, new media, and better
communications devices into our daily lives. However, since
1970 U.S. vehicle miles traveled have increased 155 percent as
our economy has become more dependent on energy imports.
High demand growth for oil and natural gas in the global
market, particularly in China, has led to a tightening of
supplies and high prices. In March 2005, crude oil prices
topped $57 per barrel, a 32 percent increase since the end of
2004. At the time of this hearing, gasoline prices had
increased 27 cents per gallon since January 1, 2005, and 33
cents per gallon since last year at the same time. Unlike
previous periods of price volatility, this one is demand-driven
and not caused by supply restrictions instituted by OPEC or
political upheaval.
The United States now relies on oil imports for nearly 60
percent of consumption, and this figure is expected to rise,
with the Department of Energy forecasting imports to represent
two-thirds of the supply needed in 2020. At the same time,
internationally we are competing for a world commodity that
will see ever greater growth in demand rates.
These factors have caused a shift in energy geopolitics.
China, now the second largest importer and consumer of oil in
the world, has employed increasingly aggressive tactics in
securing access to oil and natural gas, and it has not
hesitated to seek out sources controlled by governments hostile
to U.S. interests. China receives 15 percent of its oil from
Iran and 6 percent from Sudan. China recently executed a number
of agreements with Venezuela, with the goal of granting Chinese
oil companies preferential access to oil and gas projects in
Venezuela. In addition, China is seeking out unconventional
opportunities, including new investment in Canadian oil sands,
which until recently were considered not economically viable
for production purposes.
At the same time, national or State-owned oil companies are
turning away from their traditionally insular roles and are
pursuing contracting opportunities that were previously the
reserve of international oil companies. This development is of
particular concern since government-controlled companies
already manage 72 percent of the world's oil reserves, 55
percent of gas reserves, and more than half of current world
oil production.
Considering these developments, it is extremely important
for Congress to reassess the role of energy in our national
security. While the goals of energy independence and energy
self-sufficiency have received headlines, given market
conditions, technological advancements, and forecasts through
2025, the ability of the United States or almost any
industrialized country to meet 100 percent of domestic energy
needs without imports is unrealistic.
However, the United States must ensure it is not dependent
on unreliable or unfriendly sources of energy to a point where
national security interests are compromised or the economy
experiences marked and prolonged negative effects. As noted in
recent articles in the national press, a number of influential
former national security officials and activists across the
political spectrum have banded together to address U.S. oil
consumption, energy demand, and national security. We cannot
achieve our strategic goals without a long-term plan--a
comprehensive national energy policy incorporating incentives
for increased domestic production of traditional and non-
traditional resources, the development of new technologies, and
the promotion of conservation.
The hearing addressed: a) what could be done to ensure
affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy for the U.S.
economy; b) how concerned the United States should be regarding
the growing number of bilateral agreements and alliances
between China, Russia, and other countries; and c) how the
global energy supply and demand situation affects the United
States and world economies in addition to U.S. foreign policy
options and international commitments.
b. Witnesses.--Jeffrey Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary,
Department of Energy; R. James Woolsey, former Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency; Ambassador Robert Hormats, vice
chairman, Goldman Sachs International; and Robert E. Ebel,
chairman, Energy Program, Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
3. ``The Role of Nuclear Power Generation in a Comprehensive National
Energy Policy,'' April 28, 2005
a. Summary.--Nuclear power plants currently generate a
significant proportion of the Nation's electricity. Projected
growth in electricity demand, volatile fossil fuel prices, and
environmental concerns have revitalized interest in nuclear
generation in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Nuclear power is a proven, emission-free source of electricity
that can contribute to the security of energy supplies and the
stability of prices.
Today's operating nuclear power plants are consistent high
performers in the U.S. electricity generation system,
accounting for 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. Second
only to coal, nuclear power is a primary source of the Nation's
baseload power--the power that electric utility companies must
deliver all day long. 103 licensed reactors, operating at 65
sites in 31 States, produced a record 824 billion kilowatt
hours [kWh] of electricity in 2004--more than the Nation's
entire electrical output in the early 1960s, when the first
large-scale commercial reactors were ordered.
Our Nation's electricity demand continues to grow as the
population increases, the economy expands, and elements of our
daily life become increasingly electrified. In 2003, the Nation
used 3.5 billion kWh of electricity and official forecasts call
for electricity use to increase 50 percent by 2025. The Energy
Information Administration [EIA] attributes this growth to
increased industrial output; an increase in residential
electricity use for heating, cooling, and lighting as average
home size increases; and projected increases in the amount of
electricity used for air conditioning as the U.S. population
shifts to warmer climates. Hundreds of new power plants of all
types will be needed by 2025--mostly after 2010--to satisfy the
Nation's growing appetite for electricity. EIA estimates that
this growth in demand, coupled with the retirement of older,
inefficient plants, means that the Nation will need 281
gigawatts of new electrical generation capacity.
Due in large part to fears regarding plant safety created
by the accident at Three Mile Island, no nuclear power plants
have been ordered in the United States since 1978 and more than
100 reactor orders have been canceled, including all orders
placed after 1973. Both the nuclear power industry and the
Department of Energy project that virtually all of the 103
commercial power plants will renew their operating licenses for
an additional 20 years, but nuclear power is expected to
experience a mere 9 percent growth in generating capacity--
nowhere near the 41 new 1,000 megawatt plants needed by 2025
just to maintain nuclear power's 20 percent share of the
Nation's electricity generation.
Concerns regarding the security of energy supply, fossil
fuel price volatility, and air quality have prompted renewed
consideration of nuclear power options by utilities and
industry observers. Considering whether and how to maintain or
expand nuclear power's share of U.S. electricity generation in
the coming decades, rather than allowing its share to shrink,
is an essential component of crafting a comprehensive national
energy policy. This hearing sought to identify the role of
nuclear power in meeting America's electricity demand in the
21st century, the extent of the challenges faced by the
industry in building new nuclear power generators, thus
determining how these issues could be addressed by a
comprehensive energy policy.
The hearing addressed: a) the advantages and disadvantages
of maintaining or expanding nuclear power's role in providing
the new electricity generation capacity required by 2025; b)
the optimum blend of stimulus measures to encourage new
construction of nuclear generating capacity; and c) the
consequences of allowing the U.S. nuclear power production
capacity to atrophy.
b. Witnesses.--Donald Jones, vice president and senior
economist, RCF Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc.; Marvin
Fertel, senior vice president for business operations, Nuclear
Energy Institute; and Patrick Moore, chairman and chief
scientist, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.
4. ``Gasoline: What's Causing Record Prices at the Pump?'' May 9, 2005
(San Diego, CA )
a. Summary.--At the date of this hearing, gasoline prices
had been rising steadily for months. Prices had reached
national average highs although, when adjusted for inflation,
they were below the March 1981 inflation-adjusted peak of
$3.10. Prices had increased 46 cents per gallon since January
1, 2005, climbing to a peak price of $2.28 per gallon. It
should be noted that consumers in California generally have
higher fuel costs than the rest of the country.
Good weather and vacations cause U.S. summer gasoline
demand to average approximately 5 percent higher than during
the rest of the year, and there is always concern that gasoline
prices will continue to rise in the summer months when demand
is greatest. Increased gasoline prices affect every sector of
the American economy and have a dramatic impact on the
pocketbooks of everyday families.
Global oil demand, constraints on refinery capacity,
petroleum infrastructure limitations and the number of
specialized fuel blends in the United States are all
contributing to the gasoline price problem.
The hearing addressed: a) how fluctuations in crude oil
prices at that time affected the price of gasoline; b) the
potential demand-side and supply-side solutions to reduce
gasoline prices at that time; c) policies that could
potentially provide a more secure and affordable domestic
supply of gasoline in the long-term; d) why refinery capacity
has failed to keep pace with demand for gasoline; e) the
regulatory difficulties and costs associated with building,
expanding, and maintaining refinery facilities; and f) how
varying fuel specifications across the country affect U.S.
gasoline prices.
b. Witnesses.--John Cook, Director of the Petroleum
Division, Office of Oil and Gas, Energy Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; Jim Wells, Director,
Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Pat Perez, Transportation Energy
Division, California Energy Commission; and Rayola Dougher,
manager, energy market issues, American Petroleum Institute.
5. ``Ensuring the Reliability of the Nation's Electricity System,''
June 8, 2005
a. Summary.--Meeting the Nation's increasing electricity
demand is essential to powering our economy. According to
Energy Information Administration figures, electricity demand
in the United States is forecast to rise 50 percent by 2025. A
competitive electricity marketplace must ensure reliability of
the system and reasonable prices in the wholesale and retail
markets.
The U.S. electricity system is considered to be among the
most reliable in the world. Any major outage is international
news because of the rarity of transmission problems.
Reliability of the electric grid is defined in terms of its
adequacy and security. Adequacy refers to the supply needed to
meet aggregate demand at all times, and security refers to
having a robust system able to withstand sudden disturbances or
unanticipated loss of system elements.
The traditional U.S. transmission system of utilities
serving local customers in monopoly service areas was developed
to fit the regulatory framework codified in the 1920 Federal
Power Act. Because of unreliable service, high consumer rates,
and unstable holding company ownership structures, the Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and the 1935 Federal Power
Act were enacted to eliminate unfair practices and other abuses
by electricity and gas holding companies by requiring Federal
control and regulation of interstate public utility holding
companies. States were responsible for most regulation since
utilities were largely limited to natural monopolies serving a
defined customer base within a State. The Federal authority,
now known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, was
responsible for regulation of the transmission and sale of
interstate, wholesale bulk power--defined as electricity
generation and high-voltage transmission.
In the last 30 years, the electric utility industry has
been in a process of transformation. In the past few decades,
the electricity marketplace has moved beyond the 1935 Federal
legal framework that favored the legacy ``natural'' monopoly
system. The system has been superseded by developments in
technology and new ownership structures, which demonstrated
that monopolies are not a requirement for efficient delivery of
electricity.
Since the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, new
entities have been formed to generate and sell electricity at
the wholesale level in a largely deregulated environment.
However, the transmission grid infrastructure continues to be
heavily regulated. At the State level, 24 States and the
District of Columbia moved to increase the role of competition
in retail markets, presumably lowering prices and offering
customers more choice.
In practice the results of patchwork deregulation and
restructuring have been inconsistent. Management, investment,
and maintenance of the electricity system have varied widely
across geographic regions, as evidenced by the experience of
California and the August 14, 2003, northeast-midwest blackout.
The bulk power system is now being used in ways for which it
was not designed. As a result of these developments, a number
of States have halted their efforts to further deregulate and
open up retail markets to competition.
Ensuring the reliability of the electricity system must be
a priority for the Nation. This hearing assessed the status of
the system within the current regulatory environment,
challenges to investment in transmission infrastructure and
capacity, and how these issues must be addressed as part of a
comprehensive energy policy.
The hearing addressed: a) the status of the Nation's
electricity system in terms of reliability, and what had taken
place since the August 2003 blackout; b) how the transmission
system could meet electricity demand under a patchwork
regulatory regime; c) measures to ensure a robust
infrastructure and adequate management and coordination of the
system going forward; and d) the critical components of a
comprehensive energy policy to meet the electricity reliability
needs of a growing economy.
b. Witnesses.--Pat Wood III, chairman, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission; Michehl R. Gent, president and CEO,
North American Electric Reliability Council; and David Owens,
executive vice president, Edison Electric Institute.
6. ``The Next Generation of Nuclear Power,'' June 29, 2005
a. Summary.--Nuclear energy has recently been the subject
of renewed interest due to concerns over the security of energy
supplies, fossil fuel price volatility, and air quality, as
well the recently articulated national goals for developing a
hydrogen economy.
At present, 103 licensed reactors are generating power in
31 States. In 2004, nuclear generators produced a record 824
billion kilowatt hours of electricity, accounting for 20
percent of the Nation's electricity'second only to coal.
Nuclear energy provides over three-quarters of the Nation's
emission-free electricity. No new nuclear power plants have
been ordered in the United States since 1978, and more than 100
reactor orders have been canceled, including all orders placed
since 1973.
All existing commercial nuclear reactors operating in the
United States are light water reactors of two types:
pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. These
designs have an excellent safety operating record and generate
a reliable electricity supply, but the possibilities for the
use of nuclear energy could be broadened by advances in nuclear
system design. The Department of Energy is currently engaged in
developing and demonstrating a new generation of nuclear energy
systems built on proven fission theory that offer enhanced
safety design and improved efficiency.
This hearing sought to investigate these next generation
nuclear technologies including: a) the administration's level
of commitment to the Next Generation Nuclear Power Plant; b)
how the government could further promote the development of
Generative IV nuclear power technology; and c) long term
benefits that will result from developing Generation IV nuclear
power.
b. Witnesses.--Robert Shane Johnson, Acting Director,
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of
Energy; Dr. David Baldwin, senior vice president, General
Atomics; Dr. Rowan Rowntree, independent scientist; and Dave
Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer, Union of Concerned
Scientists.
7. ``The Hydrogen Economy: Is it Attainable? When?'' July 27, 2005
a. Summary.--Oil demand is increasing worldwide, the vast
majority of proven reserves are located in increasingly
unstable regions, prices are rising, and environmental concern
surrounding the development and use of fossil fuels is
increasing. As a Nation, we must reduce our dependence on
foreign supplies of energy in a manner that is affordable and
preserves environmental quality.
The United States is increasingly dependent on imported
energy sources to power the vast majority of the country's
vehicles and drive the Nation's growing economy. Imported oil
now accounts for nearly 60 percent of consumption, and this
figure is expected to rise to nearly two-thirds by 2020. The
Nation's increasing reliance on overseas oil imports acts as a
drag on our economy. This year, high oil prices will likely
account for more than a third of the greater than $600 billion
annual trade deficit. Furthermore, all too often the foreign
sources on which the United States depends for these fuels are
located in insecure regions of the world and, in some cases,
are under the control of nations which have proven hostile to
U.S. interests.
At a time when national security is at the forefront of our
policy discussions, governments, oil companies, automobile
manufacturers, and electric utility industries around the world
are all starting to look toward hydrogen as the major energy
carrier for the future. Hydrogen is the most abundant element
in the universe and its only emission is water vapor. Hydrogen
holds the potential to be the backbone of a safe, clean, and
sustainable energy system for the Nation's future.
However, clean, efficient, and cost-effective hydrogen
production is a significant challenge. Hydrogen is not a fuel
that exists in nature in a readily usable form, such as oil or
coal. Rather, it more closely resembles electricity--an energy
carrier that must be generated from another fuel source.
Moreover, commercially viable technologies to store and
efficiently convert hydrogen into energy appear to be years
away.
In 2003, the President prudently announced an ambitious
initiative to move the Nation closer to energy independence and
long-term energy sustainability by shifting to a hydrogen-based
economy. The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative seeks to lay the
foundation needed to transition to an economy powered not by
hydrocarbons, but by hydrogen. This hearing assessed how and
when this goal might be attained.
The hearing addressed: a) whether or not the Department of
Energy's timeline for transitioning to a hydrogen economy is
attainable; b) the Department of Energy's response to the
National Academy of Sciences' recommendations regarding the
implementation of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative; c) how the
Department of Energy has supported State initiatives to
implement hydrogen programs and what more could be done; and d)
the demonstration projects that are needed to advance the
transition to a hydrogen economy.
b. Witnesses.--Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Richard
M. Russell, Associate Director for Technology, Office of
Science and Technology Policy; Alan Lloyd, secretary,
California Environmental Protection Agency; Dennis Campbell,
CEO, Ballard Power Systems; Lawrence D. Burns, vice president
of research and development, General Motors Corp.; Mujid
Kazimi, director, Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Daniel Sperling,
director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of
California at Davis.
8. ``Meeting America's Natural Gas Demand: Are We in a Crisis?''
September 14, 2005
a. Summary.--Natural gas prices have been at record highs
because of an ongoing tight supply and demand situation in the
United States, and Hurricane Katrina has put increased pressure
on markets. Demand has stressed the capacity of the market to
deliver. Hurricane Katrina added a supply-side shock by
shutting-in a significant volume of Gulf of Mexico production
and causing pipelines to operate at reduced capacity. Natural
gas prices rose 14 percent more than the price for crude oil in
the immediate wake of the hurricane. According to the Energy
Information Administration [EIA], this winter the cost to heat
homes that use natural gas will be 52 percent higher as a
nationwide average, with residences in the upper Midwest
particularly hard hit as costs will increase by 71 percent.
Natural gas is extremely important to the overall economy,
accounting for 25 percent of total U.S. energy consumption. The
demand for natural gas in the United States has grown fourfold
since 1950. This rise can be greatly attributed to the
increased use of natural-gas-fired electricity generation,
which now constitutes almost 20 percent of the Nation's
electricity portfolio and is 23 percent of total U.S. natural
gas demand. According to the Energy Information Administration
[EIA], by 2025 total U.S. natural gas consumption is expected
to increase 40 percent from that of 2003.
Domestically produced natural gas currently accounts for 85
percent of gas consumed in the United States, with 15 percent
being imported, mostly dry gas from Canada via pipeline. To
meet increased demand, EIA predicts a greater volume of imports
of Liquefied Natural Gas [LNG] and increased domestic
production in the Rocky Mountain region.
The United States is now experiencing a fifth year of a
tightening supply and demand problem, with demand growth
continuing to exceed the ability of the natural gas industry to
respond. An examination of both the short and long-term supply
and demand situation is imperative to ensure energy security
and a growing economy.
This hearing examined the current and future sources of
supply for natural gas consumed in the United States, the
impacts these choices have on the national economy, and the
effect of regulatory policies on domestic production. Issues
addressed included: a) how the United States would meet natural
gas demands at a reasonable price during a crisis situation; b)
what more Congress and the administration could do to ensure
the security of our natural gas supplies for the foreseeable
future; c) the consequences of relying on one geographic region
for so much of the Nation's natural gas production and
infrastructure; d) measures that could be taken to reduce
reliance on natural gas; e) how international demand affects
supply and price; f) whether or not natural gas prices would
remain high for the foreseeable future; and g) measures to
create flexibility of supply to meet fluctuations in demand.
b. Witnesses.--Rebecca Watson, Assistant Secretary for Land
and Minerals Management, Department of Interior; Guy Caruso,
Administrator, Energy Information Administration, Department of
Energy; Michael Zenker, senior director, North American Natural
Gas, Cambridge Energy Research Associates; Logan Magruder,
president, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain
States; Tyson Slocum, research director, Energy Program, Public
Citizen.
9. ``Petroleum Refineries: Will Record Profits Spur Investment in New
Capacity?'' October 19, 2005
a. Summary.--The United States is widely recognized as
having the largest, most sophisticated, and most productive
petroleum refining infrastructure in the world. The 148
refineries owned by 55 companies in 33 States are capable of
processing about 17 million barrels of crude oil per day into a
broad array of products. But, the United States has not built a
new refinery in over 30 years, and more than 100 have been shut
down in that period. Nevertheless, U.S. consumers have enjoyed
reliable supplies of fuels at relatively stable prices during
that time. Existing refineries have updated their technology to
significantly improve environmental performance while
increasing production.
Despite the increases in overall output achieved by
expanding existing capacity and running at very high production
levels, the Nation's domestic refining capacity is presently in
a very tight balance with demand. Announced plans to build new
domestic refineries have been few, and the magnitude of the
global need for additional capacity to keep pace with projected
demand in the foreseeable future is not likely to be satisfied
by the few projects currently underway to expand global
refining capacity.
Adequate refining capacity is essential to economic growth,
and is a key factor in the price volatility of gasoline and
other crude oil products. The United States needs a robust and
flexible refined product supply system that is capable of
adjusting to supply disturbances within a short period of time.
However, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have laid bare the
limitations of the current structure of the U.S. refined
product supply system. The hurricanes dramatically upset the
delicate balance between operable capacity to refine crude oil
and demand for refined petroleum products. The razor-thin
margins between supply capacity and demand allowed price spikes
to cascade quickly through the system and reach directly into
consumers' pocketbooks.
This hearing addressed: a) the risks to the U.S. economy
posed by the posture of the Nation's refining industry in a
rapidly changing global market; b) whether or not new
refineries will be built given the current investment climate
and where; and c) whether or not foreign refiners have the
processing capacity and capabilities to service the U.S. market
with intermediate and finished products in a reliable and
economical manner.
b. Witnesses.--Bob Slaughter, president, National
Petrochemical and Refiners Association; Paul Sankey, senior
energy analyst, Deutsche Bank AG; Tom O'Connor, project
manager, ICF Consulting; and Eric Schaeffer, director,
Environmental Integrity Project.
10. ``Methyl Bromide: Are U.S. Interests Being Served by the Critical
Use Exemption Process?'' February 15, 2006
a. Summary.--In response to emissions of certain chemicals
which contributed to the depletion of the Earth's stratospheric
ozone layer, the United States entered into the 1987 Montreal
Protocol (the ``Protocol''), the aim of which was the gradual
elimination of the use, production, and trade of so-called
Ozone Depleting Substances. Methyl Bromide was identified as
one such substance in 1992, and it is regulated globally under
the Protocol, as amended in 1992 and adjusted in 1997, and
domestically under Title VI of the U.S. Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1993 and in 1998.
Methyl Bromide is a widely used biocide in the U.S.
agricultural community because of its effectiveness at killing
insects and plant pathogens. Accounting for 40 percent of
global usage, U.S. farmers use it extensively for pre-planting,
post-harvest, quarantine, and pre-shipping treatments. The use
and production for anything other than quarantine and pre-
shipment was to be completely phased-out for non-developing
nations under the Protocol by January 1, 2005.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Developing nations are exempt from the January 1, 2005
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was hoped that the phase-out would allow the
agricultural industry to continue to use Methyl Bromide, while
at the same time, force it to seek out and use suitable
alternatives. In addition to the millions invested by the
private sector, the U.S. Government has spent over $200 million
in research and development in pursuit of a substitute for
Methyl Bromide. To date, a suitable, wide-scale alternative has
yet to emerge \3\ and the need for Methyl Bromide is as
critical as ever. The Protocol provides for an exemption from
the phase-out deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ There are a number of proposed alternatives, but none reaches
the effectiveness level of Methyl Bromide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States has applied for three Critical Use
Exemptions since 2003. The lead agencies--EPA, USDA, and the
State Department--are somewhat comfortable with the application
process. The private sector, on the other hand, believes that
international parties may be using the Protocol and the
Critical Use Exemption process as a way to gain a competitive
edge on the U.S. agricultural industry. Both agree, however,
that there is considerable room for improvement, especially in
the areas of transparency, predictability, and timeliness of
the rulemaking process.
This hearing examined the Critical Use Exemption
application process and whether U.S. interests were adequately
protected. Additionally, this hearing addressed: a) whether
U.S. interests are served by the Critical Use Exemption
process; b) whether, through the Critical Use Exemption
process, the Protocol itself strikes the right balance between
safeguarding the environment and protecting the U.S.
agricultural economy; c) whether, and to what extent, new
legislation is necessary to facilitate the EPA rulemaking
process; and d) whether it is possible to achieve transparency
and predictability in the Critical Use Exemption process
through ``multi-year'' legislation.
b. Witnesses.--William Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Michelle Castellano, vice president, Mellano
and Co. (San Luis Rey, CA); James Bair, vice president, North
American Millers' Association; and David Doniger, senior
attorney, National Resources Defense Council.
11. ``Natural Gas Royalties: The Facts, The Remedies'' March 1, 2006
a. Summary.--Serious concerns have arisen regarding the
implementation of the Federal Government's natural gas royalty
payment program. Recent news reports suggest that the
government may be unable to collect anywhere from $7 billion to
$28 billion in natural gas royalties from leases of Federal
land and waters. This is particularly troublesome at a time
when natural gas companies are continuing to post record
earnings. There are several areas of concern.
The first is whether some gas companies have failed to
fulfill their contractual obligations to make royalty payments
to the Department of the Interior. There is confusion
surrounding figures the industry has supplied to the Interior
Department, the accounting methods of the Interior Department,
and the degree of oversight provided by the Minerals Management
Service. There is a question whether the U.S. Government may
have been underpaid in excess of $700 million worth of
royalties in 2005 on this basis alone.
Second, there is concern that the United States could be
excluded from billions of royalties resulting from the Deep
Water Royalty Relief Act (the ``Act''). The act was enacted to
provide an incentive to gas companies to explore and extract
oil and natural gas from U.S. waters. This would be
accomplished by allowing the Secretary of the Interior and oil
and gas companies, between 1996 and 2000, to enter into leases
with a defined volume suspension and price threshold so that
companies would be able to recover their capital investment
before having to pay royalties on their gross revenues. This
came at a time when oil and gas prices were low and the
interest in deep water drilling was lacking. However, during
1998 and 1999, price thresholds were not included as terms of
the leases, thereby allowing companies to recoup their capital
investment long before the expiration of volume suspensions. As
these wells are now beginning to reap billions in gross
revenues because of record gas prices, the effects of the price
threshold-free language are coming to fruition. As a result,
the United States may be unable to claim part of the billions
in gross revenues for the years 1998 and 1999.
This is exacerbated by threatened litigation from Kerr-
McGee Exploration and Development, a major industry player.
Kerr-McGee maintains that the language of the act does not
grant the Secretary of the Interior the authority to impose
price thresholds and that it is not required to pay any
royalties based on price thresholds for leases entered into
between the years 1996 and 2000. If Kerr-McGee is handed a
favorable ruling, it could ultimately force the U.S. Government
to refund approximately $525 million in royalties to the
industry, and preclude it from collecting between $18 and $28
billion over the next 5 years on leases entered into between
1996 and 2000.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ It must be noted that Kerr-McGee does not challege the legality
of imposed thresholds contained in the leases after 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This oversight hearing attempted to ascertain the facts and
explore remedies to assure that the U.S. Government receives
royalties to which it is entitled. Additionally, this hearing
investigated: a) whether the Interior Department's accounting
and oversight practices are adequate and transparent; b)
whether the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act is being interpreted
and implemented according to the policy it sought to promote;
c) whether leases entered into during 1998 and 1999 are in
accordance with the policy promoted by the Deep Water Royalty
Relief Act; and d) whether, and in what amount, the U.S.
Government is owed royalty payments from natural gas companies
that drill pursuant to Federal land and water leases.
b. Witness.--Walter Cruickshank, Ph.D., Deputy Director,
Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior.
12. ``Strengthening the Nation's Water Infrastructure: The Army Corps
of Engineers' Planning Priorities,'' March 15, 2006
a. Summary.--The Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) is a
Federal agency in the Department of Defense with military and
civilian responsibilities. At the direction of Congress, the
Corps plans, builds, operates, and maintains a wide range of
water resources facilities in U.S. States and territories. The
agency's traditional civil responsibilities are creating and
maintaining navigable channels and controlling floods. In the
last two decades, Congress has increased the Corps'
responsibilities in ecosystem restoration, municipal water and
wastewater infrastructure, disaster relief, and other
activities. Congressional direction comes primarily through
authorization and appropriations legislation and oversight
activities.
The Water Resources Development Act [WRDA], a frequent
reauthorization, is a more than $10 billion spending bill that
authorizes many Corps infrastructure projects. The contents of
each WRDA are cumulative and new acts do not supercede or
replace previous acts. WRDA and the corresponding
appropriations bill are packed with earmarks and directives
given to the Corps on how to carry out activities. Funds
appropriated are invariably less than authorized Corps
projects. As a result, the Corps is challenged to meet a great
number of competing priorities and mandates with limited funds.
In response, the Corps has chosen to serially reprogram funds
and move them from project to project on what may be viewed as
either a ``just-in-time'' or ``seat-of-the-pants'' basis.
The Corps has also been under scrutiny since 2000 due to a
series of investigative articles by the Washington Post, an
Army Inspector General's report, and a National Academies of
Science study that asserted Corps' planning deficiencies and
oversight were resulting in unjustified projects moving forward
in the approval process. A number of Government Accountability
Office studies have raised questions regarding Corps' planning
processes, priority-setting, and financial management. In
response, the Corps has recently moved forward with an
aggressive plan to address these deficiencies, update its
planning and business practices, be more collaborative, and
better match its changing civil works mission.
The Corps' challenges are extremely important to the
strength of infrastructure of the United States. Existing water
infrastructure is a result of the priority-setting, decisions,
and projects constructed in decades past. For decades to come,
infrastructure priorities set today will impact commerce,
economic growth, electricity generation, the health of wetlands
and ecosystems, and, most importantly, the safety of
communities dependent on the Corps for flood protection.
Because the level of Corps' funding is a persistent issue, it
is all the more important that the operations of the Corps are
efficient and result in the most benefit for every dollar
spent.
This hearing examined how the Corps' sets its priorities
and seeks to improve its planning processes and economic
analysis. A well-functioning Corps is required to ensure that
projects are economically justified and produce their intended
effects, and that the civil works program strengthens the
Nation's critical infrastructure. This hearing also addressed:
a) whether the Corps' efforts to improve its planning processes
are adequate; b) the steps being taken to ensure there is
effective oversight of the reprogramming of funds; c) how the
Corps set its priorities in a challenging fiscal environment;
and d) how Congress can better ensure that the Nation's
critical water infrastructure needs are met.
b. Witnesses.--Douglas W. Lamont, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Project Planning); Anu Mittal, Director,
Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability
Office; Steve Ellis, vice president, Taxpayers for Common
Sense; and S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, vice president, American
Rivers.
13. ``Conjunctive Water Management: A Solution to the West's Growing
Water Demand?'' April 5, 2006
a.Summary.--Booming population growth in Western States
during recent decades has intensified the need for a more
efficient water supply management system. Western States have
long suffered from water supply challenges due to their arid
climates. In response, several methods have been employed to
maximize water supply, such as conservation programs and the
building of new dams and desalination plants. Despite these
methods, water supply and infrastructure, particularly in
California, are vulnerable to an impending crisis. The
California Department of Water and Resources [DWR] estimates
that if the current trend of population growth continues,
California will need an additional 1-2 million acre-feet of
water per year by 2030 to meet demand. There is, however, a
management system that may provide a solution to California's
challenges as well as those of other Western States.
Experts propose that conjunctive water management is the
leading and most effective method for resolving water supply
challenges. Conjunctive water management is the method by which
surface and ground water are stored in reservoirs and below-
ground aquifers for distribution during dry months. Though this
method would nearly double the amount of on-demand water
supply, the implementation of conjunctive water management
raises several areas of concern. The first concern is whether
existing waterways can support a switch to conjunctive water
management. As it stands, a move to conjunctive water
management would require a tremendous amount of investment to
retrofit existing infrastructure and storage facilities. The
second concern is whether the States have the necessary
resources to build and maintain a conjunctive water management
program. A comprehensive conjunctive water management system
would require massive funding for maintenance and qualified
personnel to manage and maintain the proper facilities.
Another important concern is the environmental impact of
implementing a conjunctive water management system. For
instance, an aquifer could be rendered useless if the surface
water that was pumped into it was contaminated by foreign
molecules such as salt. Since most water used for irrigation
purposes is not filtered, contaminated water could be
detrimental to agriculture. Moreover, as a practical matter,
the construction of waterways and storage facilities will
undoubtedly disturb wildlife habitats. As such, any
construction must conform to State, local, and Federal
environmental laws. These concerns, taken together, raise the
larger issue of whether, and to what extent, the Federal
Government should be involved in the design, funding, or
implementation of a conjunctive water management system.
This hearing addressed: a) the conjunctive water management
projects that are currently being implemented; b) the benefits
and shortcomings of a conjunctive water management system; and
c) the extent to which the Federal Government should be--or in
the very least is compelled to be--involved in the design,
funding or implementation of a conjunctive water management
system.
b. Witnesses.--Jason Peltier, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science, Department of Interior; P. Joseph
Grindstaff, director, California Bay-Delta Authority; and
Anthony J. Pack, general manager, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Perris, CA.
14. ``Energy as a Weapon: Implications for U.S. Policy'' May 16, 2006
a. Summary.--Tight global market conditions have led to
record-high petroleum prices. The current situation is largely
demand-driven due to economic growth and increased demand from
Asia and the United States. There is little or no spare
production capacity in the world market, and any event
perceived to have an impact on the market causes extreme
concern and high volatility in prices. As a result, the United
States is more vulnerable to a catastrophic supply shock than
at any time in recent memory, especially considering the
current geopolitical environment.
A noted expert has postulated that ``a slow-motion supply
shock'' may already be taking place in the world system. About
2.2 million barrels per day [mbd] is currently out of
production due to a variety of factors in different producing
countries. While small in terms of the 85 mbd world oil market,
it is especially significant because of the tight global supply
and demand balance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ David Wessell, ``Oil Shock in Slow Motion,'' Wall Street
Journal, 5/11/06. Dr. Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy
Research Associates, made the observation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, many countries are dependent on natural gas
for critical industries, home heating, and electricity
generation. Natural gas dependence and its increasing cost are
important to the United States, of grave concern to Europe, and
are a source of sudden consternation in South America. Unlike
the world market for crude oil, natural gas markets are
fragmented according to pipeline connectivity, and a truly
global Liquefied Natural Gas spot market remains years away.
Like the global petroleum market, regional natural gas markets
are vulnerable to political machinations.
There have been a number of disturbing trends shaping a new
pattern of energy geopolitics. Chief among them is the use of
energy as a ``weapon'' by producing countries such as Russia
and Iran--whether as a threat or an actual cut-off in supplies
to consuming countries. Next, the expropriation of energy
assets or forced renegotiation of existing concessions in South
America is likely to have wide-ranging impacts. Finally, the
pursuit of ``mercantilist'' strategies to secure energy through
long-term, State-to-State agreements--e.g. China--distorts
markets and investment, and helps to create an atmosphere of
antagonistic international competition for energy.
This hearing assessed the implications of these
developments and the challenges they present to the United
States. Bearing these challenges in mind, this hearing also
examined how U.S. policies aim to protect vital national
interests and the security of the U.S. economy and the effects
of using ``energy as a weapon'' on world and domestic markets.
Further, the hearing examined: a) the effects of energy being
used as a weapon on world and domestic markets, and how its use
affects energy security; b) how government agencies are working
together to meet the challenges presented by ``energy as a
weapon,'' nationalization, and mercantilism; c) what the
Department of State and the Department of Energy are doing to
promote private investment and unobstructed trade in critical
energy supplies; and the ways the United States is working with
the international community and other countries to address a
potentially catastrophic supply disruption.
b. Witnesses.--Karen Harbert, Assistant Secretary for
Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy;
Paul Simons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, Sanctions,
and Commodity Policy, U.S. Department of State; Dr. Daniel
Yergin, chairman, Cambridge Energy Research Associates;
Ambassador Keith C. Smith, senior associate, Center for
Strategic and International Studies; and David Goldwyn, Goldwyn
International Strategies.
15. ``Keeping the Fuel Flowing from the Gulf: Are We Prepared for the
Hurricane Season?'' June 7, 2006
a. Summary.--In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in 2005, oil and natural gas production from the Gulf of
Mexico were ``shut-in'' or offline for months; pipelines and
refineries were shut down; some retail gas stations ran short
of fuel in other parts of the country due to delays and
shortfalls in deliveries; and the prices for oil, refined
products, and natural gas skyrocketed. Some areas of the
country were within days of widespread supply shortages of
refined products such as gasoline, aviation, and diesel fuel.
It was only through great ingenuity and sacrifice by personnel
from government and industry that significant shortages did not
occur.
For the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] is predicting 13
to 16 named storms, with 8 to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which
4 to 6 could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or
higher. According to meteorologists at Colorado State
University, there is an average 38 percent chance of the area
from the Florida panhandle westward to Brownsville, TX, being
hit by a Category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane in 2006.
The Gulf of Mexico region is critical to the Nation's
economic growth because it is the backbone of our energy
infrastructure. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas' Houston Branch, 26.4 percent of the Nation's domestic
crude oil production and 21.3 percent of natural gas production
takes place in the Gulf of Mexico. Almost 40 percent of the
Nation's crude oil refining capacity is located on the Gulf
Coast.
Clearly, the Federal Government and the petroleum and
natural gas industries must apply crucial lessons learned from
last year, and the private energy sector must be prepared to
coordinate with the Federal and local governments in times of
crisis. With the current U.S. average gasoline price already
exceeding $2.90 per gallon, the implications of not meeting the
2006 preparedness challenge would be disastrous.
This hearing examined how industry and government were
prepared to transport and deliver fuel supplies from the Gulf
of Mexico to where they were needed this past hurricane season.
Further, this hearing addressed: a) whether the government and
the energy industry were prepared to meet the fuel supply
challenges of the 2006 hurricane season; b) the status of fuel
production and inventories entering the summer and hurricane
seasons; the lessons learned from the hurricanes of 2005, and
how they were incorporated into planning and best practices for
2006; c) how the Federal Government and private industry are
coordinating with each other, as well as with State and local
governments; and d) the measures the government and industry
are taking to address preparedness for the long-term.
b. Witnesses.--General David L. Johnson, director, National
Weather Service, NOAA; Guy Caruso, Administrator, Energy
Information Administration; Admiral Thomas Barrett,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, Department of Transportation; Robert Greco,
group director of upstream and industry operations, American
Petroleum Institute; and Tyson Slocum, energy program research
director, Public Citizen.
16. ``Deep Water Royalty Relief: Mismanagement and Cover-Ups,'' June
21, 2006
a. Summary.--The subcommittee continued its investigation
regarding the absence of price thresholds in deepwater leases
entered into between the Department of the Interior and various
oil and gas companies during 1998 and 1999. The Government
Accountability Office estimates that the lack of price
thresholds will cost the U.S. Government upwards of
approximately $10 billion in lost revenue. Over the past few
months, the subcommittee staff has reviewed the documentation
surrounding nearly every aspect of the lease creation process.
This includes an examination of the regulations, leases, lease
sale documentation, decision memoranda, and bureaucratic
processes. Moreover, the subcommittee staff has interviewed
individuals intimately familiar with all levels of the lease
sale process. What has surfaced is a trail of irresponsibility
and gross mismanagement.
This investigation has revealed that the problem began in
1995 when the Interior Department promulgated inadequate
regulations. These regulations, which delineate the lease sale
process and royalty relief scheme, did not include price
thresholds. Instead of correcting those regulations, the
Department applied a series of ``bandaids'' that never stopped
the bleeding. This irresponsible behavior may have culminated
in a cover-up that only perpetuated the problem. The purpose of
this hearing was to ascertain how these egregious errors
occurred and who is responsible for them.
b. Witnesses.--Milo Mason, Attorney, Department of the
Interior; Geoffrey Heath, Attorney, Department of the Interior;
Peter Schaumberg, attorney, formally with the Department of the
Interior, now in private practice with Beveridge Diamond PC;
Shell Oil Corporation: John Hofmeister, president of U.S.
Operations; ConocoPhillips Co.: Randy Lindbacher, executive
vice president, Exploration and Productions of the Americas;
ExxonMobil Corp.: A. Tim Cejka, president of Exxon Exploration
Co.; Kerr-McGee Oil Corp.: Greg Pilcher, senior vice president,
general counsel, and secretary; and Chevron Corp.: Paul
Siegele, vice president for deepwater development, Gulf of
Mexico.
17. ``Can the U.S. Electric Grid Take Another Hot Summer?'' July 12,
2006
a. Summary.--In May, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission [FERC] released its Summer Energy Market Assessment
2006, which identified four major geographic areas with
potentially critical supply scarcity issues. The areas are:
Southern California; Long Island, NY; Southwest Connecticut;
Ontario, Canada, which affects the U.S. States in the Great
Lakes region. Each of these areas is particularly vulnerable to
a hot summer and unplanned outages from local generators or
import-related transmission of power from other regions. Each
of the potential U.S. trouble spots was also identified in FERC
summer assessments in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, each of these areas is managed by an
Independent System Operator [ISO], which is an independent,
federally regulated entity established to coordinate regional
transmission in a non-discriminatory manner and ensure the
safety and reliability of the electric system. ISOs also
oversee wholesale or bulk electricity markets and are involved
in regional planning activities.
The potential for rolling blackouts and supply shortages in
particular regions would have spillover effects and greater
implications for the Nation's electricity system. Furthermore,
supply shortages would have a significant negative economic
impact, especially taking into account that prices for power
are already high.
This hearing examined FERC's summer assessment as well as
those of the ISOs for the affected regions. The hearing
explored the steps FERC and the ISOs took to meet the
challenges presented last summer and what they are doing to
address problems over the long term.
b. Witnesses.--Joseph T. Kelliher, chairman, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission; Yakout Mansour, president and CEO,
California Independent System Operator; Mark S. Lynch,
president and CEO, New York Independent System Operator; Pete
Brandien, VP of System Operations, ISO New England; and Phyllis
Currie, general manager, Pasadena Water and Power.
18. ``Hybrid Cars: Increasing Fuel Efficiency and Reducing Oil
Dependence'' July 20, 2006
a. Summary.--Record oil and gasoline prices are magnifying
the need for more fuel efficient automobiles. U.S. dependence
on imported oil from unstable areas of the world and reliance
on the hurricane-prone Gulf of Mexico region for refined
petroleum products has reinforced the need to use fuels more
efficiently. Almost 70 percent of oil consumed in the United
States is used by the transportation sector.
Several technologies can help increase the fuel efficiency
of the American auto fleet, and therefore increase energy
security by reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil. Such
technologies include bio-diesel fuel, hydrogen, ethanol,
electric vehicles, and hybrid electric vehicles. However, many
of these technologies are not yet cost effective or widely
available. Increasing the number of hybrid electric vehicles on
the road is one practical way to increase the fuel efficiency
of the U.S. fleet in the near-term.
This hearing assessed the potential for hybrid vehicles to
increase the overall fuel efficiency of the U.S. fleet and
lessen the Nation's dependence on imported oil, paying
particular attention to issues regarding cost-effectiveness,
market penetration, incentives, U.S. manufacturing capacity,
and environmental benefits. This hearing addressed the
following questions: a) what the potential benefits are, in
terms of fuel consumption and emission reductions, of
increasing the number of hybrid vehicles in the U.S. fleet; b)
what advances in hybrid technology are expected and by when; c)
the projected market share for hybrids in the short and long
term; d) whether hybrid technology will become more cost
competitive in comparison to conventional internal combustion
technology; e) why the U.S. auto industry has lagged in
developing hybrid cars; and f) what further actions the Federal
and State governments can take to encourage consumers to
purchase hybrid vehicles.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Andrew Frank, director, University of
California-Davis Hybrid Electric Research Center; David
Hermance, executive engineer, Toyota Motor North America; John
German, manager, Environmental and Energy Analyses, American
Honda Motor Co.; and Don MacKenzie, vehicles engineer, Union of
Concerned Scientists.
19. ``Royalty Relief and Price Thresholds III,'' July 27, 2006
a. Summary.--This subcommittee continued investigating the
absence of price thresholds in deepwater leases between the
Interior Department and various oil and natural gas producing
companies during 1998 and 1999. The Government Accountability
Office estimates that the lack of price thresholds will cost
the U.S. Government upwards of $10 billion in lost revenue over
the life of the leases. According to GAO, this loss is
estimated at nearly $2 billion to date.
Over the past 5 months, the subcommittee staff has reviewed
documents surrounding nearly every aspect of the lease creation
process. This includes an examination of the regulations,
leases, lease sale documentation, decision memoranda, and
bureaucratic processes. Moreover, the subcommittee staff has
interviewed multiple witnesses, and Chairman Issa has conducted
two oversight hearings at which individuals intimately familiar
with the leasing process have supplied critical information.
The subcommittee staff believes it has identified the
Department employees who may have been responsible for the
genesis of the problem, and who were in the best position to
have done something about it. Milo Mason, a Department
attorney, revealed himself in the June 21st hearing as the
person responsible for dispensing arguably inadequate legal
advice. Upon his advice, the Secretary of the Interior
promulgated regulations that did not include price thresholds.
Moreover, Mr. Mason found out in 1999 that the leases signed in
1998 and 1999 did not contain price thresholds, yet he failed
to formally notify the Department in writing or take corrective
measures.
The subcommittee staff has since determined that
information supplied by Chris Oynes, Gulf of Mexico Regional
Director, appears to be inconsistent with other evidence
obtained by the subcommittee. Mr. Oynes, who signed 668 of the
1,100 leases during 1998 and 1999, told subcommittee staff
during an interview that he did not know about the missing
price thresholds until 2000. Chevron Corp. officials informed
the subcommittee that two of its employees notified Mr. Oynes
and his staff of the missing price thresholds several times
throughout 1998 and 1999. If the latter is true, Mr. Oynes and
his staff could have saved the U.S. Government at least $5
billion had they immediately rectified the problem.
Accordingly, the purpose of the July 27th hearing was to
question Mr. Oynes, his Deputy, and the two Chevron employees
who maintain they notified the Department of the problematic
leases. Mr. Oynes signed 668 deepwater leases during 1998 and
1999 and was in the best position to know of the problem and
take corrective measures. Alas, the American people are now
unnecessarily burdened with this unprecedented $10 billion
loss.
b. Witnesses.--J. Keith Couvillion, deepwater land manager,
Chevron North America Exploration and Production Co., a
Division of Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Gordon R. Cain, deepwater
land manager, Chevron North America Exploration and Production
Co., a Division of Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Chris Oynes, Regional
Director, Gulf of Mexico, Minerals Management Service; and
Charles Shoennagel, Deputy Regional Director, Gulf of Mexico,
Minerals Management Service.
20. ``Interior Department: A Culture of Managerial Irresponsibility and
Lack of Accountability?'' September 13, 2006
a. Summary.--This subcommittee continued investigating the
absence of price thresholds in deepwater leases between the
Interior Department's Minerals Management Service and various
oil and natural gas producing companies during 1998 and 1999.
The Government Accountability Office estimates that the lack of
price thresholds will cost the U.S. Government upwards of $10
billion in lost revenue over the life of the leases. According
to GAO, this loss is estimated at nearly $2 billion to date.
Over the past 7 months, the subcommittee staff has reviewed
documents surrounding nearly every aspect of the lease creation
process. This includes an examination of the regulations,
leases, lease sale documentation, decision memoranda, and
bureaucratic processes. Moreover, the subcommittee staff has
interviewed multiple witnesses, and Chairman Issa has conducted
three oversight hearings at which individuals intimately
familiar with the leasing process have supplied critical
information.
There is every indication that carelessness and
irresponsibility contributed to this unprecedented loss to the
American people. Professional negligence, however, is not
peculiar to the Minerals Management Service.
In addition to its investigation which mirrors the
subcommittee's, the Interior Department's Office of the
Inspector General has investigated numerous alleged infractions
involving Department employees. The OIG reluctantly posits that
the Department suffers from an institutionalized culture of
managerial irresponsibility and a general lack of
accountability.
Interior Inspector General Earl E. Devaney testified about
the results of his investigation into the missing price
thresholds, as well as the culture that, at times, undermines
the integrity of the Interior Department.
This is a matter of paramount concern in light of Chevron's
recently announced new discovery in the OCS Gulf of Mexico
region that may include leases signed in 1998 and 1999.
b. Witness.--Interior Department Inspector General Earl E.
Devaney.
21. ``The Next Generation Nuclear Plant and Hydrogen Production: A
Critical Status Report,'' September 20, 2006
a. Summary.--In January 2006, Chairman Issa requested that
the Government Accountability Office complete a study to assess
the Department of Energy's [DOE] progress in meeting its
schedule for design and construction of the Next Generation
Nuclear Plant [NGNP] by 2021, as well as DOE's approach to
ensure the commercial viability of the project. An operational
NGNP will demonstrate advanced, next generation technologies
for generating electricity and producing hydrogen on a large-
scale for use in fuel cells for automobiles and the
transportation sector.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 set additional requirements
and milestones for completion of the NGNP, including the
selection of design parameters in 2011. In addition, the NGNP
will require a license for construction and operation from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and DOE and the NRC must jointly
submit a licensing strategy to Congress in 2008. Research and
development work on the NGNP are being conducted primarily at
the Idaho National Laboratory.
Of particular concern in the NGNP project is the
development of a number of technologies that will ensure
project milestones are met and construction will be completed
on schedule. Meeting the timetable provides a high
probability--but not a guarantee--that the demonstration plant
will be of use to the private sector and not overtaken by other
commercial technologies that may be developed sooner.
In addition, delays in meeting milestones will call into
question the decision for continued support of the NGNP
considering other nuclear priorities such as the Nuclear 2010
and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership programs that require
considerable Federal financial support.
This hearing coincided with the release of the GAO study
and assessed the progress and outlook for successful completion
of the NGNP. Issues addressed at this hearing included: a) what
the technological challenges are to completing the NGNP; b)
whether the Department of Energy and the Idaho National
Laboratory can meet the completion deadline, and whether the
plan sufficient to meet the goals of the NGNP; and c) whether
the technologies utilized in the NGNP will be commercially
feasible and meet the needs of the private sector.
b. Witnesses.--Jim Wells, Director, National Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office; Phil
Hildebrandt, Idaho National Laboratory, special assistant to
the Laboratory director; and Dr. Andrew Kadak, professor,
Nuclear Science and Engineering Department, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
22. ``Rebalancing the Carbon Cycle,'' September 27, 2006
a. Summary.--In 2004, the United States emitted about 5.7
billion more tons of carbon dioxide than could be processed by
natural systems, such as trees, soils, and oceans. As a result,
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are rising,
potentially increasing the risk of climate change. The carbon
cycle, or the flow of carbon between the atmosphere, land,
oceans, and plants, could be rebalanced by (1) emitting less
carbon dioxide by burning less fossil fuels, and (2) capturing
and storing carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. A
diverse range of approaches are necessary to rebalance the
carbon cycle, including improved energy efficiency and the
production of more electricity with nuclear power and renewable
resources.
This hearing addressed what the Federal Government is doing
to rebalance the carbon cycle including: a) what the Federal
Government is doing to learn about the carbon cycle; and b)
what the Federal Government is doing to reduce anthropogenic
carbon emissions.
Further, examining the carbon cycle science the hearing
addressed: a) what we do and don't know about the carbon cycle;
b) how the carbon cycle is changing in the United States, and
why; and c) what is the potential significance of these
changes? Additionally, this hearing assessed: a) what the
strengths and weaknesses of different technologies to reduce
carbon emissions are; and b) how Federal Government programs
address what is and is not known about the carbon cycle.
b. Witnesses.--John B. Stephenson, Director, Natural
Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office;
Dr. Roger C. Dahlman, co-chair, Interagency Carbon Cycle
Working Group, Climate Change Science Program; Stephen D. Eule,
director, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program; Dr. Gregg
Marland, Ecosystems Science Group, Environmental Sciences
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Dr. Steven C. Wofsy,
Abbott Lawrence Rotch professor of atmospheric and
environmental chemistry, Harvard University; and Dr. Daniel A.
Lashof, science director, Climate Center, Natural Resources
Defense Council.
IV. Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census
1. ``Strengthening America's Communities: Is It the Right Step Toward
Greater Efficiency and Improved Accountability?'' March 1, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing was the first in a series on
HUD's CDBG program. In its fiscal year 2006 Budget proposal,
the Bush administration recommended eliminating the CDBG
program along with 17 other direct community and economic
development programs and merge them into a single program known
as the Saving America's Communities Initiative [SACI]. The
hearing provided Members the opportunity to question directly
the principal architects of the SACI proposal as well as
representatives from various stakeholder groups.
b. Witnesses.--Roy Bernardi, Deputy Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development; David Sampson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development; Clay
Johnson III, OMB Deputy Director for Management; Don
Plusquellic, president, U.S. Conference of Mayors; Angelo Kyle,
president, National Association of Counties; LaShea Smith,
National Community Development Association and National
Association for County Community and Economic Development; and
James C. Hunt, second vice president, National League of
Cities.
2. ``Lands of Lost Opportunity: What Can Be Done to Spur Redevelopment
at America's Brownfield Sites?'' April 5, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine the
state of designated brownfields sites across America. According
to the Government Accountability Office [GAO], there are an
estimated 450,000 to 1 million abandoned or underutilized
brownfields sites. The hearing gave Members the opportunity to
question experts on the topic of Brownfields about the
impediments to brownfields redevelopment. Moreover, Members
were able to ascertain which incentives encourage redevelopment
activity. The subcommittee also examined the possible effects
legislation similar to H.R. 4480 from the 108th Congress would
have on redevelopment activity.
b. Witnesses.--Thomas Dunne, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; John Stephenson,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government
Accountability Office; Don Plusquellic, president, U.S.
Conference of Mayors; James Maurin, chairman, International
Council of Shopping Centers; Jonathan Phillips, senior
director, Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC; and Douglas
Steidl, president, the American Institute on Architects.
3. ``Halfway to the 2010 Census: The Countdown and Components to a
Successful Decennial Census,'' April 19, 2005
a. Summary.--At the midway point to the 2010 decennial
census began a series of hearings to explore how the Census
Bureau is preparing for the count. The decennial census is the
largest peacetime mobilization of temporary workers for a
Federal agency. The hearing provided the subcommittee with the
opportunity to examine the three key components to the upcoming
decennial census: the American Community Survey, the Master
Address File/TIGER Enhancements Program, and a short-form only
census. Members were better able to understand the role and
importance of each for the implementation of a successful
census.
b. Witnesses.--Kathleen Cooper, Under Secretary for
Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce; Charles Louis
Kincannon, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Joan Naymark, director
of research and planning, Target Corp.; Dr. Andrew Reamer,
deputy director, Urban Markets Initiative, Brookings
Institution; and Jacqueline Byers, director of research,
National Association of Counties.
4. ``The 1970's Look: Is the Decades-Old Community Development Block
Grant Formula Ready for and Extreme Makeover?'' April 26, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of this oversight hearing was to
examine how CDBG funds are spent and whether Congress or HUD
can introduce meaningful performance measures as a tool to
promote greater accountability within the program and among its
grantees. A primary justification citied by the administration
for its Strengthening America's Communities Initiative [SACI]
proposal is that CDBG and 17 other programs encompassed by SACI
scored very low on OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool [PART].
Many stakeholders have argued that CDBG's low PART score can be
attributed to the tool's lack of proper assessment matrix tools
to score block grant programs appropriately. Stakeholders also
have argued that it may be impossible to effectively measure
the CDBG program because of its multifaceted nature and because
its moneys can be spent on a wide variety of ``non-tangible''
benefits.
b. Witnesses.--Roy Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Paul Posner,
Director, Federal Budget and Intergovernmental Relations,
Government Accountability Office; Jerry Fastrup, Assistant
Director, Applied Research and Methods, Government
Accountability Office; and Saul Ramirez, executive director,
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.
5. ``Life In the Big City: What Is Census Data Telling Us About Urban
America? Are Policymakers Really Listening?'' May 10, 2005
a. Summary.--The subcommittee reviewed Census data in an
effort to understand better what that data reveals about urban
America. Subcommittee members were able to question Census
officials and eventual data users utilize census data when
making on everything from resource allocation to business
development.
b. Witnesses.--Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, U.S.
Census Bureau; Thomas Dowd, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor; Marc Morial, president, National Urban League; Paul
Farmer, executive director and CEO, American Planning
Association/American Institute of Certified Planners; Mitchell
Silver, deputy director, Long Range Planning, District of
Columbia Office of Planning; and Audrey Singer, immigration
fellow, metropolitan policy, the Brookings Institution.
6. ``The Ohio Experience: What Can Be Done to Spur Brownfield
Development in America's Heartland?'' May 16, 2005 (Cleveland,
OH)
a. Summary.--The second in a series, the purpose of this
oversight hearing was to examine the condition of designated
brownfields sites in the State of Ohio. According to the
Government Accountability Office [GAO], there are an estimated
450,000 to 1 million abandoned or underutilized brownfields
sites. One can find many of these sites are in States that
manufacturing companies once dominated. A significant number of
these are now either defunct or have been abandoned. The
subcommittee investigated the impediments to brownfields
redevelopment and possible incentives to encourage
redevelopment activity. Finally, the subcommittee considered
what the impact might be of legislation similar to H.R. 4480,
which Representative Turner introduced in the 108th Congress.
b. Witnesses.--Joseph Dufficy, Chief of the Brownfields and
Early Action Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region
V; Amy Yersavich, manager, Voluntary Action Program, Ohio EPA;
Frank Sarosy, mayor, Village of Fairport Harbor, Ohio; Daniel
Pocek, mayor, city of Bedford, OH; Tracy Nichols, assistant
director for economic development, Cuyahoga County, OH; Casey
Stephens, manager, public services, brownfield coordinator,
Division of Environmental Services, city of Toledo, OH; Alex
Machaskee, president and publisher, the Plain Dealer; Todd
Davis, CEO, Hemisphere Development, LLC.; Thomas Stone,
executive director, Mt. Pleasant NOW Development Corp.; Barry
Franz, principal engineer, Civil and Environmental Consultants,
Inc.; Craig Kasper, CEO, Hull and Associates, Inc.; Kevin
O'Brien, executive director, Great Lakes Environmental Finance
Center, Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs,
Cleveland State University.
7. ``Bringing Community Development Block Grant Programs Spending into
the 21st Century: Introducing Accountability and Meaningful
Performance Measures into the Decades-Old CDBG Program,'' May
24, 2005
a. Summary.--Third in a series, the purpose of this
oversight hearing was to examine how CDBG funds are spent and
whether Congress or HUD can add meaningful performance measures
to the program to promote greater accountability among its
grantees. The subcommittee specifically examined: (1) how
communities spend CDBG money (2); whether the funds are
effectively targeted toward the needs identified in the
program's authorizing legislation; and (3) how, if at all,
these expenditures can be measured for effectiveness.
b. Witnesses.--Roy Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Ron Schmitt,
council member, city of Sparks, NV; Thomas Downs, fellow,
National Academy of Public Administration; Lisa Patt-McDaniel,
assistant deputy director, Community Development Division, Ohio
Department of Development on Behalf of COSCDA; and Shelia
Crowley, president, National Low Income Housing Coalition.
8. ``Revitalizing Communities: Are Faith-Based Organizations Getting
the Federal Assistance They Need?'' June 14, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of this oversight hearing was to
examine how faith-based organizations accomplish community
revitalization. The subcommittee focused on the President's
Faith-Based Initiative as outlined in various Executive orders.
The subcommittee also reviewed the role Federal agencies play
in assisting faith-based organizations. Moreover, the
subcommittee investigated the successes and impediments to
redevelopment of cities, via services and infrastructure
improvements provided by faith-based organizations. Finally,
the subcommittee reviewed past and current legislative efforts
in this arena especially H.R. 1054, a bill by Congressman Mark
Green, to establish an office of faith-based and community
initiatives.
b. Witnesses.--Ryan Streeter, Director, Office of Faith-
Based Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development; Terri Hasdorff, executive director, Alabama
Governor's Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives;
Thomas Knox, chairman of the Board of Directors, We Care
America; Sister Rose Wildenhaus, St. Mary Development Corp.;
Mark Howard, general counsel, World Vision; and Reverend
Michael Jones, Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church,
Robert Fulton Development, Inc.
9. ``The Pittsburgh Experience: How has the Community Development Block
Grant Program Shaped the Steel City?'' July 18, 2005
(Pittsburgh, PA)
a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the
subcommittees examination of the Community Development Block
Grant Program. This field hearing explored the impact of the
CDBG program on Pittsburgh, PA and the surrounding communities.
The subcommittee heard from local stakeholders involved in
administering the CDBG program as well as those who benefit
from its uses.
b. Witnesses.--Pamela Hughes Patenaude, Assistant
Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Dorothy Kelly,
councilwoman, Borough of Carnegie; Diana Irey, county
commissioner, county of Washington; Stanley ``Lou'' Gorski,
executive director, South Hills Area Council of Governments;
William McGowen, executive director, Redevelopment Authority of
the county of Washington; William Mitchell, assistant director
of planning and development, Westmoreland County Industrial
Development Corp.; and Diana Reitz, community development
coordinator, city of Jeannette, PA.
10. ``The New York City Experience: How has the Community Development
Block Grant Program Shaped the Big Apple?'' July 25, 2005
(Thurgood Marshall Academy, NYC)
a. Summary.--The final hearing in a series, the
subcommittee examined the Community Development Block Grant
Program and its impact on New York City. The subcommittee heard
from local stakeholders involved in administering the CDBG
program as well as those who benefit from its uses.
b. Witnesses.--Michael Bloomberg, mayor, city of New York;
F. Carlisle Towery, president, Greater Jamaica Development
Corp.; Ronay Menschel, chair of the Board of Directors, Phipps
Houses; Mark Willis, executive vice-president, JPMorgan Chase;
Andrew Reicher, executive director, Urban Homesteading
Assistance Board; Reverend Dr. Calvin O. Butts, pastor,
Abyssinian Baptist Church; Chris Kui, executive director, Asian
Americans for Equality; and Dr. Ingrid Gould Ellen, associate
professor of public policy and urban planning, New York
University Furman Center for Real Estate.
11. ``Brownfields and the 50 States: Are State Incentive Programs
Capable of Solving America's Brownfields Problem?'' September
13, 2005
a. Summary.--The third in a series, the purpose of this
oversight hearing was to examine how the various States handle
the problems associated with Brownfields and whether State
incentive programs are enough to solve the Nation's brownfields
problem. The subcommittee further explored how well State
incentive programs are working and what the Federal Government
can do to augment these efforts.
b. Witnesses.--Charles Bartsch, senior policy analyst,
Northeast Midwest Institute; Kathleen McGinty, secretary,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; John
Magill, director, Office of Urban Development, Ohio Department
of Development; Douglas Scott, director, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency; Andrew Hogarth, chief, Remediation and
Redevelopment Division, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality; Robert Colangelo, executive director, National
Brownfield Association; Jonathan Philips, senior director,
Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC.; Charles Houder, director of
acquisitions, Preferred Real Estate Investments, Inc.; and
Kevin Matthews, director of association and government
relations, AIG Environmental.
12. ``The Challenge of Brownfields: What are the Problems and Solutions
in Redeveloping Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley Communities?''
October 25, 2005 (Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA)
a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the
subcommittee's examination of Brownfield redevelopment. This
field hearing will explor the impact of Brownfields in the
Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania and what State and Federal
programs are available for redevelopment efforts. The
subcommittee heard from Federal, State and local stakeholders
involved in Brownfield redevelopment.
b. Witnesses.--Abraham Ferdas, Director, Hazardous Site
Cleanup Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III; Eugene DePasquale, deputy secretary for community
revitalization and local government support, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection; Jim Seif, vice
president, Corporate Relations, PPL Corp.; Paul Schoff, esq.,
Feinberg and Schoff, LLP., CEO of Brownfield Realty, Ltd.;
Robert Colangelo, executive director, National Brownfield
Association; Kerry Wrobel, president, Lehigh Valley Industrial
Park, Inc.; Chad Paul, Jr., CEO, Ben Franklin Technology
Partners; Ray Suhocki, president and COO, Lehigh Valley
Economic Development Corp.; Stephen Donches, president,
National Museum of Industrial History; and Doug Michaels,
president and CEO, OraSure Technologies, Inc.
13. ``Historic Preservation vs. Katrina: What Role Should Federal,
State and Local Governments Play in Preserving Historic
Properties Affected by this Catastrophic Storm?'' November 1,
2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of this policy hearing was to
examine what roles the Federal, State and local governments
should play in the preservation of historic properties in the
areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. The National Trust for
Historic Preservation has stated that the Hurricane Katrina
impacted areas on New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast
contain one of the largest concentrations of historic
properties in the United States. The Congress recognized the
historic importance of the region as recently as December 2004
by officially designated the Mississippi gulf area as a
National Heritage Area. It is clear that the damage to historic
properties in the area has been massive. This hearing provided
members of the subcommittee with a fresh perspective on the
historic preservation challenges resulting from Hurricane
Katrina. Moreover, Members gained a better understanding how
Federal, State and local governments can respond to disasters
with regard to preserving historic structures and communities.
b. Witnesses.--Mitchell Landrieu, Lieutenant Governor,
State of Louisiana; H.T. Holmes, director, Mississippi
Department of Archives and History; Derrick Evans, founder and
director, Turkey Creek Community Initiatives; Patricia Gay,
executive director, Preservation Resource Center of New
Orleans; David Preziosi, executive director, the Mississippi
Heritage Trust; John Nau III, chairman, Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation; Dr. Janet Matthews, Associate Director
for Cultural Resources, National Park Service; Richard Moe,
president, the National Trust for Historic Preservation; and
Norman Koonce, executive vice president and CEO, the American
Institute of Architects.
14. ``Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens be Included in
Apportioning our Elected Representatives?'' December 6, 2005
a. Summary.--The purpose of this oversight hearing was to
examine the potential benefits and pitfalls of counting only
U.S. citizens for purposes of determining the apportionment
base for the U.S. House of Representatives and the Electoral
College. The subcommittee gave specific attention to a proposed
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution introduced by Representative
Candace Miller (H.J. Res. 53).
b. Witnesses.--Representative Candice Miller; Clark Benson,
consultant and publisher, Polidata Co.; Steven Camarota,
director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies; Lawrence
Gonzalez; Washington director, National Association of Latino
Elected and Appointed Officials; Ken Prewitt, professor of
public affairs, School of International and Public Affairs,
Columbia University; Johnny Killian, Senior Specialist in
Constitutional Law, American Law Division, Congressional
Research Service; James Gimpel, associate professor of
government and politics, University of Maryland; Andrew
Spiropoulos, professor of law, Oklahoma City University School
of Law; and Nina Perales, Southwestern Regional counsel,
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
15. ``Living in America: Is Our Public Housing System up to the
Challenges of the 21st Century,'' February 15, 2006
a. Summary.--In this oversight hearing, the subcommittee
examined the state of public housing in the United States
before and since the enactment of the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 [QHWRA]. The subcommittee examined
the factors that lead up to Congress' decision to reform the
Nation's public housing programs in 1998. The subcommittee also
took a broad look at how effective QHWRA's reforms have been in
creating better, safer and more affordable housing for the
Nation's low and moderate-income families. Finally, at this
hearing, the subcommittee examined some of the recommendations
made by the Millennial Housing Commission in its 2002 report
entitled ``Meeting Our Nation's Housing Challenges.''
b. Witnesses.--Rick A. Lazio, executive vice president,
global government relations and public policy, JPMorgan Chase
Bank; Henry Cisneros, chairman CityView, former Secretary of
HUD; David G. Wood, Director, Financial Markets and Community
Investments, Government Accountability Office; Renee L. Glover,
president and CEO, Atlanta Housing Authority, former
commissioner, Millennial Housing Commission; Rod Solomon,
counsel, Hawkins Delafield and Wood, LLP, former HUD Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Policy; Conrad Egan, president,
National Housing Conference, former executive director of the
Millennial Housing Commission; Dr. Alexander von Hoffman,
senior research fellow, Joint Center for Housing Studies,
Harvard University; Dr. Edgar O. Olsen, Department of
Economics, University of Virginia; Dr. Michael A. Stegman,
director, Center for Community Capitalism, Kenan Institute of
Private Enterprise, adjunct professor of entrepreneurship,
University of North Carolina.
16. ``Apportionment in the Balance: A Look into the Progress of the
2010 Decennial Census,'' March 1, 2006
a. Summary.--In this hearing, the subcommittee examined the
status of the Census Bureau's preparations for the 2010
Decennial Census. Since the subcommittee's April 19, 2005
hearing entitled ``Halfway to the 2010 Census: The Countdown
and Components to a Successful Decennial Census,'' the Census
Bureau had achieved and was nearing completion of several key
milestones. The Bureau had successfully carried out the
American Community Survey for 1 full year. Additionally, the
Master Address File and Topologically Integrated Geographic
Encoding and Referencing Enhancement Program was nearing a
successful completion. As the Bureau continued its preparation
for a short-form only census, it undertook two major contracts,
the Field Data Collection Automation program and the Decennial
Response Integration System. These two technology contracts
have a combined value of over $1 billion. These major contracts
signal the first real ``hi-tech'' census, and the subcommittee
examined how the successful implementation of these contracts
is critical to the 2010 Decennial Census. Furthermore, the
subcommittee explored several other issues such as the Local
Update of Census Addresses program, intergovernmental
partnerships, and personnel hiring challenges related to the
successful implementation of the decennial census. The
subcommittee also heard an assessment from the Government
Accountability Office of the Bureau's planning for the
decennial census and the ongoing 2006 Census Test.
b. Witnesses.--Louis Kincannon, Director, Census Bureau;
Brenda Farrell, Acting Director of Strategic Issues, Government
Accountability Office; David Powner, Director, Information
Technology Management Issues, Government Accountability Office;
Dr. Ralph A. Rector, research fellow and project manager,
Center for Data Analysis, the Heritage Foundation; Dr. Andrew
Reamer, deputy director, Urban Markets Initiative, Brookings
Institution; and Dr. Margo Anderson, professor, history and
urban studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
17. ``The Connecticut Experience: What Can Be Done to Spur Brownfield
Redevelopment along America's New England Corridor?'' March 13,
2006 (Bridgeport, CT)
a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the
subcommittee's review of Brownfields redevelopment. The purpose
of this field hearing was to determine what progress has been
made in the State of Connecticut under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency program and what can be done to spur
redevelopment within the State, thereby reducing community
blight, safeguarding the local environment, and spurring
economic revitalization of the communities in which these
properties exist. The subcommittee heard from Federal, State
and local stakeholders involved in Brownfields redevelopment.
b. Witnesses.--John Fabrizi, mayor, city of Bridgeport;
Mary Sanderson, Chief, Remediation and Restoration II Branch,
Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region I; Gina McCarthy, commissioner,
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; Mark
Lauretti, mayor, city of Shelton; Elizabeth Barton, chair,
Environmental and Land Use Department, Day, Berry and Howard,
LLP; Joseph Carbone, president/CEO, the Workplace, Inc.; Robert
Santy, president, Regional Growth Partnership; Stephen Soler,
president, Georgetown Land Development Co.; and Barry Trilling,
partner, Wiggin and Dana, LLP.
18. ``Monitoring Our Nation's Pulse: A Look at the Existing Federal,
State and Local Economic Development Tools and Whether They are
Adequate in Attracting and Keeping Businesses in America's
Heartland Cities?'' March 21, 2006 (Springfield, MO)
a. Summary.--During this field hearing in Springfield, MO,
the subcommittee examined Federal, State, and local government
economic development initiatives and how they impact heartland
communities. The subcommittee was interested in learning what
opportunities exist for urban and suburban areas in the
Nation's heartland to retain existing and to attract new
businesses. Toward this end, the subcommittee was interested in
hearing ideas on how local economic development practitioners
can better work with Federal, State and other local
governmental entities on economic development projects.
Moreover, the subcommittee was interested in determining if
there are better ways to use the economic development tools
currently available and whether these tools are adequate (e.g.,
tax policy, brownfields initiatives, grants-in-aid, leveraging,
regional cooperation, empowerment zones, etc).
b. Witnesses.--Tom Carlson, mayor, city of Springfield;
Diane May, executive director, Southwest Missouri Council of
Governments; Clint Thompson, director of planning and community
development, city of St. Joseph; Jeff Sanford, president,
Memphis Center City Commission; and Jim Cloar, president and
CEO, Downtown St. Louis Partnership, Inc.
19. ``Public Housing Management: Do the Public Housing Authorities have
the Flexibility They Need to Meet the Changing Demands of the
21st Century?'' May 10, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine
whether the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]
had appropriately implemented the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 [QHWRA] in keeping with the spirit
of the act's stated purpose of deregulating and decontrolling
Public Housing Authorities [PHAs] and providing for more
flexible use of Federal assistance. The subcommittee heard from
several PHAs from around the Nation. The subcommittee was
interested in hearing their views on HUD's implementation of
QHWRA, and its new management rules. The subcommittee also
sought the PHAs' comments on what steps HUD could take to
further deregulate and decontrol while at the same time adding
increased accountability.
b. Witnesses.--Greg Johnson, executive director, Dayton
Metropolitan Housing Authority; Terry Peterson, chief executive
officer, Chicago Housing Authority; Doug Apple, general
manager, New York City Housing Authority; Steve Rudman,
executive director, Housing Authority of Portland; Betsey
Martens, co-executive director, Boulder Housing Partners; and
Curt Hiebert, executive director, Keene (New Hampshire) Housing
Authority.
20. ``Public Housing in the Competitive Market Place: Do Affordable and
Public Housing Developments Benefit from Private Market and
Other Financing Tools?'' May 23, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to learn from
the financiers and developers in the multifamily affordable
housing industry. This was the third in a series of hearings
concerning public and low-income housing. During this oversight
hearing, the subcommittee examined the current and potential
roles of the various capital sources in financing public and
private affordable housing projects. The subcommittee reviewed
the current statutory and regulatory structures guiding the
financing of public-private housing development projects to
determine whether any changes should or could be made. The
subcommittee also explored opportunities to improve and/or
expand financing options for private developers of low-income
housing, as well as for Public Housing Authorities. The
subcommittee heard from private sector parties involved in the
development of low-income housing projects. The subcommittee
was interested in hearing their experiences with programs such
as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, the Public Housing
Capital Fund and the HOPE VI program.
b. Witnesses.--Patrick Clancy, president and chief
executive officer, the Community Builders, Inc.; Wendy Dolber,
managing director of tax exempt financing, Standard and Poor's
Rating Services; and Brian Tracey, community development
banking market executive, Atlantic Region, Bank of America
Corp.
21. ``Poverty, Public Housing and the CRA: Have Housing and Community
Investment Incentives Helped Public Housing Families Achieve
the American Dream?'' June 20, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was twofold.
First, the subcommittee examined whether any of the self-
sufficiency and poverty de-concentration initiatives of the
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 [QHWRA] and
other legislation have created incentives for public housing
tenants to find and maintain employment. Second, the
subcommittee reviewed the ``public policy theory'' behind
public housing and community investment. The subcommittee heard
from witnesses who discussed the importance of the Community
Reinvestment Act to the underlying goals of Federal housing
programs.
b. Witnesses.--Jon Gutzmann, president, Public Housing
Authorities Directors' Association, executive director, St.
Paul Public Housing Agency; George Moses, chairman of the Board
of Directors, National Low Income Housing Coalition; James
Riccio, director, Low-Wage Workers and Working Communities
Policy Area; Benson F. ``Buzz'' Roberts, senior vice president,
policy and program development, Local Initiatives Support
Corp.; and Judy Kennedy, president and CEO, National
Association of Affordable Housing Lenders.
22. ``Moving the CDBG Program Forward: A Look at the Administration's
Reform Proposal. Where Do We Go From Here?'' June 27, 2006
a. Summary.--On May 25, 2006, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development delivered to the Speaker of the House a
legislative proposal for reforming the Community Development
Block Grant program. The purpose of this oversight hearing was
to explore the administration's reform proposal and the
decisionmaking process supporting its creation.
b. Witnesses.--Pamela Hughes Patenaude, Assistant
Secretary, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Stanley J.
Czerwinski, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Strategic
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Michael
Springer, Assistant Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
23. ``Public Housing in the 21st Century: HUD's View on the Future of
Public Housing in the United States,'' July 18, 2006
a. Summary.--This was the fifth hearing in this series of
hearings on public housing. The purpose of this hearing was to
explore the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD]
vision for the future of public and affordable housing.
Additionally, the subcommittee requested HUD respond to the
testimony and recommendations received in the four previous
hearings.
b. Witnesses.--Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Orlando J.
Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
24. ``The Air Force Institute of Technology: An Intergovernmental Model
for Today's Military Education,'' July 29, 2006 (Dayton, OH)
a. Summary.--The subcommittee explored the arrangement
among the Ohio-based universities, Air Force Institute of
Technology, and the Air Force Research Laboratory and how this
cooperation creates a synergistic educational environment
greater than the sum of the parts. The subcommittee also
examined how Federal, State, and local governments support this
cooperative effort to maximize efficiency and fully utilize
resources and expertise. Finally, the subcommittee considered
how this unique program enhances graduate education in the Air
Force and in Ohio, advances Federal technology research, and
ultimately benefits the war fighter.
b. Witnesses.--Major General Ted Bowlds, Commander, Air
Force Research Laboratory; Brigadier General Mark Matthews,
Commander, Air Force Institute of Technology; Kevin DeWine,
State representative, State of Ohio; Dr. Daniel Curran,
president, the University of Dayton; Dr. Jay Thomas, vice
president of research and dean of graduate studies, Wright
State University; and Dr. Elizabeth Downie, director, the
Dayton Area Graduate Studies Institute.
25. ``2+2 Should Never Equal 3: Getting Intercensal Population
Estimates Right the First Time,'' September 6, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine the
Bureau's intercensal population estimates program. The
subcommittee examined whether the Bureau's methodology results
in reasonably accurate estimates and reasonably equitable
allocation of Federal grants, whether the Bureau's challenge
process is transparent, fair, and takes into account a
community's ability to challenge the estimates. The
subcommittee also examined whether the Bureau strives to
continuously improve the estimates, the importance of accuracy,
and opportunities for improving the estimates.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Louis Kincannon, Director, U.S. Census
Bureau; Dr. David Swanson, Director, State Data Center of
Mississippi; Dr. Joy E. Phillips, Associate Director,
Washington, DC Data Center; Ken Hodges, assistant vice
president and chief demographer, Claritas Inc.; and Dr. Warren
A. Brown, Research Director, Cornell Institute for Social and
Economic Research, Cornell University.
26. ``Historic Preservation and Community Development: Why Cities and
Towns Should Look to the Past as a Key to Their Future,''
September 20, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine how
Federal, State, and local government have supported historic
preservation efforts through regulation, property acquisition,
and tax incentives. The subcommittee also reviewed the
accomplishments of various preservation organizations and
examined how these organizations have succeeded in their
efforts through the use of revolving funds and the acquisition
of conservation easements on historic buildings and sites.
Several communities across the Nation have successfully
utilized historic preservation programs to promote neighborhood
revitalization. The subcommittee sought to identify which
approaches have worked, which have not, and what opportunities
are there for improvement.
b. Witnesses.--John Fowler, executive director, Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation; Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews,
Associate Director for Cultural Resources, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior; Richard Moe, president,
the National Trust for Historic Preservation; John Leith-
Tetrault, president, National Trust Community Investment Corp.;
Idotha Bootsie Neal, president, Wright Dunbar, Inc.; Kathleen
H. Crowther, executive director, Cleveland Restoration Society
and chairman of the Statewide and Local Partners Program of the
National Trust for Historic Preservation; J. Myrick Howard,
president, Preservation North Carolina; Edward Sanderson,
executive director, Rhode Island Historical Preservation and
Heritage Commission; and Ken Baumgartner, president, the Corky
McMillin Companies.
OTHER
1. Saving America's Cities Working Group--Advisory Committee Meeting,
June 28, 2005
The primary purpose of the Saving America's Cities [SAC]
Working Group is to focus on the economic development of
American cities facing a number of challenges including waning
revenues, shrinking populations, and aging buildings and
infrastructure. Congressman Turner, chairman of the
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census, also chairs the
Speaker's SAC Working Group and called a meeting to develop
recommendations to address these issues and aid cities in every
way possible to encourage community and economic development.
Representatives from each of our national partner organizations
provided testimony with recommendations based on their
different expertise and outlook.
The SAC Working Group's national partners gave unique
perspective on how Congress can address the problems that
plague many cities. In addition to hearing from these
organizations, Chairman Turner asked that members of the
Working Group invite representatives from their districts to
provide a greater perspective on what impact existing Federal
policies and programs have on these organizations and what
Congress can do to better assist cities and their partners.
This meeting focused on the core principles that define a
successful city and five issues regarding the revitalization of
cities on which the Federal Government needs to take a lead:
public housing; market rate housing; brownfields redevelopment;
historic preservation; and Federal regulations and Federal
programs aimed at updating relevant regulations and programs to
address the needs of the 21st century city. This meeting served
as the basis for the formulation of a report that the Working
Group owed the Speaker.
Advisory Committee Members in attendance: Jack Kemp,
Advisory Committee Chair, Former Congressman and Secretary of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Anthony
Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia; Donald Plusquellic,
mayor, city of Akron, OH; Richard Daley, mayor, city of
Chicago, IL; Marc Morial, president and CEO, National Urban
League; Valerie Lemmie, city manager, city of Cincinnati, OH.
Members of the SAC Working Group in attendance:
Representative Tom Davis, Representative Rob Bishop,
Representative Phil English, Representative Nancy Johnson,
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Representative Thelma
Drake, Representative Charlie Dent, and Representative Jeff
Fortenberry.
Panelists: Fred Banuelos, president and CEO, Alliance for
Building Communities; Mary Lilly Smith, economic development
director, city of Springfield, MO; Andy Friedman, director,
Virginia Beach Department of Housing and Neighborhood
Preservation; Ken Wade, CEO, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp.,
National Neighborworks Association; Jerry Howard, executive
vice president and chief executive officer, National
Association of Home Builders; Stockton Williams, vice president
of external affairs, the Enterprise Foundation; Sheila Crowley,
president, National Low Income Housing Coalition; Saul Ramirez,
Jr., executive director, National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials; Don Borut, executive director,
National League of Cities; Pamela McKee, interim president and
CEO, National Congress for Community Economic Development;
Carol Coletta, president and CEO, CEOs for Cities; Tom Wolfe,
senior director of Federal affairs, American Institute of
Architects; Cynthia Stewart, director for local governmental
relations, International Council of Shopping Centers; Don
Graves, director of public policy, Business Roundtable; Jeff
Soule, policy director, American Planning Association; Joe
Molinaro, manager, Smart Growth Programs, National Association
of Realtors; Benson Roberts, senior vice president for policy
and program development, Local Initiatives Support Corp.; Pat
Lally, director, congressional affairs, National Trust for
Historic Preservation; Barry Tindall, director of public policy
and international liaison, National Recreation and Parks
Association; Eric Kassoff, principal, Wilkes Artis, Public
Affairs Chair, Maryland/DC Chapter, National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties; and Ed Rosado, legislative
director, National Association of Counties.
2. Census Briefings
In cooperation with the subcommittee, the Brookings
Institution held two briefing on the census and offered a
tutorial on using the Census Bureau's Fast Facts for Congress
webpage.
a. ``The Road to the 2010 Census: Implications for
Apportionment, Redistricting, and the Economy,''
April 7, 2006
The first briefing examined the preparations for and the
uses of the 2010 decennial census. The briefing served to
educate congressional staff and nongovernmental organizations
on the importance of Census numbers. The Census Bureau's
decennial count determines the reapportionment of House
congressional seats and redrawn district boundaries.
Furthermore, the decennial census data are used to allocate
billions of Federal dollars.
Panelists: Andrew Reamer, deputy director, Urban Markets
Initiative, Brookings Institution; John Cuaderes, staff
director, House Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census; Mark
Stephenson, minority professional staff member, House Committee
on Government Reform; Katherine Wallman, Chief Statistician,
Statistical Policy, Office of Management and Budget; Jay Waite,
Associate Director for the Decennial Census, U.S. Census
Bureau; Joseph Salvo, director, Population Division, New York
City Department of City Planning; Cathy McCully, Chief, Census
Redistricting Data Office, U.S. Census Bureau; and Michael
Carliner, staff vice president for economics, National
Association of Home Builders.
b. ``Better Data for Better Decisions: The Value of the
American Community Survey to the Nation,'' June 23,
2006
The second briefing explored the private and public sector
uses of the new American Community Survey [ACS], which provides
a profile of the population's demographic characteristics. The
briefing served to educate congressional Members and their
staffs on the importance of the ACS to the Nation and how it
benefits district constituents. Congress authorized the Census
Bureau to replace the decennial long form with the ACS to
provide governments and businesses with needed data every year,
rather than once a decade.
Panelists: Andrew Reamer, deputy director, Urban Markets
Initiative, Brookings Institution; Ursula Wojciechowski,
professional staff member, House Subcommittee on Federalism and
the Census; Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff
member, House Committee on Government Reform; Katherine
Wallman, Chief Statistician, Statistical Policy, Office of
Management and Budget; Jay Waite, Associate Director for the
Decennial Census, U.S. Census Bureau; Lisa Blumerman, Deputy
Chief, American Community Survey Office, U.S. Census Bureau;
Dan Wiley, community coordinator, Brooklyn Heights Office,
Office of Representative Nydia Velazquez; Chris Fulcher,
director, Community Information Resource Center, Rural Policy
Research Institute; Kirk Johnson, senior policy analyst, Center
for Data Analysis, Heritage Foundation; and Bruce Fogarty,
manager, Demographic and Economic Analysis, J.C. Penney Corp.,
Inc.
c. ``Know Your Constituency: Congressional District and
State Profiles from the 2005 American Community
Survey,'' September 28 and 29, 2006
The Brookings Institution provided four 1-hour live Web
cast training sessions on how to use the ACS. In August of this
year, the Census Bureau released the first annual estimates
from the ACS for 8,000 communities, 435 congressional districts
and 50 States. In the tutorial, Ms. Cynthia Taeuber, a former
Census official, gave an overview of what numbers are available
by district and State on the Census Web site, how to make sense
and use of these figures, and what to expect from the ACS in
the coming years. The tutorial illustrated how ACS estimates
provide an up-to-date picture of district constituents by
providing characteristics--such as income levels, educational
attainment, occupation, and housing costs--of the populations.
3. H.R. 337, ``To amend title 13, United States Code, to provide that
the term of office of the Director of the Census shall be 5
years, to provide that the Director of the Census report
directly to the Secretary of Commerce, and for other purposes''
The subcommittee received H.R. 337 on February 15, 2005. No
further action was taken on this bill.
4. H.R. 4857, ``Emergency Targeted Revenue Sharing Act of 2006''
The subcommittee received H.R. 4857 on March 21, 2006. In
general, the bill would provide $79 billion over 3 years to
State and local government in a manner similar to general
revenue sharing. No further action was taken on this bill.
5. Bringing Communities into the 21st Century: A Report on Improving
the Community Block Grant Program
This investigative report, adopted by the full committee,
is based on hours of hearing testimony and research from the
Executive branch, Government Accountability Office [GAO],
academia, and, most importantly, the practitioners working with
this program on a daily basis. In addition to the series of
three Washington-based hearings, the subcommittee held field
hearings in Pittsburgh, PA and in New York City's Borough of
Harlem. At these field hearings, the subcommittee heard
testimony from actual recipients of CDBG moneys and also saw
first hand how this program makes a difference in peoples'
lives.
Contained in this report are 19 detailed findings and
recommendations to improve the CDBG program and making it
relevant to the 21st century by targeting Federal funds more
wisely so that we build stronger, more vibrant communities.
The committee recommends that HUD, in cooperation with the
U.S. Census Bureau, explore opportunities for innovative
applications of Census Bureau data to improve community
development programs.
6. What Will it Take to Turn Lost Opportunities into America's Gain?
This investigative report was approved by the full
Government Reform Committee. After three hearings on the
subject, the subcommittee discovered that in general the 2002
Federal Brownfields Program is working. It is a key tool in the
fight to remediate and redevelop these dangerous, blighting
eye-sores. However, there remain areas for improvement of the
program. Further, even if the Federal Program were perfected,
there are too many brownfield sites across the Nation for the
Federal Government and the States to address on their own.
Contained in this report are 10 detailed findings and
recommendations to improve the Brownfields Program and Federal
efforts to encourage more aggressive redevelopment activities.
In brief, the report finds: 1) The actual impact of the
Brownfields Program is difficult to determine. EPA should
revise and upgrade its tracking mechanisms and performance
measures; 2) EPA must consider improvements to the revolving
loan fund to increase utilization of the appropriated funds; 3)
Congress should reauthorize the Brownfields Program beyond
fiscal year 2006 and authorize additional program funding; 4)
even with additional funding, there are more brownfields than
the States and Federal Government can ever hope to address.
Enticing private sector investment is key to more aggressive
remediation and redevelopment but the high costs of such
projects remains a significant barrier to private sector
involvement. A Federal tax credit, modeled on the low-income or
historic rehabilitation tax credits, would be the most useful
incentive in attracting private investment; 5) liability fears
under CERCLA, RCRA, and TSCA remain an enormous deterrent to
private sector investment in redevelopment projects. While
Congress provided some liability relief in the 2002 Small
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act,
further clarification of circumstances in which a party may be
subject to future liability is necessary. Additionally,
Congress should consider ways to incentivize responsible
parties to participate in the remediation process. These
parties are important because of their immediate knowledge of
prior land-use, which contributed to present contamination; 6)
certain activities imperative to full cleanup of brownfields
sites are ineligible for Federal program funding. For instance,
Federal funds may not be used for the cleanup of petroleum
product contamination or the cleanup of building interiors.
Congress should expand the eligibility provisions of Federal
funds to permit the use of funds on such remediation and
redevelopment costs; 7) environmental insurance provides key
assurance to investors in redevelopment projects. Congress
should expand the eligibility provisions of Federal funds to
permit the use of funds on the cost of environmental insurance;
8) Congress and the EPA should both look to successful existing
State cleanup programs as models when reforming existing
Federal programs and when establishing new programs; 9)
administrative burdens often result in significant time delay
in redevelopment projects. In the private sector, time is
money. To the extent Federal administrative burdens create such
delays, the EPA should streamline its processes and create
administrative partnerships with other Federal agencies to
reduce administrative burdens and delays; and finally, 10)
Congress should explore expanding the use of existing tax
exempt redevelopment bonds to include environmental remediation
projects to raise additional remediation and redevelopment
capital.
V. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
1. ``The Countdown to Completion: Implementing the New Department of
Homeland Security Personnel System,'' March 2, 2005
a. Summary.--On February 1, 2005, DHS and OPM jointly
published in the Federal Register the final version of the
regulations on the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] human
resources management system. The hearing brought together
representatives of DHS, OPM, Federal employee unions, and other
interested parties to examine the DHS regulations, the
implementation plan, and other matters of concern. Witnesses
discussed the importance of a new personnel system in relation
to the important national security mission of DHS.
b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Neil A.G. McPhie, chairman, U.S. Merit
Systems Protection Board; Ronald P. Sanders, Associate Director
for Strategic Human Resource Policy of OPM; Ronald James, Chief
Human Capital Officer of DHS; Colleen M. Kelley, national
president, National Treasury Employees Union; T.J. Bonner,
council president, American Federation of Government Employees;
and Darryl Perkinson, national vice president, Federal Managers
Association.
2. ``Yucca Mountain Project: Have Federal Employees Falsified
Documents?'' April 5, 2005
a. Summary.--The Department of Energy [DOE] announced
Wednesday, March 16, 2005, that Federal employees of the U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS] falsified data used in scientific
studies at the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in
Nevada. DOE made this discovery from emails exchanged by
employees with the USGS dating back to 1998, which discuss
potentially fabricated results from water and climate studies
at Yucca Mountain. Twenty emails were reported which contained
evidence that employees falsified their work. The purpose of
this hearing was to examine the veracity of these
aforementioned allegations and to probe into the extent of
Federal employee involvement in the falsification of documents
or records, as well as a discussion of whether sound science
exists for the proposed project.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator; Hon. John
Ensign, U.S. Senator; Kenny C. Guinn, Governor of Nevada; Brian
Sandoval, attorney general of Nevada; Charles G. Groat,
Director, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior;
Ted Garrish, Acting Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy; Earl E. Devaney,
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Interior; Gregory H.
Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy; Judy
Treichel, executive director, Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force;
B. John Garrick, chairman, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board; Joe Egan, esq., Nevada Attorney General's Office; and
Bob Loux, executive director, Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects.
3. ``NSPS: The New Department of Defense Civilian Personnel System--
Reaching Readiness,'' April 12, 2005
a. Summary.--On February 14, 2005, DOD and OPM jointly
published the proposed regulations on the DOD National Security
Personnel System in the Federal Register. This hearing brought
together representatives of DOD, OPM, Federal employee unions,
and other interested parties to amine the proposed DOD
regulations, the DOD implementation plan, and other matters
relating to the new personnel system.
b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Charles S. Abell, Principal
Under Secretary of Defense; George Nesterczuk, Senior Policy
Advisor on the Department of Defense, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management; Neil A.G. McPhie, chairman, U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board; Michael Styles, national president, Federal
Managers Association; John Gage, national president, American
Federation of Government Employees; and Ron Ault, president,
Metal Trades Department.
4. ``H.R. 1578, Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITS]: Can They Improve
the Thrift Savings Plan?'' April 19, 2005
a. Summary.--The Thrift Savings Plan [TSP] provides one leg
of a three-part retirement system for Federal employees under
the Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS]. The other two
parts of the retirement system include a defined benefit
annuity and Social Security. This hearing explored the
possibility of expanding the options available to employees who
participate in the TSP to include an option for investment in
real estate investment trusts [REITs]. REITs have become an
investment vehicle of choice recently for private sector
companies when considering expansion of options available
within 401(k) packages. As the Federal Government seeks to
modernize its recruitment and retention tools to keep pace with
the private sector, some have raised REITs as an option for
achieving these goals. This hearing examined the impact upon
the investment options available in the TSP and the future
impact upon retirement benefits for employees.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Mark Foley, Representative from
Florida; Hon. Richard E. Neal, Representative from
Massachusetts; Andrew M. Saul, chairman, Federal Retirement
Thrift Investment Board; Gary A. Amelio, executive director,
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Steven A. Wechsler,
president and CEO, National Association of Real Estate
Investment Trusts; Amy Schioldager, managing director, U.S.
Indexing Products, Barclays Global Investors; Dr. Roger G.
Ibbotson, chairman, Ibbotson Associates; Jim Sauber, chairman,
Employees Thrift Advisory Council; and IBM, which provided
testimony for the record.
5. ``Question: What is More Scrambled Than an Egg? Answer: The Federal
Food Inspection System,'' May 17, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing followed up on a March 30, 2004,
hearing entitled, ``A System Rued: Inspecting Food,'' in which
the subcommittee examined problems with the organizational
structure of the Federal food safety inspection system.
Government Accountability Office [GAO] investigations have
uncovered widespread overlap and duplication of effort in the
core areas of the Federal food inspection system, including:
inspection/enforcement, training, research, and rulemaking.
Following the hearing, the subcommittee, in conjunction with
the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, requested
that GAO further investigate this problem and report: (1) where
overlap occurs within the system; (2) the extent to which
agencies are coordinating effort through interagency
agreements; and (3) the views of key stakeholders regarding
opportunities to reduce overlap and duplication. The
subcommittee examined the findings of that report as well as
raised the prospect of Presidential fast-track reorganization
authority as a solution to the Federal Government's various
organization problems, which would allow the President to offer
a reorganization plan to the Congress for an up-or-down vote of
the plan in its entirety.
b. Witnesses.--Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director,
Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability
Office; Robert Brackett, Director of Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration; Dr.
Merle D. Pierson, Acting Undersecretary for Food Safety at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Susan B. Hazen, Principal
Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxics Substances of the Environmental
Protection Agency; and Richard V. Cano, Acting Director,
Seafood Inspection Program National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
6. ``Yucca Mountain Project: Digging for the Truth?'' June 29, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing follows up on the subcommittee's
previous hearing on April 5, 2005, ``Yucca Mountain Project:
Have Federal Employees Falsified Documents?'' The Department of
Energy [DOE] announced Wednesday, March 16, 2005, that Federal
employees of the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] potentially
falsified data used in scientific studies at the proposed Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada. DOE made this
discovery from emails exchanged by employees with the USGS
dating back to 1998, which discuss fabricated results from
water and climate studies at Yucca Mountain. This revelation
sparked both Inspector General investigations by the
Departments of Energy and Interior, as well as an FBI criminal
investigation. The purpose of this hearing was a continuation
of the first hearing of this matter, which was held April 5,
2005, to address the aforementioned allegations and probe into
the extent of Federal employee involvement in the falsification
of documents relating to the Yucca Mountain Project.
b. Witnesses.--W. John Arthur III, Deputy Director, Office
of Repository Development, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management [OCRWM], Department of Energy; and Joseph Hevesi,
Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior.
7. ``Turning Bureaucrats into Plutocrats: Can Entrepreneurialism Work
in the Federal Government?'' July 13, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing explored the possibility of the
Federal workforce moving at the speed of the information age.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich testified regarding numerous
compelling proposals for how to propel the Federal workforce
into the 21st century by fostering ``entrepreneurialism''
amongst the Government's employees. At this hearing the
subcommittee examined both how the Federal Government today
often limits its employees by allowing them to merely
administer programs rather than manage for results, as well as
how the same agencies can address this by producing
``entrepreneurs'' instead of ``bureaucrats.''
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Newt L. Gingrich, former Speaker of the
U.S. House of Representatives; David M. Walker, Comptroller
General of the United States; and Maurice P. McTigue, vice
president, Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
8. ``Is There a Doctor in the Mouse? Using Information Technology to
Improve Health Care,'' July 27, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing followed up on a subcommittee
field hearing held in Pittsburgh, PA, on September 13, 2004,
entitled, ``You Can't Always Get What You Want: What if the
Federal Government Could Drive Improvements in Health Care?''
In that hearing, the subcommittee examined how the Federal
Government could lead the health care industry in developing
health information technology [HIT] through promoting its use
in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program [FEHBP]. The
purpose of this hearing was to examine the benefits and costs
savings of health information technology [HIT] and, more
specifically, examine ways in which the FEHBP can provide
incentives for carriers and providers toward the adoption and
implementation of HIT.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Patrick Kennedy, Representative from
Rhode Island; Hon. Tim Murphy, Representative from
Pennsylvania; Linda M. Springer, Director, Office of Personnel
Management; Dr. David Brailer, National Health Information
Technology Coordinator, HHS; Dr. Carolyn Clancy, Director,
Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, HHS; Dr. Harvey
Fineberg, president of the Institute of Medicine; David St.
Clair, founder and CEO, MEDecision Inc.; and Dr. Jan Walker,
RN, MBA Executive Director Center for Information Technology
Leadership [CITL].
9. ``Tension in the Tinderbox: Finding Fairness for Federal Firefighter
Compensation,'' August 12, 2005
a. Summary.--At this hearing the subcommittee examined H.R.
408, the ``Federal Wildland Firefighter Emergency Response
Compensation Act of 2005,'' introduced by Representative
Richard Pombo of California. H.R. 408 addresses compensation
and benefits issues for Federal Wildland Firefighters by
increasing pay while in a fire emergency as well as increasing
the amount used to calculate retirement benefits. Some claimed
that a disparity exists between Federal Wildland Firefighters
and private or public sector contract employees in regards to
compensation. The subcommittee traveled to Southern Nevada to
closely examine the issues surrounding compensation for Federal
Firefighters, including Wildland Firefighters.
b. Witnesses.--Bob Vaught, Forest Supervisor, Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest, U.S. Forest Service; Nancy Kichak,
Associate Director, Strategic Human Resources Policy, Office of
Personnel Management; Ryan Beaman, president of Clark County
Firefighters, International Association of Fire Fighters; and
Casey Judd, business manager, Federal Wildland Fire Service
Association.
10. ``It's Time to REACT--Reauthorizing Executive Authority to
Consolidate Task: Establishing Results and Sunset
Commissions,'' September 27, 2005
a. Summary.--In its fiscal year 2006 budget, the Bush
administration offered two proposals to curb the inefficiency
and lack of accountability in many Federal programs. These
proposals entail the creation of two commissions to assist in
examining vast program areas for needed reforms. On July 14,
2005, Chairman Jon Porter introduced H.R. 3276, the
``Government Reorganization and Improvement of Performance
Act,'' along with chief cosponsors, Chairman Tom Davis and
Representative Kevin Brady. This bill would establish a
commission to help make decisions about the reorganization of
selected Federal program areas. In addition, on July 14,
Representative Kevin Brady introduced H.R. 3277, the ``Federal
Agency Performance Review and Sunset Act'' (Sunset Act), along
with chief cosponsors Chairman Tom Davis and Chairman Jon
Porter. The bill would establish a Sunset Commission to review
the need for each Federal Agency after which it would have to
be positively reauthorized by Congress. Without congressional
action, any agency not reauthorized would be terminated within
2 years of review by the Sunset Commission. At this hearing the
subcommittee examined the need for and possible use of this
legislation.
b. Witnesses.--Clay Johnson, Deputy Director for
Management, Office of Management and Budget; Dr. Paul Light,
Paulette Goddard professor of public service, Robert Wagner
School of Public Service, New York University; Tom Schatz,
president, Citizens Against Government Waste; Maurice McTigue,
vice president for Outreach, Mercatus Center; and Robert Shull,
director of regulatory policy, OMB Watch.
11. ``Mom, Apple Pie, and Working for America: Accountability and
Rewards for the Federal Workforce,'' October 5, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined a Bush administration
proposal, the Working for America Act, to make broad reforms to
the government's personnel systems. The Working for America Act
would create a new system of occupation classification,
compensation, and performance management. It would also place
all Federal employees under a pay-for-performance system. The
hearing brought together representatives of OPM, GAO, Federal
employee unions, and other interested parties to examine and
discuss the proposal. Union witnesses expressed an interest in
examining the personnel systems at the Departments of Defense
and Homeland Security prior to moving forward, but explained
that reform may work if properly administered and funded.
b. Witnesses.--Linda M. Springer, Director, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management; David M. Walker, Comptroller General,
U.S. Government Accountability Office; Theresa S. Shaw, Chief
Operating Officer, Office of Federal Student Aid, U.S.
Department of Education; Max Stier, president and CEO,
Partnership for Public Service; W. Scott Gould, vice president,
public sector strategy and change, Business and Consulting
Service, IBM Global Services; Michael B. Styles, national
president, Federal Managers Association; John Gage, national
president, American Federation of Government Employees; and
Colleen M. Kelley, national president, National Treasury
Employees Union.
12. ``Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: A Case for a Federal Employees
Appeals Court,'' November 9, 2005
a. Summary.--The subcommittee invited representatives from
the Office of Personnel Management [OPM], U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board [MSPB], the Federal Labor Relations Authority
[FLRA], the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], and
the Senior Executives Association to discuss how to streamline
and improve the review procedures of the MSPB, the FLRA, and
the EEOC. This discussion included, but was not limited to,
consolidation of these agencies into one adjudicatory body with
jurisdiction over employee appeals, labor-management matters,
and equal opportunity issues. The subcommittee also examined
how to reduce jurisdictional overlap and improve processing
times.
b. Witnesses.--William Bransford, general counsel, Senior
Executives Association; Neil A.G. McPhie, chairman, Merit
Systems Protection Board; Dale Cabaniss, chairman, Federal
Labor Relations Authority; and Cari Dominguez, Chair, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.
13. ``Mitigating the Impact of High Gas Prices on the American
Workforce,'' November 16, 2005
a. Summary.--With the gasoline price spikes from two
hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast within weeks of each other,
the subcommittee examined the impact this has had on Federal
employees, and what the agencies they work for are doing in
response. Employees that drive into work every day in highly
congested cities consume large amounts of gasoline. It was
estimated that in 2003, traffic congestion caused 3.7 billion
hours of travel delay and 2.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel.
At this hearing the subcommittee was interested to find whether
agencies were promoting the benefits offered through the use of
public transportation, telecommuting, flexiwork and any other
programs that might allow eligible employees to work in
economical and efficient ways.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Frank Wolf, Member of Congress, U.S.
House of Representatives; Hon. James Moran, Member of Congress,
U.S. House of Representatives; Dan Matthews, Chief Information
Officer, Department of Transportation; Tom Calcagni, managing
director for public relations, AAA; William Mularie, chief
executive officer, Telework Consortium; Steve O'Keeffe,
executive director, Telework Exchange; and Steve Hill, Silver
State Material.
14. ``Healthier Feds and Families: Introducing Information Technology
into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program,'' March 15,
2006
a. Summary.--This hearing followed on the subcommittee's
hearing held on July 27, 2005, entitled ``Is There a Doctor in
the Mouse? Using Information Technology to Improve Health
Care.'' This hearing built upon the discussions in that hearing
and also examined how H.R. 4859, the Federal Family Health
Information Technology Act, can improve the quality and
delivery of healthcare for the participants in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the
House; David Powner, Director, IT Management Issues, Government
Accountability Office; Dr. Jane Barlow, well being director,
Health Benefits Operations, IBM; David St. Clair, Board of
Directors member, Health Information Management Systems Society
and founder and CEO of MEDecision Inc.; Dr. Edward F. Ewen Jr.,
director of clinical informatics, Christiana Care Health
Services; Dr. Paul B. Handel, vice president and chief medical
officer Texas Division, HCSC; Jeannine M. Rivet, executive vice
president, UnitedHealth Group; and Dr. Malik M. Hasan, CEO,
HealthView, retired CEO, Health Net.
15. `` OPM's 2007 Budget and New Strategic and Operational Plan: A
Discussion with the OPM Director,'' March 28, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to discuss
OPM's fiscal year 2007 budget allocation and new Strategic and
Operational Plan for 2006-2010. The President's Budget
requested a budget allotment for OPM of $256 million, an
increase of $17.2 million from OPM's fiscal year 2006 post-
recession budget allocation. In addition, the Office of
Personnel Management issued a new Strategic and Operation Plan
for 2006-2010. The subcommittee examined OPM's new Strategic
and Operational Plan and program goals in connection with the
President's Budget.
b. Witness.--Linda Springer, Director, Office of Personnel
Management.
16. ``Travel vs. Terrorism: Federal Workforce Issues in Managing
Airport Security,'' April 4, 2006
a. Summary.--Since September 11, 2001, the security
requirements at airports have changed significantly. For
example, screening and background checks of the Federal and
private sector workforces at airports have been enhanced. The
agencies primarily responsible for these procedures are the
Department of Homeland Security [DHS], which includes the
Transportation Security Administration [TSA], and Customs and
Border Protection [CBP], and the Office of Personnel
Management, Center for Federal Investigative Services. The
Nation relies upon these agencies and their employees for
protection. The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and
Agency Organization is concerned about hiring, training,
deployment, and preparedness of Federal employees at these
agencies. Understanding what these employees do is of paramount
importance because employees have been entrusted with
protecting the lives of American citizens on a day to day
basis.
b. Witnesses.--Cathleen Berrick, Director, Homeland
Security and Justice, Government Accountability Office; Robert
Jamison, Deputy Secretary for Security Operations,
Transportation Security Administration; Kathy Dillaman, Deputy
Associate Director for the Center for Federal Investigative
Services, Office of Personnel Management; and Dawn E. Lucini,
airport security administrator, McCarran International Airport,
Las Vegas.
17. `` Yucca Mountain: Broken Management, Broken Quality Assurance,
Broken Project,'' April 25, 2006
a. Summary.--Pursuant to the subcommittee's investigation
of the Yucca Mountain Project relating to allegations that
Federal employees falsified quality assurance records, Chairman
Porter requested the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to
conduct a followup study on the effectiveness of the Department
of Energy's [DOE] quality assurance program for the Yucca
Mountain Project. GAO has since completed its study and
recently released a report entitled, ``Quality Assurance at
DOE's Planned Nuclear Waste Repository Needs Increased
Management Attention.'' The purpose of this hearing was to
examine GAO's findings in greater detail, and bring attention
to DOE's mismanagement of Yucca Mountain.
b. Witnesses.--Paul M. Golan, Acting Director, Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of
Energy; Gregory Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Energy; Margaret Federline, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; and Jim Wells, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
18. ``Adding a Real Estate Investment Trust [REIT] Index Option to the
Thrift Savings Plan: Considering the Views and Advisory Role of
the Employee Thrift Advisory Council [ETAC],'' April 26, 2006
a. Summary.--On April 12, 2005, Chairman Jon Porter, along
with Representative Chris Van Hollen and full committee
Chairman Tom Davis, introduced H.R. 1578, the ``Real Estate
Investment Thrift Savings Act.'' There has been growing
interest in expanding the options available to employees who
participate in the TSP to include a fund option for investment
in real estate investment trusts [REITs]. REITs have become an
investment vehicle of choice recently for private sector
companies when considering expansion of options available
within 401(k) packages. As the Federal Government seeks to
modernize its recruitment and retention tools to keep pace with
the private sector, REITs can be an important tool in
accomplishing these goals.
This hearing, in particular, examined the substance of the
resolution adopted by the Employee Thrift Advisory Council
[ETAC] on March 7, 2006, opposing the addition of a Real Estate
Investment Trust [REIT] Index Fund to the Thrift Savings Plan;
the information and process used by the ETAC to ascertain the
viewpoint of Federal employees, as reflected in the resolution;
and the role of Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
management with regard to the ETAC's adoption of the resolution
and its decisionmaking process.
b. Witnesses.--Gary A. Amelio, Executive Director, Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Thomas J. Trabucco,
Director, External Affairs, Federal Retirement Thrift
Investment Board; James W. Sauber, chairman, Employee Thrift
Advisory Council; and Richard L. Strombotne, Employee Thrift
Advisory Council member.
19. ``Fair and Balanced? The Status of Pay and Benefits for Non-Article
III Judges,'' May 16, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the concerns of non-
Article III Judges, with an emphasis on Administrative Law
Judges [ALJs]. The subcommittee explored issues pertaining to
the recruitment and retention of these judges including pay
compression, the utility of implementing pay-for-performance
for non-Article III judges, OPM's management of the ALJ
program, and the alleged inequity of retirement benefits
provided to ALJs.
b. Witnesses.--Nancy Kichak, Associate Director, Division
for Strategic Human Resources Policy, Office of Personnel
Management; William Cowan, Deputy Chief Administrative Law
Judge, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, vice president,
Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference; Ronald G.
Bernoski, Administrative Law Judge, Social Security
Administration, president, Association of Administrative Law
Judges; R. Anthony McCann, president of the Board of Contract
Appeals Judges Association; and Denise N. Slavin, president,
National Association of Immigration Judges.
20. ``Reauthorization of the Office of Government Ethics,'' May 23,
2006
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the reauthorization of
the Office of Government Ethics [OGE]. The agency's current
authorization expires at the end of the fiscal year 2006. OGE
was seeking the passage of legislation that would extend the
agency's authorization of appropriations through fiscal year
2011. Marilyn Glynn, Acting Director for the Office of
Government Ethics was called to justify the proposed 5 year
reauthorization.
b. Witness.--Marilyn Glynn, Acting Director, Office of
Government Ethics.
21. ``Healthier Feds and Families: Introducing Information Technology
into the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, a
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4859 Part II,'' June 13, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing followed a subcommittee hearing
held on March 15, 2005, entitled, ``Healthier Feds and
Families: Introducing Information Technology into the Federal
Employee Health Benefits Program.'' This hearing built upon the
discussions in that hearing and also examined how H.R. 4859,
the Federal Family Health Information Technology Act, can
improve the quality and delivery of healthcare for the
participants in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay, Member of Congress,
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Federalism and the
Census; Dan Green, Deputy Associate Director, Center for
Employee and Family Support Policy, OPM; Charles Fallis,
president, National Active and Retired Federal Employees
Association; Colleen Kelley, national president, National
Treasury Employees Union; Jacqueline Simon, director of public
policy, American Federation of Government Employees; Archelle
Georgion, MD, executive VP, strategic relations, Specialized
Care Services, UnitedHealth Group; Stephen W. Gammarino, senior
vice president, National Programs, Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association; and Joe Witkowski, vice president, Government
Employees Hospital Association, Inc.
22. ``Establishing a Commission to Recommend Improvements for the
Federal Employees Appeals Process,'' July 11, 2006
a. Summary.--The current Federal employee appeals and
complaint process is complicated and heard in numerous agencies
and forums. On November 9, 2005, the subcommittee held a
hearing entitled, ``Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: A Case
for a Federal Employees Appeals Court,'' to explore a proposal
to consolidate employee appeals into one forum. At that hearing
Mr. Niel A.G. McPhie, chairman of the U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board, suggested that a commission be formed to
study the Federal employee appeals process. Chairman McPhie's
suggestion was well-received by members of the subcommittee.
This hearing examined the idea of creating a Federal Employees
Appeals Commission to further study the process and to offer
recommendations for improvement.
b. Witnesses.--Neil A.G. McPhie, chairman, Merit Systems
Protection Board; William (Bill) Tobey, Deputy Solicitor,
Federal Labor Relations Authority; Cari Dominguez, Chair, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission; Scott Bloch, Special
Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel; Nancy H. Kichak,
Associate Director, Strategic Human Resource Policy Division,
Office of Personnel Management; Scot Beckenbaugh, acting deputy
director, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; William
Bransford, general counsel, Senior Executives Association;
Colleen M. Kelley, national president, National Treasury
Employees Union; John Gage, national president, American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; and Karen Heiser,
vice president of FMA Chapter 88, Federal Managers Association.
23. ``Telecommuting: A 21st Century Solution to Traffic Jams and
Terrorism,'' July 18, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing specifically examined the need to
increase the use of telecommuting by the Federal Government in
the National Capitol Region to provide: continued government
operations during an emergency or disaster situation, increased
efficiency and productivity in the Federal Government, and an
increase in the quality of life of Federal employees.
b. Witnesses.--Daniel Green, Deputy Associate Director
Center for Workforce Planning and Policy, Analysis, Strategic
Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel
Management; Danette Campbell, Senior Telework Advisor, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office; Carl Froehlich, Chief of Agency-
Wide Shared Services, the Internal Revenue Service; Dr. William
Mularie, CEO, Telework Consortium; Joslyn Read, assistant vice
president, regulatory, Hughes Networks Systems LLC; and Jerry
Edgerton, president business/Federal marketing, Verizon
Communications.
24. ``Retirees Returning to the Rescue: Re-employing Annuitants in
Times of National Need,'' July 25, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the need for legislation
to enhance flexibilities for re-employing annuitants to fill
crucial Federal workforce shortages without the requirement
that salary be offset by annuity. The hearing also examined how
to quickly fill areas of need by encouraging part-time service
both before and after retirement.
b. Witnesses.--Nancy Kichak, Associate Director for
Strategic Human Resources Policy Division, Office of Personnel
Management; Patricia Bradshaw, Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense, Civilian Personnel Policy, Department of Defense;
Barbara Panther, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human
Resources and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs; Dr.
Ronald Sanders, Chief Human Capitol Officer, Office of the
Director of National Intelligence; Charles Fallis, president,
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association; and
Duncan Templeton, national legislative vice president, Federal
Law Enforcement Association.
25. ``Using Information Technology: For the Health of It,'' September
1, 2006 (St. Louis, MO)
a. Summary.--This hearing followed on several subcommittee
hearings dealing with health information technology [HIT] and
the role the Federal Government can and should play in helping
HIT move forward nationally. This hearing focused on current
government progress in HIT. On August 22, 2006 the President
signed a new Executive order, which requires insurance carriers
that do business with the Federal Government to provide price
transparency to their consumers. It also requires these
carriers to adopt certain quality standards which will be
monitored and published by the Office of Personnel Management.
Carriers who adopt HIT will be required to use and follow
interoperability standards that will be recognized by the
Federal Government. The Executive order also requires plans to
develop more consumer driven health options. This Executive
order helps ensure that the benefits Federal employees receive
are the best in quality and choice while preventing premium
rates from increasing due to these changes. The government
witnesses discussed the progress and challenges we now face in
adopting HIT. They also testified about the new Executive order
and what it means for Federal employees and what it means for
the rest of the country. The witnesses from the private sector
and from the higher educational sector discussed the progress
and challenges we are facing in implementing full electronic
health records.
b. Witnesses.--Daniel Green, Deputy Associate Director,
Employee and Family Support Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management; David Powner, Director, IT Management Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; George Paz, president, CEO of
Express Scripts Inc.; Dr. James P. Crane, associate vice
chancellor for clinical affairs, School of Medicine, Washington
University; and Mark A. Rothstein, director of the Institute
for Bioethics Health Policy.
26. ``Executive and Judicial Compensation in the Federal Government
(Quadrennial Commission),'' September 20, 2006
a. Summary.--The purpose of this hearing was to examine the
results of a study conducted by GAO--at the request of the
chairman of this subcommittee--on executive and judicial
compensation in the Federal Government, including discussion
of: inequities in top level compensation in executive and
judicial pay plans; the adverse impact of ``pay erosion'' and
``pay compression'' due to inflation and the failure to keep
pace with changing economic conditions in certain top level
executive and judicial pay plans; and whether re-establishment
of a commission--or some other approach--should be considered
with respect to the possible restructuring of top level pay
plans to maintain reasonable salary relationships across
Federal executive and judicial level positions.
b. Witnesses.--David Walker, Comptroller General of the
United States; D. Brock Hornby, judge, U.S. District Court for
the District of Maine, chairman, judicial branch, Committee of
the Judicial Conference of the United States; Philip M. Pro,
chief judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;
Sean O'Keefe, chancellor, Louisiana State University and former
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
and Dr. Gary Burtless, John C. and Nancy D. Whitehead chair in
economic studies, the Brookings Institution.
VI. Subcommittee on Government Management and Accountability
1. ``The Financial Report of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year
2004,'' February 9, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the findings of the
Government Accountability Office's audit of the fiscal year
2004 consolidated financial statements of the U.S. Government.
For the eighth year in a row, GAO was unable to provide
assurance as to the reliability of the Federal Government's
financial books, resulting in a ``disclaimer of opinion.'' The
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] accelerated the deadline
for submitting financial audits, and Federal agencies closed
their books on November 15, 2004, only 45 days after the end of
the fiscal year. This financial information was then compiled
by the Department of the Treasury in the 2004 Financial Report
of the U.S. Government and audited by GAO. The consolidated
report was issued on December 15, 2004. The accelerated
deadline was a full 3 months earlier than the deadline for the
previous fiscal year and a significant improvement from earlier
years when agencies took up to 5 months to close their books.
Of the 24 major departments and agencies covered by the Chief
Financial Officers Act, Public Law 101-576, all but two were
able to submit audited statements within the accelerated
timeframe. Eighteen were able to earn ``unqualified'' or
``clean'' opinions, but auditors found that many of these
agencies had weaknesses in management safeguards to protect
against fraud and error--known as ``internal controls.'' The
Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban
Development, and Justice, as well as NASA received
``disclaimed'' opinions on their fiscal year 2004 financial
statements, which means that the auditor was unable to assert
that the information was reliable. The Small Business
Administration improved on last year's disclaimed opinion,
earning a ``qualified'' opinion on its fiscal year 2004
statements. This hearing examined the consolidated financial
statements, the reasons that GAO was unable to express an
opinion on them, and the managerial changes that need to take
place so that the Federal Government can produce reliable
financial data for the Congress and the American people.
b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Jack Martin, Chief Financial
Officer, U.S. Department of Education; and Donald V. Hammond,
Fiscal Assistant Secretary, Department of the Treasury.
2. ``Improving Internal Controls: A Review of Changes to OMB Circular
A-123,'' February 16, 2005
a. Summary.--When accounting scandals shook the U.S.
economy early in the decade, Congress responded by placing
stringent new accounting requirements on publicly-traded
companies. The legislation, known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
Public Law 107-204, put responsibility for financial
information squarely in the hands of managers. To ensure that
investors could rely on financial reports, Sarbanes-Oxley
required companies to document the safeguards they have in
place to prevent errors or fraud, commonly known as ``internal
controls.'' Internal controls are the checks and balances that
help managers detect and prevent problems. Internal controls
provide a foundation for accountability, and, while they are
important in the private sector, sound controls are imperative
in government. Internal control problems are nothing new in the
Federal Government. For example, the Federal Government makes
approximately $45 billion in mistaken payments every year. When
audits at the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] revealed
egregious internal controls problems, the subcommittee proposed
and successfully enacted legislation, Public Law 108-330, to
require DHS management to take responsibility for improving
internal controls and to have an auditor attest to those
improvements. In light of this legislation and the new
requirements for the private sector under Sarbanes-Oxley, the
Office of Management and Budget [OMB] re-examined the
requirements Federal agencies face. Using information gleaned
from a committee of agency Chief Financial Officers and
Inspectors General, OMB issued new guidelines, Circular A-123,
in December 2004 that, like Sarbanes-Oxley and the requirements
at DHS, puts more responsibility on agency management and
clearly defines the steps that need to be taken and documented
to ensure that internal controls are sound. This hearing
examined the changes in Circular A-123, and the steps that will
be taken to improve internal controls in Federal agencies as a
result of the changes.
b. Witnesses.--Otto J. Wolff, Chief Financial Officer and
Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce,
member of the Chief Financial Officers Council; Christopher B.
Burnham, Acting Under Secretary for Management, Assistant
Secretary for Resource Management, and Chief Financial Officer,
U.S. Department of State, member of the Chief Financial
Officers Council; John P. Higgins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Education, member of the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency; and Jeffrey C. Steinhoff, Managing
Director of Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
3. ``Protecting Pensions and Ensuring the Solvency of PBGC,'' March 2,
2005
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corp.'s [PBGC] financial situation. PBGC is a Federal
agency established as an insurer in 1974 by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, Public Law 93-406. It was
created to protect the pensions of participants and
beneficiaries covered by private sector defined benefit plans.
The PBGC runs two distinct insurance programs for single-
employer and multi-employer plans. Multi-employer plans are
collectively bargained plans to which more than one company
makes contributions. PBGC maintains separate reserve funds for
each program. In 2004, it insured private pensions for 44
million persons participating in about 30,200 plans, including
about 1,600 multi-employer plans. In fiscal year 2004, PBGC
paid over $3 billion in benefits to almost 520,000 people in
about 3,500 plans. A firm must be in financial distress to end
an underfunded plan. Recent weaknesses in the steel and airline
industries led to large and expensive plan terminations that
have over time left the PBGC with a deficit of over $23
billion. This hearing examined structural changes to how the
PBGC operates to allow the PBGC to react like a traditional
insurance provider would to perceived risk in its
policyholders. The subcommittee continues to monitor the PBGC's
financial health, and at the time this summary was written,
several legislative proposals to reform the PBGC to eliminate
its funding shortfalls were being considered by Congress.
b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Brad Belt, Executive
Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.; and Doug Elliot,
president, Center on Federal Financial Institutions.
4. ``Strengthening Travel Reimbursement Procedures for Army National
Guard Soldiers,'' March 16, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing was an extension of the
subcommittee's oversight of the pay problems that have plagued
Army National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers mobilized since
September 11, 2001 as a part of Operations Noble Eagle,
Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom. The House Government
Reform Committee held a hearing on January 28, 2004, to look at
pay problems with several National Guard units, which were
identified by GAO in a November 2003 report. The subcommittee
then held a hearing on July 20, 2004 looking specifically at
pay problems for Army Reserve soldiers. As a result of these
hearings, GAO developed 50 recommendations for the Department
of Defense [DOD] to improve its financial systems used to
process these payments. Committee staff and DOD personnel meet
quarterly to assess the progress in implementing those
recommendations. At this hearing, the subcommittee examined the
findings of GAO's report, GAO-05-79, on travel reimbursement
procedures for National Guard troops. This report found that a
number of deployed National Guard soldiers experienced problems
receiving appropriate travel and per diem reimbursement. DOD
has been very responsive to the efforts of GAO and the
committee, and the hearing provided DOD with an opportunity to
respond to the GAO report and discuss many of the management
and systems improvements they have made to improve accuracy of
the travel and per diem reimbursement processes.
b. Witnesses.--Patrick T. Shine, Director, Military and
Civilian Pay Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service;
John Argodale, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial
Operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management and Comptroller; Roy Wallace, Director of
Plans and Resources, Department of the Army; and Gregory D.
Kutz, Director of Financial Management and Assurance, U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
5. ``Financial Management Challenges at the Department of Justice,''
May 4, 2005
a. Summary.--For fiscal year 2004, the Department of
Justice's [DOJ] auditors were unable to express an opinion as
to the reliability of DOJ's financial statements, and they
rescinded the unqualified opinion rendered on DOJ's 2003
statements. The purpose of this hearing was to examine these
audit results, which revealed serious accounting problems that
have impacted DOJ's ability to achieve its mission. The most
serious problems occurred in the area of grants management,
including the Community Oriented Policing Services Program. The
hearing also examined DOJ's struggles with its management of
large information technology investments, such as DOJ's
attempts to implement a DOJ wide financial management system
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's failed investment of
$170 million for a system that will not work as intended. At
the hearing, DOJ discussed its efforts to address the
challenges identified in the audit. DOJ worked hard to address
these issues, and for fiscal year 2005, DOJ regained its clean
audit opinion.
b. Witnesses.--Paul R.Corts, Assistant Attorney General for
Administration and Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of
Justice; and Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Justice, accompanied by Marilyn A. Kessinger, Director,
Financial Statement Audit Office, Office of the Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Justice.
6. ``Information Policy in the 21st Century: A Review of the Freedom of
Information Act,'' May 11, 2005
a. Summary.--The Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], 5 USC
Sec. 552, was originally signed into law almost 40 years ago,
in 1966. FOIA established a statutory right of public access to
executive branch information in the Federal Government. FOIA
generally provides that any person has a right, enforceable in
Federal court, to obtain access to Federal agency records. The
framers of FOIA, however, realized that the public's right to
know must be balanced against the Federal Government's right to
keep information in confidence to the extent necessary without
permitting indiscriminate secrecy. FOIA originally included
nine categories of information protected from disclosure.
Congress has added additional exemptions over time. It is a
constant struggle to maintain the appropriate balance between
the public's need for open government while protecting
information vital to national security and preserving the
confidentiality of certain personal information. This hearing
gave the subcommittee a chance to examine the security,
information management, and resource challenges that Federal
agencies face in the post-September 11th information age. The
subcommittee heard testimony from the Department of Justice who
is responsible for providing agencies with FOIA guidance and
encouraging compliance with FOIA. Furthermore, the National
Archives and Records Administration, who faces the huge task of
electronically archiving millions of government documents so
they may be available for future generations, testified on
their experience with FOIA and meeting the challenge of
providing ready access to public information. Finally, the
subcommittee heard from FOIA requestors to understand the
opportunities to improve FOIA. In part as a result of this
hearing and the committee's oversight activities related to
FOIA, the President signed an Executive order on December 14,
2005 to improve the administration of FOIA to make it more
citizen-centered and service-oriented for FOIA requestors.
b. Witnesses.--Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United
States, National Archives and Records Administration,
accompanied by Dr. Michael Kurtz, Assistant Archivist for
Records Programs, National Archives and Records Administration;
Carl Nichols, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Federal
Programs Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice;
Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Jay Smith, chairman, Newspaper
Association of America and president, Cox Newspapers Inc.; Ari
Schwartz, associate director, Center for Democracy and
Technology; and Mark Tapscott, director, Center for Media and
Public Policy, the Heritage Foundation.
7. ``Business Systems Modernization at the Department of Defense,''
June 8, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation of the
subcommittee's oversight of the business modernization efforts
currently underway at the Department of Defense [DOD].
Continual audits and investigations by GAO and DOD auditors
confirm the existence of pervasive weaknesses in DOD's
financial management and related business processes and
systems. The problems have (1) resulted in a lack of reliable
information needed to make sound decisions and report on the
status of day-to-day activities, including accountability of
assets, and financial and other reports to Congress and DOD
decisionmakers, (2) hindered operational efficiency, (3)
adversely affected mission performance, and (4) left DOD
vulnerable to fraud and waste. Although the senior DOD
leadership has repeatedly committed itself to transforming and
improving the department's financial management and business
process systems, limited progress has been made since Secretary
Rumsfeld announced the effort in 2001. This hearing provided an
update on the status of the Business Enterprise Architecture
and the implementation of financial management and business
process reforms, known as the Business Management Modernization
Project, including reviewing suggestions for accelerating
reforms and overcoming obstacles that hinder their
implementation. In part as a result of the committee's
oversight, DOD recently announced the creation of the Business
Transformation Agency to oversee its business modernization
efforts; the subcommittee will monitor the effect of the new
agency.
b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Director, Financial
Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability
Office, accompanied by Randy Hite, Director, Information
Technology Architecture and Systems Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Thomas Modly, Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Financial Management, Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense; and Paul A. Brinkley,
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Business Transformation, U.S. Department of Defense.
8. ``The Evolution of Federal Financial Management: A Review of the
Need to Consolidate, Simplify, and Streamline,'' June 22, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing was the first in a series of
discussions on how best to consolidate, simplify, and
streamline the laws that govern Federal agency financial
management. More than 800 pages of statutory text, some of
which dates back to the 1920s, govern the daily decisions of
Federal managers. The result is overlapping and often-obsolete
reporting requirements and wasted effort. The right financial
management reform will ensure that government managers are
accountable to taxpayers in the most effective manner possible
so that tax dollars are spent for their intended purpose, not
to generate useless reports or pay for unneeded overhead. The
driving force behind financial management should be
accountability, not the generation of reports and paperwork.
The long-term goal behind this hearing is to develop
legislation that would simplify, streamline and enhance the
laws governing agency financial management. The subcommittee
has been working with an Advisory Panel from the National
Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] composed of NAPA
fellows with expertise in financial, budgetary, and performance
management as well as program operations. Members of the
Advisory Panel testified about what they see as the key issues
for reforming Federal financial management practices. The
subcommittee will continue working on this issue throughout the
second session of the 109th Congress.
b. Witnesses.--C. Morgan Kinghorn, president, National
Academy of Public Administration; Edward DeSeve, vice chairman,
Board of Directors, National Academy of Public Administration;
and Edward Kearney, managing partner, Kearney and Co.,
Certified Public Accountants, accompanied by Cornelius E.
Tierney, Kearney and Co., Certified Public Accountants.
9. ``Implementing the Improper Payments Information Act: Are We Making
Progress?'' July 20, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation in a series of
hearings that the subcommittee started in the 108th Congress to
examine executive branch efforts to measure and prevent
improper payments. The Federal Government is currently making
at least $45.1 billion worth of improper payments each fiscal
year. The current administration has made the elimination of
improper payments a major focus of the President's management
agenda [PMA] both through the Improving Financial Performance
initiative and the Eliminating Improper Payments program
initiative. On November 26, 2002, the President signed into law
the Improper Payments Information Act [IPIA] of 2002, Public
Law 107-300. With the passage of IPIA, Congress and the
President institutionalized Federal agency efforts to eliminate
improper payments. This law requires Federal agencies, for the
first time in the history of Federal spending, to annually
estimate the amount of improper payments that agencies make.
The purpose of IPIA is to enhance the accuracy and integrity of
Federal payments. IPIA provides a framework for Federal
agencies to identify the reasons behind improper payments and
to develop solutions that will reduce and prevent improper
payments. Federal agencies reported on their efforts to
implement IPIA for the first time at the end of fiscal year
2004. These agency reports represent the best information to
date on the extent of improper payments and the critical
challenges that must be overcome to eliminate them. Based on
agency-established reduction targets, the Office of Management
and Budget is working with agencies to reduce the government-
wide improper payments total for the next round of reporting in
fiscal year 2005. This hearing provided the subcommittee with
the opportunity to take a look at the improper payment figures
from fiscal year 2004, the efforts to refine those figures and
to reduce improper payments in fiscal year 2005, and the
challenges that lay ahead to improving the accuracy and
integrity of Federal payments.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget;
and McCoy Williams, Director, Financial Management and
Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
10. ``DHS in Transition: Are Financial Management Problems Hindering
Mission Effectiveness?'' July 27, 2005
a. Summary.--At this hearing, the subcommittee focused on
the financial management problems at the Department of Homeland
Security [DHS]. Just prior to the hearing, DHS Secretary
Michael Chertoff released the results of his Second Stage
Review of the organization of DHS. The subcommittee was
concerned that the recommendations did not appear to have
placed the proper emphasis on financial accountability. This
omission is concerning because DHS faces serious accounting
problems, including mismanagement of large contracts at the
Transportation Security Administration, ineffective control of
grants processing, and budget shortfalls at the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For the past 3 fiscal
years, the Department has been unable to produce audited
financial statements, as required by law. According to the
audit results for fiscal year 2004, the most serious weakness
at DHS is its current financial management structure, under
which the Department's Chief Financial Officer reports to the
Under Secretary for Management rather than directly to the
Secretary. Chairman Platts was the chief sponsor of the DHS
Financial Accountability Act, Public Law 108-330, which applied
the provisions of the Chief Financial Officers Act [CFO] of
1990, Public Law 101-576, to DHS. Under the act, all
Departments must have a Senate-confirmed CFO who reports
directly to the Secretary. This hearing gave the subcommittee
an opportunity to ask the Department of Homeland Security why
it had not yet complied with the requirement to nominate a new
CFO for Senate confirmation and to adjust its organizational
structure to give the CFO direct access to the Secretary, as
set forth in the DHS Financial Accountability Act, which was
signed into law on October 16, 2004. As a direct result of this
hearing, DHS changed its organizational chart to reflect the
direct reporting relationship of the CFO to the Secretary. At
the time of the writing of this report, DHS has yet to put
forward a nominee to go through Senate confirmation. The
subcommittee is continuing to monitor this situation.
b. Witnesses.--Janet Hale, Undersecretary for Management,
Department of Homeland Security; Andrew Maner, Chief Financial
Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Linda Combs,
Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of
Management and Budget; and Richard Skinner, Acting Inspector
General, Department of Homeland Security.
11. ``Implementing Cost Accounting at the Department of Veterans
Affairs and the Department of Labor,'' September 21, 2005
a. Summary.--Reliable information on the true cost of
Federal programs is needed to manage agency operations
effectively and to improve mission performance. In the current
budget environment, this information is particularly important
as agencies try to accomplish their missions with fewer
resources. A case in point is the recent budget crisis at the
Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. In June 2005, the Congress
passed legislation providing $1.5 billion in emergency funds
for VA's health care programs in fiscal year 2005. The total
funding increase for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 will amount to
$2.5 billion. The Department had not anticipated the need for
additional funding, and VA Secretary Jim Nicholson, testifying
before the House Veterans Affairs Committee, blamed the
failures on inaccurate data and outdated assumptions. Timely,
accurate cost accounting data is integral to effective
budgeting. Managerial cost accounting, often referred to as
``cost accounting,'' is the collection and analysis of
financial and non-financial data with the goal of understanding
the true costs of programs on a micro-level. The subcommittee
requested that GAO conduct a series of case studies to
determine the extent to which Federal agencies develop cost
information and use it for managerial decisionmaking. In its
first study, GAO contrasted practices at VA with those at the
Department of Labor, a leader in Federal financial management.
The results of this case study, GAO-05-1013R, were examined at
this hearing.
b. Witnesses.--Samuel Mok, Chief Financial Officer, U.S.
Department of Labor; Tim S. McClain, General Counsel and Acting
Chief Management Officer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;
and Robert Martin, Director, Financial Management and
Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
12. ``Financial Services Sector Preparedness,'' September 26, 2005
(Brooklyn, NY)
a. Summary.--The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
and the destruction of the World Trade Center struck at the
heart of the Nation's financial sector. The rapid recovery of
the financial infrastructure inspired confidence as the U.S.
Treasury securities market opened just 2 days later, and the
equities market was in full operation by September 17th. Still,
Congress, the executive branch, and industry groups realized
that financial firms would need new contingency plans and
stress tests to protect against more extreme situations in the
future. The Federal Government in partnership with local
governments and the private sector has responded to the need to
continue to strengthen the resiliency of the Nation's financial
infrastructure through a variety of initiatives. Many of these
post September 11th improvements were tested during the massive
power blackout in the northeastern United States and Canada on
August 14, 2003. All indications after the blackout were that
improvements put in place after September 11, 2001, helped
mitigate the damage that could have resulted from the
infrastructure shutdown that the blackout caused. These results
are encouraging. The purpose of this field hearing, which was
held in New York City, the financial capital of the world, was
to examine the present status of financial market preparedness
for wide-scale disasters or disruptions, including efforts
aimed at prevention, detection, and response. The hearing
provided local, State, and Federal Government officials and
representatives from the private sector a chance to discuss
accomplishments and identify areas where improvements and
resources are still needed.
b. Witnesses.--Raymond Kelly, police commissioner, city of
New York; Scott Parsons, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Critical
Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy, Department of
the Treasury; R. James Caverly, Director, Infrastructure
Coordination Division, Department of Homeland Security; Daniel
Muccia, first deputy superintendent of banks, State of New York
Banking Department; Catherine Allen, chief executive officer,
BITS; Donald Donahue, chairman, Financial Services Sector
Coordinating Council for Critical Infrastructure Protection and
Homeland Security; Samuel Gaer, chief information officer, New
York Mercantile Exchange, Inc., chief executive officer, NYMEX
Europe Limited; and Steve Randich, executive vice president of
operations and technology and chief information officer, the
NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc.
13. ``Financial Management Challenges at the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration [NASA],'' October 27, 2005
a. Summary.--At this hearing, the subcommittee examined
financial management problems at the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration [NASA]. The hearing was conducted jointly
with the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House
Committee on Science, chaired by Representative Ken Calvert of
California. Audits performed over the past several years have
revealed serious financial management problems at NASA. Since
fiscal year 2003, auditors have been unable to attest to the
reliability of NASA's financial data, issuing what is known as
a ``disclaimer of opinion'' each year on the agency's financial
statements. Chairman Platts held an oversight hearing in May
2004 to look at the results of the fiscal year 2003 audit and
the implementation of a major financial system overhaul, the
Integrated Enterprise Management Program [IEMP], which began in
the middle of 2003. Although NASA management blamed conversion
to the new system for its poor audit performance in both fiscal
years 2003 and 2004, auditors also found that NASA did not
follow proper accounting procedures, did not accurately account
for property and equipment, and was unable to effectively
reconcile its Treasury account--the equivalent of balancing its
checkbook. Auditors have also expressed concerns about human
capital management within the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer [CFO], specifically whether the CFO at NASA
headquarters has the appropriate authority over financial
management at NASA's 10 independent centers. This hearing
addressed the preliminary findings of NASA's financial audit
for fiscal year 2004. The subcommittee also examined how NASA
is managing the implementation of its new financial system, the
IEMP, and how it has addressed the persistent weaknesses
identified through successive audits.
b. Witnesses.--Gwendolyn Sykes, Chief Financial Officer,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Patrick Ciganer,
IEMP Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Robert W. Cobb, Inspector General, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; and Greg Kutz, Director, Forensic Audit
and Special Investigations, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
14. ``15 Years of the CFO Act--What is the Current State of Federal
Financial Management?'' November 17, 2005
a. Summary.--November 15, 2005 marked the 15th Anniversary
of the enactment of the Chief Financial Officers [CFO] Act,
Public Law 101-576. This landmark legislation provided a new
accountability framework for Federal financial management.
First, the CFO Act centralized responsibility for financial
management in the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. The
CFO Act created the Offices of the Deputy Director for
Management and Federal Financial Management within OMB along
with the positions that head up these two offices, the Deputy
Director for Management and the Controller, who are both
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. By
creating these new positions in OMB, the CFO Act established a
focal point and leadership for implementing government-wide
financial management improvement efforts. Furthermore, by
establishing CFOs in the largest departments and agencies with
a direct line of reporting to the heads of those agencies, the
act provided a new source of leadership for agency-by-agency
financial management improvement. These CFOs coordinate with
one another through the interagency CFO Council, which was
established by the CFO Act as well. The act also laid the
foundation for requiring annual financial audits of essentially
all Federal operations. The requirement for audited financial
statements of all agency accounts has now been in place for 10
fiscal years, and on November 15, 2005, departments and
agencies reported on the results of their audits for fiscal
year 2005, just 45 days after the end of the fiscal year.
Fifteen years ago this would have been impossible. Although
many agencies have made steady progress in implementing the
requirements of the CFO Act, the audit results over the past 3
fiscal years show signs of stagnation. For the first round of
audits of agency financial statements for fiscal year 1996,
only 6 out of 24 CFO Act agencies were able to achieve a clean
opinion. The number of clean opinions peaked with the audit
results of fiscal year 2002, when 21 out of the 24 CFO Act
agencies received clean opinions. For fiscal years 2003, 2004
and 2005, only 18 out of 24 agencies received clean opinions,
and over that period a total of nine different agencies have
received less than clean opinions. For fiscal year 2005, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration all received
disclaimers as they did the previous two fiscal years. The
Department of Energy and the General Services Administration
went from clean opinions in fiscal year 2004 to disclaimers for
fiscal year 2005. Finally, the Department of State went from a
clean opinion in fiscal year 2004 to a qualified opinion for
fiscal year 2005. This hearing gave the Members of the
subcommittee the opportunity to examine how far the Federal
Government has come in improving its financial management and
whether agencies are able to generate the kind of complete,
reliable, consistent, timely, and uniform financial information
that key decisionmakers need to finance, manage, and evaluate
Federal programs.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget;
and Jeffrey C. Steinhoff, Managing Director, Financial
Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
15. ``U.S. Fiscal Outlook and the Fiscal Year 2005 Governmentwide
Financial Statements,'' March 1, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed, for the fourth time
since Representative Platts took over as chairman of the
subcommittee, the Financial Report of the U.S. Government,
which provides one of the best snapshots of the financial
health of the Federal Government at the end of each fiscal
year. The report includes the results of the Federal
Government's financial operations, its financial condition, its
revenues and costs, assets and liabilities, and other
obligations and commitments. In contrast to the Federal budget,
which uses a cash basis for reporting, the Financial Report is
compiled on an accrual basis. This difference makes the
Financial Report far more dynamic in contrast to the budget.
While the budget can be used as a planning and control tool for
the current fiscal year, the Financial Report may be used as a
tool for analyzing longer-term obligations and spending and
revenue trends.
The 2005 Financial Report of the U.S. Government represents
the ninth time that the Department of the Treasury has
published the report in its current format. The results
contained in the 2005 Financial Report showed that the net
operating cost of the Federal Government, which is the excess
of expenses over revenues, was $760 billion for fiscal year
2005. The 2005 Financial Report contrasts this number to the
$319 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2005, and explains
why although the budget deficit decreased by $93 billion from
fiscal years 2004 to 2005, the net operating cost of the
Federal Government actually increased by $144 billion. The 2005
Financial Report also contains an analysis of the Social
Security and Medicare trustees' annual report on the Social
Security and Medicare Trust funds. While the 10-year fiscal
outlook for these funds is basically stable, the 75-year fiscal
outlook for these funds is not nearly as good. In fact,
according to the 2005 Financial Report, the net present value
of the total resources needed to fund the Social Security and
Medicare programs over the next 75 years is approximately $35.6
trillion. This number represents the resources needed above and
beyond the funding that these programs will receive from
payroll taxes, benefit taxes, and premium payments.
b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the
United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and
Donald V. Hammond, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department
of the Treasury.
16. ``OMB's Financial Management Line of Business Initiative: Too Much
Too Soon?'' March 15, 2006
a. Summary.--In 2004, the Office of Management and Budget
announced the creation of its Lines of Business initiative,
which aimed to consolidate duplicative functions across the
Federal Government. The goal is to save taxpayer dollars by
realizing economies of scale using a shared services model to
provide ``back-office'' functions, such as Human Resources,
Case Management, Grants Management, Financial Management,
Federal Health Architecture, Information Technology Security,
and others. A service provider could be another Federal agency
or a private sector host.
This hearing examined the progress made in the Financial
Management Line of Business. In the President's Fiscal Year
2005 Budget, four Federal agencies were designated by OMB as
``Centers of Excellence'' and are now eligible to provide
financial management services for other Federal agencies. OMB
has been encouraging agencies to give serious consideration to
either becoming or using Centers of Excellence as they make
decisions to upgrade their financial systems. In fact, the
initial OMB guidance required that agencies continue with
financial management upgrades only with the approval of a
business case--commonly known as an exhibit 300--that
demonstrates the cost effectiveness of a system upgrade over
use of the shared service model via a Center of Excellence.
While the concept of a shared service model has significant
merit, there are important considerations that need to be
addressed as the initiative moves forward. Agencies need clear
guidance, a realistic view of the state of Federal financial
management, meaningful performance metrics, effective contracts
between host and customer agencies, and better cost accounting
in order for the concept to work as envisioned. Also,
implementation of the concept needs to evolve at an appropriate
pace. This hearing provided an important dialog on these and
other topics.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget;
Karen Evans, Administrator, Office of Electronic Government and
Information Technology, Office of Management and Budget; Joseph
Kull, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; John Marshall, vice
president, CGI Federal; and Clifton A. Williams, partner, Grant
Thornton LLP.
17. ``Department of Homeland Security Information Technology Challenges
and the Future of eMerge2,'' March 29, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing, held jointly with the Committee
on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Management, Integration
and Oversight, provided the subcommittee an opportunity to gain
a better understanding of the Department of Homeland Security's
information technology needs and challenges. DHS faces
tremendous challenges as it attempts to find ways to meet its
business objectives while leveraging the systems it inherited
from the 22 organizations that came together to form DHS. From
a financial management perspective, DHS appears stalled. For
the past 3 years, DHS' auditors have not been able to give an
audit opinion on DHS balance sheet, which is the most basic of
financial statements. In the Auditor's Report for Fiscal Year
2005, DHS' Inspector General stated that DHS made little or no
progress to improve its overall financial reporting in fiscal
year 2005. The indication for fiscal year 2006 is that things
may actually get worse. Hopefully, the increasingly negative
audit results are a sign that DHS and its auditors are getting
better information about the true state of financial management
within DHS so they can find and solve the problems. This
hearing was crucial in providing the subcommittee's Members an
opportunity to explore these issues and get a better sense of
the future of financial and information technology management
at DHS.
b. Witnesses.--Eugene Schied, Acting Chief Financial
Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Scott Charbo, Chief
Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security; McCoy
Williams, Director, Financial Management and Assurance,
Government Accountability Office; and Randy Hite, Director,
Information Technology Architecture and Systems, Government
Accountability Office.
18. ``The Improper Payments Information Act--Are Agencies Meeting the
Requirements of the Law?'' April 5, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing was a continuation in a series of
hearings that the subcommittee started in the 108th Congress on
the topic of reducing and eliminating improper payments in
Federal programs. The current administration has made the
elimination of improper payments a major focus of the
President's management agenda both through the Improving
Financial Performance initiative and the Eliminating Improper
Payments program initiative. Congress and the President
institutionalized Federal agency efforts to eliminate improper
payments with the passage of the Improper Payments Information
Act [IPIA] of 2002. IPIA's purpose is to enhance the accuracy
and integrity of Federal payments by providing a framework for
Federal agencies to identify the causes of, and solutions to,
reducing improper payments. The Office of Management and Budget
[OMB] issued guidance to agencies in May 2003 on implementing
IPIA. Federal agencies reported on their efforts to implement
IPIA for the first time in fiscal year 2004. These reports
established a baseline number of $45.1 billion in improper
payments reported for fiscal year 2004. For fiscal year 2005,
agencies reported a total of approximately $38.5 billion in
improper payments. The lower number for fiscal year 2005 is
largely accounted for by a $9.6 billion decrease in the
improper payments reported by the Department of Health and
Human Services [HHS] for the Medicare program. There was
however a $2 billion increase in the improper payments reported
by the Social Security Administration for Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance and Disability Insurance. Furthermore, 17 programs
that had not reported prior to fiscal year 2005 reported new
improper payments of $1.2 billion.
These figures raise questions about the implementation of
IPIA and the quality of reporting from agency to agency. First,
there are some large programs like Medicaid, which will expend
$340 billion in fiscal year 2006 and which definitely has
significant improper payments, whose agencies have yet to
figure out a way to estimate and report on improper payments
for these programs.
Finally, this hearing provided the subcommittee with an
opportunity to hear a detailed assessment of how HHS was able
to lower the error rate for Medicare so dramatically during
fiscal year 2005, which led to the reported improper payment
figure dropping by $7.8 billion. The subcommittee examined
whether these improvements were the result of program
management changes or whether the reduction in the improper
payments number for Medicare was the result of how the
information was gathered rather than the implementation of new
financial controls over Medicare payments.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget;
Charles E. Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Budget, Technology,
and Finance, Department of Health and Human Services; Timothy
B. Hill, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Office of
Financial Management, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services; and McCoy Williams, Director, Financial Management
and Assurance, Government Accountability Office.
19. ``After Katrina: The Role of the Department of Justice Katrina
Fraud Task Force and Agency Inspectors General in Preventing
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse,'' May 10, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the activities and
effectiveness of the government-wide effort by agency
inspectors general, as well as the DOJ Hurricane Katrina Fraud
Task Force, to ensure accountability in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the
Gulf Coast States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Florida with torrential rains and severe winds, destroying
thousands of square miles of residential and commercial areas,
causing the failure of the city of New Orleans levee system,
and leaving many areas along the Gulf Coast uninhabitable. By
September 9, 2005, Congress had provided over $63 billion to
DHS for disaster relief, including $15 million to the DHS
Office of Inspector General to oversee the management and
expenditure of these funds. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency [FEMA] tasked other Federal departments and agencies
through Mission Assignments, totaling over $7 billion, more
than $6 billion of which went to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Today, more than $100 billion has been appropriated by Congress
to a variety of Federal agencies involved in the relief effort.
In response to a request by Chairman Tom Davis of the House
Government Reform Committee and Chairman Todd Platts of the
Government Management, Finance and Accountability Subcommittee,
the DHS OIG developed a plan for oversight of the funds to be
spent directly by the DHS components. In addition, the dozen or
so other Federal agencies that will play a significant role in
the Hurricane Katrina rebuilding effort have each developed
oversight plans for their respective agencies to ensure that
federally appropriated funds are spent wisely.
The overriding objective of the oversight plans developed
by the DHS OIG and the other OIG offices involved with the
Hurricane Katrina recovery and rebuilding is to ensure
accountability. Therefore, the plans are focused heavily on
pro-active, preventative measures, including reviewing and
testing internal financial controls; monitoring and advising
agency officials on contracts, grants and other financial
transactions before they are approved; and meeting with
contractors and applicants to advise them of the requirements
and to assess their capabilities to properly account for the
funds. In addition, the plans call for aggressive audit and
investigative efforts designed to identify and address waste
fraud and abuse as early as possible.
The subcommittee made two visits to the Gulf Coast to
review the activities of the inspector general community and to
ensure that the accountability structure that has been put in
place is effective and provides the best defense against waste,
fraud, abuse and mismanagement of federally appropriated funds.
The DHS Office of Inspector General, along with the other major
Federal agencies involved with the Katrina recovery effort, are
also coordinating their efforts with the Department of Justice,
which established the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force on
September 8, 2005, to deter, detect and prosecute individuals
who commit fraud in the wake of this disaster. This hearing
gave the subcommittee's members an opportunity to discuss with
key officials plans for future oversight as well as review the
lessons learned from the immediate aftermath of the hurricane.
b. Witnesses.--Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General,
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Chair, Hurricane
Katrina Fraud Task Force; Matt Jadacki, Special Inspector
General for Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery, Department of
Homeland Security; Ken Donohue, Inspector General, Department
of Housing and Urban Development; Eric Thorson, Inspector
General, Small Business Administration; and Thomas Gimble,
Principal Deputy Inspector General, Department of Defense.
20. ``Financial Management Challenges at the General Services
Administration,'' June 7, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing, another in a series of hearings
on agency-specific financial audit and management issues,
looked at how recently uncovered financial management problems
will impact GSA in the future, discussed recent financial audit
findings, as well as possible implications for GSA's customer
agencies. In addition, the hearing reviewed GSA's role in OMB's
financial management line of business initiative.
GSA was established through the Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 to consolidate real estate, supply, and
support functions. Today, in addition to those core functions,
GSA also works with departments and agencies to establish
management policies. GSA serves as the lead agency for the
Office of Management and Budget's Financial Management Line of
Business [FMLoB], and it is one of four designated Shared
Services Providers. In this dual role, GSA will not only bid to
provide financial management services for other Federal
agencies, it will set the standards for the government-wide
implementation of the FMLoB.
With GSA's high-profile role in Federal financial
management and the impact of its operations government-wide,
the subcommittee was concerned by the results of GSA's fiscal
year 2006 financial audit. In short, auditors were unable to
attest to the reliability of GSA's financial statements,
resulting in a disclaimer of opinion.
The primary problem involved reconciliations between GSA's
core financial system and the systems of its three
``Services:'' the Federal Technology Service [FTS], the Federal
Supply Service [FSS], and the Public Buildings Service [PBS].
Specifically, the systems at FTS, FSS, and PBS were unable to
adequately record detailed budget transactions for customer
agencies throughout the year. The hearing gave members an
opportunity to hear from key GSA witnesses about the problems
and plans to ensure that GSA financial management gets back on
track.
b. Witnesses.--Kathleen Turco, Chief Financial Officer,
General Services Administration; and Eugene L. Waszily, Jr.,
Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, General Services
Administration.
21. ``OMB's Financial Management Line of Business Initiative--Do Recent
Changes to the Implementation Guidance Clarify the Rules?''
June 28, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing served as a follow up to the
subcommittee's March 15th hearing on OMB's Financial Management
Line of Business initiative [FMLoB]. After hearing from two OMB
officials and private sector witnesses, the subcommittee
concluded that guidance to both Federal managers and private
sector providers was unclear and that many unanswered questions
remained. At that hearing, OMB stated that they would be
issuing draft guidance on March 30, 2006.
Unfortunately, the draft guidance and the changes contained
therein raised more questions than answers. Specifically, one
of the biggest changes announced by OMB is the plan to utilize
the competitive framework in Circular A-76 to guide migration.
Previously, OMB had indicated that Federal agencies would use a
capital asset investment business case--known as an exhibit
300--as the primary means for analyzing the possible move to a
shared service provider. The use of A-76 carries significant
implications for all stakeholders--from Federal employee unions
to private sector hosts.
While the subcommittee acknowledges that the shared service
model has significant merit, and it is being employed
successfully on a small scale throughout government. The scope
and timeline of the FMLoB, however, have garnered criticism
from nearly all stakeholders, and there are important
considerations that need to be addressed as the initiative
moves forward. Many important questions from the subcommittee's
March hearing remain unanswered--such as how competition will
be balanced among ``franchise fund'' service providers and
``Economy Act'' services providers. This hearing provided an
important dialog on these and other topics and allowed the
subcommittee's members to hear from additional stakeholders.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Linda Combs, Controller, Office of
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget;
Mary Mitchell, Deputy Associate Administrator, General Services
Administration; James Krouse, Acting Director, Public Sector
Market Analysis; Jacque Simon, Public Policy Director, American
Federation of Government Employees; and Stan Z. Soloway,
president, Professional Services Council.
22. ``Securing Our Ports: Information Sharing is Key to Effective
Maritime Security,'' July 10, 2006 (Brooklyn, NY)
a. Summary.--This hearing allowed the members of the
subcommittee, particularly those members who serve the State of
New York in the Congress, an opportunity to discuss an issue of
significant regional importance. Following on the April 2005
Government Accountability Office report entitled, Maritime
Security: New Structures Have Improved Information Sharing, but
Security Clearance Processing Requires Further Attention (GAO-
05-394), which examined the impact of information sharing
between Federal, State, and local entities on overall port
security, the hearing reviewed port security efforts in and
around New York City with key regional stakeholders.
Securing the Nation's ports against a potential terrorist
attack has become one of the Nation's security priorities since
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Given the fact
that ports are large, sprawling enterprises that often stretch
across jurisdictional boundaries, the need to share information
among Federal, State, and local governments is central to
effective prevention and response.
The U.S. maritime system consists of more than 300 sea and
river ports with more than 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals
and more than 1,000 harbor channels spread across thousands of
miles of coastline. However, a large portion of maritime cargo
is concentrated at a few major ports--the Top 50 ports in the
United States account for about 90 percent of all cargo
tonnage--including those ports in the New York City
metropolitan area.
The U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection are
the Federal agencies with the strongest presence in U.S.
seaports. In response to the terrorist attacks of September
11th, the Coast Guard created the largest port security
operation since World War II. In addition, to raise port
security standards, Congress passed the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-295).
Despite these changes, government leaders and security
experts continue to express concerns over the security of our
ports. Factors that make ports vulnerable to a terrorist attack
include their location near an urban center--such as New York;
their inclusion of critical infrastructure and assets such as
oil refineries and terminals; the level of port traffic; and
their economic importance for the Nation's economy and trade.
b. Witnesses.--Ray Kelly, police commissioner, city of New
York; Captain Robert O'Brien, Commander, Coast Guard Sector New
York and Captain, Port of New York and New Jersey; Bethann
Rooney, Security Manager, Port Commerce Department, Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey; and Stephen Caldwell,
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
23. ``Implementing FOIA--Does the Bush Administration's Executive Order
Improve Processing?'' July 26, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing, the second FOIA hearing held by
the subcommittee in the 109th Congress, built upon the progress
of the subcommittee's May 2005 oversight hearing on FOIA in the
21st century. Since that hearing, President Bush issued
Executive Order 13392, Improving Agency Disclosure of
Information on December 14, 2005. The Executive order requires
agencies to review their FOIA operations, develop an agency
specific plan, and report to the Attorney General and the OMB
Director on their review and development and implementation of
the agency plan by June 14, 2006. Agencies were also required
to report on progress in implementing the Executive order in
their annual reports for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. At this
hearing, the subcommittee received testimony from GAO regarding
trends and status of agency implementation of the FOIA
Executive order, the Department of Justice regarding progress
made in implementing the Executive order, and FOIA users
regarding their view of the FOIA process and any improvements
noticed as a result of the Executive order. In addition,
Senator Cornyn, Senator Leahy, and Representative Sherman, who
each have introduced FOIA legislation, testified.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senator from
Vermont and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee;
Hon. John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from Texas; Hon. Brad Sherman,
Member of Congress from the 27th District of California; Dan
Metcalfe, Director of DOJ's Office of Information and Privacy;
and Linda Koontz, Director of Information Management Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
24. ``DHS Financial Management: Evaluating Progress in Improving
Internal Controls,'' September 13, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed the Department of
Homeland Security's efforts to comply with the internal control
audit requirement of the DHS Financial Accountability Act,
which was signed into law on October 16, 2004 (Public Law 108-
330). As a result of that legislation, DHS must now comply with
the toughest internal control standards in the Federal
Government--tougher even than those in the newly revised OMB
Circular A-123. Section 4 of Public Law 108-330 required DHS to
include in its performance and accountability report for fiscal
year 2005, an assertion of internal controls that apply to
financial reporting by DHS. Beginning in fiscal year 2006 and
for each year thereafter, Section 4 requires that DHS include
an audit opinion of its internal controls over its financial
reporting in its performance and accountability reports. This
first-of-its-kind in the Federal Government requirement is an
essential step to improve management operations. DHS inherited
significant material weaknesses from its legacy agencies and if
these deficiencies are left unresolved, they will become
embedded in the fabric of how DHS manages its finances. The
intent of Public Law 108-330 was to ensure that this does not
happen, and that DHS wastes no time in tackling internal
control issues and developing financial management systems that
will allow it to focus resources on its critical homeland
security mission.
As a result of the DHS Financial Accountability Act, DHS
established an Internal Controls Committee [ICC], published an
internal controls implementation guide, and took aggressive
steps to comply this section as well as the revised Circular A-
123, including developing a corrective action plan [CAP] for
all material weaknesses and reportable conditions and beginning
a series of performance audits, testing the quality of the
agency's internal controls. This hearing reviewed the initial
efforts by DHS senior management to comply with these
provisions.
b. Witnesses.--David Norquist, Chief Financial Officer,
Department of Homeland Security; and David Zavada, Assistant
Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security.
25. ``Banks in Real Estate: A Review of the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency's December 2005 Rulings,'' September 27, 2006
a. Summary.--In December 2005, the Comptroller of the
Currency ruled to allow certain national banks to invest in
real estate projects, including the development of office
buildings, hotel, residential condominiums and windmill farms.
This action is viewed by some, including the National
Association of Realtors, as a significant departure from what
is permitted under the National Bank Act, and previous OCC
rulings regarding the types of activities in which national
banks can engage. This hearing examined the December 2005
rulings with interested individuals on both sides of the issue
including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the
National Association of Realtors, and the American Bankers
Association.
b. Witnesses.--Julie L. Williams, Chief Counsel, Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency; Thomas M. Stevens, president,
National Association of Realtors; Ed Yingling, president and
CEO, American Bankers Association; and Cynthia C. Shelton,
Director of Investment Sales, Colliers Arnold.
VII. Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations
1. ``Emerging Threats: Overclassification and Pseudo-Classification,''
March 2, 2005
a. Summary.--Oversight of the proliferation of categories
of information withheld from public view. The 9/11 Commission
noted the excessive and sometimes abusive use of classification
authorities, and subcategories of document markings such as
``For Official Use Only'' and ``Sensitive but Unclassified.''
The Commission concluded these practices impeded the sharing of
threat information. Witnesses testified on the extent and
impact of inconsistent and unneeded classification standards
and information access limitations.
b. Witnesses.--J. William Leonard, Director, Information
Security Oversight Office National Archives and Records
Administration; RADM Christopher A. McMahon, USMS, Acting
Director, Departmental Office of Intelligence, Security, and
Emergency Response, Department of Transportation; Harold
Relyea, Specialist in American National Government,
Congressional Research Service [CRS]; Richard Ben-Veniste,
Commissioner, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States; Thomas Blanton, executive director, National
Security Archive, George Washington University; Harry A.
Hammitt, editor and publisher, Access Reports: Freedom of
Information, Lynchburg, VA; and Sibel Edmonds, former Contract
Linguist, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
2. ``Building Iraqi Security Forces,'' March 14, 2005
a. Summary.--The hearing assessed current strategies for
training and equipping Iraqi security forces to counter the
insurgency and establish conditions for political and economic
development. Witnesses discussed the challenges transferring
the internal security mission to Iraqi forces.
b. Witnesses.--Joseph Christoff, Director, International
Affairs and Trade U.S. Government Accountability Office; Peter
W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense, International
Security Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense; Rear Admiral
William D. Sullivan, Vice-Director, Strategic Plans and Policy,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Ambassador Richard A. Jones, Senior
Advisor to the Secretary and Coordinator for Iraq, U.S.
Department of State; Bill Todd, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Professor
Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy Center
for Strategic and International Studies; and Kalev Sepp,
professor, Naval Post Graduate School.
3. ``Assessing Anthrax Detection Methods,'' April 5, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the steps Federal
agencies have taken to detect anthrax contamination--
particularly in Federal facilities--analyze test results,
validate detection protocols and improve detection methodology.
b. Witnesses.--Keith Rhodes, Chief Technologist, Center for
Technology and Engineering, Applied Research Methods,
Government Accountability Office; Dr. Tanja Popovic, Associate
Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; Dr. Klaus Schafer, Deputy Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense,
Department of Defense; Dana Tulis, Deputy Director for the
Office of Emergency Management Environmental Protection Agency;
Thomas G. Day, vice president for engineering, U.S. Postal
Service; Dr. Katherine Kelley, Association of Public Health
Laboratories; William Burrus, president, American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO; Dr. Linda Stetzenbach, director,
Microbiology Division, Harry Reid Center for Environmental
Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; James H. Schwartz,
chief, Arlington County Fire Department; Michael P. Neuhard,
chief, Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department; Phillip
Schaenman, president, Tridata Division of System Planning
Corp.; and John Jester, Director, Pentagon Force Protection
Agency, Department of Defense.
4. ``The U.N. Oil-for-Food Program: The Inevitable Failure of U.N.
Sanctions,'' April 12, 2005
a. Summary.--Oversight of U.N. management of the Iraq
sanctions regime and the implications of widespread sanctions-
busting on the U.S. approach to multilateral treat enforcement.
Witnesses from the State Department, former U.N. employees on
the Iraq Sanctions (``661'') Committee and others testified on
the steadily dissipating support in the Security Council for
the comprehensive sanctions regime levied on Iraq after the
invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Patterns of explicit and implicit
toleration of so-called ``trade protocols,'' oil smuggling and
other forms of sanctions-busting made the corruption of the
Oil-for-Food Program likely if not inevitable. Minutes of the
first 120 meetings of the 661 Committee were put on the public
record for the fist time, bringing unprecedented--if
unwelcome--transparency to a U.N. panel.
b. Witnesses.--Thomas A. Schweich, Chief of Staff, U.S.
Mission to the United Nations, Department of State; Dr. Paul
Conlon, owner, Transjuris e.k. (munich, Germany), former Deputy
Secretary, United Nations Security Council Iraq Sanctions
Committee; Andrew Mack, director, Centre for Human Security,
University of British Columbia, former Director of Strategic
Planning, Executive Office of the United Nations Secretary-
General Kofi Annan; and Dr. Joy Gordon, associate professor of
philosophy, Fairfield University.
5. ``Overseas Security: Hardening Soft Targets,'' May 10, 2005
a. Summary.--Oversight of State Department implementation
of recommendations regarding off-site security facilities and
training for U.S. personnel stationed abroad. GAO reported new
findings pointing to a cyclic ebb and flow of high-level
attention to personnel security issues. State responded that
training opportunities, duration and intensity were being
increased.
b. Witnesses.--Jess Ford, Director, International Affairs
and Trade Division, Government Accountability Office; Greg
Starr, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countermeasures, Bureau
of Diplomatic Security and Foreign Missions, Department of
State; Ambassador Prudence Bushnell, Dean, School of Leadership
and Management, the George P. Schultz National Foreign Affairs
Training Center, Department of State; Keith Miller, Director,
Office of Overseas Schools, Department of State; Ambassador
Wesley W. Egan, retired, chairman, 2003 Foley Accountability
Review Board; Ambassador John W. Limbert, president, American
Foreign Service Association; and John Petro, executive vice
president and managing director, Citigroup Security and
Investigative Service, Citigroup.
6. ``Fostering Democracy in the Middle East: Defeating Terrorism with
Ballots,'' May 17, 2005
a. Summary.--In his second inaugural address, President
George W. Bush said, ``The concerted effort of the free nations
to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.'' The
hearing examined the ``Bush Doctrine,'' and former Israeli
Minister Natan Sharansky's book, ``The Case for Democracy: The
Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror.''
Additionally, Mithal A-Alusi, secretary of the Democratic Party
of the Iraqi Nation and former director general of the interim
government's de-Ba'athification Commission discussed the
prospects for democracy in Iraq.
b. Witnesses.--Former Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky,
author of ``The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to
Overcome Tyranny and Terror;'' Mithal Al-Alusi, Democratic
Party of the Iraqi Nation; Elizabeth Dugan, vice president,
International Republican Institute; Leslie Campbell, director
for Middle East Programs, National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs; Febe Armanios, professor for Middle
Eastern Studies, Middlebury College; Khaled Saffuri, chairman
of the Board, Islamic Free Market Institute; and Mona
Yacoubian, special adviser, Muslim World Initiative, U.S.
Institute of Peace.
7. ``DOD Excess Property: Throwing Away Millions,'' June 7, 2005
a. Summary.--Oversight of the Defense Reutilization
Marketing Service and management of the processes to dispose of
excess DOD property. GAO auditors and investigators determined
that defense agencies and military services had discounted or
given away more than $400 million in commercial items while
other units purchased the same material at higher acquisition
prices. DOD agreed to recommendations to strengthen inventory
and management controls.
b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic
Audits and Special Investigations, Government Accountability
Office; Alan F. Estevez, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Supply Chain Integration) Department of Defense; MG
Daniel Mongeon, Director for Logistics Operations, Defense
Logistics Agency; and Colonel Patrick E. O'Donnell, Commander,
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service.
8. ``Elusive Antidotes: Progress Developing Chemical, Biological,
Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures,'' June 14, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the interagency process
used to develop medical countermeasures to CBRN weapons, and
how that process is linked to validated threats. In addition,
the hearing examined the efficiency and effectiveness of steps
to identify, evaluate, prioritize and acquire countermeasures.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Dale Klein, Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense
Programs, Department of Defense; Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director
of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease,
National Institute of Health; Stewart Simonson, Assistant
Secretary for Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Department
of Health and Human Services; Dr. John Vitko, Jr., Director of
Biological Countermeasures Portfolio Science and Technology
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Ronald J.
Saldarini, Scientific Consultant, Institute of Medicine; Dr.
Michael G. Hanna Jr., chairman (emeritus) and chief scientific
officer, Intracel; and Dr. James H. Davis, executive vice
president and general counsel, Human Genome Sciences, Inc.
9. ``The Development Fund for Iraq: U.S. Management of Iraq Oil
Proceeds and Compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution
1483,'' June 21, 2005
a. Summary.--Oversight of Department of Defense [DOD],
State and Coalition Provisional Authority [CPA] efforts to meet
commitments to manage the DFI transparently and for the benefit
of the Iraqi people. Witnesses described the contracting and
audit processes used to track DFI expenditures. Discussion
centered on the process used to provide redacted DCAA audits to
the United Nations.
b. Witnesses.--Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction Department of Defense; William
Reed, Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency [DCAA],
Department of Defense; Colonel Emmett H. Du Bose, Jr., Deputy
Commander of the Southwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of the Army; Joseph A. Benkert, Deputy
Director, Defense Reconstruction Support Office, Office of the
Secretary of Defense; David Norquist, Under Deputy Secretary of
Defense for Resource Planning and Management, Department of
Defense; Stan Z. Soloway, president, Professional Service
Council [PSC]; and Richard Garfield, Dr.PH./R.N., Columbia
University.
10. ``Occupational and Environmental Health Surveillance of Deployed
Forces: Tracking Toxic Causalities,'' July 19, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined how the military
services have implemented Department of Defense policies for
collecting and reporting Occupational and Environmental Health
Surveillance [OEHS] data for deployed forces and how OEHS
reports were used to address health issues of service members.
b. Witnesses.--Brian Scott La Morte, Company Sergeant
Major, B Co., 3rd Battalion, 20th Special Forces Group, North
Carolina Army National Guard; Raymond Ramos, retired Staff
Sergeant, 442nd Military Police Co., New York National Guard;
David Chasteen, Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, Associate
Director of Operation Truth; Dr. Marcia Crosse, Director,
Health Care, Government Accountability Office; Dr. Michael
Kilpatrick, Deputy Director of the Deployment Health Support
Directorate, Department of Defense; and Dr. Susan Mather, Chief
Officer, Public Health and Environmental Hazards, Department of
Veterans Affairs.
11. ``DOE/ESE Security: How Ready is the Protective Force,'' July 26,
2005
a. Summary.--Oversight of the DOE Office of Energy, Science
and Environment programs to safeguard special nuclear materials
in non-weapons facilities. GAO reported protective forces at
ESE facilities generally meet current standards but found it
unlikely they would be able to meet the 2008 target to meet
stronger security standards. DOE witnesses defended efforts to
implement the post-September 11th safeguards standard, called
the Design Basis Threat. Members questioned why it would take 3
or more additional years to meet the current threat.
b. Witnesses.--Eugene E. Aloise, Director, Natural
Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office;
Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General Department of Energy;
Glenn S. Podonsky, Director, Office of Security and Safety
Performance Assurance, Department of Energy; Dr. Lawrence
Brede, Director, Wackenhut DOE Operations; Robert Walsh,
Security Manager, Office of Energy, Science and Environment,
Department of Energy; and Glenn Adler, Security Policy, Service
Employees International Union [SEIU].
12. ``Combating Terrorism: Visas Still Vulnerable,'' September 13, 2005
a. Summary.--Oversight of steps taken by the Departments of
Homeland Security and State to address gaps and vulnerabilities
in the non-immigrant visa application and screening process.
GAO released a report requested by the subcommittee on steps
taken to strengthen the visa process as a security tool. The
study found some improvements but persistent problems with
staffing, training, surge capacity and strategic direction.
Witnesses from State, DHS, and former consular officials
described the challenges in effectively screening non-immigrant
visa applicants.
b. Witnesses.--Jess Ford, Director, International Affairs
and Trade Division, Government Accountability Office;
Ambassador John E. Lange, Deputy Inspector General, Department
of State; Tony Edson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Visa
Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State;
Elaine Dezenski, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Border and Transportation Security, Department of Homeland
Security; Clark Kent Ervin, director, Homeland Security
Initiative, Aspen Institute; Dr. James Jay Carafano, senior
fellow, the Heritage Foundation; Susan Ginsberg, former Senior
Counsel, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the
United States (``9/11 Commission''); and John Daniel Morris,
Retired General Counsel, U.S. Mission to Beijing, China.
13. ``Iraq: Perceptions, Realities and Cost to Complete,'' October 18,
2005
a. Summary.--Oversight organizations--the Government
Accountability Office [GAO] and several Inspectors General
[IG]--published more than 80 reports on Iraq reconstruction and
other aspects of U.S. support for post-Saddam Iraq. Witnesses
from GAO, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
and IGs from other agencies discussed their oversight findings
and recommendations.
b. Witnesses.--Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction; Howard J. Krongard, Inspector
General, Department of State; Joseph Christoff, Director,
International Trade, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
Thomas Gimble; Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense;
Bruce N. Crandlemire, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Agency for
International Development; Joyce Morrow, U.S. Army Auditor
General; Professor Mary Habeck, the Paul H. Nitze School of
Advanced Internatioanl Studies, the John Hopkins University;
Judy Van Rest, executive vice president, International
Republican Institute; and Les Campbell, senior associate and
regional director, Middle East and North Africa National
Democratic Institute.
14. ``Homeland Security: Surveillance and Monitoring of Explosive
Storage Facilities, Part II,'' October 31, 2005 (San Mateo, CA)
a. Summary.--Field Hearing in San Mateo, CA to assess
followup activities by local, State and Federal officials after
last year's theft of explosive from a public storage facility.
Witnesses testified on the patchwork of security standards and
regulatory oversight schemes that applies to public ordnance
magazines. In contrast, private manufacture and storage
facilities are subject to stringent security, safety and
inspection regimes. Compliance by public facilities is
voluntary. State and local regulation is inconsistent. A panel
of local witnesses and industry experts testified on the
potential threat posed by explosives magazines and what should
be done to standardize security and limit risks.
b. Witnesses.--Laurie E. Ekstrand, Director, Homeland
Security and Justice Team, Government Accountability Office;
Michael Gulledge, Director, Office of Evaluation and
Inspections Division, Office of the Inspector General,
Department of Justice; Lewis P. Raden, Assistant Director,
Enforcement Programs and Services Division, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms; Fernando Gonzalez, battalion chief, Fort
Worth Fire Department; Dr. Tibor G. Rozgonyi, professor and
head, Mining Engineering Department, Colorado School of Mines;
Sgt. Stanley Mathiasen, chairman, National Bomb Squad
Commanders Advisory Board; Dr. Vilem Petr, assistant research
professor, Mining Engineering Department, Colorado School of
Mines; James Christopher Ronay, president, the Institute of
Makers of Explosives [IME]; Don Horsley, county sheriff, San
Mateo County Sheriff's Office; and Lt. Gary Kirby, San Jose
Police Department.
15. ``Examining VA Implementation of the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act
of 1998,'' November 15, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the implementation of
the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998, specifically VA
compliance with the statutory mandate to assess the extent and
weight of data from animal studies in determinations of
presumptive causality of disease not just as that data might
suggest the plausibility of a biological mechanism.
b. Witnesses.--Mike Woods, Gulf War veteran; Steve
Robinson, executive director, National Gulf War Resources
Center, Inc.; Jim Binns, chairman, Research Advisory Committee
on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses; Dr. Rogene Henderson, senior
scientist, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute; Dr. James
P. O'Callaghan, Head, Molecular Neurotoxicology Laboratory and
CDC Distinguished Consultant, Toxicology and Molecular Biology
Branch Health Effects Laboratory Division, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention; Dr. Susan Mather, Chief Officer, Public
Health and Environmental Agents Service, Department of Veterans
Affairs; Dr. Lynn Goldman, professor of occupational and
environmental health, Department of Environmental Health
Sciences, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,
Institute of Medicine; and Dr. Sam Potolicchio, professor of
neurology, Department of Neurology, the George Washington
University Medical Center, Institute of Medicine.
16. ``International Maritime Security,'' December 13, 2005
a. Summary.--The hearing examined international maritime
security, including jurisdictional conflicts and coordination
of assistance in the event of an attack. The hearing was
designed to help Congress and the public understand the threat
to shipping from pirates and terrorists, how the United States
responds and the security and safety of passengers aboard
foreign flagged vessels.
b. Witnesses.--Chris Swecker, Assistant Director, Criminal
Investigation Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Rear
Admiral Wayne Justice, Director for Operations Policy, U.S.
Coast Guard; Rear Admiral John Crowley Judge Advocate General,
U.S. Coast Guard; Rear Admiral James McPherson, the Judge
Advocate General, U.S. Navy; Michael Crye, president,
International Council of Cruise Lines; Greg Purdy, director of
security, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines; and Charley Mandigo,
Holland America Lines Inc.
17. ``National Security Whistleblowers in the post-September 11th Era:
Lost in a Labyrinth and Facing Subtle Retaliation,'' February
14, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined whether whistleblower
protections sufficiently shield government employees in
national security agencies against certain types of
retaliation. Revocation of an employee's national security
clearance may be a method used for retaliation against
government whistleblowers. The result is that an employee whose
security clearance is revoked may be fired without recourse. No
independent procedure for due process exists to provide a means
for redress in cases of security clearance retaliation. There
are currently very limited opportunities for employees of the
CIA, DOD and DOJ [FBI], among others, to seek redress when
their security clearance is revoked. Each department and agency
has been left to deal with issues of security clearance
reprisals on their own. A closer review of these efforts on the
part of the agencies and departments will help shape
legislation to close loopholes in the law.
b. Witnesses.--SPC Samuel J. Provance, USA, Department of
the Army; Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, USAR; Michael German;
Russell Tice; Richard Levernier; Mark S. Zaid, esq.; Beth
Daley, senior investigator, Project on Government Oversight;
Tom Devine, legal director, Government Accountability Project;
Dr. William G. Weaver, National Security Whistleblowers
Coalition; James McVay, Deputy Special Counsel, U.S. Office of
the Special Counsel; Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General, Office
of the Inspector General, Department of Justice; Gregory H.
Friedman, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General,
Department of Energy; Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General,
Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense; Jane
Deese, Director, Military Reprisal Investigations, Office of
the Inspector General, Department of Defense; and Daniel Meyer,
Director, Civilian Reprisal Investigations, Office of the
Inspector General, Department of Defense.
18. ``Progress Since September 11th: Protecting Public Health and
Safety Against Terrorist Attacks,'' February 28, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined surveillance, monitoring,
diagnosis and treatment of illnesses related to the September
11th attacks and assess public health and safety preparedness
against future attacks. Though improvements have been made in
both response programs and safety preparedness against future
attacks, there are still steps needed to be taken to assess
public health in the event of an attack.
b. Witnesses.--Cynthia Bascetta, Director, Health Care,
Government Accountability Office; Ronaldo Vega, architect, city
of New York Department of Design and Construction [DDC]; Marvin
Bethea, NYC paramedic; Dr. Stephen M. Levin, co-director of the
World Trade Center Worker and Volunteer Medical Screening
Program, medical director of the Mount Sinai-Selikoff Center
for Occupational and Environmental Medicine; Dr. Kerry J.
Kelly, FDNY chief medical officer, Bureau of Health Services,
co-director FDNY-WTC Medical Program FDNY; Dr. John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Health [NIOSH],
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], Department of
Health and Human Services [HHS].
19. ``International Maritime Security II: Law Enforcement, Passenger
Security and Incident Investigation on Cruise Ships,'' March 7,
2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the effectiveness of
current regimes governing international maritime security,
including law enforcement, passenger security and incident
investigation aboard cruise ships. Cruise ships are not
mandated by law to report incidents involving U.S. citizens
occurring on their vessels outside U.S. international waters.
Legislation should be drafted which mandates such reporting.
b. Witnesses.--Kendall Carver; Son Michael Pham; Deborah
Shaffer; Janet Kelly; Ira Leonard; Brian Mulvaney; Brett
Rivkind, Rivkind, Pedraza and Margulies, P.A; Ron Gorsline,
Secure Ocean Service, LLC; Lawrence W. Kaye, Kaye Rose and
Partners, LLP; Charley Mandigo, director, Fleet Security,
Holland America Lines; Captain William S. Wright, senior vice
president, marine operations, Royal Caribbean International;
and Dr. James Fox, Northeastern University, the Lipman Family
professor of criminal justice.
20. ``Drowning in a Sea of Faux Secrets: Policies on Handling of
Classified and Sensitive Information,'' March 14, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined current practices for
handling sensitive information and recommendations to prevent
the overuse of classifications and other access restrictions.
DOE and DOD policy for designating government records Official
Use Only [OUO] and For Official Use Only [FOUO] lacks clarity.
DOE and DOD policy allows for inconsistent application of FOUO/
OUO designations. FOUO/OUO designations could used to cover up
agency mismanagement. Intelligence agencies are removing and
reclassifying government documents previously declassified and
in the public domain.
b. Witnesses.--Professor Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the
United States, National Archives and Records Administration; J.
William Leonard, Director, Information Security Oversight
Office, National Archives and Records Administration; Davi M.
D'Agostino, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management,
Government Accountability Office; Robert Rogalski, Acting
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and
Security, Department of Defense; Glenn S. Podonsky, Director,
Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance, Department
of Energy; Thomas Blanton, executive director, National
Security Archive, George Washington University; Dr. Anna
Nelson, distinguished historian in residence, American
University; and Matthew Aid.
21. ``Setting Post-September 11th Investigative Priorities at the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,'' March 28, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined how investigative
priorities are set at the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE], given its
various and sometimes competing missions including national
security, financial investigations, narcotics smuggling,
immigration affairs, and human trafficking. The Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement requires additional
safeguards and regulations to be sure national security
considerations are included in decisions to allocate
investigative resources.
b. Witnesses.--Richard M. Stana, Director, Homeland
Security and Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Richard L. Skinner, Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Robert Schoch, Deputy Assistant Director,
National Security Division, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Office of Investigations, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Dr. Joseph Ryan, chair and professor of criminal justice and
sociology, Pace University; Caroline Fredrickson, director,
ACLU Washington Legislative Office; Joseph Webber, Special
Agent in Charge (retired), Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Fouad
Ajami, Director of Middle East Studies, School of Advanced
International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Dr. James
Fearon, professor of political science, Stanford University;
and Dr. Peter Galbraith, National War College.
22. ``Nuclear Security: Has the NRC Strengthened Facility Standards
Since September 11th?'' April 4, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined Nuclear Regulatory
Commission [NRC] efforts to set Design Basis Threat security
standards for nuclear power facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission [NRC] moved quickly to improve the security of
nuclear power plants in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.
Only one-third of the Nation's nuclear power facilities have
undergone force-on-force exercises under the new Design Basis
Threat [DBT]. DBT security standards should be based on
security needs, not the financial impact on the nuclear power
industry.
b. Witnesses.--Jim Wells, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office; Nils Diaz,
chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Gregory B.
Jaczko, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; Richard Blumenthal, attorney general,
State of Connecticut; Danielle Brian, executive director,
Project on Government Oversight; Marvin Fertel, vice president
and chief nuclear officer, Nuclear Energy Institute; and Chris
Crane, president and chief nuclear officer, Exelon Generation
Co., LLC.
23. ``A New Assessment of Iraq,'' April 25, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the status of Iraq's
reconstruction, governance and security, specifically
addressing efforts to establish public access to essential
services, to form a unity government and to grow the Iraqi
security and police forces. The Government Accountability
Office has renewed efforts to conduct on the ground assessments
in Iraq. These assessments provide an objective explanation of
the situation rather than the subjective perspectives provided
by the media and the administration.
b. Witness.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the
United States, Government Accountability Office.
24. ``U.N. Sanctions After Oil-for-Food: Still A Viable Diplomatic
Tool?'' May 2, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the viability of future
United Nations [UN] sanctions in light of the Oil-for-Food
scandal and UN management reforms.
Hearing Message: UN sanctions serve as a tool of statecraft
that provides an alternative to armed conflict. During the UN
sanctions regime in Iraq, the humanitarian Oil-for-Food program
[OFFP], designed to ease sanctions' effects on the Iraqi
public, lacked oversight and accountability and instead
fostered vast corruption that arguably was responsible for
failure of the sanctions. UN reforms currently proposed or
underway must be implemented so that sanctions can continue to
function as a credible and powerful diplomatic tool.
b. Witnesses.--John R. Bolton, Ambassador, Permanent U.S.
Representative to the United Nations; Joseph A. Christoff,
Director, International Affairs and Trade Team, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Carne Ross, director, Independent
Diplomat; Dr. George A. Lopez, senior fellow and professor of
political science, the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International
Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame.
25. ``Anthrax Protection: Progress or Problems?'' May 9, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined what has been done and
what is left to do to protect the Nation after an anthrax
attack. In particular, the hearing focused on the availability
of medical countermeasures, and the government's ability to
accurately detect anthrax inside a building. While the
government has taken steps to protect the Nation after an
anthrax attack by increasing research spending on
countermeasures, purchasing antibiotics and anthrax vaccine,
concerns remain regarding the status of anthrax vaccine
production and the ability of the government to accurately
detect anthrax. The Department of Homeland Security would not
take responsibility for developing a formal strategic plan that
would lead to the validation of the overall sampling process.
The Department of Defense has also failed to release a RAND
Corp. report commissioned by DOD and in draft form since 1999
entitled, ``A Review of the Scientific Literature As It
Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses, Volume 3: Immunizations.''
b. Witnesses.--Keith Rhodes, Chief Technologist, Center for
Technology and Engineering, Applied Research and Methods,
Government Accountability Office; Ellen P. Embrey, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs for Force
Health Protection and Readiness, Department of Defense; Jean
Reed, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, Department of
Defense; Dr. Gerald Parker, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Public Health Preparedness, Department of Health and Human
Services; Dr. Richard Besser, Director Office of Terrorism
Preparedness and Emergency Response, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention; Dr. Susan Elizabeth George, Deputy
Director of Biological Countermeasures Portfolio, Department of
Homeland Security; Dana Tulis, Deputy Director for the Office
of Emergency Management, Environmental Protection Agency; and
Mark Durno, On-Scene Coordinator [OSC] EPA Region 5,
Environmental Protection Agency.
26. ``Energy as a Weapon: Implications for U.S. Policy,'' May 16, 2006
(Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Energy and Resources)
a. Summary.--The hearing examined how global oil market
conditions affect petroleum prices. Global oil market
conditions are largely demand driven due to economic growth and
increased demand from Asia and the United States. There is
little or no spare production capacity in the world market and
any event perceived to have an impact on the market causes
extreme concern in high volatility in prices. As a result the
United States is more vulnerable to a catastrophic supply
shock, especially considering the current geopolitical
environment.
b. Witnesses.--Karen Harbert, Assistant Secretary for
Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy; Paul
Simons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, Sanctions, and
Commodity Policy, Department of State; Dr. Daniel Yergin,
Cambridge Energy Research Associates; Ambassador Keith C.
Smith, senior associate, Center for Strategic and International
Studies; and David Goldwyn, Goldwyn International Strategies.
27. ``9/11 Commission Recommendations: Balancing Civil Liberties and
Security,'' June 6, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the implementation status
of 9/11 Commission recommendations, with particular focus on
those related to the protection of civil liberties. The
government's implementation of 41 national security
recommendations from the 9/11 Commission is proceeding slowly
and inadequately. This includes the establishment of a Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, only now functioning
nearly 2 years after its mandate and lacking the power needed
to effectively perform its job. The progress implementing 9/11
Commission recommendations is not sufficient, and we must
continue to focus efforts to protect American citizens.
b. Witnesses.--Thomas H. Kean, chair, National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, president, THK
Consulting; Lee H. Hamilton, vice chair, National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, director, the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars; Carol E. Dinkins,
chairman, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the
White House; Alan Charles Raul, vice chairman, Privacy and
Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the White House; Mary Fetchet,
New Canaan, CT, mother of Brad, an employee of Keefe, Bruyette
and Woods in Tower 2 of the World Trade Center; Carol Ashley,
Rockville Centre, NY, Mother of Janice Ashley, an employee of
Fred Alger, management in the World Trade Center; Abraham
Scott, Springfield, VA, husband of Janice Marie Scott, an
employee of the Pentagon; and Don Goodrich, Bennington, VT,
father of Peter Goodrich of Boston, a passenger on board United
Flight 175 that crashed into the World Trade Center.
28. ``Private Security Firms: Standards, Cooperation and Coordination
on the Battlefield,'' June 13, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the operations of private
security firms in Iraq, the governing legal framework and the
adequacy of coordination with the U.S.-led Coalition military
forces in Iraq. Private security firms have been essential to
provide security for both U.S. Government civilian agencies in
Iraq and private companies carrying out reconstruction
projects. Better tracking of the costs of such security needs
to be implemented by the Executive branch, and coordination by
private security firms with the Coalition military should be
improved, and a training package on encounters with those firms
for U.S. military units deploying to Iraq should be adopted.
b. Witnesses.--William M. Solis, Director, Defense
Capabilities and Management, Government Accountability Office;
Shay Assad, Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition
Policy, Department of Defense; Greg Starr, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Department of State;
James Kundar, Assistant Administrator for the Near East and
Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development; Chris
Taylor, vice president, Blackwater USA; Major General Robert
Rosenkranz (U.S. Army, retired) president, International
Technical Service, DynCorp International; Ignacio Balderas,
former CEO and current Board of Directors member, Triple
Canopy; Doug Brooks, president, International Peace Operations
Association; and Alan Chvotkin, esq., senior vice president and
counsel, Professional Services Council.
29. ``Sexual Assault and Violence Against Women in the Military and at
the Academies,'' June 27, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined efforts by the Department
of Defense to address sexual assault and violence against women
in the military and at the academies. The military and
respective academies have taken steps to address sexual assault
and violence against women in the military, however challenges
remain. DOD has also not yet appointed members to serve on the
Task Force looking into sexual assault in the Armed Forces and
until members are appointed the work will not be begin. The
Coast Guard also falls under the Department of Homeland
Security and therefore any changes in DOD sexual assault policy
will not necessarily affect the Coast Guard.
b. Witnesses.--Delilah Rumber, executive director,
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, National Sexual Violence
Resource Center; Christine Hansen, executive director, the
Miles Foundation, Inc.; Beth Davis, former U.S. Air Force
Academy Cadet; Dr. Kaye Whitley, Acting Director, Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Office, Department of Defense;
Vice Admiral Rodney P. Rempt, superintendent of the U.S. Naval
Academy; Brigadier General Robert L. Caslen, Jr., commandant of
the U.S. Military Academy; Brigadier General Susan Y.
Desjardins, commandant of the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Rear
Admiral Paul J. Higgins, Director of Health and Safety, U.S.
Coast Guard.
30. ``Evolving National Security Strategy for Victory in Iraq,'' July
11, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined whether the National
Strategy for Victory in Iraq contains the elements essential to
a sound strategy. Three elements found by the GAO to be lacking
in the November 2005 National Strategy have now been
incorporated: costs are included in budget submissions to the
Congress, coordination with the Iraqi Government was initiated
with the formation of the Iraqi Government in June 2006, and
coordination among Executive branch agencies is more detailed.
b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the
United States; Joseph Christoff, Director of International
Affairs, Government Accountability Office; Ambassador James
Jeffrey, Senior Advisor on Iraq to the Secretary of State and
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle
East, Department of State; Brigadier General Michael Jones,
Deputy Director for Political Military Affairs, Joint Chiefs of
Staff; Dr. Kenneth Pollack, director of Middle Eastern policy,
Brookings Institution; Dr. Laith Kubba, senior director for
Middle East and North Africa, National Endowment for Democracy;
Dr. Anthony Cordesman, Admiral Arleigh Burke chair in strategy,
Center for Strategic and International Affairs; and Dr. Kenneth
Katzman, specialist in Middle East affairs, Congressional
Research Service.
31. ``Global War on Terrorism [GWOT]: Accuracy and Reliability of Cost
Estimates,'' July 18, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined accuracy and reliability
of total and future costs to pay for the global war on
terrorism using supplemental and bridge appropriations. The
Department of Defense and the Department of State have not
provided Congress with accurate cost projections for military
and diplomatic operations for the Global War on Terrorism.
Funding for the Global War on Terrorism is not requested
through normal baseline budgets appropriated to the Departments
of Defense and State.
b. Witnesses.--David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the
United States Government Accountability Office; Bradford R.
Higgins, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Bureau
of Resource Management, Department of State; John P. Roth,
Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget), Office of the
Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller), Department of Defense;
James R. Kunder, Assistant Administrator for Asia and the Near
East, U.S. Agency International Development; Donald B. Marron,
Acting Director, Congressional Budget Office; and Amy F.
Belasco, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs,
Defense and Trade Division, Congressional Research Service.
32. ``DOD Excess Property: Inventory Control Breakdowns Present a
Security Risk,'' July 25, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined whether effective
controls are in place to prevent military equipment from
falling into the wrong hands and whether the Defense Logistics
Agency and the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service have
developed effective solutions to non-integrated excess
commodity and excess inventory systems and processes. The
Department of Defense does not have management controls in
place to assure that excess military inventory is reutilized to
the maximum extent possible. The Department of Defense lacks
Reliable inventory controls, processes and systems to account
for excess military property. There is rampant waste and the
potential for fraud and abuse of the Department of Defense
[DOD] program for the reuse of excess military property.
b. Witnesses.--Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic
Audits and Special Investigations, Government Accountability
Office; Gayle L. Fischer, Assistant Director, Forensic Audits
and Special Investigations, Government Accountability Office;
John J. Ryan, Assistant Director/Special Agent, Forensic Audits
and Special Investigations, Government Accountability Office;
Richard C. Newbold, Special Agent, Forensic Audits and Special
Investigations, Government Accountability Office; Alan F.
Estevez, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Supply
Chain Integration), Department of Defense; MG Bennie E.
Williams, Director for Logistics Operations, Defense Logistics
Agency; and Paul Peters, Director, Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Service, Department of Defense.
33. ``HIV Prevention: The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,''
September 6, 2006
a. Summary.--This hearing examined the Prevention component
of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief [PEPFAR], a
$15 billion 5-year initiative to fight HIV/AIDS, in which one
third of HIV prevention funds must by law be devoted to
abstinence-only programming. The President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief [PEPFAR] represents an unparalleled commitment by
the United States to global public health and development, but
the program faces legitimate scrutiny for disproportionately
devoting HIV prevention resources to abstinence-until-marriage
programming. Ambassador Mark Dybul's participation marked his
first time testifying before Congress following his August 2006
Senate confirmation as Global AIDS Coordinator. Witness
testimony and discussion at the hearing supported the
contention that mandating one third of HIV prevention resources
to abstinence-only programming lacks scientific basis and
implies political motivation. This reinforced the message of an
April 2006 GAO report entitled, ``Global Health: Spending
Requirement Presents Challenges for Allocating Prevention
Funding Under the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief.''
The hearing further informed pending legislation on the PATHWAY
Act of 2006, which includes a provision to repeal the one-third
earmark. The discussion also spurred continued subcommittee
investigation on the results, monitoring and evaluation the
Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator must present on PEPFAR
programming.
b. Witnesses.--Mark R. Dybul, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator,
U.S. Department of State; Kent Hill, Assistant Administrator,
Bureau for Global Health, U.S. Agency for International
Development; Dr. David Gootnick, Director, International
Affairs and Trade, Government Accountability Office; Dr. Helene
Gayle, president and chief executive officer, CARE USA; Dr.
Lucy Sawere Nkya, member of Tanzanian Parliament (MP, Women
Special Seats), medical chairperson, Medical Board of St.
Mary's Hospital Morogoro, director, Faraja Trust Fund; and Dr.
Edward C. Green, senior research scientist, Harvard Center for
Population and Development Studies.
34. ``Progress Since September 11th: Protecting Public Health and
Safety of the Responders and Residents,'' September 8, 2006
(New York, NY)
a. Summary.--The hearing examined federally funded programs
that register, screen, monitor and treat individuals who were
in the vicinity of the World Trade Center [WTC] following the
September 11th terrorist attacks. Monitoring, treatment and
funding for post September 11th health effects on individuals
who responded to or lived near the World Trade Center needs
further examination and improvements to address the health
needs of all individuals. HHS stated that the $75 million in
appropriations to programs providing health screening, long-
term monitoring and treatment for WTC responders would begin to
be distributed in October 2006, rather than February 2007.
Improvements are being made to encompass all individuals who
were in the vicinity of the World Trade Center, including
residents of Lower Manhattan and Federal responders.
b. Witnesses.--Cynthia Bascetta, Director, Health Care,
Government Accountability Office; Joseph Zadroga, Little Egg
Harbor Township, NJ; Steven Centore, Flanders, NY; Lea Geonimo,
New York, NY; Lawrence Provost, Virginia Beach, VA; John
Howard, M.D., M.P.H., J.D., Director, National Institute for
Occupational Health, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Robin
Herbert, co-director of the World Trade Center Worker and
Volunteer Medical Screening Program, Mt. Sinai Hospital; Thomas
R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H, commissioner, New York City Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene; Nicholas Scoppetta, commissioner,
Fire Department of New York; Dr. Joan Reibman, associate
professor of medicine, NYU Medical Center, director, Bellevue
Hospital World Trade Center Health Impacts Clinic.
35. ``Iraq: Democracy or Civil War?'' September 11-13-15, 2006
a. ``When Can Iraq Assume Full Internal Security
Responsibilities?'' September 11, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined whether the 325,000
personnel level for the Iraqi Security Forces [ISF] that is
scheduled to be reached on December 31, 2006 is sufficient to
provide internal security for Iraq. Experts testified that
successful counter-insurgencies have historically required 20
security personnel per 1,000 persons, which in the case of Iraq
equates to a security force of approximately 520,000 personnel.
Department of Defense witnesses were not able to identify the
rationale or the factors that were analyzed to set the 325,000
personnel level for the ISF. It is clear, based on previous
insurgencies the 325,000 personnel level is not adequate given
the strength of the insurgency and the complexity of the Iraq
security situation. In a letter to the Department of Defense,
the subcommittee recommended a reassessment of the end strength
of the ISF to be completed as quickly as possible, including an
assessment of whether Iraq should adopt a draft for military
service and if ISF capabilities can be tied to U.S. troop
drawdown.
b. Witnesses.--Eric Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy; Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, Vice Director for
Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
retired Army Major General William Nash, director of the Center
for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations; Dr.
Bruce Hoffman, professor of strategic studies at Georgetown
University; and Alan King, who commanded a Civil Affairs
Battalion in Iraq and was advisor for Tribal Affairs to the
U.S. authorities.
b. ``What Will it Take to Achieve National
Reconciliation?'' September 13, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the positions of the
Shia, Sunni and Kurds on the main issues associated with
national reconciliation: 1) sharing oil revenue, 2) reforming
de-Ba'athification, 3) creating autonomous regions
(``Federalism''), and 4) controlling militias. Testimony by
Iraqis representing the Shia, Sunni and Kurds revealed wide
differences among them on the issues associated with national
reconciliation, the timelines for reaching agreement on the
issues, and a lack of political will to reach agreement. The
subcommittee recommended timelines be set for agreement on each
of the issues in national reconciliation, similar to the
timelines that earlier produced agreements on elections, the
constitution, and the formation of transitional and interim
governments, and the current government.
b. Witnesses.--Qubad Talabani, representative of the
Kurdish Regional Government; Dr. Hajim Al-Hassani, former
Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament and a Sunni Member of
Parliament; Karim Al-Musawi, representative of the largest
political party in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic
Revolution in Iraq [SCIRI], a Sh'ia party; Ambassador David
Satterfield, Senior Advisor on Iraq; and James Bever, Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Near East and Asia, U.S. Agency for
International Development.
c. ``What are the Consequences of Leaving Iraq?'' September
15, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the consequences for the
United States, Iraq, and the Middle East region if the United
States withdraws from Iraq in the event: 1) the current level
of insurgent and sectarian violence increases, or 2) civil war
occurs, or 3) Iraq requests the United States to withdraw.
Experts testified a hasty United States withdrawal would likely
open the way for increased violence and civil war in Iraq, and
give Iran a stronger role in Iraq and the oil-rich Gulf States.
Gradual withdrawal as Iraqi Security Forces take the lead in
security operations, with a U.S. force remaining in the region
to deal with any Al Qaeda threat in Iraq and as a hedge against
Iraq neighbors was recommended.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Fouad Ajami, director of Middle East
studies, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns
Hopkins University; Dr. James Fearon, professor of political
science, Stanford University; Ambassador Peter Galbraith,
senior diplomatic fellow, Center for Arms Control and Nuclear
Nonproliferation.
36. ``Combating Terrorism: Lessons Learned from London,'' September 19,
2006
a. Summary.--This hearing sought to compare American and
British approaches to counterterrorism following the disruption
of an alleged terrorist airline bomb plot in London in August
2006. Witnesses represented both American and British
perspectives with direct experience in counterterrorism,
legislation, and government agency work. The successful
disruption of the August 2006 alleged London terrorist airline
bomb plot highlights the effectiveness of the British
counterterrorism apparatus and speaks for the value of
international cooperation. In some circumstances, it would
benefit the United States to consider more closely and
potentially emulate certain elements of the British system.
b. Witnesses.--John Rollins, Specialist in Terrorism and
International Crime, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division, Congressional Research Service; Tom Parker, former
British Counterterrorism Official, adjunct professor, Bard
College, executive director, Iran Human Rights Documentation
Center; Baroness Falkner of Margravine, member, House of Lords,
United Kingdom, fellow, Institute of Politics, Harvard
University, member in 2005, Prime Minister's Taskforce on
Muslim Extremism; James A. Lewis, senior fellow, Technology and
Public Policy Program, Center for Strategic and International
Studies; and David B. Rivkin, partner, Washington, DC, office
of Baker and Hostetler, member, U.N. Sub-Commission on the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, contributing editor,
National Review, former official at the White House and the
Departments of Justice and Energy during the Reagan and George
H.W. Bush administrations.
37. ``Weapons of Mass Destruction [WMD]: Current Nuclear
Nonproliferation Challenges,'' September 26, 2006
a. Summary.--The hearing examined the importance of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] and the appropriate
steps to strengthen the regime. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty [NPT] is intended to stop the spread of nuclear weapons
and material related to the production of nuclear weapons. The
subcommittee learned the International Atomic Agency [IAEA] has
taken steps to strengthen safeguards, including conducting more
intrusive inspections, to seek assurances that countries are
not developing clandestine weapons programs. IAEA has begun to
develop the capability to independently evaluate all aspects of
a country's nuclear activities. This is a radical departure
from the past practice of only verifying the peaceful use of a
country's declared nuclear material. However, despite successes
in uncovering some countries' undeclared nuclear activities,
safeguards experts cautioned that a determined country can
still conceal a nuclear weapons program. In addition, there are
a number of weaknesses that limit IAEA's ability to implement
strengthened safeguards. First, IAEA has a limited ability to
assess the nuclear activities of four key countries that are
not NPT members--India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.
Second, more than half of the NPT signatories have not yet
brought the Additional Protocol, which is designed to give IAEA
new authority to search for clandestine nuclear activities,
into force. Third, safeguards are significantly limited or not
applied to about 60 percent of NPT signatories because they
possess small quantities of nuclear material, and are exempt
from inspections, or they have not concluded a comprehensive
safeguards agreement. Finally, IAEA faces a looming human
capital crisis caused by the large number of inspectors and
safeguards management personnel expected to retire in the next
5 years.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Hans Blix, chairman, the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Commission; William H. Tobey, Deputy Administrator
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy; Andrew K. Semmel, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for International Security and
Nonproliferation, Department of State; Jack David, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Combating Weapons of Mass
Destruction and Negotiations Policy, Department of Defense;
Gene Aloise, Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
Government Accountability Office; Ambassador Thomas Graham,
Jr., chairman, Bipartisan Security Group, Global Security
Institute; Baker Spring, F.M. Kirby research fellow for
National Security Policy, the Heritage Foundation; Jonathan
Granoff, president, Global Security Institute; Henry D.
Sokolski, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center; and
professor Frank von Hippel, co-chairman, International Panel on
Fissile Materials.
OTHER
1. Updating Nuclear Security Standards: How Long Can the
Department of Energy Afford to Wait?--This investigative report
was approved by the full committee. The National Security,
Emerging Threats, and International Relations [NSETIR]
Subcommittee conducted an oversight investigation of Department
of Energy [DOE] efforts to improve nuclear facility security.
The subcommittee examined the DOE National Nuclear Security
Administration [NNSA] and the Office of Energy, Science and
Environment [ESE] to determine the reasons behind persistent
reports of facility security lapses. The Department of Energy
is the Nation's custodian for the protection nuclear weapons,
components and special nuclear material.
The oversight investigation conducted by the subcommittee
attempted to identify systemic problems within the structure
and management of DOE. The investigation sought to make sure
risk management policies are threat-based, not artificially
constrained by the question, ``How much security can we
afford?'' in the effort to formulate and implement a new, post-
September 11th security standard or Design Basis Threat [DBT].
2. Strengthening Disease Surveillance This investigative
report was approved by the full committee.--The National
Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations
[NSETIR] Subcommittee conducted an oversight investigation into
the status of disease surveillance systems. The subcommittee
found Disease surveillance systems are fragmented and have been
slow to adapt to new technologies which could improve the
timeliness of outbreak reporting. The subcommittee recommended
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should clearly
define the technical parameters and set a specific timeframe
for establishing a unified national disease surveillance system
to replace the current patchwork of reporting and monitoring
programs.
VIII. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs
1. ``The Impact of Regulation on U.S. Manufacturing,'' April 12, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing considered the structural costs
imposed by Federal regulations on domestic manufacturers,
especially with respect to the impact that it had on U.S.
competitiveness. It considered the relative cost of regulatory
compliance for U.S. manufacturers when compared with other
major world manufacturers, and began checking up on agency
adherence to predetermined timelines for action or response to
suggested reform to the regulations within their respective
agencies.
b. Witnesses.--Dr John D. Graham, Administrator, OIRA, OMB;
Al Frink, Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services,
U.S. Department of Commerce; Govenor John Engler, president,
National Association of Manufacturers; Dr. Thomas Duesterberg,
president and CEO, Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI; Lori Luchak,
vice president, Miles Fiberglass and Composites representing
the American Composites Manufacturers Association; and Sidney
Shapiro, Center for Progressive Regulation.
2. ``Less is More: The Increasing Burden of Taxpayer Paperwork,'' May
25, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing considered the ongoing oversight
of the Internal Revenue Service in its taxpayer paperwork
burden reduction efforts, particularly in relation to the
provisions required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
and its following amendments. The percentage goals of reduction
of regulatory burden originally envisioned by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 have not been met.
b. Witnesses.--Mark Everson, Commissioner, Internal Revenue
Service and former Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget; Leonard Steinberg, the Steinberg Group and former
member of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, on behalf of the Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Council; Keith Hall, Hall and
Hughes, PLLC, on behalf of the National Association for the
Self-Employed; and Lary Gray, Alferman, Gray and Co., on behalf
of the National Association of Tax Preparers.
3. ``Reducing the Paperwork Burden on the Public: Are Agencies Doing
All They Can?'' June 14, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing examined agency efforts to reduce
the paperwork burden which is imposed on the public.
Specifically, the two aspects of paperwork burden reduction
which were focused on were Federal agency compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act and Federal agency efforts to reduce
burden above and beyond what is statutorily required.
b. Witnesses.--Patrick Pizzella, Assistant Secretary for
Administration and Management, U.S. Department of Labor;
Kimberly Nelson, Assistant Administrator and Chief Information
Officer, Environmental Protection Agency; Daniel Matthews,
Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation;
Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Sean Moulton, senior
information policy analyst, OMB Watch; Kevin Barrett, certified
industrial hygenist and certified safety professional, Barrett
Occupational Safety and Health Management Services, on behalf
of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association.
4. ``The Impact of Regulation on U.S. Manufacturing: Spotlight on
Department of Labor and Department of Transportation,'' June
28, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing continued in the same vein as the
April 12th hearing, but narrowed its scope to focus on the
progress made specifically by the Department of Labor and
Department of Transportation.
b. Witnesses.--Veronica Stidvent, Assistant Secretary for
Policy, U.S. Department of Labor; Jeffrey Rosen, General
Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation; Stuart Sessions,
vice president, Environomics, Inc., on behalf of Surface
Finishing Industry Council and Specialty Steel Industry of
North America; Jeff Melby, vice president, Environment and
Safety, Genmar Holdings, Inc., on behalf of the National Marine
Manufacturers Association; and Joan Claybrook, president,
Public Citizen.
5. ``Improving Information Quality in the Federal Government'' July 20,
2005
a. Summary.--This hearing reviewed agency implementation of
the Information Quality Act passed in 2001, specifically the
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service of the Department of the Interior, and the Department
of Health and Human Services. Ensuring that information is of
the highest quality and uses the best available science is
necessary to create fairness and transparency in government and
was the focus of the hearing.
b. Witnesses.--Kimberly Nelson, Assistant Administrator and
CIO, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Tom Melius,
Assistant Director for External Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior; James Scanlon, Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Data Policy,
Department of Health and Human Services; Mark Greenwood,
partner, Ropes and Gray; Jeff Ruch, executive director, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility; William Kovacs,
vice president for Environment, Technology, and Regulation,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Sidney Shapiro, University
Distinguished Chair in Law, Wake Forest University.
6. ``Regulatory Reform: Are Regulations Hindering Our
Competitiveness?'' July 27, 2005
a. Summary.--This hearing was held to consider
congressional regulatory reform initiatives and their effect on
the promulgation of regulations, especially these regulations
that impact America's ability to remain globally competitive. A
number of House Representatives were available to discuss bills
they had introduced with regards to regulations and American
competitiveness.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. J.D. Hayworth, Representative, 5th
Congressional District of Arizona; Hon. Sue Kelly,
Representative, 19th Congressional District of New York; Hon.
Robert Ney, Representative, 18th Congressional District of
Ohio; Curtis Copeland, Specialist in American National
Government, Congressional Research Service; Christopher Mihm,
Managing Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability
Office; Marlo Lewis, senior fellow in environmental policy,
Competitive Enterprise Institute; and Erik Olson, senior
attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council.
7 ``Protecting Our Great Lakes: Ballast Water and the Impact of
Invasive Species,'' September 9, 2005 (Fair Haven, MI)
a. Summary.--This hearing focused on the effect which
invasive species such as the Round Goby and the Zebra Mussel
have on environments to which they are not indigenous. In
addition, the hearing focused on how best to combat the effects
of invasive species and how to avoid their spread. The
regulations established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act [NANPCA] need revision, as they have
been largely ineffective in reducing the number of invasive
species.
b. Witnesses.--Mike Cox, attorney general, State of
Michigan; Robin Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office; Commander Kathy
Moore, Chief, Environmental Standards Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; Dr. Stephen Brandt, Director, Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce; Dennis Schornack,
chairman, U.S. Section, International Joint Commission; Kathy
Metcalf, director, maritime affairs, Chamber of Shipping of
America; James Weakley, president, Letter Carriers'
Association; Jason Dinsmore, policy specialist, Michigan United
Conservation Clubs; and Kurt Brauer, chair, Natural Resources
Committee, Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited.
8. ``OxyContin and Beyond: Examining the Role of FDA and DEA in
Regulating Prescription Painkillers,'' September 13, 2005
(Boston, MA)
a. Summary.--This hearing analyzed the problems of the
prescription painkiller OxyContin, and what the Food and Drug
Administration and the Drug Enforcement Agency are doing to
monitor the drug. The biggest concerns are that there is no
regulatory authority over ``off-label'' prescriptions, and that
because generic forms of OxyContin are to be introduced to the
market, the government will have to take certain regulatory
measures to prevent the abuse and diversion of these drugs.
b. Witnesses.--Dr. Robert Meyer, Director, Office of Drug
Evaluation II, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration; Joseph Rannazzisi, Deputy Chief
of Enforcement Operations, Drug Enforcement Agency;
Massachusetts State Senator Steven Tolman, 2nd Legislative
District, Suffolk County; Massachusetts State Representative
Brian Wallace, 4th Legislative District, Suffolk County; John
McGahan, executive director, Cushing House; Dr. Janet Abrahm,
co-director of the Pain and Palliative Care Programs at Dana
Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital and
Anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, on behalf of the American
Cancer Society.
9. ``The Impact of Regulation on U.S. Manufacturing: Spotlight on the
Environmental Protection Agency,'' September 28, 2005
a. Summary.--A continuation of the Impact of Regulation on
U.S. Manufacturing hearings, this one dealt specifically with
the Environmental Protection Agency. In December 2004, OMB
released a list of 189 reform nominations for regulations in
the manufacturing sector. Of these, 76 were considered by OMB
to be priorities for consideration by the various agencies; 42
of those 76 nominations were ascribed to the Environmental
Protection Agency, and this hearing checked the progress of
these nominations.
b. Witnesses.--Brian Mannix, Associate Administrator for
Policy, Economics, and Innovation, Environmental Protection
Agency; Tom Sullivan, Chief Counsel, the Office of Advocacy,
U.S. Small Business Administration; John Wagner, corporate
director of environmental affairs, Mueller Industries Inc.;
Chris Bagley, EH&S manager, DanChem Technologies, on behalf of
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association; B.J.
Mason, president, Mid-Atlantic Finishing Inc., on behalf of the
Surface Finishing Industry Council; and Scott Slesinger, vice
president for government affairs, Environmental Technology
Council.
10. ``Plain Language Regulations: Helping the American Public
Understand the Rules,'' March 1, 2006
a. Summary.--A hearing to consider the ``plain language''
in government initiative, especially how it relates to the
drafting and publishing of regulations. Every year, Federal
regulatory agencies write and enforce thousands of rules,
however, the average American citizen or small business owner
affected by these rules may not fully understand their impact
and their compliance requirements. Congress finds that the
American citizens and businesses still struggle to understand
the many rules that they need to follow. This hearing also
discussed Chairman Miller's H.R. 4809, the ``Regulation in
Plain Act of 2006,'' and the incorporation of her concepts into
actual regulation.
b. Witnesses.--Joseph Kimble, law professor, Thomas Cooley
School of Law; Dr. Annetta Cheek, vice-chair, Center for Plain
Language; and Todd McCracken, president, National Small
Business Association.
11. ``The Paperwork Reduction Act at 25: Opportunities to Strengthen
and Improve the Law,'' March 8, 2006
a. Summary.--A hearing examining the effectiveness of the
Paperwork Reduction Act after 25 years of implementation. With
an original budget of $11 billion devoted to enforcing
regulations, today $44 billion is allocated for that purpose.
As well as discussing the original bill the hearing addressed
the amendment made to the bill in 1995 and its effectiveness in
improvement.
b. Witnesses.--James Miller, chairman emeritus, CapAnalysis
Group, LLC; Sally Katzen, visiting professor, George Mason
University Law School; Linda D. Koontz, Director, Information
Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
William L. Kovacs, vice president, Environment Technology and
Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Andrew Langer,
manager, regulatory policy, National Federation of Independent
Business; and Robert Shull, director of regulatory policy, OMB
Watch.
12. ``Taking on Water: The National Park Service's Stalled Rulemaking
Effort on Personal Watercraft,'' March 15, 2006
a. Summary.--An oversight hearing on the National Park
Service's rulemaking effort governing the use of personal
watercraft in the national park system. The subcommittee
examined the rulemaking process at NPS governing PWC use,
particularly the status of individual rulemaking and reasons
for the delays in the NPS rulemaking process. They also voiced
their concerns for the delays that have prohibited the use of
PWCs.
b. Witnesses.--Karen Taylor-Goodrich, Associate Director
for Visitor and Resource Protection, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior; Fernando Garcia, director of public
and regulatory affairs, Bombardier Recreational Products; Laura
Baughman, president, the Trade Partnership; John Hamer, owner,
Motorsports of Miami; and Carl Schneebeck, public lands
campaign director, Bluewater Network.
13. ``The Sarbanes-Oxley Act 4 Years Later: What Have We Learned?''
April 5, 2006
a. Summary.--A hearing which examined the Security and
Exchange Commission's [SEC] implementation of Section 404 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [SOX], which evidence suggests has
adversely affected the small business community and the
competitiveness of American companies overall. The subcommittee
discussed the intended purpose of the act, the skyrocketing
compliance cost, the unintended consequences, the benefits and
the recent remedial action.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Mark Kirk, U.S. House of
Representatives, 10th Congressional District of Illinois; Hon.
Tom Feeney, U.S. House of Representatives, 24th Congressional
District of Florida; Hon. Gregory Meeks, U.S. House of
Representatives, 6th Congressional District of New York; Grace
Hinchman, senior vice president, Financial Executives
International; Richard Hubbell, president and CEO of RPC and
Marine Products Corp; Alex J. Pollock, resident fellow, AEI;
Robert Dowski, CFO, the Allied Defense Group, Inc.; and Damon
Silvers, associate general counsel, AFL-CIO.
14. ``FEMA's Floodplain Map Modernization: A State and Local
Perspective,'' May 8, 2006 (Algonac, MI)
a. Summary.--A field hearing conducted in Algonac, MI,
which examined the State and local impact of FEMA's efforts to
update flood maps in St. Clair County, MI and, particularly, in
Clay Township. FEMA justified its proposal to raise the base
flood elevation on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study on
water levels in the Great Lakes; however, that data is not
reliable due to 1986 being the final year of the study, which
was the year that water levels in the Great Lakes were at
historic highs. Subcommittee members asserted FEMA is in
financial trouble, and needs to increase revenues to pay for
the payments associated with the hurricanes of 2005.
Subcommittee members directed question to as to why this
increase is necessary and the benefits for Clay Township.
b. Witnesses.--Janet Odeshoo, Deputy Regional Director,
Federal Emergency Management Administration, Region V,
Department of Homeland Security; Lieutenant Colonel [LTC]
Donald P. Lauzon, Commander and District Engineer, Detroit
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Hon. Judson Gilbert II,
Senator, 25th District, Michigan; Jon E. Manos, supervisor,
Clay Township, MI; Chris Wilson, city manager, Algonac, MI;
Manfred ``Whitey'' Simon, president, Harsens Island St. Clair
Flats Association; and John Collison, Sterling Real Estate Co.,
Macomb, MI (representing the Michigan Association of Realtors).
15. ``A Balancing Act: Cost, Compliance, and Competitiveness After
Sarbanes-Oxley,'' June 19, 2006 (New York, NY)
a. Summary.--A field hearing conducted in New York City to
examine the impact of the SEC's implementation of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act [SOX] on U.S. stocks markets in terms of liquidity,
competitiveness, and the overall health of the U.S. markets.
This hearing examined the benefits of Section 404 of the act
and as well as the value added by Section 404 compliance for
investors, and businesses. The hearing focused on individuals'
and professional consultants' use of the information disclosed
under Section 404 of the act when making investment decisions.
The hearing also compared the protections provided by Section
404 to the protections provided by Section 302 of the act.
Finally, the subcommittee explored the changes in corporate
behavior pre and post SEC implementation of SOX. This inquiry
included exploring the differences in corporate behavior in
matters relating to strategic planning, resource allocation,
and implementation of IT systems.
b. Witnesses.--Neal Wolkoff, CEO, the American Stock
Exchange; Mallory Factor, chairman, Free Enterprise Fund;
Robert Robotti, president, Robotti and Co., former member of
the SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies; William
W. Beach, director for data analysis, the Heritage Foundation;
David Lawrence, chief financial officer, Acorda Therapeutics
Inc.; R. Cromwell Coulson, CEO, the Pink Sheets; and John P.
O'Shea, president and CEO, Westminster Securities Corp.
16. ``Another Year, Another Billion Hours: Evaluating Paperwork
Reduction Efforts in the Federal Government,'' July 18, 2006
a. Summary.--A hearing to examine the effectiveness of the
Federal Government's implementation of the Paperwork Reduction
Act for Fiscal Year 2005. In 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act
[PRA] replaced the FRA and established the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA] in OMB, whose
principal responsibility is paperwork reduction. GAO conducted
a study and filed a report on implementation of the act
identifying significant weaknesses in the process, which were
examined in the hearing.
b. Witnesses.--Steve Aitken, acting administrator, Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB; Beth Tucker,
Director of Outreach, Communication, and Disclosure, Small
Business/Self-Employed Division, Internal Revenue Service;
Linda D. Koontz, Director of Information Management, GAO;
Matthew Berry, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Communications
Commission; Andrew Langer, manager, regulatory policy, NFIB;
Robert Hayes, president, Medicare Rights Center, Information
Collection Budget of the Federal Government (fiscal year 1995-
fiscal year 2005).
17. ``Is the Federal Government Doing All it Can to Stem the Flow of
Illegal Immigration?'' July 25, 2006
a. Summary.--A hearing to examine the current regulatory
structure in place at different Federal agencies that play a
role in documenting, detecting, and penalizing the employment
of illegal aliens. The subcommittee heard from five Federal
agencies to examine how they intend to use the information
available to them via wage reports and I-9 inspections to
enforce immigration law. The hearing demonstrated the lack of
cooperation between Federal agencies dealing with illegal
immigration and worker verification. Also, the hearing examined
the worker verification provisions of both the House and Senate
bills and their effectiveness in combating the hiring of
illegal emigrants.
b. Witnesses.--Al Robinson, Acting Administrator of the
Wage and Hour Administration of the Employment Standards
Administration at the Department of Labor; Janis Sposato,
Associate Director of the National Security and Records
Verification Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Service; Matthew Allen, Deputy Assistant Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Martin H. Gerry, Deputy
Commissioner of Social Security for Disability and Income
Support Programs, the Social Security Administration; and K.
Steven Burgess, Director, Examinations Small Business/Self
Employed Division, Internal Revenue Service.
18. ``H.R. 5242: the Small Business Paperwork Amnesty Act,'' September
26, 2006
a. Summary.--A hearing examining the bill H.R. 5242, which
gives small businesses the ability to correct a first-time
paperwork violation within 6 months as long as the violation
does not harm the public interest, affect internal revenue
laws, or threaten public health or safety. Subcommittee members
directed questions regarding the effects posed by this bill on
small businesses as well as the economy.
b. Witnesses.--Hon. Randy Neugebauer, U.S. House of
Representatives, 19th Congressional District of Texas; Hon.
David Vitter, U.S. Senate, Louisiana; Karen Harned, executive
director, NFIB Legal Foundation, National Federation of
Independent Businesses; James M. Wordsworth, president, J.R.'s
Stockyards Inn, representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and
J. Robert Shull, deputy director, auto safety and regulatory
policy, Public Citizen.
APPENDIX
I. Committee Prints
March 2005
Rules of the Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Together with Selected Rules of the House of
Representatives (Including Clause 2 of House Rule XI) and
Selected Statutes of Interest.
December 2006
A Ceremony of the Unveiling of the Portrait of John
Conyers, Jr.???
II. Investigative Reports
FIRST REPORT, July 18, 2005 The National Drug Control
Strategy for 2005 and the National Drug Control Budget for
Fiscal Year 2006.
SECOND REPORT, September 20, 2005 A Citizen's Guide on
Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of
l974 to Request Government Records.
THIRD REPORT, November 18, 2005 Investigation into Rafael
Palmeiro's March 17, 2005 Testimony at the Committee on
Government Reform's Hearing: ``Restoring Faith in America's
Pastime: Evaluating Major League Baseball's Efforts to
Eradicate Steroid Use.''
FOURTH REPORT, December 16, 2005 The Methamphetamine
Epidemic: International Roots of the Problem, and Recommended
Solutions.
FIFTH REPORT, January 31, 2006 Bringing Communities into
the 21st Century: A Report on Improving the Community Block
Grant Program,'' January 31, 2006.
SIXTH REPORT, April 25, 2006 2006 Congressional Drug
Control Budget and Policy Assessment: A Review of the 2007
National Drug Control Budget and 2006 National Drug Control
Strategy.
SEVENTH REPORT, April 25, 2006 Updating Nuclear Security
Standards: How Long Can the Department of Energy Afford to
Wait?
EIGHTH REPORT, Strengthening Disease Surveillance, April
25, 2006.
NINTH REPORT, September 6, 2006 What Will it Take to Turn
Lost Opportunities into America's Gain?
III. Legislative Reports
March 17, 2005, House Report 109-26
Program Assessment and Results Act, to accompany H.R. 185,
109th Congress, 1st Session.
April 28, 2005, House Report 109-66, Part I
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, to accompany
H.R. 22, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
May 23, 2005, House Report 109-91
General Services Administration Modernization Act, to
accompany H.R. 2066, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
July 12, 2005, House Report 109-164
To extend by 10 years the authority of the Secretary of
Commerce to conduct the quarterly financial report program, to
accompany H.R. 2385, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 3, 2005, House Report 109-268
Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2005, to accompany H.R. 923,
109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 3, 2005, House Report 109-267
2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act, to
accompany H.R. 3508, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 18, 2005, House Report 109-313
Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act, to
accompany H.R. 3128, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 18, 2005, House Report 109-315
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act
of 2005, to accompany H.R. 2829, 109th Congress, 1st Session.
November 18, 2005, House Report 109-316
Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property
Act of 2006, to accompany H.R. 3699, 109th Congress, 1st
Congress.
March 14, 2006, House Report 109-390
To provide that attorneys employed by the Department of
Justice shall be eligible for compensatory time off for travel
under section 5550b of title 5, United States Code, to
accompany H.R. 4057, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
April 25, 2006, House Report 109-439
527 Reform Act of 2006, to accompany, to accompany H.R.
4975, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
April 26, 2006, House Report 109-440
National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2006, to
accompany H.R. 3496, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
April 27, 2006, House Report 109-445
Executive Branch Reform Act of 2006, to accompany H.R.
5112, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
May 2, 2006, House Report 109-449
A bill to provide for the participation of employees in the
judicial branch in the Federal leave transfer program for
disasters and emergencies, S. 1736, 109th Congress, 2nd
Session.
May 9, 2006, House Report 109-457
Requesting the President to transmit to the House of
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of
adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the
President relating to the receipt and consideration by the
Executive Office of the President of any information concerning
the variation between the version of S. 1932, the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005, that the House of Representatives passed
on February 1, 2006, and the version of the bill that the
President signed on February 8, 2006, to accompany H. Res. 752,
109th Congress, 1st Session.
June 22, 2006, House Report 109-519
RESPOND Act of 2006, to accompany H.R. 5316, 109th
Congress, 2nd Session.
June 29, 2006, House Report 109-544
Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, to
accompany H.R. 1317, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
July 11, 2006, House Report 109-553
To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of
1999 to reauthorize for 5 additional years the public and
private school tuition assistance programs established under
the Act, to accompany H.R. 4855, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
July 24, 2006, House Report 109-593
District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act
of 2006, to accompany H.R. 5388, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
July 24, 2006, House Report 109-594
Government Efficiency Act of 2006, to accompany H.R. 5766,
109th Congress, 2nd Session.
September 13, 2006, House Report 109-652
To amend the Truth in Regulating Act to make permanent the
pilot project for the report on rules, to accompany H.R. 1167,
109th Congress, 2nd Session.
September 14, 2006, House Report 109-660
Regulation in Plain Language Act of 2006, to accompany H.R.
4809, 109th Congress, 2nd Session.
March 31, 2005, House Report 109-29
IV. Committee Meetings
February 17, 2005--Full Committee Approved Budget Views and
Estimates by voice vote and H. Res. 41 by unanimous consent.
February 9, 2005--Full Committee Organizational Meeting
Approved Committee Rules, Oversight Plans, H.R. 324 and H. Con.
Res. 25 both by unanimous consent. Also the minority consultant
contract by unanimous consent.
March 10, 2005--Full Committee Approved S. 384 by voice
vote and H.R. 185 by roll call vote.
March 26, 2005--Full Committee Approved Recommendations to
the House regarding Oversight Plans for all House Committees by
voice vote and H. Res. 142 and H. Res. 148 both by unanimous
consent.
April 13, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 22 as amended
by roll call vote and H.R. 1533, as amended by voice vote.
Also, H.R. 504, H.R. 1072, H.R. 1082, H.R. 1236, H.R. 1524, H.
Res. 184, H. Res. 197, H. Con. Res. 41 and H.R. 1001 all by
unanimous consent.
May 5, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 2066 as amended
by voice vote. Also H.R. 627, H.R. 1760, H. Res. 231 and H.
Res. 185 all by unanimous consent.
May 17, 2005--Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
Approved H.R. 994, H.R. 1283 and H.R. 1765 all by unanimous
consent.
May 26, 2005--Full Committee approved H.R. 2326 by
unanimous consent and H.R. 2565 by voice vote.
June 14, 2005--Federalism and the Census Approved H.R. 2385
as amended by voice vote.
June 16, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 2113, H.R.
2183, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2490, H.R. 2630, H. Con. Res. 71 and H.
Con. Res. 160 all by unanimous consent. Also, H.R. 994, H.R.
1283 as amended, H.R. 1765, H.R. 2385 as amended and H.R. 2829
as amended all by voice vote. 1st Investigative Report--The
National Drug Control Strategy for 2005 and the National Drug
Control Budget for Fiscal Year 2006 approved by voice vote.
June 22, 2005--Government Management, Finance and
Accountability Approved ``A Citizens Guide on Using the Freedom
of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request
Government Records,'' by voice vote.
September 15, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 3508 as
amended and H.R. 3128 both by voice vote. A Citizen's Guide on
Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of
1974 to Request Government Records approved by voice vote.
Also, H. Con. Res. 59, H. Con. Res. 209, H.J. Res. 61, H. Res.
209, H.J. Res. 61, H. Res. 429, H.R. 2062, H.R. 2413, H.R.
3439, H.R. 3440, H.R. 3667, H.R. 3703, H.R. 3767, S. 1275 and
S. 1323 all by unanimous consent.
September 29, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 3549, H.R.
3830, H.R. 3853, H. Res. 15, H. Res. 276 and H. Res. 389 all by
unanimous consent. H.R. 1317 as amended by roll call vote.
October 20, 2005--Full Committee approved H.R. 3256, H.R.
3368, H.R. 3548, H.R. 3770, H.R. 3825, H.R. 3989, H.R. 4053 and
S. 37 all by unanimous consent. H.R. 1455 and H.R. 4057 both
passed by voice vote and H.R. 3496 passed as amended by voice
vote.
October 26, 2005--Full Committee Approved H.R. 3134 as
amended by voice vote.
November 16, 2005--Full Committee Approved the report on
the Investigation into Rafael Palmeiro's March 17, 2005
Testimony at the Committee on Government Reform's Hearing:
``Restoring Faith in America's Pastime: Evaluating Major League
Baseball's Efforts to Eradicate Steroid Use.'' Also, approved
H.R. 3934, H.R. 4101, H.R. 4107, H.R. 4108, H.R. 4109 as
amended, H.R. 4152, H.R. 4295, H. Con. Res. 218, H. Con. Res.
289 and H. Res. 487 all by unanimous consent.
December 15, 2005--Full Committee Approved minority
consulting contract and two investigative reports entitled,
``Bringing Communities into the 21st Century: A Report on
Improving the Community Development Block Grant Program.'' And
``The Methamphetamine Epidemic: International Roots of the
Problem, and Recommended Solutions,'' all by voice vote.
February 1, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 4054, H.R.
4346, H.R. 4456 as amended, H.R. 4509, H. Res. 629, and S. 1989
all by unanimous consent.
March 9, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R 4674, H.R. 4688,
H.R. 4786, H.R. 4805, H. Res. 85, H. Res. 517, as amended and
H. Res. 556 all by unanimous consent. S. 1736 and H.R. 4855
passed both by voice vote and the report, ``2006 Congressional
Drug Control Budget and Policy Assessment: A Review of the 2007
National Drug Control Budget and 2006 National Drug Control
Strategy,'' passed by voice vote.
March 30, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 4368, H.R.
4561, H.R. 4586, H.R. 4646, H.R. 4811, H.R. 4995, H. Res. 518
and H. Res. 737 all by unanimous consent.
April 6, 2006--Full Committee Approved ``Strengthening
Disease Surveillance'' and ``Updating Nuclear Security
Standards: How Long Can the Department of Energy Afford to
Wait?'' Both by voice vote. Also, H.R. 4975 as amended by voice
vote and H.R. 5112 approved by roll call vote.
May 4, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 4768, H.R. 5086,
H.R. 5104, H.R. 5245, H. Res. 327, H. Res. 626, H. Res. 627, H.
Res. 729, H. Res. 753, H. Res. 763, H. Res. 773, H. Res. 788,
H. Con. Res. 399 all by unanimous consent. Also, the committee
unfavorably approved H. Res. 752 by roll call.
May 18, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 5316, as amended
by voice vote. H.R. 5388 was approved by roll call vote and
H.R. 5410 failed by voice vote.
June 8, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 5169, H.R. 5194,
H.R. 5224, H.R. 5426, H.R. 5248, H.R. 5434, H.R. 5504, H.R.
5540, H. Res. 498, S. 1445 and H. Res. 826 all by unanimous
consent. Also, H.R. 4809, H.R. 4416, S. 959 as amended, H.R.
1167 as amended, H.R. 5216, and H.R. 5525 all approved by voice
vote.
June 29, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 3329, H.R.
5697, H.R. 5711, H.R. 4962, H.R. 5626, H. Res. 189 and H. Res.
721 all by unanimous consent.
July 18, 2006--Federal Workforce Agency Organization
Approved H.R. 5710 by voice vote.
July 20, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 4087, H.R.
4846, H.R. 5664, H. Res. 605, H. Res. 901, H. Res. 912 all by
unanimous consent. Report, ``Brownsfield: What Will It Take to
Turn Lost Opportunities into America's First Gain?'' Approved
by voice vote. Also, H.R. 5766 as amended and H.R. 3282 both
approved by roll call vote.
September 13, 2006--Federal Workforce and Agency
Organization Approved H.R. 4859 by voice vote.
September 21, 2006--Full Committee Approved H.R. 960, H.R.
1472, H.R. 4969, H.R. 5108, H.R. 5857, H.R. 5923, H.R. 5989,
H.R. 5990, H.R. 6075, H.R. 6078, H.R. 6102, H. Res. 402, H.
Res. 745, H. Res. 748, H. Res. 973, H. Res. 974, H. Res. 991,
H. Con. Res. 471 and H. Con. Res. 473 all by voice vote.
September 27, 2006--Government Management, Finance, and
Accountability Approved H.R. 867 by voice vote.
VIEWS OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER HENRY A. WAXMAN
While I agree with significant parts of the Chairman's
report, there are several sections that warrant comment as
discussed below.
PART ONE: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
I. Legislative Accomplishments
H.R. 185, ``Program Assessment and Results Act''
H.R. 185, the Program Assessment and Results Act [PARA],
would require every Federal program to be reviewed or evaluated
at least once every 5 years. While the concept of programmatic
reviews has merit, this bill as drafted allows the program
review process to be politicized. In addition, the bill fails
to ensure adequate public participation. Finally, the bill
permanently authorizes these reviews whereas it should have a
termination date to ensure its usefulness.
During full committee markup, the minority proposed
amendments to PARA addressing these three fundamental flaws. An
amendment by Representative Henry A. Waxman would have required
agencies, and not the partisan Office of Management and Budget
[OMB], to perform the bill's required program assessments. An
amendment by Representative Ed Towns would have enhanced
transparency by requiring a notice and comment process prior to
the conducting of assessments. Another amendment by
Representative Ed Towns would have sunsetted the bill in the
year 2013. Because these three amendments were rejected, I
cannot support PARA as reported by the Committee on Government
Reform.
PARA expands on the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act [GPRA]. GPRA requires agencies to
set annual goals and measure their performance in achieving
those goals. PARA adds a periodic 5-year review to provide a
detailed analysis at the individual program level.
As drafted, this bill deviates from GPRA in one significant
respect. Instead of requiring agencies to set performance goals
and evaluate the performance of their programs, PARA requires
the White House, through the OMB, to pick the criteria and
evaluate performance. The Waxman amendment sought to fix this
problem.
When Congress passed GPRA, it clearly wanted the agencies
to set the goals and measures, not OMB. The Government
Accountability Office [GAO] highlighted this issue when it
reviewed the administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool
[PART], upon which the bill before us is based. When explaining
that OMB intends to modify GPRA goals and measures in order to
align them with the PART, GAO found that ``OMB's judgment about
appropriate goals and measures is substituted for GPRA
judgments based on a community of stakeholder interests,''
including Congress.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Government Accountability Office, Performance Budgeting:
Observations on the Use of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool for the
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, 6 (January 2004) (GAO-04-174).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress expresses its priorities through statutes
authorizing agency activities. But OMB is not tasked with
implementing those statutes. Instead, OMB implements the
priorities of the White House. In fact, many agencies, and
especially those charged with protecting public health, worker
safety, and the environment, view OMB as hostile to the
agencies' fundamental missions.
OMB has a history of using the PART review to criticize
congressional actions and priorities. OMB rated the Community
Development Block Grant program as ``ineffective'' and proposed
its virtual elimination in the fiscal year 2006 budget. OMB, in
its PART analysis, partially blamed Congress. OMB explained
that the programs mission is not clear because ``throughout
CDBG's legislative history there has been ambiguity.'' \2\
Similarly, OMB criticized the acid rain program, created under
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and widely regarded as a
tremendously successful program and a model for environmental
regulations. OMB penalized this program for complying with its
explicit statutory directives from Congress. OMB's rationale
for downgrading the acid rain program states that these
identified program deficiencies would be fixed if Congress
passed the President's proposal to amend the Clean Air Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2006 Budget of the
U.S. Government, Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART Performance
Measurements, Housing and Urban Development, 16 (February 2005).
\3\ Id., Environmental Protection Agency, 3-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to ignoring the will of Congress, OMB does a
poor job assessing programs. HOPE VI has been found to be
effective by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution,
as well as the GAO and the HUD Inspector General. Yet OMB in
its fiscal year 2006 gave the HOPE VI an ``ineffective''
rating, and then used its rating to justify defunding the
program in the fiscal year 2006 budget. Also, OMB rated the
Superfund removal program as ``results not demonstrated''
because OMB did not agree with EPA's measure of success. The
Superfund program clearly has been a success. It has cleaned up
thousands of hazardous waste sites since its creation in 1980
and it is a critically important program that addresses threats
ranging from polluted groundwater to radioactive waste.
In conclusion, PARA is a flawed evaluation tool that usurps
the traditional role of Congress in evaluating the
effectiveness of programs, allowing OMB to effectively overrule
Congress and set the goals for federal agency activities.
II. Legislative Hearings
H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act
H.R. 5766 would have created partisan commissions empowered
to propose eliminating or privatizing critical government
programs and require that those proposals be considered by
Congress under expedited procedures. Under this bill, any
program the President did not like could have been put on the
chopping block under fast-track procedures. This bill was a
backdoor attack on Federal programs that support our most
vulnerable citizens including seniors, children, and the
disabled.
H.R. 3282, the Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act
of 2005
H.R. 3282 would have jeopardized the existence of every
Federal agency and program, no matter how important. This bill
would have automatically abolished every agency within 12
years. An agency would only be saved if Congress acted to
reauthorize the agency.
This bill would have radically altered the balance of power
between Congress and the President. Every Federal agency would
have been abolished if Congress did not act to reauthorize the
agency on a set schedule.
H.R. 1167, to amend the Truth in Regulating Act to Make Permanent the
Pilot Project for the Report on Rules
The bill as introduced had the potential effect of hurting
GAO's ability to carry out its primary mission of answering to
Members of Congress. GAO currently does not have adequate
resources to accept all congressional requests. This concern
was largely addressed by the Waxman amendment, which was
unanimously passed in committee. Concerns about the purpose of
H.R. 1167 are described in more detail in the minority views
filed with the committee's September 13, 2006, report on this
legislation (H. Rept. 109-652).
PART TWO: OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
I. Full Committee
Jack Abramoff's Lobbying of the White House
The majority report does not include any reference to the
committee's investigation of Jack Abramoff's lobbying of the
White House. This investigation, which commenced in the wake of
numerous guilty pleas by Jack Abramoff and his lobbying
associates relating to fraud and public corruption, resulted in
a staff report jointly released by Chairman Davis and Ranking
Member Waxman on September 29, 2006. Relying on billing records
and emails supplied by Jack Abramoff's former firm, the report
documented hundreds of contacts between Mr. Abramoff's lobbying
team and the Bush White House.
In March 2006, the committee requested billing records and
e-mail communications of Mr. Abramoff and his associates at his
lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig L.L.P., relating to their
lobbying contacts with the White House. The e-mail and billing
data provided to the committee by Greenberg Traurig spanned
over 3 years and amounted to more than 14,000 pages.
The billing records and emails show a much closer
relationship between the White House and the Abramoff team than
had been previously known. According to the documents, Abramoff
and his team had 485 lobbying contacts with White House
officials between January 2001 and March 2004. These include
contacts with Karl Rove, senior advisor to the President, Ken
Mehlman, the White House political director, as well as
officials in the White House Offices of Intergovernmental
Affairs and Legislative Affairs. More than half of the in-
person interactions described in the documents involved meals
or drinks with White House officials.
If what the documents describe is accurate, there is
evidence that White House officials took multiple actions to
benefit Mr. Abramoff and his clients, including ensuring the
release of $16 million for the construction of a jail for the
Mississippi Band of the Choctaw, pressuring a Senate office to
advance legislation to resolve a land dispute affecting the
Sandia Pueblo of New Mexico, endorsing or declining to endorse
political candidates, and intervening to secure the termination
of a State Department employee who had taken positions contrary
to those advocated by Mr. Abramoff.
In addition to the lobbying contacts, the documents show
that Mr. Abramoff and his team offered White House officials
tickets to 19 sporting events and concerts. These included
tickets for floor-level seats at Wizards basketball games, ice-
level seats at Capitals hockey games, box seats at Orioles
games, as well as tickets for U2 and Bruce Springsteen
concerts.
Iraq Contracting
The majority's summary of the committee's oversight of Iraq
contracting states, ``The committee has engaged in continuous
and vigorous oversight of contract activities in Iraq over the
past 3 years.'' In fact, the full committee held just one
hearing on Iraq contracting during the 109th Congress, despite
numerous requests from the minority, and this hearing occurred
near the end of the 109th Congress. However, the majority did
join the minority in requesting that the Government
Accountability Office examine Halliburton's compensation under
the Restore Iraqi Oil contract and in obtaining audits and
compensation documents for a number of other Iraq contracts.
Cooperation during the 110th Congress could enhance the
committee's efforts to vigorously oversee the contracts in
Iraq.
Hearing entitled, ``Making the Grade? Examining District of Columbia
Public Schools Reform Proposals,'' April 28, 2006
Questioning at the hearing elicited testimony regarding the
root of the designation of the District of Columbia Public
Schools as a ``high-risk'' grantee by the U.S. Department of
Education. This testimony pointed out that, as a city without a
State, the District does not have a full and independent State
education oversight mechanism. It is worth noting that only the
District and the U.S. territories--none of which are parts of
States or have voting representation in Congress--have been
designated high risk. The fact that the Department of Education
assigned the most severe designation without exhausting
available intermediate steps with DCPS raises basic questions
of fairness.
Hearing entitled, ``Northern Lights and Procurement Plights: The Effect
of the ANC Program on Federal Procurement and Alaska Native
Corporations,'' June 21, 2006
The description in the majority report is accurate. In
addition, at the hearing, Ranking Member Waxman referred to
``Dollars, Not Sense: Government Contracting Under the Bush
Administration.'' This report, prepared at the request of
Ranking Member Waxman, finds that between 2000 and 2005,
procurement spending increased by over $175 billion, making
Federal contracts the fastest growing component of Federal
discretionary spending. The report concludes that procurement
spending is accelerating rapidly, contract management is
widespread, and the costs to the taxpayer are enormous. The
report identifies 118 Federal contracts worth $745.5 billion
that have been found by government officials to include
significant waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement.
Hearing entitled, ``Code Yellow: Is the DHS Acquisition Bureaucracy a
Formula for Disaster?'' July 27, 2006
The description in the majority report is accurate. In
addition, on the same day as the hearing, Chairman Davis and
Ranking Member Waxman released a report assessing the
administration's record on homeland security contracts. The
report, entitled, ``Waste, Abuse, and Mismanagement in
Department of Homeland Security Contracts,'' describes a
pattern of reckless spending, poor planning, and ineffective
oversight that is wasting taxpayer dollars and undermining
homeland security efforts. According to the report,
noncompetitive contracts have soared over 700 percent in just 3
years, and the total value of the Department's wasteful
contracts exceeds $34 billion.
Hearing entitled, ``CSI Washington: Does the District Need Its Own
Crime Lab?'' September 22, 2006
The majority report omits discussion of the burden that the
absence of a forensics lab in the District of Columbia places
on the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]. Because the
District of Columbia has limited forensic capabilities, it
relies on the FBI forensic crime lab located in Quantico, VA.
The FBI estimates that 30 percent of its overall workload comes
from the District. Moreover, the District of Columbia continues
to lag far behind in closing violent crime cases because it is
not able to benefit from advancements in DNA and the creation
of DNA database due to a lack of an adequate State/local
forensic laboratory. While other jurisdictions are eliminating
their DNA backlog and are looking to begin DNA analysis on more
than just violent crimes, the District has about 1,500 sexual
assault cases backlogged and is also expecting the violent
crime backlog to grow between 100-200 cases a year, until the
new consolidated lab is operational.
II. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
Hearing entitled, ``Harm Reduction or Harm Maintenance: Is There Such a
Thing as Safe Drug Abuse?'' February 16, 2005
The majority offers a distorted description of the purpose
and effect of syringe exchange programs and other harm
reduction strategies aimed at reducing the risk of disease
transmission--most notably, HIV and hepatitis--and/or overdose
among intravenous drug users. Minority members and minority
witnesses--Chris Beyrer, Robert Newman, and Peter Bielenson--
cited the overwhelming body of scientific research that
demonstrates that syringe exchange is effective in reducing HIV
transmission rates among intravenous drug users and do not
increase drug use; they also argued that syringe exchange
programs can be an effective portal to drug treatment, HIV-
testing, and other valuable healthcare services. A May 25,
2005, letter from full Committee Ranking Member Waxman to
Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters
summarizes the scientific literature on the efficacy of needle
exchange, and is attached to these views as well as available
online at http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/
20050525110831-63007.pdf.
Hearing entitled, ``RU-486: Demonstrating a Low Standard for Women's
Health,'' May 17, 2006
Although some women have died from a C. sordellii infection
after taking mifepristone, it is not clear whether mifepristone
was the cause of any of these infections. The medical
literature shows that C. sordellii infections and deaths have
occurred in men, women, and children. Victims have included
newborns; injection drug users; women who had just given birth;
and children and adults who experienced trauma such as a broken
limb. As of the date of the hearing, there were approximately
30 reported cases of C. sordellii fatalities in the medical
literature, including the medical abortion cases noted by the
majority. Nine cases occurred in women who had just given birth
and two occurred after miscarriages. The FDA and independent
medical researchers agree that more research is needed into the
cause of C. sordellii infection.
Report on Abstinence
The majority's staff report, released 2 years after the
minority staff investigation of curricula used in federally-
funded abstinence-only programs, does not effectively rebut the
original report's findings. In November 2006, GAO released a
report finding that HHS conducts little to no oversight of the
scientific accuracy of information included in Federal
abstinence-only programs. GAO also found that there is no
substantial evidence base to support the effectiveness of
abstinence-only programs in promoting public health outcomes
for youth.
III. Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources
Hearing entitled, ``Methyl Bromide: Are U.S. Interests Being Served by
the Critical Use Exemption Process?'' February 15, 2006
The majority's summary of the issues addressed in this
hearing omits a number of important points about ozone-
depleting substances, methyl bromide use, and exemptions for
``critical uses.''
First, the Montreal Protocol is widely regarded as the
single most successful environmental treaty. Depletion of the
ozone layer is a grave threat to human health and the
environment, but due to the Protocol, the ozone layer is slowly
starting to heal. The majority's approach to this issue raised
questions about whether the Protocol or the United States'
compliance with it should be revisited. Yet it would be a
terrible mistake to act in any way to undermine the Protocol or
the phase-out of ozone depleting substances.
Second, methyl bromide is the most potent ozone-destroying
chemical that continues to be used in large quantities. It is
also a highly potent biocide with risks to human health,
particularly farm-workers, so there are multiple reasons to
reduce its use. According to the minority witness, the methyl
bromide exemptions allowed in 2005 and 2006 will cause more
than 20 deaths from skin cancer, more than 4,000 other skin
cancer cases, and more than 1,400 cataract cases, in the United
States alone, and far more world-wide.
Finally, there are significant concerns about the
administration's use of the ``critical use'' exemption under
the Protocol. The minority witness testified that ``U.S.
Government data show that the amount of methyl bromide actually
used for all fumigation purposes in 2003 was nearly 25 percent
less than the amount claimed to be critical in 2005,''
indicating that the United States is asking for more new
production of methyl bromide than would actually be used.
Moreover, methyl bromide producers currently have very large
amounts of methyl bromide stockpiled, which means that no new
production is actually needed under the ``critical use''
exemption. According to the minority witness, ``data show that
just five U.S. producers and distributors held a huge methyl
bromide stockpiles equaling at least 22 million pounds,'' while
at least 24 other companies also held methyl bromide
stockpiles.
Royalty Relief and Price Thresholds
In its description of the subcommittee's examination of
circumstances surrounding the absence of price thresholds from
deepwater leases in 1998 and 1999, the majority identifies
certain individuals in the Department of the Interior as being
responsible for this problem. Earl Devaney, Inspector General
of the Department of the Interior, reviewed this matter as
well, and testified at the subcommittee's September 13, 2006,
hearing that he did not find a ``smoking gun'' pinpointing
blame on any one individual regarding the lease issue. Mr.
Devaney also commented more broadly on his 7 years of
experience at the Department, asserting that the culture at the
Department of the Interior is one that ``sustains managerial
irresponsibility and a lack of accountability,'' and that,
``short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the
Department of the Interior.''
Global Climate Change
Throughout the majority's description of energy issues that
have arisen in various subcommittee hearings, the majority
omits discussion of one of the most pressing issues in energy
policy: the effect of our current carbon-based energy sources,
such as oil and coal, on global warming. This issue is central
to many of the questions examined by the subcommittee relating
to U.S. energy consumption and oil dependence, energy
geopolitics, and energy efficiency. Energy policy discussions
that fail to take global warming into account are unlikely to
produce the policies necessary to address this urgent and
serious threat.
IV. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
Hearing entitled, ``Yucca Mountain Project: Have Federal Employees
Falsified Documents,'' April 5, 2005
The majority stated in its summary of this hearing that,
``The Department of Energy [DOE] announced Wednesday, March 16,
2005, that Federal employees of the U.S. Geological Survey
[USGS] falsified data used in scientific studies at the
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada.''
In actuality, on March 16, 2005, DOE announced that,
``certain employees of the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] at the
Department of the Interior working on the Yucca Mountain
project may have falsified documentation of their work.''
Additionally, after a thorough investigation, in February 2006,
DOE issued a report entitled, ``Evaluation of Technical Impact
on the Yucca Mountain Project Technical Basis Resulting From
Issues Raised by E-mails of Former Project Participants.'' The
report confirmed the technical soundness of infiltration
modeling work performed by USGS employees. Neither DOE, nor the
subcommittee, after a year of investigation, found evidence to
substantiate that Federal employees at the USGS falsified
documents.
V. Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations
Hearing entitled, ``Private Security Firms: Standards, Cooperation and
Coordination on the Battlefield,'' June 13, 2006
The majority's summary of the hearing on private security
firms operating in Iraq is accurate but incomplete. Aside from
the issues discussed in the summary, the minority repeatedly
raised questions about the lack of transparency of government
contracts and subcontracts with security firms, as well as the
possible criminal conduct of private contractors in Iraq.
Moreover, the summary does not address the subcommittee's
unsuccessful attempts to obtain relevant documents from the
administration and Blackwater USA.
Representative Waxman first raised concerns about
Blackwater USA's role as a subcontractor under Halliburton's
LOGCAP troop support contract in a November 30, 2004, letter to
the U.S. Army Field Support Command. In that letter,
Representative Waxman cited reports by the News & Observer that
Blackwater was serving as a third-tier subcontractor under
Halliburton's LOGCAP contract. He sought a breakdown of how
much each contractor in the tier was paid for the security
services being provided by Blackwater. He also requested copies
of the subcontracts, invoices, and other documentation.
On December 21, 2004, General Jerome Johnson of the Army
Field Support Command sent a pro forma response, saying he had
forwarded the request to ``the Office of the Secretary of
Defense for formal staffing and response.''
At the June 13, 2006, hearing, Representative Waxman
proposed issuing a subpoena to obtain the documents requested
in November 2004. Rather than hold a vote on this motion,
Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Shays asked Representative
Waxman to withdraw his motion, promising that the documents
would be delivered within 2 weeks. Chris Taylor, vice president
of Blackwater USA, also was directed to provide relevant
contract documents.
A month later, on July 14, 2006, Army Secretary Francis J.
Harvey sent a letter in response to the document request. No
contract documents were provided. Similarly, on July 14, 2006,
Mr. Taylor sent Blackwater's response to certain questions
posed at the hearing, but he provided none of the contract
documents requested at the hearing. In addition, the government
witnesses failed to answer the questions for the record
submitted by Members.
In his letter, the Secretary of the Army asserted that the
Army had no knowledge of any subcontracts for security services
under Halliburton's LOGCAP contract. The Army Secretary pointed
out that the LOGCAP contract explicitly prohibits such security
subcontracts, and that the military theater commander never
authorized them. Representative Van Hollen raised questions
about this letter at a full committee hearing on September 28,
2006, and in response the Army witness testified repeatedly
that she had researched the question thoroughly and stood by
the Army Secretary's assertions.
The minority obtained new evidence, however, that
contradicts the Army's letter and this sworn testimony.
Specifically, the minority received information that a
Halliburton subcontractor, ESS, entered into security
subcontracts with Blackwater. According to a November 30, 2006,
memorandum from ESS's parent firm, a British company called
Compass Group, ESS had a subcontract under Halliburton's LOGCAP
contract and used Blackwater ``to provide security services''
under that subcontract.
If the ESS memo is accurate, it appears that Halliburton
entered into a subcontracting arrangement that is expressly
prohibited by the contract itself. This raises serious concerns
about whether it was proper for Halliburton to bill these
services to the U.S. taxpayer. It also raises concerns about
the failure of the Army to provide this information to the
committee and the testimony of Army officials that subcontracts
for these security services never occurred.
VI. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs
Hearing entitled, ``OxyContin and Beyond: Examining the Role of FDA and
DEA in Regulating Prescription Painkillers,'' September 13,
2005
This hearing was held at the request of Ranking Minority
Member Stephen Lynch. OxyContin addiction and abuse has
severely affected the Boston area as well as many communities
nationwide in recent years. This hearing examined what lessons
FDA and DEA have learned from their experiences with OxyContin
and how they are applying those lessons.
Hearing entitled, ``Taking on Water: The National Park Service's
Stalled Rulemaking Effort on Personal Watercraft,'' March 15,
2006
The majority report does not provide a complete description
of this hearing. Ranking Minority Member Stephen Lynch
highlighted the need for the National Park Service to carefully
and thoroughly analyze how personal watercraft will impact each
national park still under consideration, including the
potential impact on plants, wildlife, water and air quality,
and other visitors.