[Senate Report 113-115]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 113-115
_______________________________________________________________________
ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
and its
SUBCOMMITTEES
for the
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
October 28, 2013--Ordered to be printed
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-010 WASHINGTON : 2013
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DURING THE
112TH CONGRESS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARK BEGICH, Alaska RAND PAUL, Kentucky
------
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE 112TH CONGRESS
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (OGM)
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
------
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES,
AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY (FFM)
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TED STEVENS, Alaska
CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK BEGICH, Alaska RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
RON PORTMAN, Ohio
------
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS (PSI)
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK BEGICH, Alaska RAND PAUL, Kentucky
------
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
(DRIA)
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
JON TESTER, Montana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
------
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT (SCO)
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARK BEGICH, Alaska RAND PAUL, Kentucky
CONTENTS
------
Page
I. Introduction.....................................................1
II. Highlights of Activities.........................................4
Homeland Security.......................................... 4
A. Cybersecurity......................................... 4
B. Ten Years After 9/11: Evaluating Post-9/11 Reforms.... 11
C. Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Islamist Extremism.... 15
1. Fort Hood Report.................................. 15
2. Countering Domestic Radicalization................ 17
3. Zachary Chesser Report............................ 18
D. Border Security and Immigration....................... 18
1. The Southern Border............................... 18
2. Deterring Terrorist Travel........................ 20
3. SBInet............................................ 21
E. Secret Service Scandal................................ 21
F. General DHS Oversight................................. 22
1. Budget............................................ 22
2. High-Risk List.................................... 23
Stock Act.................................................. 23
Reforming the Postal Service............................... 24
Government Oversight....................................... 26
A. GSA Scandal........................................... 26
B. Stimulus Tracking..................................... 26
C. Nominations Reform.................................... 27
D. Information Technology................................ 28
E. GAO High-Risk List.................................... 28
F. Regulations........................................... 29
Federal Employees.......................................... 30
A. Domestic Partnerships................................. 30
B. Transportation Security Administration Employees...... 30
C. Employee Rotation..................................... 30
D. Whistleblowers........................................ 31
E. Hatch Act Modernization............................... 31
District of Columbia....................................... 32
A. Opportunity Scholarship Program....................... 32
B. District of Columbia Statehood........................ 32
C. D.C. Budget Autonomy.................................. 32
Helping Connecticut........................................ 33
A. Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene........................ 33
B. Tropical Storm Sandy.................................. 34
III. Committee Jurisdiction..........................................37
IV. Bills and Resolutions Referred and Considered...................40
V. Hearings........................................................40
VI. Reports, Prints, and GAO Reports................................56
VII. Official Communications.........................................66
VIII.Legislative Actions.............................................66
Measures Enacted Into Law................................ 67
Postal Naming Bills...................................... 73
IX. Presidential Nominations........................................75
X. Activities of the Subcommittees.................................79
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services,
and International Security Subcommittee (FFM)
I. Hearings........................................................79
II. Legislation.....................................................88
III. GAO Reports 2011-2012...........................................91
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia Subcommittee (OGM)
I. Hearings........................................................95
II. Legislation....................................................105
Measures Enacted Into Law................................ 105
Measures Which Did Not Advance Beyond Referral to
Subcommittee............................................. 109
III. GAO Reports....................................................110
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI)
I. Historical Background..........................................113
A. Subcommittee Jurisdiction............................. 113
B. Subcommittee Investigations........................... 115
II. Subcommittee Hearings during the 112th Congress................120
III. Legislation Activities during the 112th Congress...............131
IV. Reports, Prints, and Studies...................................135
V. Requested and Sponsored Reports................................151
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs
(DRIA)
I. Hearings.......................................................162
II. Legislation....................................................166
III. GAO Reports....................................................169
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight (SCO)
I. Hearings.......................................................170
II. Legislation....................................................182
113th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 113-115
======================================================================
ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND
SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
DURING THE 112TH CONGRESS
_______
October 28, 2013.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. CARPER, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
This report reviews the legislative and oversight
activities of the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and its Subcommittees during the 112th
Congress. These activities were conducted pursuant to the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended; by Rule
XXV(k) of the Standing Rules of the Senate; and by additional
authorizing resolutions of the Senate. See Section II,
``Committee Jurisdiction,'' for details.
Senator Lieberman was Chairman of the Committee during the
112th Congress; Senator Collins was the Ranking Member.
Major activities of the Committee during the 112th Congress
included legislation to strengthen the Nation's cybersecurity,
to reform the U.S. Postal Service, and to bar Congressional
insider trading; releasing an investigative report into the
November 2009 Fort Hood shooting; and a series of oversight
hearings on the progress of homeland security to mark the 10th
anniversary of September 11, 2001. Discussion of these major
activities appears in Section I below; additional information
on these and other measures appears in Section VII,
``Legislative Actions.''
Extensive information about the Committee's history,
hearings, legislation, documents, Subcommittees, and other
matters is available at the Web site, http://hsgac.senate.gov/.
I. INTRODUCTION
The 112th Congress began inauspiciously for legislative
achievement. Just 2 years after President Obama was elected the
first African-American president--a period during which
Democrats controlled the presidency, the House, and the Senate
for the first time since 1994--the 2010 mid-term elections
turned the division of power, and the President's ability to
enact his legislative agenda upside down. The House of
Representatives fell back into Republican control after a 4-
year hiatus. In fact, more Republicans were elected to the
House in 2010 than any election year since 1946. And while the
Senate remained in the hands of Democrats, they lost the super
majority of 60 votes they had enjoyed since 2008 and which had
enabled them to push through ground breaking health care
reform. The result was the most politically polarized Congress
in memory.
If the ideological division was not enough to dampen
spirits, the economy provided little comfort. The previous 2
years had seen the worst economic conditions in the United
States since the Great Depression. Unemployment rose past 9
percent. Multinational companies folded like houses of cards.
Credit card defaults and home foreclosures occurred at record
rates. The national debt and the deficit reached astronomical
levels. By the 112th Congress, economic growth and business
investments had begun ticking upward slowly, but the next 2
years posed extreme difficulties for the working poor and
middle-class Americans.
Just days into the new Congress, another event contributed
to the unforgiving mood that had descended upon the country. On
January 8, 2011, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a sunny, up-
and-coming, middle-of-the-road Democrat from Tuscon, Arizona,
was shot in the head at close range and critically wounded by a
deranged constituent.
Giffords survived, miraculously, but after she was shot,
civil political discourse plunged, stripping bare the hostility
that had been brewing between the two parties over the course
of the Obama presidency. On an electoral map, Sarah Palin,
former Vice Presidential Nominee, had placed targets over the
congressional districts she hoped Republicans would win,
including Rep. Giffords' seat. To add fuel to the fire, Ms.
Palin used the incendiary term ``blood libel''--an anti-Semitic
accusation that Jews killed Christian children for ritual
sacrifice--to blame the media and defend her own fiery
rhetoric.
The lines were drawn. The mood was set. Agreement between
the two parties, and thus legislative accomplishment, would be
hard to come by for the next 2 years despite Chairman Joseph
Lieberman's considerable political skills and record of
bipartisan accomplishments. Congress' failure to pass a 2011
budget on time nearly closed the government down. Its inability
to raise the Nation's debt limit on a timely basis rocked the
economy further, leading to a downgrade of the Nation's credit
rating, and a worldwide loss of confidence in America's
economic machine.
The inability of the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) to find compromise on Chairman
Lieberman's top legislative goals--cybersecurity and postal
reform--played out for 2 years against this contentious
backdrop. In the 111th Congress, the Committee had drafted and
reported out legislation to secure the cyber networks of the
country's most critical infrastructure--those life sustaining
services that support our national and economy security on a
daily basis, such as the power supply, water delivery systems,
financial and transportation networks, and communications
systems. The bill was revised and re-introduced in the 112th
Congress. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked the chairmen
of several committees with jurisdiction over pieces of the
bill--Intelligence, Commerce, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary--
to negotiate an agreement that he could bring to the floor.
Yet, despite 10 hearings on the issue since 2005, a markup, and
countless hours of negotiations with Republicans, privacy and
civil liberties groups, and industry, the bill's supporters
were unable to overcome the opposition's claim that the bill
would impose job-killing regulation on American business at
precisely the moment businesses were beginning to recover from
the 2008 financial crisis.
The Chairman also worked relentlessly to reform the U.S.
Postal Service (USPS) to stop the hemorrhaging of $50 million a
day and place USPS on sound financial footing for the near
future. Although the Senate approved a bill, the House never
did. And geographic divisions doomed the bill when agreement
between rural and urban lawmakers could not be reached to
reduce postal delivery from 6 days to 5 days, eliminate postal
processing plants, and shutter under-used post offices.
The Committee did succeed in shepherding legislation
through Congress to bar Members and their top staff from
insider trading on information they obtain as part of their
jobs. After ``60 Minutes'' broadcast a story about Members
personally profiting from inside information, Congress handily
passed the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act, or the
STOCK Act, to prove to the public in an election year that
Members of Congress work for the public good rather than
private gain.
Senators Lieberman and Collins also released the findings
of their year-and-a-half long investigation into the November
2009 shooting at Ford Hood, Texas, by Army Major Nidal Hasan.
The investigation found multiple signs in the years leading up
to the shooting that Hasan had been radicalizing to violent
Islamist extremism--signs that were either ignored or not
recognized for what they were by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Defense (DOD).
The Committee also conducted a number of valuable oversight
hearings marking the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001
(9/11) terror attacks, the 5th anniversary of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act, and the 10th birthday of
the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security.
The hearings put into perspective how much better our homeland
defenses are today and examined what remains to be done to
close remaining gaps. And a series of border security hearings
concluded with testimony that while fewer undocumented
immigrants were crossing the line from Mexico into the
southwest, the residents of the southwest did not feel safer.
The Senator continued his advocacy for benefits for the
domestic partners of Federal employees and on behalf of voting
rights and budget autonomy for the people of the District of
Columbia. And he continued to push for reauthorization of the
U.S. Fire Administration and a series of homeland security
grants that prepare local and State first responders with the
training and equipment they need to protect their communities
effectively.
II. HIGHLIGHTS OF ACTIVITIES
HOMELAND SECURITY
A. Cybersecurity
Chairman Lieberman's efforts to pass cybersecurity
legislation took center stage for the Committee in the 112th
Congress. By 2011, cyber criminals, hostile nations,
terrorists, and hacktivists posed an unprecedented threat to
national security and the strength of our economy by targeting
public and private networks, including critical infrastructure,
defense systems, corporate records, and global communications.
More than $1 trillion worth of intellectual property had
already been stolen from American businesses. And military
leaders were beginning to sound the alarm.
On January 26, 2011, a place holder, leadership bill was
introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, D-VT, Carl Levin, D-MI,
Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, John Kerry, D-MA, Jay Rockefeller, D-WV,
Joe Lieberman, D-CT, and Dianne Feinstein, D-CA--all committee
chairmen who had a stake in cybersecurity. At the time,
Chairman Lieberman said: ``The future security of the American
way of life depends on passage of comprehensive cyber security
legislation that will provide the Federal Government with
modern tools to secure and defend the Nation's most critical
networks and assets.'' The legislation called for protection of
the Nation's most critical infrastructure--the electric grid,
the financial sector, financial and telecommunications
networks, for example--those networks, which if disabled or
destroyed, could jeopardize the economy or national security.
When the Administration released its 2012 budget on
February 14, 2011, the Senator praised the 17 percent, $67
million increase for cybersecurity funding. The increase, he
said, ``will enable the Department to better coordinate the
security of critical cyber systems and information, which are
under constant and increasing threat from foreign and domestic
digital thieves and hackers.
Later that month, on February 17, 2011, Chairman Lieberman,
Ranking Member Susan Collins, and Senator Tom Carper introduced
cybersecurity legislation specific to HSGAC's jurisdiction
called ``The Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act,'' S. 413,
to establish baseline security standards for critical
infrastructure. Although it was based on the bill the Committee
had marked up the previous Congress, the new bill was tweaked
in an effort to dispel the gross canard that the legislation
contained a ``kill switch'' allowing the President to ``turn
off'' the Internet. Events in Egypt in late January, as
President Hosni Mubarak was losing his grip on power, fueled
the fire. News reports indicated that Mubarak had managed to
shut down a number of networks that enabled Egyptians to
communicate with one another about their opposition to his
regime. A few online technology blogs compared the Senators'
legislation to what was happening in Egypt.
Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Carper protested. ``We
would never sign on to legislation that authorized the
President, or anyone else, to shut down the Internet. Emergency
or no, the exercise of such broad authority would be an affront
to our Constitution.''
To dispel any doubts about the Senators' intentions, ``The
Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act'' explicitly stated that
``neither the President, the Director of the National Center
for Cybersecurity and Communications or any officer or employee
of the U.S. Government shall have the authority to shut down
the Internet.'' It also provided an opportunity for judicial
review of designations of systems and assets as ``covered
critical infrastructure.''
``We want to clear the air once and for all,'' Senator
Lieberman said. ``There is no so-called `kill switch' in our
legislation because the very notion is antithetical to our goal
of providing precise and targeted authorities to the President.
Furthermore, it is impossible to turn off the Internet in this
country. This legislation applies to the most critical
infrastructures that Americans rely on in their daily lives--
energy transmission, water supply, financial services, for
example--to ensure that those assets are protected in case of a
potentially crippling cyber attack.
``The so-called `internet kill switch' debate has eclipsed
discussion of actual, substantive provisions in this bill that
would significantly improve the security of all Americans by
creating a new national center to prevent and respond to cyber
attacks, requiring critical infrastructure owners--for the
first time--to shore up cyber vulnerabilities, and establishing
a strategy to secure the Federal information technology (IT)
supply chain. I look forward to working with Senator Reid to
bring comprehensive cyber security legislation to the floor
early this year,'' Senator Collins said.
On May 12, 2011, the White House released a proposal of its
own that overlapped significantly with the Committee bill and
the previous extensive collaborations between the HSGAC and the
Commerce Committee. Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Carper
released a joint statement that said, in part, ``The Senate and
the White House are on the same track to make sure our cyber
networks are protected against an attack that could throw the
Nation into chaos. We both recognize that the government and
the private sector must work together to secure our Nation's
most critical infrastructure, for example, our energy, water,
financial, telecommunications, and transportation systems. We
both call for risk-based assessments of the systems and assets
that run that infrastructure. We both designate the Department
of Homeland Security to lead this effort, with the assistance
of other Federal agencies. And we both encourage the government
and the private sector to use and refine best practices honed
over years of experience.''
On May 23, 2011, the Committee held a hearing on the White
House proposal at which four witnesses--representing the
Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Commerce, and
Justice--pledged their cooperation to find consensus on
legislation to protect against catastrophic cyber attack on the
Nation's critical infrastructure.
``If we do not do something soon, the Internet is going to
become a digital Dodge City,'' Chairman Lieberman said.
``Cyberspace is just too important to modern life to allow that
to happen. It's time to say: `There's a new sheriff in town and
we're going to have some law and order around here.' And we can
do that without compromising liberty and privacy. This is not a
partisan debate. It is a national security and economic growth
debate.''
As the year wore on, more and more companies made public
the fact that they had been hacked--including companies with
top notch cybersecurity, such as the internet security firm
RSA, the military contractor Lockheed Martin, and the
international giant Sony. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
weighed in during a December 11, 2011, speech at the Intrepid
Sea, Air, and Space Museum in New York, warning of a ``cyber
Pearl Harbor'' attacking the electric grid, transportation and
financial systems, and government networks.
The House Cybersecurity Task Force lent crucial support to
the effort to pass a comprehensive bill when it released its
findings on October 5, 2011. Specifically, the Task Force noted
that Congress should consider carefully targeted directives for
limited regulation for critical infrastructure cybersecurity.
``The recommendations of the House Republican Cybersecurity
Task Force are an important and positive step toward passing
badly needed comprehensive cybersecurity legislation,'' Senator
Lieberman said.
Unfortunately, most Senate Republicans were boycotting
negotiations with the committee chairmen of jurisdiction. But
at the end of the year, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced
that cybersecurity would be up for debate on the Senate floor
in the first work period of 2012. However, that was not to be.
The bill's prospects were boosted when President Obama
weighed in on cybersecurity in his January 24, 2012, State of
the Union address. Additionally, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper publicly stated that Iran, China,
and Russia posed the greatest cyber threats to our Nation. This
was the most serious warning yet from the intelligence
community of the imminent threat the country faced.
On February 14, 2012, building on the years of hard work
and cooperation between their committees, Senators Lieberman,
Collins, Rockefeller, and Feinstein introduced the next
iteration of their bill--``The Cybersecurity Act of 2012,'' S.
2105--based on agreements they had reached in negotiations the
previous fall with representatives from the information
technology, financial services, telecommunications, and energy
sectors.
Major players in the field of information technology--
Cisco, Oracle, TechAmerica, and EMC2--praised the legislation.
National and homeland security leaders--Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman Martin Dempsey, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and
former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff--endorsed
the bill. And more members of the military, intelligence, and
homeland security communities would support the bill as the
weeks wore on.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was similar in general
outline to the Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act: The bill
would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in
consultation with the private sector, the Intelligence
Community, and others, to conduct risk assessments to determine
which sectors were subject to the greatest and most immediate
cyber risks.
The bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland
Security, with the private sector, to determine cybersecurity
performance requirements based upon the risk assessments. The
performance requirements would cover critical infrastructure
systems and assets whose disruption could result in severe
degradation of national security, catastrophic economic damage,
or the interruption of life-sustaining services sufficient to
cause mass casualties or mass evacuations.
The bill would only cover the most critical systems and
assets if they were not already being appropriately secured.
Owners of ``covered critical infrastructure'' would have the
flexibility to meet the cybersecurity performance requirements
in the manner they deem appropriate. The private sector also
would have the opportunity to develop and propose performance
requirements for ``covered critical infrastructure.''
The bill came under scrutiny at the hearing on February 16,
2012, that included as witnesses Senators Rockefeller and
Feinstein; Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano; former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge; Assistant DHS
Secretary for Management Stewart Baker; James A. Lewis,
Director and Senior Fellow of the Technology and Public Policy
Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies;
and Scott Charney, Corporate Vice President, Trustworthy
Computing Group for Microsoft Corporation. Republicans
announced at the hearing that they would introduce their own
legislation, and while the Chairman expressed hope that
Republicans were beginning to engage, he also expressed concern
that partisan politics might get in the way of protecting the
country's best interests.
``I am heartened that Republicans will offer their own
cybersecurity proposal so that we can engage in rigorous debate
and pass badly needed legislation this year,'' Senator
Lieberman said, ``because to me it feels like it is September
10, 2001. The system is blinking red--again. Yet, we are
failing to connect the dots--again. We have come so far and in
such a bipartisan way that we cannot allow this moment to slip
away from us. We need to act now to defend America's cyberspace
as a matter of national and economic security.''
The first Senate work period of 2012 ended without floor
debate and partisan divisions were becoming more prominent. On
March 2, 2012, after reading a draft of the Republican bill,
the four co-sponsors of the Cybersecurity Act issued a
statement lamenting the GOP bill's focus on information sharing
only. ``While we appreciate our colleagues' commitment to
passing a cybersecurity bill, it is absolutely essential that
legislation address the cyber vulnerabilities of our most
critical infrastructure. The bill introduced Thursday does
little to ensure that we improve the security of critical
infrastructure--not even the security of those systems that
could cause catastrophic harm and mass causalities if damaged
by a cyber attack.''
On March 27, 2012, the head of the military's Cyber Command
and Director of the National Security Agency, General Keith
Alexander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that
information-sharing among critical infrastructure owners and
operators is not enough to protect their cyber networks against
attacks from rival nations, criminals, terrorists, and
hacktivists. Information sharing combined with security
standards are needed to confront the growing cyber threat,
Alexander said. He also agreed with the Cybersecurity Act
cosponsors that DHS was the proper agency to collaborate with
industry to secure the most critical cyber networks. ``I do
think we have to have some set of standards,'' General
Alexander said.
Negotiations continued with stakeholders throughout the
spring, and the bill gained additional support from IT
companies such as Cisco and Oracle, and from 9/11 Commission
Co-Chairmen Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton. But it was not brought
to the floor in the second work period either.
The House passed a number of smaller cybersecurity bills on
April 27, 2012, that Senators Lieberman and Collins and the
other cosponsors of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 found
inadequate. Although the bills mirrored some portions of the
Senate provisions on information sharing, Federal network
security, and cybersecurity research and development, they did
not address the vulnerability of our most critical, privately-
owned infrastructure.
In a statement, the chief co-sponsors of the Senate bill
said: ``By leaving out protection for critical infrastructure--
our electric grid, water and sewer systems, transportation and
financial networks--the House ignores the advice of our
intelligence community, our national and homeland security
leaders, as well as a number of prominent Republicans,
including former Director of National Intelligence Mike
McConnell, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
9/11 Commission Co-Chairman Gov. Tom Kean, and even President
Ronald Reagan's chief economist Martin Feldstein, who serves as
an outside advisor to the National Security Agency.''
In May, the concept of baseline security standards for
critical infrastructure received another important endorsement
from a leading conservative legal scholar. On May 10, 2012,
Harvard Professor Jack Goldsmith said critical infrastructure
``is central to the security of the Nation,'' and security
standards were needed to protect it from probes or attacks by
hostile nations, terrorists, and other bad actors. Goldsmith
served as Assistant Attorney General in the Administration of
President George Bush and authored the book ``Terror
President.'' In 2007, The New York Times Magazine said he was
``widely considered one of the brightest stars in the
conservative legal firmament.''
The urgent need for legislation was reinforced once again
on May 22, 2012, when an al-Qaeda video emerged calling upon
the ``covert Mujahidin'' to commit ``electronic jihad.'' The
video explicitly called for cyber attacks against the networks
of both government and life-sustaining critical infrastructure,
including the electric grid, and compared vulnerabilities in
U.S. critical cyber networks to the vulnerabilities in our
aviation system prior to 9/11.
``This is the clearest evidence we've seen that al-Qaeda
and other terrorist groups want to attack the cyber systems of
our critical infrastructure,'' Senator Lieberman said.
``Congress needs to act now to protect the American public from
a possible devastating attack on our electric grid, water
delivery systems, or financial networks, for example. As
numerous, bipartisan national security experts have said,
minimum cybersecurity standards for those networks are
necessary to protect our national and economic security.''
On June 13, 2012, DHS provided a demonstration of just how
easy it is to hack into the operating system of critical
infrastructure, and Senator Lieberman went to the Senate floor
to, once again, sound the alarm. ``Given the time left in this
legislative session and the upcoming election this fall, we are
concerned that the window of opportunity to pass legislation
that is, in our view, critically necessary to protect our
national and economic security is quickly disappearing.''
The third Senate work period of 2012 ended before July
Fourth with no floor action on the bill. But momentum was
building.
On July 10, 2012, General Alexander said publicly that the
U.S loses billions of dollars each year because of cyber
espionage and cyber crime, constituting the ``greatest transfer
of wealth in history.'' Senator Lieberman responded, ``The
General estimated that the United States loses $250 billion
annually in intellectual property theft and $338 billion
annually in financial theft. If those numbers do not argue for
improving our cybersecurity--both in the public and private
domains--I do not know what will.''
But Republicans had dug in hard and were not budging in
their opposition to security standards, which they said
amounted to onerous regulation on businesses still recovering
from 2 years of economic stress. Therefore, on July 19, 2012,
Senator Lieberman and his co-sponsors, now including Senator
Carper, again, introduced a revised version of ``The
Cybersecurity Act,'' S. 3414--absent required security
standards--in a good faith effort to secure enough votes to
address the threat of cyber attack.
``This compromise bill creates a public-private partnership
to set cybersecurity standards for critical American
infrastructure, and offers the reward of some immunity from
liability to those who meet those standards. In other words, we
are going to try carrots instead of sticks as we begin to
improve our cyber defenses. This compromise bill will depend on
incentives rather than mandatory regulations to strengthen
America's cybersecurity. If that does not work, a future
Congress will undoubtedly come back and adopt a more coercive
system.
``While the bill we introduced in February is stronger,
this compromise will significantly strengthen the cybersecurity
of the Nation's most critical infrastructure and with it our
national and economic security.''
On July 24, 2012, the prestigious Aspen Institute's
Homeland Security Group--over half of whom were Bush
Administration appointees--endorsed the revised, bipartisan
cybersecurity legislation. ``The Aspen Homeland Security group
strongly urges the Senate to vote this week to take up S. 3414,
the cybersecurity bill, for debate on the floor. The country is
already being hurt by foreign cyber-intrusions and the
possibility of a devastating cyber attack is real.''
The next day, Senator Lieberman returned to the floor of
the Senate to argue on behalf of his legislation. ``First,'' he
said, ``the threat of cyber attacks is a danger that is clear,
present and growing, with enemies ranging from rival nations,
to cyber-terrorists, to organized crime, to rogue hackers
sitting at computers almost anywhere around the world.''
``Second: This bill is more than a decade in the making. I
attended my first hearing on cybersecurity as a member of the
former Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, under the
leadership of Chairman Fred Thompson, back in 1998, and have
been concerned about this growing threat ever since.''
``And third: The bill I hope we are about to begin debating
is already the result of bipartisan compromise. My cosponsors
and I did not get everything we wanted. In fact, we gave up
some things we thought were vitally important to the bill. But
given the threat, we thought it was important to move forward
with a bill that will significantly strengthen our cyber
security. We did not want to lose the chance to pass
legislation this year that could help secure our Nation for
decades to come, so we made big compromises.''
On July 26, 2012, the day floor debate began, seven major
information technology companies and industry groups announced
their support for the Cybersecurity Act. They were Microsoft,
Oracle, Cisco, CA Technologies, a global IT management and
software company, EMC/RSA, an IT services company, the
Information Technology Industry Council, a trade group, and the
National Defense Industrial Association, also a trade group.
The Senate agreed 84-11 to proceed to debate on the bill.
The next day, General Alexander disclosed new figures on
the frequency of cyber attacks, particularly on critical
infrastructure. At an Aspen Institute security conference,
General Alexander said attacks had increased 17-fold between
2009 and 2011, with more and more targeted at critical
infrastructure. General Alexander said the United States was
unprepared for a major cyber attack and urged passage of
legislation to improve the Nation's defenses. Three days later,
Alexander wrote to the Senate's top Democratic and Republican
leaders urging them to vote on cybersecurity legislation.
Meanwhile, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The
Boston Globe all editorialized in favor of the Cybersecurity
Act of 2012. But on August 2, when the Senate was asked to end
debate on the bill so it could move toward a vote, it voted 52-
46 against the motion, eight votes shy of the 60 needed to
overcome Republican opposition. Senator Reid switched his vote
to ``Nay'' in a procedural maneuver to keep the bill on the
legislative calendar in hopes that compromise could later be
reached.
Returning from the August break, Senator Lieberman
continued to press for passage of the bill although by now it
was clear that the bill had too steep a hill to climb. On
September 19, 2012, at the Committee's annual terrorist threat
hearing, FBI Associate Director Kevin Perkins noted that the
Nation was facing ``increasingly complex threats'' to its
cybersecurity, including from nation-states, organized crime
groups, and hackers. He noted that these threats pose ``a
significant risk to our Nation's critical infrastructure.''
In the absence of Senate action, and the presence of a real
and imminent threat, Senator Lieberman, along with two of his
cosponsors, wrote to President Obama on September 24, shortly
before Congress was to recess for the November elections,
urging him to issue an executive order to better secure the
Nation's most important cyber networks, particularly by
conducting risk assessments of the most critical cyber
infrastructure and establishing security standards.
``Of course, I hope and prefer that the Senate passes
cybersecurity legislation and works with the House to get a
bill to your desk before the end of this session,'' the Senator
wrote. ``Though it is hard to be optimistic about the prospects
of passing legislation in the lame duck session, I continue to
work with my colleagues to find a bipartisan and bicameral
compromise.
``But our Nation's security interests cannot be left
inadequately protected because of special interest pressure.
Therefore, I urge you to use the full extent of your
authorities under the Constitution and those already given to
you by Congress to protect the Nation from the real and growing
threat of cyber attack.''
After serious denial of service attacks against several
U.S. banks and an attack on the Saudi Aramco oil company that
was called the most destructive cyber attack against a private
company in history. The end came, finally, on November 14,
2012, when the Senate rejected a second chance to move forward
on cybersecurity legislation that was supported by top-ranking
members of the Nation's intelligence, national, and homeland
security communities. By a vote of 51-47, nine short of the 60
necessary, the Senate failed to approve a procedural motion to
end debate on the bill, S. 3414, and move to a final vote.
Senators Lieberman and Collins penned their last op-ed on
cybersecurity, which appeared on the New York Times Web site on
December 7, 2012, the anniversary of the attack on Pearl
Harbor. ``On this anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack,''
they wrote, ``it's worth remembering that enemies will attack
at a time of their choosing. In fact, they rely on surprise. A
storm is surely gathering again, and we must resist the false
sense of calm. The attack is not a matter of if, but when. It
will not be launched from aircraft carriers, missile silos or
massed armies. It will come through cyberspace. The new
Congress must take up this issue, and pass comprehensive
legislation to defend our Nation against this gathering cyber
threat. If it does not, the day on which those cyber weapons
strike will be another `date which will live in infamy,'
because we knew it was coming and did not come together to stop
it.''
B. Ten Years After 9/11: Evaluating Post-9/11 Reforms
To mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks,
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
launched a series of hearings to examine the Nation's
counterterrorism efforts over the past decade in order to build
upon reforms that have worked and to improve those that have
not.
The inaugural hearing, on March 20, 2011, titled ``Ten
Years After 9/11: A Report from the 9/11 Commission Chairmen,''
presented an overview of the gains that have been made to
protect the American people from terrorist attacks and the work
that remains before the 9/11 Commission recommendations of 2004
have been fulfilled.
``Since the 9/11 Commission reforms were adopted, we have
had many successes in our battles with terrorists, many plots
broken, and planned attacks thwarted,'' said Chairman
Lieberman. ``And we've also had some tragic failures. We must
continue to learn from our successes and our failures so we are
not just reacting to the last attack or attempted attack but
are taking the fight to our enemies.''
The second hearing was held on May 12, and titled ``Ten
Years After 9/11: Is Intelligence Reform Working, Part I,'' was
called to examine implementation of national security reforms
made after 9/11 and where improvement was needed. The Chairman
praised the intelligence community for its role in locating
Osama bin Laden but questioned whether that level of
cooperation was common across the board, as envisioned by
intelligence reform legislation Senators Lieberman and Collins
authored.
``When the target is not at this high level, the evidence
about improved functioning of the Intelligence Community is
mixed,'' the Chairman said. ``We need to ensure that the
shoulder-to-shoulder cooperation we saw in the hunt for bin
Laden is being applied to all those lurking in the shadows
planning fresh attacks, because the death of bin Laden does not
mean the death of al-Qaeda or Islamist terrorism. And the
threat of homegrown, lone wolf terrorists--like Hasan--is
growing. Our revamped intelligence community must take on these
challenges and more.''
The third hearing, on May 19, 2011, was a continuation of
the second hearing.
The fourth hearing, on June 22, did not carry the ``Ten
Years After'' title, but was considered part of the 9/11
series. Its title was, ``See Something, Say Something, Do
Something,'' and the hearing focused on the vulnerabilities
that still exist in rail transit security. ``We must continue
to work with travelers to make them full partners in securing
our rail and transit systems,'' the Senator said. ``This
includes educating them about risks, how to report suspicious
activity, and how to respond and recover should an attack
occur. Speed, reliability, and convenience are hallmarks of
mass transit. But with so many passengers at so many stations,
along so many routes, these systems are very difficult to
secure. It is simply not possible to install permanent
aviation-level security checkpoints without impeding the flow
of traffic. But there is much more the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) can and should do and more that State and
local governments and transit agencies can and should do.''
Although rail and transit security is primarily the
responsibility of State and local law enforcement and rail
operators, TSA has a critical role to play. Among the steps the
Senator said should be taken:
LTSA must fulfill a 2007 legislative requirement
to develop uniform standards for rail and transit training
programs, for background checks for frontline employees, and
for transit agencies' security plans.
LThe Department of Homeland Security must step up
its efforts to develop creative, non-intrusive security
solutions--especially to detect improvised explosive devices,
which history has shown are the weapon of choice for disrupting
rail and transit systems.
LTSA must improve its intelligence sharing with
State and local officials, and the private sector.
LAll stakeholders should conduct more exercises to
accustom rail and transit officials to the unique requirements
of disaster prevention and response involving trains.
LMake passengers full partners in rail and transit
security, educating them about risks, how to report suspicious
activity, and how to respond should an attack occur--without
alienating them.
The fifth hearing, titled ``Ten Years After 9/11:
Preventing Terrorist Travel,'' was held on July 13, 2011.
Chairman Lieberman pressed Administration officials about
continuing gaps in our defenses against terrorist travel,
including inadequate security in visa processing, a large
backlog of visa overstays in this country, and our failure to
implement biometric information-sharing programs with our
allies.
``Denying terrorists the ability to travel to our country
from abroad and attack us was one of the fundamental
recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission,'' the Senator
said. ``We have come a long way since 9/11 in preventing
terrorist travel but we have much work to do to close remaining
gaps.
``Implementation of the program at overseas consular
offices that requires all visa applicants to be investigated is
seriously lagging. The Department of Homeland Security and the
State Department have identified 57 high-risk posts abroad, but
of the 20 highest risk posts only nine have criminal
investigators to provide an added layer of security to the visa
issuing process.
``Only half of the countries whose citizens need no visa to
enter the United States have signed electronic biometric
information-sharing agreements required to participate in the
Visa Waiver Program, and none of these agreements has actually
been implemented.
``And, implementation of U.S. VISIT's exit system has been
one of our biggest failures, leading to large backlogs of
potential overstays and uncertainty about whether people have
left the country. I am heartened that most of this backlog has
been cleared in response to a our previous questions about it
but I question why it took so long
``We will never achieve 100 percent security but we must
continue our work to improve these shortcomings.''
On July 27, the Committee held its sixth hearing in the
series, ``Ten Years After 9/11: Improving Emergency
Communications.'' The Committee was told that first responders
need a 21st Century communications system that includes
dedicated bandwidth to make the most out of new and future
information technologies that will maximize performance and
help save lives.
Chairman Lieberman and Senator John McCain had introduced
legislation to dedicate the so-called D-Block bandwidth to
first responders. A similar bill was also reported out of the
Commerce Committee.
``We've made a lot of progress toward interoperability for
first responders and in strengthening the operability of
communications networks and systems,'' Senator Lieberman said.
``The public should have an increased sense of confidence in
that. But in an age when the weather, not to mention extremist
and terrorist groups, is so unpredictable, dedicated spectrum
is essential. If the D-Block legislation passes, that would be
a giant leap forward for the ability of first responders to do
what we ask and need them to do every day in cities and States
across the country. Senator Reid has included the D-Block
reallocation in his debt reduction plan, which means we have an
opportunity within the next week to finally, and fully, fulfill
the 9/11 Commission's recommendation on interoperability.''
The seventh hearing in the series, on September 7, 2012,
was called ``Successful Reforms and Challenges Ahead at the
Department of Homeland Security.
The eighth hearing called ``Ten Years After 9/11: Are We
Safer,'' was held on September 13 and substituted for the
Committee's annual terrorist threat hearing. Homeland Security
Secretary Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller and National
Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen agreed that
while al-Qaeda's leadership has been degraded, the terrorist
threat was more ``complex and diverse'' than it was 10 years
ago, and that violent Islamist extremists working by themselves
in this country, perhaps U.S. citizens, posed a particular
threat.
``The 9th anniversary of 9/11 did not get the kind of
attention we saw from the media last week. And neither will the
11th,'' Senator Lieberman said. ``And even though we were
reminded with fresh threat warnings over the past few days,
there is evidence that America is already beginning to forget
how real the threat of Islamist extremism really is.
``In some ways we may be the victims of our own success
because there has not been another mass-casualty terrorist
attack on American soil since 9/11--something that, 10 years
ago, no one would have predicted. So the question we ask today
is not `are we safer?'--it is evidently clear we are safer--but
`are we doing enough to stay safe?'''
The ninth hearing on October 12, ``Ten Years After 9/11: A
Status Report on Information Sharing,'' featured witnesses who
agreed that while the pre 9/11 obstacles to information sharing
have largely been eliminated, several key challenges remain,
including clarifying intelligence agencies' policies with
respect to U.S. citizens and maintaining funding for activities
that support State and local information sharing, including
fusion centers. Several witnesses touched on the need to
address privacy concerns. Former Deputy Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) Director John McLaughlin noted that fear of
violating rules protecting the privacy of U.S. citizens can
lead intelligence agents to err on the side of not pursuing
questionable intelligence. Senator Lieberman said this needs to
be resolved, given the increased numbers of Americans engaged
in homegrown terrorism over the past few years.
``Just yesterday, we witnessed the stunning outcome of
brilliant information sharing when the Department of Justice
announced it had uncovered a plot to assassinate the Saudi
ambassador to the United States here in the United States,''
Senator Lieberman said. ``This is just an example of how
barriers to information sharing have been taken down,
significantly improving the quality and quantity of
information. We have seen this, not just yesterday, but in
game-changing military and counterterrorism successes, such as
the military operations that killed Osama bin Laden and Anwar
al-Awlaki. So, we have built a strong foundation but we are not
finished building the complete structure.''
The tenth hearing in the series, ``Ten Years After 9/11 and
the Anthrax Attacks: Protecting Against Biological Threats,''
held on October 18, 2011, found the Nation more prepared for a
biological attack or a naturally occurring pandemic than it was
10 years ago through creation of new disease surveillance
systems, new vaccines, and new ways to analyze and characterize
threats. But experts told the Committee that the ability to
treat people effectively could be hampered by an understaffed
public health care system, an absence of countermeasures to
many threats, and an insufficient ability to rapidly distribute
therapeutics to a mass population.
``Over the past decade, we have spent billions of dollars
on bio-defense research; on strengthening first responder
capabilities; and on developing new vaccines, bio-surveillance
systems, and forensic science techniques,'' Senator Lieberman
said. ``Really we've done a lot more than the average American
knows about to protect their security.
``But it is also clear from reports that we are not
prepared for a catastrophic biological incident. We are much
better prepared for a smaller weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
attack although gaps remain there too. We lack a strategy for
dispensing vaccines and antibiotics in a mass crisis and tight
budgets have led to an under-staffed medical surge force to
respond to a biological attack in communities around the
country.''
The final hearing in the series was held November 2, 2011,
and was called ``Ten Years After 9/11: The Next Wave in
Aviation Security.'' Senator Lieberman concluded that the
strict, layered security measures the Transportation Service
Administration requires at airport checkpoints were still
necessary given what those checkpoints turn up every day.
TSA Administrator John Pistole told the Senators that four
to five guns are discovered at checkpoints around the country
on a daily basis.
``But those security measures and TSA's limited resources
need to be targeted more directly at passengers who pose the
greatest risk,'' Senator Lieberman said. ``TSA also needs to
think creatively about better uses of technology and
information in the screening process. When you tell us four or
five weapons are found in carry-on luggage every day, we are
reminded why TSA's security efforts are so essential. What TSA
officers do at airport security checkpoints is for the security
of the general public. We want you to carry out your mission in
the most cost effective and technologically progressive way you
can.''
C. Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Islamist Extremism
1. Fort Hood Report
After more than a year of investigating the Fort Hood
massacre, Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins on
February 3, 2011, released their report, ``A Ticking Time Bomb:
Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S. Government's Failure to
Prevent the Fort Hood Attack.'' The report concluded that the
November 5, 2009, terrorist attack, which took the lives of 13
people and wounded scores more, could have been prevented.
The report found that accused killer Nidal Hasan's growing
drift toward violent Islamist extremism (VIE) was on full
display during his military medical training, although his
superiors took no punitive action. Two of his associates said
he was a ``ticking time bomb.'' He had defended Osama Bin Laden
and suggested Muslim Americans in the U.S. military might be
prone to commit fratricide.
But, a slipshod Federal Bureau of Investigation
investigation into Hasan before the shootings coupled with
internal disagreements and structural flaws in the agency's
intelligence operations also contributed to the government's
failure to prevent the attack.
The report found ``compelling evidence that Hasan embraced
views so extreme that he did not belong in the military.'' It
also found that FBI organizational problems impeded the
agency's full use of intelligence analysts, concluding that the
FBI's ``transformation into an intelligence driven, domestic
counterterrorism organization needs to be accelerated.''
The Department of Defense and the FBI ``collectively had
sufficient information necessary to have detected Hasan's
radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to
understand and to act on it,'' the report states. ``Our
investigation found specific and systemic failures in the
government's handling of the Hasan case and raises additional
concerns about what may be broader systemic issues.''
The report recommended ways to strengthen our defenses
against homegrown terrorism, including by adding to the
Department of Defense policies against extremism among service
members the specific category of violent Islamist extremism.
This is too important to be subsumed within policies aimed at
``violent extremism'' in general or ``workplace violence,'' the
report said.
Two weeks after release of the report, the Committee held a
hearing on February 15, 2011, to examine the findings and
recommendations contained in the Senators' report. Chairman
Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins asked expert witnesses for
their views on how to combat the ideology that fuels violent
Islamist extremism and how to correct the negligence, missed
communications, and failure to share information at the two
Federal agencies leading up to the attack.
A former top Homeland Security intelligence officer noted
that the U.S. Intelligence Community does not even have
``minimum essential requirements'' for how to collect
information about violent Islamist extremism. The internet
provides a virulent message to susceptible people all day,
every day, he said, and ``for us to not call it for what it is
and deal with it directly will be more damaging in the long
run.''
Former four-star Army General Jack Keane--who was involved
in an investigation of racial extremism in the Army--said that
racial extremism has been brought under control because
military commanders, officers, and enlisted men and women were
trained how to recognize that particular brand of extremism and
how to contend with it. ``Take the burden off the soldiers and
officers and make it a duty to report it,'' he urged.
And former FBI Deputy Director of National Security Phillip
Mudd called homegrown terrorism a ``metastasized threat'' that
requires more involvement by State and local law enforcers who
can detect activity in their jurisdictions early on. ``The
police, the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Homeland
Security should all be training together,'' he said.
Less than one month later, the Army disciplined nine
officials, sending a clear message to everyone that the Army
will not tolerate such negligence and passivity in reaction to
clear signs that a soldier is radicalizing to violent Islamist
extremism. On March 10, 2011, Senators Lieberman and Collins
reacted to the discipline. ``Our Fort Hood report documents
Major Nidal Hasan's drift towards violent Islamist extremism
and the poor judgment of his superiors who failed again and
again to take disciplinary action against him,'' Senator
Lieberman said. ``Unbelievably, they distorted his
radicalization into an advantage for the Army and the United
States. The FBI relied on these reports to conclude Hasan was
not a threat, when, in fact, he was a traitor and a terrorist.
The discipline which the Army has imposed on these nine of
Hasan's superiors will send a clear message to everyone that
the Army will not tolerate such negligence and passivity in
reaction to clear signs that a soldier is radicalizing to
violent Islamist extremism.''
On July 19, 2012, Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member
Collins responded to the declassified version of the report
from the independent investigation led by former FBI Director
William Webster on the causes of the Fort Hood shooting.
The Webster report reinforced many of the same conclusions
reached by the Senators. But they were concerned that the
report failed to address the specific cause for the Fort Hood
attack: violent Islamist extremism. They were also skeptical
that FBI analysts had become well-integrated into the FBI's
operations, as the report stated.
The Senators appreciated that, for the first time, the
report declassified the communications between Nidal Hasan and
Anwar al-Awlaki so that all Americans, especially the families
of the victims, could understand Hasan's radicalization and the
full scale of the tragedy for which he was responsible.
2. Countering Domestic Radicalization
On August 3, 2011, Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member
Collins reacted to the Administration's release of a national
strategy to counter violent Islamist extremism.
The Administration strategy outlined a community-led
approach to combating VIE, with the Federal Government playing
a significant role in fostering partnerships, providing support
and sharing information, and helping to build trust between
local Muslim American communities and law enforcement. It
reaffirms a commitment to promote American ideals as a counter-
narrative to the bankrupt ideology of Islamist extremists. And
it highlights a concern the Senators have raised recently about
the need for effective counterterrorism training that
distinguishes violent Islamist ideology from the peaceful
practice of Islam.
However, the Senators were concerned that the strategy did
not designate a lead agency to ensure accountability and
effectiveness, identify violent Islamist extremism as the main
cause of the homegrown terrorist threat, or address the
challenges posed by the Internet, which has been a major source
for the radicalization, recruitment, and mobilization of recent
homegrown Islamist extremists. On September 12, 2011, the
Senators sent a letter to deputy National Security Advisor John
Brennan detailing their disappointment with the plan.
On December 7, 2011, the Committee held its first joint
hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee. Members
examined the threat of homegrown terrorism to military
communities inside the United States and vowed to change the
law so domestic military victims of violent Islamist extremism
can be awarded the Purple Heart.
The only Americans who have lost their lives in terrorist
attacks on the homeland since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks have
been killed at U.S. military facilities. Private William Long
was the first soldier shot and killed in the United States, by
violent Islamist extremists, outside a Little Rock, Arkansas,
recruiting station June 4, 2009. In addition, 12 other soldiers
and one civilian were killed at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009,
bringing the total of domestic military victims of violent
Islamist extremism to 14.
Chairman Lieberman and House Homeland Security Committee
Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, vowed to work with the rest of
the conferees to change the law so Private Long and the victims
of the Fort Hood attack can receive the Purple Heart medal.
3. Zachary Chesser Report
After 6 years of investigating, reporting on, and educating
the public about the phenomenon of homegrown terrorism and
violent Islamist extremism, the Committee zeroed in on a
specific case in the 112th Congress. On February 27, 2012, the
Committee issued a staff report detailing the internet
radicalization of a homegrown terrorist and the inadequacy of
U.S. policy to counter online radicalization. The report
presented a classic case study of how quickly online
radicalization can occur compared to the traditional process of
face-to-face contact between an aspirant and an established
terrorist group.
In the case of Zachary Chesser, a young Virginia man now
serving 25 years on terrorism related charges, the trajectory
from high school graduate to incarcerated felon occurred in
just 2 years.
Committee staff corresponded with Mr. Chesser over a 3-
month period from August through October 2011 and included four
of those hand-written letters in the report. Chesser's
extensive online writings also were analyzed closely. He was a
member of and contributed to at least six terrorist online
sites, created three YouTube terrorist propaganda channels,
managed at least two Twitter accounts and a Facebook page, and
authored two blogs advocating violent Islamist extremism.
The report offered two recommendations: It called on the
Federal Government to develop a strategy aimed specifically at
global internet radicalization and propaganda. ``The U.S.
Government needs a comprehensive internet strategy to address
online radicalization that integrates activities across the
State Department, the Defense Department, the Department of
Homeland Security, the FBI, and other agencies into a single,
coherent approach--while vigilantly respecting the First
Amendment rights of all Americans,'' the report concluded.
The report also recommended the Federal Government develop
a ``whole of society'' approach to countering violent Islamist
radicalization that includes ``how to facilitate community
intervention by family, friends, and community and religious
leaders supported by Federal, State, and local government
resources. In addition, the U.S. Government should strengthen
its ability to assist Muslim American communities seeking to
address and counter radicalization online.''
D. Border Security and Immigration
1. The Southern Border
In 2011, Chairman Lieberman held a series of hearings on
the Nation's Southern Border violence due to drugs, human
trafficking, and illegal immigration. On March 30, 2011, the
first in a series of hearings was held to discuss an objective
definition of successful border security.
Expert witnesses tried to determine the effect of a decade-
long increase in border security spending, what the goal should
be for security along the border, and the meaning of recent
decreases in the apprehensions of illegal immigrants.
``We have spent a lot of money on securing the border over
the past decade,'' said Senator Lieberman. ``And we have made
significant gains in security as a result of this investment.
We are having these hearings to find common ground about what
more needs to be done and to build consensus about how we can
achieve the ultimate goal of providing a secure environment for
our citizens along the border. An important part of securing
the border also involves addressing the fact that most people
endanger their lives crossing the border illegally to find
work. And we must recognize that 40 percent of illegal aliens
in this country entered legally and then overstayed their
visas.''
On April 7, 2011, Senators Lieberman and McCain heard
testimony directly from those on the frontlines on the struggle
to secure the Southern Border. Testimony regarding the
effectiveness of border security was mixed, with some witnesses
saying that border security had improved and that illegal
border crossings were down. But one witness said drug and human
trafficking across his Arizona county remained out of control.
Although progress is occurring, there remain steps that need to
be taken to restore a sense of security to the communities at
the Southern Border. Thirty-five percent to 45 percent of
illegal immigrants entered the United States on valid visas,
but have continued to stay here even after their visas expires.
Many illegal immigrants did not enter the United States by
crossing the border from Mexico, a problem when trying to
combat illegal immigration. The Committee hearing found that
there needs to be better ways to measure border control in
order to increase the chance of effectively stopping the
illegal immigration problem.
On May 3, 2011, the Committee held a hearing to address the
number of illegal immigrants who entered the country legally
but overstayed their visas. A Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report found that 40 percent to 45 percent of the total
population of illegal immigrants--4 to 5 million people--stayed
past their visa expiration dates. The population is a national
security risk demonstrated by the fact that five of the 9/11
hijackers overstayed their visas. Identifying individuals who
have overstayed their visas is of critical importance to
national security; 36 of the roughly 400 people convicted of
terrorism-related charges since September 2001 had overstayed
their visas. The U.S. VISIT program, which is supposed to
identify people who have potentially overstayed their visas,
cannot keep up with the growing number of potential overstays.
In addition to the trouble DHS has identifying people that
overstay their visas, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
only devotes 3 percent of its investigative man hours to
tracking down immigrants whose visas have expired. The Senator
requested that Secretary Napolitano updates the DHS's progress
on this vulnerability in the county's national security.
Senator Lieberman wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Jack Lew on May
17, 2011, in support of a proposal to require gun dealers in
Southwest Border States to report multiple sales of certain
semi-automatic rifles.
Senator Lieberman called the policy ``a critically
important investigative tool'' in efforts to stem the flow of
weapons into Mexico ``without restricting the 2nd Amendment
right of lawful purchasers'' to buy firearms.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) has
announced it will require Southwest Border State gun dealers to
report for an initial period of 6 months multiple sales of
semi-automatic, .22 caliber or greater rifles that are capable
of accepting detachable magazines.
In hearings held over the years before the Committee,
witnesses testified that the shipment of guns purchased in the
United States into Mexico is a critical component to border
violence. GAO has reported that between 2004 and 2008, 70
percent of guns seized and traced by Mexican officials were
purchased in Southwest Border States. Guns purchased in the
United States have also been used to slaughter our own law
enforcement officers.
On February 15, 2011, two Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents were shot in Mexico City. One died from his
wounds, and it would later be revealed that he was killed with
a gun that had been returned in the ill fated Justice
Department Operation Fast and Furious, which tried to trace
illegally purchased guns.
``The tragic death of an ICE agent in Mexico City--and the
wounding of another--is the latest reminder of the grievous
violence south of our border that must be stopped. I am
grateful to the many Federal agents who serve our country in
dangerous circumstances every day. My thoughts and prayers are
with the families of today's victims in their moment of
heartbreak,'' said the Chairman.
2. Deterring Terrorist Travel
On May 10, 2011, the Senators joined with the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee to
introduce matching resolutions in their respective houses
emphasizing the importance of sharing airline passengers' names
with other countries to deter terrorist travel, sending a
message of disapproval of European Union (EU) efforts to weaken
an existing data-sharing agreement with the United States. The
move was in response to EU efforts to reopen negotiations on an
agreement signed by the EU and the United States in 2007 to
share passenger name record (PNR) data. The agreement was
intended to remain in effect until 2014.
This agreement allowed Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
to begin pre-screening international flights against terrorism
databases 72 hours before the flights are scheduled to depart.
Data collected from the airlines' PNR systems have contributed
to terrorism investigations and to the arrests of Times Square
bomber Faisal Shahzad and David Headley, who helped mastermind
the 2009 Mumbai attacks.
``We know from hard experience that terrorists are still
trying to use airplanes as weapons to strike out at the
American people, and thus, we should be doing everything we can
to keep terrorists off airplanes in the first place,'' Senate
Lieberman said. ``Accessing PNR data enables us to deny
terrorists the ability to wage war on innocent air travelers,
and I urge the Federal Government to accept no changes to our
current agreement with the European Union if those changes
impede on our ability to protect our citizens.''
On May 11, 2011, the Committee reported out the resolution,
S. Res. 174, and the Senate cleared it on May 18. ``The botched
Christmas Day attack in 2009 and the failed efforts last year
to blow up planes with bombs loaded on as cargo remind us that
terrorists still want to use airplanes as weapons of mass
destruction against us,'' Senator Lieberman said. ``Sharing
passenger names is an important part of our layered defenses
against terrorism and is an effective way to keep terrorists
off planes. PNR data has contributed to the arrests of at least
two terrorists since the current agreement with the EU was
signed. We simply cannot accept changes to the agreement that
could limit our ability to identify and arrest terrorists or
potential terrorists in the future.''
3. SBInet
On January 14, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security
announced it would end the SBInet program as originally
conceived. Senator Lieberman, who had overseen the troubled
program, said: ``The Secretary's decision to terminate SBInet
ends a long-troubled program that spent far too much of the
taxpayers' money for the results it delivered. From the start,
SBInet's one-size-fits-all approach was unrealistic. The
Department's decision to use technology based on the particular
security needs of each segment of the border is a far wiser
approach, and I hope it will be more cost effective.''
E. Secret Service Scandal
In reaction to a story involving the misconduct of Secret
Service agents and military personnel in Cartagena, Colombia,
the Chairman and Ranking Member began an investigation of the
Secret Service. On April 27, 2012, Senator Lieberman released a
statement on the scandal. ``The issue needs to be thoroughly
investigated and, if the allegations are true, people should be
punished.''
The incident in question occurred on the night of April 11,
and the morning of April 12, 2012, in which 12 Secret Service
agents and military personnel procured prostitutes and
allegedly were disruptive in public due to public drunkenness,
bringing disgrace to themselves and to the U.S. Government.
Just as important, it could well have compromised the security
of the President and the integrity of the mission for which he
traveled to Colombia.
Senator Lieberman, along with Senator Collins, requested
rules guiding employee conduct and records of past Secret
Service misconduct on May 1, 2012.
A hearing was held on May 23, 2012, in which the Senators
raised questions regarding whether a culture of misconduct
existed at the agency long before the Cartagena scandal became
public. The Chairman commented that, ``The mission of the
Secret Service is too important to the Nation for its agents to
engage in risky behavior.'' To the Director of the U.S. Secret
Service, Mark J. Sullivan, Senator Lieberman said, ``Going
forward you have to assume Cartagena was not the only case of
serious misconduct. You need to put in place rules and
procedures that will make sure this great agency will not be
subject again to the suspicions that many people now have,
including us, about its culture of permissiveness.''
F. General DHS Oversight
1. Budget
Despite a weak economy, an unprecedented Federal deficit
and debt, and pressure to cut government spending, Senator
Lieberman and the Committee continued to work to obtain
adequate funding for the Department of Homeland Security and
especially first responders. When the White House released its
Fiscal Year 2012 budget on February 14, 2011, Senator Lieberman
had a generally favorable reaction to the DHS budget proposal,
which represented a 1.5 percent increase over current funding.
The budget, the Chairman said is ``a measured approach that
will put the Department on track to fulfill its varied missions
and yet reflects the fiscal responsibility needed to bring down
the deficit and help energize a sluggish economy.
He praised increased funding for cyber security, the
acquisition workforce, and to bar terrorist travel, saying it
``reflects an on-target prioritization of vulnerabilities that
must be strengthened for the sake of the Nation's security.
``The Administration's 17 percent, or $67 million, increase
in funding for cybersecurity, compared to the Fiscal Year 2011
Continuing Resolution, will enable the Department to better
coordinate the security of critical cyber systems and
information, which are under constant and increasing threat
from foreign and domestic digital thieves and hackers.
The Senator expressed dismay with cuts to Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), firefighter grants, and proposed
elimination of the Metropolitan Medical Response System, which
is critical to preparedness for medical surge in large-scale
disasters. He also expressed regret that DHS was delaying the
building of a unified headquarters at St. Elizabeths.
At a March 21, 2012, hearing on the DHS Fiscal Year 2013
budget, the Chairman welcomed the Department's proposed
increase in spending on cybersecurity but expressed dismay
about a proposal to consolidate homeland security grant
programs without consulting Congress. DHS Secretary Napolitano
appeared as the lone witness to defend the Department's $58.6
billion request.
Both the Chairman and Ranking Member Collins hailed the
proposed $325.8 million increase to the cybersecurity budget
for a total of $770 million, given that public and private
networks are experiencing a steady increase in probes and
attacks, and top national security officials say the cyber
threat could soon overtake the threat of terrorism.
Both Senators also expressed concern that the Department is
proposing to circumvent Congress to reorganize its homeland
security grant programs. The Department's proposal would
eliminate the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban
Areas Security Initiative, and port and transit security grants
and replace them with a new program that includes grants for
natural disasters.
Finally, the continued delays in building DHS a proper
headquarters at St. Elizabeths have been especially troublesome
for the Chairman. Delays in ongoing construction will likely
increase the costs to taxpayers in the future.
DHS currently operates out of 70 different buildings around
the Washington area. A unified headquarters is a critical
cornerstone to improving DHS's ability to achieve its core
functions in a coordinated and efficient way.
2. High Risk List
A September 7, 2011, hearing focused on the Department's
managerial record and established that the Department has a
long way to go before it is removed from the Government
Accountability Office's biennial ``high-risk'' list, where it
has been identified as an agency at high-risk of waste, fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement since it provenance.
The GAO released a new report at the hearing evaluating
DHS's track record since it was launched in 2003. The report
concluded that overall DHS is a more effective agency than it
once was and has created a foundation on which to continue to
mature and reach its full potential. Chairman Lieberman
applauded the work of DHS, which matured to the point where it
has significantly contributed to the Nation's security and
prevented another attack of a 9/11 magnitude.
``Some people say that the Federal Government overreacted
in its response to the 9/11 attacks. I do not agree,'' the
Senator said. ``In the past decade, we have been spared another
catastrophic terrorist attack like the one on 9/11 and that's
not just a matter of luck or coincidence. It's because of what
so many people in government did. Ten years ago, no single
agency and no single official was designated to lead the
Federal Government's efforts to prevent terrorism or to
adequately marshal the resources of the Federal Government to
respond to catastrophic disasters. Today there is clarity on
who is in charge, and that makes a tremendous difference in the
security of the country.''
STOCK ACT
A November 2011, a ``60 Minutes'' report on insider trading
among Members of Congress implied that Congress had exempted
itself from laws governing insider trading and that both
Members and staff were abusing their positions. In response,
Senator Scott Brown requested a hearing to clarify the laws and
rules that govern Members of Congress who may profit personally
from non-public information they learn in the course of their
work. Shortly thereafter, Senators Brown and Gillibrand
introduced separate pieces of legislation intended to prevent
such profiteering. Both bills were referred to the Committee.
Although the ``60 Minutes'' report implied that Congress
exempted itself from insider trading laws, no law specifically
prohibits insider trading by anyone, including Members of
Congress. All investigations and prosecutions of insider
trading are carried out based on broad anti-fraud provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rules against insider
trading encompass corporate insiders and others who have bought
and sold securities based on ``material, nonpublic
information'' they obtained and used in violation of a duty of
trust. The ambiguity arises because some argue that courts
might hold that Members of Congress do not have the necessary
fiduciary duty to the institution of Congress.
On December 14, 2011, the Committee held a markup during
which the Chairman drafted compromise legislation based on S.
1903 and S. 1871, introduced by Senators Gillibrand and Brown,
respectively.
The Committee adopted the legislation, known as the Stop
Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act by a vote of 7-
2. An amendment to the bill also would require financial
disclosure forms filed by Members of Congress and staff to be
available electronically. The amendment--offered by Senators
Mark Begich, D-AK, Jon Tester, D-MT, and co-sponsored by
Senators Lieberman, Carl Levin, D-MI, and Scott Brown, R-MA--
was approved by voice vote.
On March 22, 2012, the Senate approved the STOCK Act 96-3.
The House passed a similar bill, and the Senate agreed to the
House version. In addition to the aforementioned measures, the
bill also:
LRequires disclosure 30 days after any securities
trade over $1,000 and would require all financial disclosures
by Members of Congress, senior Congressional staff, and high
level Executive Branch employees to be available
electronically.
LRequires Members of Congress, their senior staff,
and top level Executive Branch employees to disclose their
mortgages annually;
LRequires a Government Accountability Office study
of so-called ``political intelligence'' to determine who
practices it and what type of information is being sold to
their clients.
LDenies Congressional benefits to Members or
former Members who commit public corruption crimes.
On April 4, 2012, President Obama signed the STOCK Act into
law.
REFORMING THE POSTAL SERVICE
A combination of business lost to the Internet and the
Nation's economic problems has led to a 22 percent drop in mail
with a revenue loss for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) of more
than $10 billion over the past 5 years. In 2011, the Postal
Service ran up an $8 billion deficit for the second year in a
row.
The Postal Service also bumped up against its $15 billion
credit line with the U.S. Treasury, which forced it to default
on a $5.5 billion payment into the health care fund for its
retirees. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe testified at a
hearing on September 6, 2011, that the USPS would save $20
billion and return to solvency by 2015 if it eliminates
Saturday delivery; closes approximately 3,700 post offices;
shrinks its workforce by 220,000; pulls out of the Federal
employee health care plan and creates its own; does away with a
defined benefit retirement plan for new employees, offering
them instead a defined contribution plan; and requests the
return of $6.9 billion in overpayments to the Federal Employee
Retirement System.
On Wednesday, November 2, 2011, Chairman Lieberman, Ranking
Member Collins, Senator Tom Carper, and Senator Scott Brown
unveiled the 21st Century Postal Service Act. On November 9,
2011, the Committee passed the bill by a vote of 9-1.
The 21st Century Postal Service Act:
1. Authorizes USPS to offer buyouts to employees to help
reduce its workforce. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
is directed to refund the Postal Service for what everyone
agrees has been an overpayment to the Federal Employees
Retirement System. Using this money to support buyouts, the
Postmaster General estimates he can reduce the Postal Service
workforce by as many as 100,000 employees over the next 3 years
in order to reach savings of $8 billion a year.
2. Allows the Postal Service to work with its employee
unions and OPM to develop a new health plan to cover postal
employees. The Postmaster General estimates that a new
healthcare plan could cut costs roughly in half, while
maintaining adequate benefits.
3. Recalibrates the pre-funding requirements for its
retiree health benefits by amortizing those payments over time.
4. Bars the USPS from 5-day-a-week mail delivery for 2
years and until it develops remedies for customers who may be
affected disproportionately by the change in service. USPS also
must reduce costs and increase revenues by other means before
5-day delivery takes effect.
5. Gives the Postmaster General access to money USPS has
overpaid into one of its retirement funds to provide incentives
to encourage 100,000 eligible employees to retire. This would
help voluntarily ``right-size'' the workforce to take into
account the steep decline in first class mail volume in recent
years.
6. Reduces the amount of money that USPS has to prefund for
retiree health benefits by amortizing the costs over 40 years
and calculating those costs more appropriately.
7. Retains overnight delivery of first class mail, but
limit it in some cases to shorter geographic distances.
8. Prevents the Postal Service from going to 5-day delivery
for the next 2 years and require it to exhaust all other cost-
saving measures first;
9. Requires USPS to set standards for retail service across
the country, consider several alternative options before
closing post offices, and provide for increased opportunity for
public input.
10. Allows USPS to deliver mail to curbside, sidewalk, or
centralized mailboxes, rather than front door mail slots or
boxes.
11. Allows USPS to sell non-postal products and services in
appropriate cases.
12. Allows USPS to ship beer, wine, and distilled spirits.
13. Establishes a Strategic Advisory Commission on Postal
Solvency and Innovation to examine costs and revenues, look at
alternative business models, and develop a strategic blueprint
for the Postal Service.
14. Creates a Chief Innovation Officer to foster innovation
at USPS.
15. Reforms the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the
Federal workers' compensation program.
It was announced November 16, 2011, that the Postal Service
lost $5.1 billion in Fiscal Year 2011, though the loss would
have been $10 billion without emergency Congressional
intervention.
On April 17, 2012, the four Senators introduced a
substitute amendment to the 21st Century Postal Service Act on
the Senate floor.
The substitute requires the U.S. Postal Service to continue
to provide overnight delivery for local first class mail,
although across shorter distances than may be the case now. The
Postal Service would still deliver first class mail anywhere in
the continental United States in a maximum of 3 days. The
substitute also expands the alternatives USPS must consider
before closing a post office. It would encourage the Postal
Service to think innovatively about how to adapt its business
model in a world increasingly reliant on electronic
communications. And the revised bill requires appointment of a
Chief Innovation Officer and establishes a Strategic Advisory
Commission composed of prominent citizens and charged with
developing a new strategic blueprint for the Postal Service.
On April 25, 2012, the Senate passed the Postal Service Act
by a vote of 62-37. The House has yet to consider postal
reform, prompting numerous appeals from the Chairman and other
Senators for the House to act. Despite the USPS's May 2012
decision to reduce hours at 13,000 post offices around the
country, the House still did not take up the bill. On August 1,
2012, the USPS defaulted on its $5.5 billion payment due to the
Treasury.
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT
A. GSA Scandal
In reaction to a General Services Administration (GSA)
Inspector General report outlining reckless spending on a
regional GSA conference in April 2011, the Chairman condemned
the misuse of government funds. ``This was a stupid and
infuriating waste of taxpayer dollars. The people responsible
for it should be held accountable.''
The Chairman and Ranking Member Collins were dismayed about
the more than $800,000 GSA wasted on a Las Vegas conference.
``The waste, excessive spending, and possible fraud uncovered
as a result of this investigation and continuing investigations
cause us grave concern,'' the Senators said. ``In light of the
array of problems uncovered by the Western Regions Conference
investigation, we seek to understand whether there is a wider
problem at GSA.''
B. Stimulus Tracking
On January 18, 2011, HSGAC Chairman Lieberman and Ranking
Member Collins applauded the President's strategy to promote
economic job growth and stimulation. They also announced they
would hold hearings in the upcoming months to examine the
government's role in a free market economy.
Senator Lieberman endorsed the main principles of President
Obama's strategy for more regulation in the economy, ensuring
events such as the BP oil spill do not happen again. He
emphasized the President's focus on ``protecting the health and
safety of the American people and the environment while
minimizing the burden on small businesses so they can grow and
create new jobs.''
C. Nominations Reform
With bipartisan legislation ready waiting in the wings, the
Committee held a hearing on March 2, 2011, on reforming the
nominations process in the Senate. Witnesses testified in
support of the proposed plan to speed up the nomination process
of Presidential appointees, in part by reducing the number of
positions that must be confirmed. ``We need to simplify and
speed-up the nominations process,'' Chairman Lieberman said,
``because if we do not, I fear we risk discouraging some of our
Nation's most talented individuals from accepting nominations
and leaving important positions unfilled.
``One idea today's witnesses suggested is to standardize
and centralize the forms and documentation required by both the
Senate and White House so a nominee is not overwhelmed with
often duplicative paperwork and information requests. And since
we know there will be a flood of nominations with each new
Administration, maybe we should add temporary `surge' workers
to the White House Office of Presidential Personnel and the FBI
to handle vetting and background checks more efficiently. Both
ideas should be seriously considered.''
One of the reasons the nomination process has become so
long is because the number of positions that require
verification has grown greatly. The President must confirm 422
key positions, plus another nearly 800 lesser positions that
require Senate confirmation. These numbers do not include
judges, foreign service officers, or public health officials
who also require Senate confirmation.
On March 31, 2011, Senators Lieberman and Collins joined
Senators Charles E. Schumer, D-NY, and Lamar Alexander, R-TN,
to introduce ``The Bipartisan Presidential Appointment
Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011,'' S. 679, to clear the
backlog of stalled executive nominations by permanently
exempting a range of positions from Senate confirmation. The
bill would eliminate the need for the Senate to vote on roughly
200 executive nominations and 3,000 noncontroversial Officer
Corps positions. In all, the bill reduces the number of
positions requiring full Senate confirmation by one-third. A
separate Senate resolution, also introduced today, would
establish a streamlined confirmation process for an additional
250 part-time positions.
``One hundred days into President Obama's Administration,
only 14 percent of the Senate-confirmed positions in his
Administration had been filled,'' Senator Lieberman said.
``After 18 months, 25 percent of these positions were still
vacant. And this is not an aberration or anomaly. The
timetables for putting in place a leadership team across the
government has been pretty much the same each of the last three
times there has been a change of occupant in the White House.
We've known about this problem a long time, but failed to act.
After years of talk, we finally have bipartisan support for
change. I call on my fellow chairmen, ranking members, and
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us on
addressing this challenge so the next new Administration,
regardless of party, can recruit the best candidates and then
put them to work quickly addressing the many challenges our
Nation faces.''
The Committee marked up the legislation and reported it out
on a voice vote on April 13, 2011. The Rules Committee worked
on a companion resolution to exclude a number of board and
commission appointments from the Senate nomination process
``We need to simplify and speed-up the process to fill
important positions and to encourage more of our Nation's most
talented individuals to accept nominations,'' Senator Lieberman
said. ``And we need to reduce the number of confirmed positions
so that the Senate can focus and act more quickly on the most
critical positions.''
The legislation passed the Senate 79-20 on June 29, 2011,
and, after passing the House on July 31, 2012, was signed into
law by the President. (Public Law 112-166)
D. Information Technology
In the 112th Congress, the Committee conducted close
oversight of the Administration's IT reform efforts, including
their cloud first and data center consolidation initiatives. In
addition, we held numerous briefings with the Federal Chief
Information Officer (CIO) and the E-Gov office at OMB on their
efforts to implement PortfolioStat across the Federal
Government. In the summer of 2012, the Federal CIO kicked off
this initiative by holding PortfolioStat sessions (face-to-
face, evidence-based reviews of an agency's IT portfolio) with
Federal agencies. Moving forward, the PortfolioStat initiative
requires agency Chief Operating Officers, on an annual basis,
to continue to lead an agency-wide IT portfolio review within
their respective organizations.
December 2012 also marked the 10-year anniversary of the E-
Gov Act, a bill that was designed to enhance the delivery of
information and services to the public and others and to use e-
government to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and
quality of government service. In September 2012, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report
detailing Administration efforts to implement the E-Gov Act.
OMB and Federal agencies, GAO concluded, have made progress in
issuing guidance, developing performance measures, and
enhancing public access to government information. GAO also
concluded that the E-Gov Act has contributed to increased
public access to government information and services, but that
challenges remain in providing consolidated access to
government information and services.
E. GAO High-Risk List
On February 16, 2011, Senators Lieberman, Collins, Akaka,
Johnson, and their House counterparts, joined the Comptroller
General of the United States, Gene Dodaro, to release the
Government Accountability Offices's (GAO) biennial list of
Federal programs at risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement.
The list of 29 agencies and programs had changed very
little since it was last published in 2009. Programs such as
Medicare and Medicaid and contract management at the
Departments of Defense and Energy, which had been on the
previous list, were once again on the list in 2011. The
programs on the list pose a high risk for wasteful spending of
taxpayer dollars and abuse of funds appropriated to them. GAO
did remove the Department of Defense Personnel Security
Clearance Program and the 2010 Census--two items in which the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has taken
an active interest.
``This report is especially important this year,'' Senator
Lieberman said. ``At a time when our Nation's budget deficits
are at historic levels, we must spend taxpayer dollars as if
they were our own. We're going to make GAO's high-risk list our
high priority list for action.''
GAO also released a report on overlapping programs and, in
response, Senator Lieberman announced his intention to hold a
hearing on duplication and inefficiencies in Federal programs.
F. Regulations
On January 11, 2011, Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member
Collins expressed support for the President's regulatory
strategy to promote economic growth and job stimulation and
announced they would hold hearings in the coming months on the
essential role of government regulation in a free market
economy and how the regulatory process can be improved.
The Senators endorsed the main principles of the
President's strategy to ``support continued economic growth and
job creation, while protecting the safety and rights of all
Americans.''
``Regulations are critical to the working of a free market
and to the health and welfare of all Americans,'' Senator
Lieberman said. ``As we saw in the financial meltdown of 2008,
a failure to regulate can lead to catastrophic economic harm.
Lack of regulation also contributed to the BP oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico, the largest oil spill in U.S. history. The
President's strategy emphasizes protecting the health and
safety of the American people and the environment while
minimizing the burden on small businesses so they can grow and
create new jobs. This is a balanced, common sense strategy
specifically calibrated to encourage economic recovery.''
The first hearing, titled ``Federal Regulations: How Best
to Advance the Public Interest?'' was held on April 14, 2011,
and focused on the benefits of Federal regulations to public
health, safety, and the environment and the costs regulations
incur, especially for small businesses. The Senators engaged
witness Cass Sunstein, head of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which serves as the nerve center for
regulatory policy, on ways to improve the process of writing
and implementing regulations.
``Smart regulations do not just help individuals, they can
also help industry by providing a predictable and even playing
field in a given sector or serving other goals,'' Senator
Lieberman said. ``But many regulations do impose costs and
requirements on businesses, so it is important to continually
oversee the process to ensure it is achieving the law's goals
with as little extra cost and requirements as possible. That's
what we are doing here today.''
The Committee held its third hearing on the topic on July
20, 2011, to assess the impacts of Federal regulations on the
process of rulemaking. ``The goal of the hearings is to
determine the most effective regulation possible. We know that
regulations have brought us invaluable improvements in health,
safety and environmental quality, and are essential to the
financial stability of the private sector. But, especially when
our economy is under such duress, the regulatory process must
be open, rigorous, and accountable, to avoid regulatory
excesses that undercut economic health,'' Senator Lieberman
said.
President Obama issued an Executive Order and
administrative guidance to strengthen the rulemaking process by
ensuring rules are cost effective and impose the least possible
burden, particularly for small businesses. And the Senator
agreed that vigilance in policing the regulatory process was
necessary to make sure it does not lead to regulatory excesses
that become a drag on economic health.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
A. Domestic Partnerships
On November 18, 2011, Senator Lieberman introduced
legislation to extend benefits to domestic partners of Federal
employees. ``The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations
Act of 2011,'' which the Senator had introduced in the previous
two Congresses, would grant same-sex domestic partners of
Federal employees living together in a committed relationship
eligibility for health benefits, long-term care, Family and
Medical Leave, and Federal retirement benefits, and other
benefits already granted to spouses of Federal employees.
``We want to attract the best men and women possible to
serve in Federal Government. One way to do that is by offering
competitive benefits to the family members of gay Federal
employees. This legislation makes good economic sense. It is
sound policy. And it is the right thing to do,'' the Senator
said.
B. Transportation Security Administration Employees
``My record on this issue has been crystal clear since the
early days of the Transportation Security Administration. I
support collective bargaining for Transportation Security
officers because I believe that is the path toward achieving
higher job performance and, therefore, better security for our
Nation. I look forward to reviewing the Administration's
proposal and engaging in this conversation,'' Senator Lieberman
said.
C. Employee Rotation
A bipartisan, bicameral group of legislators introduced
bills in the House and Senate on June 23, 2011, to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government's
national and homeland security missions by encouraging the
government-wide integration of Executive Branch employees
working in those areas. ``The Interagency Personnel Rotation
Act of 2011,'' S. 1268 and H. 2314, would promote the temporary
rotation of certain homeland and national security employees to
improve communications and break down stovepipes among Federal
agencies.
Senator Lieberman said, ``The national security and
homeland security challenges our Nation faces in the 21st
Century are far more complex than those of the last century.
Threats such as terrorism, nuclear and biological weapons
proliferation, insurgencies, failed States, and organized crime
know no borders and are beyond the capability of any single
agency of our government. Our government needs to integrate all
instruments of national power--including military, diplomatic,
intelligence, law enforcement, foreign aid, homeland security,
and public health--to counter these threats. By promoting
greater understanding among the professionals who dedicate
their careers to our security, that's what our bill would help
us do.''
D. Whistleblowers
On April 6, 2011, Senator Lieberman joined a bipartisan
group of Senators, led by Senator Akaka, in introducing the
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2011. The
legislation aimed to strengthen the current Whistleblower
Protection Act.
``The importance of Federal whistleblowers in helping root
out gross mismanagement and abuse in the Federal Government
cannot be overstated. From FBI lawyer Coleen Rowley, who
unsuccessfully sought an investigation of a 9/11 co-conspirator
before the terrorist attacks, to U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa
Chambers, who was fired for criticizing the lack of funding for
the Park Police, whistleblowers play an important role in
improving government performance,'' Senator Lieberman said.
``This legislation will help assure that the whistleblowers of
tomorrow will not be silenced.''
The government relies heavily on whistleblowers to help
root out mismanagement and abuse in the Federal Government. The
legislation would clarify any disclosure of gross waste or
mismanagement, fraud, abuse, or illegal activity may be
protected, but not disagreements over legitimate policy
decisions. In addition to suspending the Federal Circuit Court
of Appeals sole jurisdiction over Federal employee
whistleblower cases for 5 years, it also establishes
protections for the Intelligence Community modeled on existing
whistleblower protections for FBI employees.
E. Hatch Act Modernization
On March 7, 2012, Senator Lieberman joined Senator Akaka
and others in introducing the bipartisan ``Hatch Act
Modernization Act of 2012,'' S. 2170. The Hatch Act, originally
enacted in 1939, restricts the political activity of Federal
employees, District of Columbia government employees, and State
and local employees whose positions are connected to Federal
funds. Congress has not amended the law since 1993. The new
bill would:
LAllow most State and local employees to run for
partisan elective office;
LPlace employees of the executive branch of the
District of Columbia under provisions of the Hatch Act that
apply to employees in other States or localities;
LAmend the Hatch's Act's penalty provisions for
Federal employees to allow a broader range of penalties; and
LAllow Federal employees residing in the District
of Columbia to run as independent candidates in partisan local
elections, which already is permitted for Federal employees who
live in suburbs of the District of Columbia and other areas of
the country with high concentrations of Federal employees.
The bill was reported out of Committee on September 13,
2012, and was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on
November 30, 2012.
``This common sense legislation adds flexibility to the
Hatch Act by allowing talented State and local public servants
to run for office,'' Senator Lieberman said. ``The bill also
treats D.C. government employees like State and local employees
and increases disciplinary options for Federal employees
charged with minor violations of the Act. These reasonable
changes will help protect the personal freedoms of Federal and
District of Columbia employees while shielding them from
pressure to use their work time and resources for partisan
gain.''
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A. Opportunity Scholarship Program
On January 26, 2011, Chairman Lieberman introduced the
Scholarship for Opportunity and Results Act, S. 206, along with
Senator Collins and seven other co-sponsors. The bill would
have authorized 5-year grants on a competitive basis to provide
expanded school choice opportunities to low income students in
the District of Columbia.
The Committee held a hearing February 16, 2011, on the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), which he had championed
since 2004. Although the Secretary of Education had previously
announced he was going to phase the program out, the Senator
argued for its continuation, citing its proven track record of
academic success for underprivileged students. ``In America it
should not be a privilege for our children to get a first rate
education. It should be a right,'' the Senator said. For many
of the families who benefit from the program, the vouchers they
receive are the only opportunity they have to receive high
quality education.
B. District of Columbia Statehood
In the waning days of the 112th Congress, Senator Lieberman
introduced legislation that would give the citizens of the
District of Columbia the opportunity to decide if they wanted
Statehood. The New Columbia Admissions Act, S. 3696, was
introduced on December 19, 2012, and was the first D.C.
Statehood bill to be introduced in the Senate since 1993. It
would create a 51st State called New Columbia. In January 2011,
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton had introduced companion legislation
in the House, H.R. 265.
``It is long past time to give those American citizens who
have chosen the District of Columbia as their home the voice
they deserve in our democracy,'' Senator Lieberman said. ``The
United States is the only democracy in the world that denies
voting representation to the people who live in its capital
city. As I retire from the Senate after having had the great
privilege of serving here for 24 years, securing full voting
rights for the 600,000 disenfranchised people who live in the
District is unfinished business, not just for me, but for the
United States of America.''
Senators Dick Durbin, D-IL, Patty Murray, D-WA, and Barbara
Boxer, D-CA, co-sponsored the legislation.
C. D.C. Budget Autonomy
Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and Senator
Akaka, introduced legislation on April 24, 2012, to give the
District of Columbia greater control over its budget so that
the city can be managed more effectively.
The District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2012, S.
2345, would have allowed the mayor and city council to enact
the locally-funded portion of D.C.'s budget at the beginning of
a new fiscal year without explicit approval from Congress.
Under existing law, the District cannot implement its budget
until Congress affirmatively approves it. Ongoing budget
disputes in Congress have delayed implementation of the D.C.
budget on multiple occasions, creating needless fiscal
uncertainty for the city.
HELPING CONNECTICUT
A. Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene
In late August 2011, Tropical Storm Irene's destructive
winds, flooding, and coastal storm surge displaced thousands of
Connecticut residents, flooded their homes, businesses and
roads, and, at one time, left nearly one million people without
electricity. The Connecticut, Housatonic, Farmington,
Pomperaug, and Pequbuck Rivers all overran their banks. Downed
trees closed over 1,000 local roads and 65 State roads. And
shelters housed over 2,000 residents at the height of the
disaster. The entire State was declared a major disaster area.
On September 2, 2011, all seven members of Connecticut's
congressional delegation urged President Obama to visit the
State and observe first-hand the devastation caused by Tropical
Storm Irene. In a letter to the President, the delegation cited
major flooding caused by five Connecticut rivers, coastal
surge, and wave damage to support the case for an emergency
declaration for the State.
``We urge you to visit Connecticut to see the damage this
storm has caused,'' the letter stated. ``We are certain that
your visit will lift the spirits of the thousands of residents
who are struggling with recovery from the destruction inflicted
by this storm.''
The same day, September 2, the delegation expressed its
gratitude as President Obama, DHS Secretary Napolitano, and
Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Fugate for
declaring a major disaster for Connecticut as a result of
Irene's fierce winds, flooding, and coastal storm surge.
Under the declaration, five counties were designated for
assistance which will help State and local governments to
repair wreckage caused by the storm. The five counties were
Fairfield, Litchfield, Middlesex, New Haven, and New London.
Hartford, Tolland, and Windham counties, where damages were
still being reviewed, were not included in the declaration.
Additionally, all Connecticut counties were made eligible to
apply for separate grants for hazard mitigation to prevent or
reduce long term risk to life and property from hazards.
Late Saturday, September 3, FEMA announced that the three
additional Connecticut counties--Hartford, Tolland, and
Windham--would be added to the five counties that were declared
a major disaster area on Friday.
The designation meant that State and local governments
throughout the State were made eligible for Federal funds to
help repair, reconstruct, and rebuild the wreckage caused by
Tropical Storm Irene. All State and local governments in
Connecticut were also eligible to apply for separate grants for
hazard mitigation to prevent or reduce long-term risk to life
and property. Individual households throughout the State were
also eligible for Federal funds to assist in their recovery.
On September 13, Senators Lieberman and Richard Blumenthal,
D-CT, along with 10 colleagues from States impacted by Tropical
Storm Irene, called on Senate leaders to move a package of
comprehensive disaster aid through Congress without delay. The
aid would help to ensure that families, businesses, and State
and local governments receive the resources they need to
rebuild and recover from the devastating storm and flooding.
In a letter to the leaders, the Senators wrote: ``The storm
caused sweeping damage in a variety of ways and the Federal
response should be comprehensive and include support from
multiple programs from different agencies. Congress has a
tradition of providing comprehensive support to help States
recover from natural disasters, which has included funding from
various departments.''
In addition to Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal, those
signing the letter included Senators Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ,
Patrick Leahy, D-VT, Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, John Kerry, D-
MA, Robert Menendez, D-NJ, Jack Reed, D-RI, Bernie Sanders, I-
VT, Charles Schumer, D-NY, Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, and Sheldon
Whitehouse, D-RI.
In addition to programs administered by FEMA, the Senators
requested that aid be provided through disaster relief programs
such as Community Development Block Grants, the Federal Highway
Administration Emergency Relief program, Economic Development
Administration grants, as well as funding for the Department of
Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Small
Business Administration.
The same day, the Senate approved a $5.1 billion aid
package for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster
relief fund, 61-38.
B. Tropical Storm Sandy
On October 28, 2012, as Hurricane Sandy churned northward,
the Connecticut congressional delegation wrote to President
Obama Sunday in support of Governor Dannel P. Malloy's request
for an emergency declaration for the entire State of
Connecticut. ``The storm's devastation is expected to be major
and potentially catastrophic,'' the delegation wrote in its
letter. ``To fill gaps in the State and local resources,
Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect
property, public health and safety, and to lessen the threat
posed by this very dangerous storm.''
On October 30, the Connecticut delegation hailed President
Obama's declaration of a major disaster in the State, which
entitled individuals and local and State governments to receive
Federal funds to recover from Hurricane Sandy. The declaration
covered eligible people and governments in Fairfield,
Middlesex, New Haven, and New London counties, as well as the
Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and Mohegan Tribal Nation.
``We are grateful to the President for this declaration,
which will help the people of Connecticut most affected by this
terrible storm get back on their feet and return to normal
life,'' the delegation said. ``State and personal resources
have been depleted by a number of disasters that have battered
Connecticut over the past year, damaging homes and businesses,
taking down power lines, and leaving roads and property
littered with debris.''
The same day, Senator Lieberman, toured Connecticut coastal
areas hit hard by Hurricane Sandy and consulted by telephone
with DHS Secretary Napolitano and other Federal officials about
ongoing response and recovery plans. Senator Lieberman
commended the coordinated work of Federal, State, and local
emergency management officials for planning in advance of the
monster storm, as well as for their response and recovery
operations, saying:
``Since Hurricane Katrina, FEMA and State and locals
emergency managers have vastly improved their capabilities to
deal with disasters, just as Congress intended when it enacted
a new, much stronger FEMA and general emergency management
retooling in 2006. That law, for example, gave FEMA expanded
authority to take important preparatory measures in advance of
disasters, which helped to mitigate the impact of Sandy.''
On November 1, 2012, Senator Lieberman and DHS Secretary
Napolitano went on an aerial tour of coastal towns hard hit by
Hurricane Sandy. Senator Lieberman, Governor Daniel Malloy, and
other members of the Connecticut Congressional delegation also
joined the Secretary at a FEMA operated Disaster Recovery
Center in Bridgeport.
On November 14, 2012, Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal,
and 11 others from States impacted by Superstorm Sandy called
on President Obama to amend his 2013 budget to request
emergency aid for Federal disaster assistance programs.
In the letter, the Senators called on the President to take
quick action so the necessary funds can be appropriated to help
victims of Sandy rebuild and recover. The Senators also
requested an increased Federal share for recovery costs.
``As Senators representing States impacted by Superstorm
Sandy, we are writing to request that the Administration submit
a budget amendment pursuant to the Budget Control Act to
provide the necessary funding to robustly support vital Federal
programs to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of
victims of Sandy and other recent disasters,'' the Senators
wrote. ``It is critical that this budget amendment be submitted
as soon as possible so critical resources can reach impacted
communities by the end of the calendar year.''
On November 16, the Connecticut delegation announced
funding up to $1,830,620 for the Connecticut Department of
Labor. This National Emergency Grant (NEG) funding from the
U.S. Department of Labor created about 120 temporary jobs for
eligible dislocated workers to assist with clean-up and
recovery efforts as a result of the effects of Superstorm
Sandy.
``This grant addresses critical needs in the wake of
Superstorm Sandy, and brings us closer to recovery by providing
dislocated workers with opportunities to clean, rebuild, and
reconstruct the communities that were hit hardest. People in
Connecticut affected by Sandy will continue to need resources
for employment, community revitalization and safety, and we are
grateful to the U.S. Department of Labor for its support today
in each of these areas. As we continue down the path to a full
recovery, we pledge to continue to fight for those affected by
Sandy,'' said the members.
These funds, of which $610,207 were released initially,
were used to provide temporary employment on projects to assist
with clean-up, demolition, repair, renovation, and
reconstruction of destroyed public structures, facilities, and
lands within the affected communities, as well as to deliver
humanitarian aid and safety assistance, as needed. These funds
are to be used to perform work on the homes of economically
disadvantaged individuals who are eligible for the federally-
funded weatherization program, with priority given to services
for the elderly and individuals with disabilities.
On November 25, Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal, and
Reps. Rosa Delauro, Joe Courtney, John Larson, Chris Murphy,
and Jim Himes thanked the Administration for sending more
Federal assistance to help the people of Connecticut recover
from Superstorm Sandy.
``We're pleased the Federal Government recognizes the
devastation we experienced in the State because of Hurricane
Sandy and will send additional aid to help rebuild Connecticut
communities,'' the delegation said in a joint statement. ``The
recovery effort has been and will continue to be difficult. But
this assistance will help to rebuild infrastructure damaged by
Sandy.''
The assistance provided was expanded to include additional
types of rebuilding aid to those areas already benefiting from
disaster aid and to provide rebuilding and clean-up help to
Litchfield, Tolland, and Windham counties.
On December 5, Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal testified
in a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Homeland Security that focused on recovery efforts in the wake
of Superstorm Sandy. The Senators testified on the extensive
damage to Connecticut's communities, and pressed for a
supplemental appropriations bill that would allow Connecticut
to access funds for recovery and mitigation.
``Connecticut suffered an estimated $660 million in
damages, on top of the destruction caused by Hurricane Irene in
August 2011, and then by the October winter storm in 2011,''
Senator Lieberman said. ``It is imperative that Connecticut be
eligible to access the funds that will be provided in the
supplemental that is being considered.''
``I believe we should go beyond traditional disaster
assistance with the Supplemental and rethink how we replace
critical infrastructure. For various reasons, including climate
change, extreme weather events like Hurricanes Katrina and
Sandy are going to be more frequent not less in the years
ahead. That's why every Federal dollar spent now on mitigation
will save more Federal dollars in the future.''
On December 9, Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal thanked
the Obama Administration for requesting $60.4 billion in
supplemental aid from Congress for States affected by
Superstorm Sandy.
On December 12, the Senate Appropriations Committee
released the text of the Disaster Assistance Supplemental,
which included the full $60.4 billion. Senators Lieberman and
Blumenthal thanked the Committee for its sense of urgency and
called upon fellow lawmakers to swiftly pass the legislation.
III. COMMITTEE JURISDICTION
The jurisdiction of the Committee (which was renamed the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs when
the 109th Congress convened) derives from the Rules of the
Senate and from Senate Resolutions:
RULE XXV
* * * * * * * *
(k)(1) Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which
committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages,
petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the
following subjects:
1. Archives of the United States.
2. Budget and accounting measures, other than
appropriations, except as provided in the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974.
3. Census and collection of statistics, including economic
and social statistics.
4. Congressional organization, except for any part of the
matter that amends the rules or orders of the Senate.
5. Federal Civil Service.
6. Government information.
7. Intergovernmental relations.
8. Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia, except
appropriations therefore.
9. Organization and management of United States nuclear
export policy.
10. Organization and reorganization of the executive branch
of the Government.
11. Postal Service.
12. Status of officers and employees of the United States,
including their classification, compensation, and benefits.
(2) Such committee shall have the duty of----
(A) receiving and examining reports of the Comptroller
General of the United States and of submitting such
recommendations to the Senate as it deems necessary or
desirable in connection with the subject matter of such
reports;
(B) studying the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of
all agencies and departments of the Government;
(C) evaluating the effects of laws enacted to reorganize
the legislative and executive branches of the Government; and
(D) studying the 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.
SENATE RESOLUTION 81, 112TH CONGRESS
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS.
Sec. 12. (a) * * *
* * * * * * * *
(e) INVESTIGATIONS----
(1) In General--The committee, or any duly authorized
subcommittee of the committee, is authorized to study or
investigate----
(A) the efficiency and economy of operations of all
branches of the Government including the possible existence of
fraud, misfeasance, malfeasance, collusion, mismanagement,
incompetence, corruption, or unethical practices, waste,
extravagance, conflicts of interest, and the improper
expenditure of Government funds in transactions, contracts, and
activities of the Government or of Government officials and
employees and any and all such improper practices between
Government personnel and corporations, individuals, companies,
or persons affiliated therewith, doing business with the
Government; and the compliance or noncompliance of such
corporations, companies, or individuals or other entities with
the rules, regulations, and laws governing the various
governmental agencies and its relationships with the public;
(B) the extent to which criminal or other improper
practices or activities are, or have been, engaged in the field
of labor-management relations or in groups or organizations of
employees or employers, to the detriment of interests of the
public, employers, or employees, and to determine whether any
changes are required in the laws of the United States in order
to protect such interests against the occurrence of such
practices or activities;
(C) organized criminal activity which may operate in or
otherwise utilize the facilities of interstate or international
commerce in furtherance of any transactions and the manner and
extent to which, and the identity of the persons, firms, or
corporations, or other entities by whom such utilization is
being made, and further, to study and investigate the manner in
which and the extent to which persons engaged in organized
criminal activity have infiltrated lawful business enterprise,
and to study the adequacy of Federal laws to prevent the
operations of organized crime in interstate or international
commerce; and to determine whether any changes are required in
the laws of the United States in order to protect the public
against such practices or activities;
(D) all other aspects of crime and lawlessness within the
United States which have an impact upon or affect the national
health, welfare, and safety; including but not limited to
investment fraud schemes, commodity and security fraud,
computer fraud, and the use of offshore banking and corporate
facilities to carry out criminal objectives;
(E) the efficiency and economy of operations of all
branches and functions of the Government with particular
reference to----
(i) the effectiveness of present national security methods,
staffing, and processes as tested against the requirements
imposed by the rapidly mounting complexity of national security
problems;
(ii) the capacity of present national security staffing,
methods, and processes to make full use of the Nation's
resources of knowledge and talents;
(iii) the adequacy of present intergovernmental relations
between the United States and international organizations
principally concerned with national security of which the
United States is a member; and
(iv) legislative and other proposals to improve these
methods, processes, and relationships;
(F) the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of all
agencies and departments of the Government involved in the
control and management of energy shortages including, but not
limited to, their performance with respect to----
(i) the collection and dissemination of accurate statistics
on fuel demand and supply;
(ii) the implementation of effective energy conservation
measures;
(iii) the pricing of energy in all forms;
(iv) coordination of energy programs with State and local
government;
(v) control of exports of scarce fuels;
(vi) the management of tax, import, pricing, and other
policies affecting energy supplies;
(vii) maintenance of the independent sector of the
petroleum industry as a strong competitive force;
(viii) the allocation of fuels in short supply by public
and private entities;
(ix) the management of energy supplies owned or controlled
by the Government;
(x) relations with other oil producing and consuming
countries;
(xi) the monitoring of compliance by governments,
corporations, or individuals with the laws and regulations
governing the allocation, conservation, or pricing of energy
supplies; and
(xii) research into the discovery and development of
alternative energy supplies; and
(G) the efficiency and economy of all branches and
functions of Government with particular references to the
operations and management of Federal regulatory policies and
programs.
(2) Extent of Inquiries--In carrying out the duties
provided in paragraph (1), the inquiries of this committee or
any subcommittee of the committee shall not be construed to be
limited to the records, functions, and operations of any
particular branch of the Government and may extend to the
records and activities of any persons, corporation, or other
entity.
(3) SPECIAL COMMITTEE AUTHORITY--For the purposes of this
subsection, the committee, or any duly authorized subcommittee
of the committee, or its chairman, or any other member of the
committee or subcommittee designated by the chairman, from
March 1, 2007, through February 28, 2009, is authorized, in
its, his, or their discretion----
(A) to require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of
witnesses and production of correspondence, books, papers, and
documents;
(B) to hold hearings;
(C) to sit and act at any time or place during the
sessions, recess, and adjournment periods of the Senate;
(D) to administer oaths; and
(E) to take testimony, either orally or by sworn statement,
or, in the case of staff members of the Committee and the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, by deposition in
accordance with the Committee Rules of Procedure.
(4) AUTHORITY OF OTHER COMMITTEES--Nothing contained in
this subsection shall affect or impair the exercise of any
other standing committee of the Senate of any power, or the
discharge by such committee of any duty, conferred or imposed
upon it by the Standing Rules of the Senate or by the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
(5) SUBPOENA AUTHORITY--All subpoenas and related legal
processes of the committee and its subcommittee authorized
under S. Res. 50, agreed to February 17, 2005 (109th Congress)
are authorized to continue.
IV. BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS REFERRED AND CONSIDERED
During the 112th Congress, 193 Senate bills and 76 House
bills were referred to the Committee for consideration. In
addition, 5 Senate Resolutions and 1 Senate Concurrent
Resolution were referred to the Committee.
The Committee reported 66 bills; an additional 24 measures
were discharged.
Of the legislation received by the Committee, 58 measures
became public laws, including 39 postal naming bills.
V. HEARINGS
During the 112th Congress, the Committee held 58 hearings
on legislation, oversight issues, and nominations. Hearing
titles and dates follow.
The Committee also held 13 scheduled business meetings.
Lists of hearings with copies of statements by Members and
witnesses, with archives going back to 1997, are online at the
Committee's Web site, http://hsgac.senate.gov/.
Hearing Titles and Summaries Follow:
A Ticking Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S.
Government's Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack. February
15, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-151)
This single-panel hearing followed the publication of a
Committee staff report on the results of a bipartisan
investigation concerning the killing of 12 soldiers and one
Department of Defense (DOD) civilian and the wounding of 32
other individuals. Army Major Nidal Hasan has been charged with
the attack. The report reviews how DOD and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation responded to information about Hasan prior to
the attack. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the facts
revealed by the report and the recommendations on improving the
government's capabilities for countering the domestic threat
posed by violent Islamist extremism.
Witnesses: Hon. Charles E. Allen, Former Under Secretary of
Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis and Chief
Intelligence Officer; Gen. John M. Keane, USA, (Ret.), Former
Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army; J. Philip Mudd, Senior
Global Adviser, Oxford Analytica; and Samuel J. Rascoff,
Assistant Professor of Law, New York University School of Law.
The Value of Education Choices: Saving the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program. February 16, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-195)
The purpose of this two-panel hearing was to examine the
merits of continuing Federal support for the District of
Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), as part of a
three-sector initiative that also provides additional monies
for reform and improvement of District public and charter
schools. The hearing examined how the OSP program benefits low-
income families in the District and whether, and why, it is
important to continue the program and preserve this choice for
these students and their parents.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Vincent C. Gray, Mayor, The
District of Columbia; and Hon. Kwame R. Brown, Chairman,
Council of the District of Columbia. Panel II: Kevin P.
Chavous, Chairman, Board of Directors, Black Alliance for
Educational Options; Virginia Walden Ford, Executive Director,
D.C. Parents for School Choice; and Patrick J. Wolf, Ph.D,
Professor and 21st Century Chair in School Choice, Department
of Education Reform, University of Arkansas.
The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year
2012. February 17, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-196)
The purpose of this annual, one-panel hearing was to
discuss the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budget
request for fiscal year 2012. Specifically, it examined how the
DHS budget request meets the current and future homeland
security needs of the Nation.
Witness: Hon. Janet A. Napolitano, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security.
Eliminating the Bottlenecks: Streamlining the Nominations Process.
March 2, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-197)
The purpose of this one-panel hearing was to examine what
can and should be done to improve the process by which
Executive Branch officials are nominated and confirmed and to
ensure that Presidents are able to put in place, in a timely
fashion, a team to help carry out their policies.
It also looked at recommendations for overcoming obstacles,
including possible improvements to the process used to consider
nominees in both the Executive Branch and in the Senate, as
well as ways to reduce unnecessary burdens on nominees.
Witnesses: Hon. Clay Johnson III, Former Deputy Director
for Management at Office of Management and Budget; Max Stier,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for Public
Service; and Robert B. Dove, Ph.D., Former Parliamentarian of
the U.S. Senate.
Nomination of Heather A. Higginbottom to be Deputy Director, Office of
Management and Budget. March 8, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-231)
This one-panel hearing considered the nomination of Heather
A. Higginbottom to be Deputy Director, Office of Management and
Budget. The nominee was introduced by Sen. John F. Kerry.
Nomination of Carolyn N. Lerner to be Special Counsel, Office of
Special Counsel. March 10, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-218)
This one-panel hearing considered the nomination of Carolyn
N. Lerner to be Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel.
Information Sharing in the Era of Wikileaks: Balancing Security and
Collaboration. March 10, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-219)
This one-panel hearing examined the status of information
sharing in the Federal Government today in light of the recent
large-scale disclosures of classified information by Wikileaks.
It explored what the Federal Government is doing to improve the
security of its classified networks while at the same time
ensuring that information is shared effectively, including with
non-Federal partners. It also considered policy, legal, and
structural issues related to the Federal Government's
management of classified networks, systems, and information.
Witnesses: Hon. Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for
Management, U.S. Department of State; Teresa M. Takai, Chief
Information Officer and Acting Assistant Secretary for Networks
and Information Integration, U.S. Department of Defense; Thomas
A. Ferguson, Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Intelligence,
U.S. Department of Defense; Corin R. Stone, Intelligence
Community Information Sharing Executive, Office of the Director
of National Intelligence; and Kshemendra Paul, Program Manager,
Information Sharing Environment, Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
Catastrophic Preparedness: How Ready Is FEMA for the Next Big Disaster?
March 17, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-222)
Five years after Hurricane Katrina and on the heels of a
devastating disaster in Japan, this single-panel hearing
examined FEMA's progress in preparing for a catastrophic
disaster and the challenges the agency faces in fully realizing
its mission. Additionally, the hearing examined recommendations
steps FEMA could take to improve preparedness for catastrophic
disasters.
Witnesses: Hon. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Hon. Richard L. Skinner, Former Inspector General of
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and William O.
Jenkins Jr., Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Ten Years After 9/11: A Report From The 9/11 Commission Chairmen. March
30, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-403)
This single-panel hearing was the first in a series marking
the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The hearing's purpose was to
receive an assessment of the implementation of the
recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States and to hear any new
recommendations that the chairmen of the Commission believed
necessary due to the evolution of the terrorist threat since
the Commission's report in 2004.
Witnesses: Hon. Thomas H. Kean, Former Chairman, National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States; and
Hon. Lee H. Hamilton, Former Vice Chairman, National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Securing the Border: Building on Progress Made. March 30, 2011. (S.
Hrg. 112-232)
This single-panel hearing was the first in a series that
examined the progress that has been made towards securing the
border, and considered what additional measures may be needed.
One of the central issues that this hearing addressed is what
it actually means to secure the border, and what metrics are
needed to get a better understanding of whether progress is
being made.
Witnesses: Hon. Asa Hutchinson, Former Under Secretary for
Border and Transportation Security at the Department of
Homeland Security; Hon. Doris Meissner, Former Commissioner for
Immigration and Naturalization Services at the Department of
Justice; and Richard M. Stana, Director for Homeland Security
and Justice Issues, Government Accountability Office.
Nomination of Rafael Borras to be Under Secretary for Management,
Department of Homeland Security. April 6, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-
243)
This single-panel hearing considered the nomination of
Rafael Borras to be Under Secretary for Management, Department
of Homeland Security.
Securing the Border: Progress at the Local Level. April 7, 2011. (S.
Hrg. 112-232)
This single-panel hearing was the second in a series that
examined the progress that has been made toward securing the
border, and considered what additional measures may be needed.
The purpose of this hearing was to examine the progress that
has been made over the past decade toward securing the border,
and the impact these efforts have had on border communities.
Witnesses: Hon. Veronica Escobar, El Paso County Judge,
Texas; Raymond Loera, Sheriff of Imperial County, California;
Raymond Cobos, Sheriff of Luna County, New Mexico; and Paul
Babeu, Sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona.
Federal Regulation: How Best to Advance the Public Interest. April 14,
2011. (S. Hrg. 112-220)
This single-panel hearing was the first in a series, the
purpose of which was to look at the role of regulation in
protecting health, safety, and the environment and underpinning
the free market system, and the current efforts of the
administration to ensure that regulations are cost-effective
and cost-justified, flexible, necessary, and up-to-date.
Witness: Hon. Cass R. Sunstein, Administrator, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget.
Securing the Border: Progress at the Federal Level. May 4, 2011. (S.
Hrg. 112-232)
This single-panel hearing was the third in a series that
examined the progress that has been made toward securing the
border, and considered what additional measures may be needed.
The purpose of this hearing was to examine the Federal
improvements in infrastructure, technology, and staffing, and
to hear what the Department of Homeland Security is doing to
counter visa overstays and to improve metrics to measure
illegal immigration.
Witness: Hon. Janet A. Napolitano, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security.
Ten Years After 9/11: Is Intelligence Reform Working? Part I. May 12,
2011. (S. Hrg. 112-403)
The single-panel hearing was the second in a series marking
the 10th Anniversary of 9/11. It examined the degree to which
the U.S. Intelligence Community has increased its integration
since September 11, 2001, and improved its performance of its
missions, including but not limited to countering terrorism,
and the reasons for any remaining gaps in integration or
inadequate performance. It also looked at recommendations for
additional reforms that are needed to improve the integration
and performance of the U.S. intelligence Community, in light of
how the terrorist threat to the United States has evolved since
2004.
Witnesses: Hon. Jane Harman, Former Representative from
California and Chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment; Hon.
Michael V. Hayden, Former Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency and Former Director of the National Security Agency; and
John C. Gannon, Former Deputy Director for Intelligence at the
Central Intelligence Agency.
Ten Years After 9/11: Is Intelligence Reform Working? Part II. May 19,
2011. (S. Hrg. 112-403)
The single-panel hearing was the third in a series marking
the 10th anniversary of 9/11. It examined the position of the
Director of National Intelligence and assessed the role played
by this Director and the adequacy of the Director's statutory
authorities. Additionally, the hearing explored
recommendations by the witness for increased authorities for
the Director and reorganization of the Intelligence Community.
Witness: Hon. Dennis C. Blair, Former Director of National
Intelligence; Admiral, U.S. Navy, Retired.
Protecting Cyberspace: Assessing the White House Proposal. May 23,
2011. (S. Hrg. 112-221)
The purpose of the single-panel hearing was to examine the
recently unveiled White House cyber security legislative
proposal and to hear from the witnesses about key aspects of
the proposal, including the respective roles of the government
and the private sector in improving cyber security in both the
.com and the .gov domains. Additionally, the hearing examined
how the proposal addresses the growing threat of cyber attacks
to our Nation.
Witnesses: Philip R. Reitinger, Deputy Under Secretary,
National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Robert J. Butler, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Cyber Policy, U.S. Department of Defense; Ari
Schwartz, Senior Internet Policy Advisor, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce; and
Jason C. Chipman, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice.
How to Save Taxpayer Dollars: Case Studies of Duplication in the
Federal Government. May 25, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-257)
The purpose of this single-panel hearing was to examine the
Government Accountability Office's report on ``Opportunities to
Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax
Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.'' The hearing explored the
report's findings; looked at examples of duplication, overlap,
and fragmentation in Federal agencies and programs; and
discussed the reasons why such duplication occurs.
Witnesses: Hon. Eugene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Hon. Daniel I. Gordon,
Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of
Management and Budget; and Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief
Information Officer and Administrator, Office of E-Government
and Information Technology, Office of Management and Budget.
Nominations of Jennifer A. Di Toro, Donna M. Murphy, and Yvonne M.
Williams to be Associate Judges, Superior Court of the District
of Columbia. June 15, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-235)
This one-panel hearing considered the nominations of
Jennifer A. Di Toro, Donna M. Murphy, and Yvonne M. Williams to
be Associate Judges, Superior Court of the District of
Columbia. The nominees were introduced by the Delegate from the
District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
See Something, Say Something, Do Something: Next Steps for Securing
Rail and Transit. June 22, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-403)
The single-panel hearing was the fourth in a series marking
the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The purpose of this hearing was
to examine the risks facing rail and transit systems in the
United States and actions that have or could be taken to
mitigate the risk of an attack and improve the resiliency of
the Nation's rail and transit systems. The committee heard how
TSA, States, and local system operators currently protect rail
systems and how they should focus resources to continue to
improve rail and transit security. This hearing also examined
what steps had and will be taken to protect rail assets in
light of information from Osama bin Laden's compound which
indicated al-Qaeda had plotted to attack the U.S. rail sector
on or about the 10th Anniversary of the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks.
Witnesses: Hon. John S. Pistole, Administrator,
Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Hon. Peter J. Boynton, Commissioner,
Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, State
of Connecticut; and Stephen E. Flynn, Ph.D., President, Center
for National Policy.
Transforming Lives Through Diabetes Research. June 22, 2011. (S. Hrg.
112-314)
This two-panel hearing was held concomitantly with the
biennial JDRF Children's Congress. The first panel explored
advances in diabetes research and artificial pancreas
technology as well as the wider effects of juvenile diabetes on
the families and support networks of children with diabetes.
During the second panel, the Committee heard testimonials from
JDRF Children's Congress delegates about living with type 1
diabetes.
Witnesses: Panel I: Kevin Kline, Celebrity Advocate Co-
Chairman, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; Griffin P.
Rodgers, M.D., Director, National Institute of Diabetes and
Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Charles
Zimliki, Ph.D., Chairman, Artificial Pancreas Critical Path
Initiative, Food And Drug Administration, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. Panel II: Caroline Jacobs, Delegate
from Shapleigh, Maine, JDRF Children's Congress; Jack
Schmittlein, Delegate from Avon, Connecticut, JDRF Children's
Congress; Kerry Morgan, Delegate from Glen Allen, Virginia,
JDRF Children's Congress; and Jonathan Platt, Delegate from
Tarzana, California, JDRF Children's Congress.
Federal Regulation: A Review of Legislative Proposals, Part I. June 23,
2011. (S. Hrg. 112-220)
This two-panel hearing was second in a series on Federal
regulation. The purpose of this hearing was to examine the
various legislative proposals to reform the regulatory process.
During the first panel, the Committee heard descriptions and
objectives of possible legislation from the senators sponsoring
such proposals. The Administration's view on the impact that
regulatory reform legislation would have on the development,
issuance, and review of regulations was addressed in the second
panel.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senate;
Hon. Pat Roberts, U.S. Senate; Hon. David Vitter, U.S. Senate;
and Hon. Mark R. Warner, U.S. Senate. Panel II: Hon. Cass R.
Sunstein, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
Ten Years After 9/11: Preventing Terrorist Travel. July 13, 2011. (S.
Hrg. 112-403)
The single-panel hearing was the fifth in a series marking
the 10th anniversary of 9/11. It focused on the efforts that
have been made to prevent terrorists from traveling to the
United States, in particular the programs that have been
implemented to address the weaknesses discovered after the
Christmas Day attack of 2009 and subsequent efforts by
terrorists to exploit our immigration system in order to
infiltrate the United States.
Witnesses: Hon. Rand Beers, Under Secretary, National
Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Hon. Janice L. Jacobs, Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; and Hon.
David F. Heyman, Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security.
Federal Regulation: A Review of Legislative Proposals, Part II. July
20, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-220)
This two-panel hearing was third in a series. The purpose
of this hearing was to examine the various legislative
proposals to reform the regulatory process. During the first
panel, the Committee heard descriptions and objectives of
additional possible legislation from the senator sponsoring
such proposals. The second panel allowed former administration
officials to assess the feasibility of the regulatory reform
proposals and heard concerns from representatives of affected
private sector organizations.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senate.
Panel II: Hon. Sally Katzen, Former Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (1993-1998); Hon. Susan
E. Dudley, Former Administrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (2007-2009); David J. Goldston,
Director, Government Affairs, Natural Resources Defense
Council; and Karen R. Harned, Executive Director, Small
Business Legal Center, National Federation of Independent
Business.
Ten Years After 9/11: Improving Emergency Communications. July 27,
2011. (S. Hrg. 112-403)
The single-panel hearing was the sixth in a series marking
the 10th anniversary of 9/11. It examined the progress made
since September 11, 2001, and gaps remaining, in enabling
interoperable communications among first responders and
emergency managers at all levels of government. The committee
heard from witnesses from Federal, State, and local government
and their views on the potential allocation of the D Block
portion of the broadband spectrum to the public safety
community.
Witnesses: Gregory Schaffer, Acting Deputy Under Secretary,
National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Michael D. Varney, Statewide
Interoperability Coordinator, Connecticut Department of
Emergency Service and Public Protection; Robert P. McAleer,
Director, Maine Emergency Management Agency; and Charles H.
Ramsey, Police Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department.
Nominations of Hon. Mark D. Acton and Robert G. Taub to be
Commissioners, Postal Regulatory Commission. July 28, 2011. (S.
Hrg. 112-261)
This one-panel hearing considered the nominations of Hon.
Mark D. Acton and Robert G. Taub to be Commissioners, Postal
Regulatory Commission. Mr. Acton was introduced by Hon. George
A. Omas, Former Commissioner of the U.S. Postal Rate
Commission, and Mr. Taub was introduced by Hon. John M. McHugh,
Secretary of the Army.
U.S. Postal Service in Crisis: Proposals to Prevent a Shutdown.
September 6, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-271)
The purpose of this two-panel hearing was to review the
legislation currently being considered by Congress and the
proposals being advocated by the U.S. Postal Service to address
its dire financial condition, with an emphasis on the most
recent plans regarding workforce reductions, the implementation
of separate health insurance and pension plans, and the
consolidation of retail and mail processing facilities.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster
General and Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Postal Service; Hon.
John Berry, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management;
Phillip R. Herr, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; and Thomas D. Levy, Senior
Vice President and Chief Actuary, Segal Company. Panel II:
Cliff Guffey, President, American Postal Workers Union; Louis
M. Atkins, President, National Association of Postal
Supervisors; Ellen Levine, Editorial Director, Hearst
Magazines, Hearst Corporation; and Tonda F. Rush, Director of
Public Policy, National Newspaper Association.
Defending the Nation Since 9/11: Successful Reforms and Challenges
Ahead at the Department of Homeland Security. September 7,
2011. (S. Hrg. 112-403)
This single panel hearing was seventh in a series marking
the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The purpose of the hearing was to
examine the progress that the Department of Homeland Security
has made to fulfill its key mission requirements since it was
established in 2003, in the context of a comprehensive report
that is being issued by the Government Accountability Office
examining the status of the Department's progress on the
occasion of the 10-year anniversary of the September 11, 2011,
attacks.
Witnesses: Hon. Jane Holl Lute, Deputy Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Hon. Eugene L. Dodaro,
Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, accompanied by Cathleen Berrick,
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
Ten Years After 9/11: Are We Safer? September 13, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-
403)
This single panel hearing was the eighth in a series
marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The purpose of this
hearing was to examine the current nature of the terrorist
threat against our homeland and U.S. interests abroad generally
as well as the status of U.S. defenses against this threat.
This hearing also reflected on how the threat has evolved since
9/11 and how it may continue to evolve in the future, the
strengthening of U.S. defenses since 9/11, and the improvements
that are needed to fill the gaps and to continue to meet the
terrorist threat in the future.
Witnesses: Hon. Janet A. Napolitano, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Hon. Robert S. Mueller III,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of
Justice; and Hon. Matthew G. Olsen, Director, National
Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence.
Transforming Wartime Contracting: Recommendations of the Commission on
Wartime Contracting. September 21, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-333)
The purpose of this three-panel hearing was to look at how
to improve contingency contracting by examining the
recommendations made by the Commission on Wartime Contracting.
The committee heard from Commission and Administration
witnesses an assessment of reforms that have been undertaken or
are being undertaken to address problems in contingency
contracting and areas where reform is still lacking.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Claire McCaskill, U.S. Senate; and
Hon. Jim Webb, U.S. Senate. Panel II: Hon. Christopher Shays,
Co-Chair, Commission on Wartime Contracting; accompanied by
Hon. Clark Kent Ervin, Commissioner; Hon. Robert J. Henke,
Commissioner; Katherine Schinasi, Commissioner; Charles Tiefer,
Commissioner; and Hon. Dov S. Zakheim, Commissioner. Panel III:
Hon. Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, U.S.
Department of State; and Richard T. Ginman, Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, U.S. Department of Defense.
Nominations of Ronald D. McCray to be a Member, Federal Retirement
Thrift Investment Board, and Corrine A. Beckwith and Catharine
F. Easterly to be Associate Judges, District of Columbia Court
of Appeals. September 23, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-316)
This two-panel hearing considered the nominations of Ronald
D. McCray to be a Member, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment
Board, and Corrine A. Beckwith and Catharine F. Easterly to be
Associate Judges, District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Nomination of Ernest Mitchell Jr. to be Administrator, U.S. Fire
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. October 5, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-
317)
This one-panel hearing considered the nomination of Ernest
Mitchell Jr. to be Administrator, U.S. Fire Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.
Ten Years After 9/11: A Status Report on Information Sharing. October
12, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-403)
This single panel hearing was the ninth in a series marking
the 10th anniversary of 9/11. The purpose of this hearing was
to examine the progress made in the last decade with respect to
terrorism-related information sharing, highlighting specific
areas where additional progress is required, and looking
forward to any emerging issues of concern. The scope of the
hearing encompassed both information sharing among Federal
Government agencies and with non-Federal partners, including
State and local entities and the private sector.
Witnesses: Hon. John E. McLaughlin, Distinguished
Practitioner-in-Residence, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; Hon. Thomas E.
McNamara, Adjunct Professor, Elliott School of International
Affairs, George Washington University; Cathy L. Lanier, Chief
of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, District of
Columbia; Ronald E. Brooks, Director, Northern California
Regional Intelligence Center; and Jeffrey H. Smith, Partner,
Arnold & Porter.
Ten Years After 9/11 and the Anthrax Attacks: Protecting Against
Biological Threat. October 18, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-403)
This two-panel hearing was the 10th in a series marking the
10th anniversary of 9/11. The purpose of this hearing was to
provide a general assessment of the progress made in the decade
since the 2001 anthrax attacks with respect to preparedness for
bioterrorism, to highlight areas where additional progress
still needs to be made, and to identify emerging issues of
concern.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Tara J. O'Toole, Under Secretary
for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Hon. Alexander G. Garza, Assistant Secretary for
Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Hon. Nicole Lurie, Assistant Secretary for
Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; and Vahid Majidi, Ph.D., Assistant Director, Weapons
of Mass Destruction Directorate, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. Panel II: Thomas V.
Inglesby, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and Director, Center
for Biosecurity, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center;
Robert P. Kadlec, M.D., Former Special Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security and Senior Director for
Biological Defense Policy (2007-2009); and Jeffrey Levi, Ph.D.,
Executive Director, Trust for America's Health.
Ten Years After 9/11: The Next Wave in Aviation Security. November 2,
2011. (S. Hrg. 112-403)
This two-panel hearing was the 11th in a series marking the
10th anniversary of 9/11. The purpose of the hearing was to
discuss the future of aviation security, with a focus on how
passenger screening can be improved through new passenger
screening programs, protocols, and technology in order to
enhance security while increasing TSA's efficiency and
passengers' understanding and satisfaction with the system.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. John S. Pistole, Administrator,
Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. Panel II: Roger J. Dow, President and Chief
Executive Officer, U.S. Travel Association; Kenneth J. Dunlap,
Global Director, Security and Travel Facilitation,
International Air Transport Association; and Charles M.
Barclay, President, American Association of Airport Executives.
Nominations of Nancy M. Ware to be Director, Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia;
Michael A. Hughes to be U.S. Marshal, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia; and Danya A. Dayson, Peter A. Krauthamer,
and John F. McCabe to be Associate Judges, Superior Court of
the District of Columbia. November 8, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-323)
This two-panel hearing considered the nominations of Nancy
M. Ware to be Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency for the District of Columbia; Michael A. Hughes to be
U.S. Marshal, Superior Court of the District of Columbia; and
Danya A. Dayson, Peter A. Krauthamer, and John F. McCabe to be
Associate Judges, Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
The nominees were introduced by the Delegate from the District
of Columbia, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Nomination of Roslyn A. Mazer to be Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security. November 15, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-334)
This single panel hearing considered the nomination of
Roslyn A. Mazer to be Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. The nominee was introduced by Sen. Benjamin
L. Cardin.
Weeding Out Bad Contractors: Does the Government Have the Right Tools?
November 16, 2011. (S. Hrg. 112-358)
This single panel hearing examined the adequacy of the
suspension and debarment rules; the practices of agencies in
implementing those rules; the role of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy in promoting the effectiveness of the rules;
the roles of the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee
and the Inspectors General in the suspension and debarment
framework; and the findings and recommendations of a recent
report by the Government Accountability Office on government-
wide suspension and debarment practices.
Witnesses: Hon. Daniel I. Gordon, Administrator for Federal
Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget; William T.
Woods, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; David M. Sims, Chairman,
Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee; Allison C.
Lerner, Inspector General, National Science Foundation; Steven
A. Shaw, Deputy General Counsel for Contractor Responsibility,
U.S. Department of the Air Force.
Insider Trading and Congressional Accountability. December 1, 2011. (S.
Hrg. 112-344)
The purpose of this two-panel hearing was to examine the
applicability of insider trading laws to Members of Congress
and their staff. It looked at whether it would be helpful for
Congress to legislate to explicitly prohibit insider trading by
Members of Congress and their staff, what approach legislation
should take to provide a sound basis for enforcement, and if
the current ethics rules of the Senate and the House of
Representatives clearly prohibit Members and staff from
engaging in insider trading.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, U.S.
Senate; and Hon. Scott P. Brown, U.S. Senate. Panel II: Melanie
Sloan, Executive Director, Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington; Donna M. Nagy, C. Ben Dutton Professor of
Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law; Donald C.
Langevoort, Thomas Aquinas Professor of Law, Georgetown
University Law Center; John C. Coffee Jr., Adolf A. Berle
Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School; and Robert L.
Walker, Of Counsel, Wiley Rein LLP.
Homegrown Terrorism: The Threat to Military Communities Inside the
United States. December 7, 2011. (Serial No. 112-63)
The purpose of this two-panel hearing, held jointly with
the House Committee on Homeland Security, was to examine the
terrorist threat to military personnel within the continental
United States--from homegrown terrorists as well as terrorists
entering the United States from abroad. The Committees asked
the witnesses to discuss the current threat and what the
Administration has done to increase the safety of members of
the military while they are in the United States, both on base
and in their communities. During the second panel, the
Committees heard a testimonial from the father of a soldier
killed in an attack on a recruiting station in Little Rock,
Arkansas.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Paul N. Stockton, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas'
Security Affairs, Office of Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy, Department of Defense, accompanied by Jim Stuteville,
United States Army Senior Advisor, Counterintelligence
Operations and Liaison to the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
and Lieutenant Colonel Reid L. Sawyer, Director, Combating
Terrorism Center at West Point. Panel II: Daris Long, Private
Citizen.
Securing America's Future: The Cybersecurity Act of 2012. February 16,
2012. (S. Hrg. 112-524)
The purpose of this three-panel hearing was to examine
Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 2105). It focused on the threat
that cyber attacks pose to America's national security and how
the Lieberman-Collins-Rockefeller-Feinstein legislation
addresses this growing threat. In particular, the hearing
discussed key aspects of the proposal, including the respective
roles of the government and the private sector in improving
cybersecurity in both the .com and the .gov domains.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, U.S.
Senate; and Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate. Panel II: Hon.
Janet A. Napolitano, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security. Panel III: Hon. Thomas J. Ridge, Chairman, National
Security Task Force, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Hon. Stewart A.
Baker, Partner, Steptoe and Johnson; James A. Lewis, Ph.D.,
Director and Senior Fellow, Technology and Public Policy
Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies; and
Scott Charney, Corporate Vice President, Trustworthy Computing
Group, Microsoft Corporation.
Nomination of Hon. Tony Hammond to be Commissioner, Postal Regulatory
Commission. March 6, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-525)
This single panel hearing considered the nomination of Hon.
Tony Hammond to be a Commissioner, Postal Regulatory
Commission. The nominee was introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt.
Nominations of Mark A. Robbins to be Member, Merit Systems Protection
Board; and Roy W. McLeese III to be Associate Judge, District
of Columbia Court of Appeals. March 6, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-257)
This two-panel hearing considered the nominations of Mark
A. Robbins to be a Member, Merit Systems Protection Board; and
Roy W. McLeese III to be an Associate Judge, District of
Columbia Court of Appeals. Mr. McLeese was introduced by the
Delegate from the District of Columbia, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton.
Raising the Bar for Congress: Reform Proposals for the 21st Century.
March 14, 2012. (S. Hrg 112-537)
The purpose of this two-panel hearing was to discuss
whether Congress can improve the way it considers and votes on
legislation and to examine the various proposals that could
improve the way it operates, such as S. 1981, the No Budget, No
Pay bill, which was pending in the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee. The testimony focused on what
changes each chamber of Congress can adopt to stop gridlock and
the need for Members on both sides of the aisle to come
together to help solve the greatest challenges facing our
country.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Johnny Isakson, U.S. Senate; Hon.
Dean Heller, U.S. Senate; and Hon. Jim Cooper, U.S. House of
Representatives. Panel II: Hon. Thomas M. Davis, Co-Founder, No
Labels, and Director, Federal Government Affairs, Deloitte &
Touche; William A. Galston, Co-Founder, No Labels, and Senior
Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution; and Donald
R. Wolfensberger, Director, Congress Project, Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars.
Retooling Government for the 21st Century: The President's
Reorganization Plan and Reducing Duplication. March 21, 2012.
(S. Hrg. 112-531)
The purpose of this single-panel hearing was to examine the
Reforming and Consolidating Government Act of 2012 (S. 2129)
which created expedited procedures for legislative
consideration of certain reorganization plans submitted by the
President. The witnesses focused on this legislative proposal,
whether reorganizing the executive branch can assist in efforts
to improve the efficiency and performance of Federal agencies,
and other opportunities that exist to reduce unnecessary
duplication in Federal programs.
Witnesses: Hon. Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget;
and Patricia A. Dalton, Chief Operating Office, Government
Accountability Office.
The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission of Fiscal Year
2013. March 21, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-545)
The purpose of this single-panel hearing was to discuss the
Department of Homeland Security's budget request for fiscal
year 2013. Specifically, it discussed how the DHS budget
request met the current and future homeland security needs of
the Nation.
Witness: Hon. Janet A. Napolitano, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security.
Biological Security: The Risk of Dual-Use Research. April 26, 2012. (S.
Hrg. 112-535)
The purpose of this single-panel hearing was to examine the
controversy surrounding the release of H5N1 Avian Flu research
detailing mutations altering transmissibility and the larger
debate over so-called ``dual-use research''--legitimate and
beneficial scientific research that, if misapplied, also has
the potential to cause significant harm to public health and
national security.
Witnesses: Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., Director, National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National
Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; Daniel M. Gerstein, Ph.D., Deputy Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Paul S. Keim, Ph.D., Acting Chairman, National Science Advisory
Board for Biosecurity, National Institutes of Health, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; and Thomas V.
Inglesby, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and Director, Center
for Biosecurity, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Nomination of Joseph G. Jordan to be Administrator, Office of Federal
Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget. May 9,
2012. (S. Hrg. 112-539)
This single panel hearing considered the nomination of
Joseph G. Jordan to be Administrator, Office of Federal
Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget.
Secret Service on the Line: Restoring Trust and Confidence. May 23,
2012. (S. Hrg. 112-559)
This purpose of this single-panel hearing was to discuss
the Secret Service misconduct in Cartagena, Columbia, and
whether it indicates a broader, cultural problem within the
agency. The hearing also focused on what steps are being taken
to both investigate the incident as well as any corrective
actions that might be needed to prevent future misconduct.
Witnesses: Mark J. Sullivan, Director, United States Secret
Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Charles K.
Edwards, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security.
Nominations of Hon. Katherine C. Tobin and Hon. James C. Miller III to
be Governors, United States Postal Service. June 21, 2012. (S.
Hrg. 112-538)
This single panel hearing considered the nominations of
Hon. Katherine C. Tobin and Hon. James C. Miller III to be
Governors, United States Postal Service. Dr. Tobin was
introduced by Sen. Harry Reid.
The Future of Homeland Security: Evolving and Emerging Threats. July
11, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-612)
This single-panel hearing was the first in a series on the
future of homeland security. The purpose was to examine the
future homeland security threat context, including both the
terrorism threat as well as other key threat areas, such as
cyber threats and transnational organized crime, and the
linkages among these threat domains. The hearing also looked at
the broader societal and technological factors that are
affecting these threats, and examined the capacity of DHS and
other key stakeholders to anticipate changes to this threat
context and to take appropriate action to counter or mitigate
emerging threats and vulnerabilities.
Witnesses: Hon. Michael V. Hayden, Principal, Chertoff
Group; Brian Michael Jenkins, Senior Adviser to the President,
RAND Corporation; Frank J. Cilluffo, Director, Homeland
Security Policy Institute, George Washington University; and
Stephen E. Flynn, Ph.D., Founding Co-Director, George J. Kostas
Research Institute for Homeland Security, Northeastern
University.
The Future of Homeland Security: The Evolution of the Homeland Security
Department's Roles and Missions. July 12, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-
612)
This single-panel hearing was the second in a series on the
future of homeland security. The purpose of this hearing was to
examine how the Homeland Security Department's roles and
missions have evolved in the decade since the passage of the
Homeland Security Act and what the department needs to do in
the next decade to mature to become a more effective
organization both in its internal management and operations and
in its interactions with other key Federal and non-Federal
stakeholders.
Witnesses: Hon. Jane Harman, Director, President, and Chief
Executive Officer, Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars; Admiral Thad W. Allen, USCG, Retired, Former
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard; and Hon. Richard L.
Skinner, Chief Executive Officer, Richard Skinner Consulting.
Nomination of Stephen Crawford to be a Governor, United States Postal
Service. July 12, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-566)
This single panel hearing considered the nomination of
Stephen Crawford to be a Governor, United States Postal
Service. Dr. Crawford was introduced by Sen. Benjamin L.
Cardin.
Show Me the Money: Improving the Transparency of Federal Spending. July
18, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-583)
This two-panel hearing examined the current state of
transparency and accountability of Federal spending. The
witness testimony focused on implementation of the Federal
Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, lessons learned
from the Recovery Act, and what opportunities exist to improve
transparency and accountability of Federal spending.
Witnesses: Panel I: Hon. Mark R. Warner, U.S. Senate. Panel
II: Hon. Eugene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United
States, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Hon. Daniel I.
Werfel, Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management,
Office of Management and Budget; and Richard L. Gregg, Fiscal
Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Nominations of Walter M. Shaub, Jr., to be Director, Office of
Government Ethics, and Kimberley S. Knowles and Rainey R.
Brandt to be Associate Judges, Superior Court of the District
of Columbia. July 20, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-565)
This two-panel hearing considered the nominations of Walter
M. Shaub, Jr., to be Director, Office of Government Ethics, and
Kimberley S. Knowles and Rainey R. Brandt to be Associate
Judges, Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Mr. Shaub
was introduced by Rep. James P. Moran , and Ms. Knowles and Ms.
Brandt were introduced by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Moving from Scandal to Strategy: The Future of the General Services
Administration. September 12, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-613)
The purpose of this single-panel hearing was to examine
actions taken in response to the Inspector General's report on
the Western Regions Conference, as well as actions taken in
response to any other specific instances of waste, fraud, or
abuse that have been identified. The committee was particularly
interested in any specific recommendations developed as a
result of the top-to-bottom review being conducted by the
Acting Administrator, as well as an identification of GSA's
major challenges that should be addressed by both the
Administration and the Congress over the short and long terms.
Witnesses: Hon. Daniel M. Tangherlini, Acting
Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration; and Hon.
Brian D. Miller, Inspector General, U.S. General Services
Administration.
Homeland Threats and Agency Responses. September 19, 2012. (S. Hrg.
112-639)
The purpose of this single-panel hearing was to assess the
major threats to our homeland as well as the status of U.S.
defenses against these threats. While the predominant focus of
this hearing was terrorism threats, it also addressed other
homeland threats, such as cyber threats and transnational
organized crime. The hearing examined the current status of
these threats, to the extent that is feasible in an
unclassified setting, including how they may have evolved since
the committee's 2011 threat hearing.
Witnesses: Hon. Janet A. Napolitano, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Hon. Matthew G. Olsen,
Director, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the
Director of National Intelligence; and Kevin L. Perkins,
Associate Deputy Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
U.S. Department of Justice.
Nomination of Robert D. Okun to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court
of the District of Columbia. November 20, 2012. (S. Hrg. 112-
648)
This single panel hearing considered the nomination of
Robert D. Okun to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia. Mr. Okun was introduced by Del. Eleanor
Holmes Norton.
VI. REPORTS, PRINTS, AND GAO REPORTS
During the 112th Congress, the Committee prepared and
issued 31 reports and 2 Committee Prints on the following
topics. Reports issued by Subcommittees are listed in their
respective sections of this document.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
To ensure objective, independent review of task and
delivery orders. S. Rept. 112-16, re. S. 498.
To improve the Federal Acquisition Institute. S. Rept. 112-
21, re. S. 762.
To direct the Department of Homeland Security to undertake
a study on emergency communications. S. Rept. 112-22, re. S.
191.
To reduce the number of executive positions subject to
Senate confirmation. S. Rept. 112-24, re. S. 679.
To improve the provision of assistance to fire departments,
and for other purposes. S. Rept. 112-28, re. S. 550.
To prevent abuse of Government charge cards. S. Rept. 112-
37, re. S. 300.
To extend the chemical facility security program of the
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. S.
Rept. 112-90, re. S. 473.
To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to establish a
program to issue Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation business
travel cards, and for other purposes. S. Rept. 112-92, re. S.
1487.
To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the
authority of the United States Postal Service to issue a
semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research. S. Rept.
112-97, re. S. 384.
To improve, sustain, and transform the United States Postal
Service. S. Rept. 112-143, re. S. 1789.
To promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in
the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. S. Rept. 112-
154, re. H.R. 2297.
To amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to
clarify the disclosures of information protected from
prohibited personnel practices, require a statement in non-
disclosure policies, forms, and agreements that such policies,
forms, and agreements conform with certain disclosure
protections, provide certain authority for the special counsel,
and for other purposes. S. Rept. 112-155, re. S. 743.
To amend title 31, United States Code, to enhance the
oversight authorities of the Comptroller General, and for other
purposes. S. Rept. 112-159, re. S. 237.
To provide for an exchange of land between the Department
of Homeland Security and the South Carolina State Ports
Authority. S. Rept. 112-171, re. S. 2061.
To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to
revise certain administrative authorities of the District of
Columbia courts, and to authorize the District of Columbia
Public Defender Service to provide professional liability
insurance for officers and employees of the Service for claims
relating to services furnished within the scope of employment
with the Service. S. Rept. 112-178, re. S. 1379.
To reauthorize the United States Fire Administration, and
for other purposes. S. Rept. 112-180, re. S. 2218.
To intensify efforts to identify, prevent, and recover
payment error, waste, fraud, and abuse within Federal spending.
S. Rept. 112-181, re. S. 1409.
To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to revise
the timing of special elections for local office in the
District of Columbia. S. Rept. 112-186, re. H.R. 3902.
Activities of the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs for the 111th Congress. S. Rept. 112-193.
To protect Federal employees and visitors, improve the
security of Federal facilities and authorize and modernize the
Federal Protective Service. S. Rept. 112-202, re. S. 772.
To permit certain members of the United States Secret
Service and certain members of the United States Secret Service
Uniformed Division who were appointed in 1984, 1985, or 1986 to
elect to be covered under the District of Columbia Police and
Firefighter Retirement and Disability System in the same manner
as members appointed prior to 1984. S. Rept. 112-205, re. S.
1515.
To establish a Border Enforcement Security Task Force
program to enhance border security by fostering coordinated
Efforts among Federal, State, and local border and law
enforcement officials to protect United States border cities
and communities from trans-national crime, including violence
associated with drug trafficking, arms smuggling, illegal alien
trafficking and smuggling, violence, and kidnapping along and
across the international borders of the United States, and for
other purposes. S. Rept. 112-206, re. H.R. 915.
To amend the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
which are commonly referred to as the ``Hatch Act'' to
eliminate the provision preventing certain State and local
employees from seeking elective office, clarify the application
of certain provisions to the District of Columbia, and modify
the penalties which may be imposed for certain violations under
subchapter III of chapter 73 of that title. S. Rept. 112-211,
re. S. 2170.
To repeal or modify certain mandates of the Government
Accountability Office. S. Rept. 112-219, re. S. 3315.
To obtain an unqualified audit opinion, and improve
financial accountability and management at the Department of
Homeland Security. S. Rept. 112-230, re. S. 1998.
To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Government by providing for greater interagency experience
among national security and homeland security personnel through
the development of a national security and homeland security
human capital strategy and interagency rotational service by
employees, and for other purposes. S. Rept. 112-235, re. S.
1268.
To establish the Office of Agriculture Inspection within
the Department of Homeland Security, which shall be headed by
the Assistant Commissioner for Agriculture Inspection, and for
other purposes. S. Rept. 112-240, re. S. 1673.
To require the Federal Government to expedite the sale of
underutilized Federal real property. S. Rept. 112-241, re. S.
2178.
To prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress
from using nonpublic information derived from their official
positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes. S.
Rept. 112-244, re. 2038.
To authorize certain programs of the Department of Homeland
Security, and for other purposes. S. Rept. 112-249, re. S.
1546.
To provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal
employees. S. Rept. 112-257, re. S. 1910.
COMMITTEE PRINTS
The Committee issued the following Committee Prints during
the 112th Congress:
Rules of Procedure. Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. (Printed. 36 pp. S. Prt. 112-11.)
Rules of Procedure. Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations. (Printed. 18 pp. S. Prt. 112-12.)
GAO REPORTS
Also during the 112th Congress, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) issued 156 reports at the request
of the Committee. GAO reports requested by the Subcommittees
appear in their respective sections. Reports are listed here by
title, GAO number, and release date.
Information Technology: OMB Has Made Improvements to Its
Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by Agencies and OMB to
Ensure Data Accuracy. GAO-11-262. March 15, 2011.
Information Security: IRS Needs to Enhance Internal Control
over Financial Reporting and Taxpayer Data. GAO-11-308. March
15, 2011.
Federal Food Safety Oversight: Food Safety Working Group Is
a Positive First Step but Governmentwide Planning Is Needed to
Address Fragmentation. GAO-11-289. March 18, 2011.
State and Local Governments: Knowledge of Past Recessions
Can Inform Future Federal Fiscal Assistance. GAO-11-401. March
31, 2011.
Medicaid: Improving Responsiveness of Federal Assistance to
States during Economic Downturns. GAO-11-395. March 31, 2011.
Border Security: DHS's Visa Security Program Needs to
Improve Performance Evaluation and Better Address Visa Risk
Worldwide. GAO-11-315. March 31, 2011.
2010 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists'
Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-11-452. April 1,
2011.
Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grant Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and
Program Goals and Requirements. GAO-11-379. April 7, 2011.
Catastrophic Planning: States Participating in FEMA's Pilot
Program Made Progress, but Better Guidance Could Enhance Future
Pilot Programs. GAO-11-383. April 8, 2011.
Overstay Enforcement: Additional Mechanisms for Collection,
Assessing, and Sharing data Could Strengthen DHS's Efforts but
Would Have Costs. GAO-11-411. April 15, 2011.
Recovery Act: Thousands of Recovery Act Contract and Grant
Recipients Owe Hundreds of Millions in Federal Taxes. GAO-11-
485. April 28, 2011.
Visa Waiver Program: DHS Has Implemented the Electronic
System for Travel Authorization, but Further Steps Needed to
Address Potential Program Risks. GAO-11-335. May 5, 2011.
United States Postal Service: Strategy Needed to Address
Aging Delivery Fleet. GAO-11-386. May 5, 2011.
Financial Audit: Congressional Award Foundation's Fiscal
Years 2010 and 2009 Financial Statements. GAO-11-597. May 12,
2011.
Management Report: Improvements Needed in Controls over the
Preparation of the U.S. Consolidated Financial Statements. GAO-
11-525. May 26, 2011.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance: Actions Are
Needed to Increase Integration and Efficiencies of DOD's ISR
Enterprise. GAO-11-465. June 3, 2011.
Combating Terrorism: U.S. Government Should Improve Its
Reporting on Terrorist Safe Havens. GAO-11-561. June 3, 2011.
ACORN: Federal Funding and Monitoring. GAO-11-484. June 14,
2011.
DHS Science and Technology: Additional Steps Needed to
Ensure Test and Evaluation Requirements Are Met. GAO-11-596.
June 15, 2011.
National Preparedness: DHS and HHS Can Further Strengthen
Coordination for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and
Nuclear Risk Assessments. GAO-11-606. June 21, 2011.
Internal Revenue Service: Status of GAO Financial Audit and
Related Financial Management Report Recommendations. GAO-11-
536. June 22, 2011.
Homeland Defense: Actions Needed to Improve DOD Planning
and Coordination for Maritime Operations. GAO-11-661. June 23,
2011.
Social Media: Federal Agencies Need Policies and Procedures
for Managing and Protecting Information They Access and
Disseminate. GAO-11-605. June 28, 2011.
Recovery Act: Funds Supported Many Water Projects, and
Federal and State Monitoring Shows Few Compliance Problems.
GAO-11-608. June 29, 2011.
Recovery Act: Funding Used for Transportation
Infrastructure Projects, but Some Requirements Proved
Challenging. GAO-11-600. June 29, 2011.
Race to the Top: Reform Efforts Are Under Way and
Information Sharing Could Be Improved. GAO-11-658. June 30,
2011.
Combating Terrorism: Additional Steps Needed to Enhance
Foreign Partners' Capacity to Prevent Terrorist Travel. GAO-11-
637. June 30, 2011.
Information Security: State Has Taken Steps to Implement a
Continuous Monitoring Application, but Key Challenges Remain.
GAO-11-149. July 8, 2011.
Long-Term Care Insurance: Carrier Interest in the Federal
Program, Changes to Its Actuarial Assumptions, and OPM
Oversight. GAO-11-630. July 11, 2011.
Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete
Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings. GAO-11-565.
July 19, 2011.
Information Sharing Environment: Better Road Map Needed to
Guide Implementation and Investments. GAO-11-455. July 21,
2011.
Emergency Preparedness: Agencies Need Coordinated Guidance
on Incorporating Telework into Emergency and Continuity
Planning. GAO-11-628. July 22, 2011.
Information Technology: DHS Needs to Improve Its
Independent Acquisition Reviews. GAO-11-581. July 28, 2011.
Green Information Technology: Agencies Have Taken Steps to
Implement Requirements, but Additional Guidance on Measuring
Performance Needed. GAO-11-638. July 28, 2011.
Medicare Integrity Program: CMS Used Increased Funding for
New Activities but Could Improve Measurement of Program
Effectiveness. GAO-11-592. July 29, 2011.
Acquisition Planning: Opportunities to Build Strong
Foundations for Better Services Contracts. GAO-11-672. August
9, 2011.
Suspension and Debarment: Some Agency Programs Need Greater
Attention, and Governmentwide Oversight Could Be Improved. GAO-
11-739. August 31, 2011.
Interagency Contracting: Improvements Needed in Setting Fee
Rates for Selected Programs. GAO-11-784. September 9, 2011.
DOD Financial Management: Improvement Needed in DOD
Components' Implementation of Audit Readiness Effort. GAO-11-
851. September 13, 2011.
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: Enhanced Stakeholder
Consultation and Use of Risk Information Could Strengthen
Future Reviews. GAO-11-873. September 15, 2011.
Iraq and Afghanistan: DOD, State, and USAID Cannot Fully
Account for Contracts, Assistance Instruments, and Associated
Personnel. GAO-11-886. September 15, 2011.
Federal Chief Information Officers: Opportunities Exist to
Improve Role in Information Technology Management. GAO-11-634.
September 15, 2011.
Personal ID Verification: Agencies Should Set a Higher
Priority on Using the Capabilities of Standardized
Identification Cards. GAO-11-751. September 20, 2011.
Inspectors General: Reporting on Independence,
Effectiveness, and Expertise. GAO-11-770. September 21, 2011.
Recovery Act Education Programs: Funding Retained Teachers,
but Education Could More Consistently Communicate Stabilization
Monitoring Issues. GAO-11-804. September 22, 2011.
Electronic Government: Performance Measures for Projects
Aimed at Promoting Innovation and Transparency Can Be Improved.
GAO-11-775. September 23, 2011.
Contingency Contracting: Improved Planning and Management
Oversight Needed to Address Challenges with Closing Contracts.
GAO-11-891. September 29, 2011.
Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance
on IT Investments. GAO-11-826. September 29, 2011.
Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select
Efficiency Initiatives Should Be Shared Governmentwide. GAO-11-
908. September 30, 2011.
Energy Star: Providing Opportunities for Additional review
of EPA's Decisions Could Strengthen the Program. GAO-11-888.
September 30, 2011.
Information Security: Weaknesses Continue Amid New Federal
Efforts to Implement Requirements. GAO-12-137. October 13,
2011.
Warfighter Support: DOD Has Made Progress, but Supply and
Distribution Challenges Remain in Afghanistan. GAO-12-138.
October 17, 2011.
U.S. Postal Service: Allocation of Responsibility for
Pension Benefits between the Postal Service and the Federal
Government. GAO-12-146. October 13, 2011.
Information Technology: Critical Factors Underlying
Successful Major Acquisitions. GAO-12-7. October 12, 2011.
Aviation Security: TSA Has Taken Steps to Enhance Its
Foreign Airport Assessments, but Opportunities Exist to
Strengthen the Program. GAO-12-163. October 12, 2011.
National Preparedness: Improvements Needed for Acquiring
Medical Countermeasures to Threats from Terrorism and Other
Sources. GAO-12-121. October 26, 2011.
Maritime Security: Coast Guard Should Conduct Required
Inspections of Offshore Energy Infrastructure. GAO-12-37.
October 28, 2011.
Border Security: Additional Steps Needed to Ensure That
Officers Are Fully Trained. GAO-12-36SU. October 31, 2011.
Biosurveillance: Non-Federal Capabilities Should Be
Considered in Creating a National Biosurveillance Strategy.
GAO-12-55. October 31, 2011.
IT Dashboard: Accuracy Has Improved, and Additional Efforts
Are Under Way to Better Inform Decision Making. GAO-12-210.
November 7, 2011.
Financial Audit: Bureau of the Public Debt's Fiscal Years
2011 and 2010 Schedules of Federal Debt. GAO-12-164. November
8, 2011.
Medicaid: Prototype Formula Would Provide Automatic,
Targeted Assistance to States during Economic Downturns. GAO-
12-38. November 10, 2011.
Financial Audit: IRS's Fiscal Years 2011 and 2010 Financial
Statements. GAO-12-165. November 10, 2011.
Financial Audit: Securities and Exchange Commission's
Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2010. GAO-12-
219. November 15, 2011.
Federal Contracting: OMB's Acquisition Savings Had Results,
but Improvements Needed. GAO-12-57. November 15, 2011.
Port Security Grant Program: Risk Model, Grant Management,
and Effectiveness Measures Could Be Strengthened. GAO-12-47.
November 17, 2011.
Coast Guard: Security Risk Model Meets DHS Criteria, but
More Training Could Enhance Its Use for Managing Programs and
Operations. GAO-12-14. November 17, 2011.
Transportation Security Information Sharing: Stakeholders
Generally Satisfied but TSA Could Improve Analysis, Awareness,
and Accountability. GAO-12-44. November 21, 2011.
Immigration Benefits: Consistent Adherence to DHS's
Acquisition Policy Could Help Improve Transformation Program
Outcomes. GAO-12-66. November 22, 2011.
Managing Service Contracts: Recent Efforts to Address
Associated Risks Can Be Further Enhanced. GAO-12-87. December
7, 2011.
Homeland Defense and Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Additional Steps Could Enhance the Effectiveness of the
National Guard's Life-Saving Response Forces. GAO-12-114.
December 7, 2011.
Foster Children: HHS Guidance Could Help States Improve
Oversight of Psychotropic Prescriptions. GAO-12-201. December
14, 2011.
Arlington National Cemetery: Management Improvements Made,
but a Strategy Is Needed to Address Remaining Challenges. GAO-
12-105. December 15, 2011.
Arlington National Cemetery: Additional Actions Needed to
Continue Improvements in Contract Management. GAO-12-99.
December 15, 2011.
Recovery Act: Progress and Challenges in Spending
Weatherization Funds. GAO-12-195. December 16, 2011.
DOD Financial Management: Ongoing Challenges with
Reconciling Navy and Marine Corps Fund Balance with Treasury.
GAO-12-132. December 20, 2011.
Federal Employees' Compensation Act: Preliminary
Observations on Fraud-Prevention Controls. GAO-12-402. January
25, 2012.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Risk
Assessments: DHS Should Establish More Specific Guidance for
Their Use. GAO-12-272. January 25, 2012.
Federal Contracting: Monitoring and Oversight of Tribal
8(a) Firms Need Attention. GAO-12-84. January 31, 2012.
Humanitarian and Development Assistance: Project
Evaluations and Better Information Sharing needed to Manage the
Military's Efforts. GAO-12-359. February 8, 2012.
DHS Human Capital: Senior Leadership Vacancy Rates
Generally Declined, but Components' Rates Varied. GAO-12-264.
February 10, 2012.
Maritime Security: Coast Guard Needs to Improve Use and
Management of Interagency Operations Centers. GAO-12-202.
February 13, 2012.
Information Technology: Departments of Defense and Energy
Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments. GAO-12-
241. February 17, 2012.
Renewable Energy: Federal Agencies Implement hundreds of
Initiatives. GAO-12-260. February 27, 2012.
Homeland Security: DHS Needs Better Project Information and
Coordination among Four Overlapping Grant Programs. GAO-12-303.
February 27, 2012.
Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel
Rotation Programs Can Build on Positive Results with Additional
Preparation and Evaluation. GAO-12-386. March 9, 2012.
Export Controls: Agencies Need to Assess Control List
Reform's Impact on Compliance Activities. GAO-12-394SU. March
14, 2012.
Federal Contracting: Effort to Consolidate Governmentwide
Acquisition Data Systems Should Be Reassessed. GAO-12-429.
March 15, 2012.
Information Security: IRS Needs to Further Enhance Internal
Control over Financial Reporting and Taxpayer Data. GAO-12-393.
March 16, 2012.
Defense Headquarters: Further Efforts to Examine Resource
Needs and Improve Data Could Provide Additional Opportunities
for Cost Savings. GAO-12-345. March 21, 2012.
DOD Financial Management: The Army Faces Significant
Challenges in Achieving Audit Readiness for Its Military Pay.
GAO-12-406. March 22, 2012.
IT Supply Chain: National Security-Related Agencies Need to
Better Address Risks. GAO-12-361. March 23, 2012.
Export Controls: Proposed Reforms Create Opportunities to
Address Enforcement Challenges. GAO-12-246. March 27, 2012.
Border Security: Opportunities Exist to Ensure More
Effective Use of DHS's Air and Marine Assets. GAO-12-518. March
30, 2012.
2011 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists'
Compliance with Disclosure Requirements. GAO-12-492. March 30,
2012.
U.S. Postal Service: Mail Processing Network Exceeds What
Is Needed for Declining Mail Volume. GAO-12-470. April 12,
2012.
Defense Health Care: Applying Key Management Practices
Should Help Achieve Efficiencies with the Military Health
System. GAO-12-224. April 12, 2012.
Grants Management: Action Needed to Improve the Timeliness
of Grant Closeouts by Federal Agencies. GAO-12-360. April 16,
2012.
Afghanistan Security: Renewed Sharing of Biometric Data
Could Strengthen U.S. Efforts to Protect U.S. Personnel from
Afghan Security Force Attacks. GAO-12-471SU. April 20, 2012.
Export Controls: U.S. Agencies Need to Assess Control List
Reform's Impact on Compliance Activities. GAO-12-613. April 23,
2012.
U.S. Postal Service: Field Offices' Role in Cost-Reduction
and Revenue-Generation Efforts. GAO-12-506. April 25, 2012.
Information Technology Reform: Progress Made; More Needs to
Be Done to Complete Actions and Measure Results. GAO-12-461.
April 26, 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Workforce Planning and
Training Could Be Enhanced by Incorporation Strategic
Management Principles. GAO-12-487. April 26, 2012.
Checked Baggage Screening: TSA Has Deployed Optimal Systems
at the Majority of TSA-Regulated Airports, but Could Strengthen
Cost Estimates. GAO-12-266. April 27, 2012.
Electronic Health Records: First Year of CMS's Incentive
Programs Shows Opportunities to Improve Processes to Verify
Providers Met Requirements. GAO-12-481. April 30, 2012.
Department of Homeland Security: Further Action Needed to
Improve Management of Special Acquisition Authority. GAO-12-
557. May 8, 2012.
Homelessness: Fragmentation and Overlap in Programs
Highlight the Need to Identify, Assess, and Reduce
Inefficiencies. GAO-12-491. May 10, 2012.
Aviation Security: Actions Needed to Address Challenges and
Potential Vulnerabilities Related to Securing Inbound Air
Cargo. GAO-12-632. May 10, 2012.
Financial Audit: Congressional Award Foundation's Fiscal
Years 2011 and 2010 Financial Statements. GAO-12-682. May 15,
2012.
2020 Census: Additional Steps Are Needed to Build on Early
Planning. GAO-12-626. May 17, 2012.
Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider When
Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical Infrastructure and
Management Functions. GAO-12-542. May 23, 2012.
Disaster Assistance Workforce: FEMA Could Enhance Human
Capital Management and Training. GAO-12-538. May 25, 2012.
Disability Employment: Further Action Needed to Oversee
Efforts to meet Federal Government Hiring Goals. GAO-12-568.
May 25, 2012.
Terrorist Watchlist: Routinely Assessing Impacts of Agency
Actions since the December 25, 2009, Attempted Attack Could
Help Inform Future Efforts. GAO-12-476. May 31, 2012.
National Medicaid Audit Program: CMS Should Improve
Reporting and Focus on Audit Collaboration with States. GAO-12-
627. June 14, 2012.
Department of State: Foreign Service Midlevel Staffing Gaps
Persist Despite Significant Increases in Hiring. GAO-12-721.
June 14, 2012.
Recovery Act: Housing Programs Met Spending Milestones, but
Asset Management Information Needs Evaluation. GAO-12-634. June
18, 2012.
Supplemental Security Income: Better Management Oversight
Needed for Children's Benefits. GAO-12-497. June 26, 2012.
Management Report: Improvements Needed in Controls over the
Preparation of the U.S. Consolidated Financial Statements. GAO-
12-529. June 27, 2012.
Internal Revenue Service: Status of GAO Financial Audit and
Related Financial Management Recommendations. GAO-12-695. June
28, 2012.
Employment for People with Disabilities: Little Is Known
about the Effectiveness of Fragmented and Overlapping Programs.
GAO-12-677. June 29, 2012.
Information Technology Reform: Progress Made but Future
Cloud Computing Efforts Should Be Better Planned. GAO-12-756.
July 11, 2012.
Information Technology Cost Estimation: Agencies Need to
Address Significant Weaknesses in Policies and Practices. GAO-
12-629. July 11, 2012.
Justice Grant Programs: DOJ Should Do More to Reduce the
Risk of Unnecessary Duplication and Enhance Program Assessment.
GAO-12-517. July 12, 2012.
Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making Progress on
Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to Be Completed. GAO-
12-742. July 19, 2012.
TANF Electronic Benefit Cards: Some States Are Restricting
Certain TANF Transactions, but Challenges Remain. GAO-12-535.
July 20, 2012.
World Health Organization: Reform Agenda Developed, but
U.S. Actions to Monitor Progress Could Be Enhanced. GAO-12-722.
July 23, 2012.
Financial Literacy: Overlap of Programs Suggests There May
Be Opportunities for Consolidation. GAO-12-588. July 23, 2012.
United Nations Renovations: Best Practices Could Enhance
Future Cost Estimates. GAO-12-795. July 25, 2012.
Coast Guard: Legacy Vessels' Declining Conditions Reinforce
Need for More Realistic Operational Targets. GAO-12-741. July
31, 2012.
Entrepreneurial Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Improve
Programs' Collaboration, Data-Tracking, and Performance
Management. GAO-12-819. August 23, 2012.
Military Disability System: Improved Monitoring Needed to
Better Track and Manage Performance. GAO-12-676. August 28,
2012.
Border Security: State Could Enhance Visa Fraud Prevention
by Strategically Using Resources and Training. GAO-12-888.
September 10, 2012.
Biosurveillance: DHS Should Reevaluate Mission Need and
Alternatives before Proceeding with BioWatch Generation-3
Acquisition. GAO-12-810. September 10, 2012.
Electronic Government Act: Agencies Have Implemented Most
Provisions, but Key Areas of Attention Remain. GAO-12-782.
September 12, 2012.
Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and Coordination
of Research and Development Should Be Strengthened. GAO-12-837.
September 12, 2012.
Asset Forfeiture Programs: Justice and Treasury Should
Determine Costs and Benefits of Potential Consolidation. GAO-
12-972. September 12, 2012.
Information Sharing: DHS Has Demonstrated Leadership and
Progress, but Additional Actions Could Help Sustain and
Strengthen Efforts. GAO-12-809. September 18, 2012.
Homeland Security: DHS Requires More Disciplined Investment
Management to Help Meet Mission Needs. GAO-12-833. September
18, 2012.
Countering Violent Extremism: Additional Actions Could
Strengthen Training Efforts. GAO-12-952SU. September 18, 2012.
Next Generation Enterprise Network: Navy Implementing
Revised Approach, but Improvement Needed in Mitigating Risks.
GAO-12-956. September 19, 2012.
Strategic Sourcing: Improved and Expanded Use Could Save
Billions in Annual Procurement Costs. GAO-12-919. September 20,
2012.
Homeland Defense: Management Actions Would Improve the
Army's Domestic Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
Response Capabilities. GAO-12-765SU. September 24, 2012.
Organizational Transformation: Enterprise Architecture
Value Needs to Be Measured and Reported. GAO-12-791. September
26, 2012.
Information Technology: DHS Needs to Enhance Management of
Cost and Schedule for Major Investments. GAO-12-904. September
26, 2012.
Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. September
27, 2012.
Homeland Security: Agriculture Inspection Program Has Made
Some Improvements, but Management Challenges Persist. GAO-12-
885. September 27, 2012.
Department of Homeland Security: Taking Further Action to
Better Determine Causes of Morale Problems Would Assist in
Targeting Action Plans. GAO-12-940. September 28, 2012.
Religious Compensatory Time: Office of Personnel Management
Action Needed to Clarify Policies for Agencies. GAO-13-96.
October 12, 2012.
Rural Water Infrastructure: Additional Coordination Can
Help Avoid Potentially Duplicative Application Requirements.
GAO-13-111. October 16, 2012.
Supply Chain Security: CBP Needs to Conduct Regular
Assessments of Its Cargo Targeting System. GAO-13-9. October
25, 2012.
Financial Audit: Bureau of the Public Debt's Fiscal Years
2012 and 2011 Schedules of Federal Debt. GAO-13-114. November
8, 2012.
Financial Audit: IRS's Fiscal Years 2012 and 2011 Financial
Statements. GAO-13-120. November 9, 2012.
Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Need to Make
Coordination a Priority to Reduce Duplication. GAO-13-94.
November 26, 2012.
DHS Strategic Workforce Planning: Oversight of
Departmentwide Efforts Should Be Strengthened. GAO-13-65.
December 3, 2012.
DOD Financial Management: Actions Needed to Address
Deficiencies in Controls over Army Active Duty Military
Payroll. GAO-13-28. December 12, 2012.
VII. OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS
During the 112th Congress, 923 official communications were
referred to the Committee. Of these, 917 were Executive
Communications, 3 were Petitions or Memorials, and 3 were a
Presidential Message. Of the official communications, 345 dealt
with the District of Columbia.
VIII. LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
During the 112th Congress, the Committee reported
significant legislation that was approved by Congress and
signed into law by the President.
The following are brief legislative histories of measures
to the Committee and, in some cases, drafted by the Committee,
which (1) became public law or (2) were favorably reported from
the Committee and passed by the Senate, but did not become law.
In addition to the measures listed below, the Committee
received during the 112th Congress numerous legislative
proposals that were not considered or reported, or that were
reported but not passed by the Senate. Additional information
on these measures appears in the Committee's Legislative
Calendar for the 112th Congress, S. Prt. 112-41, Government
Printing Office (December 31, 2012).
MEASURES ENACTED INTO LAW
The following measures considered by the Committee were
enacted into Public Law. The descriptions following the signing
date of each measure note selected provisions of the text, and
are not intended to serve as section-by-section summaries.
S. 1487.--Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Travel
Cards Act of 2011. (Public Law 112-54). November 12, 2011.
Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), in
coordination with the Secretary of State, during the 7-year
period ending on September 30, 2018, to issue Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Business Travel Cards to eligible persons,
including business leaders and U.S. Government officials
actively engaged in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
business, who are in good standing in an international trusted
traveler program of DHS.
H.R. 2061.--To authorize the presentation of a United
States flag on behalf of Federal civilian employees who die of
injuries in connection with their employment. (Public Law 112-
73). December 20, 2011.
Authorizes a Federal executive agency head to: (1) give a
U.S. flag for an individual who was an agency employee and who
died of employment-related injuries suffered as a result of a
criminal act, an act of terrorism, a natural disaster, or other
circumstance as determined by the President, upon the request
of the employee's widow or widower, child, sibling, or parent,
or other another individual other than the next of kin as
determined by the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM); and (2) disclose unclassified information
that does not endanger national security to show that such
employee is eligible to receive a flag.
S. 384.--To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend
the authority of the United States Postal Service to issue a
semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research.(Public
Law 112-80). December 23, 2011.
Extends for 4 years, the authority of the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS) to issue a semipostal to contribute to funding
for breast cancer research.
H.R. 1059.--To protect the safety of judges by extending
the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive
information contained in their financial disclosure reports,
and for other purposes. (Public Law 112-84). January 3, 2012.
Revises the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to extend
until December 31, 2017, the Judicial Conference's authority to
redact financial disclosure reports filed by a judicial officer
or employee if it finds that revealing personal and sensitive
information could endanger that individual or a family member
of that individual.
S. 2038.--To prohibit Members of Congress and employees of
Congress from using nonpublic information derived from their
official positions for personal benefit, and for other
purposes. (Public Law 112-105). April 4, 2012.
Requires the congressional ethics committees to issue
interpretive guidance of the rules of each chamber, including
rules on conflicts of interest and gifts, with respect to the
prohibition against the use by Members of Congress and
congressional employees (including legislative branch officers
and employees), as a means for making a private profit, of any
nonpublic information derived from their positions as Members
or congressional employees, or gained from performance of the
individual's official responsibilities. Declares that such
Members and employees are not exempt from the insider trading
prohibitions arising under the securities laws. Requires the
Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate,
and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, by August 31,
2012, or 90 days after the enactment of this Act, to ensure
that financial disclosure forms filed by Members, candidates
for Congress, and congressional officers and employees, in
calendar year 2012 and in subsequent years be made available to
the public on the respective official Senate and House websites
within 30 days after filing. Directs the Secretary, the
Sergeant at Arms, and the Clerk to develop systems to enable
the electronic filing of such reports as well as their on-line
public availability.
H.R. 2668.--To designate the station of the United States
Border Patrol located at 2136 South Naco Highway in Bisbee,
Arizona, as the ``Brian A. Terry Border Patrol Station.''
(Public Law 112-113). May 15, 2012.
Designates the United States Border Patrol station located
at 2136 South Naco Highway in Bisbee, Arizona, as the ``Brian
A. Terry Border Patrol Station.''
H.R. 2297.--To promote the development of the Southwest
waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for other
purposes.(Public Law 112-143). July 9, 2012.
Amends the District of Columbia Official Code to revise
certain specifications for the authorized transfer by the
District Council, on behalf of the United States, to the
District Redevelopment Land Agency of all Federal right, title,
and interest in the Southwest Waterfront Project Site.
Authorizes such transfer by one or more quitclaim deeds.
Authorizes the Agency to lease or sell the Site to a
redevelopment company or other lessee or purchaser. Repeals the
United States reversionary interest in such property. Amends
the Code with respect to the municipal fish wharf and market in
Southwest D.C. to remove its exclusive character as a fish
wharf and market and make it simply a market. Repeals its
designation as the sole wharf for the landing of fish and
oysters for sale in the District of Columbia. Declares that
nothing in this Act or any amendment made by it authorizes the
removal, destruction, or obstruction of the Maine Lobsterman
Memorial. Authorizes removal of the Memorial, however, from
this location to another one on the Southwest waterfront of
Maine Avenue if at the second location there would be a clear,
unimpeded pedestrian pathway, and line of sight from the
Memorial to the water.
H.R. 3902.--To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
to revise the timing of special elections for local office in
the District of Columbia.(Public Law 112-145). July 18, 2012.
Amends the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to require
the Board of Elections and Ethics, in filling the following
vacancies, to hold a special election in the District on the
first Tuesday occurring between 70 and 174 days (currently, the
first Tuesday occurring more than 114 days) after the vacancy
occurs which the Board determines, based on a totality of the
circumstances, taking into account, inter alia, cultural and
religious holidays and the administrability of the election,
will provide the greatest level of voter participation.
Eliminates the specific alternative of a special election on
the same day as the next general election (without eliminating
the option of a special election on the same day as the next
general election).
S. 2061.--To provide for an exchange of land between the
Department of Homeland Security and the South Carolina State
Ports Authority. (Public Law 112-146). July 18, 2012.
Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to
exchange specified parcels of land owned by the United States
located on the former U.S. Naval Base Complex in North
Charleston, South Carolina, (Federal land) for specified
parcels owned by the South Carolina State Ports Authority (non-
Federal land).
S. 679.--To reduce the number of executive positions
subject to Senate confirmation.(Public Law 112-166). August 10,
2012.
Eliminates the requirement of Senate approval (advice and
consent) of specified presidentially-appointed positions in
Federal agencies and departments. Eliminates the requirement of
Senate approval of all appointments to and promotions for the
Commissioned Officer Corps in the Public Health Service and in
NOAA. Provides that removal of the requirement of Senate
confirmation of any position in this Act shall not result in
any such position being placed in the Senior Executive Service
or alter compensation for such position. Expands the
requirements for the appointment of a Director of the Census,
including that such appointment be made without regard to
political affiliation and that the appointee have a
demonstrated ability in managing large organizations and
experience in the collection, analysis, and use of statistical
data. Establishes the Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork
for Executive Nominations (Working Group) to study and report
to the President and specified congressional committees on the
streamlining of paperwork required for executive nominations
and review the impact of background investigations requirements
on the appointments process. Requires the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to study and report to Congress and
the President on presidentially-appointed positions that do not
require Senate approval.
S. 300.--To prevent abuse of Government charge cards.
(Public Law 112-194). October 5, 2012.
Requires the head of each executive agency that issues and
uses purchase cards and convenience checks, other than the
Department of Defense (DOD), to establish and maintain
safeguards and internal controls to ensure that: (1) records
are kept of each holder of a purchase card and the applicable
transaction limits; (2) each purchase card and convenience
check holder is assigned an approving official; (3) the card
holder and approving official perform a reconciliation of card
charges with receipts and other supporting documentation and
forward a summary report to a certifying official in a timely
manner; (4) disputed charges are resolved in an appropriate
manner; (5) payments on purchase card accounts are made
promptly to avoid interest penalties; (6) rebates and refunds
earned by the use of such cards are reviewed for accuracy; (7)
records of each purchase card transaction are retained in
accordance with standard government policies on disposition of
records; (8) periodic reviews are performed to determine
whether each purchase card holder has a need for such card; (9)
the agency provides appropriate training to purchase card
holders and supervising officials; (10) the agency has specific
policies regarding the number of purchase cards issued, the
authorized credit limits, and the categories of employees
eligible for purchase cards; (11) effective systems,
techniques, and technologies are used to prevent or identify
illegal, improper, or erroneous purchases; (12) purchase cards
of terminated or transferred employees are invalidated upon
termination or transfer; and (13) steps are taken to recover
the cost of erroneous, improper, or illegal purchases made with
a purchase card or convenience check through salary offsets.
Imposes similar safeguards and controls for the use of purchase
cards and convenience checks by DOD personnel.
H.R. 1791.--To designate the United States courthouse under
construction at 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce,
Florida, as the ``Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States
Courthouse.'' (Public Law 112-180). October 10, 2012.
Designates the U.S. courthouse under construction at 101
South U.S. Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``Alto Lee
Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse.''
S. 743.--To amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States
Code, to clarify the disclosures of information protected from
prohibited personnel practices, require a statement in
nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements that such
policies, forms, and agreements conform with certain disclosure
protections, provide certain authority for the Special Counsel,
and for other purposes. (Public Law 112-199). November 27,
2012.
Amends Federal personnel law relating to whistleblower
protections to provide that such protections shall apply to a
disclosure of any violation of law (currently, a violation of
law).
Provides that a disclosure shall not be excluded from
whistleblower protections because: (1) the disclosure was made
to a supervisor or to a person who participated in an activity
that the employee or applicant for employment reasonably
believed to evidence gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds,
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety; (2) the disclosure revealed
information that had been previously disclosed; (3) of the
employee or applicant's motive for making the disclosure; (4)
the disclosure was not made in writing; (5) the disclosure was
made while the employee was off duty; or (6) of the amount of
time which has passed since the occurrence of the events
described in the disclosure. Provides that a disclosure shall
not be excluded from whistleblower protections if it is made
during the normal course of duties of an employee with respect
to whom another employee with authority took, failed to take,
or threatened to take or fail to take a personnel action in
reprisal for the disclosure.
H.R. 915.--To establish a Border Enforcement Security Task
Force program to enhance border security by fostering
coordinated efforts among Federal, State, and local border and
law enforcement officials to protect United States border
cities and communities from trans-national crime, including
violence associated with drug trafficking, arms smuggling,
illegal alien trafficking and smuggling, violence, and
kidnapping along and across the international borders of the
United States, and for other purposes. (Public Law 112-205).
December 7, 2012.
Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish
within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the Border
Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST), which shall establish
units to enhance border security by addressing and reducing
border security threats and violence by: (1) facilitating
collaboration among Federal, State, local, tribal, and foreign
law enforcement agencies to execute coordinated activities in
furtherance of border security and homeland security; and (2)
enhancing information-sharing, including the dissemination of
homeland security information among such agencies. Authorizes
the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish BEST units in
jurisdictions in which such units can contribute to BEST
missions.
S. 1379.--To amend title 11, District of Columbia Official
Code, to revise certain administrative authorities of the
District of Columbia courts, and to authorize the District of
Columbia Public Defender Service to provide professional
liability insurance for officers and employees of the Service
for claims relating to services furnished within the scope of
employment with the Service. (Public Law 112-229). December 28,
2012.
Amends the District of Columbia Official Code to require
the chief judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
to: (1) call biennial or, as under current law, annual judicial
conferences; and (2) summon active magistrate judges to such
conferences. Authorizes the chief judges of the District
Superior Court and of the District Court of Appeals to toll or
delay judicial proceedings in certain natural disaster or other
emergency situations. Amends the District of Columbia Court
Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 to require the
District of Columbia Public Defender Service, to the extent its
Director considers appropriate, to provide representation for
and hold harmless, or provide liability insurance for, any
employee, member of the Board of Trustees, or officer of the
Service for money damages arising out of any claim, proceeding,
or case at law relating to the furnishing of representational,
management, or related services while acting within the scope
of that person's office or employment, including employment
actions, injury, loss of liberty, property damage, loss of
property, personal injury, or death arising from the officer's
or employee's malpractice or negligence. Reduces from 5 to 3
years, the term an individual may be assigned to serve as a
judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court.
S. 1998.--To obtain an unqualified audit opinion, and
improve financial accountability and management at the
Department of Homeland Security. (Public Law 112-217). December
28, 2012.
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to
comply with the Department of Homeland Security Financial
Accountability Act, to ensure that the balance sheet of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and associated statement
of custodial activity for Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year
2013, and the full set of consolidated financial statements of
DHS for Fiscal Year 2014 through Fiscal Year 2016, are ready in
a timely manner and in preparation for an audit as part of
preparing required performance and accountability reports.
Directs the Chief Financial Officer of DHS to: (1) submit a
report on the plans to obtain an unqualified opinion annually
until an unqualified opinion is submitted, and (2) submit to
Congress and the Comptroller General a report on DHS's plans
and resources needed to modernize DHS's financial systems.
Directs the Comptroller General to submit a report that
provides: (1) an assessment of the status of the financial
system modernization by DHS; (2) an assessment of the plans to
modernize, and developments at DHS relating to, DHS's financial
system; and (3) recommendations for improving the plans for a
new financial system at DHS.
S. 2170.--To amend the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, which are commonly referred to as the 'Hatch Act', to
scale back the provision forbidding certain State and local
employees from seeking elective office, clarify the application
of certain provisions to the District of Columbia, and modify
the penalties which may be imposed for certain violations under
subchapter III of chapter 73 of that title. (Public Law 112-
230). December 28, 2012.
Allows a State or local officer or employee to be a
candidate for partisan elective office unless the salary of
such officer or employee is paid completely, directly or
indirectly, by loans or grants made by the United States or a
Federal agency. Redefines ``state or local agency'' for
purposes of the Hatch Act to include the executive branch of
the District of Columbia, or an agency or department thereof.
Extends the exemption from the prohibition against running for
elective office to the head of an executive department of the
District of Columbia who is not classified under an applicable
merit or civil-service system. Replaces existing penalty
provisions for violations of the Hatch Act to make an offending
employee subject to removal (currently, removal is mandatory),
reduction in grade, debarment from Federal employment for 5
years, suspension, reprimand, or a civil penalty of not more
than $1,000.
S. 3315.--To repeal or modify certain mandates of the
Government Accountability Office. (Public Law 112-234).
December 28, 2012.
Amends the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988 to
require audits of the transactions of the U.S. Capitol
Preservation Commission at least once every 3 years, rather
than annually, unless the Chairman or Ranking Member of the
House Committee on House Administration or the Senate Committee
on Rules and Administration, the Secretary of the Senate, or
the Clerk of the House of Representatives requests that an
audit be conducted at an earlier date. Amends the Federal
judicial code to repeal the requirement that the Comptroller
General (GAO) review contributions to the Judicial Survivors'
Annuities Fund at the end of each 3-fiscal year period. Amends
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 to modify the annual GAO
reporting requirement for the demonstration project for
referral of claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 to the Office of Special
Counsel to require only one annual report after the
commencement of the demonstration project. And amends other GAO
requirements.
S. 3564.--To extend the Public Interest Declassification
Act of 2000 until 2014 and for other purposes. (Public Law 112-
235). December 28, 2012.
Amends the Public Interest Declassification Act of 2000:
(1) with respect to term limits for members of the Public
Interest Declassification Board, and (2) to extend Board
authority through 2018.
POSTAL NAMING BILLS
H.R. 298--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 500 East Whitestone Boulevard in Cedar Park,
Texas, as the ``Army Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post Office
Building.'' (Public Law 112-107). May 15, 2012.
H.R. 771--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1081 Elbel Road in Schertz, Texas, as
the ``Schertz Veterans Post Office.'' (Public Law 112-38).
October 12, 2011.
H.R. 789--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 20 Main Street in Little Ferry, New
Jersey, as the ``Sergeant Matthew J. Fenton Post Office.''
(Public Law 112-83). January 3, 2012.
H.R. 793--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 12781 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in
Inverness, California, as the ``Specialist Jake Robert Velloza
Post Office.'' (Public Law 112-15). May 31, 2011.
H.R. 1369--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in
Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the ``Warren Lindley Post Office.''
(Public Law 112-156). August 10, 2012.
H.R. 1423--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore,
Oklahoma, as the ``Specialist Michael E. Phillips Post
Office.'' (Public Law 112-108). May 15, 2012.
H.R. 1632--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 5014 Gary Avenue in Lubbock, Texas,
as the ``Sergeant Chris Davis Post Office.'' (Public Law 112-
39). October 12, 2011.
H.R. 1843--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as the
``John Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building.'' (Public Law
112-47). November 7, 2011.
H.R. 1975--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 281 East Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena,
California, as the ``First Lieutenant Oliver Goodall Post
Office Building.'' (Public Law 112-48). November 7, 2011.
H.R. 2062--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 45 Meetinghouse Lane in Sagamore Beach,
Massachusetts, as the ``Matthew A. Pucino Post Office.''
(Public Law 112-49). November 7, 2011.
H.R. 2079--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 10 Main Street in East Rockaway, New York,
as the ``John C. Cook Post Office.'' (Public Law 112-109). May
15, 2012.
H.R. 2149--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu, Hawaii, as
the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building.'' (Public Law 112-
50). November 7, 2011.
H.R. 2213--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 801 West Eastport Street in Iuka,
Mississippi, as the ``Sergeant Jason W. Vaughn Post Office.''
(Public Law 112-110). May 15, 2012.
H.R. 2244--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 67 Castle Street in Geneva, New York, as the
``Corporal Steven Baines Riccione Post Office.'' (Public Law
112-111). May 15, 2012.
H.R. 2415--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 11 Dock Street in Pittston, Pennsylvania, as
the ``Trooper Joshua D. Miller Post Office Building.'' (Public
Law 112-124). June 5, 2012.
H.R. 2422--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 45 Bay Street, Suite 2, in Staten
Island, New York, as the ``Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office.''
(Public Law 112-89). January 3, 2012.
H.R. 2660--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in Tomball,
Texas, as the ``Tomball Veterans Post Office.'' (Public Law
112-112). May 15, 2012.
H.R. 2767--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield,
Massachusetts, as the ``William T. Trant Post Office.'' (Public
Law 112-114). May 15, 2012.
H.R. 3004--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 260 California Drive in Yountville,
California, as the ``Private First Class Alejandro R. Ruiz Post
Office Building.'' (Public Law 112-115). May 15, 2012.
H.R. 3220--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 170 Evergreen Square SW in Pine City,
Minnesota, as the ``Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post
Office.'' (Public Law 112-125). June 5, 2012.
H.R. 3246--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 15455 Manchester Road in Ballwin, Missouri,
as the ``Specialist Peter J. Navarro Post Office Building.''
(Public Law 112-116). May 15, 2012.
H.R. 3247--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in
Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Matthew P.
Pathenos Post Office Building.'' (Public Law 112-117). May 15,
2012.
H.R. 3248--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint Charles,
Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post Office
Building.''
(Public Law 112-118). May 15, 2012.
H.R. 3276--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 2810 East Hillsborough Avenue in
Tampa, Florida, as the ``Reverend Abe Brown Post Office
Building.'' (Public Law 112-159). August 10, 2012.
H.R. 3412--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1421 Veterans Memorial Drive in
Abbeville, Louisiana, as the ``Sergeant Richard Franklin
Abshire Post Office Building.'' (Public Law 112-160). August
10, 2012.
H.R. 3413--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the
``Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office.'' (Public Law 112-126).
June 5, 2012.
H.R. 3477--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 133 Hare Road in Crosby, Texas, as
the ``Army First Sergeant David McNerney Post Office
Building.'' (Public Law 112-219). December 28, 2012.
H.R. 3501--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City,
Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office.''
(Public Law 112-161). August 10, 2012.
H.R. 3772--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 150 South Union Street in Canton,
Mississippi, as the ``First Sergeant Landres Cheeks Post Office
Building.'' (Public Law 112-162). August 10, 2012.
H.R. 3870--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 6083 Highway 36 West in Rose Bud,
Arkansas, as the ``Nicky `Nick' Daniel Bacon Post Office.''
(Public Law 112-221). December 28, 2012.
H.R. 3912--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 110 Mastic Road in Mastic Beach, New
York, as the ``Brigadier General Nathaniel Woodhull Post Office
Building.'' (Public Law 112-222). December 28, 2012.
H.R. 5738--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 15285 Samohin Drive in Macomb,
Michigan, as the ``Lance Cpl. Anthony A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb
Carrier Annex.'' (Public Law 112-223). December 28, 2012.
H.R. 5837--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 26 East Genesee Street in
Baldwinsville, New York, as the ``Corporal Kyle Schneider Post
Office Building.'' (Public Law 112-224). December 28, 2012.
H.R. 5954--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 320 7th Street in Ellwood City,
Pennsylvania, as the ``Sergeant Leslie H. Sabo, Jr. Post Office
Building.'' (Public Law 112-225). December 28, 2012.
S. 349--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 4865 Tallmadge Road in Rootstown, Ohio, as
the ``Marine Sgt. Jeremy E. Murray Post Office.'' (Public Law
112-22). June 29, 2011.
S. 655--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as
the ``Spencer Byrd Powers Jr. Post Office.'' (Public Law 112-
23). June 29, 2011.
S. 1412--To designate the facility of the U.S. Postal
Service located at 462 Washington Street, Woburn,
Massachusetts, as the ``Officer John Maguire Post Office.''
(Public Law 112-60). November 23, 2011.
S. 3630--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in
Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post
Office.'' (Public Law 112-279). January 14, 2013.
S. 3662--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 6 Nichols Street in Westminster,
Massachusetts, as the ``Lieutenant Ryan Patrick Jones Post
Office Building.'' (Public Law 112-280). January 14, 2013.
IX. PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS
The Committee received a total of 38 Presidential
nominations during the 112th Congress. Of these, 19 were
reported favorably and confirmed by the Senate, 9 were
discharged from Committee and confirmed, 2 were withdrawn by
the President, and 7 were not acted upon by the Committee.
Hearing dates and reports on these nominations appear in
Section IV.
The following 19 nominations were favorably reported by the
Committee and confirmed by the Senate:
Carolyn N. Lerner, of Maryland, to be Special Counsel,
Office of Special Counsel, vice Scott J. Bloch, resigned.
Confirmed April 14, 2011.
Rafael Borras, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary for
Management, Department of Homeland Security, vice Elaine C.
Duke, resigned. Confirmed April 14, 2011.
Heather A. Higginbottom, of the District of Columbia, to be
Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, vice
Robert L. Nabors, resigned. Confirmed October 20, 2011.
Jennifer A. DiToro, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice Judith E. Retchin, retired. Confirmed August 2,
2011.
Yvonne M. Williams, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice Brook Hedge, retired. Confirmed August 2, 2011.
Corinne Ann Beckwith, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
vice Inez Smith Reid, retired. Confirmed November 18, 2011.
Ronald David McCray, of Texas, to be a Member of the
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, vice Andrew Saul,
resigned. Confirmed November 18, 2011.
Ronald David McCray, of Texas, to be a Member of the
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Reappointment).
Confirmed November 18, 2011.
John Francis McCabe, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice James E. Boasberg, resigned. Confirmed November
18, 2011.
Peter Arno Krauthamer, of the District of Columbia, to be
an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice John Henry Bayly Jr., retired. Confirmed
November 18, 2011.
Danya Ariel Dayson, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice Stephanie Duncan-Peters, retired. Confirmed
November 18, 2011.
Catharine Friend Easterly, of the District of Columbia, to
be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice A. Noel Anketell Kramer, retired. Confirmed
November 18, 2011.
Nancy Maria Ware, of the District of Columbia, to be
Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
for the District of Columbia, vice Paul A. Quander Jr., term
expired. Confirmed November 18, 2011.
Ernest Mitchell Jr., of California, to be Administrator of
the United States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, vice Kelvin
James Cochran, resigned. Confirmed November 18, 2011.
Michael A. Hughes, of the District of Columbia, to be
United States Marshal of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice Stephen Thomas Conboy, resigned. Confirmed
November 18, 2011.
Roy Wallace McLeese III, of the District of Columbia, to be
an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, vice Vanessa Ruiz, retired. Confirmed May 24, 2012.
Tony Hammond, of Missouri, to be a Commissioner of the
Postal Regulatory Commission, vice Dan Blair, resigned.
Confirmed April 26, 2012.
Mark A. Robbins, of California, to be a Member of the Merit
Systems Protection Board, vice Mary M. Rose, term expired.
Confirmed April 26, 2012.
Joseph G. Jordan, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy, vice Daniel I. Gordon. Confirmed
May 24, 2012.
The following 9 nominations were discharged by the
Committee and confirmed:
Mark D. Acton, of Kentucky, to be a Commissioner of the
Postal Regulatory Commission (Reappointment). Confirmed
September 29, 2011.
Robert G. Taub, of New York, to be a Commissioner of the
Postal Regulatory Commission, vice Tony Hammond, term expired.
Confirmed September 26, 2011.
David A. Montoya, of Texas, to be Inspector General,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, vice Kenneth M.
Donohue Sr., resigned. Confirmed November 18, 2011.
Michael E. Horowitz, of Maryland, to be Inspector General,
Department of Justice, vice Glenn A. Fine, resigned. Confirmed
March 29, 2012.
Irvin Charles McCullough III, of Maryland, to be Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community, Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (New position). Confirmed November 7,
2011.
Deborah J. Jeffrey, of the District of Columbia, to be
Inspector General Corporation for National and Community
Service, vice Gerald Walpin. Confirmed June 29, 2012.
Christy L. Romero, of Virginia, to be Special Inspector
General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, vice Neil M.
Barofsky, resigned. Confirmed March 29, 2012.
Walter M. Shaub Jr., of Virginia, to be Director of the
Office of Government Ethics, vice Robert Irwin Cusick Jr., term
expired. Confirmed January 1, 2013.
Kimberley Sherri Knowles, of the District of Columbia, to
be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice Zinora M. Mitchell, retired. Confirmed August 2,
2012.
The following 1 nomination was favorably reported by the
Committee but not acted upon by the Senate. It was returned to
the President under provisions of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph
6, of the Standing Rules of the Senate:
Donna Mary Murphy, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice Kaye K. Christian, retired. Returned January 3,
2013.
The following 2 nominations were withdrawn by the
President:
Jonathan Andrew Hatfield, of Virginia, to be Inspector
General, Corporation for National and Community Service, vice
Gerald Walpin. Nomination withdrawn April 8, 2011.
Roslyn Ann Mazer, of Maryland, to be Inspector General,
Department of Homeland Security, vice Richard L. Skinner,
resigned. Nomination withdrawn June 7, 2012.
The following 7 nominations were not acted upon by the
Committee. Each was returned to the President under provisions
of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6, of the Standing Rules of the
Senate:
Katherine C. Tobin, of New York, to be a Governor of the
United States Postal Service, vice Carolyn L. Gallagher, term
expired. Returned January 3, 2013.
Rainey Ransom Brandt, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice Joan Z. McAvoy, retired. Returned January 3,
2013.
James C. Miller III, of Virginia, to be a Governor of the
United States Postal Service (Reappointment). Returned January
3, 2013.
Stephen Crawford, of Maryland, to be a Governor of the
United States Postal Service, vice Alan C. Kessler, resigned.
Returned January 3, 2013.
Robert D. Okun, of the District of Columbia, to be an
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, vice Linda Kay Davis, retired. Returned January 3,
2013.
Ernest W. Dubester, of Virginia, to be a Member of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority for a term of 5 years
expiring July 29, 2017 (Reappointment). Returned January 3,
2013.
Carol Waller Pope, of the District of Columbia, to be a
Member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority for a term of 5
years expiring July 1, 2014 (Reappointment). Returned January
3, 2013.
X. ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION,
FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
Chairman: Thomas R. Carper
Ranking Minority Member: Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts
I. Hearings
The Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
Government Information, Federal Services, and International
Security held the following hearings during the 112th Congress.
1. March 2, 2011, ``Preventing Abuse of the Military's
Tuition Assistance Program.''
This hearing sought to identify the weaknesses in DOD's
ability to mitigate abuses of its Tuition Assistance Program.
Moreover, this hearing aimed to improve Federal oversight of
the program in order to ensure that service members receive the
high quality education they deserve.
Witnesses: Hon. Tom Harkin, U.S. Senator, State of Iowa;
Robert L. Gordon, III, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Military Community and Family Policy, U.S. Department of
Defense; George A. Scott, Director of Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
Kathryn M. Snead, Director, Servicemembers Opportunity
Colleges.
2. March 9, 2011, ``New Tools for Curbing Waste and Fraud
in Medicare and Medicaid.''
The hearing examined new efforts by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to curb waste and fraud in
the Medicare and Medicaid programs. CMS is currently
implementing program integrity provisions of the Affordable
Care Act, which provide new statutory authority and
requirements to both prevent and identify fraud and
overpayments. These include requirements to improve screening
of Medicare providers, end payments to providers when there is
credible evidence of fraud, and also to extend Recovery Audit
Contracting to all of Medicare and Medicaid. Further, CMS is
implementing new regulations and other program changes based on
previously existing authority. Finally, there are a host of
additional ideas for curbing waste and fraud that are under
consideration for both programs.
Witnesses: Peter Budetti, M.D., CMS Deputy Administrator
and Director, Center for Program Integrity, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services; Gregory Andres, Acting Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department
of Justice; Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; Kathleen M. King,
Director, Health Care, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
Helen Carson, Volunteer Service Coordinator, Case Manager,
Delaware Partners of Senior Medicare Patrol, State of Delaware
Department of Health and Social Services.
3. March 15, 2011, ``Enhancing the President's Authority to
Eliminate Wasteful Spending and Reduce the Budget Deficit.''
This hearing sought to create meaningful dialogue
surrounding the President's abilities to get Congress to
consider spending cuts. Chairman Carper discussed enhancing the
President's existing authority without overstepping
constitutional boundaries.
Witnesses: Maya MacGuineas, President, Committee for a
Responsible Federal Budget; Virginia A. McMurtry, Specialist in
American National Government, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress; Todd B. Tatelman, Legislative Attorney,
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress; and Thomas
A. Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste.
4. March 29, 2011, ``Tools to Prevent Defense Department
Cost Overruns.''
This hearing studied whether the Administration and
Congress posses sufficient tools to combat and prevent
significant acquisition costs overruns and examined whether
additional mechanisms are needed to achieve this goal.
Witnesses: Frank Kendall, Principal Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense, Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, U.S.
Department of Defense; Richard Burke, Ph.D., Deputy Director of
Cost Assessment, U.S. Department of Defense; Hon. John J.
Young, Jr., Senior Fellow, The Potomac Institute for Policy
Studies; Michael J. Sullivan, Director, Acquisition Sourcing
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Moshe
Schwartz, Specialist in Defense Acquisition, Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress.
5. April 6, 2011, ``Census: Learning Lessons from 2010,
Planning for 2020.''
The purpose of the hearing was to identify lessons learned
from the 2010 Census, identify technological advances that can
be used to improve data quality, and reexamine areas that could
help produce a more cost-effective 2020 Census. The hearing
also assessed recent developments with the American Community
Survey, an ongoing statistical survey that produces demographic
information.
Witnesses: Hon. Robert M. Groves, Director, U.S. Census
Bureau; Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Daniel Castro, Senior
Analyst, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation;
Thomas M. Cook, Co-Chair, National Research Council Panel to
Review the 2010 Census; and Arturo Vargas, Executive director,
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
(NALEO) Educational Fund.
6. April 12, 2011, ``Examining the President's Plan for
Eliminating Wasteful Spending in Information Technology.''
This hearing explored the Office of Management and Budget
plan to eliminate wasteful spending, find out what progress has
been made to date, and discussed what more should be done. In
addition, several examples of failed IT projects identified and
analyzed by GAO were discussed. Lessons learned from these
failures and how they are being applied to our future
investments was also explored.
Witnesses: Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information Officer,
Administrator for Electronic Government and Information
Technology, Office of Management and Budget; David McClure,
Associate Administrator, Office of Citizen Services and
Innovative Technologies, U.S. General Services Administration;
David A. Powner, Director of Information Technology Management
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Stephen W.T.
O'Keefe, Founder, MeriTalk; Rishi Sood, Vice President,
Government Vertical Industries Gartner Inc.; and Alfred Grasso,
President and Chief Executive Officer, The MITRE Corporation.
7. May 10, 2011, Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and
the District of Columbia: ``Roadmap for a More Efficient and
Accountable Federal Government: Implementing the GPRA
Modernization Act.''
This hearing examined the implementation of the GPRA
Modernization Act, with particular focus on ensuring the
Congressional intent behind the law is faithfully executed. The
hearing also studied how the Office of Management and Budget
and the Government Accountability Office can best work together
to leverage scarce resources and ensure the most transformative
aspects of the law are fully implemented across the Federal
Government.
Witnesses: Hon. Jeffrey D. Zients, Federal Chief
Performance Officer and Deputy Director for Management, Office
of Management and Budget; Hon. Eugene L. Dodaro, Comptroller
General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Robert J. Shea, Former Associate Director for
Administration and Government Performance, Office of Management
and Budget; Paul L. Posner, Professor and Director, Public
Administration Program, George Mason University; and Jonathan
D. Breul, Executive Director, IBM Center for The Business of
Government.
8. May 17, 2011, ``Addressing the U.S. Postal Service's
Financial Crisis.''
This hearing examined the nature of the Postal Service's
ongoing financial problems, the impact these problems are
having on postal operations, postal managements plans to cut
costs, and Senator Carper's legislative proposals on postal
issues.
Witnesses: Hon. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General and
Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Postal Service; Phillip R. Herr,
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Margaret Cigno, Director of
Accountability and Compliance, U.S. Postal Regulatory
Commission; Hon. David C. Williams, Inspector General, U.S.
Postal Service; Clint Guffey, President, American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO; Mark Strong, President, National League
of Postmasters; and Jerry Cerasale, Senior Vice President,
Government Affairs, Direct Marketing Association.
9. May 25, 2011, ``Assessing Efforts to Eliminate Improper
Payments.''
This hearing examined initiatives by the Administration to
reduce by half the improper payments made by Federal agencies,
including the initiative to establish a government ``Do Not
Pay'' list. Federal agencies made an estimated $125 billion in
improper payments in fiscal year 2010 and The Improper Payments
Elimination and Recovery Act requires Federal agencies to
establish plans and procedures to curb improper payments and in
June 2010, President Obama signed the Enhancing Payment
Accuracy Through a ``Do Not Pay List'' Executive Order (EO
13520). The initiative attempts to prevent improper payments
before they are made by requiring agencies to check centralized
lists of disbarred, ineligible, or otherwise excluded
individuals, and agencies have begun to establish related pilot
programs. The Subcommittee hearing explored the implementation
of the executive order, as well as the potential next steps for
the initiative.
Witnesses: Hon. Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of
Management and Budget; Hon. Richard L. Gregg, Fiscal Assistant
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Hon. Robert F.
Hale, Under Secretary of Defense, and Chief Financial Officer,
U.S. Department of Defense; Hon. Calvin L. Scovel, III, Vice
Chairman, Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board; and
Kelly Croft, Deputy Commissioner for Systems, U.S. Social
Security Administration.
10. June 9, 2011, ``Federal Asset Management: Eliminating
Waste by Disposing of Unneeded Federal Real Property.''
This hearing assessed the progress made to date in
addressing weaknesses in Federal property management and
examined whether a civilian BRAC process would be an effective
strategy in realigning Federal real property, disposing of
unneeded assets, and mitigating the problem of heavy reliance
on costly leasing.
Witnesses: Hon. Alan Dixon, Former Chairman, 1995 Defense
Base Realignment and Closure Commission; David B. Baxa, Chief
Executive Officer, VISTA Technology Services, Inc.; Tim Ford,
Chief Executive Officer, Association of Defense Communities;
Maria Foscarinis, Executive Director, National Law Center on
Homelessness and Poverty; Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office
of Management and Budget; Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public
Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration; James
Sullivan, Director, Office of Asset Enterprise Management, U.S.
Office of Veterans Affairs; David J. Wise, Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
and Brian J. Lepore, Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
11. June 20, 2011, Field hearing in Boston, Massachusetts,
``How is NOAA Managing Funds to Protect the Domestic Fishing
Industry.''
Under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) has authority to retain proceeds from
civil penalties it imposes and collects for violations of the
Act, to pay for certain expenses directly related to
investigations and civil or criminal enforcement proceedings.
NOAA's Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) primarily consists of funds
from the monetary proceeds from MSA enforcement actions. The
Commerce Inspector General has recently examined NOAA's
handling of the AFF and with the assistance of KPMG was unable
to discern the current balance of the AFF. The Inspector
General and the Department of Commerce are conducting
additional audits to determine how funds in the AFF are used.
The Fishing Industry has raised concerns that NOAA's ability to
retain and use proceeds from its enforcement activities has
lead to excessive and overzealous enforcement. The Commerce
Inspector General has examined NOAA's enforcement activities
which has led the Commerce Secretary and NOAA Administrator to
introduce a series of steps to address the problem such as the
appointment of a Special Master to review the fairness of past
penalties and a new nationwide penalty policy. The hearing
examined what the balance in the AFF is and whether it has been
used for fraudulent or other illicit purposes. The hearing also
inquired into whether NOAA's ability to retain enforcement
proceeds serves as an incentive for overzealous enforcement. A
second panel examined how NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) is handling money allocated to assist New
England fisherman transition to a new catch share fishery
management system. The second panel touched on whether the
Federal money spent on supporting catch-share programs is an
efficient approach to supporting commercial fishing while
ensuring conservation of natural resources for future
generations.
Witnesses: Hon. John F. Tierney, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Massachusetts; Todd J. Zinser,
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce; Eric C.
Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Lawrence Yacubian,
Retired Fisherman; Larry Ciulla, Proprietor, Gloucester Seafood
Display Auction; Stephen M. Ouellette, Attorney at Law,
Ouellette and Smith; Vito Giacalone, Chairman, Northeast
Seafood Coalition; and Brian J. Rothschild, Ph.D., Montgomery
Charter Professor of Marine Science and Technology, University
of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.
12. July 12, 2011, ``Harnessing Technology and Innovation
to Cut Waste and Curb Fraud in Federal Health Programs.''
This hearing examined the opportunity for new technology
and private sector business practices to curb waste and fraud
in Medicare and Medicaid. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) office of program integrity has several major
information technology initiatives to both identify and prevent
improper payments. These initiatives include implementation of
new prepayment analytics and advance information modeling to
screen all Medicare payments, new integrated information
systems to detect fraud and engaging commercial data analysis
companies to review provider of medical services.
Witnesses: Peter Budetti, M.D., Deputy Administrator and
Director for Program Integrity at the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services; Lewis Morris, Chief Counsel, Office of
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; Joel C. Willemssen, Managing Director, Information
Technology Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and
Louis Saccoccio, Executive Director, National Health Care Anti-
Fraud Association.
13. August 4, 2011, ``Federal Leased Property: Are Federal
Agencies Getting a Bad Deal?
This hearing assessed the progress made to date in
addressing weaknesses in the Federal Government's lease
management and sought to identify ways to reduce the number of
leased properties held by Federal agencies.
Witnesses: David Foley, Deputy Commissioner, Public
Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration; James
M. Sullivan, Director, Office of Asset Enterprise Management,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Jeff Heslop, Chief
Operating Officer, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and
David J. Wise, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
14. September 15, 2011, ``Improving Financial
Accountability at the Department of Defense.''
This hearing examined the Department of Defense's plans for
improving its financial accountability. Congress established a
requirement for the Department of Defense (DOD) to become
``audit ready'' by 2017. However, past hearings and studies by
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) bring into question
whether the DOD and the military services and agencies will
meet this deadline. Further, the GAO placed DOD's financial
management on its list of ``high risk'' areas of concern. Key
questions for the hearing included whether the DOD's financial
improvement plan is adequate, and whether DOD can and will meet
the goals of this plan.
Witnesses: Hon. Robert F. Hale, Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), and Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of
Defense; Hon. Elizabeth A. McGrath, Deputy Chief Management
Officer, U.S. Department of Defense; Hon. Gladys J. Commons,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Financial Management
Comptroller, U.S. Department of the Navy, accompanied by Carol
E. Spangler, Assistant Deputy Commandant (Resources), U.S.
Marine Corps; Hon. Mary Sally Matiella, Assistant Secretary of
the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller, U.S. Department
of the Army; Hon. Jamie M. Morin, Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force, Financial Management and Comptroller, U.S.
Department of the Air Force; and Asif A. Khan, Director,
Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
15. September 22, 2011, ``Improving Educational Outcomes
for Our Military and Veterans.''
This hearing sought to improve Federal oversight of
military and veterans education programs funded by taxpayers in
order to ensure that veterans and military personnel enrolled
at proprietary schools receive the quality of education they
expect and that the Federal Government is not wasting scarce
resources on poor-quality educational products.
Witnesses: Hon. Jim Webb, U.S. Senator from the State of
Virginia; Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic
Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Keith Wilson, Director of
the Education Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs; Theodore L. Daywalt, President,
VetJobs; Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, National
Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States; Russell Kitchner, Vice President for Regulatory and
Governmental Relations, American Public University System; and
Greg Von Lehmen, Provost and Chief Academic Officer, University
of Maryland University College.
16. October 4, 2011, ``Costs of Prescription Drug Abuse in
the Medicare Part D Program.''
Prescription drug abuse is a serious and growing public
health problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, drug overdoses, including those from
prescription drugs, are the second leading cause of death from
unintentional injuries in the United Sates, exceeded only by
motor vehicle fatalities. Unlike addition to heroin and other
drugs that have no accepted medical use, addiction to some
controlled substances can be unknowingly financed by insurance
and government programs such as Medicare. The financial cost
associated with controlled substance fraud and abuse in
Medicare is greater than the cost of the drug purchases
themselves since there are related medical services, such as
doctor and emergency room visits, that precede the dispensing
of these medications.
In a report to be released the day of the hearing, GAO
found indications of doctor shopping in the Medicare Part D
program for 14 categories of frequently abused prescription
drugs. About 170,000 beneficiaries acquired the same class of
frequently abused drugs, primarily hydrocodone and oxycodone,
from five or more medical practitioners during calendar year
2008 at a cost of about $148 million. This hearing examined the
report's findings, the financial costs associated with fraud
and abuse of the Medicare Part D program, and explored what
controls might be necessary to protect taxpayers' money.
Witnesses: Gregory D. Kutz, Director, Forensic Audits and
Special Investigations, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
Jonathan Blum, Deputy Administrator and Director, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services; and Louis Saccoccio, Executive Director,
National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association.
17. December 1, 2011, ``The Financial and Societal Costs of
Medicating America's Foster Children.''
Over 4.6 million American children, nearly one in 10, are
treated annually for serious mental or emotional disorders.
This makes mental illness the single most costly condition in
terms of healthcare expenditures for children. Children under
State care are particularly vulnerable to these types of
disorders and by definition, are Medicaid beneficiaries. GAO
has previously found that the overuse of psychotropics in their
foster care populations as one of the most pressing issues
facing the child welfare system nationwide. A GAO report,
released at the hearing, explored potential overprescribing and
medically negligent prescribing practices in general, that may
be costing the Medicaid system, and these children's health, an
enormous sum.
Witnesses discussed the fiscal challenges facing our
healthcare system and the billions of dollars spent by Medicaid
each year, and the potentially calamitous effects on the health
and welfare of our Nation's most vulnerable children. In
particular the hearing explored whether there are wasteful and
abusive prescribing practices being engaged in as it relates to
psychotropic drugs and children under State care.
Witnesses: Ke'onte Cook, age 12, McKinney, Texas,
accompanied by his mother, Carol Cook; Gregory D. Kutz,
Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Bryan Samuels, Commissioner,
Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; Matt Salo, Executive
Director, National Association of State Medicaid Directors; and
Jon McClellan, M.D., Child Psychiatrist, Seattle Children's
Hospital.
18. March 22, 2012, Joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial Management of
the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, ``New
Audit Finds Problems in Army Military Pay.''
This hearing reviewed the findings of the GAO report on
Army auditability and the accuracy of Army pay. GAO's report
was released concurrent with the hearing.
Witnesses: Lt. Col, Kirk Zecchini, U.S. Army Reserve; Asif
Khan, Director, Financial Management and Assurance, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; James Watkins, Director,
Accountability and Audit Readiness, Department of the Army;
Jeanne M. Brooks, Director, Technology and Business
Architecture Integration, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff,
Department of the Army; and Aaron P. Gillison, Acting Director,
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Indianapolis Department
of Defense.
19. March 28, 2012, ``Assessing Efforts to Combat Waste and
Fraud in Federal Programs.''
The hearing examined the status of Federal improper
payments, including those made by State agencies under programs
such as Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, and the Foster Care
program. The hearing also explored current and proposed
initiatives by the Administration to reduce improper payments.
Federal agencies made an estimated $115 billion in improper
payments in fiscal year 2011. In the fall of 2011, the
Committee approved the Improper Payments Eliminate and Recovery
Improvement Act, which seeks to strengthen Federal agencies
detection, prevention and recovery of improper payments. The
Subcommittee hearing examined the legislation, as well as
additional steps to curb improper payments.
Witnesses: Hon. Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget;
Sheila O. Conley, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance and
Deputy Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services; Beryl H. Davis, Director, Financial Management
and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Hon. Todd
Russell Platts, U.S. House of Representatives; and Hon.
Edolphus Towns, U.S. House of Representatives.
20. May 24, 2012, ``Innovating with Less: Examining Efforts
to Reform Information Technology Spending.''
This hearing explored efforts by the Obama Administration
to cut wasteful and inefficient spending on the Federal
Government's Information Technology (IT) infrastructure through
data center consolidations, cloud computing, and several other
initiatives. The hearing coincided with the release of a GAO
report analyzing progress to date on these efforts.
Witnesses: Steven VanRoekel, Federal Chief Information
Officer, U.S. Office of Management and Budget; David A. Powner,
Director, Information Technology Management Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; George DelPrete, Principal,
Grant Thornton, LLP, on behalf of TechAmerica; Molly O'Neill,
Vice President, CGI Federal, Inc.; Nick Combs, Federal Chief
Technology Officer, EMC Corporation; and Jennifer Morgan,
President, SAP America Public Services, Inc.
21. June 14, 2012, ``Saving Taxpayer Dollars by Curbing
Waste and Fraud in Medicaid.''
This hearing examined steps needed to curb waste and fraud
in Medicaid. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) office of program integrity has initiated several major
programs intended to identify, recover, and prevent improper
payments, including improper payments related to fraud. All of
these efforts are in partnership with State Medicaid offices,
which also have their own anti-waste and fraud programs.
Federal estimates of Medicaid improper payments are in the tens
of billions of dollars annually. Recent reports by the Office
of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human
Services have raised serious questions about the efficacy of
current Medicaid program integrity efforts. Further, OIG,
Government Accountability Office, and experts have specific
steps to greatly improve the level of success of anti-waste and
fraud efforts.
Witnesses: Peter Budetti, M.D., Deputy Administrator and
Director for Program Integrity, Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; Douglas Porter, Director, Washington State Health
Care Authority; Douglas Wilson, Inspector General, Health and
Human Services Commission, State of Texas; Carolyn Yocom,
Director, Health Care, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
and Ann Maxwell, Regional Inspector General for Evaluations and
Inspections, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
22. July 18, 2012, ``Census: Planning Ahead for 2020.''
This hearing sought to identify lessons learned from the
2010 Census, identify technological advances that can be used
to improve data quality, and reexamine areas that could help
produce a more cost-effective 2020 Census. The hearing also
assessed recent developments with the American Community
Survey, an ongoing statistical survey that produces demographic
information.
Witnesses: Hon. Robert M. Groves, Director, U.S. Census
Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce; Hon. Todd J. Zinser,
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce; Robert
Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Jason Providakes, Ph.D., Senior Vice
President and General Manager, The MITRE Corporation; Jack
Baker, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Geospatial and
Population Studies, The National Academy of Sciences; and
Andrew Reamer, Ph.D., Research Professor, George Washington
Institute of Public Policy, George Washington University.
23. July 25, 2012, ``Assessing Grants Management Practices
at Federal Agencies.''
This hearing examined the practices of Federal agencies in
managing grants. Federal agencies allocate billions of dollars
each year as grants to State and local governments, educational
institutions, and non-profit organizations. Effective
management of Federal grants ensures that the funds are spent
correctly. One key issue is the timely closeout of expired
grants when the deadline for a recipient to spend grant funds
has passed. Failure to properly close out expired grants, and
perform required audit of the account, results in higher risks
for waste, fraud, and abuse. Currently, two management systems,
the Payment Management System and the Automated Standard
Application for Payments, track the status of most Federal
agency grants. Further, each Federal Department has rules that
govern grant making, and determine financial management
practices.
Witnesses: Hon. Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of
Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget;
Hon. Elizabeth M. Harman, Assistant Administrator, Grants
Program Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Nancy J. Gunderson, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Grants Acquisition Policy and
Accountability, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
and Stanley J. Czerwinski, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
II. LEGISLATION
H.R. 298--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 500 East Whitestone Boulevard in
Cedar Park, Texas, as the ``Army Specialist Matthew Troy Morris
Post Office Building.''
H.R. 771--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1081 Elbel Road in Schertz, Texas, as
the ``Schertz Veterans Post Office.''
H.R. 789--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 20 Main Street in Little Ferry, New
Jersey, as the ``Sergeant Matthew J. Fenton Post Office.''
H.R. 793--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 12781 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in
Inverness, California, as the ``Specialist Jake Robert Velloza
Post Office.''
H.R. 1369--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in
Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the ``Warren Lindley Post Office.''
H.R. 1423--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 115 4th Avenue Southwest in Ardmore,
Oklahoma, as the ``Specialist Michael E. Phillips Post
Office.''
H.R. 1632--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 5014 Gary Avenue in Lubbock, Texas,
as the ``Sergeant Chris Davis Post Office.''
H.R. 1791--To designate the United States courthouse under
construction at 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce,
Florida, as the ``Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States
Courthouse.''
H.R. 1843--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 489 Army Drive in Barrigada, Guam, as
the ``John Pangelinan Gerber Post Office Building.''
H.R. 1975--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 281 East Colorado Boulevard in
Pasadena, California, as the ``First Lieutenant Oliver Goodall
Post Office Building.''
H.R. 2062--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 45 Meetinghouse Lane in Sagamore
Beach, Massachusetts, as the ``Matthew A. Pucino Post Office.''
H.R. 2079--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 10 Main Street in East Rockaway, New
York, as the ``John J. Cook Post Office.''
H.R. 2149--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 4354 Pahoa Avenue in Honolulu,
Hawaii, as the ``Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building.''
H.R. 2158--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 14901 Adelfa Drive in La Mirada,
California, as the ``Wayne Grisham Post Office.''
H.R. 2213--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 801 West Eastport Street in Iuka,
Mississippi, as the ``Sergeant Jason W. Vaughn Post Office.''
H.R. 2244--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 67 Castle Street in Geneva, New York,
as the ``Corporal Steven Blaine Riccione Post Office.''
H.R. 2338--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida,
as the ``Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office.''
H.R. 2415--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 11 Dock Street in Pittston,
Pennsylvania, as the ``Trooper Joshua D. Miller Post Office
Building.''
H.R. 2422--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 45 Bay Street, Suite 2, in Staten
Island, New York, as the ``Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office.''
H.R. 2548--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 6310 North University Street in
Peoria, Illinois, as the ``Charles 'Chip' Lawrence Chan Post
Office Building.''
H.R. 2660--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in
Tomball, Texas, as the ``Tomball Veterans Post Office.''
H.R. 2767--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 8 West Silver Street in Westfield,
Massachusetts, as the ``William T. Trant Post Office
Building.''
H.R. 2896--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 369 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in
Jersey City, New Jersey, as the ``Judge Shirley A. Tolentino
Post Office Building.''
H.R. 3004--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 260 California Drive in Yountville,
California, as the ``Private First Class Alejandro R. Ruiz Post
Office Building.''
H.R. 3220--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 170 Evergreen Square SW in Pine City,
Minnesota, as the ``Master Sergeant Daniel L. Fedder Post
Office.''
H.R. 3246--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 15455 Manchester Road in Ballwin,
Missouri, as the ``Specialist Peter J. Navarro Post Office
Building.''
H.R. 3247--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1100 Town and Country Commons in
Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Matthew P.
Pathenos Post Office Building.''
H.R. 3248--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint
Charles, Missouri, as the ``Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post
Office Building.''
H.R. 3276--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 2819 East Hillsborough Avenue in
Tampa, Florida, as the ``Reverend Abe Brown Post Office
Building.''
H.R. 3412--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1421 Veterans Memorial Drive in
Abbeville, Louisiana, as the ``Sergeant Richard Franklin
Abshire Post Office Building.''
H.R. 3413--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York,
as the ``Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office.''
H.R. 3477--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 133 Hare Road in Crosby, Texas, as
the Army First Sergeant David McNerney Post Office Building.
H.R. 3501--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City,
Indiana, as the ``SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office.''
H.R. 3593--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New
York, as the ``National Clandestine Service of the Central
Intelligence Agency NCS Officer Gregg David Wenzel Memorial
Post Office.''
H.R. 3637--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 401 Old Dixie Highway in Jupiter,
Florida, as the ``Roy Schallern Rood Post Office Building.''
H.R. 3772--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 150 South Union Street in Canton,
Mississippi, as the ``First Sergeant Landres Cheeks Post Office
Building.''
H.R. 3870--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 6083 Highway 36 West in Rose Bud,
Arkansas, as the ``Nicky 'Nick' Daniel Bacon Post Office.''
H.R. 3892--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 8771 Auburn Folsom Road in Roseville,
California, as the ``Lance Corporal Victor A. Dew Post
Office.''
H.R. 3912--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 110 Mastic Road in Mastic Beach, New
York, as the ``Brigadier General Nathaniel Woodhull Post Office
Building.''
H.R. 5738--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 15285 Samohin Drive in Macomb,
Michigan, as the ``Lance Cpl. Anthony A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb
Carrier Annex.''
H.R. 5788--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 103 Center Street West in Eatonville,
Washington, as the ``National Park Ranger Margaret Anderson
Post Office.''
H.R. 5837--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 26 East Genesee Street in
Baldwinsville, New York, as the ``Corporal Kyle Schneider Post
Office Building.''
H.R. 5954--To designate the facility of the United States
Postal Service located at 320 7th Street in Ellwood City,
Pennsylvania, as the ``Sergeant Leslie H. Sabo, Jr. Post Office
Building.''
S. 349--A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 4865 Tallmadge Road in
Rootstown, Ohio, as the ``Marine Sgt. Jeremy E. Murray Post
Office.''
S. 384--A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to
extend the authority of the United States Postal Service to
issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research.
S. 655--A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary,
Mississippi, as the ``Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office.''
S. 1412--A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 462 Washington Street, Woburn,
Massachusetts, as the ``Officer John Maguire Post Office.''
S. 3208--Multinational Species Conservation Funds
Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2012.
S. 3231--To provide for the issuance and sale of a
semipostal by the United States Postal Service to support
effective programs targeted at improving permanency outcomes
for youth in foster care.
S. 3435--A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 26 East Genesee Street in
Baldwinsville, New York, as the ``Corporal Kyle Schneider Post
Office Building.''
S. 3630--A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in
Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ``Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post
Office.''
S. Con. Res. 57--A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that the census surveys and the information
derived from those surveys are crucial to the national welfare.
III. GAO REPORTS 2011-2012
GAO-11-86--Electronic Records Archive: National Archives
Needs to Strengthen Its Capacity to Use Earned Value Techniques
to Manage and Oversee Development, 01/13/2011
GAO-11-300--DOD Education Benefits: Increased Oversight of
Tuition Assistance Program Is Needed, 03/01/2011
GAO-11-262--Information Technology: OMB Has Made
Improvements to Its Dashboard, but Further Work Is Needed by
Agencies and OMB to Ensure Data Accuracy, 03/15/2011
GAO-11-396--Key Indicator Systems: Experiences of Other
National and Subnational Systems Offer Insights for the United
States, 03/31/2011
GAO-11-386--United States Postal Service: Strategy Needed
to Address Aging Delivery Fleet, 05/05/2011
GAO-11-605--Social Media: Federal Agencies Need Policies
and Procedures for Managing and Protecting Information They
Access and Disseminate, 06/28/2011
GAO-11-475--Fraud Detection Systems: Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services Needs to Ensure More Widespread Use, 06/
30/2011
GAO-11-149--Information Security: State Has Taken Steps to
Implement a Continuous Monitoring Application, but Key
Challenges Remain, 07/08/2011
GAO-11-565--Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to
Complete Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected Savings, 07/
19/2011
GAO-11-581--Information Technology: DHS Needs to Improve
Its Independent Acquisition Reviews, 07/28/2011
GAO-11-638--Green Information Technology: Agencies Have
Taken Steps to Implement Requirements, but Additional Guidance
on Measuring Performance Needed, 07/28/2011
GAO-11-592--Medicare Integrity Program: CMS Used Increased
Funding for New Activities but Could Improve Measurement of
Program Effectiveness, 07/29/2011
GAO-11-699--Medicare Part D: Instances of Questionable
Access to Prescription Drugs, 09/06/2011
GAO-11-851--DOD Financial Management: Improvement Needed in
DOD Components' Implementation of Audit Readiness Effort, 09/
13/2011
GAO-11-830--DOD Financial Management: Marine Corps
Statement of Budgetary Resources Audit Results and Lessons
Learned [Reissued on October 17, 2011], 09/15/2011
GAO-11-751--Personal ID Verification: Agencies Should Set a
Higher Priority on Using the Capabilities of Standardized
Identification Cards, 09/20/2011
GAO-11-826--Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve
Its Guidance on IT Investments, 09/29/2011
GAO-12-146--U.S. Postal Service: Allocation of
Responsibility for Pension Benefits between the Postal Service
and the Federal Government, 10/13/2011
GAO-12-7--Information Technology: Critical Factors
Underlying Successful Major Acquisitions, 10/21/2011
GAO-12-86--Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Actions Needed to
Reduce Evolving but Uncertain Federal Financial Risks, 10/24/
2011
GAO-12-79--Green Building: Federal Initiatives for the
Nonfederal Sector Could Benefit from More Interagency
Collaboration, 11/02/2011
GAO-12-210--IT Dashboard: Accuracy Has Improved, and
Additional Efforts Are Under Way to Better Inform Decision
Making, 11/07/2011
GAO-12-164--Financial Audit: Bureau of the Public Debt's
Fiscal Years 2011 and 2010 Schedules of Federal Debt, 11/08/
2011
GAO-12-57--Federal Contracting: OMB's Acquisition Savings
Initiative Had Results, but Improvements Needed, 11/15/2011
GAO-12-201--Foster Children: HHS Guidance Could Help States
Improve Oversight of Psychotropic Prescriptions [Reissued on
December 15, 2011], 12/14/2011
GAO-12-132--DOD Financial Management: Ongoing Challenges
with Reconciling Navy and Marine Corps Fund Balance with
Treasury, 12/20/2011
GAO-12-80--Decennial Census: Additional Actions Could
Improve the Census Bureau's Ability to Control Costs for the
2020 Census, 01/24/2012
GAO-12-402--Federal Employees' Compensation Act:
Preliminary Observations on Fraud-Prevention Controls, 01/25/
2012
GAO-12-307--U.S. Coins: Alternative Scenarios Suggest
Different Benefits and Losses from Replacing the $1 Note with a
$1 Coin, 02/15/2012
GAO-12-241--Information Technology: Departments of Defense
and Energy Need to Address Potentially Duplicative Investments,
02/17/2012
GAO-12-54--Federal Statistical System: Agencies Can Make
Greater Use of Existing Data, but Continued Progress Is Needed
on Access and Quality Issues, 02/24/2012
GAO-12-134--DOD Financial Management: Implementation
Weaknesses in Army and Air Force Business Systems Could
Jeopardize DOD's Auditability Goals, 02/28/2012
GAO-12-312--Foster Care Program: Improved Processes Needed
to Estimate Improper Payments and Evaluate Related Corrective
Actions, 03/07/2012
GAO-12-361--IT Supply Chain: National Security-Related
Agencies Need to Better Address Risks, 03/23/2012
GAO-12-470--U.S. Postal Service: Mail Processing Network
Exceeds What Is Needed for Declining Mail Volume, 04/12/2012
GAO-12-360--Grants Management: Action Needed to Improve the
Timeliness of Grant Closeouts by Federal Agencies, 04/16/2012
GAO-12-433--U.S. Postal Service: Challenges Related to
Restructuring the Postal Service's Retail Network, 04/17/2012
GAO-12-506--U.S. Postal Service: Field Offices' Role in
Cost-Reduction and Revenue-Generation Efforts, 04/25/2012
GAO-12-461--Information Technology Reform: Progress Made;
More Needs to Be Done to Complete Actions and Measure Results,
04/26/2012
GAO-12-626--2020 Census: Additional Steps Are Needed to
Build on Early Planning, 05/17/2012
GAO-12-542--Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider
When Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical
Infrastructure and Management Functions, 05/23/2012
GAO-12-627--National Medicaid Audit Program: CMS Should
Improve Reporting and Focus on Audit Collaboration with States,
06/14/2012
GAO-12-497--Supplemental Security Income: Better Management
Oversight Needed for Children's Benefits, 06/26/2012
GAO-12-756--Information Technology Reform: Progress Made
but Future Cloud Computing Efforts Should be Better Planned,
07/11/2012
GAO-12-646--Federal Buildings Fund: Improved Transparency
and Long-term Plan Needed to Clarify Capital Funding
Priorities, 07/12/2012
GAO-12-742--Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Making
Progress on Efforts, but Inventories and Plans Need to Be
Completed, 07/19/2012
GAO-12-818--Information Technology: DHS Needs to Further
Define and Implement Its New Governance Process, 07/25/2012
GAO-12-779--Federal Real Property: Strategic Partnerships
and Local Coordination Could Help Agencies Better Utilize
Space, 07/25/2012
GAO-12-681--Software Development: Effective Practices and
Federal Challenges in Applying Agile Methods, 07/27/2012
GAO-12-764--Income Security: Overlapping Disability and
Unemployment Benefits Should be Evaluated for Potential
Savings, 07/31/2012
GAO-12-782--Electronic Government Act: Agencies Have
Implemented Most Provisions, but Key Areas of Attention Remain,
09/12/2012
GAO-12-915--Information Technology: Census Bureau Needs to
Implement Key Management Practices, 09/18/2012
GAO-12-833--Homeland Security: DHS Requires More
Disciplined Investment Management to Help Meet Mission Needs,
09/18/2012
GAO-12-1016--Grants to State and Local Governments: An
Overview of Federal Funding Levels and Selected Challenges, 09/
25/2012
GAO-12-904--Information Technology: DHS Needs to Enhance
Management of Cost and Schedule for Major Investments, 09/26/
2012
GAO-13-104--Medicare Fraud Prevention: CMS Has Implemented
a Predictive Analytics System, but Needs to Define Measures to
Determine Its Effectiveness, 10/15/2012
GAO-13-87--Information Technology: Agencies Need to
Strengthen Oversight of Billions of Dollars in Operations and
Maintenance Investments, 10/16/2012
GAO-13-98--Information Technology Dashboard: Opportunities
Exist to Improve Transparency and Oversight of Investment Risk
at Select Agencies, 10/16/2012
GAO-13-53--2020 Census: Initial Research Milestones
Generally Met but Plans Needed to Mitigate Highest Risks, 11/
07/2012
GAO-13-114--Financial Audit: Bureau of the Public Debt's
Fiscal Years 2012 and 2011 Schedules of Federal Debt, 11/08/
2012
GAO-13-102--Medicare Program Integrity: Greater Prepayment
Control Efforts Could Increase Savings and Better Ensure Proper
Payment, 11/13/2012
GAO-13-50--Medicaid Integrity Program: CMS Should Take
Steps to Eliminate Duplication and Improve Efficiency, 11/13/
2012
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT
MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Chairman: Daniel K. Akaka
Ranking Minority Member: Ron Johnson
I. HEARINGS
The Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
held the following hearings during the 112th Congress:
Improving Federal Employment of People with Disabilities, February 16,
2011
This hearing examined how the Federal Government as a
whole, as well as individual agencies, can increase the hiring
of individuals with disabilities in the Federal workforce and
design and implement systems to provide accommodations for
Federal employees with disabilities. Witnesses from the
Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Office of Personnel Management, and Government
Accountability Office gave testimony regarding their agency's
efforts to improve employment outcomes for people with
disabilities within the Federal Government and recommendations
on what improvements can be made.
Witnesses: Yvonne Jones, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Hon. Christine M. Griffin,
Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Hon.
Kathleen Martinez, Assistant Secretary, Office of Disability
Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor; Hon. Chai
Feldblum, Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.
State Department Training: Investing in the Workforce to Address 21st
Century Challenges, March 8, 2011
This hearing examined efforts at the Department of State to
provide its employees the necessary skills to carry out its
mission. Specifically, the hearing delved into the
implementation of the ``Diplomacy 3.0'' initiative that
addressed staffing shortages in the Foreign Service and the
civil service. Concerns were raised by a GAO review about the
Department's training efforts in recent years, citing
insufficient language and public diplomacy training. The
hearing focused on the findings and recommendations from the
review, and addressed ways to improve training programs at the
Department.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. Nancy J. Powell, Director General
of the Foreign Service & Director of Human Resources, U.S.
Department of State; Ruth A. Whiteside, Director, Foreign
Service Institute, U.S. Department of State; Jess T. Ford,
Director, International Affairs and Trade Team, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
Panel II Witnesses: Hon. Ronald E. Neumann, President,
American Academy of Diplomacy; Susan R. Johnson, President,
American Foreign Service Association.
Strengthening the Senior Executive Service: A Review of Challenges
Facing the Government's Leadership Corps, March 29, 2011
In 2004, a new pay for performance system was established
for the Senior Executive Service (SES), which linked pay to
Congressional pay and raised the pay cap for agency appraisal
systems that had been certified by the Office of Personnel
Management. This hearing was held to identify areas that may be
in need of reform so that the Government's leadership corps has
the tools it needs to lead the Federal workforce. Areas for
improvement that were discussed included a variety of personnel
issues such as overlapping pay scales, complicated hiring
processes, insufficient candidate development programs,
inconsistent training, and difficulty recruiting and retaining
diverse candidates.
Panel I Witnesses: Nancy Kichak, Associate Director & Chief
Human Capital Officer, Strategic Human Resource Policy, U.S.
Office of Personnel Management.
Panel II Witnesses: Carol Bonosaro, President, Senior
Executives Association; Max Stier, President & Chief Executive
Officer; Partnership for Public Service.
Financial Literacy: Empowering Americans to Make Informed Financial
Decisions, April 12, 2011
This hearing examined the status and effectiveness of
Federal financial literacy and consumer protection initiatives.
It was discussed how financial literacy is vitally important to
our Nation's economic future and the well-being of American
families. In recent years, the financial products and
investment options available to consumers have rapidly grown in
complexity and sophistication, while American's financial
knowledge and skills have not kept pace. Potential ways the
Federal Government could empower individuals and families to
effectively manage their finances, evaluate credit
opportunities, and invest for long-term financial goals were
the topic of discussion.
Panel I Witness: Hon. Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General
of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Panel II Witnesses: Hon. Brenda Dann-Messier, Assistant
Secretary, Office of Vocational & Adult Education, U.S.
Department of Education; Joshua Wright, Acting Director, Office
of Financial Education & Financial Access, U.S. Department of
the Treasury; Lori J. Schock, Director, Office of Investor
Education & Advocacy, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission;
Hollister K. Petraeus, Director, Office of Servicemember
Affairs, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, U.S. Department
of the Treasury.
Roadmap for a More Efficient and Accountable Federal Government:
Implementing the GPRA Modernization Act, May 10, 2011
This hearing examined the process agencies made in
implementing the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Some key
implementation issues discussed at the hearing included
coordination among agencies, fostering Congressional buy-in to
the GPRA process, and releasing a fully functional, public
version of performance.gov which had been delayed due to
funding challenges associated with the Electronic Government
Fund.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. Jeffrey D. Zients, Federal Chief
Performance Officer and Deputy Director for Management, Office
of Management and Budget; Hon. Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller
General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
Panel II Witnesses: Robert J. Shea, Former Associate
Director for Administration and Government Performance, Office
of Management and Budget; Paul L. Posner, Professor and
Director, Public Administration Program, George Mason
University; Jonathan D. Breul, Executive Director, IBM Center
for The Business of Government.
Inspiring Students to Federal Service, June 21, 2011
Within the next 5 years, the Federal Government is expected
to face one of the largest retirement waves in the Nation's
history, making the development of a new generation of Federal
workers even more vital. This hearing examined how the Federal
Government can better partner with universities to prepare and
recruit students for Federal service, and particularly for
hard-to-fill positions. The hearing also reviewed the
implementation of new student and recent graduate programs
created by Executive Order 13562.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. Christine Griffin, Deputy Director,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Michael C. Kane, Chief
Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department of Energy; Carolyn
Taylor, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
Panel II Witnesses: Timothy McManus, Vice President for
Education and Outreach, Partnership for Public Service; Laurel
McFarland, Executive Director, National Association of Schools
of Public Affairs and Administration; Anne Mahle, Vice
President for Recruitment, Teach for America; Witold
Skwierczynski, President, National Council of Social Security
Administration Field Operations Locals, American Federation of
Government Employees.
The Diplomat's Shield: Diplomatic Security and Its Implications for
U.S. Diplomacy, June 29, 2011
This hearing was held as a response to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) review of The Department of State's
Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) training efforts in the
report Diplomatic Security: Expanded Missions and Inadequate
Facilities Pose Critical Challenges to Training Efforts. The
hearing addressed the challenges DS faces carrying out its
mission because of inadequate training facilities, obtaining
feedback on its training efforts, tracking the use of some of
its training, and strategically addressing expanded training
missions. Specific issues discussed include staffing shortages,
language proficiency challenges, risk management, the Iraq
transition, and contractor management.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. Eric J. Boswell, Assistant
Secretary for Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State;
Jess T. Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
Panel II Witness: Susan R. Johnson, President, American
Foreign Service Association.
Examining the Federal Workers' Compensation Program for Injured
Employees, July 26, 2011
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) was
established in 1916 and has not been significantly amended
since 1974. It provides workers' compensation coverage to
roughly 2.8 million Federal civilian workers if they are
injured in the performance of their official duty. This hearing
examined a number of FECA reform proposals, which were
developed to update and modernize the program, increase its
efficiency and effectiveness, improve return-to-work outcomes
and reduce the cost to the Federal Government.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. Christine Griffin, Deputy Director,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Gary Steinberg, Acting
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S.
Department of Labor; Andrew Sherrill, Director, Education,
Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
Panel II Witnesses: Joseph Beaudoin, President, National
Active and Retired Federal Employees Association; Ronald
Watson, Consultant, National Association of Letter Carriers,
AFL-CIO; Gregory Krohm, Executive Director, International
Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions.
Agro-Defense: Responding to Threats Against America's Agriculture and
Food System, September 13, 2011
This hearing was held as a response to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) review of Federal agencies' efforts
to implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9 (HSPD-
9), which established the Nation's agriculture and food defense
policy, in the report, Homeland Security: Actions Needed to
Improve Response to Potential Terrorist Attacks and Natural
Disasters Affecting Food and Agriculture. It was discussed how
there is no centralized coordination to oversee the Federal
Government's overall progress in defending the food and
agriculture systems, weaknesses in the flow of critical
information among key food and agriculture stakeholders and
disaster response and recovery challenges.
Panel I Witnesses: Colonel John T. Hoffman (Ret.), Senior
Research Fellow, National Center for Food Protection and
Defense, University of Minnesota; Dr. Paul Williams, DVM,
Director of Agriculture, Food, and Veterinary Programs,
Division of Homeland Security, Georgia Emergency Management
Agency.
Panel II Witnesses: Lisa Shames, Director, Natural
Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Dr. Doug Meckes, DVM, Director of Food, Agricultural,
and Veterinary Defense Division, Office of Health Affairs, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Ted Elkin, Director, Office of
Food Defense, Communication and Emergency Response, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
Sheryl K. Maddux, Deputy Director, Office of Homeland Security
and Emergency Coordination, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
accompanied by Dr. John R. Clifford, Deputy Administrator and
Chief Veterinary Officer for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
Intelligence Community Contractors: Are We Striking the Right Balance?
September 20, 2011
The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) historically has
relied on contractors to help meet national security goals, but
that reliance deepened after the September 11, 2001, attacks. A
decade after the attacks, the IC remains heavily reliant on
contractors, so this hearing was held to discuss reasons for
this continued reliance such as: (1) specialized technical
capability deficiencies within the government workforce; (2)
cultural, military, or linguistic expertise deficiencies within
the government workforce; and (3) greater flexibility with
contractors that allows government to quickly fill and remove
positions. This reliance on contractors has been controversial
because in some workspaces, contractors outnumber government
employees. Other key concerns discussed during the hearing
include performance of inherently governmental functions,
whether the IC has an acquisition workforce that is
sufficiently equipped to promote the efficient, effective, and
appropriate use of contractors, the high cost of contract
employees, increased competition because of higher paying
contractors, conflicts of interest and misaligned incentives as
a result of the ``revolving door'', and inadequate strategic
human capital planning
Panel I Witness: Hon. Daniel I. Gordon, Administrator,
Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and
Budget.
Panel II Witnesses: Hon. Charles E. Allen, Senior
Intelligence Advisor, Intelligence and National Security
Alliance; Mark M. Lowenthal, Ph.D., President & CEO, The
Intelligence and Security Academy, LLC; Scott H. Amey, General
Counsel, Project on Government Oversight; Joshua Foust, Fellow,
American Security Project.
Panel III Witnesses (Closed Session): Edward L. Haugland,
Assistant Inspector General for Inspections, Office of
Inspector General, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence; Paula J. Roberts, Associate Director of National
Intelligence for Human Capital and Intelligence Community Chief
Human Capital Officer, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence.
Labor-Management Forums in the Federal Government, October 11, 2011
This hearing examined the implementation of labor
management forums required under Executive Order 13522, signed
by President Obama on December 9, 2009. The work of the
National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations was
discussed, including its efforts to determine the effectiveness
of, and potential cost savings from, labor-management forums.
Additionally, DoD's efforts to establish a new performance
management and hiring system, while ensuring employee (and
employee representative) involvement was talked about.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. John Berry, Director, U.S. Office
of Personnel Management; Hon. W. Scott Gould, Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Pat Tamburrino, Jr. Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy,
U.S. Department of Defense.
Panel II Witnesses: William Dougan, President, National
Federation of Federal Employees; Gregory Junemann, President,
International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers; Patricia Niehaus, President, Federal Managers
Association; George Nesterczuk, President, Nesterczuk and
Associates.
Safeguarding Hawaii's Ecosystem and Agriculture Against Invasive
Species, October 27, 2011
This hearing examined the Federal, State, and local
interagency initiatives to protect Hawaii against harmful
invasive pests and diseases. Invasive species cost Hawaii
hundreds of millions of dollars annually in lost agricultural
revenue, property damage, and eradication programs. Witnesses
testified that certain non-native pests that have been
intercepted at the State's borders, such as the Brown Tree
Snake, threaten to permanently devastate the fragile island
ecosystem of Hawaii, which is home to more endangered species
than any other State. It was discussed how the loss of animals
and foliage unique to Hawaii, combined with the introduction of
pests and diseases not native to the islands, such as
mosquitoes or malaria, would grievously harm the State's
multibillion dollar tourism industry, the primary driver of
Hawaii's economy, and could affect the character and quality of
life found in Hawaii.
Panel I Witness: Hon. Neil Abercrombie, Governor, State of
Hawaii
Panel II Witnesses: Hon. Clifton K. Tsuji, Chair of the
House Committee on Agriculture, Hawaii State Legislature; Hon.
Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair of the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Hawaii State Legislature; Hon. James J. Nakatani,
Deputy Director, Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Mr. Lyle
Wong, Ph.D., Plant Industry Administrator for the Hawaii
Department of Agriculture, testified on behalf of Deputy
Director Nakatani.
Panel III Witnesses: Bruce W. Murley, Area Port Director,
Honolulu, Office of Field Operations, Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Vernon
Harrington, Hawaii State Plant Health Director, Plant
Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture; George Phocas,
Resident-Agent-in-Charge, Office of Law Enforcement, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
From Earthquakes to Terrorist Attacks: Is the National Capital Region
Prepared for the Next Disaster? December 7, 2011
This hearing examined the preparedness of the National
Capital Region (NCR) to respond to both natural and manmade
disasters. Testimony focused specifically on NCR strategic
planning, areas to improve efficiencies and effectiveness in
leadership, coordination and decision-making authority in a
crisis, and communication capabilities among key stakeholders.
Witnesses: Steward D. Beckham, Director, Office of National
Capital Region Coordination, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Richard Muth,
Director, Maryland Emergency Management Agency, State of
Maryland; Dean S. Hunter, Deputy Director, Facilities,
Security, and Contracting, U.S. Office of Personnel Management;
Terrie Suit, Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Homeland
Security, the Commonwealth of Virginia; Bill Jenkins, Director,
Homeland Security and Justice Team, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Paul Quander, Deputy Mayor for Public
Safety and Justice, District of Columbia.
Federal Retirement Processing: Ensuring Proper and Timely Payments,
February 1, 2012
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF), servicing
roughly 2.5 million Federal retirees, and processing
approximately 100,000 new claims each year. Incomplete agency
files and an outdated system have resulted in delayed annuity
payments, particularly to recently retired Federal employees.
This hearing examined areas in need of reform, including
retirement system modernization, processing delays, customer
service, and adequate internal controls to detect and prevent
fraud so that tax dollars are protected and properly
administered.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. John Berry, Director, U.S. Office
of Personnel Management; Hon. Patrick McFarland, Inspector
General, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Valerie Melvin,
Director of Information Management and Technology Resource
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Panel II Witnesses: Joseph Beaudoin, President, National
Active and Retired Federal Employees Association; George
Nesterczuk, President, Nesterczuk and Associates.
Managing Interagency Nuclear Nonproliferation Efforts: Are We
Effectively Securing Nuclear Materials Around the World? March
14, 2012
This hearing assessed the United States' progress in
securing vulnerable nuclear material domestically and abroad
pursuant to the President's 4-year plan. In particular, it
examined the effectiveness of the multiple Federal agencies
tasked with preventing the theft and diversion of nuclear
materials. It also reviewed the goals for the Seoul summit and
explored agency strategic plans to improve nuclear material
security beyond the 4-year time frame. Furthermore, it examined
our cooperation and coordination with international bodies,
such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to meet
nuclear material security objectives. Finally, this hearing
provided an opportunity for the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to report on several completed and ongoing related
nuclear security investigations.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. Thomas M. Countryman, Assistant
Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation, U.S.
Department of State; Hon. Anne Harrington, Deputy Administrator
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; Hon. Kenneth B.
Handelman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global
Strategic Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense; Gene Aloise,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.
Panel II Witnesses: Kenneth Luongo, President, Partnership
for Global Security; Page O. Stougland, Ph.D., Vice President,
Nuclear Materials Security Program, Nuclear Threat Initiative.
A Review of the Office of Special Counsel and Merit Systems Protection
Board, March 20, 2012
This hearing examined the Office of Special Counsel's (OSC)
and the Merit Systems Protection Board's (MSPB or Board) recent
progress and challenges in fulfilling their statutory
responsibilities. The MSPB and OSC were created by the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 to safeguard the merit system
principles and help ensure that Federal employees are free from
discriminatory, arbitrary, and retaliatory actions,
particularly those who step forward to disclose government
waste, fraud, and abuse.
Witnesses: Hon. Susan Tsui Grundman, Chairman, Merit
Systems Protection Board; Hon. Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel,
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Financial Literacy: Empowering Americans to Prevent the Next Financial
Crisis, April 26, 2012
This was the fifth oversight hearing in a series addressing
a critical national priority: financial literacy. Efforts to
enhance, coordinate, and streamline Federal financial literacy
and financial access initiatives aimed at improving the
financial capability of all Americans were examined.
Panel I Witness: Hon. Sheila Bair, Former Chairman, U.S.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation & Senior Advisor, The Pew
Charitable Trusts.
Panel II Witnesses: Melissa Koide, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Office of Financial Education & Financial Access,
U.S. Department of the Treasury; Alicia Puente Cackley,
Director, Financial Markets & Community Investment, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Camille Busette, Assistant
Director, Office of Financial Education, Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau.
Panel III Witnesses: Brigitte Madrian, Ph.D., Aetna
Professor of Public Policy & Corporate Management, John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Mark
Calabria, Ph.D., Director, Financial Regulation Studies, Cato
Institute; Sharra Jones, Math Instructor, Oak Park Elementary
School, Laurel School District; Michael Martin, Academy of
Finance Instructor, Lansdowne High School, Baltimore County
Public Schools, Evan Richards, Academy of Finance Alumnus,
Lansdowne High School, Baltimore County Public Schools.
Building and Maintaining an Effective Human Resource Workforce in the
Federal Government, May 9, 2012
This hearing explored the current state of Federal human
resource (HR) professionals, what the Federal Government is
doing to build and maintain an effective HR workforce, and what
more can be done to ensure our HR workforce is responsive and
an educated strategic partner that can help meet the demands of
the Federal Government.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. John Berry, Director, U.S. Office
of Personnel Management, Hon. John Sepulveda, Assistant
Secretary for Human Resources and Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs; Anita Blair, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Human Resources and Chief Human Capital Officer,
U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Panel II Witnesses: John Palguta, Vice President for
Policy, Partnership for Public Service; Sara Thompson, Ph.D.,
Dean, Metropolitan School of Professional Studies, The Catholic
University of America.
A National Security Crisis: Foreign Language Capabilities in the
Federal Government, May 21, 2012
This hearing reviewed the state of the Federal Government's
foreign language capabilities, how language skill deficiencies
impact national security, and ways to improve the nation's
language capacity. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
revealed our Nation's severe shortages of Americans proficient
in foreign languages and with the necessary cultural expertise
as we failed to fully understand the threat. It was discussed
how Federal agencies have shortages in translators and
interpreters and an overall shortfall of proficient speakers.
Testimony focused on steps to address these issues and the
different programs Federal agencies have implemented to
increase foreign language capabilities.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. Eduardo Ochoa, Assistant Secretary
for the Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of
Education; Hon. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Director General of
the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources, U.S.
Department of State; Laura Junor, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense;
Tracey North, Deputy Assistant Director, Intelligence
Operations Branch, Directorate of Intelligence, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice; Glen Nordin,
Principal Foreign Language and Area Advisor, Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense Intelligence, U.S. Department of
Defense (Representing the Director of National Intelligence).
Panel II Witnesses: Andrew Lawless, Member of the
Globalization and Localization Association and Chief Executive
Officer, Dig-IT Strategies for Content Globalization; Allan
Goodman, Ph.D., Member of the Council on Foreign Relations'
Task Force on U.S. Education Reform and National Security and
President of the Institute for International Education; Dan E.
Davidson, Ph.D., President of American Councils for
International Education and Elected President of the Joint
National Committee for Languages.
Panel III Witnesses: Shauna Kaplan, 5th Grade Student,
Providence Elementary School, Fairfax County, Virginia; Paula
Patrick, Coordinator of World Languages, Fairfax County Public
Schools; Michelle Dressner, 2010 Participant, National Security
Language Initiative for Youth Program; Jeffrey Wood, 2010
Participant, National Security Language Initiative for Youth
Program; Major Gregory Mitchell, 1995 Fellow for the David L.
Boren Fellowship Program.
Security Clearance Reform: Sustaining Progress for the Future, June 21,
2012
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) placed
the personnel security clearance process on its High-Risk List
due, in part, to a massive backlog of applications and
insufficient quality standards. This hearing was eighth in a
series of hearings on the security clearance process since that
time. In 2011, the security clearance process was removed from
GAO's High-Risk List. It was discussed how the application
backlog has been eliminated, and timeliness requirements in the
2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act have been
met and exceeded. It was stated that initial investigations
currently take an average of 44 days to complete compared to a
staggering 189 days in 2005. Though considerable progress was
made, challenges that still remain were touched upon. There
must be continued oversight and accountability to ensure
sustained progress and momentum in the future. Other issues
addressed include reciprocity among agencies, establishing more
uniform training, investigation, and suitability standards,
additional information technology improvements to support
information-sharing and case management.
Witnesses: Hon. Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Hon. Danny Werfel,
Controller, U.S. Office of Management and Budget; Hon.
Elizabeth McGrath, Deputy Chief Management Officer, U.S.
Department of Defense; Merton Miller, Associate Director,
Federal Investigative Services, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management; Charlie Sowell, Deputy Assistant Director for
Special Security, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence.
State of Federal Privacy and Data Security Law: Lagging Behind the
Times? July 31, 2012
The Privacy Act was enacted in 1974 to protect Americans'
personal information from improper disclosure by the Federal
Government. However, the rapid expansion of technology and few
updates to the Privacy Act have rendered the law outdated. This
hearing examined whether the Privacy Act and other related
privacy laws adequately protect privacy in the 21st century,
reviewed whether Federal leadership on privacy policy should be
altered, and explored how Congress can fix our privacy and data
security framework. It also examined the response to the recent
cyber attack that led to the unauthorized access to the
personal information of 123,000 Thrift Savings Plan
participants and ways to avoid such agency data breaches in the
future.
Panel I Witnesses: Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief Privacy
Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Greg Long,
Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board,
Greg Wilshusen, Director, Information Security Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office.
Panel II Witnesses: Peter Swire, C. William O'Neill
Professor of Law, Ohio State University; Chris Calabrese,
Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union; Paul
Rosenzweig, Visiting Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.
Investing in an Effective Federal Workforce, September 19, 2012
This hearing addressed both the current state of the
Federal workforce, and the steps being taken to ensure that the
Federal Government is an effective and efficient provider of
services for future generations. Key topic discussed include:
Federal hiring reform, Usajobs.com, hiring people with
disabilities, diversity in the Federal workforce, the Veterans
Hiring Initiative, the Federal Student Pathways program, work-
life balance, telework opportunities, Federal pay and benefits,
retirement processing, non-foreign area locality pay, Federal
training, whistleblower protections, security clearance reform,
Senior Executive Service (SES) reform, and national labor
relations.
Panel I Witnesses: Hon. John Berry, Director, U.S. Office
of Personnel Management; Hon. Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Panel II Witnesses: Colleen Kelley, President, National
Treasury Employees Union; J. David Cox, President, American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO; Max Stier,
President, Partnership for Public Service; William Bransford,
Representative, Government Mangers Coalition.
II. Legislation
The following bills were considered by the Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and
the District of Columbia during the 112th Congress:
Measures Enacted into Law
P.L. 112-145, H.R. 3902--The District of Columbia Special
Election Reform Act amends the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act to require the Board of Elections and Ethics, in filling
the following vacancies, to hold a special election in the
District on the first Tuesday occurring between 70 and 174 days
(currently, the first Tuesday occurring more than 114 days)
after the vacancy occurs which the Board determines, based on a
totality of the circumstances, taking into account, inter alia,
cultural and religious holidays and the administrability of the
election, will provide the greatest level of voter
participation. Eliminates the specific alternative of a special
election on the same day as the next general election (without
eliminating the option of a special election on the same day as
the next general election). Applies this revised special
election requirement to: (1) the Office of the Chairman of the
Council of the District of Columbia, (2) a Council member
elected from a ward or elected at large, (3) the Office of the
Mayor of the District, and (4) the Office of the Attorney
General of the District.
P.L. 112-199, S. 743--Title I: Protection of Certain
Disclosures of Information by Federal Employees--(Sec. 101) The
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 amends Federal
personnel law relating to whistleblower protections to provide
that such protections shall apply to a disclosure of any
violation of law (currently, a violation of law). Provides that
a disclosure shall not be excluded from whistleblower
protections because: (1) the disclosure was made to a
supervisor or to a person who participated in an activity that
the employee or applicant for employment reasonably believed to
evidence gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of
authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public
health or safety; (2) the disclosure revealed information that
had been previously disclosed; (3) of the employee or
applicant's motive for making the disclosure; (4) the
disclosure was not made in writing; (5) the disclosure was made
while the employee was off duty; or (6) of the amount of time
which has passed since the occurrence of the events described
in the disclosure. Provides that a disclosure shall not be
excluded from whistleblower protections if it is made during
the normal course of duties of an employee with respect to whom
another employee with authority took, failed to take, or
threatened to take or fail to take a personnel action in
reprisal for the disclosure. (Sec. 102) Defines ``disclosure''
as a formal or informal communication or transmission,
excluding a communication concerning policy decisions that
lawfully exercise discretionary authority, unless the employee
or applicant making the disclosure reasonably believes that it
evidences: (1) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
or (2) gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of
authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public
health or safety. (Sec. 103) Provides that any presumption
regarding a public officer's performance of a duty may be
rebutted by substantial evidence. Establishes a ``disinterested
observer'' standard for evaluating the validity of disclosures
that evidence violations of law, gross mismanagement, gross
waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and
specific danger to public health or safety. (Sec. 104) Includes
as a prohibited personnel practice the implementation or
enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement
that does not contain a specific statement that its provisions
are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or
otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or
liabilities created by existing statute or executive order
relating to: (1) classified information; (2) communications to
Congress; (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a
violation of any law, rule, or regulation or mismanagement, a
gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial
and specific danger to public health or safety; or (4) any
other whistleblower protection. Allows the enforcement of a
nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement that was in effect
prior to the effective date of this Act if the agency gives an
affected employee notice of the statement required by this
section. Allows any action ordered to correct a prohibited
personnel practice to include fees, costs, or damages
reasonably incurred due to an agency investigation of an
employee that was commenced, expanded, or extended in
retaliation for the disclosure of protected activity that
formed the basis of the corrective action. (Sec. 105) Adds the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the
National Reconnaissance Office to the list of intelligence
community entities excluded from coverage under the
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA). Provides that a
whistleblower cannot be deprived of WPA coverage unless the
President removes the whistleblower's agency from coverage
prior to a challenged personnel action taken against the
whistleblower. (Sec. 106) Revises the standard of proof in
disciplinary proceedings against an agency employee who takes
an adverse personnel action against a whistleblower to require
the Office of Special Counsel to show that the whistleblower's
protected disclosure was a significant motivating factor in the
decision to take an adverse action, even if other factors also
motivated the decision. (Sec. 107) Authorizes: (1) the Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB), in disciplinary actions, to
require payment of reasonable attorney fees by the agency where
the prevailing party is employed, or has applied for
employment, if specified conditions apply; and (2) reasonable
and foreseeable consequential and compensatory damages
(including interest, reasonable expert witness fees, and costs)
if MSPB orders corrective action. (Sec. 108) Requires that,
during the 2-year period beginning on the effective date of
this Act, a petition to review a final order or decision of the
MSPB that raises no challenge to the MSPB's disposition of
allegations of a prohibited personnel practice shall be filed
in any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction (rather than
exclusively in the Federal Circuit). Allows such court
discretion to grant a petition for judicial review. (Sec. 109)
Extends whistleblower and other anti-discrimination protections
to employees (and applicants for employment) of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). (Sec. 110)
Extends whistleblower protections to any current or prospective
Federal employee for disclosures that such employee reasonably
believes are evidence of censorship related to research,
analysis, or technical information. (Sec. 111) Amends the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide that a permissible use
of independently obtained infrastructure information includes
the disclosure of such information for whistleblower purposes.
(Sec. 112) Requires Federal agency heads to advise their
employees on how to make a lawful disclosure of information
that is required to be kept classified in the interest of
national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs. (Sec. 113)
Authorizes the Special Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in
whistleblower actions. (Sec. 114) Provides that corrective
action relating to a prohibited personnel practice may not be
ordered if, after a finding that a protected disclosure was a
contributing factor in taking a personnel action, the agency
demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would
have taken the same personnel action in the absence of such
disclosure. (Sec. 115) Requires each government nondisclosure
policy, form, or agreement to contain a specific statement that
its provisions are consistent with and do not supersede,
conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations,
rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or executive
order relating to: (1) classified information; (2)
communications to Congress; (3) the reporting to an Inspector
General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation or
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority,
or a substantial and specific danger to public health or
safety; or (4) any other whistleblower protection. Prohibits
implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy, form, or
agreement that does not contain such statement to the extent
such policy, form, or agreement is inconsistent with such
statement. Permits nondisclosure policies, forms, and
agreements in effect before the enactment of this Act to
continue to be enforced with respect to: (1) current employees
if the agency provides notice of the statement to such
employees, and (2) former employees if the agency posts notice
of the statement on its website. Provides that a nondisclosure
policy, form, or agreement for a person who is not a Federal
employee, but who is connected with the conduct of intelligence
or intelligence-related activity, shall contain appropriate
provisions that: (1) require nondisclosure of classified
information, and (2) make it clear that the forms do not bar
disclosures to Congress or an authorized official that are
essential to reporting a substantial violation of law. (Sec.
116) Requires the Comptroller General (GAO), not later than 4
years after the enactment of this Act, to report to specified
congressional committees on the implementation of this title,
including an analysis of changes in the number of cases filed
with MSPB alleging violations, the outcome of such cases, and
the impact the process has had on MSPB and the Federal court
system. Requires MSPB to include in its annual program
performance reports information on the number and outcome of
whistleblower cases filed. (Sec. 117) Amends the Inspector
General Act of 1978 to require each inspector general of a
Federal agency, except any agency that is an element of the
intelligence community or whose principal function is the
conduct of foreign intelligence or counter intelligence
activities, to designate a Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman
to educate agency employees about prohibitions on retaliation
for protected disclosures and rights and remedies against such
retaliation. Terminates the authority for such Ombudsman 5
years after the enactment of this Act. Title II: Savings
Clause; Effective Date--(Sec. 201) Declares that nothing in
this Act shall be construed to imply any limitation on any
protections afforded to employees and applicants for employment
by any other provision of law. (Sec. 202) Makes this Act
effective 30 days after its enactment, except for provisions
relating to TSA employees or applicants for employment, which
shall be effective on the enactment date of this Act.
P.L. 112-230, S. 2170--The Hatch Act Modernization Act of
2012 allows a State or local officer or employee to be a
candidate for partisan elective office unless the salary of
such officer or employee is paid completely, directly or
indirectly, by loans or grants made by the United States or a
Federal agency. (Sec. 3) Redefines ``State or local agency''
for purposes of the Hatch Act to include the executive branch
of the District of Columbia, or an agency or department
thereof. Extends the exemption from Hatch Act requirements for
State or local officers or employees to individuals employed by
an educational or research institution, establishment, agency
or system supported in whole or in part by the District of
Columbia. Extends the exemption from the prohibition against
running for elective office to the head of an executive
department of the District of Columbia who is not classified
under an applicable merit or civil-service system. Extends to
agencies of the District of Columbia provisions requiring the
Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) to withhold funds from
agencies that reappoint employees removed for violating the
Hatch Act within 18 months after removal. Exempts individuals
employed or holding office in the District of Columbia from
provisions of the Hatch Act applicable to Federal employees.
Makes Federal employees living in the District of Columbia
eligible to participate in local politics to the same extent as
Federal employees living in nearby areas of Maryland or
Virginia. (Sec. 4) Replaces existing penalty provisions for
violations of the Hatch Act to make an offending employee
subject to removal (currently, removal is mandatory), reduction
in grade, debarment from Federal employment for 5 years,
suspension, reprimand, or a civil penalty of not more than
$1,000. (Sec. 5) Makes the new penalties imposed by this Act
applicable to violations occurring before, on, or after the
effective date of this Act, unless, before the effective date
of this Act, the Special Counsel has presented a complaint for
disciplinary action with respect to an alleged violation or the
employee alleged to have committed the violation has entered
into a signed settlement agreement with the Special Counsel.
Measures Which Did Not Advance Beyond Referral to Subcommittee
S. 47--The Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act of 2011
amends Federal law concerning Federal workers' compensation to
authorize the use of clinical social workers to conduct
evaluations to determine work-related emotional and mental
illnesses.
S. 376--A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, makes
an individual who has a seriously delinquent tax debt
ineligible to be appointed, or to continue serving, as a
Federal employee.
S. 514--The Gold Star Fathers Act of 2011 includes as a
preference eligible for Federal employment purposes a parent
(currently, the mother only) of either an individual who lost
his or her life under honorable conditions while serving in the
Armed Forces during a war, in a campaign or expedition for
which a campaign badge has been authorized, or during the
period beginning April 28, 1952, and ending July 1, 1955, or a
service-connected permanently and totally disabled veteran, if:
(1) the spouse of such parent is totally and permanently
disabled; or (2) such parent, when preference is claimed, is
unmarried or legally separated from his or her spouse.
S. 644--The Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act
excludes as creditable service under the Federal Employees'
Retirement System any service performed by an employee or
Member of Congress (including military service) performed after
December 31, 2012, if that individual did not perform any
period of creditable service (including military service)
before January 1, 2013. Prohibits an employing agency from
making any deduction or withholding from the basic pay of any
employee or Member for such excluded service.
S. 742--The Congressional Retirement Age Act of 2011--
Prohibits a Member of Congress serving on or after the
enactment of this Act from being eligible for an annuity under
the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal
Employees' Retirement System (FERS), unless he or she is
separated from the service after attaining retirement age under
the Social Security Act and completing 5 years of service.
Makes a Member serving on or after the enactment of this Act
ineligible for a CSRS or FERS deferred retirement annuity,
unless the Member is separated from the service, or transferred
to a position in which the individual does not continue subject
to CSRS or FERS annuity requirements, after completing 5 years
of service. Denies an early retirement annuity under FERS to
any Member serving on or after enactment of this Act who
otherwise meets FERS early retirement requirements. Delays
entitlement to a FERS annuity until after attaining retirement
age under the Social Security Act.
S. 776--The Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act
requires Federal employees who are furloughed as a result of
any lapse in appropriations that begins on or about April 9,
2011, to be compensated at their standard rate of compensation
for the period of such lapse as soon as practicable after such
lapse ends.
S. 790--The Federal Supervisor Training Act of 2011 expands
requirements relating to specific training programs for Federal
agency supervisors by requiring the head of each Federal agency
to establish: (1) a program to train supervisors in carrying
out their duties, including mentoring and motivating employees,
fostering a employee-friendly work environment, and effectively
managing employees with unacceptable performance ratings; (2) a
program to train supervisors on prohibited personnel practices.
employee collective bargaining and union participation rights,
and the procedures and processes used to enforce employee
rights; and (3) a program under which experienced supervisors
mentor new supervisors. Requires: (1) the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue guidance to
Federal agencies on competencies supervisors are expected to
meet in order to effectively manage, and be accountable for
managing, the performance of employees; and (2) each agency to
assess the performance of its supervisors and the overall
capacity of its supervisors, based on such guidance.
S. 2103--The District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any
person from performing or attempting to perform an abortion
within the District of Columbia except in conformity with this
Act's requirements. Requires the physician to first make a
determination of the probable post-fertilization age of the
unborn child, or reasonably rely upon such a determination made
by another physician, by making inquiries of the pregnant woman
and performing such medical examinations and tests as a
reasonably prudent physician would consider necessary.
Prohibits the abortion from being performed if the probable
post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or
greater. Makes an exception where necessary to save the life of
a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical
disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or
emotional conditions or any claim or diagnosis that the woman
will engage in conduct intended to result in her death. Permits
a physician to terminate a pregnancy under such exception only
in the manner which provides the best opportunity for the
unborn child to survive, unless termination of the pregnancy in
that manner would pose a greater risk of the death or
substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major
bodily function, not including psychological or emotional
conditions, of the pregnant woman than would other available
methods. Prescribes penalties for violations. Bars prosecution
of a woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of
this Act, but authorizes such a woman or the father or maternal
grandparent of the unborn child to obtain appropriate relief
through a civil action. Provides for injunctive relief to
prevent violations. Sets forth specified privacy protections in
court proceedings for the woman upon whom an abortion has been
performed. Requires any physician who performs an abortion
within the District to report it to the Department of Health of
the District of Columbia, which shall issue annual public
reports.
III. GAO Reports
The following reports were issued by the Government
Accountability Office at the request of the Chairman/Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
during the 112th Congress:
``Program Evaluation: Experienced Agencies Follow a Similar
Model for Prioritizing Research,'' GAO-11-176, January 14,
2011.
``Department of State: Additional Steps Are Needed to
Improve Strategic Planning and Evaluation of Training for State
Personnel,'' GAO-11-241, January 25, 2011.
``Diplomatic Security: Expanded Missions and Inadequate
Facilities Pose Critical Challenges to Training Efforts,'' GAO-
11-460, June 1, 2011.
``DHS Science and Technology: Additional Steps Needed to
Ensure Test and Evaluation Requirements Are Met,'' GAO-11-596,
June 15, 2011.
``Long-Term Care Insurance: Carrier Interest in the Federal
Program, Changes to Its Actuarial Assumptions, and OPM
Oversight,'' GAO-11-630, July 11, 2011.
``Emergency Preparedness: Agencies Need Coordinated
Guidance on Incorporating Telework into Emergency and
Continuity Planning,'' GAO-11-628, July 22, 2011.
``Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Improve Response to
Potential Terrorist Attacks and Natural Disasters Affecting
Food and Agriculture,'' GAO-11-652, August 19, 2011.
``Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: Enhanced
Stakeholder Consultation and Use of Risk Information Could
Strengthen Future Reviews,'' GAO-11-873, September 15, 2011.
``UN Internal Oversight: Progress Made on Independence and
Staffing Issues, but Further Actions Are Needed, GAO-11-871,
September 20, 2011.
``Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select
Efficiency Initiatives Should be Shared Governmentwide,'' GAO-
11-908, September 30, 2011.
``Embassy Management: State Department and Other Agencies
Should Further Explore Opportunities to Save Administrative
Costs Overseas,'' GAO-12-317, January 31, 2012.
``DHS Human Capital: Senior Leadership Vacancy Rates
Generally Declined, but Components' Rates Varied,'' [Reissued
on February 22, 2012], GAO-12-264, February 10, 2012.
``Background Investigations: Office of Personnel Management
Needs to Improve Transparency of Its Pricing and Seek Cost
Savings,'' GAO-12-197, February 28, 2012.
``Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel
Rotation Programs Can Build on Positive Results with Additional
Preparation and Evaluation,'' GAO-12-386, March 9, 2012.
``Federal Telework: Program Measurement Continues to
Confront Data Reliability Issues,'' GAO-12-519, April 19, 2012.
``Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise: Strategies
and Challenges in Sustaining Critical Skills in Federal and
Contractor Workforces,'' GAO-12-468, April 26, 2012.
``Federal Emergency Management Agency: Workforce Planning
and Training Could Be Enhanced by Incorporating Strategic
Management Principles,'' GAO-12-487, April 26, 2012.
``Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider When
Evaluating Proposals to Consolidate Physical Infrastructure and
Management Functions,'' GAO-12-542, May 23, 2012.
``Disaster Assistance Workforce: FEMA Could Enhance Human
Capital Management and Training,'' GAO-12-538, May 25, 2012.
``Disability Employment: Further Action Needed to Oversee
Efforts to Meet Federal Government Hiring Goals,'' GAO-12-568,
May 25, 2012.
``Department of State: Foreign Service Midlevel Staffing
Gaps Persist Despite Significant Increases in Hiring,'' GAO-12-
721, June 14, 2012.
``World Health Organization: Reform Agenda Developed, but
U.S. Actions to Monitor Progress Could be Enhanced, GAO-12-722,
July 23, 2012.
``Influenza Pandemic: Agencies Report Progress in Plans to
Protect Federal Workers but Oversight Could be Improved,'' GAO-
12-748, July 25, 2012.
``Nuclear Nonproliferation: Additional Actions Needed to
Improve Security of Radiological Sources at U.S. Medical
Facilities,'' GAO-12-925, September 10, 2012.
``Department of Homeland Security: Oversight and
Coordination of Research and Development Should Be
Strengthened,'' GAO-12-837, September 12, 2012.
``Federal Training Investments: Office of Personnel
Management and Agencies Can Do More to Ensure Cost-Effective
Decisions,'' GAO-12-878, September 17, 2012.
``Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms,'' GAO-12-1022, September
27, 2012.
``Homeland Security: Agriculture Inspection Program Has
Made Some Improvements, but Management Challenges Persist,''
GAO-12-885, September 27, 2012.
``Afghanistan Development: Agencies Could Benefit from a
Shared and More Comprehensive Database on U.S. Efforts,'' GAO-
13-34, November 7, 2012.
``DHS Strategic Workforce Planning: Oversight of
Departmentwide Efforts Should Be Strengthened,'' GAO-13-65,
December 3, 2012.
``Federal Rulemaking: Agencies Could Take Additional Steps
to Respond to Public Comments,'' GAO-13-21, December 20, 2012
[Restricted].
PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
Chairman: Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member: Tom Coburn
The following is the Activities Report of the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations during the 112th Congress.
I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
A. Subcommittee Jurisdiction
The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was originally
authorized by Senate Resolution 189 on January 28, 1948. At its
creation in 1948, the Subcommittee was part of the Committee on
Expenditures in the Executive Departments. The Subcommittee's
records and broad investigative jurisdiction over government
operations and national security issues, however, actually
antedate its creation, since it was given custody of the
jurisdiction of the former Special Committee to Investigate the
National Defense Program (the so-called ``War Investigating
Committee'' or ``Truman Committee''), chaired by Senator Harry
S. Truman during the Second World War and charged with exposing
waste, fraud, and abuse in the war effort and war profiteering.
Today, the Subcommittee is part of the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\In 1952, the parent committee's name was changed to the
Committee on Government Operations. It was changed again in early 1977,
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and again in 2005, to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, its present
title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subcommittee has had nine chairmen: Senators Homer
Ferguson of Michigan (1948), Clyde R. Hoey of North Carolina
(1949-1952), Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin (1953-1954), John
L. McClellan of Arkansas (1955-1972), Henry M. Jackson of
Washington (1973-1978), Sam Nunn of Georgia (1979-1980 and
1987-1994), William V. Roth of Delaware (1981-1986 and 1995-
1996), Susan M. Collins of Maine (1997-2001); Norm Coleman of
Minnesota (2003-2007); and Carl Levin of Michigan (2001-2002
and 2007-present).
Until 1957, the Subcommittee's jurisdiction focused
principally on waste, inefficiency, impropriety, and illegality
in government operations. Its jurisdiction then expanded over
time, today encompassing investigations within the broad ambit
of the parent committee's responsibility for matters relating
to the efficiency and economy of operations of all branches of
the government, including matters related to: (a) waste, fraud,
abuse, malfeasance, and unethical practices in government
contracting and operations; (b) organized criminal activities
affecting interstate or international commerce; (c) criminal
activity affecting the national health, welfare, or safety,
including investment fraud, commodity and securities fraud,
computer fraud, and offshore abuses; (d) criminality or
improper practices in labor-management relations; (e) the
effectiveness of present national security methods, staffing
and procedures, and U.S. relationships with international
organizations concerned with national security; (f) energy
shortages, energy pricing, management of government-owned or
controlled energy supplies; and relationships with oil
producing and consuming countries; and (g) the operations and
management of Federal regulatory policies and programs. While
retaining the status of a subcommittee of a standing committee,
the Subcommittee has long exercised its authority on an
independent basis, selecting its own staff, issuing its own
subpoenas, and determining its own investigatory agenda.
The Subcommittee acquired its sweeping jurisdiction in
several successive stages. In 1957--based on information
developed by the Subcommittee--the Senate passed a Resolution
establishing a Select Committee on Improper Activities in the
Labor or Management Field. Chaired by Senator McClellan, who
also chaired the Subcommittee at that time, the Select
Committee was composed of eight Senators--four of whom were
drawn from the Subcommittee on Investigations and four from the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The Select Committee
operated for 3 years, sharing office space, personnel, and
other facilities with the Permanent Subcommittee. Upon its
expiration in early 1960, the Select Committee's jurisdiction
and files were transferred to the Subcommittee on
Investigations, greatly enlarging the latter body's
investigative authority in the labor-management area.
The Subcommittee's jurisdiction expanded further during the
1960s and 1970s. In 1961, for example, it received authority to
make inquiries into matters pertaining to organized crime and,
in 1963, held the famous Valachi hearings examining the inner
workings of the Italian Mafia. In 1967, following a summer of
riots and other civil disturbances, the Senate approved a
Resolution directing the Subcommittee to investigate the causes
of this disorder and to recommend corrective action. In January
1973, the Subcommittee acquired its national security mandate
when it merged with the National Security Subcommittee. With
this merger, the Subcommittee's jurisdiction was broadened to
include inquiries concerning the adequacy of national security
staffing and procedures, relations with international
organizations, technology transfer issues, and related matters.
In 1974, in reaction to the gasoline shortages precipitated by
the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973, the Subcommittee acquired
jurisdiction to investigate the control and management of
energy resources and supplies as well as energy pricing issues.
In 1997, the full Committee on Governmental Affairs was
charged by the Senate to conduct a special examination into
illegal or improper activities in connection with Federal
election campaigns during the 1996 election cycle. The
Permanent Subcommittee provided substantial resources and
assistance to this investigation, contributing to a greater
public understanding of what happened, to subsequent criminal
and civil legal actions taken against wrongdoers, and to
enactment of campaign finance reforms in 2001.
In 1998, the Subcommittee marked the 50th anniversary of
the Truman Committee's conversion into a permanent subcommittee
of the U.S. Senate.\2\ Since then, the Subcommittee has
developed particular expertise in complex financial matters,
examining the collapse of Enron Corp. in 2001, the key causes
of the 2008 financial crisis, structured finance abuses,
financial fraud, unfair credit practices, money laundering,
commodity speculation, and a wide range of offshore and tax
haven abuses. It has also focused on issues involving health
care fraud, foreign corruption, and waste, fraud and abuse in
government programs. In the half-century of its existence, the
Subcommittee's many successes have made clear to the Senate the
importance of retaining a standing investigatory body devoted
to keeping government not only efficient and effective, but
also honest and accountable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\This anniversary also marked the first date upon which internal
Subcommittee records generally began to become available to the public.
Unlike most standing committees of the Senate whose previously
unpublished records open after a period of 20 years has elapsed, the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as an investigatory body, may
close its records for 50 years to protect personal privacy and the
integrity of the investigatory process. With this 50th anniversary, the
Subcommittee's earliest records, housed in the Center for Legislative
Archives at the National Archives and Records Administration, began to
open seriatim. The records of the predecessor committee--the Truman
Committee--were opened by Senator Nunn in 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Subcommittee Investigations
Armed with its broad jurisdictional mandate, the
Subcommittee has conducted investigations into a wide variety
of topics of public concern, ranging from financial misconduct,
to unfair energy prices, predatory lending, and tax evasion.
Over the years, the Subcommittee has also conducted
investigations into criminal wrongdoing, including money
laundering, the narcotics trade, child pornography, labor
racketeering, and organized crime activities. In addition, the
Subcommittee has investigated a wide range of allegations of
waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs and consumer
protection issues, addressing problems ranging from unfair
credit card practices to health care fraud. In the last
Congress, among other matters, the Subcommittee conducted
Congress' most in-depth examination of the 2008 financial
crisis, holding four hearings and issuing a 750-page bipartisan
report on key causes of the crisis. In this Congress, the
Subcommittee has focused on money laundering problems at a
major global bank, offshore tax abuses by major U.S.
multinational corporations, excessive commodity speculation by
mutual funds and others, and deficiencies in Social Security
disability programs and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
fusion centers intended to combat terrorism.
(1) Historical Highlights
The Subcommittee's investigatory record as a permanent
Senate body began under the Chairmanship of Republican Senator
Homer Ferguson and his Chief Counsel (and future Attorney
General and Secretary of State) William P. Rogers, as the
Subcommittee inherited the Truman Committee's role in
investigating fraud and waste in U.S. Government operations.
This investigative work became particularly colorful under the
chairmanship of Senator Clyde Hoey, a North Carolina Democrat
who took the chair from Senator Ferguson after the 1948
elections. The last U.S. Senator to wear a long frock coat and
wing-tipped collar, Mr. Hoey was a distinguished southern
gentleman of the old school. Under his leadership, the
Subcommittee won national attention for its investigation of
the so-called ``five percenters,'' notorious Washington
lobbyists who charged their clients 5 percent of the profits
from any Federal contracts they obtained on the client's
behalf. Given the Subcommittee's jurisdictional inheritance
from the Truman Committee, it is perhaps ironic that the ``five
percenters'' investigation raised allegations of bribery and
influence-peddling that reached right into the White House and
implicated members of President Truman's staff. In any event,
the fledgling Subcommittee was off to a rapid start.
What began as colorful soon became contentious. When
Republicans returned to the Majority in the Senate in 1953,
Wisconsin's junior Senator, Joseph R. McCarthy, became the
Subcommittee's Chairman. Two years earlier, as Ranking Minority
Member, Senator McCarthy had arranged for another Republican
Senator, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, to be removed from the
Subcommittee. Senator Smith's offense, in Senator McCarthy's
eyes, was her issuance of a ``Declaration of Conscience''
repudiating those who made unfounded charges and used character
assassination against their political opponents. Although
Senator Smith had carefully declined to name any specific
offender, her remarks were universally recognized as criticism
of Senator McCarthy's accusations that communists had
infiltrated the State Department and other government agencies.
Senator McCarthy retaliated by engineering Senator Smith's
removal, replacing her with the newly elected Senator from
California, Richard Nixon.
Upon becoming Subcommittee Chairman, Senator McCarthy
staged a series of highly publicized anti-communist
investigations, culminating in an inquiry into communism within
the U.S. Army, which became known as the Army-McCarthy
hearings. During the latter portion of those hearings, in which
the parent Committee examined the Wisconsin Senator's attacks
on the Army, Senator McCarthy recused himself, leaving South
Dakota Senator Karl Mundt to serve as Acting Chairman of the
Subcommittee. Gavel-to-gavel television coverage of the
hearings helped turn the tide against Senator McCarthy by
raising public concern about his treatment of witnesses and
cavalier use of evidence. In December 1954, the Senate censured
Senator McCarthy for unbecoming conduct. In the following year,
the Subcommittee adopted new rules of procedure that better
protected the rights of witnesses. The Subcommittee also
strengthened the rules ensuring the right of both parties on
the Subcommittee to appoint staff, initiate and approve
investigations, and review all information in the
Subcommittee's possession.
In 1955, Senator John McClellan of Arkansas began 18 years
of service as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations. Senator McClellan appointed a young Robert F.
Kennedy as the Subcommittee's Chief Counsel. That same year,
Members of the Subcommittee were joined by Members of the
Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee on a special
committee to investigate labor racketeering. Chaired by Senator
McClellan and staffed by Robert Kennedy and other Subcommittee
staff members, this special committee directed much of its
attention to criminal influence over the Teamsters Union, most
famously calling Teamsters' leaders Dave Beck and Jimmy Hoffa
to testify. The televised hearings of the special committee
also introduced Senators Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy to
the nation, as well as leading to passage of the Landrum-
Griffin Labor Act.
After the special committee completed its work, the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations continued to
investigate organized crime. In 1962, the Subcommittee held
hearings during which Joseph Valachi outlined the activities of
La Cosa Nostra, or the Mafia. Former Subcommittee staffer
Robert Kennedy--who had by then become Attorney General in his
brother's Administration--used this information to prosecute
prominent mob leaders and their accomplices. The Subcommittee's
investigations also led to passage of major legislation against
organized crime, most notably the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) provisions of the Crime Control
Act of 1970. Under Chairman McClellan, the Subcommittee also
investigated fraud in the purchase of military uniforms,
corruption in the Department of Agriculture's grain storage
program, securities fraud, and civil disorders and acts of
terrorism. In addition, from 1962 to 1970, the Subcommittee
conducted an extensive probe of political interference in the
awarding of government contracts for the Pentagon's ill-fated
TFX (``tactical fighter, experimental'') aircraft. In 1968, the
Subcommittee also examined charges of corruption in U.S.
servicemen's clubs in Vietnam and elsewhere around the world.
In 1973, Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson, a Democrat from
Washington, replaced Senator McClellan as the Subcommittee's
Chairman. During his tenure, recalled Chief Clerk Ruth Young
Watt--who served in this position from the Subcommittee's
founding until her retirement in 1979--Ranking Minority Member
Charles Percy, an Illinois Republican, became more active on
the Subcommittee than Chairman Jackson, who was often
distracted by his Chairmanship of the Interior Committee and
his active role on the Armed Services Committee.\3\ Senator
Percy also worked closely with Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn, a
Subcommittee member who subsequently succeeded Senator Jackson
as Subcommittee Chairman in 1979. As Chairman, Senator Nunn
continued the Subcommittee's investigations into the role of
organized crime in labor-management relations and also
investigated pension fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\It had not been uncommon in the Subcommittee's history for the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member to work together closely despite
partisan differences, but Senator Percy was unusually active while in
the Minority--a role that included his chairing an investigation of the
hearing aid industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular reversals of political fortunes in the Senate
during the 1980s and 1990s saw Senator Nunn trade the
chairmanship three times with Delaware Republican William Roth.
Senator Nunn served from 1979 to 1980 and again from 1987 to
1995, while Senator Roth served from 1981 to 1986, and again
from 1995 to 1996. These 15 years saw a strengthening of the
Subcommittee's bipartisan tradition in which investigations
were initiated by either the Majority or Minority and fully
supported by the entire Subcommittee. For his part, Senator
Roth led a wide range of investigations into commodity
investment fraud, offshore banking schemes, money laundering,
and child pornography. Senator Nunn led inquiries into Federal
drug policy, the global spread of chemical and biological
weapons, abuses in Federal student aid programs, computer
security, airline safety, and health care fraud. Senator Nunn
also appointed the Subcommittee's first female counsel,
Eleanore Hill, who served as Chief Counsel to the Minority from
1982 to 1986 and then as Chief Counsel from 1987 to 1995.
(2) More Recent Investigations
At the beginning of the 105th Congress, in January 1997,
Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine became the first
woman to chair the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Senator John Glenn of Ohio became the Ranking Minority Member,
while also serving as Ranking Minority Member of the full
Committee. Two years later, in the 106th Congress, after
Senator Glenn's retirement, Michigan Democrat Carl Levin
succeeded him as the Subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member.
During Senator Collins' chairmanship, the Subcommittee
conducted investigations into issues affecting Americans in
their day-to-day lives, including mortgage fraud, deceptive
mailings and sweepstakes promotions, phony credentials obtained
through the Internet, day trading of securities, and securities
fraud on the Internet. Senator Levin initiated an investigation
into money laundering. At his request, in 1999, the
Subcommittee held hearings on money laundering issues affecting
private banking services provided to wealthy individuals, and,
in 2001, on how major U.S. banks providing correspondent
accounts to offshore banks were being used to advance money
laundering and other criminal schemes.
During the 107th Congress, both Senator Collins and Senator
Levin chaired the Subcommittee. Senator Collins was chairman
until June 2001, when the Senate Majority party changed hands;
at that point, Senator Levin assumed the chairmanship and
Senator Collins, in turn, became the Ranking Minority Member.
In her first 6 months chairing the Subcommittee at the start of
the 107th Congress, Senator Collins held hearings examining
issues related to cross border fraud, the improper operation of
tissue banks, and Federal programs designed to fight diabetes.
When Senator Levin assumed the chairmanship, as his first major
effort, the Subcommittee initiated an 18-month bipartisan
investigation into the Enron Corporation, which had recently
collapsed into bankruptcy. As part of that investigation, the
Subcommittee reviewed over 2 million pages of documents,
conducted more than 100 interviews, held four hearings, and
issued three bipartisan reports focusing on the role played by
Enron's Board of Directors, Enron's use of tax shelters and
structured financial instruments, and how major U.S. financial
institutions contributed to Enron's accounting deceptions,
corporate abuses, and ultimate collapse. The Subcommittee's
investigative work contributed to passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act which enacted accounting and corporate reforms in July
2002. In addition, Senator Levin continued the money laundering
investigation initiated while he was the Ranking Minority
Member, and the Subcommittee's work contributed to enactment of
major reforms strengthening U.S. anti-money laundering laws in
the 2001 PATRIOT Act. Also during the 107th Congress, the
Subcommittee opened new investigations into offshore tax
abuses, border security, and abusive practices related to the
pricing of gasoline and other fuels.
In January 2003, at the start of the 108th Congress, after
the Senate Majority party again changed hands, Senator Collins
was elevated to Chairman of the full Committee on Governmental
Affairs, and Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota
became Chairman of the Subcommittee. Over the next 2 years,
Senator Coleman held hearings on topics of national and global
concern including illegal file sharing on peer-to-peer
networks, abusive practices in the credit counseling industry,
the dangers of purchasing pharmaceuticals over the Internet,
SARS preparedness, border security, and how Saddam Hussein
abused the United Nations Oil for Food Program. At the request
of Senator Levin, then Ranking Minority Member, the
Subcommittee also examined how some U.S. accounting firms,
banks, investment firms, and tax lawyers were designing,
promoting, and implementing abusive tax shelters across the
country; and how some U.S. financial institutions were failing
to comply with anti-money laundering controls mandated by the
PATRIOT Act, using as a case history Riggs Bank accounts
involving Augusto Pinochet, the former President of Chile, and
Equatorial Guinea, an oil-rich country in Africa.
During the 109th Congress, Senator Coleman held additional
hearings on abuses associated with the United Nation's Oil for
Food Program, and initiated a series of hearings on Federal
contractors who were paid with taxpayer dollars but failed to
meet their own tax obligations, resulting in billions of
dollars in unpaid taxes. He also held hearings on border
security issues, securing the global supply chain, Federal
travel abuses, abusive tax refund loans, and unfair energy
pricing. At Senator Levin's request, the Subcommittee held
hearings on offshore tax abuses responsible for $100 billion in
unpaid taxes each year, and on U.S. vulnerabilities caused by
States forming 2 million companies each year with hidden
owners.
During the 110th Congress, in January 2007, after the
Senate majority shifted, Senator Levin once again became
Subcommittee Chairman, while Senator Coleman became the Ranking
Minority Member. Senator Levin focused the Subcommittee on
investigations into complex financial and tax matters,
including unfair credit card practices, executive stock option
abuses, excessive speculation in the natural gas and crude oil
markets, and offshore tax abuses involving tax haven banks and
non-U.S. persons dodging payment of U.S. taxes on U.S. stock
dividends. The Subcommittee's work contributed to enactment of
two landmark bills, the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act (Credit CARD Act) which
reformed credit card practices, and the Foreign Account Tax
Compliance Act (FATCA) which tackled the problem of hidden
offshore bank accounts used by U.S. persons to dodge U.S.
taxes. At the request of Senator Coleman, the Subcommittee also
conducted bipartisan investigations into Medicare and Medicaid
health care providers who cheat on their taxes, fraudulent
Medicare claims involving deceased doctors or inappropriate
diagnosis codes, U.S. dirty bomb vulnerabilities, Federal
payroll tax abuses, abusive practices involving transit
benefits, and problems involving the United Nations Development
Program.
During the 111th Congress, Senator Levin continued as
Chairman of the Subcommittee, while Senator Tom Coburn joined
the Subcommittee as its Ranking Minority Member. During the
111th Congress, the Subcommittee dedicated much of its
resources to a bipartisan investigation into key causes of the
2008 financial crisis, looking in particular at the role of
high risk home loans, regulatory failures, inflated credit
ratings, and high-risk, conflicts-ridden financial products
designed and sold by investment banks. The Subcommittee held
four hearings and released thousands of documents. The
Subcommittee's work contributed to passage of another landmark
financial reform bill, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010. In addition, the Subcommittee
held hearings on excessive speculation in the wheat market, tax
haven banks that helped U.S. clients evade U.S. taxes, how to
keep foreign corruption out of the United States, and social
security disability fraud.
During the 112th Congress, Senator Levin and Senator Coburn
continued in their respective roles as Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Subcommittee. In a series of bipartisan
investigations, the Subcommittee examined how a global banking
giant, HSBC, exposed the U.S. financial system to an array of
money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing
risks due to poor anti-money laundering controls; how two U.S.
multinational corporations engaged in offshore tax abuses,
including how Microsoft shifted profits offshore to dodge U.S.
taxes, and Hewlett Packard secretly brought offshore funds back
home without paying taxes by utilizing abusive short term loan
schemes; and how excessive commodity speculation by mutual
funds and others were taking place without Dodd-Frank
safeguards such as position limits being put into effect. At
the request of Senator Coburn, the Subcommittee also conducted
bipartisan investigations into problems with Social Security
disability determinations that, due to poor procedures,
perfunctory hearings, and poor quality decisions, resulted in
over 1 in 5 disability cases containing errors or inadequate
justifications; how DHS, State, and local intelligence fusion
centers failed to yield significant, useful information to
support Federal counterterrorism efforts; and how certain
Federal contractors that received taxpayer dollars through
stimulus funding nevertheless failed to pay their Federal
taxes.
II. Subcommittee Hearings During the 112th Congress
A. Stimulus Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes: What Happened? (May
24, 2011)
The Subcommittee's first hearing in the 112th Congress,
held at the request of Senator Coburn, focused on a report by
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled,
``Thousands of Recovery Act Contract and Grant Recipients Owe
Hundreds of Millions in Federal Taxes.'' The report was the
latest in a series of GAO reports stretching back to 2004, each
prepared at the request of the Subcommittee, which collectively
exposed tens of thousands of Federal contractors and service
providers that had failed to pay their taxes, even while being
paid with taxpayer dollars. Those prior GAO reports focused on
tax-delinquent defense contractors, General Service
Administration contractors, and Medicare and Medicaid health
care service providers, among others, and examined ways to
better identify contractors with outstanding tax debt and to
recover a portion of their unpaid taxes through imposing levies
on their contract payments under the Federal Payment Levy
Program.
On May 24, 2011, the Subcommittee held its hearing focusing
on the latest GAO report and took testimony from two witnesses:
Gregory D. Kutz, Director of Forensic Audits and Investigative
Service at GAO, and Daniel L. Gordon, Administrator of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) at the U.S. Office
of Management and Budget.
GAO testified that the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA), enacted on February 17, 2009, appropriated $275
billion to be distributed for Federal contracts, grants, and
loans, and, as of March 25, 2011, $191 billion of that $275
billion had been paid out. GAO also testified that, while the
vast majority--well over 90 percent--of the contractors that
received stimulus payments under ARRA were in compliance with
Federal requirements and had paid their taxes, a small portion,
about 5 percent, had taken taxpayer dollars, while failing to
meet their tax obligations. According to GAO, that 5 percent
translated into about 3,700 ARRA contractors and grant
recipients out of a total of about 63,000, and resulted in
total unpaid Federal taxes exceeding $750 million.
GAO also examined 15 of the ARRA recipients in more detail.
GAO testified that those 15 were collectively responsible for
$40 million in unpaid taxes and had engaged in abusive or
potentially criminal activities, including failing to remit
payroll taxes that had been taken out of employee paychecks but
never sent to the IRS. Failing to remit payroll taxes is both a
civil and criminal violation of law. In one instance, GAO
identified a security company that had received $100,000 in
Federal funds, yet owed over $9 million in primarily payroll
taxes from 5 years earlier that the company had never forwarded
to the IRS. The company had also been cited by the Department
of Labor for violating Federal labor laws. In another instance,
GAO identified a social services company that owed over $2
million in taxes, yet received more than $1 million in Federal
funds. That company had defaulted on several installment
agreements with the IRS which finally imposed a penalty on one
of its executives. GAO found that the executive had numerous
transactions with casinos totaling hundreds of thousands of
dollars a year, indicating he had substantial funds to reduce
the company's tax debt, yet had failed to do so. GAO indicated
that the IRS had taken collection or enforcement action against
all 15 recipients.
GAO also found that, while some of the ARRA recipients were
subjected to the tax levy program, about $315 million of the
tax debt was not, because the ARRA funds had not been paid
directly by the Federal Government to the tax delinquent.
Instead, in those cases, the Federal Government had paid the
funds to a State, prime contractor, or grant recipient which,
in turn, had made payments to the ultimate recipients. The
businesses that received their money from a State, prime
contractor, or grant recipient were never screened by the
Federal tax levy program and so escaped having any portion of
their funds withheld for payment of their tax debt. The hearing
highlighted that gap in the tax levy program.
OFPP testified about the progress that had taken place in
the tax levy program to increase the number of Federal payments
screened for unpaid taxes, including completion of measures to
screen all payments to Medicare health care service providers
beginning in 2011. OFPP also discussed policy steps that had
been taken to deny Federal contract awards to contractors and
subcontractors with serious tax delinquencies. Those steps
included establishing a policy against awarding Federal
contracts to tax delinquents, and amending the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require businesses bidding on
Federal contracts to certify in writing if they have a tax debt
of $3,000 or more, so that Federal agencies would know about
their tax debt prior to awarding a contract. The FAR also made
nonpayment of tax grounds for debarring a business from bidding
on any Federal contract. Still another step was conducting an
evaluation of whether Federal contracting officers and
debarment officials were fully utilizing tax debt information
and encouraging them to debar contractors with flagrant
disregard for their tax obligations.
B. Excessive Speculation and Compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act
(November 3, 2011)
The Subcommittee's second hearing focused on speculation in
the commodities markets and implementation of provisions in the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(Dodd-Frank Act) to impose position limits on speculators
trading commodity futures, options, and swap contracts. It was
the latest in a series of Subcommittee hearings, beginning in
2001, focusing attention on how excessive speculation affects
commodity prices, including in the crude oil, natural gas, and
wheat markets, and what actions have been or should be taken by
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the
exchanges to detect, prevent, and punish trading abuses.
Commodity markets are designed, not to attract investors,
but to enable producers and users of physical commodities to
arrive at market-driven prices and hedge their price risks over
time. Speculators who, by definition, do not intend to use or
deliver the commodities they trade, seek instead to profit from
the price changes. The key problem examined by the Subcommittee
has been an explosion of speculators over the past decade who,
instead of facilitating commodity trading, have come to
dominate U.S. commodity markets, overriding normal supply and
demand factors, distorting prices, and increasing price
volatility. The result has been commodity prices which are more
reflective of trading by speculators than fundamental forces of
supply and demand by end users. The hearing examined evidence
of, not only the increasing role of commodity speculation in
U.S. markets, but also efforts to apply the new Dodd-Frank
position limits rule to protect consumers, businesses, and the
commodity markets themselves from the price distortions, price
volatility, and hedging failures attributable to excessive
speculation.
The hearing presented evidence on primarily three groups of
speculators, commodity index funds, commodity related exchange
traded products (ETPs), and commodity related mutual funds. The
hearing showed how swap dealers were offering investors
bilateral swaps linked to commodity index values and hedging
their swap positions by buying the commodity futures on which
the indexes were based. These practices have led to commodity
index traders contributing billions of dollars to commodity
speculation. The hearing also showed how ETPs were marketing
securities that track the value of designated commodities, but
trade like stocks on an exchange, enabling investors to profit
off commodity price changes without actually buying any
futures. Like swap dealers, many ETP managers were shown to
support the value or offset the risks of their funds by
purchasing commodity futures, in 2011 alone pouring over $120
billion of speculative money into U.S. commodity markets. In
addition, the hearing showed that, over the past 3 years, the
mutual fund industry had established at least 40 commodity
related mutual funds that, by 2011, had accumulated assets of
over $50 billion. Their sales materials showed that they were
marketing themselves to average investors as commodity funds
and engaging in many types of commodity speculation.
At the November hearing, the first panel of witnesses
presented testimony from three individuals on the negative
consequences of increasing commodity speculation in U.S.
markets. Wallace C. Turbeville, a Derivatives Specialist with
Better Markets, Inc., explained how swap dealers, hedge funds,
high frequency traders, and other speculators made commodity
trades that pushed up energy prices. Paul N. Cicio, President
of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, described how
U.S. manufacturers and other businesses faced rapidly changing
energy prices that had little relationship to the supply and
demand factors affecting end users. Tyson T. Slocum, Director
of the Energy Program at Public Citizen, described how American
families paid inflated energy prices due to excessive
speculation, citing a study showing that, in 2011, excessive
speculation added $600 to the average family's gasoline
expenditures. The three witnesses also discussed positive and
negative aspects of the final rule issued by the CFTC during
the prior month to implement the Dodd-Frank position limit
requirements.
The final witness was Gary Gensler, CFTC Chairman. He
confirmed the growing dominance of speculators in U.S.
commodity markets, noting, for example, that in 2011, 80
percent of the outstanding futures contracts for crude oil were
held by speculators. He also explained that, in an effort to
address excessive commodity speculation, Congress had enacted
as part of the Dodd-Frank Act new statutory requirements for
the CFTC to impose position limits on speculators. Position
limits prohibit individual traders from holding more than a
specified number of futures contracts at a specified time, such
as during the close of the so-called ``spot month'' when a
futures contract expires, and buyers and sellers have to settle
up financially or through the physical delivery of commodities.
Position limits help ensure commodity traders cannot exercise
undue market power over prices during those times, such as by
cornering the market. Mr. Gensler observed that the new Dodd-
Frank requirements were intended, not only to protect consumers
and businesses from excessive speculation and price
manipulation, but also to prevent U.S. commodity markets from
losing the confidence of commodity producers and end users in
the markets' pricing and hedging capabilities. He also
discussed the CFTC's final rule on position limits and his
expectation that the rule would be challenged in court by
commodity speculators.
C. Compliance with Tax Limits on Mutual Fund Commodity Speculation
(January 26, 2012)
The Subcommittee held a followup hearing on commodity
speculation in January 2012, focusing on the expanding role of
commodity related mutual funds, a relatively new development in
U.S. commodity markets. In particular, the Subcommittee hearing
examined actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in
issuing over 70 private letter rulings that enabled mutual
funds to make unlimited indirect investments in commodities
through offshore shell corporations or financial instruments
known as commodity-linked notes, despite longstanding statutory
restrictions on mutual fund investments in commodities.
By law, mutual funds are supposed to derive 90 percent of
their income from investments in securities and not more than
10 percent from alternatives like commodities. That statutory
requirement in the tax code has, in the past, caused mutual
funds to spend the lion's share of their money on stocks,
bonds, and other securities, becoming an engine of investment
in U.S. capital markets. In addition, due to the statutory
restriction, mutual funds were not significant participants in
U.S. commodity markets. But in 2006, the mutual fund industry
began pressing the IRS to permit it to use complex financial
transactions that would, in essence, enable mutual funds to get
around the 90 percent rule and engage in commodity investments
beyond the 10 percent limit.
In response to petitions filed by individual mutual funds,
the IRS issued a series of private letter rulings, from 2006 to
2010, that explicitly allowed the mutual funds to whom the
letters were addressed to use either wholly owned offshore
corporations or commodity linked notes to make unrestricted
commodity investments, notwithstanding the 10 percent limit.
The private letter rulings stated that the mutual funds could
treat the resulting income--not as income from a commodities
investment--but as income from a ``securities'' investment,
referring to the stock of the company they had formed or the
note they had issued to avoid the tax code restrictions.
The hearing presented evidence that, in response to the
letter rulings, by 2011, U.S. mutual funds had established at
least 40 wholly owned controlled foreign corporations (CFCs),
with accumulated assets of over $50 billion, whose sole
function was to trade commodities. Those CFCs were organized as
offshore shell corporations, typically in the Cayman Islands,
with no offices or employees of their own and with a
commodities portfolio run by employees located in the mutual
fund's U.S. offices. One mutual fund disclosed, for example,
that all of the commodity investment decisions for its offshore
shell corporation were made by the mutual fund's employees in
Rockville, Maryland. Another revealed that all commodity
trading decisions were made by its traders in New York. Still
another mutual fund stated that its offshore commodity fund had
no ``Cayman presence,'' describing it as ``smoke and mirrors''
to obtain the tax benefit. Sales materials showed that the
offshore corporations were marketing themselves to average
investors as commodity funds and participating in many types of
commodity speculation, directly contributing to increased
speculation in the markets.
The January hearing took testimony from two witnesses: IRS
Commissioner Douglas Shulman and Department of the Treasury
Acting Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Emily McMahon. The
witnesses were asked why the IRS had not barred the mutual
funds from doing indirectly what they were prohibited from
doing directly, and whether the private letter rulings were
undermining IRS efforts to combat sham corporations and
financially engineered transactions used to circumvent the tax
code. The witnesses were also advised that the actions of the
mutual fund industry had unleashed a new flood of speculative
commodity investments in U.S. markets affecting energy and
other prices. Both witnesses defended the IRS' actions, but
also testified that the IRS had recently imposed a moratorium
on issuing new private letter rulings in this area, while
reviewing the policy issues. In addition, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC) indicated that it was considering
issuing a new rule requiring such offshore shells to register
with the CFTC as commodity pools.
The hearing also presented evidence that, in 2010, Congress
had rejected an attempt by the mutual fund industry to change
the tax code to explicitly allow mutual funds to make
unrestricted commodity investments. As introduced in 2009, and
passed by the House in 2010, the Regulatory Investment Company
Modernization Act would have changed the law to permit mutual
funds to utilize income from ``commodities'' under Section 851
of the tax code. The Senate, however, removed that provision
from the bill before approving it. Removal of the commodities
provision was, in fact, the only change made to the House-
passed bill. The Senate-passed bill was returned to the House
which then enacted the bill into law as amended. The end result
was that Congress had rejected an attempt to add commodities to
the list of acceptable income for mutual funds under the 90
percent rule. When asked about these developments, the IRS and
Treasury witnesses indicated that they were aware of the
legislative history, but did not view it as dispositive on the
issue of whether mutual funds could continue to make indirect
commodity investments in ways that could be treated as
securities investments.
D. U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, And Terrorist
Financing: HSBC Case History (July 17, 2012)
The Subcommittee's next hearing examined money laundering,
drug trafficking, and terrorist financing vulnerabilities
created in the United States when a global bank, HSBC, used its
U.S. affiliate, HSBC Bank USA (HBUS), to provide U.S. dollars
and access to the U.S. financial system to a worldwide network
of high risk affiliates, high risk correspondent banks, and
high risk clients. This hearing was the latest in a series of
Subcommittee hearings, dating back to 1999, on anti-money
laundering (AML) deficiencies at U.S. financial institutions.
The key focus of the hearing was how HSBC had abused its
U.S. access. HSBC is one of the largest banks in the world,
with headquarters in London, over 7,200 offices in more than 80
countries, 300,000 employees, and 2011 profits of nearly $22
billion. Its U.S. affiliate, HBUS, had more than 470 U.S.
branches and 4 U.S. million customers, and served as the U.S.
nexus for the entire HSBC worldwide network. In 2008, for
example, HBUS processed 600,000 wire transfers per week; in
2009, two-thirds of the U.S. dollar payments HBUS processed
came from HSBC affiliates in other countries. One HSBC
executive told the Subcommittee that a major reason why HSBC
opened its U.S. bank was to provide its overseas clients with a
gateway into the U.S. financial system. At the same time, HBUS
had a history of weak anti-money laundering controls.
Most international banks want access to U.S. dollars,
because U.S. dollars are accepted internationally, are the
leading international trade currency, and hold their value
better than other currencies. Banks also want access to U.S.
wire transfer systems which move money across international
lines quickly and securely. In addition, they want to be able
to clear U.S. dollar monetary instruments like travelers
cheques, bank cheques, and money orders. Global banks also want
the safety, efficiency, and reliability that are the hallmarks
of U.S. banking.
When an international bank abuses its U.S. access, it may
allow affiliates operating in countries with severe money
laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing threats to
open up U.S. dollar accounts without establishing safeguards at
their U.S. affiliate. Some of those affiliates may operate in
secrecy jurisdictions. Some may allow poorly managed or corrupt
foreign banks to make use of the affiliate's U.S. dollar
account. Other affiliates may allow high risk clients to use
their U.S. accounts without taking adequate anti-money
laundering steps. The global parent may even allow its
affiliates to pressure their U.S. counterpart to ease up on
U.S. anti-money laundering restrictions or look the other way
in the presence of suspicious activity. The end result is that
the U.S. affiliate can become a focus of risk for an entire
network of bank affiliates, including their correspondents and
clients around the world, and end up aiding and abetting
transactions that fund terrorists, drug cartels, tax cheats, or
other wrongdoers.
In the case of HSBC, the Subcommittee's hearing and an
accompanying bipartisan staff report identified five key areas
of concern. The first involved HBUS' providing U.S. dollar
accounts to high risk HSBC affiliates without performing due
diligence, including a Mexican affiliate with unreliable AML
controls. The second involved HSBC's failing to stop deceptive
conduct by HSBC affiliates to circumvent an HBUS screening
filter designed to block transactions by terrorists, drug
kingpins and rogue nations like Iran. The third involved HBUS'
providing bank accounts to overseas banks with links to
terrorist financing. The fourth involved HBUS clearing hundreds
of millions of dollars in bulk U.S. dollar travelers cheques,
despite suspicious circumstances. The fifth involved HBUS
offering bearer-share accounts, a high risk account that
invites wrongdoing by facilitating hidden corporate ownership.
In addition to those problems, the hearing presented
evidence that the bank's primary regulator, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), was aware of the mounting
AML problems at HBUS, yet tolerated them for 5 years, without
taking any formal or informal enforcement action. When the OCC
finally decided the problems required a regulatory response, it
lowered HBUS' consumer compliance rating instead of its safety
and soundness rating. Every other Federal banking agency treats
AML deficiencies as a matter of safety and soundness; only the
OCC treated AML deficiencies as if they were a matter of
consumer protection law.
At the hearing, the Subcommittee took testimony from four
panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of David S.
Cohen, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
at the U.S. Department of the Treasury; and Leigh H. Winchell,
Assistant Director of Investigative Programs, U.S. Immigration
& Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security.
Both witnesses explained how U.S. AML safeguards protected the
country from money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist
financing, among other wrongdoing.
The second panel of witnesses consisted of officials from
HSBC and HBUS who were asked about AML deficiencies at the
bank. They included Stuart A. Levey, HSBC's Chief Legal
Officer; David Bagley, Head of HSBC Compliance; Paul Thurston,
Chief Executive of HSBC's Retail Banking and Wealth Management;
and Irene Dorner, HBUS President and Chief Executive Officer.
In addition, two former bank officials testified, Michael
Gallagher, former HBUS Executive Vice President; and
Christopher Lok, former Head of the bank's Global Banknotes
division. The HSBC officials admitted and expressed regret for
the bank's AML deficiencies and described actions taken by the
bank to strengthen its AML controls. They included increasing
the HBUS AML staff from about 130 to nearly 1,000 employees;
closing the accounts of over 325 high risk banks and 25
embassies; revamping its country and client risk assessment
methodologies; strengthening its transaction monitoring and
wire transfer reviews; and establishing AML due diligence and
information sharing requirements for all HSBC affiliates. HBUS
also increased its annual compliance budget ninefold to about
$250 million. In addition, HSBC strengthened its global
compliance department by giving it hiring and management
authority over all 3,500 compliance officers worldwide and
authorizing it to set and enforce global AML and other
compliance standards, including by ordering the closing of
accounts. Mr. Bagley, longtime head of HSBC Compliance, after
expressing regret for the bank's past performance, announced
his resignation at the hearing.
The third panel consisted of current and former officials
from the U.S. Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). They
included Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency; Daniel
P. Stipano, OCC Deputy Chief Counsel; and Grace E. Dailey,
former OCC Deputy Comptroller for Large Banks Supervision. The
OCC officials admitted that the OCC had taken too long to
confront HSBC about its AML deficiencies and announced actions
taken to compel the bank to take corrective action. The OCC
also agreed with the report's recommendations about its own
failings, and announced that it would revamp its AML oversight
procedures. Among other changes, the OCC announced that it
would treat AML deficiencies as a safety and soundness and
management issue, and would enable examiners to cite banks for
violating any of the four components of an effective AML
program, which consist of establishing effective internal
controls, a capable compliance officer, an independent audit
function, and AML training. The OCC also announced that it
would put into place a program to identify banks with AML
deficiencies that exceeded a specified threshold and take
appropriate, timely enforcement action.
The Department of Justice later filed a deferred
prosecution agreement against HSBC in connection with its AML
misconduct. In response, among other actions, the bank agreed
to pay a criminal fine of $1.9 billion.
E. Social Security Disability Programs: Improving the Quality of
Benefit Award Decisions (September 13, 2012)
The Subcommittee's next hearing examined issues related to
the quality of disability benefit awards, using as a case
history 300 actual case files of claimants under the Social
Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplement Security
Income (SSI) programs. This bipartisan investigation,
undertaken at the request of Senator Coburn, resulted in a
September hearing and the release of a Coburn report.
The Social Security SSDI and SSI programs provide financial
support to Americans who, due to a disability, are incapable of
working at a full-time job. In recent years, the number of
individuals receiving disability insurance aid has dramatically
increased. In the 5-years prior to the hearing, SSDI recipients
increased by 22 percent, from 7.1 million in 2007 to 8.7
million individuals in April 2012. Over the same period, the
percentage of the country's population between the ages of 25
and 64 receiving SSDI benefits rose from 4.5 percent in 2007,
to a record-high of 5.3 percent in March 2012. The 2008
financial crisis contributed to the problem when millions of
workers lost their jobs and employer-sponsored health
insurance. Without health insurance and the health care it paid
for, in some instances chronic conditions held in check by
treatment worsened and became disabling, requiring workers to
turn to Federal disability insurance. Increased disability
insurance payments, in turn, increased the stress on the Social
Security Disability Trust Fund, which some estimates predict
may be unable to pay full benefits by 2016. In addition to
solvency problems, the disability programs have experienced
long application backlogs.
The Subcommittee investigation focused on the
decisionmaking process resulting in an award of benefits to
applicants. To evaluate the award process, the Subcommittee
reviewed 300 actual electronic case files, with all identifying
personal information removed. The cases were taken from three
counties in three States, Virginia, Alabama, and Oklahoma,
reflecting different levels of per capita enrollment in the
SSDI and SSI programs. The cases provided a cross-section of
applicants who were awarded disability benefits at different
stages of review within the Social Security Administration
(SSA): at the stage of the initial application, upon
reconsideration, upon appeal before an administrative law judge
(ALJ), or upon appeal before the Social Security Appeals
Council. The review examined only cases in which benefits were
awarded, and not any cases in which benefits were denied. The
Coburn report summarized the information obtained, providing
case-specific information normally unavailable to the public,
since disability hearings examine individuals' personal medical
records.
The report and hearing disclosed evidence of troubling
practices in many cases on how awards were made. The evidence
showed, for example, that one judge who decided over 1,500
disability cases per year took inappropriate shortcuts in his
opinions, cutting and pasting medical evidence from the case
file into his opinions without explaining or analyzing what it
meant, and writing the phrase ``etc., etc., etc.'' rather than
describing the relevant evidence. Despite being confronted by
his chief judge in person and by letter, for years he continued
to produce the same poor quality decisions. In other cases,
evidence indicated that some judges held perfunctory hearings
that lasted less than 10 minutes, failed to elicit any
testimony from the person applying for benefits, and failed to
examine medical evidence raising questions about whether that
person was entitled to disability benefits. In still other
cases, poorly written opinions awarding benefits failed to
identify the medical evidence showing how the requirements for
establishing a disability were met, did not acknowledge or
address evidence that impairments were not disabling or
evidence that the claimant had been working, and at times even
misreported medical findings or hearing testimony.
The report found that the 300 cases contained a large
number of low quality decisions, a finding consistent with the
Social Security Administration's own internal research. An SSA
quality review process whose findings had not previously been
made widely available found that, in 2011, 22 percent or over 1
in 5 disability cases decided by an SSA Administrative Law
Judge contained errors or were inadequately justified. Those
errors went in both directions, resulting in either the award
or denial of benefits. Those errors and inadequacies did not
mean that the 1 in 5 disability decisions were all wrongly
decided; they meant that the opinions being produced in those
cases did not contain the type of analysis needed to be
confident that the cases were correctly decided and disability
benefits went to the truly disabled.
The hearing took testimony from two panels of witness. The
first panel consisted of two senior SSA administrative law
judges, based in Washington, who oversaw aspects of the
disability award program. Judge Patricia A. Jonas was Executive
Director of SSA Appellate Operations, and Deputy Chair of the
Appeals Council in the SSA Office of Disability Adjudication
and Review (ODAR). Judge Debra Bice was Chief Administrative
Law Judge in the SSA ODAR. Both witnesses testified about the
problems they had observed in the disability award process as
well as efforts undertaken to address them. Judge Jonas
discussed the agency's 2009 creation of a quality review
process which, for the first time, developed criteria and
procedures for reviewing ALJ disability decisions, identified
statistically significant problem areas nationwide, and
supported new policy guidance to increase decisionmaking
efficiency and accuracy. Judge Bice described SSA's counseling
and disciplinary process for judges that decide too few cases
or issue poor quality decisions.
The second panel consisted of senior Administrative Law
Judges from the counties reviewed during the course of the
Subcommittee investigation. Judge Douglas S. Stults was a
Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge for the SSA ODAR
in Oklahoma City. Judge Thomas W. Erwin was the Hearing Office
Chief Administrative Law Judge for the SSA ODAR in Roanoke,
Virginia. Judge Ollie L. Garmon, III, was the Regional Chief
Administrative Law Judge for Region IV of the SSA ODAR, based
in Atlanta, Georgia. All three admitted that poor quality
decisionmaking was a problem and described their efforts to
improve the decisionmaking process, while protecting the
independence of the ALJs under their supervision.
F. Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code--Part 1 (Microsoft &
Hewlett-Packard) (September 20, 2012)
The Subcommittee's final hearing during the 112th Congress
presented two case studies, involving Microsoft Corporation and
Hewlett-Packard Corporation, showing how some profitable U.S.
multinationals exploit U.S. tax and accounting loopholes to
avoid the payment of U.S. taxes. The Microsoft case history
focused on the shifting of profits offshore to controlled
foreign corporations to avoid U.S. taxes; the Hewlett-Packard
case history focused on the use of an abusive short term loan
scheme to return offshore funds to the United States without
paying any U.S. tax.
The hearing was the latest in a decade of Subcommittee
investigations into how multinational corporations and wealthy
individuals use offshore tax schemes to dodge U.S. taxes,
leaving other taxpayers to make up the difference. According to
the Congressional Research Service, the share of corporate
income taxes in the United States has fallen from a high of 32
percent of Federal tax revenue in 1952, to 9 percent in 2009.
Meanwhile, payroll taxes--which almost every working American
must pay--have increased from 10 percent of Federal revenue to
40 percent.
The hearing presented evidence that Microsoft had developed
software products in the United States using U.S. research and
development tax credits, and then used aggressive transfer
pricing transactions to shift the rights to market its
intellectual property to controlled foreign corporations in
Puerto Rico, Ireland, and Singapore, each of which was a low or
no tax jurisdiction, thereby shielding the bulk of its
worldwide sales profits from U.S. taxation. The hearing also
presented evidence that from 2009 to 2011, by transferring
certain rights to its intellectual property to a Puerto Rican
subsidiary, Microsoft shifted nearly $21 billion offshore, or
almost half of its U.S. retail sales net revenue, dodging up to
$4.5 billion in taxes on goods sold in the United States. In
2011 alone, the evidence indicated that Microsoft avoided
paying U.S. tax on 47 percent of its U.S. sales revenue.
Evidence indicated that Microsoft excluded an additional $2
billion in U.S. taxes on passive income attributed to its
offshore subsidiaries, using the so-called ``check-the-box''
and ``look-through'' rules to circumvent Subpart F taxation of
passive foreign profits.
In addition to showing how some U.S. taxable income was
shifted offshore, the hearing showed how some offshore revenue
was later returned to the United States untaxed. The evidence
examined Hewlett-Packard's use of a tax loophole in Section 956
of the tax code to avoid paying U.S. taxes on billions of
dollars in offshore income that it had returned to the United
States to run its U.S. operations. Hewlett-Packard obtained the
offshore cash by directing two of its controlled foreign
corporations in Belgium and the Cayman Islands to provide
serial, alternating loans to its U.S. operations. From March
2008 to September 2012, Hewlett-Packard used those intercompany
loans to provide an average of about $3.6 billion per day for
use in its U.S. operations, claiming they were tax-free, short
term loans of less than 30 days duration under Section 956. The
evidence indicated that its auditor, Ernst & Young, knew that
the company was using a structured loan program to obtain
billions of dollars in continual offshore loans each year, yet
supported Hewlett-Packard's view that the offshore funds had
not been repatriated to the United States, but qualified as
occasional short-term loans exempt from U.S. taxation.
An accompanying, bipartisan memorandum found that
weaknesses in the U.S. tax code's transfer pricing regulations,
Subpart F, and Section 956, and in accounting rules issued by
the Financial Accounting Standards Board regarding indefinitely
invested foreign earnings, had encouraged and facilitated the
multinationals' tax avoidance.
The hearing heard from three panels of witnesses. The first
panel consisted of three international tax and accounting
experts. Stephen E. Shay, former head of international tax
policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, was a professor
at Harvard Law School. Reuven S. Avi-Yonah was the Irwin I.
Cohn Professor of Law at the University of Michigan School of
Law. Jack T. Ciesielski was a Certified Public Accountant and
President of R.G. Associates, Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland. All
three criticized the abusive conduct and tax and accounting
deficiencies exposed by the two case histories.
The second panel consisted of representatives from
Microsoft, Microsoft's auditor Ernst & Young, and Hewlett
Packard. Microsoft was represented by Bill Sample, Corporate
Vice President for Worldwide Tax, who defended Microsoft's tax
strategies as permitted by law. Hewlett-Packard was represented
by Lester Ezrati, Senior Vice President and Tax Director, who
was accompanied by John N. McMullen, Senior Vice President and
Treasurer. Hewlett-Packard's auditor, Ernst & Young, was
represented by Beth Carr, a partner in the International Tax
Services division and senior manager of the Hewlett-Packard
account. They testified that the Hewlett-Packard offshore loan
arrangements were permitted by law.
The third and final panel consisted of representatives from
the IRS and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).
William J. Wilkins, IRS Chief Counsel, was accompanied by
Michael Danilack, IRS Deputy Commissioner (International) in
the Large Business and International Division. Susan M. Cosper
was FASB's Technical Director. The witnesses testified about
the tax and accounting measures at issue in the case histories,
while declining to express any opinion on the specifics of the
two companies.
III. Legislative Activities During the 112th Congress
The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations does not have
legislative authority, but because its investigations play an
important role in bringing issues to the attention of Congress
and the public, the Subcommittee's work frequently contributes
to the development of legislative initiatives. The
Subcommittee's activity during the 112th Congress was no
exception, with Subcommittee hearings and Members playing
prominent roles in the development of several legislative
initiatives.
A. Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (S. 1346)
On July 12, 2011, to address multiple tax abuses examined
in Subcommittee hearings, Senators Levin, Conrad, Whitehouse,
Shaheen, Bill Nelson, Sanders, Durbin, and Begich introduced
the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act. This legislation was based upon 8
years of Subcommittee investigations into offshore tax havens,
abusive tax shelters, and the professionals who design, market,
and implement tax dodges. The Subcommittee has estimated that
the loss to the Treasury from offshore tax abuses alone is at
least $100 billion per year.
Among other measures, the bill would authorize Treasury to
take special measures against foreign jurisdictions and
financial institutions that impede U.S. tax enforcement;
establish rebuttable presumptions in tax enforcement cases that
offshore companies and trusts are controlled by the U.S.
persons who send or receive assets from them; and strengthen
penalties on tax shelter promoters. It would also prevent
companies that are managed and controlled from the United
States from claiming foreign status for tax purposes; and close
a tax loophole allowing credit default swap payments to be
treated as non-U.S. source income when sent from the United
States to persons offshore. Other provisions would require
multinational corporations to report the taxes they pay on a
country-by-country basis in public SEC filings; and treat any
deposits they make through a controlled foreign corporation to
a U.S. financial account as taxable, repatriated income. In
addition, the bill would require U.S. financial institutions to
report certain offshore activities to the IRS; and require U.S.
hedge funds and company formation agents to establish anti-
money laundering programs. A companion bill containing the same
provisions was introduced in the House (H.R. 2669). The Senate
bill was referred to the Finance Committee which took no
further action.
One of the bill provisions, authorizing special measures to
combat foreign jurisdictions or institutions that significantly
impede U.S. tax enforcement, was later included in a Senate
transportation bill to help provide funding for that
legislation. It passed the Senate, but was not adopted in the
House or enacted into law.
B. Ending Excessive Corporate Deductions for Stock Options Act (S.
1375)
On July 7, 2011, to close a tax loophole examined in a
Subcommittee hearing showing that, each year, corporations
claim tens of billions of dollars in stock option tax
deductions in excess of the stock option expenses shown on
their books, Senators Levin, Sherrod Brown, McCaskill, and
Whitehouse introduced S. 1375, the Ending Excessive Corporate
Deductions for Stock Options Act.
IRS data has shown that, each year from 2005 to 2009,
corporations as a whole took U.S. tax deductions for stock
options that were billions of dollars greater than the expenses
shown on their financial statements. The IRS data also showed
that a relatively small number of corporations took the
majority of those excess deductions: 250 out of the millions of
corporations that filed corporate tax returns each year. A
blatant example of the problem came to light in connection with
Facebook's initial stock offering in May 2012, when it
disclosed in its public registration statement that it planned
to claim a $16 billion stock option tax deduction, which was
enough to eliminate its taxable income for years, while at the
same time showing a fraction of that amount on its books as an
expense and promoting the company to investors as highly
profitable.
To put an end to such excessive stock option tax
deductions, the bill would amend the tax code to require that
corporate tax deductions for stock option compensation not
exceed the stock option expenses actually shown on the
corporate books. It would also allow corporations to deduct
stock option compensation in the same year the compensation is
recorded on the company books, without waiting for the options
to be exercised; and ensure research tax credits use the same
stock option deduction. In addition, the bill would subject
stock option pay for top executives to the existing $1 million
cap on the tax deductions that publicly traded corporations can
claim for executive pay, in order to eliminate taxpayer
subsidies of outsized executive compensation. The bill was
referred to the Finance Committee which took no further action.
C. Tax Lien Simplification Act (S. 1390)
On July 20, 2011, Senators Levin and Begich introduced S.
1390, the Tax Lien Simplification Act, to modernize the Federal
tax lien system by replacing the current local, paper-based
filing system with an electronic Federal registry system on the
Internet that would be available to the public at no cost. The
IRS has estimated that, over 10 years, the new system would
save taxpayers $150 million.
Tax liens are a principal tool used by the IRS to collect
funds from tax delinquents. Currently, public notices of tax
liens are filed on paper in one or more of 4,100 local
recording offices, each with its own formatting and legal
styling requirements. The IRS maintains a service center
dedicated to monitoring local lien requirements; preparing
liens in the proper format; requesting local officials to file
the liens; paying lien filing fees; tracing and replacing lost
filings; correcting errors; and, once resolved, releasing the
liens. To streamline the current system, among other
provisions, the bill would establish an electronic registry in
which all Federal tax liens would use a common format, operate
under common security and privacy requirements, and permit
direct filing by IRS personnel. When resolved, the IRS would
have 20 days instead of the current 30 days to release a tax
lien. The public would be able to search the online registry
for free. The bill was referred to the Finance Committee which
took no further action.
D. Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act (S.
1483)
On August 2, 2011, Senators Levin, Grassley, Feinstein and
Harkin introduced S. 1483, the Incorporation Transparency and
Law Enforcement Assistance Act, to protect the United States
from U.S. corporations with hidden owners being misused to
commit crimes, including terrorism, drug trafficking, money
laundering, tax evasion, financial fraud, and corruption. The
bill is based upon past Subcommittee investigations which found
that the 50 States establish nearly two million U.S. companies
each year without knowing who is behind them, that the lack of
ownership information requirements invite wrongdoers to
incorporate in the United States, and that same lack of
ownership information impedes U.S. law enforcement efforts.
Among other provisions, the bill would require the States
to obtain beneficial ownership information for the corporations
or limited liability companies formed within their borders;
require States to provide that information to law enforcement
in response to a subpoena or summons; and impose civil and
criminal penalties for persons who knowingly submit false
ownership information. The bill would exempt all publicly
traded and regulated corporations, as well as certain other
corporations whose ownership information was already available.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs which took no further action.
E. Closing the Derivatives Blended Rate Loophole Act (S. 2033)
On January 23, 2012, Senator Levin introduced S. 2033, the
Closing the Derivatives Blended Rate Loophole Act, to close a
loophole that effectively allows taxpayers who make short-term
investments in certain derivatives to treat much of their
earnings as long-term capital gains. Closing this loophole
would eliminate a tax code provision that favors short-term
speculation over long-term investment, and provides an
unjustified tax break to a small group of financial
speculators. The bill is based upon past Subcommittee
investigations into derivatives, financial speculation, and the
tax code.
Under current law, taxpayers generally can claim the lower
capital gains tax rate on earnings only if those earnings come
from the sale of assets held for more than a year. The lower
tax rate is restricted to those assets in order to encourage
long-term investment in the U.S. economy. But under Section
1256, traders in covered derivatives can claim 60 percent of
their income as long-term capital gains, no matter how briefly
they have held the asset. Eliminating the resulting blended tax
rate for earnings from covered derivatives has been estimated
to produce, over 10 years, a tax savings of $3 billion. The
bill was referred to the Finance Committee which took no
further action.
F. Cut Unjustified Tax (CUT) Loopholes Act (S. 2075)
On February 17, 2012, Senators Levin, Conrad, Begich, and
Whitehouse introduced S. 2075, the Cut Unjustified Tax
Loopholes or CUT Loopholes Act, to close a series of tax
loopholes, not only to increase the fairness of the tax code,
but also to produce significant revenues for deficit reduction.
The bill combined in a single package two of the tax reform
bills discussed earlier, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act and the
Ending Excessive Corporate Deductions for Stock Options Act. In
addition, it included provisions to restrict corporations from
deducting expenses for moving operations offshore and put an
end to certain abuses involving foreign tax credits,
intellectual property moved offshore, and the shifting of
corporate profits to tax havens. Closing the loopholes was
estimated to produce, over 10 years, at least $155 billion in
deficit reduction. The bill was referred to the Finance
Committee which took no further action.
IV. Reports, Prints, and Studies
In connection with its investigations, the Subcommittee
often issues lengthy and detailed reports. During the 112th
Congress, the Subcommittee released five such reports, listed
below, some of which have already been partly described in
connection with Subcommittee hearings.
A. Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial
Collapse, April 13, 2011 (Report prepared by the Majority and
Minority staffs of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
and released in connection with four Subcommittee hearings held
in 2010)
In November 2008, the Subcommittee initiated a bipartisan
investigation into key causes of the 2008 financial crisis
which contributed to the loss of millions of jobs and homes,
destroyed savings, shuttered good businesses, and produced the
worst U.S. economic decline since the Great Depression. In
April 2010, the Subcommittee held four hearings focusing on how
high risk mortgage lending, regulatory failures, inflated
credit ratings, and high risk, conflicts-ridden financial
products designed and sold by investment banks helped cause the
financial crisis, using case histories to illustrate the
problems. One year later, in April 2011, the Subcommittee
released a 750-page bipartisan staff report, the longest in its
history, further detailing its investigation, releasing
additional documents, and providing specific factual findings
and policy recommendations. It was the only bipartisan report
produced by Congress on the financial crisis.
High Risk Home Loans. The first section of the Levin-Coburn
report focused on high risk home loans and their inclusion in
mortgage backed securities, using as a case history the lending
and securitization practices of Washington Mutual Bank.
Washington Mutual Bank, the largest U.S. thrift with more than
$300 billion in assets, issued billions of dollars in high risk
mortgage loans, packaged them into securities that later
experienced a high rate of delinquency or loss, and then
collapsed in the largest bank failure in U.S. history.
Washington Mutual securitized over $77 billion in subprime home
loans as well as billions of dollars of other high risk home
loans, including interest-only, home equity, and ``Option
Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM)'' loans. Many of those loans
used initial low ``teaser'' interest rates that, unless the
loan was refinanced, were later replaced with much steeper
rates and higher monthly payments. The Option ARM loans also
allowed borrowers, for a specified period, to pay less than the
interest they owed each month, resulting in a larger rather
than reduced mortgage debt, a feature called negative
amortization. When home prices stopped increasing, many
borrowers were unable to refinance their loans, could not
afford the higher monthly payments that took effect, defaulted
on their mortgages, and lost their homes while the related
mortgage securities plummeted in value.
The report presented evidence showing that the reason that
Washington Mutual executives embarked upon a high risk lending
strategy was because they had projected that high risk home
loans, which generally charged higher interest rates and
produced higher sales prices on Wall Street, would be more
profitable for the bank than lower risk home loans. The report
also presented evidence showing that Washington Mutual and its
affiliate, Long Beach Mortgage Company, used shoddy lending
practices riddled with credit, compliance, and operational
deficiencies. Those practices included issuing loans with
erroneous or fraudulent borrower information, ``stated income
loans'' in which borrowers stated their income with no
supporting documentation, loans with inaccurate appraisals, and
loans in which the borrowed amount equaled 90 percent or more
of the value of the home. The report also showed that
Washington Mutual and Long Beach steered many borrowers into
loans they could not afford when higher monthly payments built
into those loans took effect. Those high-risk loans were
nevertheless packaged into mortgage-backed securities sold to
investors worldwide, saturating financial markets with
mortgage-backed securities that later incurred high rates of
delinquency and loss.
In addition, the report showed that, at times, Washington
Mutual securitized loans that it had identified as likely to go
delinquent, without disclosing its analysis to investors who
bought the securities, and securitized loans tainted by
fraudulent information, without notifying purchasers of the
fraud that had been discovered. The report also showed that
Washington Mutual's compensation system rewarded loan officers
and loan processors for speed and volume in issuing loans,
rather than for issuing high quality loans that were likely to
be repaid. The compensation system also provided extra
compensation to loan officers who overcharged borrowers or
added stiff prepayment penalties, and awarded bank executives
millions of dollars even when their high risk lending strategy
placed the bank in financial jeopardy.
The report offered a number of recommendations to prevent
similar problems with high risk home loans and mortgage backed
securities in the future. Those recommendations included
ensuring future residential mortgages have a low risk of
delinquency or default; requiring financial institutions
issuing mortgage related securities to retain not less than 5
percent of the credit risk with no hedging offset for a
reasonable but limited period of time; safeguarding taxpayer
dollars by requiring banks with high risk structured finance
products or negatively amortizing loans to meet conservative
loss reserve, liquidity, and capital requirements; and using
the required bank activities study under Section 620 of the
Dodd-Frank Act to identify high risk structured finance
products and impose a reasonable limit on the amount of such
products that can be included in a bank's investment portfolio.
Regulatory Failures. The second section of the report
focused on the regulatory failures of Federal bank regulators
charged with ensuring the safety and soundness of the U.S.
banking system. The case study examined regulatory oversight of
Washington Mutual, focusing on the Office of Thrift Supervision
(OTS), which was the bank's the primary regulator, and the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which was its
backup regulator.
The report examined actions taken by OTS and the FDIC, from
2004 to 2008, to ensure the safety and soundness of Washington
Mutual, the sixth largest bank in the United States and OTS'
largest institution. The report found that feeble oversight by
the regulators, combined with weak regulatory standards and
agency infighting, enabled Washington Mutual Bank to engage in
high-risk and shoddy lending practices and sell poor quality
and sometimes fraudulent mortgages that contributed to both the
bank's demise and the financial crisis.
The report presented evidence that over a 5-year period,
from 2003 to 2008, OTS identified over 500 serious deficiencies
in Washington Mutual's lending practices, risk management, and
asset quality, but failed to force adequate corrective action
to prevent the bank's failure. The report showed that OTS was
aware of, yet tolerated, Washington Mutual and its affiliate
Long Beach Mortgage Company's engaging in year after year of
shoddy lending and securitization practices, including the
origination and sale of loans and mortgage-backed securities
with notoriously high rates of delinquency and loss.
The report demonstrated that OTS allowed Washington Mutual
to originate hundreds of billions of dollars in high risk
loans, knowing that the bank used unsafe and unsound teaser
rates, qualified borrowers using those teaser rates rather than
the higher interest rates that would later take effect,
permitted borrowers to make minimum payments resulting in
negatively amortizing loans, relied on rising house prices and
refinancing to avoid payment shock and loan defaults, had
unsafe concentrations of loans in particular States, and had no
realistic data to calculate loan losses in markets with flat or
declining house prices. In addition, the report showed that,
due in part to the short-term profits obtained by the bank from
its lending activities, OTS repeatedly failed to take
enforcement action to stop Washington Mutual's unsafe and
unsound practices or strengthen its portfolio of high-risk,
poor-quality loans and securities.
In addition, the report documented agency infighting in
which OTS actively impeded FDIC oversight of Washington Mutual
by blocking the FDIC's access to bank data, refusing to allow
it to participate in bank examinations, and rejecting requests
to review bank loan files. OTS also rejected FDIC
recommendations for stronger enforcement action.
The report showed that Federal bank regulators were hobbled
in their efforts to end unsafe and unsound mortgage practices
at U.S. banks by weak regulatory standards, use of guidance
instead of enforceable regulations to limit bank practices, and
the failure to set clear deadlines for bank compliance. The
case history exposed an ineffective regulatory culture at OTS
in which bank examiners were demoralized by their inability to
stop unsafe practices, their supervisors' reluctance to take
formal enforcement actions even after years of recorded bank
deficiencies, and an agency culture that treated banks as
``constituents'' rather than regulated entities. In addition,
the case history showed how OTS and the FDIC allowed Washington
Mutual to reduce its risks by selling its high risk assets,
without concern that those assets might saturate the financial
system, contribute to investor losses, and undermine investor
confidence in the U.S. mortgage market.
The report offered a number of recommendations to prevent
similar regulatory failures in the future. Those
recommendations included dismantling OTS as a bank regulator;
urging Federal bank regulators to review major financial
institutions to identify those with ongoing, serious lending
deficiencies; and eliminating any regulatory policy providing
deference to bank management, inflated CAMELS ratings, or use
of short term profits to excuse high risk activities. The
report also recommended strengthening the CAMELS ratings
system, and undertaking a study of the U.S. financial system to
identify high risk lending practices at financial institutions
and evaluate any systemic impacts.
Inflated Credit Ratings. The third section of the report
focused on the credit rating agencies that assigned
creditworthiness ratings to residential mortgage backed
securities (RMBS) and collateral debt obligations (CDOs) from
2004 to 2008. The report used as case histories the two largest
U.S. credit rating agencies, Moody's and Standard & Poor's
(S&P), which together rated tens of thousands of RMBS and CDO
securities in the years prior to the financial crisis. Those
ratings proved to be both inaccurate and inflated, as evidenced
by studies showing that over 90 percent of the RMBS securities
given AAA ratings in 2006 and 2007 were later downgraded to
junk status, subjecting investors to unusually high rates of
delinquency and loss.
The report showed that Moody's and S&P issued AAA and other
investment grade credit ratings for the vast majority of RMBS
and CDO securities they rated, deeming them safe investments
even though many relied on high risk home loans. In late 2006,
those high risk mortgages began incurring delinquencies and
defaults at an alarming rate, leading to losses in the RMBS and
CDO securities referencing those mortgages. Despite those and
other signs of a deteriorating mortgage market, Moody's and S&P
continued for another 6 months in 2007, to issue investment
grade ratings for numerous RMBS and CDO securities.
The report presented evidence that some investment bankers
had pressured the credit rating agencies to provide favorable
ratings for the RMBS and CDO products they planned to sell, and
that Moody's and S&P--which were paid by those firms--
repeatedly gave into that pressure. The report also documented
how competitive pressures, including the drive for market share
and the need to accommodate investment bankers bringing in
business, caused Moody's and S&P to weaken their standards for
issuing favorable ratings. In addition, the report showed that
Moody's and S&P made record profits from rating structured
finance products in the years running up to the financial
crisis.
The report demonstrated that Moody's and S&P were aware of
the increasing risks associated with the subprime, interest-
only, and adjustable rate mortgages being issued by lenders,
including their increasing use of stated income loans that did
not document a borrower's ability to repay debt, loans
containing fraudulent borrower or appraisal information, and
loans with initial teaser rates that relied on the borrower
refinancing the debt before higher interest rates took effect.
The report also showed that Moody's and S&P were aware of
housing prices leveling out, delinquency rates climbing, and
related MBS and CDO securities incurring increased losses,
despite their AAA ratings. One S&P analyst told a superior in
early 2007, that he did not expect the ratings to ``hold''
through the year.
The report also presented evidence that, in July 2007,
within days of each other, Moody's and S&P suddenly announced
mass downgrades of hundreds of RMBS and CDO securities. Those
mass downgrades shocked the financial markets, triggered sales
of mortgage related securities that had lost their investment
grade status, and contributed to the collapse of first the RMBS
and then the CDO secondary markets. Financial firms and
investors were left holding billions of dollars of suddenly
unmarketable securities whose value began plummeting. The
report concluded that the 2007 mass downgrades, which were
unique in U.S. financial history and made it clear that RMBS
and CDO securities were no longer safe investments, were the
most immediate trigger of the financial crisis.
The report also showed that, from 2004 to 2007, Moody's and
S&P used credit rating models with data that was inadequate to
predict how high risk home loans would perform. In addition, it
showed that Moody's and S&P failed to factor into their models
increased credit risks due to mortgage fraud, lax underwriting
standards, and unsustainable housing price appreciation. By
2006, Moody's and S&P knew their RMBS and CDO ratings were
inaccurate, revised their rating models to produce more
accurate ratings, but then failed to use the revised models to
re-evaluate their existing RMBS and CDO ratings, delaying
thousands of rating downgrades and allowing those securities to
carry inflated ratings that could mislead investors. In
addition, despite record profits, Moody's and S&P failed to
assign sufficient resources to adequately rate new products and
test the accuracy of their existing ratings.
The report offered a number of recommendations to prevent
similar credit rating problems in the future. Those
recommendations included urging the SEC to rank existing credit
rating agencies in terms of their performance, including the
accuracy of their ratings; and facilitating the ability of
investors to hold credit rating agencies accountable in civil
lawsuits for inflated credit ratings. The report also
recommended strengthening the SEC's inspection, examination,
and regulatory authority to ensure credit rating agencies
instituted internal controls, methodologies, and employee
conflict of interest safeguards to increase ratings' accuracy,
and assigned higher risks to financial instruments whose
performance could not be reliably predicted due to their
novelty or complexity, or because they relied on assets from
parties with poor track records. In addition, the report
recommended that the SEC ensure prompt use by the credit rating
agencies of new forms providing comprehensible, consistent, and
useful ratings information to investors; and that Federal
agencies take steps to reduce the Federal Government's reliance
on privately issued credit ratings.
Investment Bank High Risk Products and Conflicts of
Interest. The fourth and final section of the report focused on
the role of investment banks in the financial crisis, using two
case histories. The first involved Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street
investment bank that was a leader in developing RMBS and CDO
products and the secondary mortgage market, and then profited
from the collapse of that same market during the crisis. The
report detailed numerous troubling and sometimes abusive
practices by Goldman raising multiple conflict of interest
concerns. The second case history involved Deutche Bank which
constructed and sold CDOs that it knew to contain poor quality
assets.
In the first case history, the report presented evidence
that, from 2004 to 2007, in exchange for lucrative fees,
Goldman helped lenders notorious for issuing high risk, poor
quality loans to securitize them, obtain favorable credit
ratings for them, and sell the resulting RMBS securities to
investors, injecting billions of dollars of risky loans into
the financial system. It also showed how Goldman Sachs
magnified the risks associated with subprime mortgages by re-
securitizing related RMBS securities in CDOs, referencing them
in synthetic CDOs, and selling the CDO securities to investors
worldwide. In addition, Goldman promoted standardized credit
default swaps and other products to enable investors to bet on
the failure as well as the success of RMBS and CDO securities.
The report showed how, as high risk home loans began to
default, loan delinquency rates increased, and RMBS and CDO
securities began to incur losses in late 2006, Goldman suddenly
reversed course and began to bet against the mortgage market.
The documents detailed how Goldman sold its mortgage
investments, used a variety of tactics to build a very large
net short position, and either locked in or cashed out its
profits during 2007, generating billions of dollars in gain.
One internal Goldman email characterized this 2007 effort as
the ``big short.'' As a result, during the financial crisis,
while other investment banks incurred large losses, Goldman
showcased its mortgage profits, citing its net short position.
The report also provided detailed information about
Goldman's efforts, during late 2006 and the first half of 2007,
to originate and sell four mortgage-related CDOs known as
Hudson, Anderson, Timberwolf, and Abacus, even though it knew
all four contained poor quality assets likely to fail. Goldman
designed those CDOs, underwrote them, and recommended the CDO
securities to clients. In three of the CDOs, Goldman also
secretly bet against the securities, either in whole or in
part. In the fourth, Goldman allowed a favored client to help
select the assets and to bet against the resulting CDO, without
informing other investors in the CDO about the favored client's
actions. In the case of all four CDOs, Goldman did not inform
the investors to whom it marketed and sold the CDO securities
that it had a negative view of the mortgage market, that it was
shorting the mortgage market, or that Goldman or a favored
client had bet against the same CDO securities that Goldman was
selling to them.
In the second case history, the report presented evidence
on actions taken by Deutsche Bank, from late 2006 through 2007,
in exchange for lucrative fees, to issue 15 CDOs securitizing
about $11 billion in assets, despite a deteriorating U.S.
mortgage market. In 2006, Deutsche Bank's Global head of CDO
trading, Gregg Lippmann, referred to the bank's CDO business as
a ``cdo machine'' and ``ponzi scheme,'' and at one point wrote:
``[W]e are looking for ways to get out of this risk, but for
now the view has been, we like the fees and the league table
credit (and dammit we have a budget to make).'' The report
provided details about one $1.1 billion CDO called Gemstone 7,
which Deutsche Bank had constructed with a hedge fund, HBK, and
which included RMBS securities that Mr. Lippmann had described
as ``crap'' and ``pigs.'' It showed how Mr. Lippmann had
approved moving one of the RMBS securities from the bank's
inventory to Gemstone 7, even after asking, ``DOESN'T THIS DEAL
BLOW,'' and being told by a trader, ``yes it blows I am seeing
20-40 percent writedowns.'' To motivate its sales force to sell
Gemstone securities despite poor quality assets, Deutsche Bank
offered special financial incentives and directed the sales
force to seek buyers in Europe and Asia. While Deutsche Bank
was unable to sell all of the Gemstone securities, it did
remove $700 million in risk from its books, at the same time
contaminating the U.S. market with shoddy securities that
quickly lost value.
The report showed that Deutsche Bank traded in the U.S.
mortgage market, not only on behalf of clients, but also on a
proprietary basis. The evidence indicated that the bank mostly
purchased long mortgage related assets, but also allowed Mr.
Lippmann to buildup a $5 billion short position, betting
against the mortgage market. That position eventually produced
bank profits of $1.5 billion. Despite that profitable short
position, through its mortgage department and an affiliated
hedge fund, Winchester Capital based in London, Deutsche Bank
accumulated more than $25 billion in long mortgage positions.
In 2007, its mortgage department reported an overall loss of
$4.5 billion, demonstrating the massive losses that proprietary
trading can produce.
The report offered a number of recommendations to prevent
investment banks from producing and selling high risk products
tainted by conflicts of interest. Those recommendations
included urging Federal bank regulators to design strong
conflict of interest prohibitions for investment banks and
conduct a review of banks' structured finance transactions,
including RMBS, CDO, CDS, and ABX activities, to identify legal
violations and stop abusive practices. The report also
recommended allowing only narrow exceptions to the new Dodd-
Frank statutory ban on proprietary trading by banks, permitting
only activities that serve clients or reduce risk. In addition,
the report recommended using the Section 620 banking activities
study to evaluate the appropriateness of allowing federally
insured banks to design, market, and invest in naked credit
default swaps, synthetic financial instruments, and structured
finance products with risks that cannot be reliably measured.
B. Repatriating Offshore Funds: 2004 Tax Windfall for Select
Multinationals, October 11, 2011, with Addendum issued on
December 14, 2011 (Report Prepared by the Majority Staff of the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations)
In October 2011, the Subcommittee released a majority staff
report showing how a 2004 tax break allowing U.S.
multinationals to get a substantial tax discount for bringing
offshore funds back home did not produce new jobs or increased
research expenditures to spur economic growth, but was followed
instead by increased stock buybacks and executive pay and more
investments offshore. In December 2011, an addendum to that
report showed how claims by some multinationals that their
offshore funds were ``trapped'' abroad by high tax rates were
untrue, since those corporations were already using an existing
tax loophole to place nearly $250 billion in offshore funds in
U.S. banks, U.S. Treasury bonds, and U.S. stocks without
triggering any tax liability. The report recommended against
enactment of a new repatriation tax break that would benefit
only a small percentage of U.S. corporations at the expense of
the many domestic companies that do not send funds offshore.
The Levin report showed that the 2004 repatriation tax
break enabled U.S. companies to bring $312 billion in offshore
earnings back to the United States at the low tax rate of 5.25
percent. Though the law specified allowable uses of those
repatriated funds, and expressly prohibited using repatriated
money for stock repurchases or executive pay, it did not
require corporations to track their use of repatriated funds
and so provided no mechanism to monitor compliance with the
law. To determine how the corporations actually used their
repatriated funds, the Subcommittee surveyed the 15
corporations that repatriated the most money through qualifying
dividends, and an additional four firms that repatriated
significant amounts. The top 15 corporations together brought
back a total of $155 billion in offshore earnings, while the
additional firms increased that total to $163 billion, together
representing more than half of all funds repatriated as
qualifying dividends.
The report contained a number of factual findings with
respect to those repatriated funds. First, the report found
that the repatriation tax break had failed in its express
purpose to increase U.S. jobs. After repatriating $155 billion,
the top 15 repatriating firms reduced their overall U.S.
workforce by nearly 21,000 jobs. Second, the report found that
the repatriation tax break did not accelerate investments in
research and development. Instead, among the top 15
repatriating corporations, the pace of R&D spending slightly
decreased after the tax break. Third, the report found that,
despite a prohibition on using repatriated funds for stock
repurchases, the top 15 repatriating corporations accelerated
their spending on stock buybacks after repatriation, increasing
them by 16 percent from 2004 to 2005, and 38 percent from 2005
to 2006. Overall, the surveyed corporations more than doubled
the amount of their average stock repurchases, from about $2.2
billion in 2004 to $5.3 billion in 2007. Moreover, despite a
prohibition on using repatriated funds for executive
compensation, the report determined that the pay of the top
five executives at the top 15 repatriating corporations jumped
27 percent from 2004 to 2005, and another 30 percent from 2005
to 2006. In comparison, average worker pay in the same years
increased 3 percent and 11 percent.
The report also presented evidence that the repatriation
tax break benefited only a narrow slice of the U.S. economy,
primarily pharmaceutical and technology corporations, while
providing no benefit to domestic firms that chose not to engage
in offshore operations or investments. The report observed that
the 5.25 percent tax rate created a competitive disadvantage
for domestic businesses that chose not to do business offshore,
and provided a windfall for multinationals in a few industries
without benefiting the U.S. economy as a whole. The report also
determined that multinationals had significantly increased
their offshore cash holdings since the 2004 tax break,
indicating that the tax break itself encouraged the offshoring
of funds. Finally, the report determined that a substantial
share of the repatriated funds came from tax haven
jurisdictions such as Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the
Cayman Islands, and Switzerland, with seven of the surveyed
corporations repatriating between 90 and 100 percent of their
funds from tax havens. The report concluded that a repeat
repatriation tax break would similarly fail to boost jobs or
research expenditures, and would instead encourage firms to
keep more cash overseas in hopes of future tax breaks.
The report addendum provided new data showing that large
multinational U.S. corporations with substantial offshore funds
had already placed nearly half of those funds in U.S. bank
accounts and U.S. investments without paying any U.S. tax on
those foreign earnings. Corporations are able to invest their
foreign earnings in the United States without treating them as
``repatriated'' and subject to taxation, because Section
956(c)(2) of the Federal tax code already allows U.S.
corporations to use foreign funds to make a wide range of U.S.
investments without incurring tax liability. If those U.S.
investments then produce income, that additional income may be
subject to taxation.
The addendum's data derived from a Subcommittee survey of
27 U.S. multinational corporations. The survey disclosed that,
collectively, the 27 multinationals held a total of $538
billion, or more than half a trillion dollars, in tax-deferred
foreign earnings at the end of Fiscal Year 2010. By comparison,
in mid-2011, all U.S. corporations held tax-deferred foreign
earnings totaling an estimated $1.4 trillion.
The survey determined that 46 percent of that $538 billion
in foreign earnings--almost $250 billion--was maintained in
U.S. bank accounts or invested in U.S. assets such as U.S.
Treasuries, U.S. stocks other than their own, U.S. bonds, or
U.S. mutual funds. The survey also found that nine of the 27
companies, or one-third, including Apple, Cisco, Google, and
Microsoft, held between 75 and 100 percent of their tax-
deferred foreign earnings in U.S. assets. The Subcommittee's
survey information was the first to provide specific data on
the amount of tax-deferred offshore corporate earnings that are
maintained in the United States.
The $250 billion of foreign funds invested in U.S. assets
demonstrated that U.S. corporations were already well aware of
the tax code provision allowing them to return foreign earnings
to the United States on a tax-free basis. Those tax-deferred
foreign earnings were in addition to overall domestic cash
holdings of U.S. corporations, which at the time of the report
was estimated by the Federal Reserve at $2 trillion. As a
result of the survey data, the addendum concluded that U.S.
corporations were already taking advantage of the security and
stability of the U.S. financial system without paying U.S.
taxes on their offshore funds, and that a new repatriation tax
break would raise additional tax fairness issues.
C. U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist
Financing: HSBC Case History, July 17, 2012 (Report Prepared by
the Majority and Minority Staffs of the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations and released in conjunction with the
Subcommittee's hearing on July 17, 2012)
In July 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing, described
earlier, examining how a large global bank, HSBC, through its
U.S. affiliate, HSBC Bank USA (HBUS), exposed the United States
to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and
terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money laundering
(AML) controls. The hearing also examined the failure of the
bank's primary regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), to compel HBUS to take corrective action,
despite ongoing evidence of the bank's AML deficiencies over a
6-year period. In connection with that hearing, the
Subcommittee released a 330-page bipartisan staff report that
detailed the investigation, provided factual findings, and
offered recommendations to address the problems identified.
The Levin-Coburn report described HBUS' operations and
explained how HBUS opened U.S. accounts for HSBC's 80
affiliates around the world. The report also explained that
HBUS had a history of poor AML controls, having first been
cited, in 2003, with severe AML deficiencies by the Federal
Reserve and New York State Banking Department which required
the bank to overhaul its AML program. That same year, HBUS
converted from a State to a national bank charter, changing its
primary regulator to the OCC. The report noted that, in 2010,
the OCC also cited HBUS for severe AML deficiencies,
identifying, among other issues, the bank's failure to monitor
$60 trillion in wire transfer and account activity; a backlog
of 17,000 unreviewed account alerts regarding potentially
suspicious activity; and its failure to conduct AML due
diligence before opening accounts for HSBC affiliates. The
report also noted that, prior to 2010, the OCC had failed to
take a single enforcement action against the bank, despite
ample evidence of AML problems.
The report focused on five types of AML deficiencies at
HBUS which exposed the United States to money laundering, drug
trafficking and terrorist financing risks. The first involved
HBUS' servicing of high risk HSBC affiliates, using as a case
history the U.S. account opened for HSBC Bank Mexico (HBMX).
The report detailed evidence indicating that HBUS treated HBMX
as a low risk account, despite HBMX's location in a country
facing substantial money laundering and drug trafficking
challenges; HBMX's high risk clientele which included casas de
cambio suspected of involvement with the drug trade; HBMX's
high risk products which included offering U.S. dollar accounts
in the Cayman Islands, a secrecy jurisdiction, to circumvent a
Mexican prohibition on U.S. dollar accounts; and HBMX's long
history of weak know-your-customer and other AML controls. The
report also described how HBMX transported $7 billion in
physical U.S. dollars to HBUS from 2007 to 2008, outstripping
other Mexican banks, even one twice its size, leading
regulators to express concern to HBMX that the volume of
dollars suggested the presence of illegal drug proceeds. The
report showed that, because HBMX was an HSBC affiliate, as a
policy matter, HBUS had performed no initial due diligence to
evaluate its AML risks and conducted no ongoing monitoring of
the HBMX account, leaving it in the dark about the account's
suspicious activity.
Second, the report presented evidence that some HSBC
affiliates had taken actions to circumvent a transaction filter
required by the U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) to
identify and block transactions involving known terrorists,
persons involved with weapons of mass destruction, drug lords,
or rogue jurisdictions such as Iran or North Korea. Because the
OFAC filter can delay transactions permitted by law, some HSBC
affiliates had developed tactics to bypass it, including by
stripping information from wire transfer documents. The report
detailed evidence showing that, from at least 2001 to 2007, two
HSBC affiliates sent nearly 25,000 transactions involving $19
billion through their HBUS accounts without disclosing the
transactions' links to Iran. In addition, from 2002 to 2007,
some HSBC affiliates sent potentially prohibited transactions
through HBUS involving Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and
other prohibited countries or persons. The report indicated
that HSBC Group compliance personnel were aware of actions
taken by some HSBC affiliates to circumvent the OFAC filter,
but failed to stop it or inform HBUS about its extent. The
report also described internal HBUS documents which showed that
key senior HBUS officials were informed as early as 2001, that
the bank was processing undisclosed Iranian transactions from
HSBC affiliates.
In the third area of concern, the report presented evidence
that HBUS provided U.S. dollars and banking services to some
banks in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh, despite evidence
suggesting that the banks had links to terrorist financing. The
report detailed, for example, that due to terrorist financing
concerns, in 2005, HBUS closed correspondent banking and
banknotes accounts it had provided to Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi
Arabia's largest private financial institution whose key
founder was identified as an early financial benefactor of al
Qaeda. For nearly 2 years, HBUS compliance personnel resisted
pressure from HSBC personnel in the Middle East and United
States to resume business with the bank. In December 2006,
however, after Al Rajhi Bank threatened to pull all of its
business from HSBC unless it regained access to HBUS' banknotes
program, HBUS agreed to resume supplying Al Rajhi Bank with
physical U.S. dollars. Despite ongoing troubling information,
HBUS provided nearly $1 billion in U.S. dollars to Al Rajhi
Bank until 2010, when HSBC decided, on a global basis, to exit
the U.S. banknotes business.
Fourth, the report presented evidence that HBUS was
routinely clearing suspicious bulk travelers checks. The report
showed that, from at least 2005 to 2008, HSBC cleared $290
million in U.S. travelers cheques for a Japanese regional bank,
Hokuriku Bank, despite evidence of suspicious activity
benefiting Russians who claimed to be in the used car business.
HBUS cleared the Hokuriku travelers cheques on a daily basis,
at times clearing $500,000 or more in a single day. The cheques
were in denominations of $500 or $1,000, submitted in large
blocks of sequentially numbered cheques, and signed and
countersigned with the same illegible signature. HBUS stopped
clearing the cheques only after an OCC examination uncovered
stacks of them being processed with inadequate AML controls.
The fifth and final area of concern examined in the report
presented evidence of HBUS opening accounts for bearer share
corporations, a notorious type of corporation that invites
secrecy and wrongdoing by assigning ownership to whomever has
physical possession of the shares. The report indicated that,
over the course of a decade, HBUS had opened over 2,000 bearer
share accounts. At its peak, HBUS' Miami office had over 1,670
bearer share accounts; the New York office had over 850; and
the Los Angeles office had over 30. The Miami bearer share
accounts alone held assets totaling an estimated $2.6 billion,
generating annual bank revenues of $26 million. The report
noted that multiple internal audits and regulatory examinations
had criticized the accounts as high risk and advocated that
HBUS either take physical custody of the shares or require the
corporations to register the shares in the names of the
shareholders, but HBUS bankers initially resisted. The report
noted that, by 2011, HBUS had reduced its bearer share accounts
to 26, while maintained a policy allowing new accounts.
In addition to describing HBUS' poor AML controls, the
report detailed the OCC's failure for many years to compel
better performance. The report noted that OCC examiners
repeatedly identified key AML deficiencies at the bank, but
during the 6-year period from 2004 to 2010, OCC officials did
not respond with any formal or informal enforcement actions,
essentially allowing the bank's AML problems to fester. The
report identified key weaknesses in the OCC's AML oversight
efforts that contributed to the agency's tolerating the bank's
AML problems, including treating AML deficiencies as a consumer
compliance concern instead of a matter of safety and soundness;
deeming AML problems to be Matters Requiring Attention by bank
management rather than casting them as statutory violations;
conducting narrowly focused AML examinations; and ignoring AML
examinations that found AML problems year after year. In 2009,
after learning of law enforcement investigations raising AML
issues at HBUS, the OCC suddenly expanded and intensified an
ongoing AML examination at the bank. That examination
culminated in a September 2010 OCC supervisory letter
identifying severe AML problems and an October 2010 Cease and
Desist Order requiring HBUS to revamp its program.
The report recommended that HBUS take a number of steps to
strengthen its AML controls, including conducting due diligence
reviews of HSBC affiliates to identify AML risks; implementing
stronger controls to ensure the bank did not process
transactions with prohibited persons such as terrorists, drug
lords, and rogue regimes; closing accounts of banks linked to
terrorist financing; overhauling its AML controls on travelers
cheques; and banning bearer share accounts. HBUS subsequently
implemented all but the last of these recommendations, while
taking additional steps to strengthen its AML controls, as
described earlier.
The report also recommended that the OCC strengthen its AML
oversight efforts. One recommendation was that the OCC follow
the lead of other Federal regulators in treating AML
deficiencies as a threat to a bank's safety and soundness, and
lower a bank's management ratings if AML problems were not
resolved. Another was that the OCC cite banks for statutory
violations if they failed to meet any one of the four minimum
statutory requirements for an effective AML program. In
addition, the report recommended that the OCC take stronger
action when a bank hit a threshold number of AML statutory
violations or Matters Requiring Attention. The OCC subsequently
implemented all of those recommendations.
D. Social Security Disability Programs: Improving the Quality of
Benefit Award Decisions, September 12, 2012 (Report Prepared by
the Minority Staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations and released in conjunction with the
Subcommittee's hearing on September 13, 2012)
In September 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing,
described earlier, examining the quality of decisions by the
Social Security Administration (SSA) to award benefits under
its disability programs. The hearing was based upon a
bipartisan investigation. In connection with the hearing, the
Subcommittee released a 132-page minority staff report that
detailed the investigation, provided factual findings, and
offered recommendations to address the problems identified.
The Coburn report described how the Subcommittee obtained
actual case files, with personal information removed, for SSA
beneficiaries accepted into the Social Security Disability
Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program
from three specific counties in Virginia, Alabama, and,
Oklahoma, reflecting different levels of per capita enrollment
in the programs. After the Subcommittee provided selection
criteria, SSA randomly selected 300 electronic case files that
met the criteria, 100 from each specified county. The cases
provided a cross-section of applicants who were awarded
disability benefits at different stages of SSA review,
including at the initial application stage, the reconsideration
stage, upon appeal before an administrative law judge (ALJ),
and upon appeal before the Social Security Appeals Council. The
report explained that the Subcommittee investigation carefully
reviewed each case file to evaluate the decisions reached, the
rationale used, the testimony and information provided by the
claimant, the objective medical evidence in the file, any
expert or physician opinions rendered, and other relevant
evidence contained in the case files provided by SSA. The
report noted that, by limiting its review to 300 case files
from three counties, the Subcommittee was able to drill down
into the specifics of each case and provide a detailed case
study of how disability approval decisions were made, their
weaknesses, and how they could be improved.
The report indicated that the investigation's review of the
300 disability case files found that more than a quarter of
agency decisions failed to properly address insufficient,
contradictory or incomplete evidence. The report noted that
this finding corroborated a new 2011 internal quality review
conducted by SSA itself, which found that, on average
nationwide, disability decisions made at the ALJ level had
errors or were insufficient 22 percent of the time. The three
counties examined by the Subcommittee were in regions with even
higher individual error rates, according to SSA, of between 23-
26 percent.
Citing specific information from the 300 case files, the
report presented evidence regarding procedural problems in how
some of the cases were handled by the SSA ALJs. The report
presented evidence, for example, that some SSA ALJs held
perfunctory hearings lasting less than 10 minutes, misused
testimony provided by vocational or medical experts, or failed
to elicit hearing testimony needed to resolve conflicting
information in a claimant's case file. In other cases,
disability applicants, usually through their representatives,
submitted medical evidence immediately before or on the day of
an ALJ hearing or after the hearing's conclusion, a practice
leading to confusion about the supporting evidence as well as
inefficiencies in case analysis. Still another problem was
that, in many cases before the ALJs, consultative examinations
(CEs) submitted on behalf of either SSA or a claimant consisted
of little more than conclusory statements with insufficient
reference to objective medical evidence or how the CE's
findings related to other evidence in the case file. In
addition, in written decisions, the report found that the
consultative examinations were either summarily dismissed or
heavily relied upon, with little to no explanation.
The report identified other problems with the quality of
the written decisions awarding disability benefits. Again
citing information from specific case files, the report
presented evidence that, in many cases, at both the initial and
appellate levels of review, the State-based Disability
Determination Services (DDS) examiners and SSA ALJs issued
decisions approving disability benefits without citing
adequate, objective medical evidence to support the finding;
without explaining the medical basis for the decision; without
showing how the claimant met basic listing elements; or at
times without taking into account or explaining contradictory
evidence. The report described, in particular, cases in which
the ALJ opinion failed to demonstrate how the claimant met each
of the required criteria in the SSA's Medical Listing of
Impairments to qualify under ``Step Three'' in the application
process. Awards at Step Three are reserved for those with
medical conditions SSA has determined to be severe enough to
qualify an applicant for benefits.
The report also found that the majority of disability
awards reviewed by the Subcommittee at the ALJ level utilized
SSA medical-vocational grid rules. The report observed that a
recent SSA analysis had found that benefit awards were made
under these grid rules at a rate of 4 to 1, compared to awards
made due to a claimant's meeting a medical listing. The report
presented evidence that, at times, those decisions were the
result of a claimant's representative and the ALJ negotiating
an award of benefits by changing the disability onset date to
the claimant's 50th or 55th birthday. Still another problem was
that some case files showed DDS examiners and ALJs reached
their decisions after relying on the Department of Labor's
outdated Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), which SSA was
in the process of replacing with a new Occupational Information
System, to identify jobs open to claimants with limited
disabilities. The report noted that the last major revision to
the DOT had occurred in 1977, yet the new database was not
expected to be ready until 2016. The report noted that, in the
meantime, SSA disability decisionmakers would continue to rely
on the DOT which did not reflect current labor market trends or
jobs available in the national economy. Finally, the report
noted that ALJ decisions had failed in some cases to adequately
analyze the effect of factors such as obesity and drug and
alcohol abuse on a claimant's impairment.
The report provided a number of recommendations to
strengthen the decisionmaking process used to award disability
benefits. First, it recommended requiring a government
representative at all ALJ hearings to ensure key evidence and
issues were properly presented, to reduce instances in which
SSA ALJs overlooked evidence indicating a claimant was not
disabled, and to increase consistency and accountability in ALJ
decisionmaking. The report also recommended strengthening the
new ALJ quality review process by conducting more reviews of
ALJ decisions during the year and developing metrics to measure
the quality of disability decisions. To eliminate confusion,
inefficiencies, and abuses associated with the SSA practice of
allowing medical evidence to be submitted at any point in a
disability case, the report recommended closing the evidentiary
record 1 week prior to an ALJ hearing, with exceptions only for
significant new evidence for which exclusion would be contrary
to the public interest. The report also recommended additional
training for ALJs on the use of SSA Medical Listings, and on
how to analyze and address issues involving drug and alcohol
abuse. Another recommendation was for SSA to move more quickly
in replacing the outdated Dictionary of Occupational Titles
with a usable Occupational Information System to ensure
decisionmakers had accurate information about available jobs.
The report also recommended that the SSA consult with ALJs to
improve the usefulness of agency-funded consultative
examinations (CEs), including by requiring an explanation of
any significant disparity between a CE's analysis and other
evidence in the case file. Finally, the report advocated
reviewing the SSA's medical-vocational guidelines to determine
if reforms are needed.
E. Federal Support For and Involvement In State and Local Fusion
Centers, October 3, 2012 (Report Prepared by the Majority and
Minority Staffs of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations)
In October 2012, following a 2-year investigation at the
request of Senator Coburn, the Subcommittee released a 107-page
bipartisan staff report finding that Federal funding provided
by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to State and local
intelligence ``fusion centers'' had not yielded significant
useful information to support Federal counterterrorism efforts.
Among other problems, the Coburn-Levin report showed that the
fusion centers produced intelligence that was of uneven
quality, was often untimely, and sometimes endangered civil
liberties, and showed that DHS did not effectively monitor the
use of Federal funds provided to State and local fusion
centers, which sometimes made questionable expenditures. In
addition, the report determined that senior DHS officials were
aware of the problems hampering effective counterterrorism work
with the fusion centers, but did not always inform Congress of
the issues, nor ensure the problems were fixed in a timely
manner.
The report noted that, since 2003, over 70 State and local
fusion centers, supported in part with Federal funds, had been
created or expanded in part to strengthen U.S. intelligence
capabilities, particularly to detect, disrupt, and respond to
domestic terrorist activities. The report also observed that
DHS' support for State and local fusion centers had, from the
beginning, centered on their professed ability to strengthen
Federal counterterrorism efforts. In addition, the report noted
that, while fusion centers may provide valuable services in
fields other than terrorism, such as contributing to
traditional criminal investigations, public safety, or disaster
response and recovery efforts, the Subcommittee investigation
had focused on the Federal return from investing in State and
local fusion centers using the counterterrorism objectives
established by law and DHS.
The report described the Subcommittee's investigative
efforts, which included interviewing dozens of current and
former Federal, State and local officials, reviewing more than
a year's worth of intelligence reporting from fusions centers,
conducting a nationwide survey of fusion centers, and examining
thousands of pages of financial records and grant
documentation.
The report presented evidence, using examples taken from
DHS intelligence reports based upon fusion center information,
that DHS intelligence officers assigned to State and local
fusion centers produced intelligence of uneven quality--
oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering civil
liberties, occasionally taken from already-published public
sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism. The
report explained that, despite reviewing 610 intelligence
reports from April 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010, the Subcommittee
investigation could identify no fusion center reporting which
uncovered a terrorist threat or contributed to the disruption
of an active terrorist plot. Moreover, the report disclosed
that nearly a third of the reports--188 out of 610--were never
published for use within the intelligence community, often
because they lacked useful information or potentially violated
DHS guidelines to safeguard Americans' civil liberties or
Privacy Act protections.
The report further noted that DHS officials' public claims
about fusion centers were not always accurate. It observed, for
example, that DHS officials had asserted that some fusion
centers existed when they did not, and had, at times,
overstated fusion center successes. The report also revealed
that DHS officials had initially failed to disclose an
extensive, non-public evaluation of the State and local fusion
centers, conducted in 2010, which had identified problems at
both the centers and DHS. The report noted that, even when
asked about that 2010 evaluation, DHS had avoided acknowledging
it, initially withheld documents, and repeatedly resisted
information requests, unnecessarily prolonging the Subcommittee
investigation.
Finally, the report presented evidence of problems related
to Federal spending on State and local fusion centers. The
report disclosed that DHS was unable to provide an accurate
tally of how much it had granted to States and cities to
support fusion centers over time, and instead produced
estimates indicating that it had spent somewhere between $289
million and $1.4 billion since 2003, broad estimates that
differed by over $1 billion. The report showed that DHS was
also unable to specify the amount of Federal funds provided to
individual fusion centers. In addition, the report detailed
evidence showing that DHS did not effectively monitor how
Federal funds were used to strengthen fusion center
counterterrorism efforts and often did not even track how the
funds were ultimately spent. A review of the expenditures at
five fusion centers found that Federal funds were used to
purchase dozens of flat screen TVs, two sport utility vehicles,
cell phone tracking devices, and other surveillance equipment
unrelated to the analytical mission of fusion centers, which
are not charged with collecting intelligence. The report noted
that, at the same time, according to DHS assessments, the
fusion centers making the questionable expenditures lacked
basic intelligence capabilities.
The report provided a number of recommendations to address
the problems uncovered in connection with State and local
fusion centers. They included urging Congress to revisit the
stated purpose of providing Federal support to DHS fusion
centers, and requiring DHS either to conform its fusion center
efforts to match its counterterrorism statutory purpose, or
redefine its fusion center mission. The report also recommended
that DHS reform its intelligence reporting efforts at State and
local fusion centers to eliminate duplication and improve
training of DHS intelligence reporters. In the area of funding,
the report recommended that DHS track how much money it gave to
each fusion center, strictly align grant funding to meet
Federal needs and reflect a fusion center's value and
performance, and not allow Federal funds to be spent on items
that did not directly contribute to the Federal
counterterrorism mission. The report also recommended that the
Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment in the
office of the Director of National Intelligence conduct regular
evaluations of fusion center capabilities and performance.
Finally, the report recommended that DHS strengthen its
practices and guidelines to protect civil liberties, prevent
DHS personnel from improperly collecting and retaining
intelligence on Constitutionally protected activity, prohibit
the retention of inappropriate and illegal reporting, and
promptly bar poorly performing personnel from issuing domestic
intelligence reports involving Americans.
V. Requested and Sponsored Reports
In connection with its investigations, the Subcommittee
makes extensive use of the resources and expertise of the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Offices of
Inspectors General (OIGs) at various Federal agencies, and
other entities. During the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee
requested a number of reports and studies on issues of
importance. Several of these reports have already been
described in connection with Subcommittee hearings. Several
additional reports that were of particular interest, and that
were not covered by Subcommittee hearings, are the following.
A. Tax Administration: IRS's Information Exchanges with Other Countries
Could Be Improved through Better Performance Information (GAO-
11-730), September 9, 2011
For over a decade, the Subcommittee has conducted
investigations into various aspects of offshore tax abuses
which are estimated to cost the U.S. treasury at least $100
billion in unpaid taxes each year. Subcommittee investigations
have included examining the difficulties often encountered by
the IRS in obtaining information from offshore tax havens with
secrecy laws. In September 2011, in response to a bipartisan
request from Subcommittee Chairman Levin and Ranking Minority
Member Coburn, GAO prepared a report examining the current
status of U.S. tax information exchange arrangements with other
countries, including the number and types of tax treaties and
agreements in effect, the volume of information exchange
activity, and the amount of time taken to process information
requests. The GAO report disclosed that the IRS had a mixed
record on using international tax agreements to combat offshore
tax abuse. On the positive side, the GAO report disclosed for
the first time that the IRS had established automatic
information exchange arrangements with 25 countries and, in
2010, used those arrangements to obtain over 2 million data
items on U.S. taxpayers with offshore income. Aside from that
automatic information exchange, however, the GAO report also
disclosed that the IRS initiated only a couple hundred specific
requests for taxpayer information per year from other
countries.
The GAO report explained that, in response to the trillions
of dollars in cross-border financial activity, U.S. and other
tax authorities around the world had established mechanisms to
exchange information with each other to administer and enforce
compliance with their respective tax laws. To study those
arrangements, GAO collected information on existing U.S. tax
information exchange agreements, analyzed IRS data on
information exchanges, and interviewed program officials and
the users of exchanged information.
The GAO report determined that, as of April 30, 2011, the
United States had in force 143 tax treaties, tax information
exchange agreements, or mutual legal assistance treaties
including tax provisions with 90 foreign jurisdictions. The
report provided a list and the key features of each of those
agreements. GAO determined that, while the agreements had many
similar features, the specifics of each information exchange
were unique to the legal and administrative arrangements agreed
to by the United States and each signatory jurisdiction.
To analyze the information exchanges under the agreements,
GAO reviewed 5 years of data supplied by the IRS division of
Exchange of Information and Overseas Operations on tax
information requests initiated and completed between 2006 and
2010. GAO explained that tax information exchange partners may
choose to provide information to each other on a regular basis,
through what is referred to as an automatic exchange of
information. The GAO report found that in 2010 alone, as a
result of automatic data exchange arrangements with 25 foreign
jurisdictions, the IRS received about 2.1 million data items
from those countries, while providing about 2.5 million data
items to them. GAO reported that the automatic information
exchanges typically provided data on wages, interest,
dividends, or other forms of income paid to persons from a
specified country.
GAO also reviewed one-time only tax information requests
made by either the IRS to another country, referred to as
outgoing requests, or by a foreign country to the IRS, referred
to as incoming requests. The number of those outgoing and
incoming requests was relatively small compared to the number
of data exchanges taking place on an automated basis. Over the
5-year period from 2006 to 2010, GAO found that the IRS
initiated a total of about 900 tax information requests to
other countries, ranging from a low of 165 to a high of 236
requests made in a single year. GAO noted that each request
could have referred to one or multiple taxpayers. GAO's figures
indicated that, on average over the 5-years, the IRS sent less
than one specific request for taxpayer information per day to a
foreign country.
During the same 5-year period, GAO found that, outside of
the automated process, foreign jurisdictions made a total of
about 4,200 specific tax information requests to the IRS,
resulting in more than four times as many incoming as outgoing
requests. GAO's figures indicated that, on average over the 5-
year period, the 90 jurisdictions collectively made about 840
requests per year, or less than 3 requests per day to the
United States.
GAO also reported that, of the 900 outgoing requests and
4,200 incoming requests, 711 involved a single foreign
jurisdiction, which was not named in the report due to IRS
confidentiality rules. GAO also noted that the request activity
was concentrated among a small group of countries, with the ten
most active countries making roughly 68 percent of the outgoing
and incoming requests. Those ten countries were also not named
due to IRS confidentiality rules.
The GAO report determined that, over the 5-year period,
foreign jurisdictions made about 300 spontaneous disclosures of
taxpayer information to the IRS per year, meaning the
information was provided outside of any automatic or specific
request process. GAO reported that the IRS made about 10
spontaneous disclosures of taxpayer information per year to
other countries. GAO stated those numbers fluctuated widely by
year.
In addition to analyzing the number of requests, GAO
examined how long it took to complete work on the requests.
Overall, GAO found that most requests took between 50 and 200
days to complete, although some took much less time and others
much longer. GAO also found that, on average, the IRS was 17
percent faster than other countries in completing requests. GAO
also analyzed the types of information requested, finding that
corporate records, tax return data, bank records, public
records, and third-party interviews were the most frequently
requested.
One key issue that the Subcommittee asked GAO to examine
was the extent to which international requests for tax
information were required to include the names of specific
taxpayers. GAO reported that, as a general rule, the IRS and
its tax information exchange partners did not make or respond
to information requests lacking specific taxpayer names or
other specific taxpayer identifiers, such as account numbers.
GAO also reported that the United States had made a recent
policy change to support information requests that identify a
specific group of persons under investigation. GAO reported
that, in January 2011, the United States changed its standard
tax information exchange agreement to provide that an
information request was adequate if it contained ``the identity
of the person or [an] ascertainable group or category of
persons under examination or investigation.'' GAO noted that
the United States was working with other nations to adopt a
similar approach in the internationally accepted model tax
information exchange agreement.
The GAO report also commented on the IRS data collection
efforts with respect to its tax information exchanges with
foreign jurisdictions. GAO observed that the IRS did not
consistently collect or analyze performance data, such as the
type of information requested, whether the information was
collected successfully, or the views of staff about the
usefulness of the information received or the effectiveness of
the process for obtaining it. GAO noted that collecting this
information could help program managers assess how well the IRS
is managing the information exchange process, and how to
strengthen it.
To improve IRS tax information exchange arrangements, GAO
recommended that the IRS identify, assemble, and analyze key
performance data to improve the information exchange program.
GAO recommended that the IRS collect on a routine basis
consistent and accurate data on specific tax information
exchange cases, as well as feedback from program users. The
report indicated that the IRS concurred with GAO's
recommendations.
B. Crop Insurance: Savings Would Result from Program Changes and
Greater Use of Data Mining (GAO-12-256), March 13, 2012
In the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee conducted an
investigation into excessive speculation in U.S. wheat markets,
which touched in part on the functioning of the Federal crop
insurance program. In March 2012, in response to a request from
Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Coburn, GAO issued a
report examining ways to reduce Federal crop insurance costs.
Program costs include subsidies that pay for part of farmers'
insurance premiums. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, for fiscal years 2013 through 2022, Federal crop
insurance program costs--primarily premium subsidies--will
average $8.9 billion annually. The GAO report determined that,
if a limit of $40,000 had been applied to individual farmers'
crop insurance premium subsidies, as it is for other farm
programs, the Federal Government would have saved up to $1
billion in crop insurance program costs in 2011. GAO also
determined that, if premium subsidies had been reduced by 10
percentage points for all farmers participating in the program,
as recent studies had proposed, the Federal Government would
have saved about $1.2 billion in 2011. In addition, GAO
determined that additional cost savings could be achieved
through greater use of data mining efforts to prevent and
detect waste, fraud and abuse in the program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the
Federal crop insurance program with private insurance
companies. In 2011, the program provided about $113 billion in
Federal crop insurance coverage for over 1 million policies. To
conduct its study, GAO analyzed USDA data, reviewed economic
studies, and interviewed USDA officials.
The GAO report explained that, to analyze possible cost
savings from limiting premium subsidies, it selected $40,000 as
an example of a potential subsidy limit on individual farmer
crop insurance premium subsidies, because it is the limit for
direct payments, which provide fixed annual payments to farmers
based on a farm's crop production history. GAO determined that
if such a limit had been applied in 2011, it would have
affected up to 3.9 percent of all participating farmers, who
accounted for about one-third of all premium subsidies and were
primarily associated with large farms. For example, one of
those farmers insured crops in eight counties and received
about $1.3 million in premium subsidies. In addition, GAO
determined that if premium subsidies been reduced by 10
percentage points for all farmers participating in the program,
as recent studies proposed, the Federal Government would have
saved about $1.2 billion in 2011. GAO also cautioned that a
decision to limit or reduce premium subsidies would raise other
considerations, such as the potential effect on the financial
condition of large farms and on program participation.
On the issue of whether cost savings could be achieved
through greater use of data mining tools, the GAO report noted
that USDA had already been using data mining tools to prevent
and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in the crop insurance
program, whether perpetrated by farmers, insurance agents, or
adjusters, since 2001. GAO explained, for example, that past
cases had revealed that some farmers were found to have
harvested a high-yielding crop, hid its sale, and then reported
a loss to receive an insurance payment. To prevent and detect
those and other frauds, GAO explained that USDA's Risk
Management Agency (RMA), which is responsible for overseeing
the integrity of the crop insurance program, used data mining
to identify farmers who had received claim payments that were
higher or more frequent than others in the same area. USDA then
informed the identified farmers that at least one of their
fields would be inspected during the coming growing season to
evaluate the crop. RMA officials told GAO that this action had
substantially reduced total claims.
GAO opined that the USDA had not maximized its use of the
data mining tools, however, largely because of competing
compliance review priorities. GAO determined, for example, that
the value of RMA's identifying suspect farmers may have been
reduced by the fact that USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA)--
which conducts field inspections for RMA--did not complete all
such inspections, and neither FSA nor RMA had a process to
ensure that the results of all inspections were accurately
reported. GAO noted, for example, that RMA did not obtain field
inspection results for about 20 percent of identified farmers
in 2009, and 28 percent in 2010. As a result, not all of the
farmers RMA identified were subject to a review, increasing the
likelihood that fraud, waste, or abuse occurred without
detection.
GAO determined that not all field inspections were
completed, in part because FSA State offices were not required
to monitor the completion of such inspections. In addition, RMA
generally did not provide insurance companies with FSA
inspection results when crops were found to be in good
condition, although USDA's Inspector General had reported this
information might be important for followup. Furthermore, RMA
had not directed insurance companies to review the results of
all completed FSA field inspections before paying claims filed
after inspections showed a crop was in good condition. As a
result, GAO found that insurance companies might not have
information that could help identify claims that should be
denied.
To reduce crop insurance program costs, GAO recommended
that Congress consider limiting premium subsidies for
individual farmers, reducing subsidies for all farmers, or
both. GAO also recommended that USDA encourage the completion
of field inspections to reduce instances of waste, fraud and
abuse in the crop insurance program. GAO indicated in the
report that USDA agreed with encouraging the completion of
field inspections, but not with placing limits on premium
subsidies. GAO indicated in response that, when farm income was
approaching record high levels at the same time the Nation
faced severe fiscal problems, limiting premium subsidies was an
appropriate area for consideration.
C. Medicaid: Providers in Three States with Unpaid Federal Taxes
Received Over $6 Billion in Medicaid Reimbursements (GAO-12-
857), July 27, 2012
Since 2004, the Subcommittee has conducted an ongoing
investigation and series of hearings examining Federal
contractors that receive taxpayer funds in payment for their
work, but nevertheless fail to pay their taxes. In 2007, a
Subcommittee hearing focused on the problem with respect to tax
delinquent Medicaid providers who are paid in part with Federal
funds. The 2007 hearing featured a GAO report which disclosed,
in a review of just seven States, that nearly 30,000 Medicaid
providers, including doctors, nursing homes, and other medical
providers, owed unpaid taxes collectively totaling more than $1
billion. In July 2012, in response to a bipartisan request from
Subcommittee Chairman Levin and Ranking Minority Member Coburn,
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Minority
Member Orrin Hatch, and Judiciary Committee Ranking Minority
Member Charles Grassley, GAO again examined Medicaid providers
with unpaid taxes, this time in the context of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) which had
increased the Federal share of Medicaid funding provided to the
States. The GAO report disclosed that about 7,000 Medicaid
providers in three States, Florida, New York, and Texas,
received a total of about $6.6 billion in Medicaid
reimbursements in 2009, while owing over $790 million in unpaid
Federal taxes.
Federal law does not currently prohibit health care
providers with tax debt from enrolling in Medicaid. To
determine the magnitude of unpaid taxes owed by Medicaid
providers who received ARRA funding, GAO compared Medicaid
reimbursement information from the three States to known IRS
tax debts as of September 30, 2009. The three States were among
those that received the largest portion of ARRA's increased
Federal funding of Medicaid.
The GAO report determined that about 7,000 Medicaid
providers in the three selected States owed approximately $791
million in unpaid Federal taxes from calendar year 2009 or
earlier. GAO also determined that those tax delinquents
represented about 5.6 percent of all Medicaid providers
reimbursed by the selected States during 2009. In addition, GAO
calculated that the 7,000 Medicaid providers with unpaid taxes
received a total of about $6.6 billion in Medicaid
reimbursements during 2009, including both ARRA and other
sources of Medicaid funds. GAO cautioned that the amount of
unpaid Federal taxes GAO identified was likely understated
because Internal Revenue Service (IRS) taxpayer data reflected
only the amount of unpaid taxes either reported on a tax return
or assessed by IRS through enforcement; it did not include
entities that did not file tax returns or underreported their
income.
The GAO report provided additional detail about 40
individual Medicaid providers from the three selected States,
each of whom had at least $100,000 in Federal tax debt. GAO
determined that those 40 Medicaid providers received a total of
about $235 million in Medicaid reimbursements (including ARRA
funds) in 2009, while owing unpaid Federal taxes of about $26
million through 2010. The amount of unpaid taxes ranged from
about $100,000 to over $6 million per provider. GAO also
disclosed that IRS records indicated that two of the providers
were or had previously been under criminal investigation, and
that one provider had been caught participating in a medical
billing fraud.
The GAO report explained that in the case of most Federal
contractors with unpaid taxes, the IRS had the authority to
seize or ``levy'' all or a portion of any Federal payment made
to them, to satisfy their tax debt and, in some instances, was
authorized to use an automated process to continuously levy any
Federal payments made to those delinquent taxpayers. GAO also
explained that Medicaid reimbursements had never actually been
subject to a continuous levy, because the IRS had determined
that Medicaid reimbursements did not qualify as Federal
payments, since they also included State funds. If the Federal
levy process could be used, the GAO report estimated that the
IRS could have collected between $22 million and $330 million
in the selected States in 2009, from the tax delinquent
Medicaid providers. States contacted by GAO, however, expressed
concerns about using continuous levies, given the challenges
they already encounter with processing one-time IRS levies. The
States described, for example, problems with reaching IRS
revenue officers and with the IRS sending levy notices to the
wrong address.
To recover funds from Medicaid providers with unpaid taxes,
GAO recommended that the IRS explore opportunities to enhance
collection efforts, including through the use of continuous
levies. The report indicated that the IRS agreed with GAO's
recommendation.
D. Income Security: Overlapping Disability and Unemployment Benefits
Should be Evaluated for Potential Savings (GAO-12-764), July
31, 2012
Since 2009, the Subcommittee has conducted an ongoing
investigation into waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal
disability programs. In July 2012, in response to a bipartisan
request from Subcommittee Chairman Levin and Ranking Minority
Member Coburn, as well as from Chairman Tom Carper and Ranking
Minority Member Scott Brown of the Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services
and International Security, GAO examined the interaction of
Federal Disability Insurance (DI) payments which are intended
to support disabled persons incapable of working at a full-time
job, and State-operated Unemployment Insurance (UI) payments,
which are intended to support persons who are ready and willing
to work. The GAO report disclosed that, in Fiscal Year 2010,
117,000 individuals received concurrent DI and UI payments
totaling more than $850 million, and that, under existing
program authority, such concurrent payment were allowable in
certain circumstances.
Both the disability and unemployment insurance programs are
paid for by money deducted from worker paychecks and sent to DI
and UI trust funds. The GAO report explained that DI payments
were made available to workers who were unable to engage in
``substantial gainful activity,'' due to disabling physical or
mental impairments. In contrast, UI payments were designed to
provide temporary cash benefits to eligible workers able to
work but involuntarily unemployed. The GAO report explained
that both the DI and UI trust funds faced serious fiscal
sustainability challenges, which could be relieved in part if
overlapping DI and UI payments were reduced.
GAO was asked to determine the extent to which individuals
across the country received DI and UI benefits concurrently. To
do so, GAO matched State unemployment files with Social
Security Administration (SSA) disability files for Fiscal Year
2010. GAO determined that only a small fraction of the program
beneficiaries received dual benefits from both programs. In
Fiscal Year 2010, 10 million individuals received disability
benefits totaling $122 billion, while 11 million individuals
received unemployment benefits totaling $156 billion. GAO found
that individuals receiving benefits from both programs
accounted for one-third of 1-percent of the benefits paid,
creating an overlap of substantially less than 1 percent, but
even that small overlap involved payments totaling $281 million
from the disability program and $575 million from the
unemployment insurance program, for a total of $850 million.
GAO also identified one individual who had received over
$62,000 in overlapping benefits in a year.
GAO cautioned that, under certain circumstances,
individuals may be eligible for concurrent benefit payments due
to differences in DI and UI eligibility requirements.
Disability insurance is available to workers who are unable to
perform ``substantial gainful activity'' due to physical or
mental impairments expected to last at least 12 months or
result in death. Regulations have generally defined
``substantial gainful activity'' to mean an individual with the
ability to earn an average of over $1,000 a month for a
calendar year. Put another way, a person whose disability
prevents them from earning over $1,000 a month is still
eligible to receive disability benefits even if they perform
some part-time work. If a disabled person has a part-time job,
loses that job, and collects unemployment insurance, no Federal
law currently requires a reduction of their disability payments
due to their receipt of unemployment benefits.
State-run unemployment insurance programs temporarily and
partially replace lost earnings for workers who have lost their
job through no fault of their own. To collect benefits, an
individual must be able to perform suitable work when offered.
While all unemployment insurance programs must conform to broad
Federal guidelines, specific program eligibility is set on a
State by State basis and varies widely. The GAO report did not
identify any State that prohibited the payment of unemployment
benefits to a person already receiving disability insurance,
and reported that at least 10 States had enacted laws providing
that no worker may be considered ineligible for UI benefits due
to illness or disability occurring after the worker filed a UI
claim. The result was that States generally allowed a disabled
person who lost a part-time job to collect unemployment
benefits, provided that UI deductions had been taken from their
paychecks. GAO also explained that, while SSA must reduce DI
benefits for individuals receiving certain other government
disability benefits, such as worker's compensation, no Federal
law required or authorized an automatic elimination of
overlapping DI and UI benefits. The GAO report noted that, as a
result, neither SSA nor DOL had any procedures to identify
overlapping payments.
GAO indicated that reducing or eliminating overlapping
payments could offer substantial savings to DI and UI programs,
but noted that actual savings were difficult to estimate since
the potential costs of establishing mechanisms to do so were
not readily available. GAO recommended that DOL and SSA work
together to evaluate overlapping DI and UI cash benefit
payments and take appropriate action to stop any improper
payments. GAO also recommended that the agencies evaluate the
fiscal sustainability of the DI and UI trust funds. GAO
indicated that DOL and SSA agreed with both recommendations.
E. Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen CBP Efforts
to Mitigate Risk of Employee Corruption and Misconduct (GAO-13-
59), December 4, 2012
Over the years, the Subcommittee has conducted
investigations into border security issues and corruption
issues. In December 2012, in response to a request from
Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Coburn as well as
Congressman Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight, Investigations, and Management of the House
Committee on Homeland Security, GAO prepared a report examining
efforts by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a
component of the Department of Homeland Security, to combat
corruption and ensure the integrity of the CBP workforce.
CBP is responsible for securing U.S. borders and
facilitating legal travel and trade. CBP employees have been
targeted by drug-trafficking and other transnational criminal
organizations offering bribes to facilitate the illicit
transport of drugs, aliens, and other contraband across U.S.
borders, particularly in the southwest. CBP's Office of
Internal Affairs (IA) is responsible for promoting the
integrity of CBP's workforce, programs, and operations. Other
CBP components are responsible for implementing IA integrity
initiatives. GAO was asked to examine data on arrests of and
allegations against CBP employees for corruption or misconduct;
CBP's implementation of integrity-related controls; and CBP's
strategy to combat corruption. To conduct its study, GAO
analyzed arrest and allegation data, reviewed integrity-related
policies and procedures, and interviewed CBP officials in
headquarters and at four locations along the southwest border.
The GAO report determined that CBP data indicated that
arrests of CBP employees for corruption-related activities
since Fiscal Year 2005 accounted for less than 1 percent of
CBP's entire workforce per fiscal year. GAO determined that the
majority of arrests of CBP employees, from Fiscal Year 2005
through Fiscal Year 2012, were related to misconduct,
identifying 2,170 reported incidents of arrests for such
misconduct as domestic violence or driving under the influence.
GAO also determined that a total of 144 current or former CBP
employees had been arrested or indicted for corruption-related
activities, such as the smuggling of aliens and drugs, of whom
125 had been convicted as of October 2012. In addition, GAO
determined that the majority of allegations against CBP
employees since Fiscal Year 2006 occurred at locations along
the southwest border. GAO reported that CBP officials indicated
they were concerned about the negative impact that those cases
had on agency-wide integrity.
The GAO report also described CBP's integrity-related
controls. GAO explained that CBP employed screening tools to
mitigate the risk of employee corruption and misconduct for
both applicants--using such tools as background investigations
and polygraph examinations--and incumbent CBP officers and
Border Patrol agents--using such tools as random drug tests and
periodic reinvestigations. GAO reported, however, that CBP's
Office of Internal Affairs (IA) did not have a mechanism to
maintain and track data on which of its screening tools
provided information used to determine which applicants were
not suitable for hire. GAO indicated that maintaining and
tracking such data was consistent with internal control
standards and could better position CBP IA to gauge the
relative effectiveness of its screening tools.
GAO also reported that CBP IA was considering requiring
periodic polygraphs for incumbent officers and agents; however,
it had not yet fully assessed the feasibility of expanding the
program. GAO explained that CBP had not yet fully assessed, for
example, the costs of implementing polygraph examinations on
incumbent officers and agents, including the costs for
additional supervisors and adjudicators, or assessed the
tradeoffs among periodic tests at various frequencies. GAO
indicated that a feasibility assessment of program expansion
could better position CBP to determine whether and how to best
achieve its goal of strengthening integrity-related controls
for officers and agents. GAO noted further that CBP IA had not
consistently conducted monthly quality assurance reviews of its
adjudications since 2008, as required by internal policies, to
help ensure that adjudicators are following procedures in
evaluating the results of the preemployment and periodic
background investigations. GAO reported that CBP IA officials
indicated they had performed some of the required checks since
2008, but could not provide data on how many checks were
conducted. GAO reported that, without these quality assurance
checks, it was difficult for CBP IA to determine the extent to
which deficiencies, if any, existed in the adjudication
process.
The GAO report determined that CBP did not have in place an
integrity strategy, as called for in its Fiscal Year 2009-2014
Strategic Plan. GAO reported that, during the course of the
review, CBP IA began drafting a strategy, but CBP IA's
Assistant Commissioner indicated that the agency had not yet
set target timelines for completing or implementing the
strategy. GAO reported that the Assistant Commissioner also
stated that there had been significant cultural resistance
among some CBP components to acknowledging CBP IA's authority
to oversee all integrity-related activities. GAO indicated that
setting target timelines would be consistent with program
management standards and could help CBP monitor progress made
toward the development and implementation of an agency-wide
integrity strategy.
The GAO report recommended, among other measures, that CBP
track and maintain data on sources of information used to
determine which applicants were unsuitable for hire, assess the
feasibility of expanding the polygraph program to incumbent
officers and agents, consistently conduct quality assurance
reviews, and set timelines for completing and implementing a
comprehensive integrity strategy. The report indicated that DHS
concurred with the recommendations and reported taking steps to
address them.
AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Chairman: Mark L. Pryor, Chairman
Ranking Minority Member: Rand Paul
I. HEARINGS
1. Gulf Coast Recovery: An Examination of Claims and Social Services in
the Aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill--January 27,
2011
The purpose of the hearing was to measure human recovery
from the oil spill by highlighting progress made, work
remaining, and any deficiencies in the current processes
designed to make Gulf coast residents whole again. The Gulf
Coast Claims Facility (GCCF) was working with nearly 500,000
individuals and businesses to replace lost wages and revenue,
while BP and NGOs are attempting to provide for unmet needs
like feeding and utility assistance, case management, and
mental health services. This hearing was intended to continue a
constructive dialogue between the Federal and State
governments, GCCF, BP, and NGOs involved in providing claims
assistance and social services, and to present critiques, which
will hopefully spur greater coordination and a more streamlined
and cohesive effort.
Witnesses: Kenneth R. Feinberg, Administrator, Gulf Coast
Claims Facility; Craig Bennett, Director, National Pollution
Funds Center, U.S. Coast Guard; Ve Nguyen, Member, United
Louisiana Vietnamese American Fisherfolks; Rear Admiral Eric B.
Broderick, D.D.S., M.P.H., Deputy Administrator, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; Albert L. Keller,
Executive Vice President, Gulf Coast Restoration Organization,
BP America's Gulf Coast Restoration Organization; Tom Costanza,
Executive Director, Office of Justice and Peace, Catholic
Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans; and Lori R. West, Gulf
Region Director of International Relief and Development and
Current Chair of South Mississippi Voluntary Organizations
Active in Disaster.
2. Preventing Improperly Paid Federal Assistance in the Aftermath of
Disasters--March 17, 2011
Witnesses: Elizabeth Zimmerman, Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Michael A. Chodos, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Small
Business Administration; Peggy Gustafson, Inspector General,
U.S. Small Business Administration; and Matt Jadacki, Assistant
Inspector General, Emergency Management Oversight, Office of
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The purpose of this hearing was to examine the factors that
influence improper payments in Federal agencies' disaster
assistance programs and the ability of agencies to identify
improper payments and recoup funds from recipients of
assistance. The hearing examined how agencies with a role in
disaster response and recovery are improving their abilities to
better track funds, identify improper payments, and implement
plans to recoup funds. The Subcommittee discussed whether
current standards for identification and recoupment of payments
are adequate.
Ms. Zimmerman addressed FEMA's plans for recouping $643
million in improper disaster assistance payments as identified
by a DHS OIG report issued in December 2010. Mr. Chodos
discussed the SBA's methods for determining victim eligibility
for disaster assistance, as well as the methods used to
determine the amount and type of assistance. Ms. Gustafson
described the audit report issued by SBA OIG on February 10,
2011, titled ``Processing of Insurance Recovery Checks at the
Disaster Loan Servicing Centers.'' She also highlighted the
findings and recommendations of this audit regarding the SBA's
protocols for processing insurance checks, identifying improper
payments and recovering duplicate benefits. Mr. Jadacki
addressed the December 2010 advisory report conducted by DHS
OIG, which addressed recoupment of improper disaster assistance
payments. He also testified on the factors contributing to the
improper payments, how the improperly paid funds were
identified, and OIG's recommendations for recouping these
funds.
3. Exploring Drug Gangs' Ever-Evolving Tactics to Penetrate the Border
and the Federal Government's Ability to Stop Them--March 31,
2011
Witnesses: Donna Bucella, Assistant Commissioner, Office of
Intelligence and Operations, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; James A.
Dinkins, Executive Associate Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Thomas H. Harrigan, Assistant Administrator and Chief of
Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of
Justice; Frances Flener, Arkansas State Drug Director; L. Kent
Bitsko, Executive Director, Nevada High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area
The purpose of this hearing was to examine the new methods
being employed by drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) to
penetrate the southwest border of the United States, and
efforts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other
law enforcement agencies to stop them. Mexican DTOs are
continuing to strengthen their relationships with U.S-based
gangs for the purpose of expanding their influence over
domestic drug distribution. Recent articles have detailed newer
and more creative methods of smuggling drugs, weapons, and
people across the border. These methods include using fake
border patrol and Mexican law enforcement or military vehicles.
All of the witnesses testified on the variety of new
methods and their organizations' ongoing efforts to counter
them. Each witness addressed cooperative efforts between their
organization and other law enforcement entities on the Federal,
State, and local levels with responsibility in this area.
4. Understanding the Power of Social Media as a Communications Tool in
the Aftermath of Disasters--May 5, 2011
Witnesses: Hon. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Renee Preslar, Public Information Officer, Arkansas
Department of Emergency Management; Suzy DeFrancis, Chief
Public Affairs Officer, American Red Cross; Shona L. Brown,
Senior Vice President, Google.org; and Heather Blanchard, Co-
Founder, CrisisCommons
The purpose of this hearing was to explore ways the Federal
Government can work with social media companies to collect and
distribute critical information in the wake of disasters. Over
the past 5 years, the use of social media has increased
dramatically. The use of social media outlets to post real-time
video and photographic footage, updates on individuals'
whereabouts and conditions, and firsthand commentary on the
impact of a given disaster are all examples of how these tools
are establishing a completely new form of global communication.
All of the witnesses discussed ways their organization
works with social media companies to fully utilize and
distribute critical information. Additionally, they assessed
the Federal Government's role in facilitating these
partnerships and provided suggestions for better utilization of
the public sector's tools.
5. Border Corruption: Assessing Customs and Border Protection and the
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office
Collaboration in the Fight to Prevent Corruption--June 9, 2011
Witnesses: Hon. Alan D. Bersin, Commissioner, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
and Charles K. Edwards, Acting Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
The purpose of this hearing was to discuss CBP's efforts to
detect and eliminate corruption within the agency. The hearing
was a follow up to a March 2010 hearing when the Subcommittee
heard from Federal officials regarding corruption issues within
CBP and other border agencies. Many of the cases appeared to be
tied to deliberate efforts by drug trade organizations to
corrupt law enforcement personnel and other relevant Federal
and State employees in order to improve their ability to
counter increasingly effective border control measures taken by
the United States.
Both witnesses discussed the stated role of CBP in
monitoring, investigating, and disciplining CBP agents
suspected of corrupt or other problematic activities.
Additionally, the witnesses addressed the role of CBP Office of
Internal Affairs (CBPIA) in contrast to the role of DHS IG in
detecting and investigating corruption. Lastly, they testified
about the problems between CBPIA and DHS OIG in detail and
provided information on solutions that are underway to clarify
each entity's role, and make their efforts more collaborative.
6. 2011 Spring Storms: Picking Up the Pieces and Building Back
Stronger--July 19, 2011
Witnesses: Hon. Richard Serino, Deputy Administrator,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Hon. Christopher Masingill, Federal Co-
Chairman, Delta Regional Authority; David Maxwell, Director,
Arkansas Department of Emergency Management; Thomas M. ``Mike''
Womack, Executive Director, Mississippi Emergency Management
Agency; and Brian ``Rob'' O'Brian, III, President, Joplin Area
Chamber of Commerce, Missouri.
The purpose of this hearing was to examine response and
recovery efforts in the aftermath of this spring's tornadoes,
storms and floods in the South. The Subcommittee assessed the
progress being made in recovering from these disasters and
identified ongoing challenges and lessons learned in the
recovery effort. The Subcommittee examined the impact of these
disasters on affected communities and economies and heard from
State and local witnesses about specific ongoing recovery
needs. The hearing also focused on preparedness and mitigation
efforts at the Federal, State and local levels to prevent
repetitive losses in future disasters.
Deputy Administrator Serino discussed FEMA's progress in
responding to and recovering from major disasters along with
addressing whether the current Federal disaster response and
recovery framework has the necessary flexibility to meet the
unique recovery needs of the impacted regions. Mr. Maxwell
testified about his experience in responding to and recovering
from the tornadoes, storms, and floods that have impacted
Arkansas over the past several months. Mr. Womack addressed his
experience in responding to and recovering from the storms and
floods that have impacted Mississippi over the past several
months. Mr. O'Brian described the impact of the May 22, 2011
tornado on Joplin's communities, small businesses, and key
local and regional economies.
7. Accountability at FEMA: Is Quality Job #1?--October 20, 2011
Witnesses: Hon. Richard Serino, Deputy Administrator,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Matt Jadacki, Assistant Inspector General,
Emergency Management Oversight, Office of Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Hon. Maurice McTigue,
Vice President and Distinguished Visiting Scholar, The Mercatus
Center, George Mason University; and Craig Killough, Vice
President, Project Management Institute.
The purpose of this hearing was to examine front-end
quality controls and business practices at FEMA that reduce
errors, mitigate waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensure greater
efficiency in the agency's disaster response and recovery
activities. The Subcommittee assessed FEMA's efforts to and
challenges in prioritizing and improving internal management
controls across the agency. The Subcommittee also examined best
practices already in use by other Federal agencies and analyzed
how these could be applied in FEMA programs. This hearing was a
follow-up to a March 2011 Subcommittee hearing on FEMA's
efforts to recoup $643 million in improperly paid disaster
assistance in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The
recoupment hearing raised concerns about the agency's internal
controls, specifically regarding its ability to identify and
prevent the errors that resulted in unnecessary and wasteful
overpayments.
Deputy Administrator Serino discussed steps FEMA took to
improve accountability and performance in its disaster-related
programs; the agency's efforts to emphasize the prevention of
waste, fraud, and abuse in these programs; and the
incorporation of lessons learned from past disasters. Mr.
Jadacki summarized the DHS Inspector General's recent audits
and analyses of FEMA's disaster-related programs. He also
discussed his annual assessment of FEMA management challenges
and the extent to which FEMA is emphasizing the prevention of
waste, fraud and abuse in these programs, especially on the
front end of its disaster assistance processes and programs.
Mr. McTigue and Mr. Killough both assessed FEMA's ability to
improve accountability and performance in its disaster related
programs, based on their past analyses of the agency. They also
discussed their perspectives on improving program management
efficiency and effectiveness.
8. Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia: From Earthquakes to Terrorist Attacks: Is the
National Capital Region Prepared for the Next Disaster?--
December 7, 2012
Witnesses: Steward D. Beckham, Director, Office of National
Capital Region Coordination, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Dean S. Hunter,
Deputy Director, Facilities, Security, and Contracting, U.S.
Office of Personnel Management; William O. Jenkins,
Jr.,Director, Homeland Security and Justice Team, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Richard Muth, Executive
Director, Maryland Emergency Management Agency, State of
Maryland; Hon. Terrie L. Suit, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
and Homeland Security, Commonwealth of Virginia; Paul A.
Quander, Jr., Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice,
District of Columbia
The purpose of this hearing was to examine the preparedness
of the National Capital Region (NRC) to respond to both natural
and manmade disasters. The hearing looked specifically at NCR
strategic planning, communication capabilities among key
stakeholders, and areas to improve efficiencies and
effectiveness in leadership, coordination, and decisionmaking
authority in a crisis.
Mr. Beckham discussed the role of the ONCRC and steps it
has taken to fulfill this role and steps the Department has and
is taking to effectively coordinate and communicate with key
stakeholders relating to emergency preparedness and response
for the NCR. Mr. Hunter addressed OPM's DC area dismissal and
closure policies for severe weather situations or emergencies,
including the soon-to-be released revised policy as well as
guidance for specific severe weather situations and
emergencies, to the Federal workforce. Mr. Jenkins spoke on the
preliminary assessment of the NCR's 2010 Homeland Security
Strategic Plan and ways to strengthen the plan. Mr. Muth, Ms.
Suit, and Mr. Quander all discussed the efforts their State has
taken to effectively coordinate and communicate with NCR
stakeholders relating to emergency preparedness and response
for the NCR. Those three witnesses also addressed steps their
States are taking to participate in NCR strategic planning,
training, and exercises.
II. LEGISLATION
(1) S.477--Government Excess Prevention Act of 2011--
Directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to coordinate with federal agencies to: (1) determine
which government publications could be published on government
websites and devise a strategy to reduce government printing
costs over the 10-year period beginning with Fiscal Year 2012,
(2) issue on OMB's public website the results of a cost-benefit
analysis for monitoring government printing, and (3) establish
guidelines on employee printing and for disclosing the cost of
printing government publications.
Imposes limitations on government travel and subsistence
expenses, except for expenses incurred for threatened law
enforcement personnel and for other expenses related to
national security or public safety.
Rescinds in Fiscal Year 2011 20% of the funding for the
acquisition of new vehicles for the Federal fleet by the
General Services Administration (GSA). Imposes limitations on
such funding in Fiscal Year 2012 and subsequent fiscal years.
On March 3, 2011 it was referred to Senate committee and
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
(2) S. 479--Federal Real Property Disposal Enhancement Act
of 2011--Requires the Administrator of the General Services
Administration (GSA) to: (1) issue guidance for federal agency
real property plans, including recommendations on how to
identify and dispose of excess properties, evaluate disposal
costs and benefits, and prioritize disposal decisions based on
agency missions and anticipated future need for holdings; (2)
report to specified congressional committees annually for five
years after 2011 on agency efforts to reduce their real
property assets; and (3) assist agencies in the identification
and disposal of excess real property. Sets forth agency duties
with respect to its properties, including maintaining adequate
inventory controls and reporting excess property to the
Administrator.
Includes among the amounts the Administrator is authorized
to obligate from proceeds from the disposition of excess real
property: (1) amounts to pay the costs related to identifying
and preparing properties to be reported excess by another
agency; and (2) amounts to pay the costs associated with the
reversion, custody, and disposal of reverted real property.
Revises requirements for federal agency retention of proceeds
from the transfer or sale of excess real property.
Provides that requirements under the McKinney Vento
Homeless Assistance Act for the use of public buildings and
real property to assist the homeless shall not apply in Fiscal
Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2013 to certain non-excess federal
buildings or real property selected for demolition.
On March 3, 2011 it was referred to Senate committee and
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
(3) S. 792--Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of
2011--Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2011--
Authorizes the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to waive a debt owed to the United
States relating to federal assistance provided under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to
individuals and households in relation to a major disaster
declared by the President during the period of August 28, 2005-
December 31, 2010, if: (1) such assistance was distributed
based on an error by FEMA, (2) there was no fault on behalf of
the debtor, and (3) the collection of the debt would be against
equity and good conscience. Prohibits the Administrator from
waiving such a debt that involves fraud, the presentation of a
false claim, or misrepresentation by the debtor or any party
having an interest in the claim.
Directs the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), at 3-month intervals until 18 months after this
Act's enactment, to submit a report that assesses the cost-
effectiveness of FEMA's efforts to recoup improper payments
under the individuals and households program under such Act.
On July 31, 2012 it was placed on Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 478.
(4) S. 568--Strengthening Community Safety Act of 2011--
Strengthening Community Safety Act of 2011--Amends the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to make a grant to
an eligible first responder agency for the additional costs
incurred as a direct result of one or more of its employees who
are reservists being placed on active duty. Defines ``eligible
first responder agency'' as one for which the cost of personnel
has increased by not less than 5% as a direct result of such
employees being placed on active duty and which is not a for-
profit organization.
Prohibits the Administrator from making a grant for costs
relating to an employee being placed on active duty if federal
funds are used for that employee's pay or benefits. Limits the
total amount of grants made to an eligible first responder
agency in any fiscal year to $100,000. Terminates the
Administrator's authority to make grants three years after this
Act's enactment.
Authorizes the use of grant funds for: (1) pay or benefits
for an individual hired to replace such an employee that are in
addition to any pay and benefits that would have been provided
to the deployed employee, (2) overtime expenses for an
individual who performs tasks that would have been performed by
such an employee, and (3) the costs associated with filling a
vacancy created by an employee being placed on active duty.
Allows a recipient to use grant funds to cover expenses
incurred beginning 90 days before deployment until the date the
employee returns to fully paid employment status.
Amends the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 to reduce funding for Fiscal Year 2011
for grants to private operators providing transportation by an
over-the-road bus for security improvements.
On March 14, 2011 it was referred to Senate committee and
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
(5) S. 1418--Emergency Managements Assistance Compact of
2011--Amends the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
of 2006 to authorize the use of Emergency Management Compact
grants to: (1) educate emergency response providers by offering
training materials and courses relating to the Compact; (2)
conduct exercises regarding deployments under the Compact and
related procedures; (3) establish a system for tracking
resources deployed under the Compact; and (4) conduct after-
action assessments, prepare reports, and carry out
recommendations in response to large-scale activations, as
determined appropriate by Compact administrators.
Authorizes appropriations for Compact grants for Fiscal
Year 2012-Fiscal Year 2016.
On July 26, 2011 it was referred to Senate committee and
read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.
III. GAO REPORTS
(1) GAO-11-839--Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Temporary
Emergency Impact Aid Provided Education Support for Displaced
Students--09/07/2011.
(2) GAO-11-605--Social Media: Federal Agencies Need
Politics and Procedures for Managing and Protecting Information
They Access and Disseminate--06/28/2011.
ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT
Chairman: Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Ranking Minority Member: Rob Portman (R-OH)
I. AUTHORITY
The Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight has broad
oversight authority over all aspects of Federal contracting.
The Subcommittee was created as an Ad Hoc Subcommittee for a
limited term to expire at the conclusion of the 112th Congress.
II. ACTIVITY
During the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee on Contracting
Oversight held 10 hearings or roundtables, authorized 24
investigations, and introduced, or joined as original co-
sponsor, 9 related pieces of legislation.
The following is a summary of the activities of the
Subcommittee organized by topic.
A. Accountability
The Subcommittee continued its activities to bolster
accountability for Federal contractors.
1. Investigation: Contracts Registered at Thomes Avenue, Cheyenne,
Wyoming
On September 21, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent letters to
Federal contractors registered at 2170 Thomes Avenue in
Cheyenne, Wyoming. The Subcommittee received information that
the address served as the corporate address of more than 2,000
companies, some of which appear to be shell companies used to
obscure the identity of their beneficial owners. Specifically,
the letters requested that the companies provide information
regarding their principle place of business, their U.S. and
foreign locations, and the names of all individuals and
companies with actual or effective ownership or control of the
company, in addition to their decision to list 2710 Thomes
Avenue as their business in a Federal Government contracting
database.
2. Investigation: General Services Administration (GSA) Bonuses
On April 10, 2012, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the
Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration
(GSA) requesting information about the management and oversight
of contracts by GSA's public buildings service. The GSA
Inspector General issued a report on April 2, 2012 which found
that the agency spent more than $822,000 to plan and hold a
conference for approximately 300 GSA employees in Las Vegas,
Nevada, and called GSA's spending ``excessive and wasteful.''
On April 6, 2012, the Inspector General released a second
report finding that GSA spent more than $430,000 on an employee
incentive program in violation of regulations. Individuals
named in both reports received substantial cash bonuses for
their performance in 2010 and 2011.
Based on these findings, Chairman McCaskill asked GSA to
provide information about the names and amount of bonuses
received by GSA officials referenced in the Inspector General's
reports. The information provided in GSA's response revealed
that from 2008 through May 2012, the agency awarded
approximately $1.1 million in bonuses to 84 individuals who
were the subjects of investigation by the Inspector General. On
May 23, 2012, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management to provide information
regarding the total number and amount of all bonuses awarded at
each Federal agency from 2008 to 2011.
B. Alaska Native Corporations
The Subcommittee continued its oversight of Alaska Native
Corporations. On September 16, 2011, Chairman McCaskill
requested by letter that the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) initiate a formal review of a
noncompetitive contract to Arctic Slope Corporation Research
and Technical Solutions (ASRC) to perform required technical
support and engineering studies. The letter specifically
requested that the agency review that (1) NASA decided to award
the contract as a noncompetitive letter contract even though an
acquisition plan was in place over a month prior to award, (2)
the contract was awarded as a cost-plus-fixed-fee type contract
despite having 10 years of cost history, and (3) NASA staff
considered the past performance of the company when deciding to
award the contract, a practice forbidden under the Federal
Acquisition Regulation. NASA staff stated that ASRC assured
NASA officials that incumbent personnel for ASRC Management
Services, a subsidiary of ASRC and the previous contract
holder, would perform the new contract awarded to ASRC.
C. Administration Oversight
The Subcommittee continued its oversight of the Obama
Administration's management and oversight of Federal
contracting activities.
1. Investigation: Federal Contracting Databases
On January 31, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to request a review of the Integrated Acquisition
Environment (IAE). GAO issued its final report (GAO-12-429) in
March 2012. GAO found that although GSA had made some progress
in developing the system, the costs had increased significantly
and the development schedule has been delayed by almost 2
years.
On July 15, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the
Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to
request information regarding the Federal Awardee Performance
Integrity and Information System (FAPIIS). FAPIIS improves the
transparency and accountability of the Federal procurement
process by creating a single, searchable database of contractor
misconduct. However, FAPIIS may have a system limitation which
could prevent it from functioning properly, causing FAPIIS to
fail to be in compliance with its legal requirements. The
Subcommittee met with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
staff and determined appropriate next steps.
2. Investigation: Office of Information Programs and Services
On December 6, 2012, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Under Secretary for Management for the State Department
requesting information regarding the State Department's
procedures for responding to congressional requests. In
September 2012, the State Department Office of Inspector
General released a report raising serious concerns about the
management of the Office of Information Programs and Services
that impeded IPS's ability to carry out its responsibilities in
an efficient and effective manner. The letter specifically
requested information about the agency's progress in addressing
the problems raised in the report, and also how problems
associated with records management have impacted the agency's
ability to respond to public and congressional requests for
information.
3. Investigation: Air Traffic Controller Optimum Training Solution
(ATCOTS) Contract
On June 22, 2012, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the
Acting Administrator of FAA to request information regarding
the Air Traffic Controller Optimum Training Solution (ATCOTS)
contract. In September 2008, the FAA awarded the ATCOTS
contract to Raytheon to train new and existing air traffic
controllers and to help the FAA improve controller training.
However, problems were found in the contract for the ATCOTS
contract, including significant cost overruns, poor procurement
practices, and lack of effective contract oversight. Because of
these cost overruns, the FAA may have planned to exercise the
first 3-year option period earlier than anticipated, without
addressing need to update cost estimates, define training
requirements, and develop and implement appropriate performance
measure. Chairman McCaskill asked the agency to provide
information regarding the future of the ATCOTS contract, as
well as information regarding the award and incentive fees
received by Raytheon under the ATCOTS contract. The
Subcommittee met with FAA staff and Raytheon staff and
determined appropriate next steps.
4. Investigation: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR)
On December 7, 2012, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Chief of Naval Operations for the U.S. Navy regarding the
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), which
provides contract management and oversight services to numerous
Department of Defense Agencies, requesting information
regarding whether SPAWAR was carrying out its management
obligations in a manner consistent with Federal procurement
standards and the best interests of the taxpayer. Chairman
McCaskill received information that SPAWAR had a record of
inadequate performance for Service Academy Medical Exams, and a
second contract for a Defense Department Medical Examination
Review Board (MERB) database was behind schedule. The letter
specifically requested information related to SSC Lant
Inspector General's report on the Smart/Jones building project
and all reports, audits and investigations relating to SPAAR's
contract management for the last 2 years.
5. Investigation: Lifeline
On February 13, 2012, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
request information about contracts related to Lifeline, the
program that provides discounted landline services to qualified
low-income customers. Specifically, the letter asked for
information about the number, value, and scope of agreements
between the FCC and program administrators as well as eligible
telecommunications carriers.
D. Afghanistan and Iraq
The Subcommittee held two hearings and continued its
ongoing oversight of contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
hearings focused on the management and oversight of
reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan and proposed
legislation to improve contracting in contingencies.
1. Afghanistan Reconstruction Contracts: Lessons Learned and Ongoing
Problems (June 30, 2011)
Witnesses: Larry D. Walker, President, The Louis Berger
Group, Inc.; Wahid Hakki, Chief Executive Officer, Contrack
International, Inc.; William M. Solis, Director, Defense
Capabilities and Management, Government Accountability Office
(GAO); David S. Sedney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, Office of the
Assistance Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security
Affairs, Defense Department; Kim D. Denver, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Procurement, U.S. Army; J. Alexander
Thier, Assistant to the Administrator and Director, Office of
Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs, U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID).
Overview: The hearing assessed the management and oversight
of reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan. In particular, the
hearing focused on the extent to which Defense Department and
USAID have incorporated and institutionalized the lessons
learned since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq. The hearing also provided an opportunity to review
findings from GAO regarding Defense Department's management and
oversight of reconstruction contracts. This hearing was the
fifth in a planned series of hearings covering actual and
potential waste, fraud, and abuse in Afghanistan contracts.
1. The Comprehensive Contingency Contracting Reform Act of 2012 (S.
2139) (April 17, 2012)
Witnesses: Senator Jim Webb (D-VA); Richard T. Ginman,
Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy,
Department of Defense (Defense Department); Hon. Patrick F.
Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, Department of State
(DOS); Angelique M. Crumbly, Acting Assistant to the
Administrator, Bureau for Management, U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID); Lynne M. Halbrooks, Acting
Inspector General, Defense Department; Harold W. Geisel, Deputy
Inspector General, DOS; Michael Carroll, Acting Inspector
General, USAID.
Overview: The hearing reviewed the Comprehensive
Contingency Contracting Reform Act of 2012 (S. 2139). The
hearing examined how S. 2139 remedies systemic problems in
contingency contracting. The hearing also provided an
opportunity to discuss what additional steps, if any, may be
required to fully address findings in prior hearings and
investigations by the Commission, Congress, and others
regarding contracting in overseas military contingencies.
2. Investigation: U.S. Embassy Guard Contracts
The Subcommittee continued its ongoing investigation of
contracts for guard services at U.S. embassies. On March 14,
2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the Deputy Inspector
General of the Department of State requesting information
regarding the State Department's award of contracts for guard
services at U.S. embassies, including the U.S. Embassy in
Kabul, Afghanistan.
On February 10, 2012, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Under Secretary for Management at the State Department
requesting additional information regarding the award,
management, and oversight of the World Protective Services
contract for security services in high-risk areas.
3. Investigation: LOGCAP IV Contract
The Subcommittee continued its oversight of the Defense
Department's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
contract for logistics and base operations support. On June 24,
2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the Secretary of
Defense to request information regarding the Department of
Defense's upcoming award of a new task order for base life
support services to support the Department of State in Iraq
under the LOGCAP IV contract. Chairman McCaskill raised
concerns regarding the Defense Department's management and
oversight of the LOGCAP contract in Iraq, particularly in light
of the upcoming transition of some responsibilities to the
State Department.
4. Investigation: Justice Sector Support Program (JSSP)
On June 24, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the
Under Secretary for Management at the State Department to
request information regarding the Justice Sector Support
Program (JSSP) contract, awarded to Pacific Architects and
Engineers, a former subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, from
solicitation until October 1, 2010. Chairman McCaskill sent a
second letter on September 16, 2011.
5. Investigation: Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction (SIGAR)
On July 22, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent letters to the
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the Ambassador to
Afghanistan regarding the response of the Department of Defense
(Defense Department), the Department of State (State
Department), and the Embassy to a 2011 audit report from the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
(SIGAR). The report, titled, ``Limited Interagency Coordination
and Insufficient Controls over U.S Funds in Afghanistan Hamper
U.S. Efforts to Develop the Afghan Financial Sector and
Safeguard U.S. Cash,'' found that U.S. agencies' continued
failure to coordinate their actions has hampered efforts to
assist the Afghan government and Afghanistan's central bank, Da
Afghanistan Bank. Chairman McCaskill's letter requested
information on how the Defense Department, State Department,
and the Embassy intend to improve interagency coordination and
accountability.
6. Investigation: Contracts for Afghan National Policy Training
On October 22, 2012, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Secretary of the Army requesting information related to
Army contracts for police training in Afghanistan. The letter
followed reports that former employees of Jorge Scientific, an
Army contractor, engaged in frequent abuse of alcohol and drugs
in Kabul, at times with the involvement of Army personnel
responsible for contract oversight. Jorge also allegedly
submitted false paperwork to the government to enable employees
to obtain and carry weapons without proper authorization. The
letter requested information regarding (1) the number, type,
value, and obligations to date of contracts held by Jorge
Scientific Corporation, (2) evaluation or audits of the
contractor's performance, (3) the number, qualifications, and
locations of the contracting officers' representatives and
other personnel responsible for conducting oversight of Jorge
Scientific contract(s) in Afghanistan, (4) Army policies and
procedures related to the acquisition and use of firearms,
grenades, and other weapons by contractors in Afghanistan, and
(5) other Army police training contracts in Afghanistan.
E. Arlington National Cemetery
The Subcommittee held one hearing and continued its
oversight related to Arlington National Cemetery. The hearing
focused on the mismanagement of contracts at Arlington National
Cemetery.
1. Contract Management at Arlington National Cemetery (January 25,
2012)
Witnesses: Lieutenant Gen. Peter M. Vangjel, Inspector
General, Army; Brian J. Lepore, Director, Defense Capabilities
and Management, GAO; Belva M. Martin, Director, Acquisition and
Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office (GAO);
Kathryn A. Condon, Executive Director, Army National Cemeteries
Program
Overview: On January 25, 2012, the Subcommittee held its
second hearing to examine the mismanagement of contracts at
Arlington National Cemetery. The Subcommittee's first hearing,
in July 2010, followed a June 2010 report by the Army Inspector
General that found problems with hundreds of graves at
Arlington, including unmarked or improperly marked graves,
mishandling of cremated remains, and incorrect information in
the Cemetery's records about whether graves were occupied. At
the Subcommittee's July 2010 hearing, the Subcommittee released
information showing that the problems with graves at Arlington
could have been far more extensive than the Army or anyone else
had previously acknowledged. The documents and information
obtained by the Subcommittee suggested that 4,900 to 6,600
graves may have been unmarked, improperly marked, or mislabeled
on the Cemetery's maps.
The hearing examined what progress has been made to improve
the management and oversight of contracts at Arlington since
the Subcommittee's July 2010 hearing. The hearing also reviewed
the findings of new reports issued by the Army and the
Government Accountability Office as required under Public Law
111-339, a law introduced by Chairman McCaskill and signed into
law on December 22, 2010.
2. Investigation: Arlington National Cemetery Contract Management
On March 31, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the
Secretary of the Army to express serious concerns regarding
reports of errors in burial records and at gravesites at
Arlington National Cemetery. The letter requested information
regarding (1) the number of gravesites examined, (2) the number
of gravesites determined to be incorrectly identified, labeled,
or occupied and the methodology used to make that
determination, (3) the number of families contacted regarding
problems with gravesites and the number who have requested that
the gravesites be physically examined, (4) the procedures for
contracting family members regarding actual or potential
problems with gravesites and how these procedures have been
implemented and/or changed since July 2010, and (5) the extent
to which the Army will be able to correctly identify all
gravesites by the end of the year and the estimated costs and
time required to complete an examination of gravesites.
F. Contract Audits
The Subcommittee held a hearing which focused on how
Federal agencies use contract audits to detect and present
waste, fraud, and abuse in government contracts.
1. Improving Federal Contract Auditing (February 1, 2011)
Witnesses: Thomas P. Skelly, Acting Chief Financial
Officer, U.S. Department of Education (DOE); Ingrid Kolb,
Director, Office of Management, Office of Deputy Secretary,
DOE; Hon. Brian Miller, Inspector General, GSA; Patrick J.
Fitzgerald, Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense
Department; Jeanette M. Franzel, Managing Director, Financial
Management and Assurance, GAO; E. Sanderson Hoe, Partner,
McKenna, Long and Aldrige, on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; Nick Schwellenbach, Director of Investigations,
Project On Government Oversight.
Overview: The hearing examined how Federal agencies use
contract audits to detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse
in government contracts. In particular, the hearing reviewed
the findings of the Subcommittee's ongoing investigation of the
type and number of contract audits at Federal agencies. The
hearing also examined the role played by the Defense Contract
Audit Agency (DCAA) in performing contract audits for agencies
other than the Defense Department.
G. Counternarcotics
On June 7, 2011, the Subcommittee released a report, New
Information about Counternarcotics in Latin America, which
analyzed State Department and Defense Department spending on
contracts to supply counternarcotics assistance to governments
in Latin America. The report reviewed counternarcotics contract
spending over a 5 year period focusing primarily on eight
countries: Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Haiti,
Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic.
To assess the extent to which the Federal Government relies
on contractors to carry out counternarcotics programs, Chairman
McCaskill and then-Ranking Member Robert Bennett sent a letter
in February 2010 requesting information and documents regarding
counternarcotics contracts awarded by the State Department and
Defense Department. The report was compiled using State
Department and Defense Department data sent in response to the
letter, as well as information received at the Subcommittee's
May 2010 hearing on counternarcotics contracts.
The report found that from 2005 to 2009, the majority of
counternarcotics contracts in Latin America went to only five
contractors, and the State Department and Defense Department
spent nearly $2 billion on counternarcotics contracts in
Columbia alone from 2005 to 2009. In addition, the report
revealed that more than half (52%) of counternarcotics contract
dollars during this time period were spend to acquire goods and
services related to aircraft, used for drug location and
eradication. The report also found that neither the State
Department nor the Defense Department has adequate systems in
place to track counternarcotics contract data.
H. Food Service Management
The Subcommittee held one hearing and initiated one
investigation related to food service management. The
Subcommittee's oversight focused on whether food service
management contractors are withholding rebates, discounts, and
credits which should be passed through to the Federal
Government.
1. Food Service Management Contracts: Are Contractors Overcharging the
Government? (October 5, 2011)
Witnesses: Hon. Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General,
Department of Agriculture, and Chair, Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency; John F. Carroll, Assistant
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the State
of New York; Charles Tiefer, Professor of Law, University of
Baltimore School of Law, and Former Commissioner, Commission on
Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Overview: The Federal Government spends billions of dollars
every year on contracts for food service management at military
installations and bases, hospitals, and government buildings as
well as through the Federal school lunch program. The purpose
of the hearing was to examine whether food service management
contractors are withholding rebates, discounts, and credits
which should be passed through to the Federal Government. The
hearing reviewed examples of this practice and assessed steps
taken by agencies to ensure that contractors are in compliance
with rebate requirements. The hearing also addressed the need
for increased transparency, oversight, and accountability.
2. Investigation: Food Service Management Contracts
On October 7, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent letters to the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of the Interior,
Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Secretary of State,
as well as the Attorney General, the Director of the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency, the Administrator for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
Administrator for the General Services Administration, and the
Administrator for the Agency for International Development to
request more information regarding procurement, management, and
oversight of food service management contracts and vendor
rebate practices. In addition, Chairman McCaskill sent letters
to holders of government food service contracts to request more
information about the contracts. The letters were sent to
address the issues raised at the Subcommittee's October 5, 2011
hearing on food service management contracts.
On December 4, 2012, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget to
request a review food service contracts and assess any needed
changes to law or regulation to achieve the most efficient,
effective, and transparent use of taxpayer dollars spent
through food service contracts.
I. Iran Sanctions
On April 8, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the
Secretary of Defense to request additional information
regarding the Department's efforts to ensure the contractor KGL
is in compliance with the Iran Sanctions Act, as well as
information regarding its efforts to determine whether KGL is
currently involved in any business interests with entities
designated by the Treasury Department as engaged in activities
related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The Subcommittee has repeatedly raised concerns about Defense
Department contracts with KGL, including, but not limited to,
its responsibility as a contractor based on KGL's conduct
relating to the death of Lieutenant Colonel Dominic ``Rocky''
Baragona, who was killed in Safwan, Iraq, when his vehicle was
struck by a truck being driven by a KGL employee, while KGL
held a contract with the U.S. Army to deliver supplies to Iraq.
On May 30, 2011, Chairman McCaskill received a letter from
the Defense Department stating that, after the agency reviewed
the Central Contractor Registration System, the Excluded
Parties Listing System, the Federal Awardee Performance and
Integrity Information System, the Past Performance of
Information Retrieval System, and the Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocks Persons List, KGL Holding has not violated
U.S. law, and is thus eligible to hold defense contracts.
On April 8, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the
Comptroller General to request that GAO review Federal
agencies' compliance with Section 102(b) of the Comprehensive
Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010
(CISADA). Section 102(b) of CISADA amended the Iran Sanctions
Act of 1996 (ISA) to require prospective government contractors
to certify that neither they nor their affiliates were engaged
in sanctioned activity in Iran. The letter requested that the
GAO assess (1) agency and contractor compliance with the
certification, (2) how many reports of false certifications
have been investigated by agencies, (3) the outcomes of these
investigations, (4) how many contractors have been suspended or
debarred for engaging in sanctioned activity in Iran, (5) how
many waivers of certification have been requested and how many
granted, and (6) the extent to which agencies and contractors
are applying the CISADA requirements to subcontractors.
J. Medicare
The Subcommittee continued its oversight of contracts
relating to Medicare. On March 1, 2011, Chairman McCaskill,
Senator Baucus, and Senator Carper sent a letter to the
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human
Services to express potential conflicts of interest among the
private-sector contractors that perform most of the payment,
administration, and oversight functions of Medicare. For
example, a survey of contractors regarding problems with the
Medicare program identified several relationships between key
Medicare contractors that raise questions about possible
conflicts of interest, or at the very least, might present the
appearance of a conflict of interest, between the companies
responsible for approving and processing reimbursement claims,
and those hired by the Federal Government to ensure claims are
paid correctly. The letter urged the Inspector General to
conduct a review of the contractors and their subsidiary
relationships to identify possible conflicts of interest.
K. Public Relations
The Subcommittee initiated an investigation and held one
hearing related to contracts for public relations services.
1. Examination of Public Relations Contracts at the General Services
Administration's Heartland Region (March 1, 2011)
Witnesses: Hon. Brian Miller, Inspector General, General
Services Administration (GSA); Hon. Martha Johnson,
Administrator, GSA; Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, GSA; Mary Ruwwe, Regional Commissioner (Heartland
Region), Public Buildings Service, GSA.
Overview: The hearing examined contracts for public
relations services at GSA and other Federal agencies. In
particular, the hearing reviewed findings from GSA Office of
Inspector General's February 19, 2011 audit memorandum
regarding contracts valued at $235,000 that were awarded to
Jane Mobley Associates, Inc. (JMA) to assist GSA with
responding to media and government agency investigations
related to the environmental and health concerns at the
Bannister Federal Complex in Kansas City. The hearing also
reviewed the results of the Subcommittee's ongoing
investigation into the JMA contract.
2. Investigation: Public Relations Contracts
On February 17, 2010, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Administrator of GSA requesting information for a briefing
for Subcommittee staff regarding bonuses and ratings for GSA
officials associated with the award of contracts for public
relations services at GSA's Bannister Federal Complex in Kansas
City.
On November 12, 2010, Chairman McCaskill sent a second
letter to the Administrator of GSA requesting information
regarding (1) contracts awarded by GSA for public relations,
advertising, or similar services, and (2) the complete contract
file for one contract assisting GSA with the ``impending crisis
event'' caused by media probes and government investigations of
the Bannister Federal Complex in Kansas City.
On May 9, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to GSA
requesting a response regarding issues raised in Inspector
General Miller's statement at the Subcommittee's March 1, 2011
hearing, which noted several inconsistencies in Regional
Commissioner Ruwwe's statements.
On February 28, 2012, Chairman McCaskill and Ranking Member
Portman sent letters to the Secretary of Labor, Secretary of
Education, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Housing
and Urban Affairs, as well as the Attorney General, the
Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, the Director of
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chairman of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission to request information about
the agencies' contracts for public relations, publicity,
advertising, communications, or similar services.
L. Small Business
The Subcommittee held one hearing to examine the ways in
which large businesses are obtaining and performing contracts
intended to be performed by small businesses.
1. Small Business Contracts: How Oversight Failures and Regulatory
Loopholes Allow Large Businesses to Get and Keep Small Business
Contracts (July 26, 2011)
Witnesses: Joseph G. Jordan, Associate Administrator,
Office of Government Contracting and Business Development,
Small Business Administration (SBA); Mauricio P. Vera, Chair,
Federal Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Council and Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization, U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID); Mindy Connolly, Ph.D., Chief Acquisition Officer,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Overview: The hearing examined the ways in which large
businesses are obtaining and performing small business
contracts. Since 2005, the Inspector General of SBA has listed
as one of the agency's top management challenges the fact that
large firms are obtaining small business contracts and agencies
are counting contracts performed by large businesses toward
their small business goals. According to the Inspector General,
many contract awards recorded as going to small businesses are
actually performed by large businesses. The hearing also
assessed the steps taken by the SBA to improve their oversight
in this area and the reasons why the SBA and other agencies
have failed to implement the Inspector General's
recommendations. The hearing also examined what legislative and
regulatory steps may be necessary to address these issues.
M. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
The Subcommittee initiated an investigation related to
traumatic brain injury (TBI), which focused on TRICARE's
contracts to study the effectiveness of cognitive
rehabilitation therapy for the treatment of traumatic brain
injury.
On January 19, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Secretary of Defense requesting information regarding
TRICARE's contracts to study the effectiveness of cognitive
rehabilitation therapy for the treatment of traumatic brain
injury. The Defense Department relied on studies conducted by
ECRI in 2009 and 2007, which found a lack of scientific
consensus about the effectiveness of Cognitive Rehabilitation
Therapy (CRT) in treating mild TBI, to deny TRICARE coverage.
However, reports by Pro Publica and National Public Radio have
questioned the validity of the ECRI study, raising significant
questions regarding the Department's award and management of
the contract with ECRI.
On October 18, 2011, Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to
the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services,
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Secretary of
Education requesting information as to how each agency intends
to work with the Department of Defense to implement a
recommendation made by the Institute of Medicine, which
recommended that the Defense Department convene a conference to
achieve consensus as to a definition for cognitive
rehabilitation therapy. The lack of a consistent definition for
CRT contributes to the lack of clear conclusive evidence as to
its effectiveness.
Chairman McCaskill sent a follow up letter on December 14,
2011, to the Secretary of Defense requesting information
regarding the Army's use of the Automatic Neuropsychological
Assessment Metric (ANAM), including information about Defense
Department contracts to administer the test. On April 20, 2012,
Chairman McCaskill sent a letter to the Secretary of the Army
to request a copy of the Army's report about the ANAM test.
N. Veterans
The Subcommittee held one hearing to examine contractor
employment of veterans.
1. Veterans Employment and Government Contractors (June 5, 2012)
Witnesses: Theodore L. (Ted) Daywalt, President and Chief
Executive Officer, VetJobs; Spencer Kympton, Chief Operating
Officer, The Mission Continues; Ramsey Sulayman, Legislative
Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Pamela
Hardy, Senior Manager, Diversity and Inclusion Team; Sally
Sullivan, Executive Vice President, ManTech International
Corporation.
Overview: Following the Subcommittee's June 5, 2012 hearing
on contractor employment of veterans, Chairman McCaskill
released four spreadsheets of data provided by government
contractors in the VETS-100 and VETS-100A forms for 2009 and
VETS-100 and VETS-100A for 2010. The data has been redacted to
remove personal information.
O. Whistleblowers
The Subcommittee held a hearing to review the Non-Federal
Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, a bill that was
introduced by Senator McCaskill to bolster whistleblower
protections for government contractors and other non-Federal
employees.
1. Whistleblower Protections for Government Contractors (December 6,
2011)
Witnesses: Hon. Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector General,
Small Business Administration (SBA); Marguerite C. Garrison,
Deputy Inspector General for Administrative Investigations,
Department of Defense (Defense Department); Dr. Walter L.
Tamosaitis, URS Corporation and Former Research and Technology
Manager, Waste Treatment Project, Hanford Nuclear Site; Angela
Canterbury, Director of Public Policy, Project on Government
Oversight.
Overview: The hearing reviewed the Non-Federal Employee
Whistleblower Protection Act, a bill that was introduced by
Chairman McCaskill to bolster whistleblower protections for
government contractors and other non-Federal employees. The
hearing also reviewed whether current whistleblower protections
for contractors working under Defense Department and Recovery
Act contracts have been effective in encouraging reports of
waste, fraud, and abuse. It also examined whether these
protections have had any adverse impact on the efficiency and
effectiveness of government acquisition and procurement.
Finally, the hearing explored what additional legislation may
be needed to encourage and protect contractor whistleblowers in
the disclosure of waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
III. LEGISLATION
The Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight does not have
legislative authority. However, the Subcommittee's
investigations and hearings have revealed the need for changes
to existing law. During the 112th Congress, Chairman McCaskill
introduced the following legislative proposals in her capacity
as a Senator.
A. Comprehensive Contingency Contracting Reform Act of 2012
On February 29, 2012, Chairman McCaskill introduced as S.
2136, which was later reintroduced on June 12, 2012 as S. 3286.
Substantial portions of the bill, called The Comprehensive
Contingency Contracting Reform Act of 2012, became law as part
of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA), P.L. 112-239, Sections 802, 841-53, 861, 1219, and
1273.
The wartime contracting portion implements comprehensive
reform in the awarding, execution, and oversight of contingency
contracts across government, so that the management of these
contracts is more transparent. The NDAA also includes
provisions which would reform acquisition policy and
management, require new structures for agency management and
accountability, requirements implement new sustainability
requirements for capital projects, and require coordinated
oversight from agency Inspectors General.
B. Lieutenant Colonel Dominic ``Rocky'' Baragona Justice for American
Heroes Harmed by Contractors Act (S. 235)
On January 31, 2011, Chairman McCaskill, along with co-
sponsors Senator Casey, Senator Collins, Senator Nelson,
Senator Rubio, and Senator Whitehouse, introduced S. 235,
Lieutenant Colonel Dominic ``Rocky'' Baragona Justice for
American Heroes Harmed by Contractors Act. The bill requires
foreign entities that enter into contracts over $5 million with
the United States to consent to personal jurisdiction in civil
suits involving serious bodily injury, rape, or sexual assault
for actions arising out of the performance of the contract. The
bill also amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation to give
agencies and departments the explicit authority to suspend or
debar foreign contractors for evasion of service of process or
for failing to appear in court to answer the covered actions in
the bill. On January 31, 2011, the bill was referred to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
C. Non-Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011 (S. 241)
On January 31, 2011, Chairman McCaskill introduced S. 241,
the Non-Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011,
with Senator Tester and Senator Webb joining as cosponsors. The
bill prohibits an employee of any non-Federal employer
receiving covered funds from being discharged, demoted, or
discriminated against as a reprisal for initiating or
participating in any proceeding related to the misuse of
Federal funds, for reasonably opposing the misuse of Federal
funds, or for disclosing to specified Federal agencies or
officials information that the employee reasonably believes is
evidence of (1) gross mismanagement of an agency contract or
grant relating to covered funds, (2) a gross waste of covered
funds, (3) a substantial and specific danger to public health
or safety, or an abuse of authority related to the
implementation or use of covered funds, or (4) a violation of a
law, rule, or regulation related to an agency contract,
subcontract, or grant relating to covered funds. The bill
establishes a presumption that a reprisal has occurred if a
complainant demonstrates that a whistleblower disclosure was a
contributing factor in the reprisal.
Substantial portions of the Non-Federal Employee
Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011 became law as part of the
fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), P.L.
112-239.
D. Government Accountability Office Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 237)
On January 31, 2011, Chairman McCaskill introduced S. 237,
Government Accountability Office Improvement Act of 2011, with
Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman joining as cosponsors.
The bill authorizes the GAO Comptroller General to (1) obtain
Federal agency records required to discharge his or her duties,
including by bringing civil actions under this Act, (2) make
and retain copies of agency records, and (3) administer oaths
when investigating fraud or Federal employee misconduct.
Further, the bill requires the GAO to prescribe policies and
procedures to protect proprietary or trade secret information
obtained pursuant to the bill from public disclosure. The bill
would also require the GAO to notify a congressional committee
or Member of Congress when an agency has not provided
information requested by the GAO relating to a request by that
committee or Member within 30 days. In addition, under the
bill's provisions, agencies must submit statements on actions
taken or planned in response to GAO recommendations to be
submitted to congressional committees with jurisdiction over
the relevant agency program or activity as well as to the GAO.
On April 24, 2012, the bill was placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar.
E. Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (S. 743)
On April 6, 2011, Senator Akaka, with Chairman McCaskill,
Senator Begich, Senator Cardin, Senator Carper, Senator
Collins, Senator Coons, Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin,
Senator Landrieu, Senator Leahy, Senator Levin, Senator
Lieberman, Senator Pryor, and Senator Tester, introduced S.
743, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2011. The
bill was signed into law by President Obama as P.L. 112-199 on
November 27, 2012. The Act amends current whistleblower
protections in Federal personnel law to extend such protections
to the disclosure of any legal violation.
F. Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 762)
On April 7, 2011, Senator Collins introduced S. 762, the
Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2011, which
Chairman McCaskill co-sponsored along with Senator Akaka and
Senator Brown. The bill amends the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 to provide that the
Associate Administrator for Acquisition Workforce Programs
shall (1) be chosen on the basis of demonstrated knowledge and
expertise in acquisition, human capital, and management, (2) be
located in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and (3)
implement acquisition workforce programs. Further, the bill
establishes a Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) and outlines
its purposes relating to the development of a professional
acquisition workforce. On June 9, 2011, the bill was placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar after being referred to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
G. Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 761)
On April 7, 2011, Senator Collins introduced S. 761, the
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2011. Chairman
McCaskill, along with Senator Akaka, joined as an original
cosponsor of the bill. The bill would amend the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act to direct the Administrator of
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) to establish a
government-wide acquisition management fellows program for the
purpose of investing in the long-term improvement and sustained
excellence of the Federal acquisition workforce. The program
would (1) develop a new generation of acquisition leaders with
government-wide perspective, skills, and experience, (2)
recruit individuals with the outstanding academic merit,
ethical value, business acumen, and leadership skills to meet
the government's acquisition needs, and (3) offer opportunities
for advancement, competitive compensation, and leadership
opportunities. The program must consist of one academic year of
full-time, on-campus training followed by two years of on-the-
job and part-time training toward a Master's or equivalent
graduate degree in related fields. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H. Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011 (S. 586)
On March 15, 2011, S. 586, the Congressional Whistleblower
Protection Act of 2011, sponsored by Senator Grassley and
cosponsored by Chairman McCaskill, was introduced. The bill
would amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to
apply to whistleblower rights and protections to legislative
branch employees, including GAO and Library of Congress
employees. The remedies for violations of these rights would be
the same if awarded with respect to a prohibited Federal
personnel practice in the executive branch. On the same day it
was introduced, the bill was referred to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
I. Independent Task and Delivery Order Review Extension Act of 2011 (S.
498)
Chairman McCaskill, with Senator Collins and Senator
Portman, co-sponsored S. 498, Independent Task and Delivery
Order Review Extension Act of 2011, introduced by Senator
Lieberman on March 7, 2011. The bill would extend through
September 30, 2016 (1) the authority for a bid protest of a
task or delivery order contract valued in excess of $10
million, and (2) the exclusive jurisdiction of the Comptroller
General over such protests. In addition, the bill would
prohibit the authorization of appropriations for the specific
purpose of processing bid protests, and requires all such
protests to be processed using the existing resources of GAO
and executive agencies. The bill was passed unanimously in the
Senate on May 12, 2011, and held at the desk in the House on
May 13, 2011.