Oversight IRS Targeting Republicans Full-Report - Compressed PDF

U.S.
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
Chairman Darrell Issa
STAFF REPORT
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECEMBER 31, 2014
MISSION STATEMENT
We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to
know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent. And second,
Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our
duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these
rights.
Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government accountable to taxpayers,

because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government.
We will work tirelessly, in partnership with citizen-watchdogs, to deliver the
facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the federal
bureaucracy.
This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.1
H. CMTE. ON OVERSIGHT & GOVT REFORM, MISSION STATEMENT, 113th Cong. (2013).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MISSION STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 2
THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM .......................................................................... 11
A NECESSARY FUNCTION: EVOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ..................................................................................................12
MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE: LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................15
Legislative Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................................15
Oversight Jurisdiction ..........................................................................................................................................17
Organizing Responsibilities: The Role of Subcommittees ...................................................................................20
THE TOOLS OF THE TRADE: DOING THE WORK OF OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM ......................................................22
Letters .................................................................................................................................................................22
Depositions and Transcribed Interviews .............................................................................................................22
Subpoenas ...........................................................................................................................................................23
Hearings ..............................................................................................................................................................23
A PLACE WITHIN GOVERNMENT: THE ROLE OF OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM IN RECENT YEARS ..................................25
A Focus on Reform: The 108th and 109th Congresses ....................................................................................25
Inconsistencies in Oversight: The 110th and 111th Congresses ..........................................................................27
A Renewed Commitment to Accountability and Transparency: The 112th and 113th Congresses ...................29
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES ................................................................... 34
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................34
DATA ACT .................................................................................................................................................................35
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEIGHT ACT................................................................................................................................37
EXCESS FEDERAL BUILDING AND PROPERTY DISPOSAL ACT ...................................................................................................38
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PHASED RETIREMENT ACT ..................................................................................................................38
FEDERAL INFORMATION SECURITY MODERNIZATION ACT .....................................................................................................39
FEDERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION REFORM ACT.........................................................................................39
FEDERAL RECORDS ACCOUNTABILITY ACT .........................................................................................................................40
FOIA OVERSIGHT AND IMPLEMENTATION ACT...................................................................................................................41
GOVERNMENT REPORTS ELIMINATION ACT .......................................................................................................................42
GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT ..........................................................................................................43
INSPECTOR GENERAL EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 2014 ..........................................................................................................43
POSTAL REFORM LEGISLATION ........................................................................................................................................44
SMART SAVINGS ACT ....................................................................................................................................................46
STOP UNWORTHY SPENDING ACT....................................................................................................................................47
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ....................................................................................................................................49
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT ACT .....................................................................................................52
CHAPTER 1. IMPROPER INFLUENCE AND OBSTRUCTION OF OVERSIGHT: THE POLITICIZATION OF PUBLIC
SERVANTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 53
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................53
MISLEADING THE PUBLIC: TRANSPARENCY FAILURES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OBAMACARE ..............................................53
Double-Counting Dental Plans ............................................................................................................................53
Dr. Grubers Inflammatory Gaffes .......................................................................................................................55
The Administrations Systematic ObamaCare Transparency Failures.................................................................56

OPERATION CHOKE POINT: SHUTTING DOWN DISFAVORED BUSINESSES ................................................................................57
Operation Choke Point A Tortured Interpretation of FIRREA ...........................................................................57
DOJ Targets Legal Industries ...............................................................................................................................58
The Mission of the Working Group .................................................................................................................................. 59
Regular Status Reports for Assistant Attorney General ................................................................................................... 59
The Consumer Protection Branch .................................................................................................................................... 59
Negotiated Settlement Terms .......................................................................................................................................... 60
The Impact of Operation Choke Point on American Job Creators .......................................................................60

DOJs Partnership with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ...................................................................61
Creation of the High-Risk Merchant List ....................................................................................................................... 61
FDIC Partnered with the Department of Justice ............................................................................................................... 64
A Continuing Problem .........................................................................................................................................65

IRS TARGETING ...........................................................................................................................................................69
Citizens United and 501(c)(4) Status ...................................................................................................................70
Political pressure on the IRS to fix the problem ...............................................................................................70
Disparate Treatment of Conservative Tax-Exempt Applicants............................................................................72
Failure to be Candid and Forthcoming with Congress ........................................................................................73
Failure to Accept Responsibility for the Targeting ..............................................................................................74
POLITICIZATION OF FOIA PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................76
A Laudable Plan, Poorly Implemented ................................................................................................................76
Political Interference of FOIA Process at DHS .....................................................................................................77
FOIA Records Scorecard ......................................................................................................................................77
Promoting Technology to Improve FOIA .............................................................................................................78
Reforming FOIA ...................................................................................................................................................79
OBSTRUCTION OF INSPECTORS GENERALS .........................................................................................................................81
Role and Importance of Inspectors General ........................................................................................................81
Section 6(a)(1) .....................................................................................................................................................82
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General ...........................................................................82
Chemical Safety Board's Misuse of Attorney-Client Privilege .......................................................................................... 82
Obstruction of the OIG's Misconduct Investigations ........................................................................................................ 83
Peace Corps Office of Inspector General .............................................................................................................84

Department of Justice Office of Inspector General .............................................................................................85
DOJ OIG Cannot Investigate Attorney Misconduct .......................................................................................................... 85
Access to Documents ....................................................................................................................................................... 85
Committee Actions to Improve IG Access to Agency Records .............................................................................85

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION .......................................................................................................................................87
DHS FOIA Investigation .......................................................................................................................................87
Benghazi..............................................................................................................................................................87
FDA Surveillance..................................................................................................................................................88
Protecting Whistleblowers in the Future.............................................................................................................90
QUID PRO QUO: DOJS SETTLEMENT WITH ST. PAUL..........................................................................................................91
How Protecting Disparate Impact Costs Taxpayers Millions ...........................................................................91
The Consequences of the Quid Pro Quo ..............................................................................................................93
BAD SCIENCE MAKES BAD RULES ....................................................................................................................................95
Recalculating Methane Emissions.......................................................................................................................95
ACORN: ABUSE OF FEDERAL FUNDS AND EVADING THE LAW ..............................................................................................97
Improper Use of Federal Funds ...........................................................................................................................97

Illegal Voter Fraud Activities ...............................................................................................................................98
Ties to the President..........................................................................................................................................100
A Shell of a Corporation ....................................................................................................................................100
Defund ACORN Act ............................................................................................................................................101
HATCH ACT VIOLATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................103
The Committees Office of Political Affairs Investigation ..................................................................................103
2012 Presidential Election: Cabinet Secretaries violating the Hatch Act ..........................................................105
CHAPTER 2. FEDERAL BINGE: STIMULUS SPENDING, FEDERAL BAILOUTS AND TAXPAYER FUNDING ................ 106
ITS TIME TO STOP THE BLEEDING: U.S. POSTAL REFORM .................................................................................................106
The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 .............................................................................................................107
Debunking the Overpayment Myth ...............................................................................................................108
Other Opportunities? Plans for Reducing Retirement Surplus and Payday Lending ........................................109
A Tough Reality, But Reality Nonetheless .........................................................................................................110
ARRA: LOTS OF MONEY, LITTLE STIMULATION ...............................................................................................................111
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act .................................................................................................111
The $5 billion Weatherization Assistance Program ..........................................................................................113
Overview of WAP Under ARRA ....................................................................................................................................... 113
Doing More Harm than Good: Shoddy Workmanship and Wasted Dollars ................................................................... 114
Perverse Incentives ........................................................................................................................................................ 117
WAPs Failed Oversight and Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 118
Dubious Sub-grantees .................................................................................................................................................... 119
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................... 120
Stimulating Through Medicaid, or Patching State Budget Gaps? .....................................................................121

Summary of Medicaid Provisions ................................................................................................................................... 121
Plain Language of the Statute versus CMS Interpretation ............................................................................................. 123
Targeted Medicaid Funding Replaces the Soda Tax? ............................................................................................... 123
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................... 125
TARP: WHO NEEDS A BAILOUT? .................................................................................................................................126

The Troubled Asset Relief Program ...................................................................................................................126
Overseeing TARP: The Role of SIGTARP ............................................................................................................127
A Change in Focus: The Bailout of AIG .............................................................................................................129
FRBNY to the Rescue? .................................................................................................................................................... 129
Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 130
Par: Good for Golf, Not for Taxpayers ............................................................................................................................ 131
Home Affordable Modification Program: A One-Size-Fits-All Approach ...........................................................133

Failing to Meet Expectations.............................................................................................................................134
CHAPTER 3. PROTECTING AMERICA: WHO IS CARING FOR OUR HOMELAND, OUR CITIZENS, AND OUR
VETERANS? ........................................................................................................................................................ 136
OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS ....................................................................................................................................136
Breakdowns at All Levels of the Department of Justice ....................................................................................137
The ATF Phoenix Field Division ....................................................................................................................................... 137
The United States Attorneys Office for the District of Arizona ..................................................................................... 139
ATF Headquarters........................................................................................................................................................... 140
The DOJs Criminal Divisions Coordination with ATF ..................................................................................................... 141
The Office of the Deputy Attorney General ................................................................................................................... 143
The Committees Investigation .........................................................................................................................144

AN ATTACK ON AMERICA ABROAD: BENGHAZI, LIBYA .......................................................................................................146
The Escalation ...................................................................................................................................................146
Public Statements Surrounding the Attacks ......................................................................................................149
Response to the Attacks ....................................................................................................................................149
Secretary Clinton Convenes an Accountability Review Board ...........................................................................150
Details of the Committees Investigation ..........................................................................................................151
Continued Investigation ....................................................................................................................................152
SAFETY AT HOME: DOMESTIC SECURITY CONCERNS ..........................................................................................................153
Transportation Security Administration: Trouble with Screening Technologies ...............................................153
Explosive Trace Detection Portals (Puffers) ................................................................................................................ 154
Advanced Imaging Technology Devices (AIT) .............................................................................................................. 154
In-Line Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) ................................................................................................................. 155
Border Security: Effectively Identifying and Responding to Threats? ..............................................................156

Secure Fence Act of 2006 (SFA) .................................................................................................................................. 156
Keeping our President Safe: Is the U.S. Secret Service Prepared? ....................................................................157
Lack of Accountability .................................................................................................................................................... 157
The Resignation of USSS Director Julia Pierson .............................................................................................................. 160
A New Beginning for the Secret Service ......................................................................................................................... 162
Ebola: Is America Prepared For a Multi-Agency Response? .............................................................................162

Ebola in the United States .............................................................................................................................................. 163
Unprepared to Protect Essential Operations ................................................................................................................. 164
Placing Soldiers at Risk ................................................................................................................................................... 164
To Quarantine or Not: Evolving Protocols ..................................................................................................................... 165
A Leader Without Expertise? .......................................................................................................................................... 167
Is the Government Prepared? ........................................................................................................................................ 168
Flaws in the Federal Security Clearance Process: The D.C. Navy Yard Shooting ...............................................169
Slipping Through the Cracks ........................................................................................................................................... 169
Improving the Security Clearance Process ..................................................................................................................... 170
The Need for Continued Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 171
LIFE AFTER WAR: OUR VETERANS DESERVE BETTER..........................................................................................................173

Disability Evaluation System (DES) ................................................................................................................174
Common Electronic Health Records ..................................................................................................................175
Actual Implementation .....................................................................................................................................175
Disability Claims Backlog ..................................................................................................................................176
CHAPTER 4. CRONY CAPITALISM: PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS................................................................... 178
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MISSION ..................................................................................178
Government Intervention in the Housing Market .............................................................................................179
The Affordable Housing Mission and the Politicization of Mortgage Lending ..................................................181
The Politicization of Mortgage Lending ............................................................................................................184
Fannie Mae and Countrywide Financial ............................................................................................................185
The Cost of Influence .........................................................................................................................................186
SOLAR POWER FAVORITES AND FAILURES .....................................................................................................................187
Evolution of the Loan Guarantee Program .......................................................................................................187
A New Section 1705 ..........................................................................................................................................188
Guaranteeing Junk .........................................................................................................................................189
Crony Capitalism and Wasteful Spending ......................................................................................................189
Solyndra ......................................................................................................................................................................... 190

Granite Reliable .............................................................................................................................................................. 191
Solar Reserve .................................................................................................................................................................. 191
Vantage Point Venture Partners..................................................................................................................................... 192
OBAMACARE LOAN GUARANTEE GAMBLE.......................................................................................................................194

CO-OPs as an Alternative to the Public Option .................................................................................................195
Eligibility and Funding .......................................................................................................................................195
WHOS DRIVING THE AUTO INDUSTRY? ..........................................................................................................................197
How to Force Agreement: Strong-Arm Tactics And Fuel Economy Standards .................................................197
The Administrations Leverage: The Power of the Purse and the California Waiver ...................................................... 197
Round One: Standards from 2012 through 2016 .......................................................................................................... 198
Round Two: Standards from 2017 through 2025 .......................................................................................................... 199
Protecting Government Motors: The Case of the Chevy Volt ...........................................................................201

Is the Volt Really safe to drive? ................................................................................................................................... 202
Reluctance to Admit Danger .......................................................................................................................................... 204
CHAPTER 5. FEDERAL FINANCIAL UN-ACCOUNTABILITY .................................................................................... 206

PUT IT ON THE COMPANY CARD: IRRESPONSIBILITY IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING .................................................................206
The General Services Administrations 2010 Lavish Las Vegas Conference ......................................................206
NOAA and the IRSs Lavish Conference Spending: Is the Problem Widespread? ..............................................208
The Department of Veterans Affairs .................................................................................................................210
ANOTHER RULE, ANOTHER DOLLAR, SAME PROBLEM: DUPLICATIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS................................................212
GAOs Annual Duplication Reports....................................................................................................................212
Moving Forward: The Federal Government Needs Better Data ........................................................................213
ENTITLEMENT ABUSE: WHO IS THE BENEFICIARY, REALLY? .................................................................................................215
Medicaid Abuse: Overpayments to New York State .........................................................................................215
Social Security Abuse: Failures in Program Oversight ......................................................................................217
SSAs Mismanagement of Administrative Law Judges ................................................................................................... 219
ALJs Rubber-Stamped Claimants .................................................................................................................................... 221
Problems with Re-Evaluations of Disability .................................................................................................................... 222
More Action Needed ...................................................................................................................................................... 223
WASTED SPENDING ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM? ......................................................................225

GAO Best Practices ............................................................................................................................................227
Re-Inventing the Wheel.....................................................................................................................................228
Federal Data Center Mismanagement ..............................................................................................................230
Reforming the Process ......................................................................................................................................231
DESIGNED FOR ABUSE: MISMANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................233
Oversight of Underutilized and Excess Properties .............................................................................................233
Gaining Access to the Federal Real Property Profile .........................................................................................234
Addressing the Excess .......................................................................................................................................236
CHAPTER 6. HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS (OR DOESNT) .................................................................................. 237
HEALTHCARE.GOV: WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER ...................................................................................................237
Lack of Transparency and Accountability during Launch of Healthcare.gov ....................................................239
Healthcare.gov Launched with Known Security Weaknesses ...........................................................................241
RIGHTSIZING THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE .........................................................................................................................245
Federal Worker Pay and Performance Management .......................................................................................245
Official Time: Good Value for the Taxpayer? ....................................................................................................247

Restraining Government Spending Through Workforce Reform.......................................................................247
POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY: FAILED LEADERSHIP AT CHEMICAL SAFETY BOARD AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ..........249
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Investigation in 2011 ..............................................................................249
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Investigation of 2014 ............................................251
IRS ETHICS OFFICE .....................................................................................................................................................254
Takisha McGee: An Expert on Ethics? ..............................................................................................................254
A Violation of Trust ...........................................................................................................................................255
BETTER MANAGEMENT OF THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU.......................................................................................................256
Initiation of Investigation ..................................................................................................................................257
Allegations of Supervisors Encouraging Data Falsification ...............................................................................258
Staff Report .......................................................................................................................................................259
Result of Committees Investigation .................................................................................................................260
THE EPAS SECRET AGENT ...........................................................................................................................................262
Red Flags from the Beginning ...........................................................................................................................262
The Drama Continues: EPA Funding of Covert Activities ...............................................................................263
Finally: Credibility Questions ............................................................................................................................264
THE B.P. OIL SPILL: AN ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY ...................................................................................................265
Minerals Management Service .........................................................................................................................265
Foundations of Minerals Management Service .............................................................................................................. 265
A Derelict Model ............................................................................................................................................................ 266
The Deepwater Horizon Aftermath ...................................................................................................................268

Too Little, Too Late ......................................................................................................................................................... 268
Too Much, Too Early? ..................................................................................................................................................... 270
WHO OWNS THE GOVERNMENTS DATA? THE RELATIONSHIP WITH DUNS AND BRADSTREET ...................................................271
Recovery.gov: A Microcosm of the Effects of Poor Federal Contracting ..........................................................272
An Opportunity for Oversight of the GSAs D&B Contract ................................................................................273
The Contract and the Parties Various Interpretations .....................................................................................274
A Free Solution to a Million Dollar Problem ......................................................................................................276
A Necessary Change to the FAR ........................................................................................................................276
Continued Oversight is Needed to Fix the Bigger Problems ..............................................................................276
CHAPTER 7. THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY: AMERICAS CITY ON A HILL ................................................ 278
AN ON-AGAIN, OFF-AGAIN RELATIONSHIP WITH CONGRESS ..............................................................................................278
A DESIRE FOR GREATER INDEPENDENCE: LOCAL BUDGET AUTONOMY ..................................................................................281
Background: What Makes D.C.s Budget Process Different? ............................................................................281
The Push for Budget Autonomy ........................................................................................................................282
THE NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT: THE SORDID CASE OF SULAIMON BROWN .........................................................283
A Corrupt Deal? .................................................................................................................................................283
A Vacuum in Oversight ......................................................................................................................................283
The 2010 D.C. Mayoral Election ........................................................................................................................284
The Committees Investigation .........................................................................................................................286
Repercussions of the Scandal ............................................................................................................................286
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION ...................................................................................................................287
D.C. Height Of Buildings Act ..............................................................................................................................287
The Origin of the Limitation ........................................................................................................................................... 287
The Need for Revision .................................................................................................................................................... 288
Overcoming Opposition from Within ............................................................................................................................. 290
The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial ................................................................................................................291

WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY ............................................................................................................292
Southwest Waterfront Economic Development ................................................................................................292
Occupy DC .........................................................................................................................................................292
Opportunity Scholarship Program.....................................................................................................................293
A Program with Positive Results ..................................................................................................................................... 294
Rescinding Scholarships and Denying New Students Access .......................................................................................... 296
Reinstating a Beneficial Program ................................................................................................................................... 296
CHAPTER 8. GROWTH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE .................................................................................... 298

A FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT? ..........................................................................................................................299
The Administrative Procedures Act: Creating Order .........................................................................................300
OIRA: An Agency for the Agencies....................................................................................................................301
The Impact of Executive Orders ........................................................................................................................302
REGULATING OUT OF BUSINESS: THE IMPACT OF REGULATIONS ON JOB GROWTH ..................................................................305
Affordable Care Act: Employer Mandate ..........................................................................................................306
EPA: Imposing Unreasonable Burdens on Business..........................................................................................309
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 309
Boiler MACT.................................................................................................................................................................... 310
Brick MACT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 311
OSHA Injury Illness and Prevention Program (I2P2) .................................................................................................... 312
UNPRECEDENTED EXPANSION OF REGULATORY STATE .......................................................................................................314

Sue and Settle ...................................................................................................................................................314
Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule.................................................................................................................... 316
Utility MACT ................................................................................................................................................................... 318
EPA Clean Water Act 404(c) permitting ............................................................................................................319

Mingo Logans permit for Spruce Mine Retroactive Veto ........................................................................................... 320
Pebble Mine Preemptive Veto .................................................................................................................................... 320
Unionization by Regulation ...............................................................................................................................322

NLRB Notice Posting Rule ............................................................................................................................................... 324
NLRB Quickie Election Rule ......................................................................................................................................... 326
DOL Persuader Activity Rule ........................................................................................................................................... 328
Growth of Regulation in the Financial Sector ...................................................................................................330

CFPB Structure, Oversight and Regulatory Authorities .................................................................................................. 330
SEC Disclosure Regulations for Resource Extraction Industries ..................................................................................... 331
SEC/CFTC Over-the-Counter Derivatives Regulation ...................................................................................................... 333
REDEFINING THE LAW ..................................................................................................................................................335

ACA Redefines Full-Time Employee................................................................................................................335
Changing the Application of ObamaCare Subsidies ..........................................................................................336
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Definition of Solid Waste .............................................................338
Clean Water Act Definition of Waters of the United States ...........................................................................339
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE PRIVATE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS ...................................................................................342
Individual Mandate ...........................................................................................................................................342
Administrative Burden ................................................................................................................................................... 343
Minimum Essential Benefits Package ............................................................................................................................. 345
Ethanol E-15 ......................................................................................................................................................345

Fuel Economy Standards ...................................................................................................................................347
APPENDIX A: COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 113TH CONGRESS ........................... 349
APPENDIX B: SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE, 2009 2014 .................................................................................. 350
TH
113 CONGRESS (2013 2014).................................................................................................................................350

TH
112 CONGRESS (2011 2012).................................................................................................................................350
TH
111 CONGRESS (2009 2010).................................................................................................................................351
APPENDIX C: COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS .............................................................. 353
2009 MINORITY OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS ................................................................................................353
2010 MINORITY OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS ................................................................................................354
2011 OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS ..............................................................................................................355
APPENDIX D: COMMITTEE HEARINGS ............................................................................................................... 361
2011 HEARINGS ........................................................................................................................................................361
2012 HEARINGS ........................................................................................................................................................382
2013 HEARINGS ........................................................................................................................................................396
2014 HEARINGS ........................................................................................................................................................409
10
THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Congressional oversight is an integral component of good government. It is an important corollary
to the powers expressly granted to the Legislative Branch by the United States Constitution and it is
the codified responsibility of Congress.2 The need for oversight of the Federal Government stems
from the very concept of representative democracy. As political theorist John Stuart Mill wrote,
the proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government; to throw
the light of publicity on its acts; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any
one considers questionable.3 Today, with the ever-increasing scope of our bureaucracy, robust
congressional oversight becomes even more important to ensure that the Federal Government
remains accountable, transparent and efficient. As the governments chief watchdog, the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform is uniquely positioned to fulfill this responsibility, as it may
at any time conduct investigations of any matter.4
However, the benefits of oversight and the promise of a more perfect Union5 are lost where the
Legislative Branch fails to exercise the powers granted exclusively to it by the Constitution.
Members of Congress must thoughtfully exercise and zealously defend the grant of [a]ll legislative
Powers delegated to the Federal Government by the People of the United States.6 Where
congressional oversight identifies a need for reform whether required to redress wrongdoing or
to advance the evolving needs of Americans the Legislative Branch must act. With a mission to
ensure Americans are served by an efficient, effective government that works for them, the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has driven important bipartisan efforts that have
brought genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy.7
Under the leadership of Chairman Darrell Issa and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, the
Committee worked tirelessly to expose waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement at all levels of the
Federal Government.8 It has also supported legislation that has, and will, fundamentally transform
the Federal bureaucracy so that it can be held accountable by the American Taxpayers it serves.
This report highlights the accomplishments of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform in the years between 2011 and 2014 during the terms of the 112th and 113th Sessions of
Congress. However, it first provides context for these accomplishments by discussing the evolution
of the Committee from its informal beginnings in the 18th Century, through its official creation in
1927 and subsequent reorganizations during the latter years of the 20th Century, to the place it
occupies within the Federal Government today.
See Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-601, 60 Stat. 812; Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970, Pub. L. No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140.
3
JOHN STUART MILL, CONSIDERATIONS ON REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT 81 (Oskar Piest ed, The Liberal Arts
Press 1958) (1861).
4
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule X, cl. 4(c)(2).
5
U.S. CONST. pmbl.
6
U.S. CONST. art. I.
7
H. CMTE. ON OVERSIGHT & GOVT REFORM, MISSION STATEMENT, 113th Cong. (2013).
8
A list of Committee Members is provided below as Appendix A.
11
A NECESSARY FUNCTION: EVOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has existed in various forms since the
earliest days of our nation. In 1792, during the Second Session of Congress, President
George Washington put before the House of Representatives a resolution requesting that a
select committee be formed to investigate the recent defeat of the Army at the Battle of
Wabash River.9 The resolution suggested the cause of the defeat may have been due to
delays in the delivery of money, military stores, provisions and other items to the troops.10
Although the Members of the new Federal Government acknowledged the potential for such
an investigation to embarrass the President, a majority of the Representatives present,
including James Madison, agreed that inquiry into the expenditure of all public money was
the indispensable duty of this House.11 Recognizing the Members of the House as the
immediate guardians of the public interest,12 the resolution adopted granted the
committee the power to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to
assist their inquiries.13 By a vote of 44 to 10, the House of Representatives created the first
committee to exercise oversight over activities of the Executive Branch.14
In February, 1814, during the 13th Congress, the Committee on Expenditures was created
to examine into the state of the departments and of appropriation laws, to watch for
violations of the law in expenditures, and to report provisions looking to economy and to
accountability of public officers.15 During the 14th Congress, this responsibility for
oversight and investigation of the public accounts was generally divided among six standing
committees which were appointed to serve during the present Congress, and that
hereafter, at the commencement of the first session in each Congress, like committees shall
be appointed, whose duties shall continue until the first session of the ensuing Congress.16
The six originally appointed committees maintained, respectively, jurisdiction over the
expenditures of Departments as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
the Department of State;

the Treasury Department;
the Department of War;
the Department of the Navy;
the Post Office; and
2 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 1ST SESSION 490 (1792).

Id.
11
Id. at 490-91.
12
Id. at 490.
13
Id. at 493.
14
Id. See also McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 161 (1927); JAMES HAMILTON, THE POWER TO PROBE: A
STUDY OF CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS 5 (1976).
15
Am. Law Div., Legislative Ref. Serv., Historical Data Regarding the Creation and Jurisdiction of the Committee
on Government Operations, House of Representatives 1 (1958).
16
Id. at 3. See also 14 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 1ST SESSION 1298 (1816)).
10
12
6) the Public Buildings.17

Over time, separate standing committees with jurisdiction over the expenditures of various
departments were created. From 1860 until 1927, five additional standing committees with
jurisdiction over expenditures of various departments were created, including:
7) the Committee on Expenditures in the Interior Department (1860);
8) the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Justice (1874);
9) the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Agriculture (1889);
10) the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor (1905);
and
11) The Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Labor (as separate from the
Department of Commerce; 1913).18
In the following years, Members of Congress questioned the need for several committees,
noting that certain committees have no real work to do in the House.19 Finally, on
December 5, 1927, the 11 separate standing committees with jurisdiction over expenditures
were abolished and 70th Congress created a single Committee on Expenditures in the
Executive Departments. The consolidated committee was granted jurisdiction of
expenditures for all executive departments, was intended to do all the work the whole 11
could have done, and was provided with a room, a clerk, and everything that is necessary
to do certain work that is desired to be done in connection with the work of the
Appropriations Committee, and also along other various lines.20
In 1946, the Legislative Reorganization Act specifically defined the duties and jurisdiction of
the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. The Committee was
provided with legislative jurisdiction over budget and accounting measures, other than
appropriations and reorganizations in the executive branch of the Government. Its duties
were defined to include examining reports from the Comptroller General; studying the
economy and efficiency of the operation of Government activities at all levels; evaluating
executive and legislative reorganizations; and studying the relationships between the
Federal government and the governments of the various States, municipalities, and
international organizations.21 Following the trend toward a more generalized emphasis on
government workings and efficiency, the name of the committee was changed in 1952 to
Committee on Government Operations.22
17
on Government Operations, House of Representatives 3-4 (1958). See also 14 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 1ST SESSION 1298 (1816)).
18
Id. at 3-8.
19
Id. at 11.
20
Id.
21
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-601, 60 Stat. 812.
22
on Government Operations, House of Representatives 13 (1958).
13
The House realized as time progressed that the committee system created by the Legislative
Reorganization Act had resulted in committees with overlapping, duplicative and
competitive jurisdictional responsibilities. After study by two select committees, the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations was expanded to envelop the
National Archives and the Civil Service Committee in 1974.23
After the 1994 midterm elections, the new Republican majority renamed the Committee on
Government Operations as the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.24 As part
of a significant overhaul of the House committee roster at the beginning of the 104th
Congress, both the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and the Committee on the
District of Columbia were consolidated with the then-titled Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight a move that demonstrated the Republican commitment to
reforming Congress by saving millions of dollars and reducing staff by nearly 50 percent.25
At the beginning of the 107th Congress in 2001, under the leadership of then-Chairman Dan
Burton, the Committee shortened its name to the Committee on Government Reform.26
When Representative Henry A. Waxman became chairman in 2007, the name was again
changed to what it is still called today the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.27
Congressman Darrell Issa was tapped to serve as the top Republican on the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at the beginning of the 111th Congress.
After serving two years as Ranking Member a term during which Democrats controlled
the Executive Branch as well as both Houses of Congress Representative Issa was elevated
to chairman of the Committee. After six years as the Committees top Republican, Chairman
Issa will step down from this position at the end of the 113th Congress.28 Current Chairman
of the Subcommittee on National Security, Representative Jason Chaffetz, will take the
Committees top position with the beginning of the 114th Congress an experienced leader
[who will] continue the pursuit of transparency and accountability in government on behalf
of the American people.29
23
Letter from Ms. Judy Schneider, Specialist on the Cong., Govt Div., LTR91-2591, Analysis of Government
Operations Committees Jurisdiction (Mar. 29, 1991) (on file with author).
24
H. CMTE. ON GOVT REFORM & OVERSIGHT, ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND
OVERSIGHT, H.R. Doc. No. 104-874, at 12 (1997).
25
H. CMTE. ON GOVT REFORM, ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, H.R. Doc. No. 108-815,
at 2 (2005).
26
Id.
27
H. CMTE. ON OVERSIGHT & GOVT REFORM, ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT
REFORM, H.R. Doc. No. 110-830 (2009).
28
Pursuant to the Rules of the House, a member of a standing committee may not serve as chair of the same
standing committee . . . during more than three consecutive Congresses . . . . RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule X, cl. 5(c)(2).
29
Press Release, Rep. Darrell Issa, Chairman, House Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Issa Congratulates Rep.
Jason Chaffetz on Selection as Next Oversight Committee Chair (Nov. 18, 2014), available at
http://oversight.house.gov/release/issa-congratulates-rep-jason-chaffetz-selection-next-oversight-committee-chair/
(last accessed Dec. 17, 2014).
14
MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE: LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by rule and precedent serves as the
House of Representatives government operations committee as well as its chief investigative and
oversight body, reviewing complaints of waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement across the
Federal Government. Like other standing committees in the House of Representatives, the
activities of the Committee are directed by the Rules of the House of Representatives (the House
Rules).30 Adopted at the beginning of each new two-year Term of Congress, the House Rules apply
for the following Session and generally define, among other things, the size, jurisdiction and
procedures of each House committee. Subject to the authority of these House Rules, each
committee is permitted to establish its own, more specific rules of conduct these rules govern
items such as meeting schedules, voting procedures, parameters for producing and publishing
committee reports and documents, subcommittee structure and jurisdiction, staffing, hearing
procedures and the responsibilities and expectations of the Members.31 By tradition, both the
House Rules and the rules adopted by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the
Committee Rules) at the beginning of each Term largely mirror the rules in place during the prior
Session though the interpretation and relative authority afforded the rules inevitably, and
necessarily, varies from year to year and even issue to issue.
LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION
In the most general terms, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is responsible for
studying and recommending House action on bills that would impact the operations of the Federal
Government. Specifically, during Representative Darrell Issas time serving the Committee as
Ranking Member and Chairman, [a]ll bills, resolutions and other matters relating to the following
subjects were referred to the Committee for review:
1. Federal civil service, including intergovernmental personnel; and the status of officers and
employees of the United States, including their compensation, classification, and
retirement.32
2. Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia in general (other than appropriations).
3. Federal paperwork reduction.
4. Government management and accounting measures generally.33
5. Holidays and celebrations.
30
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings . . . . U.S. CONST. art. I, 5.
See RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
(113th Cong.).
32
For example, see the discussion of the Smart Savings Act legislation in the Legislative Activities section later in
this report. With significant bipartisan support, the Smart Savings Act would improve the automatic allocation of
investments by federal employees into the Thrift Savings Plan.
33
One of the greatest obstacles faced by those seeking to review the Federal Governments excessive spending is the
inconsistency in information is published. The DATA Act, discussed in the Legislative Activities section below,
requires the government to produce specific information in an accessible format so government can be held
accountable for how it spends the dollars of American Taxpayers.
31
15
6. Overall economy, efficiency, and management of government operations and activities,

including Federal procurement.
7. National archives.
8. Population and demography generally, including the Census.
9. Postal service generally, including transportation of the mails.
10. Public information and records.34
11. Relationship of the Federal Government to the States and municipalities generally.
12. Reorganizations in the executive branch of the Government.35
In its legislative role, the Committee is responsible for scrutinizing all legislative measures that are
referred to it by the Speaker of the House.36 The Chairman of the Committee will then refer the
legislation, as appropriate, to one or more of the Subcommittees for consideration.37 In order to
gain a better understanding of the legislations likely effects, the Committee and/or Subcommittee
with the assistance of professional staff supporting Members of both the Majority and Minority
will conduct independent research and may solicit information from relevant departments,
agencies and interested parties from outside the government. The Committee or Subcommittee can
gather this information in a number of ways, discussed in more detail later in this chapter.38
The information gathered by the Committee or Subcommittee will be discussed at committee
meetings, especially during markup when, according to the House Rules, the Committee Rules
34
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is an essential piece of legislation that helps to ensure that the Federal
Government can be held accountable by American Taxpayers by compelling agencies to respond to requests for
information according to certain procedures favoring transparency. Originally enacted in 1966, the legislations
effectiveness depends upon a nonpartisan dedication to transparency and consistent execution of its principles across
Administrations. The Committees recent oversight of the politicization of the FOIA process and the procedural
hurdles that threaten the transparency guaranteed by the law are discussed later in this report, in Chapter One. The
FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act, discussed in the Legislative Activities section below, seeks to improve the
procedures by which requests for information are fulfilled thereby reinforcing government accountability. As the
113th Congress comes to a close, it does not appear that the legislation will be enacted before the end of the Term.
35
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule X, 1(n). See also id. (112th Cong.) Rule X, 1(n);
Id. (111th Cong.) Rule X, 1(n).
36
See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XII, cl.2. Where legislation includes issues
relevant to multiple committees, the Speaker may refer the legislation to one or more as appropriate. Id. cl.2(c).
Alternatively, a committee with jurisdiction covering issues included in a legislative matter may agree to waive its
jurisdiction by agreement. See JUDY SCHNEIDER & MICHAEL L. KOEMPEL WITH CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR ROBERT
KEITH, CONGRESSIONAL DESKBOOK: THE PRACTICAL AND COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO CONGRESS 235-36 (6th ed.
2012). For example, under Chairman Edolphus Towns, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
waived its jurisdiction over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and therefore did not review the
legislation nor report the bill to the House. See Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, A
Constitutional Obligation: Congressional Oversight of the Executive Branch, 111th Cong. 9 (2010).
37
RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th
Cong.) Rule 6, cl. b.
38
The methods by which Congress may obtain such information is discussed in more detail in the Tools of the Trade
section of this report, below.
16
and traditional practice, the text of the bill is examined in detail by the Members, and any suggested
amendments are considered and voted upon.39 Following markup, the Members of the Committee
will vote on whether or not the legislation whether in its original form or as amended should be
reported for consideration by the full House.40
When the Committee votes to report the legislation to the House, the measure is scheduled on the
appropriate House calendar41 and a legislative report, drafted by the Committee, must be filed with
the Clerk of the House42 so that it is available for review by all of the Members. The report will
include substantive information based on the Committees research that will be needed by the
Members when deciding how to vote. For example, the report will usually summarize the
information received by the Committee from research, interviews, witness testimony, and
government reports; it will relate actions taken during markup, including votes by Members; and it
will provide an estimate of the costs associated with enacting and implementing the measure.43
The report should also contain all supplemental, minority or additional views that differ from those
of the majority of Committee Members voting to approve reporting of the legislation to the House.44
During the four years Representative Darrell Issa has served as Chairman, over 110 legislative
measures were referred to and passed by the Committee; 74 of the bills reported by the Committee
were passed the House; and of those, 23 pieces of legislation were signed into law either as standalone measures or as incorporated into other bills. As the House Committee responsible for the U.S.
Postal Service, the Committee also facilitated the naming of at least 70 post offices throughout the
country.
OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION
The House Rules also define the oversight jurisdiction of each committee. All standing committees
are responsible for conducting oversight of matters within and related to their legislative
jurisdiction.45 This affirmative duty ensures not only that the laws passed by Congress are
implemented by the Executive Branch and responsible agencies, but that they are implemented
properly, continuously and consistent with the intent of Congress.46 As described by Chief Justice
Earl Warren in Watkins v. United States:
39
See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XI; RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule 7, cl. a. For a more
detailed discussion of the markup process, see JUDY SCHNEIDER & MICHAEL L. KOEMPEL WITH CONTRIBUTING
AUTHOR ROBERT KEITH, CONGRESSIONAL DESKBOOK 245-49 (6th ed. 2012).
40
See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XI.
41
There three different scheduling calendars used by the House; placement on the appropriate calendar depends on
the nature of the legislation. See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XIII, cl. 1(a).
42
Id.
43
For certain types of legislation being considered, additional, specific sections must be included in the report. See
id. Rule XIII, cl. 3.
44
Id. Rule XIII, cl. 2(c).
45
See id. Rule X, cl. 2.
46
Section 3 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed. U.S. CONST. art. II, 3. For a discussion of the Presidents duty to execute the laws, see Rep. Bob
Goodlatte, The Presidents Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws, Lecture No. 1254 in Legal Issues, HERITAGE
FOUND., (Nov. 6, 2014), available at http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2014/the-presidents-duty-to-
17
The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative

process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the
administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It
includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the
purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into
departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency, or
waste.47
As the House committee with legislative jurisdiction over issues related to government
management and accounting measures generally, the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform is responsible for overseeing the proper implementation of the DATA Act, for example,
which was signed into law by President Obama on May 9, 2014.48 In the most general terms, the
DATA Act directs the U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury) and the White House Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure the public reporting of federal spending information in
a consistent, reliable and searchable format. The law establishes milestones for Treasury and OMB
to meet in furtherance of this objective at various intervals over the next several years.49 The
Committee held a hearing in December 2014 to examine the Administrations initial efforts to
comply with the timeline, inviting witnesses from the Senate, Treasury, OMB and the Government
Accountability Office to testify.50 This type of oversight enables the Committee and the Congress to
effectively monitor the steps taken by the Administration to execute the law providing the
opportunity for problems to be identified before they stall implementation.
While all standing committees maintain oversight responsibilities related to their legislative
jurisdiction, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is unique because it possesses a
special mandate to conduct comprehensive oversight at all levels of government, notwithstanding
the jurisdiction of other committees. As the chief investigative body of the House, the Committee
may investigate any matter at any time.51 It exists to be an honest broker in Congress, to
conduct independent oversight free from any preexisting relationships or preconceived
conclusions. The House Rules direct the Committee to make available the findings and
recommendations of the committee . . . to any other standing committee having jurisdiction over
the matter involved.52 In order to perform its duties, the Committee is specifically authorized to
require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the
faithfully-execute-the-law (explaining, [t]his clause, known as the Take Care Clause, requires the President to
enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administrations view of their wisdom or
policy.).
47
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957).
48
Pub. L. No. 113-101 (2014).
49
See id. By May 2015, Treasury and OMB are expected to issue data standards and initiate a pilot program; by
May 2017, agencies of the Federal Government will be required to report federal spending information using new
standards developed by Treasury and OMB; and by May 2018, OMB will issue guidance to agencies on the
application of data standards to be used by reporting agencies. Id.
50
Transforming Federal Spending: Implementing the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act: Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending of the H. Comm. on
Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2014).
51
52
Id..
18
production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it

considers necessary.53
During Representative Issas time as Chairman, the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform has held over 350 full and subcommittee hearings, sent over 2,000 letters requesting
information from government agencies, officials and interested parties, issued over 100 subpoenas
compelling the production of documents, and published nearly 60 oversight and investigative staff
reports.
53
Id. Rule XI, cl. 2(m)(1)(B).
19
ORGANIZING RESPONSIBILITIES: THE ROLE OF SUBCOMMITTEES

As discussed above, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform divides its
responsibilities among various subcommittees without ceding the jurisdiction of the entire
Committee over any individual issue. This arrangement gives the Committee the flexibility
required to effectively and efficiently review bills and other legislative measures referred to it by
the Speaker and to more expertly evaluate the performance of the Federal Government according to
its broad oversight jurisdiction. At the beginning of each Session of Congress, after the Rules of the
House have been adopted, each standing committee adopts its own rules of procedure.54 Although
most committees are limited by the Rules to creating only five or six subcommittees, the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform is permitted to have seven.55
The use of subcommittees provides a dynamic structure that can facilitate performance of the
Committees duties. For example, to more effectively oversee the multiagency implementation of
the Troubled Asset Relief Program,56 the Committees structure provided for a subcommittee with
specific jurisdiction over financial and monetary policy, banking, housing, and insurance
regulation, financial crisis and rescues, and tax policy.57 In the 113th Congress, the following
subcommittees were established to address the needs of the Committee:
1. The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census Legislative
jurisdiction over the federal civil service, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Census Bureau;
2. The Subcommittee on Government Operations Legislative jurisdiction over government
management and accounting measures, the economy, efficiency, and management of
government operations and activities, procurement, federal property, public information,
including the Freedom of Information Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act, federal
records (including the National Archives and Records Administration and the Presidential
Records Act) federal information technology and data standards, grant reform, the
relationship between the Federal Government and states and municipalities, including
unfunded mandates;
3. The Subcommittee on National Security Oversight jurisdiction over national security,
homeland security, foreign operations, immigration, emergency management, and criminal
justice. The Subcommittee also has legislative jurisdiction over drug policy;
4. The Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation, and Regulatory Affairs Oversight
jurisdiction over regulatory affairs, impediments to economic growth and job creation,
monetary policy, banking, infrastructure, and tax policy. The Subcommittee also has
legislative jurisdiction over federal paperwork reduction, data quality, and the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs; and
54
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XI, cl. 2(a).
Id. Rule X, cl. 5(d)(2).
56
The Committees activities related to the Troubled Asset Relief Program are highlighted in Chapter 2.
57
RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (112th
Cong.) Rule 6.
55
20
5. The Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements Oversight jurisdiction
over federal health care policy, food and drug safety, energy policy, solvency of federal
entitlement programs.58
58
Cong.) Rule 6. For a list of the subcommittees during the 113th and previous Sessions, please see Appendix B.
21
THE TOOLS OF THE TRADE: DOING THE WORK OF OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
Essential to the performance of the monumental task assigned to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform is the ability of its Members to obtain credible, responsive information on a
timely basis. In order to perform their duties, committees of the House of Representatives are
permitted to conduct such investigations and studies as it considers necessary or appropriate in
the exercise of its responsibilities under rule X.59 As explained by the Supreme Court:
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information
respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and
where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information which
not infrequently is true recourse must be had to others who do possess it.
Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing,
and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete;
so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.60
LETTERS
A written request for information to the agency, corporation or individual is an important first step.
Letters from the Chairman typically announce the initiation of an inquiry pursuant to the
committees authority, describe its purpose and scope, and request documents in categories that
are relevant to the inquiry. Document request letters also provide notice that relevant records
should be preserved, and that destruction of relevant records may invoke the federal criminal law
prohibition of obstruction of a congressional proceeding.61
Letters from the Chairman usually include questions for agency officials (i.e. interrogatories) and
document requests. Document requests and interrogatories often follow up on media accounts or
on information obtained from a whistleblower. If the request is not answered and there is no
legitimate explanation, the Committee may follow up with more formaland in some cases, more
publicprocesses.
DEPOSITIONS AND TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEWS

After some information has been gathered, it may be necessary to conduct interviews or
depositions of individuals. In some cases, the Committee can rely on informal staff interviews to
gather information to advance an investigation. It is often useful, however, for Committee staff and
Members to question witnesses in a more formal transcribed setting.
Depositions are conducted under subpoena and pursuant to the Committee Rules, which specify the
way questioning proceeds. Transcribed interviews are slightly less formalthe witness is not
under subpoena and the Committee Rules do not apply.
Individuals called to appear before the Committee for questioning may be fact witnesses who can
provide more background information, as well as individuals who may have been involved in the
conduct under investigation. Not all Committees have deposition authority. Regardless of the
59
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XI, 1(b).

McGrain v. Daugherty, 23 U.S. 135, 174-75 (1927).
61
Morton Rosenberg, When Congress Comes Calling, CONSTITUTION PROJECT 4 (2009).
60
22
format, depositions and interviews are routinely transcribed. The transcript provides protection
for both the witness and the Committee.
SUBPOENAS
As one of the permanent, standing committees of the House of Representatives, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform is authorized to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary.62
While Congress possesses broad powers to engage in oversight and conduct investigations to aid in
its legislative functions, and to seek information from executive agencies, private persons, or
organizations, there may be obstacles in gathering the needed information. Committees have many
tools available to ensure access to executive branch information. The power to issue subpoenas is
one of the Committees most important tools. Subpoenas can be drafted broadly so long as the
documents and records covered in the schedule are pertinent to the subject under inquiry.63 The
standard is very broad and permits a wide range of questions relevant to an investigation.64 In
deciding whether a subpoena is pertinent, the courts have required only that the specific inquiries
be reasonably related to the subject matter under investigation.65
The Chairman typically issues a subpoena after the Committee and the custodian of records that
will advance the Committees investigation are at impasse with respect to negotiating terms for a
voluntary production of documents or records. In some cases, records custodians request a
subpoena before providing documents to the Committee so they are legally protected.
Committees do not have to recognize attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative process
privileges, where agencies argue release of information regarding an agencys policy development
process would interfere with internal communications necessary for policymaking. If a Committee
compels the production of privileged communication through a subpoena, the private party or
agency will still be able to assert the privilege elsewhere, as long as it is shown the compulsion was
resisted.66
HEARINGS
In order to obtain information from witnesses with information related to an issue relevant to a
committees jurisdiction, the House Rules permit the committee to hold such hearings as it
considers necessary . . . .67
Committee hearings are usually open to the public. The purpose of the hearing is to obtain
information and opinions on proposed legislation, conduct an investigation, or evaluate/oversee
62
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XI, 1(b)(1).

Unites States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 43, 45 (1953); Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. at 200 n. 3.
64
Morton Rosenberg, When Congress Comes Calling, CONSTITUTION PROJECT 9 (2009).
65
Id.
66
Id.
67
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XI, 1(b)(1).
63
23
the activities of a government department or the implementation of a Federal law. Hearings may
also be purely exploratory in nature, providing testimony and data about topics of current interest.
Hearings are scheduled and noticed in compliance with the House and Committee Rules. Witnesses
are typically invited to testify voluntarily; in some cases, witnesses are compelled to appear by a
subpoena. At the hearing, the Chairman usually makes an opening statement to define the subject
matter of the hearing and establish the pertinence of questions asked to the witnesses. The
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform swears in hearing witnesses. The Chairman
administers the oath.
In conjunction with the hearing, the Committee may also release a Committee report or a staff
report containing investigative findings; introduce legislation to reform the identified problem;
refer the matter to an agency or its inspector general; or determine that no further action is
required.
24
A PLACE WITHIN GOVERNMENT: THE ROLE OF OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM IN

RECENT YEARS
A FOCUS ON REFORM: THE 108TH AND 109TH CONGRESSES
While under the leadership of Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Member Henry Waxman, the thentitled Committee on Government Reform conducted oversight over a diverse portfolio of issues
while pursuing a legislative agenda seeking necessary improvements to government operation and
efficiencies. Through its oversight activities related to the effective administration of government
programs, the Committee ensured the accountability of public officials, and contributed to efforts
to address serious problems facing America today.68 These activities helped to lay the groundwork
for the Committee to hold more than 250 hearings in the 109th Congress, focusing the Committees
attention on issues ranging from organizational reform at the General Services Administration to
government contracting in Iraq.69
For example, as part of an effort to modernize the Department of Defense, the Committee worked
with the Armed Services Committee to improve accountability in federal employment within the
Departments Civil Service System, impacting more than 700,000 employees. It facilitated
additional employment reforms within other specific agencies as well, including the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and transformed the government-wide Senior
Executive Service into a pay-for-performance organization.70 The Committee also played an
integral role in efforts to establish a new, stronger Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina. Following an investigation by the Select Bipartisan Committee on Katrina, the legislation
was designed to provide FEMA with a direct line of communication to the President in cases of
emergency in order to prevent communication breakdowns within the Federal Government, and
included provisions to help address the waste, fraud and mismanagement troubles faced by DHS in
its response and recovery efforts.71 The Committee also defended the rights of whistleblowers
essential partners in the Committees efforts to uncover waste, fraud and abuse by implementing
reforms to the complaint system within agencies, giving these important witnesses a voice in
Federal district court.72
Chairman Davis also oversaw the first postal reform legislation enacted by the Federal Government
since the 1970s. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, signed into law by
President George W. Bush on December 20, 2006, reformed the organization, leadership and
financing of the U.S. Postal Services operations and employee liabilities in the face of declining mail
68
at 65 (2005).
69
at 13 (2006).
70
See H. CMTE. ON GOVT REFORM, ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, H.R. Doc. No. 108815, at 13 (2005).
71
Id. at 14.
72
Id.
25
volume and significant losses.73 The legislation mandated transparency in the Postal Services
finances and operations; created a powerful new regulator in the Postal Regulatory Commission;
and instituted improvements to the collective bargaining process.74 In the years since the passage
of this legislation, the Postal Service has continued to see declining revenue and growing costs an
issue the Committee will continue to face in the 114th Congress.
Garnering national attention, the use of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs in professional
sports became an issue of significant focus during Chairman Davis tenure. The Committee on
Government Reform helped to expose the pervasive use of these drugs among professional athletes;
it held at least three congressional hearings and reported to the House tough legislation targeting
professional sports leagues that would have strengthened testing procedures and toughened the
penalties that would be required for violations. As a result of this intense pressure and calls for
institutional reform from congressional leaders, professional sports leagues strengthened their
internal drug testing programs and discipline policies and therefore the Committee decided not to
pursue enactment of legislation.75
73
See Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Pub. L. No. 109-435, 120 Stat. 3198 (2006).
at 13 (2006).
75
See H. CMTE. ON GOVT REFORM, ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, H.R. Doc. No. 109739 (2006); see United States Postal Service, Annual Report (Form 10-K) 12 (Nov. 16, 2009), available at
http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/10k-reports/fy2009.pdf (last accessed Dec. 15, 2014).
74
26
INCONSISTENCIES IN OVERSIGHT: THE 110TH AND 111TH CONGRESSES

A landslide election placed Democrats in the House Majority for the first time in over ten years in
2007, and, under then-Chairman Henry Waxman, the Committee forcefully exercised its
constitutional duty of oversight of the Federal Government under the Administration of President
George W. Bush. Called the Eliot Ness of the Democrats by the The Nation while serving as the
Committees Ranking Member in 2005,76 Chairman Waxman led the renamed Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform to relentlessly investigate a wide array of issues, from the State
Departments role in the Iraq War to the presence of formaldehyde in Federal Emergency
Management Agency trailers.77 In the two years between 2008 and 2009, the Committee held 203
hearings78 and issued over 45 subpoenas;79 during Chairman Waxmans first year, the Committee
sent over 450 letters seeking information or requesting a witnesss presence.80 Throughout the
110th Congress, House Democrats zealously used the constitutional authority of the Committee to
thoroughly investigate the activities of the Bush Administration. Although Chairman Waxman faced
significant criticism that his work was partisan and biased, he remained steadfast in his
commitment to robust congressional oversight, saying that [o]versight is just as important, if not
more important, than legislation.81
However, when President Barack Obama was elected in November 2008, the Majoritys emphasis
on robust congressional oversight waned. Representative Waxman moved on to chair the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Edolphus Towns took on the position of
Chairman in January 2009. Within months of the new Democrat Administration taking office,
Mother Jones magazine observed that [u]nder Towns and with a Democrat in 1600 Pennsylvania
Ave - the oversight committee seems to be willing to give the White House more leeway.82 In fact,
during his two years as chairman during the 111th Congress, the Committee only sent
approximately 420 letters (as compared with 450 letters by Chairman Waxman in a single year),83
served only seven subpoenas,84 and conducted only 164 hearings.85
Despite multiple requests from the Republican Minority for hearings and joint investigations, the
Committees Majority essentially gave the Obama Administration a free hand to implement its
agenda with little pressure to increase transparency and virtually no accountability. For example,
when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was being considered by the House, Chairman
76
David Corn, Waxman: Democrats Eliot Ness, NATION, Feb. 14, 2005, available at
http://www.thenation.com/article/waxman-democrats-eliot-ness#.
77
See Jonathan Weisman, White House Feels Waxmans Oversight Gaze, WASH. POST, Oct. 25, 2007.
78
REFORM, H.R. Doc. No. 110-930, at 1 (2008).
79
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Restoring Government Oversight and Accountability in the
112th Congress, 112th Cong. 3 (2012).
80
See Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, A Constitutional Obligation: Congressional
Oversight of the Executive Branch, 111th Cong. 8 (2010).
81
Elizabeth Williamson, Revival of Oversight Role Sought, WASH. POST, Apr. 25, 2007.
82
Nick Baumann, Dems Tread Lightly on Obama Oversight, MOTHER JONES, Mar. 19, 2009.
83
See Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, A Constitutional Obligation: Congressional
Oversight of the Executive Branch 111th Cong. 8 (2010).
84
85
Id. at 1.
27
Towns refused to hold even a single hearing or markup on the legislation, deciding instead to waive
the Committees jurisdiction over the new law completely.86 Chairman Towns ignored Republican
encouragement for investigations into rampant waste, fraud and abuse in government healthcare
programs, notwithstanding Attorney General Eric Holders own admission that every year we lose
tens of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds to fraud.87 The Committees Majority
also ignored requests for a public hearing on the significant role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac in the financial crisis, even though Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had announced that
no reform plans for the two entities would be formulated until 2011. Other issues ignored by the
Majority despite the Minoritys urgings included hearings on food safety after repeated salmonella
outbreaks, homeland security after the shooting at Fort Hood and the attempted bombing of Times
Square, wasteful stimulus spending by the National Endowment for the Arts, cozy relationships
between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the oil companies it regulated and the
politicization of science during Climategate at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).88
86
The Minority asked Chairman Towns to join several letters to the Administration requesting further information
on various aspects of the health care reform debate, including information technology provisions and civil tort
liability reform; Chairman Towns declined. See Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform,
Oversight Status Report: Midway through the 111th Congress, Creating Accountability and Transparency under
One-Party Rule, 111th Cong. (2010).
87
Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, Attorney General Holder on New Medicare Fraud Initiative at
a Press Conference with HHS Secretary Sebelius (May 20, 2009) (remarks as prepared for delivery), available at
http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090520.html).
88
See Minority Staff of H. Comm. On Oversight and Govt Reform, A Constitutional Obligation: Congressional
Oversight of the Executive Branch, 111th Cong. 8-10 (2010).
28
A RENEWED COMMITMENT TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY: THE 112TH AND 113TH

CONGRESSES
When the 112th Congress convened in January 2011, the new Republican Majority in the House of
Representatives rededicated the focus of the Committee on comprehensive and robust
congressional oversight. In accepting the gavel as Speaker, Representative John Boehner pledged to
promote a government that is honest, accountable and responsive . . . . A government that respects
individual liberty, honors our heritage, and bows before the public it serves.89 After serving as
Ranking Member during the 111th Congress, Representative Darrell Issa assumed the position of
Chairman with a plan for the Committee to target government inefficiency, reduce Washington
spending and reform the federal bureaucracy.90 It would serve as the committee of stopping
government from taking away your liberties, government from exceeding its authority, government
from keeping your business from expanding and growing, government from spending your money
less efficiently than you would spend it yourself.91
Together, Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings worked to advance several pieces of
bipartisan government reform legislation. For example, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of
2014, introduced by Chairman Issa with Ranking Member Cummings and Representative Mark
Meadows as co-sponsors, was reported favorably by the Committee in September 2014. This
legislation would strengthen independence of Inspectors General by allowing them to issue
testimonial subpoenas during the conduct of audits and investigations within their departments
and agencies.92 Although the need for this legislation is supported by Members on both sides of the
aisle, it will not be enacted before the end of the 113th Congress. The FOIA Oversight and
Implementation Act (the FOIA Act) was another bill introduced by Chairman Issa with Ranking
Member Cummings as co-sponsor this Act would update provisions of the original FOIA
legislation that protect the right of Americans to request information from the Federal
Government.93 The legislation was approved by a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives
on February 25, 2014.94 Although the Senate voted to pass similar legislation on December 8,
2014,95 the House was unable to take up the measure before the end of the current Term.96
89
Richard E. Cohen & Jake Sherman, John Boehner: This is the peoples House, POLITICO BLOG (Jan. 6, 2011
6:41 AM), http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47078.html (last accessed Dec. 15, 2014) (quoting Speaker
John Boehner, Opening Remarks as Speaker of the House on Jan. 4, 2011).
90
Ken Dilanian, Issa Vows to Hunt Down Waste in Government, CHICAGO TRIB., Jan. 3, 2011; Interview with
Darrell Issa, CNN, Jan. 2, 2011.
91
Philip Rucker, In Power Seat, Issa Recasts Self as Washingtons Whistleblower, WASH. POST, Dec. 19, 2010.
92
Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2014, H.R. 5492 113th Cong. (as amended and reported to the House
Sept.17, 2014).
93
FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act of 2013, H.R. 1211, 113th Cong. (as introduced Mar. 15, 2013).
94
FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act of 2013, H.R. 1211, 113th Cong. (as amended, approved by the House
and referred to the Senate Feb. 26, 2014).
95
FOIA Improvement Act of 2014, S.2520, 113th Cong. (as amended, approved by the Senate Dec. 8, 2014).
96
A variety of reasons have been suggested for the failure of the legislation to come before the House for a vote,
including opposition by the Department of Justice and the priority of passing a spending package. See Josh Hicks,
How a popular government-transparency bill suddenly died in Congress, WASH. POST, (Dec. 16, 2014), available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/12/16/how-a-popular-government-transparency-billsuddenly-died-in-congress/.
29
However, as with other bills reported, the Committee has laid the foundation for the legislations
passage in a future Session.
Passage of the DATA Act was a significant bipartisan success for the Committee. The Digital
Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act), signed into law by President Barack Obama on
May 9, 2014, seeks to transform government data reporting.97 By mandating the creation and
implementation of a government-wide financial reporting standard, the DATA Act expand[s]
transparency standards so that taxpayers can see how federal funds are spent.98 In December
2014, the Committee held a hearing to evaluate the efforts of the Department of Treasury and the
White House Office of Management and Budget to begin complying with legislative directives.99 In
his opening statement, Ranking Member Cummings referred to the landmark legislation as a
bipartisan bill that would provide the American people with information about how their money is
being spent. Ranking Member Cummings noted that [f]rom the very beginning, [Chairman Issa]
worked closely with me and my staff, as well as with the Administration and the Senate . . . and
should be commended for [his] leadership.100
Although the DATA Act and many of the Committees legislative activities have received the
support of Members of both the Majority and Minority, the Committees oversight activities
often met resistance when members of the Administration faced questions. Throughout
history, Members of Congress have defended the legitimacy of the separation of powers
doctrine and the need for Congress to exercise oversight of the Executive Branch.101 During
the Administration of President George W. Bush, Senator Robert Byrd called Members of
Congress to maintain those ideals, warning of the harm that comes to American when
Members become too deferential to the President:
Under the Constitution, we have three separate but equal branches of Government.
How many of us know that? How many of us know that the executive branch is but
the equal of the legislative branch not above it, not below it, but equal? Why do we
treat Presidents as though they were kings, clothed in royal purple? The real losers
in this scenario are the American people. They are not well served by a Congress
that fritters away opportunity after opportunity to probe, to analyze, to exercise its
independent judgment on the urgent issues of the day in favor of rushing to do the
bidding of the executive branch. Shame on us. Fie on us.102
97
Digital Transparency and Accountability Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-101, 128 Stat. 1146.
Cristina Marcos, Federal transparency bill headed to White House, HILL, FLOOR ACTION BLOG (Apr. 28, 2014
5:01 PM), http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/204586-federal-transparency-bill-headed-to-white-house).
99
Transforming Federal Spending: Implementing the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act: Hearing Before
the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2014).
100
Transforming Federal Spending: Implementing the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act: Hearing
Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2014) (opening statement of Ranking Member
Elijah Cummings).
101
As early as the Second Term of Congress, the Congress has fulfilled the necessary role of investigator and auditor
of the government accounts on behalf of taxpayers. A brief discussion of the history of the Committee is included
earlier in this report in the section, A Necessary Function: Evolution of the Committee.
102
150 CONG. REC. S79 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 2004) (statement of Sen. Robert Byrd).
98
30
Charged with overseeing the operations of the Federal Government103 and provided the
authority to investigate any matter at any time,104 the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform has a unique responsibility to the American Taxpayer; as Members of
the House of Representatives, the Committees Members have a mandate to press for the
interests of their constituents.105
However, time and again, Minority Members of the Committee wrongly attempted to
compromise or prematurely end investigation into allegations of government abuse. Case in
point, the Committees investigation into disparate treatment of applicants for tax exempt
status by the IRS. Near the outset of the IRS targeting investigation, before many key facts
had been brought forward, Ranking Member Cummings publicly declared, [b]ased upon
everything Ive seen the case is solved.106 Later, after public statements from Members of
both the Majority and Minority, Ranking Member Cummings walked back this statement,
explaining that he was open to interviewing additional Cincinnati-based IRS employees
and holding more hearings on the scandal.107
Yet, only six days after that clarification, the Ranking Member released a transcribed copy of
the Committees interview with an IRS employee108 providing every subsequent witness
with a roadmap to the Committees questions.109 The relationship between the Minority
and the Obama Administration came under scrutiny again more recently, when the Brian
Fallon from the Department of Justice apparently believing he was calling the office of
Ranking Member Cummings called Chairman Issas staff instead to discuss leaking
documents related to the IRS investigation. According to Mr. Fallon, the Director of the
DOJs Office of Public Affairs, this planned leak would allow Administration officials to
comment on the documents before the majority did.110
Efforts to protect actors within the Obama Administration and to disrupt the conduct of vigorous
oversight extended beyond the IRS targeting scandal. For over three years, the Committees
Minority publicly berated Chairman Issa and the Committees investigations; the lengths to which
103

Id.
105
Eugene W. Hickock, Congress, the Court, and the Constitution: Has Congress Abdicated its Constitutional
Responsibilities?, Heritage Foundation, Nov. 29, 1990, available at
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/hl299nbsp-congress-the-court-and-the-constitution.
106
Interview by Candy Crowly, State of the Union, CNN with Representative Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member,
House Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (June 9, 2013).
107
Rachael Bade, Rep. Elijah Cummings clarifies: IRS case is not solved, POLITICO, June 12, 2013, available at
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/elijah-cummings-clarifies-irs-case-not-solved-92689.html.
108
Press Release, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT: Cummings Releases Full
Transcript of Conservative Republican IRS Manager Explaining Genesis of Tea Party Screening (June 18, 2013),
available at http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/first-hand-account-cummings-releases-fulltranscript-of-conservative-republican.
109
In a transcribed interview with Committee staff, an attorney in the Exempt Organizations branch of the IRSs
Chief Counsel explained that he had been provided with the testimony released by Ranking Member Cummings in
preparation for the interview. Transcribed interview of David Marshall, Internal Revenue Serv., in Wash., D.C.
(July 26, 2013).
110
Bernie Becker, Issa: Holder aide caught red-handed, HILL, Sept. 9, 2014, available at
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/217129-issa-accuses-doj-of-under-the-table-coordination-with-house-democrats.
104
31
the Minority sought to undermine the Committees efforts even included an amicus brief opposing
the lawsuit authorized by a vote of the House of Representatives to compel the production of
document from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Despite this, an order of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia explained why Congress is
entitled to nearly two-thirds of the subpoenaed information:
This is a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena for documents under the Attorney General of
the United States. From the start, the Attorney General has sought to withhold the
records in question on one ground only: he asserted they were covered by the
deliberative process component of the Executive Privilege. . . . On August 20, 2014,
the Court ordered defendant to review the records at issue, determine which of
them meet the legal test for applicability of the deliberative process privilege, and
produce to plaintiff by October 1, 2014 those documents that do not satisfy the test. .
. . The fact that the Attorney General now seeks to asset some sort of general work
file privilege along the lines of the attorney work product doctrine does not alter the
analysis set forth in the order of August 20. . . . The possibility of an appeal and
piecemeal litigation does not satisfy defendants burden to demonstrat[e] a clear
case of hardship or inequity without a stay. Given this, and that the Attorney
General has no valid legal basis to withhold non-deliberative documents under the
deliberative process privilege, the Court denies defendants motion to stay the
production of these documents until the end of this litigation. The Court orders
defendant to produce these documents to the Committee by November 3, 2014.111
On that evening, in an Election Eve Dump, the Department of Justice turned over 64,280
pages of documents previously withheld from the Committee under President Obamas
claim of executive privilege.112 The documents produced demonstrate attempts to
overextend the use of executive privilege to avoid disclosing documents that would
potentially embarrass or otherwise implicate Administration officials documents the
Ranking Member claimed consisted of highly sensitive law enforcement and national
security materials that have never been requested before and are completely unrelated to
Operation Fast and Furious.113
As Chairman of the Committee, Representative Darrell Issa has fought these efforts to
obstruct oversight; as under the leadership of Chairman Henry Waxman before, the
Committee during the 112th and 113th Congresses has sought to exercise oversight of the
111
Order of the Court, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, v. Holder, No. 1211332 (D.D.Ct.) (Oct. 6, 2014).
112
Press Release, Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Election Eve Dump: Justice Department Turns Over 64,280
pages of Claimed Executive Privilege Operation Fast and Furious Documents (Nov. 4, 2014), available at
http://oversight.house.gov/release/election-eve-dump-justice-department-turns-64280-pages-claimed-executiveprivilege-operation-fast-furious-documents/.
113
Press Release, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, Cumming Statement on Subpoena to Department of Justice,
Oct. 12, 2012, available at http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/cummings-statement-onsubpoena-to-department-of-justice-0.
32
executive branch in order to help all levels of government function better.114 Americans
have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent. Americans
deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. The Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform has worked tirelessly overcoming unprecedented
obstruction, public disparagement and legal challenge to deliver the facts to the American
people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy.
114
Rep. Henry Waxman, Effective Oversight is Essential, Politico Opinion (as updated Jan. 25, 2011, 3:13 P.M.),
available at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48018.html.
33
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

INTRODUCTION
During the 112th and 113th Congresses, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
facilitated the passage of legislation that will significantly reform the function of Federal
Government legislation such as the DATA Act and the Federal Information Technology Acquisition
Reform Act115 will make the government more efficient, more transparent and more accountable to
American Taxpayers. Other legislation passed by the Committee, such as the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act and the Federal Records Accountability Act, has laid the foundation for additional
reforms to be made in the future.
According to its legislative jurisdiction, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is
responsible for considering all measures referred to it by the Speaker of the House as related to the
operation of government generally. As described earlier, the subject matter of the Committee is
divided into 12 areas:
1. Federal civil service, including intergovernmental personnel; and the status of officers and
employees of the United States, including their compensation, classification, and retirement.
2. Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia in general (other than appropriations).
3. Federal paperwork reduction.
4. Government management and accounting measures generally.
5. Holidays and celebrations.
6. Overall economy, efficiency, and management of government operations and activities,
including Federal procurement.
7. National archives.
8. Population and demography generally, including the Census.
9. Postal service generally, including transportation of the mails.
10. Public information and records.
11. Relationship of the Federal Government to the States and municipalities generally.
12. Reorganizations in the executive branch of the Government.
In the following sections, highlights of the legislative activities of the Committee are discussed.
115
As included in the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, discussed below.
34
DATA ACT
Americans have the right to hold their government accountable for how taxpayer dollars are spent.
To effectively exercise that right, Americans need free access to accurate, comprehensive and useful
information describing how the Federal Government uses their money. Transparency in federal
financial information provides a check on waste, fraud and abuse in government116--but only if
Federal data is reliably published in formats that make it easy to analyze. Federal decision makers,
including executive branch managers and members of Congress, also need comprehensive and
accurate financial information to make informed choices.
Over the past six years, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the Committee)
conducted a thorough study of transparency of Federal information, particularly spending data.
The Committee held seven hearings examining transparency of federal information. 117 Together,
Republican and Democrat Committee staff conducted extensive outreach and research to better
understand the complexities of federal financial data and best practices for data transparency. The
result of these oversight efforts was clear: despite previous efforts to make Federal spending
transparent to Americans, the information currently made available by the government often lacks
accuracy, comprehensiveness and usefulness.
The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act)118 applies the lessons learned from
the Committees activities to Federal spending data, opening it to closer scrutiny by the public,
watchdog groups, media, executive-branch management and Congress. Signed into law by
President Obama on May 9, 2014, the DATA Act requires Federal agencies to publicly report all of
their obligations and expenditures--encompassing both external spending, such as grants, loans,
and contracts, and internal spending on salaries, supplies, and facilities. Federal spending
information will be disclosed publicly on a single online platform. To ensure that these two
categories of information may be checked against one another and easily searched and analyzed,
the DATA Act imposes common data identifiers and electronic reporting standards on agencies.
The DATA Act builds on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
(FFATA).119 FFATA required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish a website,
USASpending.gov, which publishes selected information, gleaned from government-wide databases,
for each Federal grant, loan and contract. However, the Sunlight Foundation reported that $1.55
trillion of federal grant spending reported on USASpending.gov in fiscal year 2011 was
116
See, e.g., Testimony of Earl Devaney before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, June 14,
2011, available at http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Testimony/Devaney_Testimony_2.pdf, at 4 (``Devaney
Testimony'') (``Transparency can cause embarrassment, which, in turn, causes self-correcting behavior'').
117
``Preventing Stimulus Waste and Fraud: Who are the Watchdogs?'' March 19, 2009; ``Tracking the Money:
Preventing Waste, Fraud and Abuse of Recovery Act Funding,'' July 8, 2009; ``Tracking the Money: How Recovery
Act Recipients Account for their Use of Stimulus Dollars,'' Nov. 19, 2009; ``The Freedom of Information Act:
Crowd-Sourcing Government Oversight,'' March 17, 2011; `Àchieving Transparency and Accountability in Federal
Spending,'' June 14, 2011; ``Transparency Through Technology: Evaluating Federal Open-Government Initiatives,''
March 11, 2011 (Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement
Reform); `Ìmproving Oversight and Accountability in Federal Grant Programs,'' June 23, 2011 (Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform).
118
Digital Transparency and Accountability Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-101, 128 Stat. 1146.
119
Pub. L. No. 109-292.
35
misreported,120 and 64.2 percent of the data reported was inconsistent.121 Moreover,
USASpending.gov covers Federal grants, contracts, or loans, but not internal agency spending,
which means that it cannot provide taxpayers or decision-makers with a complete picture of the
cost of a given program, office or department.
The DATA Act requires the same information to be published online as required under FFATA, but
greatly expands the scope of spending transparency by adding agencies' internal spending data to
FFATA's mandate. It also strengthens reporting requirements. For all federal funds, agencies will
report the amount of budget authority available, the amount obligated, the amount of outlays, and
the amount of expired or unobligated balances.
The DATA Act also incorporates lessons learned from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA), which required the recipients of Federal stimulus funds to report on the receipt
and use of those funds to a single central publicly available database on Recovery.gov.
Recovery.gov has demonstrated better accuracy122 and relevance123 than USASpending.gov. First,
Recovery.gov's recipient-supplied reports are received quarterly, permitting activity to be tracked
across time; whereas USASpending.gov only publishes data once for each transaction. Second, the
award recipients report accurately under ARRA, or run the risk of losing their stimulus funding if
they do not. Meanwhile, FFATAs mandate only applies to OMB and Federal agencies do not face any
penalties for noncompliance, creating little incentive to provide accurate data to the governmentwide databases that feed USASpending.gov.
Significantly, the usefulness of both USASpending.gov and Recovery.gov is hampered by the Federal
Government's long-term failure to adopt common data elements and reporting standards for
electronic financial information. For example, there is no system of identifier codes for all Federal
awards; instead, every agency separately tracks grants, contracts, and loans using its own distinct
system.124 Similarly, there is no system of identifier codes for all recipients of Federal grants,
contracts, and loans; no master list of all Federal programs; and, in fact, no agreed system of agency
codes. Without government-wide identifiers for awards, recipients, programs, agencies, and other
120
See Press Release, Sunlight Foundation, U.S. Government Misreported $1.55 Trillion in Grants in 2011 (Feb. 4,
2013), available at http://sunlightfoundation.com/press/releases/2013/02/04/us-government-misreported-155trillion-grants-2011/ (last accessed Dec. 16, 2014).
121
See Clearspending: Making Sense of the Federal Checkbook, Consistency Results for Fiscal Year 2011,
SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION http://sunlightfoundation.com/clearspending// (last accessed Dec. 16, 2014). The Sunlight
Foundation study covered only grant programs, because grant information on USASpending.gov may be compared
to corresponding information in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, but there is no independent
compilation of contract information to which contract data on USASpending.gov may be compared.
122
By the end of the first quarter of calendar 2011, only 17 recipients had failed to file recipient reports under
ARRA twice, and the number of three-time non-reporters was seven. See, e.g., Testimony of Earl Devaney before
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, June 14, 2011, available at
http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Testimony/Devaney_Testimony_2.pdf, at 5.
123
In contrast with the extensive use of the Recovery Operations Center by the Recovery Board and inspectors
general throughout the executive branch to detect irregularities and fraud, Federal authorities do not use
USASpending.gov for any oversight-related purpose.
124
See RECOVERY ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY BOARD, SOLUTIONS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY: UNIFORM GOVERNMENTWIDE AWARD ID NUMBER (undated) available at
http://www.recovery.gov/arra/About/Documents/WhitePaperonStandardizedGovernmentwideAwardID.pdf (last
accessed Dec. 16, 2014).
36
data elements, sophisticated electronic searches and comparisons will be impossible, even under a
comprehensive spending transparency mandate.
The DATA Act tasks the Department of the Treasury and the White House Office of Management
and Budget with establishing government-wide data standards for federal spending. The
Department of the Treasury will collect Federal spending information and publish that information
in formats that make it easy to search, sort, and download. Treasury is further directed to designate
common electronic data elements and reporting standards for the spending information it collects,
in conjunction with OMB.
The DATA Act also shifts from OMB to Treasury the statutory responsibility for administering
USASpending.gov. Treasury can comply with this provision by assuming control over the
administration of the USASpending.gov site. The data posted on USASpending.gov will contain
information from more sources than it currently does, increasing the availability and accuracy of
data. All data on USASpending.gov will be available in a machine-readable, searchable format and
down loadable in bulk.
The DATA Act also seeks to reduce the burden of reporting. The Office of Management and Budget
is tasked with reviewing current financial reporting requirements and making recommendations
instructing agencies on how to simplify reporting to reduce duplication and compliance costs. OMB
or a designate shall also conduct a three year pilot program to evaluate consolidated financial
reporting for recipients of federal funds and its ability to increase financial transparency and
reduce compliance costs and burdens. The pilot program will review $1 billion in Federal funds in
the form of grants, contracts and sub-awards. Participants will include a diverse group that
collectively receives funds under multiple programs across multiple agencies.
The DATA Act was introduced by Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Ranking Member Elijah
Cummings in 2011. It passed the House but stalled in the Senate. Chairman Issa and Ranking
Member Cummings reintroduced the DATA Act, H.R. 2061, in 2013. Senator Mark Warner of
Virginia and Senator Rob Portman of Ohio introduced an identical bill in the Senate, S. 994. The
DATA Act was passed by both houses and it was signed into law by President Obama on May 9,
2014.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEIGHT ACT

In an effort to help the city beautify and update its architecture, Chairman Issa began exploring
options to update the 100 year old law that capped building heights in the City. After several years
of review, the City and the National Capital Planning Commission generally agreed on some modest
changes to the law. While this agreement fell short of the Chairmans expectations, he listened to
the will of the elected representatives of the City and pushed the legislation. H.R. 4192, unofficially
referred to as the D.C. Height Act, simply allows for human occupancy on an area that used to be
reserved for mechanical structures. This legislation is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.
37
EXCESS FEDERAL BUILDING AND PROPERTY DISPOSAL ACT

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly reported, most recently in the
2013 High Risk Report, that the Federal Government continues to hold more real property than it
actually needs.125 The annual costs of operating and maintaining these underutilized and excess
properties reach into the billions of dollars.126 Moreover, when agencies do move to dispose of an
unneeded property, they face legal and environmental screening requirements that often slow
down the disposal process.127
Subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz introduced the Excess Federal Building and Property
Disposal Act of 2013 (H.R. 328) on January 22, 2013.128 The Act makes permanent changes to the
federal property disposal process in order to make disposition more efficient. The legislation also
incentivizes agencies to appropriately manage and efficiently dispose of their real property assets.
H.R. 328 directs the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to conduct a pilot
program, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for the
expedited disposal of real property that is no longer meeting the needs of the Federal Government.
Consistent with the one of the requirements in the existing disposal process, Subcommittee
Chairman Chaffetzs legislation also establishes a grant program under which a portion of the
proceeds from sale of the property may be used by organizations serving the homeless to provide
permanent housing.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PHASED RETIREMENT ACT

In 2010, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) requested phased retirement authority
to improve the Federal Governments ability to retain and share institutional knowledge. Chairman
Issa responded to OPMs request in 2012 with legislation authorizing agencies to used phased
retirement as a workforce planning and employee retention tool.129 Enacted as part of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),130 the Federal Employee Phased Retirement
Act gives agency managers an additional tool for retaining valuable knowledge and expertise, while,
at the same time, providing federal workers greater flexibility in planning their careers. Phased
retirement allows federal workers to retire from a portion their full time employment and receive a
prorated pension for that service. With permission from their agency, phased retirees work 20 to
80 percent of their full-time schedule and receive a pro-rated salary as well as pension credit
commensurate with the time worked. When the passed annuitant fully retires, their pension
annuity is adjusted.
Federal workers waited more than two years for OPM to issue the implementing regulation,
resulting in bipartisan communication to OPM regarding the delay. The regulation was issued
August 7, 2014.131
125
Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO High Risk Report 2013, GAO-13-283, Feb. 2013 at 106.
Id.
127
Id.
128
H.R. 328, 113th Cong. (as introduced Jan. 22, 2013).
129
Federal Employee Phased Retirement Act, H.R. 4363, 113th Cong. (as introduced, Apr. 17, 2012).
130
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (2012).
131
Phased Retirement, 79 Fed. Reg. 46607 (2014).
126
38
FEDERAL INFORMATION SECURITY MODERNIZATION ACT

In response to a sharp spike in recent years of cyber-intrusions into federal computer systems a
trend that shows no signs of reversing Members of Congress have demonstrated a heightened
concern about our governments ability to protect against, and respond to, such threats.
Recognizing the need for legislation that would reform current systems, Chairman Issa, introduced
the Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2013 (H.R. 1163).132 Drafted on a bipartisan
basis with Ranking Member Cummings among its cosponsors, H.R. 1163 would reauthorize and
update the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA),133 creating a
framework for the protection of federal information systems. The legislation puts a new emphasis
on automated and continuous monitoring of information security breaches in federal systems,
turning focus away from the check the box mentality that comes with simply ensuring certain
security protocols are in place. H.R. 1163 supports the use of commercial security solutions for
Government systems, providing flexibility without dictating specific solutions to federal agencies.
The Federal Information Security Amendments Act was introduced on March 14, 2013 by Chairman
Issa and was approved by voice vote the same day in Committee. On April 16, 2013, the bill was
approved on the House floor in a unanimous 416-0 recorded vote. A separate but similar bill, the
Federal Information Security Modernization Act (S. 2521) was introduced in the Senate on June
24, 2014 by Homeland Security and Government Affairs Chairman Tom Carper.134 Chairman
Carpers bill passed the Senate on December 8, 2014, and was passed by the House two days later.
Signed into law on December 18, 2014, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014
became Public Law 113-283.135
FEDERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION REFORM ACT

Information technology (IT) plays a pivotal role in the efficient operation of government. Without
modern IT systems, government is incapable of providing basic services, curtailing waste, fraud and
abuse or managing internal operations. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO)136 has
repeatedly pointed out in recent years, the Federal Government spends approximately $79 billion
annually on IT, 137 yet those investments continue to underperform, often incurring considerable
cost overruns and delays, while contributing little to mission-related outcomes. These failures
directly impact progress towards improving citizen services and conducting effective oversight. As
such, they impact the entire $3.5 trillion of annual federal outlays. For example, without state-ofthe-art IT and the oversight capability it brings, the government cannot tackle the $108 billion lost
to improper payments in fiscal year 2012 alone.138 Furthermore, in terms of potential cost savings,
some in the industry have estimated that more than one trillion dollars could be saved over the
132
Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2013, H.R. 1163, 113th Cong. (2013).
Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 (codified at 44
U.S.C. 3541, et seq.).
134
Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, S. 2521, 113th Cong. (2014).
135
Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-283.
136
The General Accountability Office is the watchdog agency used by Congress to oversea executive branch
agencies.
137
GAO testimony, Investment Oversight and Management have improved but continued attention is needed;
Statement of David Powner; (March 17, 2011) GAO-11-454T, at 3.
138
For the Committees work related to Federal Financial Un-accountability, see Chapter 5.
133
39
next ten years if the government adopted the proven IT best practices currently in use by the
private sector.
The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), introduced by Chairman
Issa with Representative Gerald Connolly as co-sponsor, squarely addressed this dismal record
with strong bipartisan, bicameral support. It provided common-sense good governance reforms to
assist the government in its adoption and employment of critical IT resources. It gave agency Chief
Information Officers more authority over the budget, governance, and personnel processes for
agency information technology investments. It also sought to make agency IT investments more
transparent to the public and require agencies to pay attention to troubled investments. To
eliminate duplication and waste, the bill required agencies to annually review their IT investments,
with particular emphasis on consolidating and optimizing data centers--the facilities in which
federal agencies house computer systems and related components.
After a similar bill was considered and reported in the Senate,139 the Committee worked with the
Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee as well as the intelligence and armed
services committees to draft compromise language. Ultimately the compromise language was
included in the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President
Obama on December 19, 2014. As enacted, the legislation enhances the authority of CIOs, improves
transparency and risk management, requires annual IT reviews by agencies, requires consolidation
of over 9,000 Federal data centers, further develops a skilled IT acquisition workforce and
leverages the scale of the Federal Government to improve purchasing power.
FEDERAL RECORDS ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Improving internal recordkeeping standards has been a priority for the Federal Government since
the 1930s. These standards were greatly strengthened in 1950 with the passage of the landmark
Federal Records Act (FRA) and further expanded in 1978 with the enactment of the Presidential
Records Act. While these reforms have been largely effective over the last several decades, the
advent of new unforeseen technologies and the continued growth of government have exposed
cracks in current recordkeeping practices. As a result increasing numbers of federal employees are
using unofficial technologies to conduct government business dramatically diminishing
government transparency and accountability.
Over the last several years, the Committee has encountered a number of incidents where federal
records were jeopardized or lost due to ignorance or deliberate effort. In one example, the
Committee learned that then-Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez used his personal e-mail
1,200 times over a four-year period to conduct official business at the Department of Justice. More
recently, new allegations related to FRA compliance have been raised at EPA and IRS, causing even
further concerns about deliberate recordkeeping subversion.
139
Federal Information Technology Savings, Accountability and Transparency Act of 2013, S.1843 113th Cong (as
introduced by Sen. Tom Udall).
40
As a result of these incidents, Representative Mark Meadows introduced H.R. 5170, the Federal
Records Accountability Act (FRAA).140 The legislation was a direct effort to update the FRAA to
account for modern technology and the larger bureaucracy. Specifically, the FRAA would bar
federal employees from using personal e-mail or twitter accounts for official business and provide
for clear penalties for employees who destroy federal records. Additionally, during Committee
consideration of the FRAA, amendments were incorporated that will ensure the electronic capture
of key digital communication within agencies automatically, instead of the current outdated process
that requires paper versions of electronic documents be preserved.
Ultimately, the amended version of H.R. 5170 was reported by voice vote on a bipartisan basis on
July 24, 2014.141 Subsequently, H.R. 5170 was passed by the full House of Representatives by a
voice vote with the vocal support of both Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings.142
FOIA OVERSIGHT AND IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Since its enactment in 1966, the Freedom of Information Act143 has been amended multiple times in
efforts to increase agency compliance with the requirements of the Act and to improve the process.
Despite these amendments, significant problems persist. The FOIA Oversight and Implementation
Act of 2014 (the FOIA Act) was introduced by Chairman Darrell Issa and Ranking Member Elijah
Cummings as co-sponsor in an effort to address some of these lingering problems on March 15,
2013.144 With the overwhelming support of both Republicans and Democrats, the FOIA Act passed
the House of Representatives by a vote of 410-0 on February 25, 2014. It was received in the
Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 26, 2014.145
The United States Supreme Court explained the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act early
after its original enactment as being to establish a general philosophy of full agency disclosure
unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language,146 and later explained
that [a]s the Act is structured, virtually every document generated by agency is available to public
in one form or another, unless it falls within one of the Acts nine exemptions.147 On his first day in
office President Barack Obama directed all agencies to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure
and take affirmative steps to make information public.148 However, when the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform conducted oversight of the Federal Governments response to
properly made FOIA requests numerous issues with procedure were identified.149
The FOIA Act helps to address many of these issues, including overuse of FOIAs statutory
exemptions, inappropriate charging of fees for FOIA requesters, agency failure to post frequently
140
H.R. 5170, 113th Cong. (as introduced, July 23, 2014).

H.R. 5170, 113th Cong. (as reported by H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, July 24, 2014).
142
H.R. 5170, 113th Cong. (as passed by the House, Sept. 16, 2014).
143
Pub. L. No. 89-487, 80 Stat. 250 (codified as amendment at 5 U.S.C. 552).
144
H.R. 1211, 113th Cong. (as received in the Senate, Feb. 26, 2014).
145
Roll Call Vote No. 63., available at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll063.xml.
146
EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80 (1973).
147
NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 136 (1975).
148
Freedom of Information Act: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 74 Fed. Reg.
4683 (Jan. 21, 2009).
149
Highlights of the Committees activities related to FOIA are discussed in Chapter 1.
141
41
requested records online and the continued rise of FOIA lawsuits. The legislation establishes a
statutory presumption of openness, strengthens requirements for agencies to post frequently
requested information, requires the Federal Government to establish a single portal for FOIA
requests, strengthens the ombudsman and mediator role of the Office of Government Information
Services and mandates agencies to update FOIA regulations. Although Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Patrick Leahy, with Senator John Cornyn among co-sponsors, introduced substantially
similar legislation,150 the legislation will not be passed before the end of the term.
GOVERNMENT REPORTS ELIMINATION ACT

Congress regularly enacts legislation placing reporting requirements on the Executive Branch.
These agency reports can be useful resources and tools for the Congress as well as the general
public. But changing technology, program requirements, and economic, domestic and foreign
policy eventually render many reports that agencies supply to Congress unnecessary. The
preparation of these reports can be expensive, primarily in terms of the work hours involved to
produce them, but also in materials used. To help address this waste, the Government Performance
Results Act151 was amended in 2010.152 As amended, the legislation directed each agency to assist
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in publishing an annual list of unnecessary agency
reports. In January 2013, OMB published the first such list.
It then became the job of Congress to vet this list, and determine which reports that the
Administration views as unnecessary are also unnecessary in the eyes of the Legislative Branch.
Chairman Issa sent letters to the chairmen of each House Committee soliciting input on OMBs list
of proposed eliminations. The Committee relied on the feedback received to winnow down the
original list of eliminations proposed by OMB. In conducting the research required under the
legislation, the General Accountability Office also identified nine statutory reporting mandates it
must currently comply with that are burdensome and unnecessary.
Taking the feedback received into consideration, Chairman Issa introduced Chairman Issa
introduced the Government Reports Elimination Act in March 2014.153 The bill, as passed by the
House the following month, eliminated statutory requirements for over 100 federal agency reports
and revised five of the mandates identified by GAO as unnecessary.154 After passing with
amendment by the Senate in September, the chambers resolved differences in the legislation and it
was presented to the President on November 17, 2014. The Government Reports Elimination Act of
2014 was signed into law on November 26, 2014, becoming Public Law 113-188.
A second direct result of the Committees work was a proposed change to the legislative protocols
for the 114th Congress made by the House leadership in October 2014.155 The change would
require every new agency report included in future legislation to sunset after a specified period of
150
FOIA Improvement Act of 2014, S. 2520, 113th Cong. (as introduced, Jan. 24, 2014).
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62.
152
Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352.
153
H.R. 4194, 113th Cong. (as introduced, Mar. 11, 2014).
154
H.R. 4194, 113th Cong. (as introduced, Apr. 28, 2014).
155
Memo from The Honorable House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy to all House Republicans, October 22,
2014.
151
42
time, unless the report is specifically re-authorized by the Congress.156 While legislative protocols
do not govern the introduction of legislation, good-faith compliance with protocols is necessary
for House floor consideration.157 The House of Representatives is expected to adopt the revised
protocols in the coming months.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

In recent years, agency conference and travel spending has become exorbitant and out of control,
wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on over-the-top accommodations and gifts. Following its
oversight into this behavior,158 the Committee, and subsequently the full House, approved the
Government Spending Accountability Act of 2013 (the GSA Act).159 Introduced by
Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson with Representative James Lankford joining as a co-sponsor, the
legislation would reduce overall conference and travel spending through the implementation of
new restrictions on these expenses. This legislation was passed unanimously by the House of
Representatives on July 31, 2013,160 but despite significant bipartisan support, it was not taken up
by the Senate before the end of the Term.161
INSPECTOR GENERAL EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 2014

The Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2014 was approved by the Committee and reported to
the House of Representatives on September 16, 2014.162 Introduced by Chairman Darrell Issa with
co-sponsors Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Representative Mark Meadows, the legislation
would strengthen the independence of the Inspectors General and provide them with additional
tools by which to conduct investigations.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 (the IG Act) established the inspectors general (IGs) to
promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness within Executive Branch departments and
agencies.163 The IG Act broadly empowers IGs to undertake whatever investigations or reports they
consider necessary or desirable.164 In support of this function, Section 6(a)(1) of the Act clearly
states that IGs shall have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers,
recommendations, or other material available to the applicable establishment which related to
programs and operations with respect to which that Inspector General has responsibilities under
this Act.165 However, on August 5, 2014, many Members of Congress received a letter signed by 47
Inspectors General describing serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded
the work of Inspectors General and identified three IGs specifically whose work has been
obstructed.
156
Id.
113th Congress Legislative Protocols, http://www.majorityleader.gov/protocols/.
158
The Committees oversight efforts related to this alleged mismanagement of taxpayer dollars is discussed later in
Chapter 5.
159
H.R. 313, 113th Cong. (as introduced, Jan. 18, 2013).
160
H.R. 313, 113th Cong. (as passed by the House, July 31, 2013).
161
H.R. 313, 113th Cong. (as referred to Senate Cmte. on Homeland Security and Govt Affairs, Aug. 1, 2013).
162
H.R. 5492, 113th Cong. (as reported to the House, Sept. 16, 2014).
163
Inspector General Act of 1978, P. L. 95-452, 1, Oct. 12, 1978, 92 Stat. 1101 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C.
1-13).
164
5 U.S.C. 6(a)(2) (2012).
165
5 U.S.C. app 6(a)(1).
157
43
The legislation proposed by Chairman Issa would authorize Inspectors General to write testimonial
subpoenas for Federal Government contractors and former federal employees. This authority will
enhance the ability of Inspectors General to conduct thorough audits and investigations,
particularly in procurement fraud matters. The bill also adds predictability to the budget for the
Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) by authorizing a direct
appropriation to CIGIE from Congress. The bill expedites investigations performed by the CIGIE
Integrity Committee, and requires progress reports concerning ongoing investigations. Finally, the
bill requires that the Government Accountability Office issue a report concerning prolonged
vacancies in IG offices, and that CIGIE issue a report on collaboration among Inspectors General on
cross-cutting issues that pertain to waste, fraud, abuse and/or mismanagement across multiple IG
jurisdictions (cybersecurity, for example). In response to a request from CIGIE, the bill makes a
number of changes to facilitate the work of Inspectors General.
POSTAL REFORM LEGISLATION

Chairman Darrell Issa and Postal Service Subcommittee Chairman Dennis Ross introduced the
Postal Reform Act (PRA) on June 23, 2011. Since its founding by the Second Continental Congress
in 1775,166 the United States Postal Service has repeatedly, and dramatically, evolved to respond to
the changing needs of the American people. The Postal Services ability to adapt has enabled it to
grow and endure despite radical advancements in technology, such as the advent of the telegraph
and the telephone, which have made it significantly easier for individuals to communicate over long
distances. As a result of the Postal Services successful strategies, mail volume growth and
economic growth were highly correlated for much of the nations history, including a nearly perfect
correlation for the period from 1946 through 2000.167 However, by the late 1990s, it was clear to
some observers that major changes were necessary to reorganize the Postal Service so it could
survive in the burgeoning era of the Internet.
As early as 1988, it was becoming clear that booming information technologies would place
unprecedented pressure on the Postal Services long-term financial conditions.168 Representative
John McHugh, one of the earliest advocates of a new round of postal reform, introduced the Postal
Reform Act of 1996 on June 25, 1996,169 a bill designed to allow the Postal Service to respond to
quickly to changing market conditions. However, despite the growing pressure of electronic
diversion, it was only in 2004, under Chairman Tom Davis, that a major postal reform bill was voted
on by the full House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.170 Ultimately, the decade long
saga of postal reform was concluded on December 20, 2006 when a scaled back version of
166
U.S. POSTAL SERV., THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE: AN AMERICAN HISTORY 1775-2006 3 (2007),
available at http://about.usps.com/publications/pub100.pdf.
167
Darrell E. Issa, The Postal Reform Act: A Plan for an Affordable, Sustainable Postal Service, 38 NOTRE DAME L.
REV. 157-58 (2012).
168
Dr. Malcome Harris et al., The Household Diary Study: Mail Use & Attitudes in FY 2000, 2001 USPS 51 (2001)
(on file with author).
169
Postal Reform Act, H.R. 3717, 104th Cong. (1996).
170
H.R. 3717, 104th Cong.
44
Representative John McHughs 1996 legislation was finally signed into law as the Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA).171
Only four years after its peak in 2006, mail volume had dropped to 171 billion pieces in 2010 and
by 2013 mail volume was 158 billion pieces.172 In just the seven years between 2006 and 2013,
more than 25 percent of the Postal Services total mail volume disappeared. As a result, during this
drop off, the Postal Service saw revenues plummet, including a decrease of $9.2 billion between
2008 and 2010 alone.173
It was in this environment that Chairman Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Ross introduced the
Postal Reform Act (PRA) in 2011. The PRA was a clear proposal to reshape the Postal Service in
light of declining demand and a direct response to changing consumer demand. At its core, the PRA
had the goal of granting the Postal Service the ability to make difficult changes concerning
rightsizing needs independent of purely political concerns. As a result, one of the key provisions of
the PRA was the inclusion of a Base Realignment and Closure style process that had been
successfully applied to military base restructuring to preclude backroom deals over specific plant
closures.174 Additionally, the legislation included a number of commonsense reforms, including
asking postal employees to pay the same as other federal employees for health care and the switch
to modified 6-day delivery of mail.175 The PRA was approved by the Committee on October 13,
2011, less than four months after it was introduced.176
While the legislation never came before the full House of Representatives, bipartisan negotiations
with the Senate on a compromise bill lasted until December 2012 before falling apart due to
intransigence on the part of many House Democratic members who were unwilling to support the
inclusion of any cost-cutting measures in any compromise legislation. Similarly, in 2013 and 2014
House Democratic Members were also unwilling to discuss cost-cutting measures at the Postal
Service, even after Chairman Issa agreed to incorporate many provisions of Ranking Member
Cummingss Postal Service-related legislation, the Innovate to Deliver Act of 2013, into the Postal
Reform Act of 2013.
171
See Pieces of Mail Handled, Number of Post Offices, Income, and Expenses Since 1789, U.S. POSTAL SERV.,
(2014), available at http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/pieces-of-mail-since-1789.pdf (last accessed
Dec. 20, 2014).
172
Id.
173
Id.
174
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY UNDER SECY OF DEF., DEPT OF DEF., REPORT ON 2005 DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND
REALIGNMENT IMPLEMENTATION 6 (2013).
175
Postal Reform Act, H.R. 2309, 112th Cong. 302, 111 (2011).
176
Press Release, H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Oversight Comm. Approves Issa-Ross Postal Reform Bill
(Oct. 13, 2011) (on file with author).
45
SMART SAVINGS ACT

The Smart Savings Act enhances the retirement security of federal workers. It does so by changing
the default investment fund for Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) participants from a low-growth fund to
an asset-allocation fund. Introduced by Chairman Issa on March 11, 2014 with significant
bipartisan support,177 the legislation was passed by the House of Representatives on July 14,
2014.178 Similar legislation, introduced by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Rob Portman, passed the
Senate on September 16, 2014.179 The Smart Savings Act became Public Law 113-188 when signed
into law by President Obama on December 18, 2014.
The legislation responds to a recommendation from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment
Board (FRTIB), a nonpartisan entity whose mission is to administer the TSP solely in the interest
of participants and beneficiaries.180 The previous default fund, the G Fund, invested exclusively in
nonmarketable, short-term U.S. Treasury securities issued to the TSP. The earnings come from
interest income on the security. However, the TSP also offered age-appropriate asset allocation
funds, currently known as the Lifestyle or (L) Funds, designed to automatically address an
individual's changing needs as they approach retirement. The L Funds offer professionally
designed portfolios of investments with earnings that are generally higher than the earnings of the
G Fund.
Investment results drove interest in making the L Fund the default option. According to the FRTIB,
if the L Funds had been the default investment option since the beginning of automatic enrollment
in 2010, participants would have achieved greater returns than by investing solely in the G Fund.
Between August 2010 and September 2013, the cumulative returns for the G Fund were 6.33
percent, compared to 47.39 percent for the L 2040 Fund.181
The Smart Savings Act will help ensure TSP participants are better prepared for retirement, by
investing their contributions in a fund designed to yield higher returns over the course of their
career. However, it is important to note that employees retain their ability to control their
investment choices. Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings was an original cosponsor of the
legislation, along with the Chair and Ranking Member of the Federal Workforce Subcommittee,
Representatives Blake Farenthold and Stephen F. Lynch. Other Committee Members, including
Representatives Rob Woodall and Gerald E. Connolly as well as D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton also supported the legislation.
177
Smart Savings Act, H.R. 4193, 113th Cong. (as introduced Mar. 11, 2014).
H.R. 4193, 113th Cong. (as passed by the House, July 14, 2014).
179
S. 2117, 113th Cong. (as passed by the Senate, Sept. 16, 2014).
180
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Minutes of the Meeting of the Board Members, December 16, 2013,
available at http://www.frtib.gov/pdf/minutes/Dec2013.pdf.
181
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Memorandum for Board Members, From: Greg Long, Executive
Director, Subject: L Fund Default Investment Option (December 16, 2013), available at
http://www.frtib.gov/pdf/minutes/MM-2013Dec-Att3.pdf.
178
46
STOP UNWORTHY SPENDING ACT

Given the amount of money distributed through contracts, grants and financial assistance, it is
imperative that the Federal Government have a reliable method for evaluating the recipients to
ensure American Taxpayers receive value for their dollar. The World Banks Chief Suspension and
Debarment Official has explained the importance of this principle:
As the worlds largest single buyer of goods and services, the United States
government has an interest in ensuring its funds are being used appropriately.
Indeed, as a matter of policy, the Federal Government seeks to prevent the improper
dissipation of public funds in its contracting activities by doing business only with
responsible contractors. To this end, the United States employs a suspension and
debarment system that seeks to preclude US government agencies from entering
into new contractual dealings with contractors whose actions suggest they are not
responsible in fulfilling their legal or contractual obligations.182
Suspension and debarment, (S&D) is a process within the federal acquisition and grant system
that dictates actions taken by agencies to exclude firms or individuals from receiving government
contracts (and subcontracts, in some cases), grants or financial assistance from the Federal
Government based on various types of misconduct. A suspension is a temporary exclusion of the
contractor or recipient from consideration for future awards pending the completion of an
investigation or legal proceeding; a debarment is a similar exclusion but lasts for a fixed term that
depends upon the seriousness of the misconduct, but generally should not exceed three years.183
Once a federal agency makes the determination that a suspension or debarment is necessary, these
exclusions are reported in the System for Award Management (SAM), a publicly available,
database maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) that combines procurement
information from agencies across the Federal Government.184 Under the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, a contracting officer must check the SAM database before making a new contract award
or exercising an option under an existing contract.185 No awards or other government benefit may
be made to a suspended or debarred party unless the agency executes a special waiver based on
compelling needs.186
Under then-Chairman Edolphus Towns in 2009, the Committee began conducting oversight of the
governments repeated hiring of federal contractors despite a history of poor performance or
malfeasanceholding a hearing to examine problematic awards in 2009. At a second hearing held
by then-Chairman Towns in March, 2010, the Committee learned that, despite the previous hearing
on the issue, federal agencies, including DHS, USAID, and DOT, continue to disregard regulations
182
Pascale Helene Dubois, Domestic and International Administrative Tools to Combat Fraud & Corruption: A
Comparison of US Suspension and Debarment with the World Banks Sanctions System, 2012 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 195
(2012).
183
See 48 C.F.R. 9.4 (2014).
184
See System for Award Management, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, www.sam.gov (last visited Dec. 11,
2014).
185
48 C.F.R. 4.1103 (2014).
186
See id.
47
related to suspension and debarment.187 In most cases in which contracts were terminated, the
government contractor was never even reviewed for possible suspension or debarment.188 At the
end of the 111th Congress, continuing oversight was the only method by which agencies could be
held accountable for taking steps to improve their suspension and debarment deficiencies.
During the first year of the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Regulations and Procurement Reform held a hearing entitled, Protecting
Taxpayer Dollars: Are Federal Agencies Making Full Use of Suspension and Debarment Sanctions?189
This hearing examined why some agencies are effective at using the S&D remedy to weed out
contractors who defraud the government while others languish far behind. This hearing
highlighted characteristics of agencies with effective S&D programs, such as the Department of
Defense, while illustrating the substantial weaknesses of other agencies S&D programs, such as the
Department of Health and Human Services.
Picking up on subcommittee actions in 2011, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
held a full Committee hearing entitled, Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the Government Using
Suspension and Debarment Effectively? in June, 2013.190 Witnesses testified to persistent problems
degrading the efficiency of the Federal Governments S&D process problems that have resulted in
the award of federal contracts and grants to non-responsible191 companies and individuals,
including those with criminal convictions, outstanding federal tax liabilities or terrorist ties.192
Given the difficult history uncovered by the Committee related to use of the suspension and
debarment procedures, Chairman Darrell Issa, along with Ranking Member Elijah Cummings,
Subcommittee on National Security Chairman Jason Chaffetz, Subcommittee on Government
Operations Chairman John Mica, and Representative Jackie Speier, introduced the Stop Unworthy
Spending Act (the SUSPEND Act) on October 28, 2013.193 On the following day, the full Committee
voted to order the legislation, as amended by Subcommittee Chairman Chaffetz and Representative
Speier, to be reported to the House for vote.194 Subsequent action has not been taken.
187
188
Id.
189
Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the Government Using Suspension and Debarment Effectively?: Hearing before
the Subcomm. on Tech., Info. Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on
190
the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2013).
191
A contractor may be non-responsible, in contrast to irresponsible, for a number of reasons. Used as a term of
art, a contract bidder may be determined to be non-responsible and therefore ineligible for a contract award
because it is not technically capable of performing the contract, without regard to any moral or ethical
characteristics. See PNM Construction, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 745 (1987). See also 48 C.F.R. 9.104-1
(2014).
192
the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. 45-46 (2013); see also U.S. GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE, GAO-11-739, SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT: SOME AGENCY PROGRAMS NEED GREATER ATTENTION, AND
GOVERNMENTWIDE OVERSIGHT COULD BE IMPROVED (2011).
193
Stop Unworthy Spending Act, H.R.3345, 113th Cong. (as introduced Oct. 28, 2013).
194
Stop Unworthy Spending Act, H.R.3345, 113th Cong. (as amended and ordered to be reported, Oct. 29, 2013).
48
The SUSPEND Act sought to reform the S&D process in several ways. As amended by the
Committee, the Act would have consolidated the suspension and debarment offices and programs
of more than 40 executive agencies into a centralized board, and would have ensured more efficient
management of resources and the consistent application of procedures. It would have combined
the two separate S&D regulations governing contracts and grants into a single, comprehensive
regulation. By requiring maintenance of a national database for tracking S&D cases, the SUSPEND
Act sought to provide agencies with up-to-date information on federal fund recipients that can be
used in screening candidates prior to award.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM

Traditionally, the Federal Government has relied upon voluntary grant-in-aid funding to encourage
state and local governments to act to further policy in the national interest.195 However, in the
1970s and 1980s, there was a shift in this relationship.196 The Federal Government increasingly
relied upon compulsory programs and regulations to impose duties on state and local governments
in furtherance of national goals.197 These intrusive initiatives, which result in unsubsidized,
federally-induced costs, are unfunded mandates. 198
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 was enacted to promote informed decisionmaking within the Federal Government concerning the appropriateness of federal mandates,
recognizing a need to retain competitive balance between the public and private sectors.199
However, it quickly became apparent that UMRA was an insufficient tool for the curtailing of
unfunded mandates.
When drafting UMRA, legislators struggled to balance interests favoring procedural requirements
restricting the availability with maintaining the Federal Governments ability to effectively protect
and promote national interests. Significant debate surrounded the statutory definition of unfunded
mandates and the reach of the procedural and analytical requirements.200 Ultimately, Congress
chose a narrow definition and included several exemptions and exclusions, in an effort to ensure
that Congresss and the Executive Branchs hands are not tied.201
As early as 1998, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that UMRA has had little
direct effect on agencies rulemaking actions during the first 2 years of its implementation.202
Since UMRAs enactment, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has reviewed
more than 850 final rules with estimated benefits and/or costs that exceed $100 million
annually.203 Only 225 of those rules, about 26 percent, included a mandate as defined in UMRA.204
195
ROBERT JAY DILGER AND RICHARD S. BETH, CRS, UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT: HISTORY, IMPACT, AND
ISSUES, R40957 (Sept. 25, 2014).
196
Id.
197
Id.
198
http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/acir/Reports/information/m-193.pdf.
199
Pub. L. No. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501).
200
DILGER, supra note 195.
201
Id.
202
GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, UNFUNDED MANDATES: REFORM ACT HAS HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON AGENCIES
RULEMAKING ACTIONS, GAO/GGD-98-30 (Feb. 1998).
203
DILGER, supra note 195.
49
In 2005, GAO reported that [m]ost parties from the state and local governments, federal, business,
and academic/think tank sectors vie[w] UMRAs narrow coverage as a major weakness that leaves
out many federal actions with potentially significant financial impacts on nonfederal parties.205
According to GAO, there are 14 different reasons why a rule might not qualify as a mandate under
UMRA.206
In the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform, chaired by Representative James Lankford, held a series of
hearings to examine the effects of UMRA. Over the course of three hearings, the subcommittee
heard from a wide range of witnesses including representatives of local and tribal governments,
representatives of the private sector, and several regulatory experts.
In the first hearing, Susan Dudley, former Administrator of OIRA and Director of the George
Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, described the widely recognized flaws that exist
with the current UMRA statute, and suggested multiple remedies.207 She recommended that UMRA
be aligned with Executive Order 12866 because the analytical requirements in the Executive Order
are a more effective mechanism for holding agencies accountable.208 Ms. Dudley also advocated for
expanding judicial review to incentivize agencies to carefully consider the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative when regulating.209
Representatives from state and local governments shared with the Committee that the increasing
burden of federal mandates made it difficult to do their jobs and meet the needs of their citizens.
Patrice Douglas, then-Mayor of Edmond, Oklahoma, explained the difficulty of effectively budgeting
and meeting the needs of the city, when the Federal Government continually hands down
regulatory requirements that can cost millions due to compliance.210 The then-County Executive of
Fairfax Virginia, Anthony Griffin, said that in 2008 the net cost of Federal and State mandates was
$751 million out of a $3 billion general fund, meaning a quarter of the countys revenue was spent
complying with government mandates.211 The National Conference of State Legislatures,
represented by Joni Cutler, a member of the South Dakota Senate at the time, encouraged Congress
to adopt a broader definition of mandate to better reflect the realities of regulation faced by non
federal entities.212
Private sector representatives spoke about the effects of federal regulation on businesses.
Raymond Keating, Chief Economist at the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, urged the
inclusion of regulatory costs impacting prices, risk-taking, economic growth and employment in
204
Id.
GAO, supra note 202.
206
Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach: Hearing Before the H. Subcomm. on Tech., Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, 112th
Congress (2011) (testimony of Denise Fantone, Director, GAO Strategic Issues).
207
Id. (testimony of Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies).
208
Id.
209
Id.
210
Id. (testimony of Patrice Douglas, Mayor, Edmond, OK).
211
Id. (testimony of Anthony Griffin, County Executive, Fairfax, VA).
212
Id. (testimony of Joni Cutler, Senator, SD).
205
50
agency cost estimates.213 John Arensmeyer, founder and CEO of the Small Business Majority,
supported retrospective regulatory review and encouraged careful scrutiny of regulations affecting
small businesses.214
At the third hearing, Cass Sunstein, then-Administrator of OIRA, affirmed the Administrations
commitment to regulatory analysis and evidence based decision making.215 In his testimony, Mr.
Sunstein highlighted Executive Order 13563, which expands existing regulatory analysis
requirements and encourages independent agencies voluntarily comply with analytical
requirements, and the close relationship with UMRAs goals.216 When asked about how to improve
UMRA, Mr. Sunstein stressed the crucial importance of public participation to good regulatory
outcomes.217 In this testimony and in previous scholarship, Mr. Sunstein emphasized that a
thoroughgoing reform effort would require legislative reforms, not merely executive action.218
Following the hearings examining the deficiencies in UMRA, Chairman Lankford and the
Subcommittee on held a meeting to discuss and consider amendments to H.R. 373, the Unfunded
Mandates Information and Transparency Act.219 Representative Virginia Foxx, a Committee
member in the 109th and 110th Congresses, introduced H.R. 373 in early 2011 after having
introduced similar bills in 2008 and 2009.220 Representative Foxxs bill expanded the definition of
unfunded mandate to include all reasonably foreseeable indirect costs and expanding the reach of
UMRAs requirements to include all independent agencies.
Chairman Lankford offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute (ANS). The ANS added to
Representative Foxxs UMRA reform goals by incorporating several suggestions from the
Committees hearings, including: judicial review of the agencies adherence to UMRA, alignment
with and codification of Executive Order 12866, enhanced consultation for entities directly affected,
and other provisions to close loopholes to requirements for agency analysis.
H.R. 373 was passed out of the full Committee on November 17, 2011. The bill was packaged into a
larger piece of legislation, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, which
passed the House on July 26, 2012.221 However, the jobs bill, including the UMRA language, died in
213
Id. (testimony of John Arensmeyer, founder & CEO, Small Business Majority).
Id. (testimony of Raymond Keating, Chief Economist, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council), id.
(testimony of John Arensmeyer, founder & CEO, Small Business Majority).
215
Id. (testimony of Cass Sunstein, Administrator, OIRA).
216
Id.
217
Id.
218
Robert W. Hahn & Cass R. Sunstein, A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation? Deeper and
Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis, 150 U. PA. L. REV. 1489 (2002).
219
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2011, H.R. 373, 112th Cong. (as reported by H. Cmte.
on Oversight & Govt Reform, May 16, 2012).
220
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2009, H.R. 2255, 111th Cong. (as referred to H. Cmte.
on Judiciary, Subcmte. on Commercial and Admin. L., June 12, 2009); Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act of 2008, H.R. 6964, 110th Cong. (as referred to H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Sept. 18,
2008).
221
Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, H.R. 4078, 112th Cong. (as passed by the House, July
26, 2012).
214
51
the Senate at the end of the 112th Congress. In the 113th Congress, Representative Foxx
reintroduced the bill as H.R. 899.222
With bipartisan support, the House passed H.R. 899 on February 28, 2014. In September, having
seen no action on most bills sent to the Senate, the House included H.R. 899 into a larger bill, the
Jobs for America Act.223 House leadership bundled 15 bills that had previously passed the House
into the Jobs for America Act, to send a message to the Senate about the Houses priorities for job
creation. Unfortunately, the jobs bill with the unfunded mandate reform language, like many other
bills passed by the House, has not moved in the Senate.
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT ACT

Whistleblowers are crucial in helping to expose waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement and criminal
activity across the Federal government. Their disclosures can save billions of dollars, and even
human lives. It is vital that Congress encourage--not discourage--these well-intentioned individuals
from coming forward. To accomplish that, prospective whistleblowers must be protected from
reprisal.
The Executive and Judicial Branches have been ignoring and eroding congressional protections for
whistleblowers. To address those concerns, in a significant demonstration of Republican and
Democrat support for whistleblower protections, the Whistleblower Protection and Enhancement
Act was signed into law on November 27, 2012.224
222
Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2014, H.R. 899, 113th Cong. (as introduced Feb. 28,
2013).
223
Jobs for America Act, H.R. 4, 113th Cong. (as passed by the House, Sept. 18, 2014).
224
Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-199.
52
CHAPTER 1. IMPROPER INFLUENCE AND OBSTRUCTION OF

OVERSIGHT: THE POLITICIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS
INTRODUCTION
The American People deserve a government that is both transparent and accountable; the
employees of the Federal Government have an obligation to serve the People, and not a partisan
agenda. Issues such as those giving rise to concerns about transparency in the passage of the
Affordable Care Act, the legitimacy of Operation Choke Point, the IRS targeting scandal and the
politicization of scientific research at EPA demonstrate the potential for federal employees to
become the subject of or alternatively, to become active participants in the advancement of
improper influence. The promise of transparency is codified in the Freedom of Information Act, the
offices of Inspectors General and whistleblower protection legislation; all are attempts to ensure
that situations potentially giving rise to improper influence are exposed before harm occurs.
Analogously, investigations into potential Hatch Act violations and the political activity of
organizations such as ACORN ensure transparency in federal campaigns and compliance with
election law vital tools necessary for maintaining accountability. With a multifaceted approach,
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has exposed opportunities for the harmful
politicization of public servants and identified significant opportunities for reform.
MISLEADING THE PUBLIC: TRANSPARENCY FAILURES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

OBAMACARE
Under Chairman Issas leadership, Committee staff found that the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS), the operating division within the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) tasked with implementing the insurance reforms and Affordable Insurance
Exchanges included in ObamaCare,225 inflated August 2014s enrollment numbers by adding
approximately 400,000 dental plans into their calculation. This finding, coupled with Professor
Jonathan Grubers inflammatory remarks on how the Administrations lack of transparency was
essential to passing ObamaCare, led the Committee to question whether the CMSs self-described
mistake was actually indicative of conscious and systematic transparency failures in the passing
and implementation of ObamaCare.
DOUBLE-COUNTING DENTAL PLANS

Obama Administration officials were careful to phrase statements regarding ObamaCare
enrollment numbers in such a way as to purposefully inflate the figures without explicitly lying. At
a Committee hearing on September 18, 2014, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)
Administrator Marilyn Tavenner testified that 7.3 million people were enrolled in the health
225
Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs. (CMS), hhs.gov (last updated Nov. 13, 2013),
http://www.hhs.gov/about/foa/opdivs/cms.html.
53
insurance marketplace coverage.226 Enrollments in health insurance marketplace coverage

would include all dental and health insurance plans, even though such language was widely
interpreted, both by Congress and the press, to mean only enrollments in health insurance. Media
outlets such as Politico reasonably interpreted Ms. Tavenners testimony to mean that [t]here are
currently 7.3 million people enrolled in health insurance plans on the ObamaCare exchanges.227
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Burwell subsequently
updated the enrollment figures on October 15, 2014 to include 7.1 million people enrolled in
health insurance marketplace coverage.228 The updated statement again used the deceptive
language to double-count dental plans with health insurance plans enrolled, without caveat.
On October 1, 2014, the Committee requested the monthly enrolment reports data underlying Ms.
Tavenners 7.3 enrollment announcement. After weeks of negotiations, CMS finally provided only
one months requested data on November 4, 2014. However, CMS staff had password-protected
each of the 289 spreadsheets so that the Committee was unable to aggregate the data. When
Committee staff requested that CMS unlock the spreadsheets, CMS accused the Committee of
intending to tamper with documents. Committee staff pointed out that it was impossible to draw
any meaningful conclusion about the data when forced to make manual calculations, to which CMS
responded that they would verify any figures the Committee calculated, but still refused to unlock
the spreadsheets. Only on November 6, after verbally threatening to subpoena the data in a usable
format did CMS finally provide the August enrollment report. Upon a cursory review of this data,
Committee staff found that approximately 400,000 dental plans were included in the total.
Bloomberg broke the inflated enrollment story.229 The Committees finding also made headlines in
The Atlantic,230 The Wall Street Journal,231 Politico,232 and The Washington Post.233
On November 21, 2014, CMS acknowledged that they included at least 393,000 dental plans.234
CMS further stated that they would no longer include dental plans in future enrollment totals. The
Committee called Ms. Tavenner to testify about the inflated numbers at a hearing entitled,
Examining ObamaCares Transparency Failures. Only the night before the hearing did CMS provide
226
Examining ObamaCares Failures in Security, Accountability and Transparency: Hearing Before the H. Comm.
on Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (Sept. 18, 2014). According to CMS, this number was based on CMSs
August enrollment report from providers.
227
Jennifer Haberkorn, 7.3 Million in Obamacare Plans, Beats CBO Forecast, POLITICO (Sept. 18, 2014),
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/obamacare-enrollment-numbers-111097.html.
228
Alex Wayne, Obamacare Sign-ups Were Inflated with Dental Plans, BLOOMBERG (Nov. 20, 2014),
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-20/obamacare-s-subscriber-rolls-include-unpublicized-dental-plans.html.
229
Id.
230
Russell Berman, The Affordable Care Acts Embarrassing Moment of Tooth, The Atlantic (Nov. 20, 2014),
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/obamacares-missed-affordable-care-act-target-dental-plansenrollment/383007/.
231
Louise Radnofsky, U.S. Overstates Health-care Enrollees, Wall St. J. (Nov. 20, 2014),
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-again-overstates-health-care-enrollees-1416513555.
232
Brett Norman et. al, Administration Admits Obamacare Enrollment Numbers Error, Politico (Nov. 21, 2014),
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/inflated-obamacare-enrollment-dental-113064.html.
233
Erik Wemple, Media Should Hammer Obamacare Inc. for Bogus Enrollment Numbers, Wash. Post (Nov. 20,
2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/11/20/media-should-hammer-obamacare-incfor-bogus-enrollment-numbers/.
234
Letter from Marilyn Tavenner, Adminr, Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., to Darrel Issa, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform (Nov. 20, 2014).
54
the Committee with enrollment data for the other monthly reports. Ms. Tavenner, in her written
testimony, maintained that the erroneously added dental plans was a mistake.235
DR. GRUBERS INFLAMMATORY GAFFES

Testifying beside Ms. Tavenner at the Committees December 9th hearing was Dr. Jonathan Gruber,
economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dr. Gruber was
awarded a sole-source contract from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to
provide economic analysis using his proprietary microsimulation model.236 Dr. Gruber was paid
for similar consultation services in at least eight states. Dr. Gruber received more than $1.5 million
in four of these states: $481,050 from Michigan, $329,000 from Minnesota, $400,000 from Vermont,
and $400,000 from Wisconsin.237 Dr. Gruber has been cited, and has represented himself, as an
architect of ObamaCare. The New York Times noted that after Dr. Gruber helped the
administration put together the basic principles for the proposed legislation, the White House lent
him to Capitol Hill to help congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.238
Politico reports that Steve Rattner called Dr. Gruber the man who helped put ObamaCare
together.239 Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post called Dr. Gruber a key architect of both
Romneycare and ObamaCare.240
After achieving notoriety in academic and health policy circles for his work on ObamaCare, Dr.
Gruber lectured at universities and conferences. In those lectures, Gruber candidly admitted that
the Administration needed to deceive the American public in order to pass ObamaCare. Such tactics
included mischaracterizing the certainty with which cost-control measures would work,241 a
purposeful lack of transparency as a political advantage242 used to exploit the basic lack of
economic understanding of the American people,243 mislabeling the Cadillac tax,244 and
235
Examining ObamaCares Transparency Failures: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform,
113th Cong. (Dec. 9, 2014).
236
Glenn Kessler, Did Jonathan Gruber Earn Almost $400,000 from the Obama Administration?, WASH. POST
(Nov. 14, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/14/did-jonathan-gruber-earnalmost-400000-from-the-obama-administration/ (earning a Geppetto checkmark for truthfulness).
237
Id.
238
Catherine Rampell, Academic Built Case for Mandate in Health Care. Law, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 28, 2012).
239
Kendall Breitman, Steve Rattner: Jonathan Gruber Was The Man on Obamacare, POLITICO (Nov. 18, 2014).
240
Sarah Kliff, Jon Gruber on Obamacare, Premium support and Health Policy Dreams, WASH. POST (May 21,
2012).
241
See, e.g., Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Health Care in the U.S., College of the Holy Cross (Mar. 11, 2010), available at
http://www.c-span.org/video/?292478-1/health-care-reform.
242
Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Economics, Mass. Inst. of Tech, AHEC 2013 Conference (Oct. 2013),
available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHihDa_VPWw.
243
Patrick Howley, University of Rhode Island Removes Gruber Video After It Goes Viral, DAILY CALLER (Nov. 17,
2014) (quoting Dr. Gruber), http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/17/university-of-rhode-island-removes-gruber-videoafter-it-goes-viral/. The video of the University of Rhode Island speech is not available online.
244
Dr. Jonathan Gruber, 2011 Hewitt Health Care Lecture, Pioneer Inst. (posted Mar. 6, 2011),
http://pioneerinstitute.org/hewitt-lecture/2011-hewitt-health-care-lecture/.
55
discussing how political pressure on states would induce them to create their own exchanges in
order for their residents to receive federal subsidies.245
At the hearing, the Committee grilled Dr. Gruber on his statements. Although Dr. Gruber tried to
minimize the political ramifications of his remarks by saying that he made a series of glib,
thoughtless, and sometimes downright insulting comments, Committee members, including Mr.
Gowdy, questioned whether or not, due in part to the repetition of similar disparaging statements
of the course of many lectures, Dr. Gruber actually meant what he had said. Dr. Gruber said that
his statements were not lies.246 In addition, Dr. Gruber refused to testify as to how much money
he had received from federal and state contracts and grants relating to his work on ObamaCare.247
Dr. Gruber only released to the Committee three grants he received from the Federal Government
over the past two years. When Chairman Issa and other members told Dr. Gruber that his
submissions were incomplete, Dr. Gruber repeatedly told the Committee to consult with his
counsel.248
THE ADMINISTRATIONS SYSTEMATIC OBAMACARE TRANSPARENCY FAILURES

The Obama Administration has systematically failed to implement ObamaCare in a transparent
manner. As the Committee discovered from CMSs inflated enrollment figures, nearly 400,000
dental plans were improperly included in the enrollment data, and the announcement of the
inflated figure was couched in peculiar language that misled Congress and the American people. In
contrast, Dr. Grubers inflammatory statements about the politics surrounding the passage of
ObamaCarewhere lack of transparency is a huge political advantage shed light into the
process by which the Obama Administration passed and is now implementing ObamaCare.
245
Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Economics, Mass. Inst. of Tech., Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why Its
Necessary, and How It Works, NOBLIS (Jan. 18, 2012), available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnEmPXEpr0.
246
Examining ObamaCares Transparency Failures: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform:
Hearing Before the H. Comm. On Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2014) (statement of Dr. Jonathan
Gruber) (forthcoming).
247
Id.
248
Id.
56
OPERATION CHOKE POINT: SHUTTING DOWN DISFAVORED BUSINESSES

Operation Choke Point was created by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to choke out
businesses engaged in certain disfavored lines of business. Despite the fact that these
businesses provide valued, legal services to a significant portion of the American population
they have been identified by DOJ and federal banking regulators as being engaged in high
risk industries and, therefore, are apparently unworthy of receiving normal financial
services.
In order to force these banks and payment processors to stop providing services to clients in these
targeted industries, the Department of Justice leveraged the threat of federal investigation. Under a
misguided interpretation of a law from the Savings and Loan Crisis from the 1980s, DOJ has issued
at least 55 administrative subpoenas demanding confidential documents and information related to
their alleged high risk clients since early 2013. Federal banking regulators such as the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors have begun similar
operations, demonstrating a coordinated attack by President Barack Obamas Administration on
disfavored businesses that have been accused of no wrongdoing.
Faced with the likelihood of a federal investigation, many financial institutions found the risk of
harm too great to challenge the regulators. Businesses began receiving letters from their banks
notifying them of account terminations many after having relationships with those banks for
decades.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the Committee), serving as the primary
watchdog for the Federal Government, began investigating claims that Operation Choke Point was
improperly targeting legitimate American companies according to an undisclosed agenda to force
disfavored companies out of business. The Committees oversight has provided valuable
information to American taxpayers, bolstered calls for legislative reform, and produced tangible
changes in agency management and policies.249
OPERATION CHOKE POINT A TORTURED INTERPRETATION OF FIRREA

DOJ implemented Operation Choke Point by releasing a flood of administrative subpoenas on target
banks, alleging that some of their clients may be committing fraud based solely on the nature of the
clients business. These subpoenas were issued by DOJ under Section 951 of the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA).250
Congress enacted FIRREA and its extraordinary grant of civil investigative authority in response
to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. The intent of 951 was to give the Department the
tools to pursue civil penalties against individuals and entities that commit fraud against depository
institutions.251 Section 951 authorizes the Attorney General to seek civil money penalties against
249
Investigations into Operation Choke Point are being conducted at several levels of government, including by
offices of inspectors general at the FDIC and Department of Justice.
250
12 U.S.C. 1833a.
251
Allyson B. Baker and Andrew Olmem, Venable LLP, FIRREA: The DOJs Expansive (and Expensive) Tool of
Choice, 29 WESTLAW J. OF CORP. OFF. AND DIR. LIABILITY 3 (2013).
57
entities that commit mail or wire fraud affecting a federally insured financial institution.252 The
Attorney General is further authorized, in contemplation of such legal proceeding, to issue
administrative subpoenas requiring the production of documents and the deposition of witnesses.
Unlike other subpoenas issued in court proceedings, the Attorney Generals subpoenas issued
under 951 are not subject to judicial authorization and may apply to all records and witnesses the
Attorney General deems relevant or material to the inquiry.253
Documents produced to the Committee indicate that, in furtherance of Operation Choke Point, the
Department of Justice radically and inappropriately expanded its authority under FIRREA. In one
memorandum, senior DOJ officials candidly discussed the legal authority for the program. The
discussion begins by flatly conceding that [Section 951] was not designed principally to address
consumer fraud . . . FIRREA penalties are paid to the Treasury, and the statute does not include a
provision for restitution to victims of fraud.254 The memorandum further acknowledged that 951
requires that the alleged fraud [affect] a federally insured financial institution.
In an end-run around this requirement the requirement that the alleged fraud affected a federally
insured financial institution the DOJ memorandum posits that providing normal banking services
to an allegedly fraudulent merchant creates a variety of risks, and that these risks may affect the
institution. The memorandum even concedes that these risks are strictly hypothetical, candidly
admitting that [t]he financial institutions we are investigating have not suffered any actual
losses.255 While the memorandum does cite a single recent court case, DOJs analysis clearly
reflects the inherent legal error of using an anti-bank fraud statute to combat alleged merchant
fraud. Ultimately, the Departments tortured legal analysis turned FIRREA on its head: Section 951
was intended to help DOJ defend banks from fraud; instead, the Department is using it to force
banks to adopt the Administrations view of disfavored businesses and to serve as the policemen
and judges of the commercial world.256
DOJ TARGETS LEGAL INDUSTRIES

By distorting its authority as granted under a statute enacted in response to the Savings and Loan
Crisis of the 1980s, DOJ has bullied banks and banking regulators into pursuing the
Administrations crusade against certain disfavored industries. Standing in the place of the
financial industry experts, the Department of Justice unilaterally deemed certain industries as high
risk. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, the Department of Justice has repeatedly asserted that
the target of Operation Choke Point was mass-market consumer fraud and that the Department was
not singling out any particular industry.257
252
12 U.S.C. 1833a(c)(2).
Id. 1833a(f)(1)(C).
254
Memorandum from the Director of the Consumer Protection Branch to the Assistant Attorney General for the
Civil Division, U.S. Dept of Justice (Sept. 9, 2013) [HOGR-3PPP000336].
255
Id.
256
Frank Keating, Op-Ed., Justice Puts Banks in a Choke Hold, WALL ST. J., Apr 24, 2014.
257
Congressional Staff Briefing with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection, Civil Div.,
U.S. Dept of Justice, on Sept. 20, 2013.
253
58
In a letter to Attorney General Holder on January 9, 2014, Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory
Affairs Chairman Jim Jordan requested all documents and communications referring or relating to
Operation Choke Point. In response, DOJ provided 853 pages of internal memoranda, e-mail
communications, and presentations.
The Mission of the Working Group

The idea to choke-off access to essential banking services for certain businesses by suggesting
their industries were engaging in consumer fraud originated in the Consumer Protection Working
Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The Working Groups mission statement
included a list of priorities:
[T]his new Working Group will examine a wide variety of areas where consumers
may be vulnerable to fraud. Those may include: identity theft, third-party payment
processors and other payment fraud, student-consumer fraud, cramming, business
opportunity schemes, data privacy, payday lending, counterfeiting, and schemes
targeting service members and their families.258
There is no explanation for why payday lending and payment processing two legal financial
practices are included in a list of explicitly fraudulent activities.
Regular Status Reports for Assistant Attorney General

Regular status reports on the progress of Operation Choke Point drafted for senior DOJ officials
reflect an intense focus on short-term lending. The Eight-Week Status Report on Operation Choke
Point, prepared for Assistant Attorney General Delery on April 17, 2013, framed payday lending as
the primary target of the initiative. In fact, it is the sole type of financial service mentioned in the
memorandum.259 The Four-Month Status Report on Operation Choke Point, prepared for Assistant
Attorney General Delery on July 8, 2013, expressly identifies Internet payday lending as a
fraudulent scam being targeted by the initiative.260
The Consumer Protection Branch

In a series of emails from August 6, 2013, senior officials in the Civil Division discussed the
Departments cooperation with the Wall Street Journal reporter. The Director of the Consumer
Protection Branch summarized the initial inquiry as follows:
This is connected to our third party payment processing initiative, in which we have
been starting to pay closer attention to banks and processors who deal with payday
258
Mission Statement for Consumer Protection Working Group of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force
[HOGR-3PPP000001].
259
Civil Division, U.S. Dept of Justice (Apr. 17, 2013) [HOGR-3PPP000048-52] (The conclusion of the
memorandum, entitled Related Areas of Inquiry, does include a brief discussion of other financial services and
products: In addition to evaluating the payday lending industry, we are attempting to develop a better
understanding of consumer fraud risk posed by emerging payment systems.).
260
Civil Division, U.S. Dept of Justice (Jul. 8, 2013) [HOGR-3PPP000166].
59
lenders. My view is that getting the message out that DOJ is interested in online payday lenders and the potential abuses is important.261
The Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection further described the
Departments cooperation with the Wall Street Journal inquiry:
We want to give you a heads up that [the Director of the Consumer Protection
Branch] is doing a background interview this afternoon at 4pm on online pay day
lending. As we described for you at last weeks meeting, we are engaged in a
third-party payment processor initiative in which we are looking into banks
that deal with processors who work for payday lenders of all types.262
Negotiated Settlement Terms

Further evidence of the unjustified targeting of the online payday lending industry was found in the
contents of internal communications among Department of Justice officials regarding settlement
negotiations. In an e-mail dated October 1, 2013, the Director of the Consumer Protection Branch
and the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection within the DOJ discussed
opportunities that could be pursued with subpoenaed banks.263 The e-mail notes that DOJs
settlement proposals have included requiring that banks implement specific bans [on] doing
business with whole categories of lawful financial services.264 The e-mail describes specific
language on payday lending, debt relief companies, foreclosure rescue companies and credit repair
companies. Such blanket prohibitions on entire industries are wholly inconsistent with DOJs
repeated assertion it is merely pursuing fraudsters and has no interest in discouraging lawful
conduct.265
THE IMPACT OF OPERATION CHOKE POINT ON AMERICAN JOB CREATORS

While the Department of Justice (DOJ) recognized the risk that Operation Choke Point
could result in banks ceasing to do business with completely legitimate businesses, it was a
risk the DOJ was willing to take:
Although we recognize the possibility that banks may have therefore decided
to stop doing business with legitimate lenders, we do not believe that such
decisions should alter our investigative plans. Solving that problem if it exists
should be left to legitimate lenders themselves who can, through their own
261
Email from Michael Blume, Director of the Consumer Protection Branch to Maame Frimpong,Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Dept of Justice, (Aug. 6, 2013 11:24), [HOGR-3PPP000307]
(emphasis added).
262
Email from Maame Frimpong,Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division to Tracy Toulou,
Director, Office of Tribal Justice, U.S. Dept of Justice, (Aug. 6, 2013 14:36), [HOGR-3PPP000308].
263
Email from Michael Blume, Director of the Consumer Protection Branch to Maame Frimpong,Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Dept of Justice, (Oct. 1, 2013 10:55), [HOGR-3PPP000401].
264
Id.
265
Letter from Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Div., Dept of Justice, to Jeff L. Plagge,
Chairman, American Bankers Assn, and Jason Oxman, Chief Executive Officer, Elec. Transaction Assn (Jan. 22,
2014).
60
dealings with banks, present sufficient information to the banks to convince them
that their business model and lending operations are wholly legitimate.266
As an initial matter, such an expectation if they are legitimate, they can prove it is offensive to
traditional American notions of justice. Furthermore, given that DOJ has ordered banks to cease
doing business with all short-term lenders in its settlement negotiations, no amount of evidence of
legitimacy will be sufficient to secure a banking relationship.267
DOJS PARTNERSHIP WITH THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Creation of the High-Risk Merchant List
Documents produced to the Committee reveal that DOJ actively partnered with the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation in the prosecution of Operation Choke Point. FDIC is the primary federal
regulator of state-chartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System, and
directly supervises and examines more than 4,500 depository institutions.268 FDICs participation
in Operation Choke Point included requests for information about the investigation, discussions of
legal theories and the application of banking laws, and the review of documents involving FDICsupervised institutions obtained by DOJ in the course of its investigation. 269 Furthermore, FDIC
originated the list of high risk industries included in the DOJ subpoenas.270
FDIC publishes Supervisory Insights, a quarterly journal intended to serve as informal and
educational guidance for both FDIC examiners and private sector stakeholders.271 The summer
2011 issue of Supervisory Insights included the article Managing Risks in Third-Party Payment
Processor Relationships.272 The ostensible purpose of the article is to advise financial institutions
on how to adequately monitor and manage the risks associated with payment processors and their
merchant clients. The article argues that [a]lthough many clients of payment processors are
reputable merchants, an increasing number are not and should be considered high risk. These
disreputable merchants use payment processors for questionable or fraudulent goods and
services.273
266
Civil Division, U.S. Dept of Justice (Sept. 9, 2013) [HOGR-3PPP000336] (emphasis added).
267
Id; see, e.g., Press Release, SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Statement on Certain Account Closures (Aug. 8,
2014).
268
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Who is the FDIC?, available at
https://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/.
269
The Department of Justices Operation Choke Point: Hearing before Subcomm. on Oversight and
Investigations of the H. Comm. on Fin. Services, 113th Cong. (July 15, 2013) (written statement of Richard J.
Osterman, Jr., Acting General Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation).
270
Guilty Until Proven Innocent? A Study of the Propriety & Legal Authority for the Justice Departments
Operation Choke Point: Hearing before the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (Jul. 17, 2014) (statement of
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Atty Gen., Civil Division, U.S. Dept of Justice, in response to a question from Rep.
Darrell Issa).
271
See, e.g., e-mail from FDIC Deputy Regional Director to FDIC officials (Apr. 17, 2011, 09:37) (Step one is the
article for the Supervisory Insights Journal which goes out to bankers and examiners), [FDICHOGR00002582].
272
Michael Benardo, Chief, Cyber-Fraud and Financial Crimes Section, Div. of Risk Management Supervision,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, et al., Managing Risks in Third-Party Payment Processor Relationships, 8
SUPERVISORY INSIGHTS 3 (Summer 2011).
273
Id. at 6.
61
While the article provided no explanation for the inclusion of any single identified merchant
category, it did offer four criteria associated with high-risk activity: 1) the consumers lack of
familiarity with the merchant, 2) uncertainty with respect to the quality of goods and services being
offered, 3) online or telephonic sales, and 4) the consumers ability to verify the identity or
legitimacy of the merchant.274 However, these vague standards provide no explanation for the
implicit equation of such legitimate and regulated activities as coin dealers and firearms and
ammunition sales with inherently pernicious or patently illegal activities such as Ponzi schemes,
racist materials, or drug paraphernalia.
Documents produced to the Committee record the months-long internal deliberations and multitiered review of the Supervisory Insights article. Unfortunately, these documents reflect the total
absence of a critical review of the high-risk merchant list. Preliminary drafts of the article were
subject to an intensive agency-wide review process.275 No official in FDICs Division of Depositor
and Consumer Protection, Division of Risk Management Supervision, the Legal Division, or the
Office of the Chairman inquired into or commented on the list or on the inclusion of any particular
merchant category. Similarly, no documents record or reference the agencys reasoning in creating
the list. The lack of such a record raises the possibility it is little more than a haphazard and
idiosyncratic reflection of the authors personal opinions.
Furthermore, documents produced to the Committee reveal that FDIC officials explicitly intended
the list to influence the FDIC examination process. In one email exchange, senior officials at FDIC
headquarters request that an Assistant Regional Director join as a co-author of the article, in an
effort to ensure that the list gets attention by both [Risk Management] and [Depositor and
Consumer Protection] examiners.276 Offering feedback on the article, one Regional Office explicitly
focused on how the high-risk merchant list would influence the examination process: we believe
the articles will assist examiners and others in understanding the broad risk considerations that are
present in these business lines and will help focus more detailed analysis during examinations.277
Following publication of the Supervisory Insights article, FDIC staff began the process of formalizing
its prescripts into an official guidance document, known as a Financial Institution Letter (FIL).278
FILs are understood by supervised institutions to be the formal policy of the FDIC, and are
274
Id.
The author circulated the first draft in March 2011. See e-mail from Chief, Cyber-Fraud and Financial Crimes
Section, Division of Risk Management Supervision, to Managing Editor, Supervisory Insights, Division of Risk
Management Supervision (Mar. 30, 2011, 22:45), [FDICHOGR00002079]. FDIC published the summer 2011 issue
of Supervisory Insights on July 14, 2011.
276
E-mail from Chief, Cyber-Fraud and Financial Crimes Section, Division of Risk Management Supervision, to an
Assistant Regional Director, Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection (Apr. 5, 2011, 15:33),
[FDICHOGR00002011].
277
E-mail from Charlotte Territory Supervisor, on behalf of Atlanta Regional Director Thomas Dujenksi, to the
Managing Editor of Supervisory Insights at FDIC headquarters (May 8, 2011, 21:06), [FDICHOGR00002644]
(emphasis added)..
278
E-mail from FDIC Deputy Regional Director to FDIC officials (Apr. 17, 2011, 09:37) (Step one is the article for
the Supervisory Insights Journal . . . . Step two is a Financial Institution Letter which should be easy to prepare now
that the article is draft.), [FDICHOGR00002582].
275
62
interpreted by bank compliance and legal officers as tantamount to compulsory rules.279 The
earliest drafts of the FIL did not contain an enumerated list of high-risk merchants: an early draft
from June 2011 does not specify any particular industry for heightened scrutiny.280 However, by
September 2011, a footnote appears on page 4: Businesses with elevated risk may include
offshore companies, online gambling-related operations, and online payday lenders. Other
businesses with elevated risks include credit repair schemes, debt consolidation and forgiveness,
pharmaceutical sales, telemarketing entities, and online sale of tobacco products.281
In November 2011, FDIC staff briefed then-Acting Chairman Gruenberg on the proposed FIL.282
Documents produced to the Committee reveal that the Acting Chairman himself explicitly
instructed FDIC staff to expand and emphasize the list of targeted industries.283 One official
attempted the extremely unusual step of including the list on the FILs cover page, in an effort to
grab some attention.284 The official even expressed concern about putting anything later in the
document as the reader may not get the message.285
It is difficult to understate the significance and impact of the high-risk merchant list. In addition to
influencing both regulators examination policy and banks private business decisions, the list was
often directly incorporated into FDIC-mandated Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and
Consent Orders as prohibited businesses.286 The experience of one entry on the list firearms
and ammunitions merchants effectively traces the downstream influence of the high-risk
merchants list. MOUs between supervised banks and FDIC Regional Offices, as well as bank policies
submitted pursuant to FDIC Consent Orders, variously prohibit payment processing for firearms
merchants, characterize loans to firearms dealers as undesirable, and generally subject firearms
and ammunitions merchants to significantly higher due diligence standards.287
The inclusion of firearm merchants on the high-risk list did not just impact the behavior of FDIC
supervisory and enforcement staff. A number of private companies create and sell compliance and
risk management training software for bank employees; at least two companies, AML Services
International and MSB Compliance, directly incorporated the FDIC list into its designation of high279
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Financial Institution Letters, available at

https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/.
280
June 2011 draft of Financial Institution Letter concerning Payment Processor Relationships,
[FDICHOGR00002128].
281
September 2011 draft of Financial Institution Letter concerning Payment Processor Relationships,
[FDICHOGR00002033].
282
E-mail from a Senior Examination Specialist, Div. of Depositor and Consumer Protection, to the Chief, CyberFraud and Financial Crimes Section, Div. of Risk Management Supervision, [FDICHOGR00002173].
283
E-mail from Chief, Cyber-Fraud and Financial Crimes Section, Div. of Risk Management Supervision, to the
Deputy Director, Div. of Risk Management Supervision, [FDICHOGR00002183].
284
E-mail from a Senior Examination Specialist, Div. of Depositor and Consumer Protection, to the Chief, CyberFraud and Financial Crimes Section, Div. of Risk Management Supervision, FDICHOGR00002173.
285
Id (emphasis added).
286
See, e.g., letter from unnamed bank to Thomas Dujenksi, Regional Director, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Aug. 1, 2013 (concerning terms of a 15(a) and 15(b) Consent Order, revising the banks ACH
policy to prohibit certain businesses; name of bank redacted by FDIC), [FDICHOGR00004062].
287
[FDICHOGR00004097; FDICHOGR00004101; FDICHOGR00004092; FDICHOGR00004190].
63
risk merchant and originator categories.288 One training package offered by FIS Global educates
and tests bank compliance officers for Types of Higher Risk Individuals and Non-Individuals. The
program includes the following entry:289
Such spurious claims are an inherent product of the lists opacity; in both the Supervisory Insights
article and the Financial Institution Letter, FDIC did not justify or explain why it believes
relationships with firearms and ammunition merchants present a high risk to supervised financial
institutions.
FDIC Partnered with the Department of Justice

Documents produced to the Committee by the FDIC reveal the intensity of their collaboration with
the DOJ on Operation Choke Point. Through March, April, and May 2013, numerous meetings were
held involving senior officials within the FDIC and the DOJ on determining how to combine
efforts.290 Officials such as Michael Bresnick, Executive Director of the Presidents Financial Fraud
Enforcement Task Force and Joel Sweet the DOJ Trial Attorney who initially proposed Operation
Choke Point were consulting frequently with FDIC attorneys. In fact, an FDIC Counsel within the
Legal Division reached out to DOJ to discuss a potential detail as a Special Assistant United States
Attorney on Operation Choke Point.291 Not only were FDIC officials frequently collaborating with
DOJ staff, they were also having discussions of legal investigative theories regarding the
initiative.292
288
AML Services International Webinar, FDICHOGR00004147; MSB Compliance presentation,

[FDICHOGR00004167].
289
FIS Global, AML and Sanctions, Types of Higher Risk Individuals and Non Individuals (on file with Committee
staff).
290
E-mail from a Counsel, Legal Division, Consumer Enforcement Unit, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to
Joel Sweet, Trial Attorney, Consumer Protection Branch, U.S. Dept of Justice (Mar. 11, 2013 13:50),
[FDICHOGR00000724]; e-mail from a Counsel, Legal Division, Consumer Enforcement Unit, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, to Joel Sweet, Trial Attorney, Consumer Protection Branch, U.S. Dept of Justice (Apr. 23,
2013 12:15), [FDICHOGR00000974]; e-mail from a Counsel, Legal Division, Consumer Enforcement Unit, FDIC
to Joel Sweet, Trial Attorney, Consumer Protection Branch, DOJ (May 20, 2013 10:26), [FDICHOGR00001021].
291
E-mail from a Counsel, Legal Division, Consumer Enforcement Unit, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to
Joel Sweet, Trial Attorney, Consumer Protection Branch, U.S. Dept of Justice (Apr. 29, 2013 13:12),
[FDICHOGR00000071]; e-mail from Joel Sweet, Trial Attorney, Consumer Protection Branch, U.S. Dept of
Justice to Counsels, Legal Division, Consumer Enforcement Unit, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and
Michael Bresnick, Executive Director, Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (May 20, 2013 16:23),
[FDICHOGR00001029].
292
E-mail from a Counsel, Consumer Enforcement Unit, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to
Joel Sweet, Trial Attorney, Consumer Protection Branch, U.S. Dept of Justice (Apr. 26, 2013 08:47),
[FDICHOGR00000980].
64
In summer 2013, an FDIC attorney from the Consumer Enforcement Unit within the Legal Division
instructed staff within FDICs Legal Division to create a folder specifically named Operation
Chokepoint to assist in the review of documents received in response to subpoenas.293
Furthermore, DOJ began allowing two FDIC attorneys direct access to a Justice Department system
database named Operation Choke Point.294 Over the next several months, FDIC attorneys utilized
this database to directly participate in the program.
Documents produced to the Committee demonstrate that FDIC worked closely with DOJ on
Operation Choke Point. This collaboration was intense, in fact, that Justice Department attached
FDICs list of high-risk merchants to the back of DOJ subpoenas served to banks and payment
processors. 295 During a hearing before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and
Antitrust law of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Issa entered into the record one
such subpoena provided by a whistleblower. The subpoena was identical to those that were served
to various banks and payment processors. In response to questions from Members of the
Subcommittee, Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery confirmed that the FDIC guidance was in
fact stapled to the subpoenas, all of which he signed.296
The inclusion of the FDIC guidance in a subpoena is extremely significant, as it effectively
weaponized the high-risk merchants list. Banks were compelled to remove those clients from
their portfolios, or risk a federal investigation by the Department of Justice. Tellingly, the concerted
effort by DOJ and FDIC was actually described by an FDIC Counsel as being our DOJ/Spike Lee
Joint.297 Although this phrase was meant facetiously, it is indicative of the close cooperation
between FDIC and DOJ in Operation Choke Point.
A CONTINUING PROBLEM
By forcing private banks to enforce the Obama Administrations political agenda, Operation Choke
Point is uniquely offensive to accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. Accordingly, it has
received widespread condemnation from a variety of commentators. William Isaac, a former
Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, characterized the initiative an attack on
market economy.298 Frank Keating, president and CEO of the American Bankers Association and a
293
staff within the Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (Jun. 27, 2013, 16:58),
[FDICHOGR00003533].
294
official in Charles Dunn, Civil Division, U.S. Dept of Justice (Jul. 31, 2013 16:51), [FDICHOGR00001062].
295
Memorandum from the Director of Consumer Protection Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Dept of Justice, to the
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Dept of Justice (July 8, 2013), [HOGR3PPP000167].
296
Operation Choke Point: Hearing before the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (Jul. 17, 2014).
297
E-mail from Counsel, Consumer Enforcement Unit, Legal Division, to staff within the Legal Division, Consumer
Section (Jul. 23, 2013, 16:02), [FDICHOGR00003557].
298
William Isaac, Operation Choke Point: Way Out of Control, AMERICAN BANKER, Mar. 21, 2014.
65
former U.S. Attorney and Associate Attorney General, has called the Departments strategy legally
dubious.299 In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Keating explained:
[The Department] is pressuring banks to shut down accounts without pressing
charges against a merchant or even establishing that the merchant broke the law.
Its clear enough that theres fraud to shut down the account, Justice asserts, but
apparently not enough for the highest law-enforcement agency in the land to
prosecute. . .
[The Department] is now blurring these boundaries and punishing the banks that
help them fight crime. If a bank doesn't shut down a questionable account when
directed to do so, Justice slaps the institution with a penalty for wrongdoing that
may or may not have happened. The government is compelling banks to deny
service to unpopular but perfectly legal industries by threatening penalties.300
Writing in USA Today, Glenn Reynolds expressed concern with the unforeseen consequences of
allowing federal regulators to pressure banks to shut down the accounts of legal industries: while
abortion clinics and environmental groups are probably safe under the Obama Administration, if
this sort of thing stands, they will be vulnerable to the same tactics if a different administration
adopts this same thuggish approach toward the businesses that it dislikes.301 Such a possibility is
far from outlandish: at the same time the Administration is pressuring banks to terminate
relationships with legal industries, it is providing formal guidance to banks on how to provide
financial services to the marijuana industry.302
Fortunately, the Committees oversight of the Operation Choke Point has had a discernible impact,
and there is evidence the Administration is being held to account for the program. Documents
obtained by the Committee, and its analysis of those documents, has empowered a wide range of
stakeholders, including Congress, the private sector, and independent non-governmental
watchdogs. Within Congress, the Committees investigation of Operation Choke Point laid the
groundwork for robust and wide-ranging congressional oversight. Following release of the
Committee staff report, both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Financial Services
Committee called hearings on Operation Choke Point, and received testimony from top officials at
the Department of Justice, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency.303 On November 20, 2014, Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer introduced legislation to
correct the most serious abuses by DOJ and banking regulators. Rep. Luetkemeyers bill, the
299
Frank Keating, Op-Ed., Justice Puts Banks in a Choke Hold, WALL ST. J., Apr 24, 2014.
Id.
301
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Justice Department shuts down porn money: Column, USA TODAY, May 26, 2014.
302
See Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, U.S. Dept of the Treasury, Guidance: BSA Expectations
Regarding Marijuana-Related Businesses, Feb. 14, 2014; see also Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy
Attorney General, U.S. Dept of Justice, to All United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding Marijuana
Enforcement (Aug. 29, 2013).
303
Operation Choke Point: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2014); The Department of
Justices Operation Choke Point: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Financial Services, 113th Cong. (2014).
300
66
Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, attracted bipartisan cosponsorship.304 On October 6,

2014, Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee blasted Operation Choke Point in a
letter to the Attorney General.305 Finally, over thirty Members of Congress requested the Inspectors
General of DOJ and FDIC open investigations into their agencies involvement in Operation Choke
Point. The letters to the IGs explicitly predicated their request on findings of the Committees
investigation.306
The Committees oversight of Operation Choke Point has also laid the groundwork for judicial
review of the program. On June 5, 2014, the Community Financial Services Association filed a
lawsuit against federal financial regulators in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.307
The complaint, primarily sourced to the Committee staff report, alleges that by forcing banks to
close the accounts of legal-yet-disfavored industries, federal regulators have exceeded their
statutory authority, engaged in arbitrary and capricious rulemaking in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act, and violated due process of law.308 Amicus curiae briefs in support of
the litigation have been filed on behalf of a wide range of stakeholders, including the State of South
Carolina, the Third Party Payment Processors Association, the National Organization for African
Americans in Housing, a former Chairman of the FDIC, and a business group dedicated to economic
empowerment in the U.S. Hispanic community.309 As of the conclusion of the 113th Congress, the
suit is continuing through the judicial system.
In a letter to Chairman Tim Johnson of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs on June 24, 2014, DOJ stated it had issued no new subpoenas since 2013.310 At a July
hearing before the Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and
Antitrust Law, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division struggled to defend the
propriety of the Operation Choke Point and the incorporation of the FDIC high-risk merchant list
into DOJ subpoenas.311 Eleven days later, in what the American Banker called a dramatic turn, the
FDIC officially withdrew the high-risk merchants list, striking all mention of it from its website,
articles, and Financial Institution Letters.
However, at the conclusion of the 113th Congress, reports of abrupt and inexplicable account
terminations continued to surface. Troublingly, many of these reports concerned accounts held at
banks regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board.
304
Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, H.R. 5758, 113th Cong. (2014).
Letter from Sen. Mike Crapo, Ranking Member, S. Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, et al., to
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Dept of Justice, Oct. 6, 2014.
306
Letter from Members of Congress to Michael Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Dept of Justice, and Robin
Ashton, Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility, U.S. Dept of Justice, Oct. 16, 2014; letter from Members of
Congress to Fred W. Gibson, Acting Inspector General, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Oct. 16, 2014.
307
Community Fin. Servs. Assn of America v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., et al., available at
http://cfsaa.com/Portals/0/legal/lawsuit/cfsa_complaint.pdf.
308
Id.
309
Id.
310
Letter from Peter J. Kadzik, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Leg. Affairs, U.S. Dept of
Justice, to Tim Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, June 24, 2014.
311
Operation Choke Point: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2014) (statement of Stuart F.
Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, in response to questions from Rep. Darrell Issa).
305
67
SunTrust Bank 17th largest bank in the United States, with more than 400,000 small business
clients went as far as to publicly announce it was a victim of Operation Choke Point. On August 8,
2014, SunTrust issued a statement in response to several well-publicized account closures: We
have decided to discontinue banking relationships with three types of businesses specifically
payday lenders, pawn shops and dedicated check-cashers due to compliance requirements.312
SunTrust Bank is regulated by the Federal Reserve Board; the Boards enforcement of a compliance
regime that forces banks to sever all relations with legal and legitimate customers is totally
unacceptable. Accordingly, the Committee expanded its investigation to the Federal Reserve and
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. At the conclusion of the 113th Congress, the
Committee remains extremely vigilant of all agencies involved Operation Choke Point.
312
Press Release, SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Statement on Certain Account Closures (Aug. 8, 2014).
68
IRS TARGETING
For over two years, beginning almost immediately after the United States Supreme Court handed
down its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January, 2010, the Internal
Revenue Service systematically targeted and delayed applications for tax-exempt status filed by
conservative and certain other organizations. When targeted applicants began complaining about
the mistreatment in early 2012, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform began asking
questions of the IRS.313 The IRS and, in particular, Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner
responded by denying that any mistreatment was occurring.314 The IRS continued to deny
misconduct for more than a year, until finally in May 2013, at a politically obscure Friday morning
tax conference, Lerner responded to a planted question that line people in Cincinnati had selected
certain applicants for heighted review because they used names like Tea Party or Patriots, but
that they didnt do it with a higher level of review.315
Since IRSs first admission of wrongdoing, the Committee has conducted an exhaustive
investigation of the IRSs targeting. The Committee reviewed over a million pages of documents
from the IRS, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission,
the IRS Oversight Board, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, and other
custodians. The Committee conducted 52 transcribed interviews, totaling 309 hours of testimony.
Despite noncooperation from the Administration and the destruction of a sizeable number of emails from Lois Lerner, the investigation presented clear findings. A review of public information
showed that while more than 80 percent of delayed applications were associated with conservative
groups, less than seven percent were associated with progressive or liberal agendas.316 Between
February 2010 and May 2013, not a single group identifying itself as Tea Party was approved by
the IRS.317
The IRSs targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants highlights the dangers of a politicized
bureaucracy. Because [t]he power to tax involves the power to destroy,318 American taxpayers
always expect the IRS to be independent and apolitical. In recent years, however, the IRS has
departed from its traditional role as neutral administrator of federal tax law. The IRS has grown to
become a partisan policy-making body and a full-fledged arm of the Administration in power. This
politicization can be vividly seen in how the IRS identified and treated tax-exempt applications filed
by conservative groups engaged in political speech and also in how the agency attempted to cover
up its misdeeds.
313
See, e.g., Letter from Darrell Issa & Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Lois Lerner,
Internal Revenue Serv. (Mar. 27, 2012).
314
See Letter from Lois G. Lerner, Internal Revenue Serv., to Darrell Issa, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform
(Apr. 26, 2012); Letter from Lois G. Lerner, Internal Revenue Serv., to Darrell Issa, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Govt Reform (May 4, 2012).
315
Rick Hasen, Transcript of Lois Lerners Remarks at Tax Meeting Sparking IRS Controversy, ELECTION LAW
BLOG (May 11, 2013, 7:37AM), http://electionlawblog.org/?p=5016.
316
H. COMM. ON OVERSIGHT & GOVT REFORM, DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT THE IRS TARGETED PROGRESSIVES:
HOW THE IRS AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS MISLED AMERICA ABOUT DISPARATE TREATMENT (Apr. 7, 2014).
317
Id.
318
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 431 (1819).
69
CITIZENS UNITED AND 501(C)(4) STATUS

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are rights so fundamental to Americans that they are
enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitutions Bill of Rights.319 In Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed the nations long-held guarantees of free speech
and free association.320 Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, the Court declared, for
it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.321 Accordingly, the Court explained that
the First Amendments guarantee of free political speech has its fullest and most urgent application
to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.322
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down an arbitrary restriction on free political speech
under the First Amendment, holding that Congress could not bar a nonprofit corporation from
independently expressing support or disapproval of a candidate for public office.323 Tracing
precedents invalidating previous restrictions on speech, the Court noted that the restriction at issue
went further as an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions.324 Because the First Amendment is
premised on a mistrust of governmental power, the Court explained that political speech must
prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.325
The Court further explained that the fundamental right to free political speech extends to groups of
citizens who assembled together for a common purpose.326 Nonprofit corporations organized
under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, are formed for the promotion of social
welfare, and accordingly they are allowed to engage in political speech, like a for-profit
corporation or union.327 Federal law protects 501(c)(4) organizations from publicly disclosing
their contributors,328 and the Supreme Court has protected the right to anonymous political speech
due to threat of harassment or repercussion.329
POLITICAL PRESSURE ON THE IRS TO FIX THE PROBLEM

During his State of the Union Address in January 2010, President Obama delivered a stunning
rebuke of the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision. With all due deference to separation of
powers, the President intoned, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I
believe will open the floodgates for special interests including foreign corporations to spend
without limit in our elections.330
319
U.S. CONST. amend. I.

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Commn, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
321
Citizens United v. Fed. Election Commn, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010).
322
Id. (quoting Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 265, 272 (1971)) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
323
Id. at 319-22.
324
Id. at 336-37.
325
Id. at 340.
326
Id. at 313.
327
I.R.C. 501(c)(4).
328
I.R.C. 6104.
329
See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).
330
The White House, Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address (Jan. 27, 2010).
320
70
Over the next ten months, in the lead-up to the 2010 midterm election, the President, members of
his Administration, and allies in Congress carried out an orchestrated effort to discourage political
speech by conservative nonprofit groups in an effort to fix the Citizens United decision. On the
campaign trail, the President called conservative groups shadowy entities with innocuous and
benign-sounding names that in reality are running millions of dollars of attack ads against
Democratic candidates.331 Calling them phony and front groups, the President urged a fix to
the Citizens United decision, which he believed allowed these allegedly nefarious groups to pose
as nonprofits.332 The Presidents allies in Congress and elsewhere echoed this call, working
aggressively to delegitimize the Courts decision and the Constitutional protections for nonprofit
political speech.333 Senator Jeff Merkley urged action so that no longer do you have a shadowy
front group,334 and Senator Charles Schumer similarly complained that the public is under siege
by advertising from shadowy special interest groups.335
This rhetorical assault on the legitimacy of tax-exempt groups engaged in political speech was felt
by the IRSs Exempt Organizations Division. As the Presidents public statements generated media
attention, the IRS identified a Tea Party group applying for tax-exempt status as a potentially
politically embarrassing case.336 Due to media attention, the IRSs Washington office ordered the
application to be elevated to Washington.337 The attention on media continued through the fall. In
response to a tax-law journal article in September 2010,338 Lerner initiated a c4 project to assess
the political activity of certain nonprofits in wake of Citizens United.339 She told her subordinates:
We need to have a plan. We need to be cautious so it isnt a per se political project. More a c4
project that will look at levels of lobbying and pol. activity along with exempt activity.340
In October 2010, Lerner articulated the political pressure exerted on the IRS to take action on taxexempt groups engaged in political speech activities. During a discussion at Duke University, she
stated:
What happened last year was the Supreme Court the law kept getting chipped
away, chipped away in the federal election arena. The Supreme Court dealt a huge
331
See, e.g., The White House, Remarks by the President on the DISCLOSE ACT (July 26, 2010); The White
House, Weekly Address: President Obama Calls on Congress to Enact Reforms to Stop a Corporate Takeover of
Our Elections (May 1, 2010); The White House, Remarks by the President at Finance Reception for Congressman
Sestak (Sept. 20, 2010); The White House, Remarks by the President at DNC Gen44 Event (Sept. 30, 2010).
332
See, e.g., The White House, Weekly Address: President Obama Castigates GOP Leadership for Blocking Fixes
for the Citizens United Decision (Sept. 18, 2010); The White House, Remarks by the President at a DNC Finance
Event in Chicago, Illinois (Aug. 5, 2010).; The White House, Remarks by the President at an Event for Senator
Boxer in Los Angeles, California (Oct. 22, 2010).
333
See also H. COMM. ON OVERSIGHT & GOVT REFORM, HOW POLITICS LED THE IRS TO TARGET CONSERVATIVE
TAX-EXEMPT APPLICANTS FOR THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS (June 16, 2014).
334
Transcript, Senate Democrats Hold a News Conference on the DISCLOSE Act (Sept. 22, 2010).
335
Id.
336
E-mail from Sharon Camarillo, Internal Revenue Serv., to Cindy Thomas, Internal Revenue Serv. (Feb. 25,
2010).
337
Id.
338
Paul Streckfus, EO Tax J. 2010-130 (Sept. 15, 2010).
339
E-mail from Lois Lerner, Internal Revenue Serv., to Cheryl Chasin, Internal Revenue Serv. (Sept. 15, 2010).
340
E-mail from Lois Lerner, Internal Revenue Serv., to Cheryl Chasin, Laurice Ghougasian, & Judith Kindell,
Internal Revenue Serv. (Sept. 16, 2010).
71
blow, overturning a 100-year old precedent that basically corporations couldnt give
directly to political campaigns. And everyone is up in arms because they dont like
it. The Federal Election Commission cant do anything about it.
They want the IRS to fix the problem Fix it now before the election. Cant
you see how much these people are spending?341
This political pressure against Citizens United and so-called shadow groups posing as nonprofits
led to the IRSs targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants. With jurisdiction over nonprofits
and tax law, IRS employees read and acted upon the news reports. As the Presidents political
rhetoric drove the national dialogue and shaped public opinion, the IRS received and responded to
the political stimuli.
DISPARATE TREATMENT OF CONSERVATIVE TAX-EXEMPT APPLICANTS

For twenty-seven months, from February 2010 until May 2012, the Internal Revenue Service
systematically targeted conservative tax-exempt applicants for additional scrutiny and delay. The
heated political rhetoric and pressure on the IRS to fix the problem led to IRS employees to hold a
skeptical view of the merits of applications filed by conservative groups. Line-level IRS employees,
trained to identify and elevate any applications that could draw media attention, flagged the first
Tea Party applications for their Washington superiors.342 The IRS identified additional applications
using inappropriate criteria such as Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12.343 As Washington
employees evaluated these applications, they wondered whether the groups activities were good
nonprofit activities or merely emotional propaganda with little educational value.344 With
heavy skepticism, the IRS subjected these groups to years of needless delays and burdensome
questioning, including questions about the groups donors and political beliefs. The founder of one
such group, Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots, testified before an Oversight Subcommittee
in January 2014 about the three-year delay and intrusive questioning her organization received
from the IRS.345
This misconduct hurt the victims of the targeting by effectively silencing conservative nonprofits
during the 2012 election cycle. As the IRS ignored tax-exempt applications, donors stopped giving
to the groups, overall interest waned, and some groups even stopped their operations.346 The IRSs
delays also resulted in the automatic revocation of some groups exemptions by operation of law
341
See Lois Lerner Discusses Political Pressure on IRS in 2010, www.youtube.com (last visited May 13, 2014)
(transcription by Committee).
342
E-mail from Sharon Camarillo, Internal Revenue Serv., to Cindy Thomas, Internal Revenue Serv. (Feb. 25,
2010).
343
See H. COMM. ON OVERSIGHT & GOVT REFORM, DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT THE IRS TARGETED
PROGRESSIVES: HOW THE IRS AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS MISLED AMERICA ABOUT DISPARATE TREATMENT
(Apr. 7, 2014).
344
See Gregory Korte, IRS List Reveals Concerns over Tea Party Propaganda, USA TODAY, Sept. 18, 2013.
345
The Administrations Proposed Restrictions on Political Speech: Doubling Down on IRS Targeting: Hearing
before the Subcomm. on Econ. Growth, Job Creation & Reg. Affairs of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform,
113th Cong. (2014) (testimony of Jenny Beth Martin, Tea Party Patriots).
346
See Patrick OConnor, Groups Recount Tax Battles Toll, WALL ST. J., May 14, 2013.
72
because the groups had been waiting for resolutions so long that they did not file for renewal
within the statutorily proscribed period.347
That the IRS targeting impacted conservative groups disproportionately is borne out by the
numbers:
During that same period that it delayed conservative tax-exempt applicants, the IRS
approved dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups.348
In September 2013, USA Today published an independent analysis of a list of about 160
applications in the IRS backlog.349 This analysis showed that 80 percent of the applications
in the backlog were filed by conservative groups while less than seven percent were filed by
liberal groups.350
A separate analysis from the Ways and Means Committee proves that the IRS systematically
targeted conservative organizations. Although a small number of progressive and liberal
groups were caught up in the application backlog, the Ways and Means Committees review
shows that the backlog was 83 percent conservative and only 10 percent were liberaloriented.351
Moreover, the IRS approved 70 percent of the liberal-leaning groups and only 45 percent of
the conservative groups.352 The IRS approved every group with the word progressive in
its name.353
FAILURE TO BE CANDID AND FORTHCOMING WITH CONGRESS

The harm experienced by the victims of the IRSs targeting was exacerbated by the IRSs deliberate
effort to cover-up its wrongdoing. When asked about allegations of IRS targeting, senior IRS
officials including former Commissioner Doug Shulman and Exempt Organizations Director Lois
Lerner gave incomplete and misleading information to Congress. Shulman specifically gave
Congress assurances in March 2012 that the IRS was not targeting Tea Party groups, when he
knew at that time that those groups had been identified using inappropriate criteria, that they had
been subjected to excessive delays, and that they had been harassed with unnecessary and
burdensome questioning.354 Lerner, likewise, made several false statements to the Committee, and
specifically defended to the Committee the IRSs use of certain questions that the IRS had already
347
See, e.g., E-mail from Lois Lerner, Internal Revenue Serv., to Steven Miller & Sarah Hall Ingram, Internal
Revenue Serv. (June 26, 2012).
348
See Gregory Korte, IRS Approved Liberal Groups while Tea Party in Limbo, USA TODAY, May 15, 2013.
349
See Gregory Korte, IRS List Reveals Concerns over Tea Party Propaganda, USA TODAY, Sept. 18, 2013.
350
Id.
351
Hearing on the Internal Revenue Services Exempt Organizations Division Post-TIGTA Audit: Hearing before
the Subcomm. on Oversight of the H. Comm. on Ways & Means, 113th Con. (2013) (opening statement of Chairman
Charles Boustany) [hereinafter Ways and Means Committee September 18th Hearing].
352
Id.
353
Id.
354
Transcribed interview of Douglas Shulman, in Wash., D.C. (Dec. 4, 2013).
73
identified internally as inappropriate.355 Worse still, when it was finally ready to acknowledge the
targeting, the IRS attempted to bury the bad news by preemptively disclosing it on a Friday at an
obscure tax-law function before the public release of a report by the IRSs inspector general.356
FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TARGETING

In initial wake of Lois Lerners disclosure of the IRSs targeting in May of 2013, the Administration
feigned outrage and President Obama even called it inexcusable.357 But as weeks wore on and the
initial outrage faded, a deliberate effort emerged to minimize and obfuscate the misconduct. Within
days of Lerners statement to the press, the Administration claimed the misconduct was the
responsibility of rogue line-level agents in the IRS Cincinnati office,358 even as the IRS gave
assurances to Congress more than a year before that targeting was not occurring.359 A senior
congressional Democrat proclaimed the case is solved just days after the exhaustive investigation
began.360 Treasury Secretary Lew implied that the misconduct amounted to a phony scandal.361
The President, who had earlier called the conduct inexcusable, now wrote the allegations off as
nothing more than a bureaucratic list confined to an office in Cincinnati.362
The Administration refused to accept any responsibility or accountability. Attorney General Eric
Holder appointed Barbara Bosserman, a substantial contributor to President Obamas past political
campaigns, as a leading Justice Department investigator.363 The other Justice Department entities
involved in the IRS investigation the Public Integrity Section and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation are similarly conflicted, having met with Lois Lerner and the IRS to discuss the
potential for criminally prosecuting politically active nonprofits as early as October, 2010.364 Well
before all the facts related to the IRS targeting scandal could be gathered, leaks from the Justice
Department in January, 2014, promised that no criminal charges would be filed.365 The following
355
See Letter from Lois G. Lerner, Internal Revenue Serv., to Darrell Issa, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform
(Apr. 26, 2012); Letter from Lois G. Lerner, Internal Revenue Serv., to Darrell Issa, H. Comm. on Oversight &
Govt Reform (May 4, 2012).
356
The IRS: Targeting Americans for their Political Beliefs: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt
Reform, 113th Cong. (2013).
357
The White House, Statement by the President (May 15, 2013).
358
The White House, Press Briefing by Jay Carney (May 21, 2013) (noting that IRS line personnel had improperly
targeted conservative groups); Chelsea J. Carter, Drew Griffin, & David Fitzpatrick, Angry Obama Announces
IRS Leaders Ouster after Conservatives Targeted, CNN (May 16, 2013),
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/ (noting that the IRS has identified two rogue
employees in the agencys Cincinnati office as being principally responsible).
359
Internal Revenue Service Operations and the 2012 Tax Return Filing Season: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
Oversight of the H. Comm. on Ways &Means, 112th Cong. (2012) (question and answer with Chairman Boustany).
360
State of the Union with Candy Crowley (CNN television broadcast June 9, 2013) (interview with Representative
Elijah E. Cummings).
361
Fox News Sunday (Fox News television broadcast July 28, 2013) (interview with Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew).
362
Hardball with Chris Matthews (MSNBC television broadcast Dec. 5, 2013) (interview with President Barack
Obama).
363
See Letter from Darrell Issa & Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S.
Dept of Justice (Jan. 8, 2014). Between 2004 and 2012, Bosserman contributed more than $6,500 to political
campaigns supporting President Obamas candidacy. Id.
364
See Letter from Darrell Issa & Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S.
Dept of Justice (May 22, 2014).
365
See Devlin Barrett, Criminal charges not expected in IRS probe, WALL ST. J., Jan. 13, 2014.
74
week, President Obama told a national television audience that there was not even a smidgeon of
corruption in the IRS targeting.366 Meanwhile, the White House refused to assist the Committee in
its investigation, declining requests for documents and testimony.367
Amid fiery protestations by the Administration and Democrat Minority that the IRS actions were
not politically motivated,368 the Committee learned in June, 2014, that the IRS had lost emails sent
or received by Lois Lerner from January 2009 to April 2013.369 The new IRS Commissioner, John
Koskinen who was appointed by the President to restore trust in the beleaguered agency
dismissed concerns about the missing e-mails as partisan maneuvers of those who dont want [the
investigation] to end.370 Given Lois Lerners refusal to answer the Committees questions and her
invocation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination,371 and the inexplicable loss of
all e-mails that could shed light on the truth, it is unclear whether American taxpayers will ever
receive answers. The IRSs targeting of conservative tax-exempt applicants is a painful reminder of
the power of an unaccountable federal agency; it is a demonstration of the harm improper political
influence can cause and yet another example of why vigorous oversight of agency action is not only
beneficial, but necessary.
366
Not even a smidgeon of corruption: Obama downplays IRS, other scandals, FOX NEWS, Feb. 3, 2014.
Letter from Kathryn H. Ruemmler, Exec. Office of the Pres., to Darrell E. Issa & Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Govt Reform (Nov. 6, 2013); Letter from W. Neil Eggleston, Exec. Office of the Pres., to Darrell Issa,
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (June 23, 2014).
368
See, e.g., State of the Union with Candy Crowley (CNN television broadcast June 9, 2013) (interview with
Representative Elijah E. Cummings).
369
Letter from Leonard Oursler, Internal Revenue Serv., to Ron Wyden & Orrin Hatch, S. Comm. on Finance (June
13, 2014).
370
Bernie Becker, IRS Chief: Republicans dont want this to end, HILL, July 31, 2014.
371
Hearing on the IRS: Targeting Americans for Their Political Beliefs: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight
& Govt Reform, 113th Cong. 22 (2013) (H. Rept. 113-33) (statement of Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Orgs., IRS)
(I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and
I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. . . . After very careful
consideration, I have decided to follow my counsels advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today.).
367
75
POLITICIZATION OF FOIA PROCESS

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)372 is the cornerstone of federal transparency law.
Enacted in 1966 after eleven years of legislative development in the House of Representatives and
almost six years of consideration in the Senate, the statute, as amended, gives the public a formal
method to request and receive information from the government. The U.S. Supreme Court has
explained the importance of FOIA in plain terms: [t]he basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an
informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against
corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.373 Therefore, neglect and abuse
of the FOIA process unnecessary delays within agencies or objections by officials to legitimate
requests are intricately tied to the disruption of oversight by the people of government activities.
The statute gives individuals, members of the media, watchdog organizations, good-government
groups, corporations, and other entities presumptive access to unpublished, existing and
identifiable records of the agencies of the Federal executive branch without having to demonstrate
a need or reason for such request.374 According to FOIA, each agency must publish where, from
whom, and how members of the public may obtain information.375 Agencies must generally
respond to FOIA requests within 20 business days,376 but may withhold records in certain limited
situations where an exemption exists such as where the response would compromise law
enforcement proceedings,377 would disclose personal or medical information that would constitute
an unwarranted invasion of privacy,378 or where the information is specifically protected under an
Executive order in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.379
A LAUDABLE PLAN, POORLY IMPLEMENTED

Although the U.S. Federal Government is unmatched in the worlds history in terms of its size and
complexity, the American people still have a right to know how it spends their tax dollars. FOIA
guarantees this right and provides what should be a straight-forward process by which taxpayers
can request information from opaque federal agencies. Unfortunately, despite strong bipartisan
support for the transparency goals promoted by FOIA, and a call for a presumption in favor of
disclosure in FOIA compliance from President on his first day in office,380 obtaining information
from the Federal Government is not as easy as the law envisions. When agencies do not honor the
language and intent of the law, and when political appointees insert themselves into the FOIA
process in an attempt to withhold information, the American system, premised upon transparency
in government operation, suffers.
372
Freedom of Information Act, Pub. L. No. 89-487, 80 Stat. 250 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 552).
Natl Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978).
374
Harold C. Relyea, Federal Freedom of Information Policy: Highlights of Recent Developments, 26 GOVT INFO.
QUARTERLY 314 (2009).
375
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(A) (2012).
376
Id. 552(a)(6)(A). The 20-day response time may be extended by up to ten additional days where the agency
needs additional time to respond. Id. 552(a)(6)(B).
377
Id. 552(b)(7).
378
Id. 552(b)(6).
379
Id. 552(b)(1).
380
Memorandum of January 21, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 4683 (Jan. 26, 2009).
373
76
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE OF FOIA PROCESS AT DHS

In 2010, then-Ranking Member Darrell Issa began an investigation into allegations that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had corrupted the agencys FOIA compliance procedures
and exerted political pressure on FOIA compliance officers in order to impede and delay the
process. During the course of its investigation, the Committee found that DHS political staff
increased the workload on already overtaxed career FOIA professionals by instituting and regularly
amending a complex and burdensome review and approval process.381 On March 31, 2011,
Chairman Issa convened a Full Committee hearing with DHS Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen
Callahan, DHS General Counsel Ivan Fong, DHS Acting Inspector General Charles Edwards, and the
Electronic Privacy Information Centers John Verdi.382
The Committee also learned that DHS political staff, aware that FOIA interference could prove
scandalous, had shifted much of the review and approval process away from official DHS email to
telephone. Moreover, Secretary Napolitanos political staff attempted to frustrate the Committees
investigation through official non-cooperation, witness tampering, and the attempted theft of
Committee documents.383 Staff reviewed thousands of pages of internal emails during the course of
its investigation.
In light of DHS obstruction, whistleblower testimony proved essential to a thorough investigation.
One of these interviews was of a whistleblower employed by DHS. The Committee conducted six
transcribed interviews during its investigation, including Catherine Papoi, who served as Deputy
Chief FOIA Officer for DHS. Ms. Papoi described DHS political staff as deliberately non-responsive
to FOIA requests, which burdened her office.384 She described additional delays in the Office of
General Counsel (OGC), where she suspected OGC would make further redactions or coordinate
with political staff to coordinate the timing of document release.385 As a result of her candidness to
the Committee, DHS took retaliatory action against Ms. Papoi by demoting her.
FOIA RECORDS SCORECARD

In order to conduct oversight over agency efforts to comply with FOIA, Chairman Issa sent a letter
to 180 entities representing 100 government agencies on January 25, 2011, requesting information
about their FOIA tracking systems. The letter requested each entity provide an electronic and
sortable copy of its FOIA logs. An agencys ability and willingness to provide this information
served as the basis of an objective evaluation of agency FOIA management. On March 15, 2012, the
Committee released a report entitled, Report Card on Federal Governments Efforts to Track and
Manage FOIA Requests.386
381
Staff of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, A New Era of Openness? How and Why Political Staff a DHS
Interfered with the FOIA Process, 112th Congress (Mar. 30, 2011) [hereinafter A New Era of Openness?].
382
Why Isnt the Department of Homeland Security Meeting the Presidents Standards on FOIA?: Hearing Before
the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform (Mar. 31, 2011).
383
A New Era of Openness?, supra note 381.
384
Id. at 55, 56.
385
Id. at 76.
386
Report Card on Federal Governments Efforts to Track and Manage FOIA Requests: Hearing Before the H.
Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 112th Cong. (2012).
77
Agencies were assigned a grade A through F based upon the number of components they
successfully met, such as whether or not tracking numbers are assigned to FOIA cases that cannot
be resolved within 10 days, or whether or not the agency kept electronic records. Overall, the
Federal Government earned a C- based on the averages of 17 cabinet level departments. Agencies
that did not respond with any records or failed to produce them in digital format received an F.
Additionally, the Committee found that:
Nearly half of all logs were insufficient, but sufficient logs often included additional and
helpful information
Many FOIA logs were vague, missing information, and lacking uniformity
Some agencies failed to track types of requesters, despite different categories of requesters
receiving different treatment
Legally required tracking numbers for requests that cannot be resolved within 10 days
were often missing
Some agencies could not produce electronic logs
Some logs did not list status or disposition of requests
Logs at the Department of Justice, which sets FOIA policy for the rest of the Federal
Government were grossly insufficient
The Committee found that the three agencies that receive the most requests the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice were all missing
critical information from their FOIA tracking logs. The Department of Justice only provided
information for 11 of its 40 components that respond to FOIA requests. The Department of
Education, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, and Department of Transportation
received top grades for demonstrating an ability to track and provide information as requested, but
the report cautioned that agencies who meet basic standards for FOIA processing could still be
deficient in meeting their legal responsibilities under FOIA something that this report did not
evaluate.
PROMOTING TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE FOIA

On March 21, 2012, the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform, chaired by Rep. James Lankford, held a hearing, FOIA in the 21st
Century: Using Technology to Improve Transparency in Government.387 The hearing featured
testimony from Ms. Melanie Ann Pustay, the Director of the Office of Information Policy at the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ-OIP), which oversees agency compliance with FOIA, and Ms. Miriam
Nisbet, Director of the Office of Government Information Services at the National Archives and
Records Administration, which acts as a mediator between FOIA requestors and agencies and
serves as a FOIA ombudsman. The hearing also featured testimony from Sean Moulton, Director of
Federal Information Policy at the Center for Effective Government, formerly OMBWatch.
387
FOIA in the 21st Century: Using Technology to Improve Transparency in Government: Hearing before Subcomm.
on Tech., Info. Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform of the H. Comm. on Oversight &
Govt Reform, 112th Cong. (2012).
78
Mr. Andrew Baffin, Director of the Office of Information Collection at the Environmental Protection
Agency, provided testimony on FOIAOnline, a centralized portal built on EPAs successful
Regulations.gov platform, which allows FOIA requestors to easily submit and track FOIA requests at
several participating agencies. The hearings goal was to highlight the potential for efforts like
FOIAOnline to significantly improve the processing and tracking of FOIA requests. On October 31,
2013, the White House released a report titled the Second Open Government National Action Plan for
the United States of America and included a provision committing to improve the customer
experience through a consolidated online FOIA service.388
REFORMING FOIA
Building on previous Committee efforts as well as the work conducted by outside groups on the
oversight and management of FOIA, Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings sent a letter on
February 4, 2013 to Ms. Pustay at DOJ-OIP posting 24 questions for the agency on longstanding
problems in FOIA and the Departments role improving federal agency compliance with the
transparency law.389 The letter noted that in fiscal year 2011, agencies made more than 30,000 full
denials and more than 171,000 partial denials, and that DOJ itself increased the number of times it
invoked the widely abused deliberative process exemption (referred to as Exemption 5) by over
20 percent between fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
The letter also noted that some agencies may be violating the OPEN Government Act of 2007.390
The OPEN Government Act amended agency FOIA fee structures, and broadened the types of
requesters who qualify for FOIA fee waivers. The letter pointed out that 56 agencies had not
updated their FOIA regulations to comply with major changes enacted by Congress in the OPEN
Government Act of 2007. In addition, the letter noted that some agencies may not have been in
compliance with the Acts provisions concerning fee waivers, and the 1996 E-FOIA Act that requires
frequently requested records to be posted online.
The letter laid out an effective case that while FOIA as a statute did not need fundamental reform,
many statutory changes could enhance agency compliance. Accordingly, Chairman Issa and
Ranking Member Cummings introduced legislation in March 2013 to address many of the FOIA
concerns raised by the Committee in its previous oversight work.391 H.R. 1211, FOIA Oversight and
Implementation Act of 2013, established a statutory presumption of openness, strengthened
requirements for agencies to post frequently requested information, required the Federal
Government to establish a single portal for FOIA requests, strengthened the ombudsman and
mediator role of the Office of Government Information Services, and mandated agencies to update
388
THE WHITE HOUSE, THE OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP: SECOND OPEN GOVERNMENT NATIONAL ACTION
PLAN FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A PREVIEW REPORT (October 31, 2013) available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/preview_report_of_open_gov_national_action_plan.pdf.
389
Letter from the Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, and Hon. Elijah
Cummings, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Ms. Melanie Ann Pustay, Dir., Office of
Info. Policy, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Feb. 4, 2013).
390
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, 121 Stat. 735, 2 U.S.C. 1601 (2012).
391
For more information on the FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act, see the Legislative Activities section of
the Report above.
79
FOIA regulations.392 The legislation was unanimously approved by the House of Representatives by
a vote of 410-0 on February 25, 2014, but was not taken up before the end of the 113th Congress.
392
FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act of 2014, H.R. 1211 (introduced Mar. 15, 2013).
80
OBSTRUCTION OF INSPECTORS GENERALS

The Obama Administration has been hostile to oversight from the community of inspectors general
as far back as 2009, when the President unlawfully removed Gerald Walpin from his post as
Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service. After removing Walpin,
who aggressively investigated a political ally of the President for misusing AmeriCorps funds, the
Obama Administration targeted two more IGs: Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset
Relief Program Neil Barofsky, and International Trade Commission Acting Inspector General Judith
Gwynne. The President left a number of inspector general posts vacant, sometimes for years, which
resulted in less aggressive oversight of federal agencies that controlled hundreds of billions of
taxpayer dollars.
The Administrations hostility towards the IGs reached a tipping point when, on August 5, 2014, 47
Inspectors General sent an unprecedented letter to Congress describing serious limitations on
access to records that have recently impeded the work of Inspectors General. The letter identified
three IGs whose work has been obstructedDepartment of Justice Inspector General Michael
Horowitz, Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General Arthur Elkins, and Peace Corps
Inspector General Kathy Buller.
ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF INSPECTORS GENERAL

Inspectors General play a key role in improving our government's efficiency. They conduct
investigations and audits to detect and prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement in their agencies'
programs. In fact, they have proven to be one of Congress' best investments. In the last fiscal year,
they used their $2.5 billion budget to identify potential cost savings to taxpayers totaling about
$51.8 billion.393
To fulfill their statutory obligation, federal law requires agencies to provide full and timely access to
agency records to their respective Inspectors General. The Administration, however, has been
obstructing the Inspectors General work by refusing, restricting or delaying IG access to agency
records. This obstruction leads to incomplete, inaccurate, or significantly delayed findings and
recommendations. Hindering IG work undermines congressional intent and wastes taxpayer
dollars. In the face of agency obstruction, the Committee has supported the work of the IGs by
pressuring agencies to cooperate with the OIGs.
The IGs make recommendations based on their independent audits, evaluations, and investigations.
Their recommendations often involve practical methods to reduce agency waste and
mismanagement, while improving operations. The community of IGs is comprised of individuals
across the Federal Government who work tirelessly on behalf of taxpayers to promote good
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and improve the effectiveness of government.
During fiscal year 2013, over 14,000 employees at 72 Offices of Inspector General (OIGs) across
Executive Branch departments and agencies conducted audits, inspections, evaluations, and
393
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Progress Report to the President Fiscal Year 2013
2 (2013), available at https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/CIGIE%202013%20Progess%20Report.pdf.
81
investigations.394 IG recommendations made to Executive Branch departments and agencies

focused on detecting and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse.395
The OIGs recommendations for fiscal year 2013 identified potential cost savings to taxpayers
totaling about $51.8 billion.396 With the OIG communitys fiscal year 2012 budget of $2.5 billion, the
potential cost savings identified represents approximately a $21 return on every dollar spent.397
Specifically, the OIGs recommendations included cost savings of $37 billion from audit
recommendations agreed to by management-level employees.398 The OIGs also uncovered $14.8
billion in potential cost savings measures from investigative receivables and recoveries, which
reflect the results of criminal and civil cases that were ordered, plus any voluntary repayments.399
Throughout FY 2012, the OIGs processed over 619,000 hotline complaints, closed over 25,000
investigations, and completed over 7,600 audit, inspection, and evaluation reports.400 The OIGs also
successfully brought actions against wrongdoers across the Federal Government.401 With the
assistance of the OIGs, over 6,750 indictments and criminal informations (a DOJ term used in
conjunction with a plea bargain) were brought against wrongdoers, and more than 5,800
prosecutions and over 1,300 civil actions were successful.402
SECTION 6(A)(1)
Section 6(a)(1) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 grants IGs the authority to access "all records,
reports, documents, or materials available to the agency" relating to IG program responsibilities.403
Access to information is a key component of IG independence. During the Obama Administration,
however, agency lawyers have attempted to use common law privileges and other statutes to justify
withholding documents and information from the IGs.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Chemical Safety Board's Misuse of Attorney-Client Privilege
In the fall of 2012, the EPA Inspector General began investigating allegations that CSB General
Counsel Richard Loeb learned the identities of several CSB whistleblowers who filed complaints
with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The whistleblowers all of whom worked in the
Office of General Counsel had been exposed to retaliation by virtue of the leak. Because of the
likelihood that managers may retaliate against whistleblowers who file complaints with OSC,
federal law requires OSC to protect the identities of complainants.
394
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity & Efficiency, Progress Report to the Pres., Fiscal Year 2013
Results at a Glance (2013), available at http://www.ignet.gov/randp/CIGIE-2013-Progess-Report.pdf.
395
Id.
396
Id.
397
Id.
398
Id.
399
Id.
400
Id.
401
Id.
402
Id.
403
5 U.S.C. 6(a)(1).
82
In light of the seriousness of the allegations against Loeb and the OSC employee who leaked
information to him, it was imperative that Loeb and CSB Chairman Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso fully
cooperated with the IG's investigation. They did not. Instead, Loeb-with Moure-Eraso's consentrefused to provide key documents to the Inspector General, citing attorney-client privilege. The
EPA IG discovered that CSB leadership used personal e-mail accounts to conduct official business to
avoid scrutiny from investigators. Loeb's novel-and mistaken-application of attorney-client
privilege to documents that may have implicated him in the leak, and his and his colleagues' use of
personal e-mail accounts to avoid scrutiny, caused the IG to eventually bring the matter to the
attention of Congress.
On September 5, 2013, EPA Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, Jr. sent a "seven-day letter" to
Congress regarding CSB's refusal to cooperate with his leak investigation. Section 5(d) of the
Inspector General Act, as amended, requires IGs to report immediately to the agency head
whenever the IG becomes aware of "particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses, or
deficiencies relating to the administration of programs or operations."404 Reports made pursuant to
Section 5(d) of the IG Act are commonly referred to as "seven-day letters."405 Because IGs typically
reserve the use of a seven-day letter for only the most urgent matters, Congress-and the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform specifically-takes these matters very seriously.
On June 19, 2014, the Committee held a hearing addressing both the seven-day letter and gross
mismanagement and dysfunction at the Chemical Safety Board. In conjunction with the hearing
Chairman Issa and Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, released an
84-page joint staff report titled, Whistleblower Reprisal and Management Failures at the U.S.
Chemical Safety Board.
Obstruction of the OIG's Misconduct Investigations

In its December 2013 report about former EPA official John Beale,406 who committed fraud in
claiming to be a CIA operative, the OIG confirmed that the EPA was slow to report the Beale matter
and obstructed parts of the investigation.407 Beale impersonated a CIA agent and remained on the
EPA payroll for years despite performing minimal work for the EPA. The report noted that an
attorney in the Office of General Counsel declined an OIG interview, despite being required to do so
under the Inspector General Act.408 As a result, the OIG was "limited in [its] ability to determine
OGC's involvement in, knowledge of and actions relating to the Beale matter."409
On May 7, 2014, the Committee held a hearing about obstruction of the EPA OIG by the EPA Office
of Homeland Security (EPA-OHS). The OIG representative testified that the office "cannot assure
404
Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. 110-409.

Id.
406
A more detailed discussion of the Committees oversight efforts related to the EPA and John Beale are discussed
later in this report in Chapter 6 in the section The EPAs Secret Agent.
407
U.S. ENVIRON. PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, EARLY WARNING REPORT: INTERNAL
CONTROLS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS CONCERNING JOHN C. BEALE PAY ISSUES, Report. No. 14-P-0036, 5 (Dec.
11, 2013), available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131211-14-P-0036.pdf.
408
Id.
409
Id.
405
83
the Committee that we are doing everything possible to root out other "John Beales" because of the
EPA's refusal to grant OIG access to information.
According to the EPA OIG Semiannual Report to Congress, multiple offices within the EPA have
been obstructing the OIG, including the Office of Homeland Security, the Office of Chief Financial
Officer, the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, as well as the Office of General
Counsel.410
According to IG Arthur Elkins, EPA officials have intimidated and obstructed the OIG from
conducting numerous investigations over the past year.411 In a February 2014 letter to Senator
David Vitter, Mr. Elkins stated, "over the past 12 months there have been several EPA officials who
have taken action to prevent [the office of investigations] from conducting investigations or who
have attempted to obstruct investigations through intimidation."412 In fact, the EPA-OHS
relationship with the OIG has turned toxic. On October 24, 2013, EPA-OHS Intelligence Advisor
Steven Williams assaulted Special Agent Elisabeth Heller while she was on duty. Mr. Williams
approached Ms. Heller in an extremely aggressive manner, shouting, and forcibly impeding her
ability to conduct her official duties.413 The Federal Protective Service investigated the incident and
sent findings supporting a misdemeanor assault charge to the U.S. Attorney's Office.414 The EPA OIG
recused itself from investigating the incident involving Ms. Heller, and the Department of Defense
OIG is currently investigating. Mr. Williams continues to work at the EPA-OHS without punishment.
PEACE CORPS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Peace Corps has refused to provide the Office of Inspector General access to information
related to sexual assaults on Peace Corps volunteers. This has prevented the IG from tracking
sexual assaults pursuant to requirements in the Kate Puzey Volunteer Protection Act of 2011. The
Peace Corps's position is contrary to the plain language of the Inspector General Act and it
undermines the OIG's independence.
Following the tragic death of a Peace Corps volunteer, the Kate Puzey Act was enacted to curb the
problem of sexual assaults among Peace Corps volunteers and staff and to develop a consistent
policy that addresses the sexual assault problem in the Peace Corps, which is widespread. The Kate
Puzey Act requires, in part, the Peace Corps Inspector General to generate a report on the
effectiveness of the Act's programs to help identify program-wide trends and make
410
EPA, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, SEMIANNUAL REP. TO CONG. EPA-350-R-I4-001 (May 2014), available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/ Semiannual_Report_to_Congress-March_2014.pdf.
411
Letter to the Hon. David Vitter, Ranking Member S. Comm. on Environment and Public Works, from Arthur A.
Elkins Jr., Inspector General for the U.S. Environ. Protection Agency (Feb. 25, 2014), available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/IG_response_letter_2-25-2014.pdf.
412
Id.
413
Is EPA Leadership Obstructing it's own Inspector General?: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt
Reform, 113th Cong. (2014), available at http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/epa-leadership-obstructing-inspectorgeneral/.
414
Jim McElhatton, EPA chief Gina McCarthy intervened to halt internal inquiry, WASH. TIMES, Apr. 29, 2014,
available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/29/epa-chief-gina-mccarthy-intervened-to-halt-tointe/?page=all#pagebreak.
84
recommendations to better protect Peace Corps volunteers. The Act also requires the IG to notify
Congress about misconduct, mismanagement, or policy violations of Peace Corps staff, any
breaches of the confidentiality of volunteers, and any actions taken to assure the safety of
volunteers who provide such reports.
The Peace Corps has denied the OIG access to data related to sexual assaults, specifically those
assaults that are tracked through the "restrictive reporting" channel. In a summary of its legal
position, the Peace Corps claims that the Kate Puzey Act overrides the IG Act's requirement that an
agency provide its IG all requested documents and information. The Kate Puzey Act does not
explicitly or implicitly prohibit or limit the OIG's access to information and documents. In fact,
under the Act, the OIG must meet certain congressional reporting requirements, which can only
occur if the IG has access to the information the Peace Corps has refused to provide.
On June 24, 2014, Committee staff conducted a deposition of the Peace Corps General Counsel.
Shortly before the deposition, the Peace Corps and the IG reached a memorandum of understanding
that allowed the IG to access restricted reporting information. The Committee remains concerned
that the IG had no alternative but to enter into such an agreement to obtain materials to which she
is legally entitled under the IG Act.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

DOJ OIG Cannot Investigate Attorney Misconduct
The OIG wants to remove a portion of section 8E in the IG Act, which gives the Office of Professional
Responsibility jurisdiction over allegations of misconduct involving DOJ lawyers and law
enforcement personnel. The section has prevented the IG from taking action in a number of
significant matters, including DOJ's decision not to investigate the New Black Panther Party for
voter intimidation, the investigation of prosecutorial misconduct with respect to the prosecution of
Senator Ted Stevens, and DOJ's internal review of the conduct of the drafters of a memorandum
that advised the Bush White House on torture. The Office of Professional Responsibility is not
independent, nor does it publicly release its reports.
Access to Documents
The OIG wants to remove a portion of section 8E in the IG Act, which automatically denies access to
certain categories of documents-such as 6(e) Grand Jury documents and national security-related
documents. To gain access, the IG must receive approval from the Deputy Attorney General or the
federal courts. This process slows down investigations and presents independence issues. In fact,
not having automatic access to documents slowed down the IG's investigation into Operation Fast
and Furious.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS TO IMPROVE IG ACCESS TO AGENCY RECORDS

In each of these instances, the Committee conducted an investigation and/or held a hearing to
pressure the agency to cooperate with its Inspector General. In addition, following the letter from
the 47 Inspectors General sent August 5, 2014, the Committee held a hearing on September 10,
85
2014 entitled, Obstructing Oversight: Concerns from Inspectors General.415 The Committee heard
from the IG community including Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz,
Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General Arthur Elkins and Peace Corps Inspector
General Kathy Buller about how the Administration had obstructed their work.
Further, Committee passed the Inspector General Empowerment Act on September 17, 2014.416
This bill strengthens the IG community by giving them additional tools that will allow them to
follow the facts where they lead, including testimonial subpoena authority to get answers from
federal contractors and former federal employees.
415
Obstructing Oversight: Concerns from Inspectors General: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt
416
H.R. 5492, 113th Cong. (as reported to the House, Sept. 16, 2014).
86
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
The Administrations posture towards its internal watchdogs extended to the way it treated agency
whistleblowers. Whistleblowers who came forward to advance several of the Committees
investigations including Fast and Furious and Benghazi experienced retaliation at the hands of
Obama Administration political appointees. The Obama Administration has been especially
aggressive with respect to national security whistleblowers, prosecuting more whistleblowers
under the Espionage Act than any President before.
The Committees investigation of the FDAs whistleblower surveillance program showed the lengths
that some agencies will go to identify and take action against employees who communicate with
Congress. In that case, the FDA installed monitoring software that captured communications with
Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, the Inspector General, and even with the whistleblowers
personal attorneys. Whistleblowers who came to the Committee were frequent targets of
retaliation by their managers. The Administrations most frequent tactic was to strip the employee
of responsibilities and opportunities for advancement while carefully avoiding taking an action that
would allow the whistleblower to file a lawsuit. The following are but a few of many examples.
DHS FOIA INVESTIGATION

The Committee investigated political interference with the Department of Homeland Securitys
FOIA operation in 2009.417 A witness in that case, Ms. Catherine Papoi, attended her interview with
the Committee on March 3, 2011. The next day, March 4, Deputy Chief Privacy Officer John Kropf
called Ms. Papoi to notify her that she was being demoted effective March 14, 2011. Ms. Papoi was
replaced by a newly-minted member of the Senior Executive Service (SES). The new SES, who
now serves as Ms. Papois supervisor, was given her title Deputy Chief Privacy Officer and her
office. Ms. Papoi was moved to an office formerly occupied by her subordinate and given a
narrower set of responsibilities.
The new SES accepted the job on January 10, 2011 and received security clearance on February 24,
2011. The decision to wait until March 4 the day after her interview to notify Ms. Papoi of her
demotion appears to have been made for reasons other than logistics. By notifying Ms. Papoi of her
less desirable office assignment and diminished job responsibilities the day after she appeared
before the Committee, the Department created the appearance of retaliation against a witness who
did not allow representatives from the OGC to attend her interview.
The decision to demote Ms. Papoi itself also appeared to be an act of retaliation because of her
history of providing information to the OIG, and the Departments belief whether founded or not
that Ms. Papoi was providing information to this Committee.
BENGHAZI
Over the course of the Committees investigation into the attack on the United States Embassy in
Benghazi, Libya, numerous individuals approached the Committee to provide information. Some of
417
The details of this investigation are provided in an oversight report published by the Committee in 2011. See
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, A New Era of Openness? How and Why Political Staff at DHS
Interfered with the FOIA Process, 112th Cong (2011).
87
these witnesses described mismanagement by senior administration officials related to the attacks
and subsequent attempts to obstruct the congressional investigation. Witnesses who contacted the
Committee were frequently concerned that providing information to Congress may expose them to
retaliation from Department leadership.
With that in mind, Chairman Issa requested that Principal Deputy Legal Adviser Mary McLeod make
clear to all State Department employees that they are free to furnish information to Congress in
accordance with their statutory rights.418 The Department never took this small but meaningful
step to assure employees that they will not face retaliation from their supervisors if they choose to
communicate with Congress about the Benghazi attacks. To the contrary, it appears that the
Administration attempted to intimidate employees who cooperated with the Committees
investigation. Victoria Toensing, counsel for a witness in the investigation of the Benghazi attacks,
recently revealed that Obama Administration officials have threatened her client and others.419 She
stated:
Theyre doing some very despicable threats to people. . . . Theyre taking career
people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they
cooperate with congressional investigators].420
These allegations are serious. Retaliation against employees who communicate with Congress does
grave harm to those brave individuals who report mismanagement at their own risk and creates a
chilling effect on other employees who may be considering coming forward to assist the Committee.
FDA SURVEILLANCE421
In January 2009, several national news outlets, including the New York Times, Associated Press, and
the Wall Street Journal, reported that U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists had
lodged complaints that the agency was approving unsafe and risky medical devices.422 In March
2010, the New York Times published a follow-up article reporting allegations by FDA scientists that
the FDA ignored radiation warnings when approving certain medical devices.423
418
5 U.S.C. 7211 states: The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of
Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be
interfered with or denied.
419
James Rosen, Obama administration officials threatened whistle-blowers on Benghazi, lawyer says,
FOXNEWS.COM, Apr. 29, 2013, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/29/obama-administration-officials-havethreatened-whistle-blowers-on-benghazi.
420
Id. (emphasis added) (parenthetical in original).
421
Together with the staff of Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, S. Cmte. on the Judiciary, the staff of the
Committee published a report detailing this joint investigation. See Joint Staff, H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt
Reform and Minority Staff, S. Cmte. on Judiciary, Limitless Surveillance at the FDA: Protecting the Rights of
Federal Whistleblowers, 113th Cong. (2014).
422
Gardiner Harris, In F.D.A. Files, Claims of Rush to Approve Devices, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 13, 2009, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/policy/13fda.html?_r=0 (last visited Jan. 10, 2014); Ricardo AlonsoZaldivar, FDA Scientists Complain to Obama of Corruption, ASSOC. PRESS, Jan. 8, 2009; Alicia Mundy & Jared
Favole, FDA Scientists Ask Obama to Restructure Drug Agency, WALL ST. J., Jan. 8, 2009, available at
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123142562104564381 (last visited Jan. 10, 2014).
423
Gardiner Harris, Scientists Say F.D.A. Ignored Radiation Warnings, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 28, 2010, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29fda.html?pagewanted=all (last visited Jan. 10, 2014).
88
Upon learning that these scientists scientists within the FDAs Center for Devices and Radiological
Health (CDRH) publicly disclosed information about pending device applications, known as
510(k) applications, CDRH management initiated an electronic surveillance program of
unprecedented scope. To determine which scientists were disclosing information and what specific
information they were disclosing, the CDRH engaged two contractors working on the FDAs
information technology security systems in April 2010 to begin monitoring Dr. Robert Smith, whose
name appeared in one of the news stories.424 Using a software monitoring program, called Spector
360, that took screenshots of FDA employees computers every five seconds,425 FDA officials were
able to obtain sensitive information and protected communications their employees, including
attorney-client communications, communications with Congress, and communications with the
FDAs Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The FDA intercepted communications with congressional
staffers and draft versions of whistleblower complaints complete with editing notes in the
margins.426 The agency also took electronic snapshots of the computer desktops of the FDA
employees and reviewed documents they saved on the hard drives of their government
computers.427 The contractors conducting the investigation prepared an interim report to update
FDA officials.428 After receiving this report, the FDA expanded the computer monitoring to include
three additional CDRH scientists429 and declined to renew Dr. Smiths contract.430
FDAs overly-invasive monitoring program came to light in January 2012, when Dr. Smith and
several of his colleagues filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington. The suit alleged that
information gathered during the monitoring was used to harass or dismiss at least six current and
former FDA employees. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell
Issa and Senate Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member Charles Grassley (together, the
Committees) subsequently launched a joint investigation into the monitoring program.
Witnesses who contacted the Committees voiced concerns about the intrusive nature of the
surveillance. They believed that the FDA conducted surveillance for the sole purpose of retaliating
against the scientists for raising concerns about the medical device review process.
The Committees conducted seven transcribed interviews with current and former FDA employees
and contractors and reviewed approximately 70,000 documents. The pace of the Committees
investigation was slowed by FDAs unwillingness to cooperate. The FDA repeatedly cited the
ongoing litigation with Dr. Smith and his colleagues to withhold documents and information.
Documents and information obtained by the Committees show the FDA conducted this monitoring
program without regard for employees rights to communicate with Congress, the OSC, or their
424
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Transcribed Interview of Ruth McKee, at 7-9 (Nov. 13, 2012).
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Transcribed Interview of Christopher Newsom, at 10-11 (Oct. 2,
2012).
426
Ellen Nakashima and Lisa Rein, FDA staffers sue agency over surveillance of personal e-mail, WASH. POST, Jan.
29, 2012.
427
Id.
428
Memorandum from Joseph Hoofnagle, Incident Response & Forensic Lead & Christopher Newsom, Incident
Response & Forensic Investigator, Interim Report of Investigation Robert C. Smith (June 3, 2010).
429
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Transcribed Interview of Ruth McKee, at 16 (Nov. 13, 2012).
430
Id. at 33.
425
89
personal attorneys. The Committees investigation also found that data collected could be used to
justify adverse personnel actions against agency whistleblowers. Absent a lawful purpose, an
agency should not conduct such invasive monitoring of employees computer activity. The FDA
failed not only to manage the monitoring program responsibly, but also to consider any potential
legal ramifications. The Committees investigation has shown that agencies need effective policies
addressing appropriate monitoring practices to ensure that agency officials do not order or conduct
surveillance to retaliate against whistleblowers, especially in such a way that chills whistleblower
communications with Congress and the OSC. Congress has a strong interest in keeping such lines of
communication open, primarily as a deterrent to waste, fraud, and abuse in Executive Branch
departments and agencies. On February 26, 2014, the Committee held a hearing on this issue. The
hearing allowed Members to better understand the full extent of the FDAs surveillance program
and assess whether the FDA had taken appropriate steps to prevent the monitoring program from
capturing protected communications.
PROTECTING WHISTLEBLOWERS IN THE FUTURE

The Obama Administration has often proclaimed its commitment to transparency and
accountability. Yet, it has consistently denied inspectors general the records they need to conduct
oversight, failed to fill inspector general vacancies, and retaliated against whistleblowers who
report waste, fraud, and abuse to Congress. This posture towards oversight weakened the
effectiveness of the inspector general community, exposing American taxpayer dollars to waste,
fraud, and abuse. Retaliation against employees who communicate with Congress does grave harm
to those brave individuals who report mismanagement at their own risk and creates a chilling effect
on other employees who may be considering coming forward to assist the Committee.
For these reasons, it is unlawful to retaliate against federal employees who report mismanagement
to Congress.431 Retaliation occurs whenever a federal agency takes an adverse personnel action
against a whistleblower because he or she communicated with Congress.432 The mere threat of an
adverse personnel action interferes with the investigative process by discouraging employees from
disclosing relevant information to Committee investigators. Federal statutes that cover obstruction
of a congressional investigation prohibit interference with the Committees access to
information.433 These statutes carry penalties of both fines and imprisonment. Congress should
consider whether, in light of this Administrations tactics with respect to whistleblowers, these laws
need to be strengthened.
431
5 U.S.C. 2302, in pertinent part, prohibits a federal agency from taking, or failing to take, a personnel action
against any employee because of any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or
applicant reasonably believes evidences (i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross
mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health
or safety.
432
5 U.S.C. 2302.
433
18 U.S.C. 1505 states, in pertinent part: Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter
or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and
proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency
of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation
is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress-- Shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism
(as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
90
QUID PRO QUO: DOJS SETTLEMENT WITH ST. PAUL

The Department of Justice is the agency chiefly charged with the enforcement of federal laws. The
Departments mission, in part, is to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all
Americans.434 In 2012, by executing a closed-door quid pro quo agreement with the City of St. Paul,
Minnesota, the Department failed to live up to its lofty standards. In this deal, led by then-Assistant
Attorney General Thomas Perez, the Justice Department sacrificed the recovery of millions of
fraudulently allocated taxpayer dollars to protect a legal doctrine from Supreme Court scrutiny.
The Justice Departments quid pro quo with St. Paul undercut the Departments commitment to the
rule of law and damaged its reputation as a fair and impartial arbiter of justice.
HOW PROTECTING DISPARATE IMPACT COSTS TAXPAYERS MILLIONS

The story of the Justice Departments quid pro quo with the City of St. Paul is complex, but it begins
with a Supreme Court appeal known as Magner v. Gallagher. In the early 2000s, St. Paul began
aggressively enforcing the health and safety provisions of its housing code, targeting rental
properties for increased inspections and stricter certifications.435 The owners of these properties
sued the St. Paul, arguing that the aggressive code enforcement had an illegal disparate impact on
their mostly minority tenants. The lawsuit worked its way through the federal court system for
years, eventually yielding St. Pauls appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In November 2011,
the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Magner v. Gallagher, to decide whether the Fair Housing
Act allowed for claims of disparate impact.
The theory of disparate impact allows a court to find discrimination without having to consider any
intent to discriminate in other words, courts could draw an inference of actual intent to
discriminate from evidence of disproportionate impact.436 Because disparate impact lawsuits do
not require the plaintiff to prove intent, the theory is favored by liberal activists to force
discrimination settlements with little evidence of any actual intentional discrimination. For this
reason, Assistant Attorney General Perez greatly supported disparate impact theory and was
threatened by the Supreme Courts decision to hear St. Pauls appeal in Magner.437
Shortly after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Magner on November 7, 2011, Assistant
Attorney General Perez sprung into action.438 In mid-November, he reached out to two prominent
434
U.S. Dept of Justice, About DOJ, http://www.justice.gov/about/about-doj.

See Fredrick Melo, St. Paul Landlords Discuss their Fight over City Rental Housing Inspection Practices,
PIONEER PRESS, Oct. 15, 2012; Kevin Diaz, St. Paul Yanks Housing Fight from High Court, STAR TRIBUNE (Feb.
10, 2012).
436
Peter E. Mahoney, The End(s) of Disparate Impact: Doctrinal Reconstruction, Fair Housing and Lending Law,
and the Antidiscrimination Principle, 47 EMORY L.J. 409, 426 (1998).
437
Staff of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, & H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
DOJs quid pro quo with St. Paul: How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez manipulated justice and ignored
the rule of law, 113th Cong. (2013).
438
Assistant Attorney General Perez testified that he did not become aware of the Magner case until after the Court
agreed to hear the appeal; however, HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Sara Pratt told the Committees that she and
Perez likely had discussions about the case before the Court granted certiorari.
435
91
Minnesota attorneys, David Lillehaug and Thomas Fraser, to discuss St. Pauls appeal.439 During a
subsequent phone call, Perez came to learn about an unrelated False Claims Act litigation, known as
United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul, in which a whistleblower alleged that St. Paul had
defrauded the Federal Government out of $62 million in Housing and Urban Development funds.440
As a whistleblower allegation of fraud perpetrated against the government, the Justice Department
had the opportunity to intervene in the case to prosecute it with federal resources. At the time of
Perezs phone call, the Department was considering whether to intervene. Unbeknownst to Perez,
career Justice Department and HUD attorneys had already reviewed the Newell case and had
recommended federal intervention because they believed it be a particularly egregious example
of fraud.441 In fact, according to the internal memorandum drafted on the case, the Justice
Department found that St. Pauls actions to obtain HUD funds were actually more than reckless and
that the City had actual knowledge that [its certifications] were false.442
Nonetheless, during Perezs phone call with Lillehaug and Fraser, a proposal was raised to link the
resolution of Newell with the withdrawal of Magner. Perez, however, did not have the authority
resolve the Newell case, which was the jurisdiction of the Departments Civil Division, led by thenAssistant Attorney General Tony West. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, as the
victim of St. Pauls fraud, also had an interest in the Newell case. Perez immediately reached out to
HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Sara Pratt, HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky, and Assistant
Attorney General West to begin lobbying them on a deal. In late November 2011, HUD officially
changed its position on intervention in Newell. Perez continued working on West and the Civil
Division to convince them to forego intervention. By early January 2012, Perez had reached a
consensus with the Civil Division that it would decline intervention in Newell to secure St. Pauls
withdrawal of its appeal in Magner.443
In January 2012, Perez began personally leading negotiations with St. Paul about the Department
declining intervention in Newell in exchange for the City withdrawing Magner. The sides traded
proposals, and by late January with only days before the Supreme Courts oral argument in
Magner the prospect of an agreement looked bleak.444 On February 3, 2012, Perez met with St.
Paul Mayor Christopher Coleman at City Hall in a last ditch effort to reach an agreement. After a
short deliberation, Mayor Coleman accepted Perezs quid pro quo. The next week, DOJ formally
declined to intervene in Newell and the City formally withdrew its appeal in Magner. The quid pro
quo was effectuated.
439
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, & H. Comm. on the Judiciary, DOJs quid
pro quo with St. Paul: How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez manipulated justice and ignored the rule of
law, 113th Cong. (2013).
440
Amended Complaint, United States ex rel. Newell v. City of Saint Paul, No. 0:09-cv-1177 (D. Minn. Mar. 12,
2012).
441
U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Division, Memorandum for Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
U.S. ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota (Nov. 22, 2011).
442
Id.
443
law, 113th Cong. (2013).
444
Id.
92
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE QUID PRO QUO

The Justice Departments quid pro quo with St. Paul is a terrifying example of improper influence
circumventing the rule of law to arrive at a politically favored result. But the quid pro quo is not
merely a theoretical proposition. The quid pro quo had direct and discernible real-world effects.
The manner in which the Department of Justice and in particular Assistant Attorney General
Thomas Perez sought to encourage a private litigant to forego its Supreme Court appeal and the
leverage used to achieve that goal have lasting consequences for taxpayers, future whistleblowers,
and the rule of law.
First, the quid pro quo had a direct cost to the American taxpayers of over $200 million. According
to the Justice Department memorandum analyzing the Newell case, St. Pauls fraud totaled over $86
million.445 Because the False Claims Act allows for recovery up to three times the amount of the
fraud, the United States was poised to potentially recover over $200 million.446 The deal reached by
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez prevented the United States from ever having a chance to
recover that money and odds were high that the case would be successful. The Administration
was so unconcerned about the potential recovery for taxpayers that then-HUD official Elliot
Mincberg offhandedly told the Committee that $200 million wasnt all that much money
anyway.447
Second, the quid pro quo sets a bad precedent for future whistleblowers. Without the assistance of
private whistleblowers in uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse, the Justice Departments
enforcement of the False Claims Act would not be as robust. In Perezs orchestrated deal, the
Department abandoned the whistleblower who possessed a strong case of particularly
egregious fraud and used his case as a bargaining chip for political ends. This type of treatment
and horse trading will likely discourage other potential whistleblowers from risking their time,
money, and reputations to fight fraud.
Third, the actions of the Justice Department in facilitating and executing the quid pro quo represent
a tremendous disregard for the rule of law. Rather than allowing the Supreme Court to impartially
adjudicate Magner, an appeal that the Court had affirmatively chosen to hear, Perez openly worked
to get the appeal off of the Courts docket. Rather than allowing the normal intervention decisionmaking process to occur within the Civil Division, Perez usurped the process to ensure his
preferred result. Perez violated internal controls and exerted arbitrary authority to manipulate the
Supreme Courts docket and prevent adjudication of an uncertain legal doctrine, and he did it all for
purely political purposes.
445
U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Division, Memorandum for Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
U.S. ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota (Nov. 22, 2011).
446
In his amended complaint, Newell valued the fraud at $62 million, meaning the government could have
recovered over $180 million. See First Amended Complaint, United States ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul,
Minnesota, No. 09-SC-1177 (D. Minn. filed Mar. 12, 2012).
447
law, 113th Cong. (2013).
93
As a whole, the Justice Departments quid pro quo with the City of St. Paul demonstrated the
Administrations willingness to put ideology over objectivity and politics over the rule of law. The
Justice Department sacrificed its own reputation and $200 million in taxpayer recovery to protect a
politically favored but legally questionable doctrine from Supreme Court scrutiny. The quid pro quo
will likely have lasting consequences to the American taxpayers, but it should be a stark reminder
to how politicized public servants can improperly influence the machine of government.
94
BAD SCIENCE MAKES BAD RULES

Since 2009, the Obama Administration has continually relied upon bad science to make bad rules,
choosing to rely on its political agenda rather than sound science to craft regulations and justify
actions that are harmful to economic growth and job creation. One example of the Administrations
use of bad science to further its agenda is found in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys
(EPA) action related to the calculation of methane emissions at natural gas production sites. In
this instance, the EPA furthered its well-established policy goal of legislating climate change at the
expense of using sound science to establish well-informed rules. It also appears that this was an
attempt by EPA to limit and regulate the natural gas industry and in particular the practice of
hydraulic fracturing.
RECALCULATING METHANE EMISSIONS

Hydraulic fracturing has long been credited with ushering in a period of expansive natural gas
production in the United States, allowing operators to tap resources long thought to be
unobtainable. However, many environmental groups criticize hydraulic fracturing because they
feel that it is detrimental to the water supply, despite the fact that there have been limited examples
of hydraulic fracturing actually contaminating drinking water. Increases in domestic natural gas
production have been credited with creating many high-paying jobs and increased access to
affordable energy for the American people. Additionally, increased natural gas resources have
allowed for the potential of making the United States a net exporter of natural gas. EPAs attempts
to limit natural gas production by way of the recalculation of methane emissions during production
reflect how political goals have trumped proper government action and have been carried out at
the expense of the American taxpayer.
In 2011, EPA re-established estimates for methane emissions produced during natural gas
development. These estimates were subsequently provided to an international body, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a correction to previous estimates. The revision
estimated increased methane emissions from natural gas systems between 46.5 and 119.7 percent
each year between 1990 and 2008.448 EPAs revisions appear to have been calculated in an attempt
to induce further regulation on the natural gas industry. However, EPAs estimates were strongly
criticized by studies and reports that analyzed EPAs data. In a 2011 report by IHS CERA it was
found that EPAs methodology was so flawed that it should not be used as a basis for analysis and
decision making.449 A study by the URS Corporation concluded that EPA potentially overestimated
methane emissions by 1200 percent.450
The Committee raised concerns about the bad science of EPAs methane emission calculations in a
December 6, 2011, letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. The letter raised concerns about how
the miscalculation on EPAs part could create a ripple effect in terms of misleading policymakers
448
EPA, Recalculations and Improvements, 2011 U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY REPORT, available at
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.
449
IHS CERA, MISMEASURING METHANE: ESTIMATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM UPSTREAM FROM
UPSTREAM NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT 5 (2014), available at http://www.cred.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Mismeasuring-Methane-.pdf.
450
URS Gas Well Completion Data Analysis, Nov. 28, 2011, available at
http://epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/12003-attB.pdf.
95
and investors as to the environmental impact of natural gas as well as contaminating regulatory
cost-benefit analysis conducted by the agency in future rulemaking. The Committee was also
concerned about how the inaccurate figures could affect the natural gas industry, which at the time,
and currently remains, an area of high economic growth within the United States, generating
revenue and creating jobs. Shortly after the Committee sent its letter, EPA briefed the Committee
on its re-calculation of methane emissions and stood by its figures. However, in April 2013, EPA
produced a report on methane emissions from natural gas production in which it lowered its
estimation of emissions from the period of 1990 through 2010.451 In fact, EPA reported that natural
gas producers had actually lowered methane emissions across that timeline. Despite the EPA
report, many environmental groups have still called for tighter regulation of methane emissions
from natural gas sites.
451
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/epa-methane-report-further-divides-fracking-camps
96
ACORN: ABUSE OF FEDERAL FUNDS AND EVADING THE LAW

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) first came under the
scrutiny of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the Committee) in 2009, when
then-Ranking Member Darrell Issa began an investigation of the organizations political activities.
ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke, and through a network of relationships with banks,
federal and state agencies, and other nonprofit groups, ACORN became a major force in helping
low-income families buy homes and bringing marginalized voters to the polls.452 The Committees
oversight of ACORNs activities took place after a number of complaints about the organization
surfaced, including allegations of improper political activity, voter fraud, embezzlement and
corporate mismanagement.453
The Committee ultimately found that ACORN used a complex organizational structure of
overlapping nonprofit community initiatives and political lobbying activities to conceal the partisan
political use of taxpayer and private monies originally designated for the public benefit. Over time,
ACORN grew to include hundreds of subsidiary organizations; of particular importance are affiliates
Project Vote and ACORN Housing. ACORN, a 501(c)(4) corporation,454 used its nonprofit corporate
status to engage its affiliated organizations, specifically their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofits, in
improper political electioneering prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Through the
intermingling of ACORN and its subsidiaries assets, activities, and employees, ACORN was able to
actively campaign in a partisan manner with the use of federal funds, a prohibition clearly spelled
out with IRS Code. Additionally, ACORN used these funds, and the funds of tax-exempt nonprofit
affiliate organizations, to actively commit voter fraud and evade IRS and Campaign finance laws.
Ultimately the toll of illegality was too much and ACORN dissolved in 2010, not long after Congress
continually voted to defund the organization (which is further discussed below).
IMPROPER USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS

Many argue that it is undisputed that ACORN engaged in political partisan activity.455 However,
ACORN was also an organization that received a substantial amount of federal funds, a total of up to
$53 million from 1994 up until Congress defunded ACORN in 2009. Nonprofit organizations, such
as ACORN and its affiliates, are barred from receiving federal funds when they engage in partisan
political activity. Under Section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995456 prohibits 501(c)(4)
organizations from receiving federal grants, loans, or other awards if they are engaged in lobbying
activities. Furthermore, such lobbying activities while permissible are limited.457 For example,
involvement and participation in political campaigns cannot be the organizations primary activity.
452
Lena H. Sun, ACORN Reportedly on the Verge of Bankruptcy, WASH. POST, Mar. 21, 2010,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032003172.html.
453
See generally Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Is ACORN Intentionally Structured as a
Criminal Enterprise? 111th Cong. (2009).
454
Under the IRS Tax code 501(c)(4) organizations account for social welfare organizations. These organizations
are not tax-exempt, unlike 501(c)(3)s which are tax-exempt charitable organizations.
455
See e.g. Glenn Beck, Investigating ACORN, FOX NEWS, May 8, 2009, available at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519520,00.html (last visited May 8, 2009).
456
Erika Lunder & L. Paige Whitaker, Cong. Res. Serv., 501(C)(4) Organizations and Campaign Activity: Analysis
Under Tax and Campaign Finance Laws 5 (2009).
457
ERIKA LUNDER, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS: POLITICAL ACTIVITY
RESTRICTIONS AND DISCLOSURE (2007).
97
By intentionally blurring the legal distinctions between tax-exempt and non-exempt entities,
ACORN diverted taxpayer and tax-exempt monies into partisan political activities.
ACORN, as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, was limited to participation in lobbying efforts
that further the purpose of the organization. ACORNs primary purpose was to help marginalized
individuals find affordable housing and register to vote. Furthermore, a number of ACORN affiliates,
most notably, Project Vote, are 501(c)(3) charitable organizations. Organizations filled as
501(c)(3)s are tax-exempt and are therefore, absolutely prohibited directly or indirectly
participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any
candidate for elective public office.458 Project Vote is a national nonpartisan, nonprofitthat
works to empower, educate, and mobilize low-income, minority, youth, and other marginalized and
under-represented voters. Project Vote hired ACORN to conduct voter registration drives. Both
ACORN and its affiliates were non-profit organizations with the primary purpose of social welfare,
and therefore their activities had to further the purpose of social welfare as opposed to
impermissible political advocacy.
However, the activities of ACORN and Project Vote became increasingly intertwined blurring the
lines between the 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3) distinction. The use of federal funds under 501(c)(3)s in
any partisan political purpose is expressly prohibited by the IRS459 and the use of federal funds
under 501(c)(4)s is also expressly limited. Although limitations existed, ACORN continuously
engaged in substantial partisan political activities that reached beyond their organizations purpose
and into the realm of illegality. For example, during the 2008 election cycle ACORN became a
prominent player in the Democrats effort to win the White House.460
Overall improper lobbying became the centerpiece to ACORNs business. While the purpose of
ACORN and Project Vote were to enable and assist marginalized individuals to register to vote, their
activities went far beyond crossing the line of non-partisan activities. Lobbying was a substantial
part of what ACORN did. It endorsed Senator Sherrod Brown, Representative Albert Wynn, and
Representative Donna Edwards. ACORN kept donor records from the Clinton, Kerry and Obama
campaigns with the intent to engage in prohibited communications. ACORN received federal
funding yet engaged in improper lobbying. ACORN and its nonprofit affiliates do not have separate
accounts. Neither ACORN nor any of its affiliates properly reported their political activities to the
IRS. The continual concealment of ACORNs activities along with the inability to decipher the line
between 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3) affiliate activities lead to numerous investigations.
ILLEGAL VOTER FRAUD ACTIVITIES

ACORN employees have continually been prosecuted for various voter fraud allegations. In June
2009, seven ACORN workers in Pennsylvania were charged with forging 51 signatures and violating
election laws in advance of the 2008 presidential election.461 In May 2009, two ACORN staff
458
IRS, The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations (2014).
Christian Echoes Natl Ministry v. United States, 470 F.2d 849, 856 (10th Cir. 1972).
460
Elizabeth Williamson and Brody Mullins, Democratic Ally Mobilizes In Housing Crunch, WALL ST. J., Jul. 31,
2008, at A1.
461
Walter F. Roche Jr., Another Allegheny ex-ACORN worker will stand trial, PITT. TRIBUNE-REV., June
5, 2009, available at http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_628302.html.
459
98
members were prosecuted in Clark County, Nevada for paying bonuses to workers who registered
over 21 individuals per day.462 In July 2008, three ACORN workers were convicted of voter fraud in
Kansas City because they flooded voter registration rolls with over 35,000 false or questionable
registration forms.463 In March 2008, an ACORN employee in West Reading, Pennsylvania, was
sentenced to up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and tampering with records,464 and forging
29 voter registration forms in order to collect a cash bonus.465
A series of illegal activities within ACORN were prosecuted in 2007. Three ACORN employees pled
guilty, and four more were charged, in the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington
state history.466 In2007, a man in Reynoldsburg, Ohio was indicated on two felony counts of illegal
voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties.467 In
2006, eight ACORN employees in St. Louis, Missouri were indicted on federal election fraud
charges.468 In 2005, two ex-ACORN employees were convicted in Denver, CO of perjury for
submitting false voter registrations.469 In 2004, a grand jury indicted a Columbus, Ohio ACORN
worker for submitting a false signature and false voter registration form.470 In 1998, a contractor
with ACORN-affiliated Project Vote was arrested in Arkansas for falsifying 400 voter registration
cards. In addition to Nevada, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Washington, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, and
Ohio, there have been prosecutions against ACORN workers in Connecticut, Texas, Wisconsin, and
Michigan.471 These cases highlight a few examples of the fraudulent activity conduct by ACORN.
462
See ATTORNEY GENERALS COMPLAINT, available at

http://sos.state.nv.us/information/news/press/2009/pdf/complaint-acorn (last visited June 22, 2009).
463
Department of Justice Press Release, available at
http://kansascity.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel07/identitytheft010507.htm (last visited May 4, 2009).
464
News Staff, West Reading man gets jail for phony forms, READING EAGLE (Mar. 1, 2008), available at
http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=82467 (last visited July 8, 2009).
465
Editorial, RNC: Obama & Acorn Fact Sheet, FOX. BUS. NEWS, Oct. 4, 2008, available at:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/rnc-obama--acorn-fact-sheet/ (last visited June 1, 2009).
466
Keith Ervin, Three plead guilty in fake voter scheme, SEATTLE TIMES, Oct. 30, 2007, at B5; See also
Shaila Dewan, A Vote Drive By Democrats In Louisiana Stirs Concern, N.Y. TIMES. Jun. 15, 2008,
available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/politics/15vote.html (last visited June 10, 2009).
467
Bruce Cadwallader, Man voted in 2 counties in 1 election, COLUMBUS DISPATCH, May 9, 2007, at 04B.
468
Guilty pleas in election fraud, AP, Apr. 3, 2008, available at
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E7DB153DF930A35757C0A96E9C8B63&partner=r
ssnyt&emc=rss (last visited June 22, 2009).
469
Briefing, ROCKY MTN NEWS, Jan. 4, 2005 at 21A.
470
Terrence Scanlon, Democratic Deception, WASH. TIMES. Oct. 18, 2004, available at
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/18/20041018-093522-3974r/ (last visited June 2, 2009).
471
See generally Reggie Sheffield, Former temp worker accused of bogus voter registrations, PATRIOT NEWS, Jul.
24, 2008 at B02; Ken Dixon, ACORN voter signups questioned, CONN. POST, Aug 16,
2008, available at: http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_10219729 (last visited March 10, 2009); Alan
Bernstein, ACORN planting voter registrars in certain areas, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Aug. 17, 2008 at B1;
Molly Ball, Election fraud task force formed; Investigators already looking into voter registration issues,
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-J., Aug. 1, 2008 at 2B; Larry Sandler, Vote workers investigated, MILWAUKEE J.-SENTINEL,
Aug. 29, 2008 at B3; Larry Sandler, More voter registration workers under scrutiny,
MILWAUKEE J.-SENTINEL, Aug. 20, 2008 at B1; L.L Brasier, Bad voter applications found,
DETROIT FREE PRESS, Sept. 14, 2008 at 1.
99
TIES TO THE PRESIDENT
President Obama was directly involved with ACORN and its affiliates in a number of capacities prior
to his Presidency. As early as 1995, President Obama viewed a position in politics as a way to work
as a community organizer, welcoming the label.472 President Obamas previous involvement in
ACORN, particularly due to its alleged partisan voter fraud activity, brought serious attention to the
2008 election cycle and heavy criticism to then-President Elect Obama. Throughout the decades
prior to his Presidential election, Obama was an actor in both ACORN and its affiliates activities,
whether through voter registering campaigns or direct legal counsel. In 1992, President Obama
headed on of Project Votes voter registration campaigns which registered a total of 150,000
voters.473 The campaign led to election of Senator Carol Mosely Braun. Additionally, Obama
represented ACORN in a lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged ACORN violated federal polling laws.474 Most
notably, Obama, prior to his election, had his campaign pay over $800,000 to Citizen Services Inc.,
and affiliate of ACORN, for get-out-the-vote efforts. However, the Obama Administration and
campaign vehemently denied any ties between the President and ACORNs questionable voter
registration drives.475
A SHELL OF A CORPORATION
Apart from the improper use of federal funds for lobbying and electioneering prohibited under the
Lobbying Disclosure Act, ACORN was the product of nothing more than a corporate shell. The
management of ACORN was ridden with flaws from lack of corporate formalities, comingling of
assets, illegal voter fraud, coercive and threatening practices, and embezzlement. ACORN hid
behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part
of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to
manipulate the American electorate.
One of the most problematic and critical aspect of ACORNs management was the comingling and
intentional blurring of lines between ACORN, a taxed organization, and its tax-exempt affiliates. The
manipulation of the corporate form made it utterly impractical, if not impossible, to determine
which funds were supporting which activities. It was regularly alleged that ACORN was merely
using their 501(c)(4) shield to transfer funding from tax-exempt nonpartisan 501(c)(3) and in turn
using the funds for partisan political lobbying, which in itself was potentially violative of the
Lobbying Disclosure Act. Furthermore, the board of ACORN affiliate Project Vote was entirely
composed of ACORN staff and two, dues-paying ACORN members, some of whom were unaware
they were even on a board of directors.476 Additionally, employees of ACORN were often times
employees of Project Vote. The comingling of staff, employees, and assets created an extremely
472
Peter Dreier, Will Obama Inspire a New Generation of Organizers?, DISSENT, July 3, 2007, available at
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/will-obama-inspire-a-new-generation-of-organizers.
473
Charlotte Allen, From Little ACORNs, Big Scandals Grow, THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Nov. 3, 2008,
available at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/746zemwq.asp?page=1.
474
Id.
475
Stephanie Strom, Acorn Report Raises Issues of Legality, NY TIMES, Oct. 21, 2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/us/22acorn.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&.
476
Charlotte Allen, From Little ACORNs, Big Scandals Grow, THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Nov. 3, 2008,
available at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/746zemwq.asp.
100
problematic environment, since there was no way to determine which assets and activities fell
under ACORN and which of those fell under Project Vote. The distinction is crucial, as explained
above, in regards to which funds can support which activities due to the two different tax statuses
of the organizations.
In an extraordinary measure to avoid liability the organization swept allegations of Dale Rathke,
brother of founder Wade Rathke, embezzling over one million dollars477 under the rug for nearly a
decade before disclosing the embezzlement to members of the organization. The embezzlement
began between 1998 and 2000 but was not disclosed until 2008. In the aftermath of the initial
embezzlement allegations in 2000, Dale Rathke entered into a contract to repay $30,000 of stolen
funds a year until the entire amount was repaid, which would result in repayment plan of over 30
plus years.478 In the mean time, Dale Rathke remained a paid employee of ACORN up until the time
his embezzlement was finally disclosed. Overall, ACORN as an organization was poorly run, which
enabled it to blur the lines between permissible and impermissible activities of its own, as well as
those of its affiliates, such as Project Vote.
DEFUND ACORN ACT

In response to allegations that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN) had engaged in systemic fraud in furtherance of a partisan political agenda while
claiming nonprofit corporate protections, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
under the leadership of then-Ranking Member Darrell Issa, conducted extensive oversight of
ACORNs activities. The Minority Staff issued a report in 2009 finding, among other things, that the
alleged nonprofit had hid behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a
criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a
partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.479 Self-identified as a
nonprofit corporation established for the organizing of a constituency of low-to-moderate-income
people across the United States, ACORN was registered to do business in 43 states and the District
of Columbia, had organized over 1200 neighborhood chapters in 104 cities480 and received millions
of federal taxpayer dollars through federal grants. 481 The report, which detailed stories of voter
registration fraud, embezzlement of funds by corporate fiduciaries, mismanagement of operations
by corporate officers and employee training manuals that clearly detail, condone and . . . require
illegal acts,482 was followed by a series of investigations by numerous Secretaries of States, federal
agencies and state and local prosecutors.483
477
Testimony of David Caldwell, HOUSE COMM. OVERSIGHT AND GOVT REFORM & HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMM., ACORN FORUM, Dec. 1, 2009, at 2.
478
This would account for thirty years of repayment before the one million dollars embezzled by Rathke will be
repaid.
479
Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Is ACORN Intentionally Structured as a Criminal
Enterprise?, 111th Cong. 3 (2009).
480
Id. at 12.
481
Cynthia Bowers, ACORN May Lose Govt Funds after Scandal, CBS NEWS, Sept. 15, 2009,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/acorn-may-lose-govt-funds-after-scandal/.
482
Id. at 8.
483
Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Follow the Money: ACORN, SEIU and their Political
Allies, 111th Cong. 2 (2010).
101
In the wake of the 2009 Minority Staff report, Speaker John Boehner introduced legislation seeking
to bar ACORN from receiving any funds from the Federal Government. The legislation, titled the
Defund ACORN Act and supported by over 160 Members of the House, prohibited the award of
any federal funds, contracts, grants or other agreements to an organization that has been indicted
for violating campaign financing laws, has had its charter cancelled due to failure to comply with
lobbying disclosure requirements, or maintains employees that have been indicted under laws
relating to an election for federal or state office.484 Language prohibiting the availability of funds
for ACORN, including any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations was ultimately
included in enacted language as part of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2010,485 the FY
2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act,486 the Department of Interior, Environmental and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010487 and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of
2010.488
ACORN thereafter sued the Untied States of America in a Federal District Court in New York.489
Alleging that the legislative prohibition on fund distributions was unconstitutional, ACORN
continued its argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Supporting the
authority of Congress, the court stated: Congress must have the authority to suspend federal funds
to an organization that has admitted to significant mismanagement.490 Even before the Circuit
Courts had issued its decision, 15 of the organizations 30 state chapters491 had been closed and the
organization had announced plans to disband.492 Ironically, it was on Election Day in 2010 that
ACORN announced its plans to liquidate operations under Chapter 7 of the Federal Bankruptcy
Code.493
484
Defund ACORN Act, H.R. 3571, 111th Cong. (as introduced, Sept. 15, 2009).
Pub. L. No. 111-68, 163.
486
Pub. L. No. 111-117, 418, 534, & 511.
487
Pub. L. No. 111-88, 427.
488
Pub. L. No. 111-118, 8013.
489
ACORN v. United States, 552 F. Supp. 2d 285 (2009).
490
ACORN v. United States, 518 F.3d 125, 137 (2010).
491
Ian Urbina, Acorn on Brink of Bankruptcy, Officials Say, NEW YORK TIMES (Mar. 19, 2010), available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/us/politics/20acorn.html?_r=0 (last accessed Dec. 16, 2014).
492
Associated Press, Acorn Closing in Wake of Scandal, FOX NEWS (Mar. 22, 2010), available at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/03/22/acorn-closing-in-wake-scandal/ (last accessed Dec. 16, 2014).
493
Michael A. Memoli, ACORN filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, L.A. TIMES (Nov. 2, 2010), available at
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/news/la-pn-acorn-bankruptcy-20101103 (last accessed Dec. 16, 2014).
485
102
HATCH ACT VIOLATIONS

The Hatch Act prevents taxpayer money from being used for political activity.494 In particular, it
prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of
interfering with or affecting the results of an election.495 When acting in an official government
capacity, the Hatch Act prohibits an employee from activity directed at the success or failure of a
political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.496
THE COMMITTEES OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION

President Obama closed the Office of Political Affairs in 2011, just days before the U.S. Office of
Special Counsel issued a report that found the basic structure of OPA violated federal law,497 and
that the political activities of OPA staff amounted to a misuse of taxpayer funds.498 On January 24,
2014, the White House announced the reinstatement of OPA,499 for the purpose of defending
Democratic control of the Senate and taking back the House from Republicans.500
The Committees concern about the reopening of OPA under the name of Office of Political Strategy
and Outreach (OPSO) was heightened when U.S. Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner told the
Committee that the White House did not consult OSC before opening the office.501 In response to
this information, the Committee wrote to the White House on March 18, 2014, to request
documents and a briefing that would shed light on whether OPSO was complying with the Hatch
Act.502 Then-Counsel to the President Kathryn Ruemmler responded with a ten-sentence letter that
contained no documents and made no mention of the requested briefing, and concluded by stating
that I trust that this addresses your interest in the new office.503
Finding Ms. Ruemmlers response insufficient, the Committee again requested the same documents
and information, and the White House again failed to provide the information or a briefing.504
Because there was no indication that the White House would comply with the Committees multiple
requests, the Committee invited David Simas, Director of OPSO, to testify at a Committee hearing in
494
5 U.S.C. 7321-632.
5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(1).
496
U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Less Restricted Employees Political Restrictions and Prohibited Activities,
available at http://www.osc.gov/haFederalLessRestrisctionandActivities.htm.
497
Josh Gerstein, New Obama politics shop faces old questions, POLITICO, Jan. 30, 2014.
498
See U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Investigation of Political Activities by White House and Federal Agency
Officials During the 2006 Midterm Elections (Jan. 2011), available at
https://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2011/2006MidTermElectionWHPolActivities.pdf.
499
The White House, Press Release, President Obama Announces Key White House Posts (Jan. 24, 2014), available
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/24/president-obama-announces-key-white-house-posts.
500
Michael D. Shear, White House Comeback for Political Affairs Office, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 24, 2014, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/us/politics/white-house-comeback-for-political-affairs-office.html?_r=0.
501
Letter from Hon. Carolyn N. Lerner, U.S. Special Counsel, to Hon. Darrell F. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Govt Reform (Feb. 11, 2014).
502
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Denis McDonough, Chief
of Staff, White House (Mar. 18, 2014).
503
Letter from Kathryn H. Ruemmler, Counsel to the President, White House, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (Mar. 26, 2014).
504
Letter from W. Neil Eggleston, Counsel to the President, White House, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (June 13, 2014).
495
103
which Members and the public could hear him explain how OPSO uses taxpayer dollars.505 It was
not until one week after the Committee invited Mr. Simas to testify that the White House finally
acknowledged the Committees outstanding request for documents and a briefing.506 It was
immediately clear, however, that the White Houses document production was not made in good
faith because the production consisted primarily of the 2008 Waxman report and the 2011 OSC
report.507 The White House also refused to make Mr. Simas available to answer the Committees
questions about the office he directs and stated the invitation for him to testify was not
appropriate.508
The Committee was left with no choice but to issue a subpoena to Mr. Simas to compel him to
answer the Committees questions at a hearing on July 16, 2014, with the understanding that a
briefing might obviate the need for Mr. Simas to appear.509 An attorney from the White House
Counsels Office briefed Committee staff on July 15, 2014. Mr. Simas did not attend the briefing, nor
did any other staff from OPSA. The next day, Mr. Simas did not appear, even to announce that the
President had asserted privilege over this testimony. Rather, the White House chose to ignore the
Miers precedent in favor of an extreme position that would expand the concept of separation of
powers to the point that one of Congress most important oversight toolsthe subpoenawould
be severely diminished.510 Indeed, in prior administrations, White House political officials have
encountered difficulties squaring their activities with the prohibitions on political or campaignrelated activities of federal officials outlined in the Hatch Act. It strains credulity that the Obama
Administration has, in contrast to its predecessors, uniquely resolved all concerns about political
activity and should not be subject to the same level of congressional oversight requests as previous
administrations.
The Committee offered Mr. Simas a second chance to appear at a reconvened hearing on July 25,
2014, but Mr. Simas again refused to comply with the subpoena.511 Rather than proceed
immediately to enforcing the subpoena, the Committee engaged in the accommodations process
with the White House to try to find a way to hear from Mr. Simas.512 Although the Committee
rejected the White Houses claim that the Presidents advisers are absolutely immune from being
compelled to testify before Congress, the Committee engaged with the White House to find another
way to get the information.513
505
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to David Simas, Dir., Office
of Poliitcal Strategy & Outreach, White House (July 3, 2014).
506
Letter from W. Neil Eggleston, Counsel to the President, White House, to Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (July 10, 2014).
507
Id.
508
Letter from W. Neil Eggleston, supra note 506.
509
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to W. Neil Eggleston,
Counsel to the President, White House (July 11, 2014).
510
Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 55 (D.D.C. 2008).
511
512
513
Id.
104
On August 12, 2014, to further accommodate the White Houses separation of powers concerns, the
Committee narrowed the scope of its original documents request.514 The request covered three
topics, including OPSOs purpose and basic governance, documents related to two specific
presidential trips, and OPSOs involvement in coordinating political activity for Cabinet officials.515
The narrowed request did not produce any additional documents, nor did the White House state if
or when the Committee would hear from Mr. Simas. Consequently, the Committee issued a
subpoena to compel the production of the August 12, 2014 request.516
On August 29, 2014, after eight letters and two subpoenas, the White House provided documents
related to OPSO. The documents indicate that the Committees investigation resulted in the White
House sending multiple notices instructing staff to comply with the Hatch Act. Moreover, the White
House seemingly consulted with OSC regarding OPSO as a result of the Committees inquiry.
2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: CABINET SECRETARIES VIOLATING THE HATCH ACT

The Committees long-standing interest in political activity in the White House was based in part on
reports that two members of President Obamas Cabinet violated the Hatch Act during the 2012
election cycle. The Committee learned that Labor Secretary Hilda Solis solicited campaign
contributions from a subordinate employee by calling the employees government-issued
BlackBerry. 517 Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius attended an event at
taxpayer expense, and then urged the audience to make sure President Obama continues to be
President for another four years. 518
The Committee invited Sebelius and Solis to testify about using taxpayer dollars to support partisan
political activity, as well as the White Houses role in coordinating such activity. Unfortunately,
Ranking Member Cummings rejected the Committees bipartisan offer to jointly invite Sebelius and
Solis to testify despite the Minoritys expressed desire to see evidence of wrongdoing and exhaust
other options of looking at White House coordination of problematic political activity. Moreover,
Sebelius and Solis retreated from appearing before the Committee by declining hearing invitations.
The Clinton White House, Bush White House, and other Administrations before have all faced
congressional oversight of political activity supported by taxpayer funds. Under this
Administration, like previous Administrations, members of President Obamas cabinet have
committed violations of the Hatch Act, which draws a line between campaign and official business.
The Committee has written to House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, urging that his
Committee continue oversight of OPSO.
514
Id.
Id.
516
Counsel to the President, White House (August 22, 2014).
517
Paul Pringle, Solis Faced Federal Inquiry Concerning Role in Obama Fundraiser, L.A. TIMES, Jan. 31, 2014,
available at http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0201-solis-inquiry-20140201-story.html.
518
Byron Tau, Sebelius Will Reimburse Taxpayers for Political Trip, POLITICO, Mar. 2, 2012, available at
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/sebelius-rescinds-endorsement-will-reimburse-taxpayers-116248.html.
515
105
CHAPTER 2. FEDERAL BINGE: STIMULUS SPENDING, FEDERAL

BAILOUTS AND TAXPAYER FUNDING
As 2014 comes to a close, the U.S. national debt has climbed to nearly $13 trillion more than
double the amount of publicly held debt existing at when President Barack Obama took office on
January 20, 2009.519 The amount of debt owed by the United States increases when Federal
Government revenues mainly received by the government in the form of taxes paid by individual
and corporate citizens is less than Federal Government spending. The United States Postal
Service has been a continuing problem for Americas bottom-line, and efforts at reform have faced
considerable opposition. As detailed below, the Postal Service is in dire need of reorganization,
notwithstanding the new Postmaster Generals hope that it can continue to evolve and operate
more like a private-sector business.520 Wasteful spending under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as discussed below, help to highlight the
Federal Governments binge spending. This section of the report highlights the Committees
oversight efforts to provide Americans with information about how their money is spent.
ITS TIME TO STOP THE BLEEDING: U.S. POSTAL REFORM

Today, the United States Postal Service is insolvent. Since its peak in fiscal year 2006, mail volume
is down more than 25 percent and revenue is down $10 billion.521 In fiscal year 2012, the Postal
Service posted a record loss of $15.9 billion, its largest loss in history.522 With the close of fiscal
year 2014, the Postal Service has posted billion dollar losses for eight straight years and defaulted
on more than $20 billion in payments owed to the Federal Government to prefund retiree health
care benefits that have already been earned by postal employees.523 The Postal Services debt to the
Federal Government is only expected to increase over time, as mail volume continues to diminish.
This debt comes in a number of forms, including $15 billion in direct debt to the Treasury, as well as
billions in employee benefit liabilities the Postal Service may not be able to afford. Unfortunately,
rather than reform the system so that the Postal Service can function as the independent business it
has been since 1970, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and other Members of Congress in both
chambers have repeatedly blocked efforts to streamline the struggling agency. Those opposed to
reform continue to avoid seeing what has become reality: the U.S. Postal Service must be reformed
or hundreds of thousands of Americans could lose retirement benefits they were promised after a
lifetime of work and all Americans could lose access to affordable mail services. It is time to stop
the bleeding.
While the growth of package delivery as a result of the e-commerce boom has been of tremendous
benefit to the Postal Service, it is not enough to fully replace the revenue lost from Americans
519
Matthew Bruno, U.S. National Debt More than Doubles under Obamas Wasteful Watch, AMERICANS FOR TAX
REFORM (Dec. 4, 2014, 9:30 AM), http://www.atr.org//us-national-debt-more-doubles-under-obama%E2%80%99swasteful-watch.
520
Laura Stevens, New Postmasters Goal: Act Like Private Sector, WALL ST. J., Nov. 23, 2014.
521
U.S. Postal Serv., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (2013); U.S. Postal Serv., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (2006).
522
Ron Nixon, Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 15, 2012.
523
U.S. Postal Serv., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (2013).
106
continued shift away from paper-based communication and toward digital communication. Despite
significant cost cutting, including restructuring that has allowed the Postal Service to reduce its
workforce by more than 125,000 since 2009524, revenue is still not in line with expenses and that
situation will only deteriorate as mail volume further diminishes. As a result of the Postal Services
diminishing fortunes, the agency had amassed a staggering $113 billion in combined unfunded
liabilities by the end of fiscal year 2013. These liabilities include $84 billion in unfunded postal
employee pensions, workers compensation benefits, and health care benefits. Other liabilities
include $15 billion in debt from the U.S. Treasury and more than $13 billion in an array of smaller
liabilities such as unpaid sick leave and long-term lease agreements.525 Despite operating on a selffunding basis since the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the Postal Service maintains an implicit
federal backing and if the Postal Service fails in meeting these liabilities they will almost certainly
fall on the taxpayer.
THE POSTAL REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1970

In response to worker strikes that halted essential delivery services in the 1960s,526 Congress
enacted the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA) in 1970. Originally a cabinet-level agency fully
funded by taxpayer investment, the Post Office Department was transformed into the Postal
Service by the PRA, making the agency a self-supporting, independent establishment within the
executive branch. The motivation for this transition from a government-subsidized enterprise to a
more accountable quasi-private entity was to give the agency the ability to manage itself, rather
than rely on an often laggard Congress for even the smallest decisions on topics from postage rate
increases to pay raises.
The law was immediately successful in addressing a number of concerns. Of particular note, the
new Postal Service was able to introduce improved wages for postal employees that lifted many
postal employees out of poverty and gave the institution much greater ability to raise revenue and
make needed investments in new technology. However, one item initially left unclear by the 1970
postal reform was the division of responsibility for the pension obligations of individuals who
worked for both the Post Office Department and its successor entity, the Postal Service. Prior to
enactment of the Postal Reform Act in 1970, pension obligations were solely the obligation of the
Federal Government and the taxpayer. In 1974, with the enactment of P.L. 93349527, Congress
attempted to clarify relative responsibilities for Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pension
funding. Under the new law, Congress created a framework that required the taxpayer to cover the
full cost of all postal pensions up until the day the Postal Service was created and the Postal Service
would be responsible for any subsequent pension costs. Since the greatest value of most pensions
is earned in the last few years of employment, the Postal Service would be responsible for a greater
share of the total pension costs than if the costs were allocated by simply dividing the pension costs
524
The number of career Postal Service employees declined to 491,017 at the end of FY2013, compared to 623,128
at the end of FY2009.
525
526
THE PRESIDENTS COMMISSION ON POSTAL ORGANIZATION, TOWARDS POSTAL EXCELLENCE
(1968), available at http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015078700625.
527
Pub. L. No. 93-349, 88 Stat. 354 (1974).
107
by the number of years worked under each entity. The House and Senate Committee Reports528 on
law make the point the taxpayer should not pay for raises, and in the corresponding pension
increases, unilaterally granted by the Postal Service to postal employees since the taxpayer would
have no input in such discussions. Further, the Reports make clear that the full cost of future
pensions being paid for by the Postal Service was an equitable exchange, explicitly endorsed by the
Postal Service, in return for the free transfer of all Post Office Department employees and property
to the new Postal Service.
DEBUNKING THE OVERPAYMENT MYTH

Since the direct taxpayer subsidy to the agency ended in the early 1980s, the agency has been able
to successfully function as a self-funding entity for more than 30 years. The recent losses, however,
threaten that streak and could expose the taxpayer to billions in new costs. In early 2010 both the
U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (the IG) and the Postal Regulatory Commission
(PRC)529 issued reports alleging that the Office of Personnel Managements (OPM) current
method of allocating responsibility for CSRS pension benefits for the applicable retirees under P.L.
93349 requires the Postal Service to shoulder an excessive share of employee retirement
obligations. The U.S. Postal Service IG and the PRC proposed alternative methodologies for
allocating responsibility for employee pension funding that would return between $56 billion to
$85 billion in what they termed pension overpayments from the Federal government back to the
Postal Service.
These claims were contested by many congressional Republicans, the Bush530 and Obama531
Administrations, and the Office of Personnel Management Office of Inspector General.532 Ultimately,
after the Government Accountability Office thoroughly debunked the USPS OIGs claims, opponents
of structural reform at the Postal Service moved on to other potential sources for cash that could be
used to delay reform.
GAOs report533, released in October 2011, refuted the overpayment argument unequivocally.
First, it found that OPMs current methodology complies with current law, despite allegations made
to the contrary in the USPS OIGs report. As the GAO report states, Congress created USPS in 1971
as an independent, self-sustaining entity with a package of assets and obligations as well as
competitive advantages and disadvantages.
528
JEROME R. WALDIE, POSTAL SERVICE PAYMENTS TO RETIRMENT FUND, H.R. Rep. No. 93-120 (1973);
GALE W. MCGEE, PAYMENTS ON UNFUNDED LIABILITY BY THE U.S. POSTAL CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT FUND, S.
Rep. No. 93-947 (1974).
529
The PRC serves as the Postal Services regulator. The agency approves Postal Service rate increases, new
product offerings, and major service-level changes.
530
Letter from Ronald P. Sanders, Assoc. Dir. for Strategic Human Res. Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., to
John E. Potter, Postmaster Gen., U.S. Postal Serv. (Sept. 16, 2004).
531
Letter from Daniel A. Green, Deputy Dir., U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., to David C. Williams, Inspector
Gen., U.S. Postal Serv. (May 10, 2010).
532
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, A STUDY OF THE RISKS AND
CONSEQUENCES OF THE USPS OIGS PROPOSALS TO CHANGE USPSS FUNDING OF RETIREE BENEFITS (2011).
533
U.S. POSTAL SERV.: ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR PENSION BENEFITS BETWEEN THE POSTAL SERV. AND
THE FEDERAL GOVT (U.S. Govt Accountability Office) (Oct. 13, 2011).
108
Second, GAO found that no CSRS refund is owed to the Postal Service. The overpayments referred
to by the USPS OIG and others implied an error of some type had occurred in determining pension
cost allegations, whether mathematical, actuarial, or accounting. GAO found no evidence of error of
these types. The GAO concludes, a refund would require a reallocation of CSRS benefit
responsibility that would be a significant change from a policy that has been in place since 1974 and
not a correction of any actuarial or accounting methodological error.
Third, GAO found that any change in the pension cost allocation formula that puts more of the
funding burden on the Government would come at a dollar for dollar cost to the taxpayer. By
transferring assets out of the CSRS fund to USPS based on the current proposals would be to
increase the Federal governments current and future unfunded pension liability by an estimated
$56 billion to $85 billion. A liability, as the GAO states, that would then be funded by the Federal
Government using tax revenue, borrowing, or both.
On October 13, 2011, the same day as the release of the GAO report, the Committee held a business
meeting where it considered the Postal Reform Act of 2012 (PRA). During that business meeting
a number of Members began to distance themselves from the overpayment and the PRA was
ordered favorably reported by the Committee.534 In subsequent months, a new bipartisan postal
reform bill was introduced by the Senate committee of jurisdiction without provisions for a return
of the overpayment, despite both sponsors previous support for the change.535 Further, as the
debate over postal reform continued into the 113th Congress, no legislation introduced by the
Chairman or Ranking member of the committees of jurisdiction in either chamber has included a
return of the overpayment and it is no longer mentioned in serious discussions of postal reform.
OTHER OPPORTUNITIES? PLANS FOR REDUCING RETIREMENT SURPLUS AND PAYDAY LENDING
Next on the list was a projected surplus in the Postal Services Federal Employee Retirement
System (FERS) account. Based on actuarial accounting methods, the Postal Service has recently
posted a slight surplus in its funding levels for its FERS account, but the amount has varied
dramatically year to year from more than $12 billion536 to just $600 million537, depending on the
source. With the CSRS pension issue settled, many, such as Postal Service Subcommittee Ranking
Member Stephen Lynch and the postal unions argued that a projected FERS surplus should be
immediately fully returned to the Postal Service and that the agency should be free to spend that
money in the manner it deemed best. Essentially, under this plan, funds set aside for workers
benefits would have been used to fund operating losses at the agency, a situation that would have
been shouted down as irresponsible if a private sector company ever contemplated such a plan and
it was repeatedly opposed by Chairman Issa and most Republicans. Ultimately, the FERS issue also
faded into the background as the projected surplus continued to shrink to its current level of less
than $1 billion.
534
Postal Reform Act of 2012, H.R. 2309, 112th Cong. (as reported by the Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform,
Jan. 17, 2012).
535
21st Century Postal Service Act of 2012, S. 1789, 112th Cong. (as introduced Nov. 2, 2011).
536
CAUSES OF THE POSTAL SERVICE FERS SURPLUS 2012 UPDATE, Rep. No. RARC-WP-13-002 (U.S. Postal Serv.
Office of Inspector Gen.) (Dec. 4, 2012).
537
109
Still, those opposed to structural reforms sought out new methods to prevent a Postal Service
restructuring. The most recent effort came from a 2014 USPS OIG white paper suggesting that the
Postal Service offer non-bank financial services, such as payday loans.538 The USPS OIG even
suggested that the Postal Service could garnish tax refunds of individuals who were forced to
default on a payday loan as a way to keep interest rates low. While some groups, such as postal
unions, have promoted this idea, it has developed very little widespread appeal. Furthermore,
many independent observers seriously doubt that the Postal Service would be able to make a profit
in such a venture given the relatively expensive nature of its window clerk workforce compared to
banks, payday lenders, and credit unions.
A TOUGH REALITY, BUT REALITY NONETHELESS

Unfortunately, with alternative after alternative to structural reform falling apart, congressional
Democrats, led by Ranking Member Cummings have repeatedly chosen to avoid negotiating
seriously to find ways to implement commonsense rightsizing plans that protects workers and the
benefits they have earned. In multiple closed door meetings over four years Ranking Member
Cummings and his staff have never shown willingness to accept or proposed any action to rightsize
the Postal Service no matter what was offered in return. In fact, Mr. Cummings even refused to
support President Obamas own plan to reform the Postal Service which Chairman Issa offered to
introduce and vote in favor of.539 Thankfully, even though congressional Democrats remain
intransigent on the needed reform, the American people understand that their relationship with the
Postal Service has changed and that the agency needs to adapt. According to one of the latest polls,
80 percent of Americans support the Postal Service should move to a 5-day mail/6-day package
delivery schedule and slim majorities even supported closing their own post office if it is necessary
to save the agency.540 Most recently, the Postal Service announced plans to close 82 mail processing
plants beginning in January 2015.541 Despite strenuous efforts from congressional Democrats, as of
this writing the plant closures remain on schedule.
538
PROVIDING NON-BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES FOR THE UNDERSERVED, Rep. No. RARC-WP-14-007 (U.S. Postal
Serv. Office of Inspector Gen.) (Jan. 7, 2014).
539
Press Release, Comm. On Oversight & Govt Reform, Issa to Oversight Dems: Do You Support President
Obamas Postal Reforms (May 7, 2014) (on file with author).
540
IPSOS OMNIBUS RESULTS: POLL ON CHANGES TO USPS SATURDAY DELIVERY (Ipsos Public
Affairs) (2013).
541
Letter from Sen. Bernie Sanders et al., to Sen. Barbara Mikulski et al., Postal Appropriations Letter (Aug. 14,
2014) (on file with author).
110
ARRA: LOTS OF MONEY, LITTLE STIMULATION

According to President Barack Obamas plan for stimulus funding, the use of American
Taxpayer dollars to spur the economy:
Most of the money were investing as part of this plan will get out the door
immediately and go directly to job-creation, generating or saving three to four
million new jobs. And the vast majority of these jobs will be created in the private
sector . . . . Instead of just throwing money at our problems, well try something new
in Washington well invest in what works.542
Now, six years after the Great Recession began in late 2008, some areas are seeing marked recovery
while others are still struggling. As described by the Washington Post in late 2014:
[b]ig metro areas are mostly booming after the recession, and everywhere else is
still digging out. . . . Thats a 1.5 percent gain [in jobs] for the big metros and a 0.7
percent loss everywhere else. The gap would be much wider if not for an oil- and
gas-drilling bonanza that is lifting job growth . . . . Those diverging fortunes help
explain why people in broad swaths of the country perceive that the recession,
which ended officially in mid-2009, still hasnt loosened its grip on their lives.543
THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or
The Stimulus) on February 17, 2009. The legislation was hastily written and approved by
Democrat majorities in Congress in response to the Great Recession the greatest economic crisis
America has suffered since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The President and his allies
promised that the bill would stimulate the economy and create millions of jobs to reverse the path
of the soaring unemployment rate. Simply put, it did neither.
Chairman Darrell Issa began to focus the attention of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform on the Obama Administrations efforts to jump-start the economy through stimulus
funding while still serving as Ranking Member in early 2009. President Obama and White House
officials made major promises about how much the stimulus would help the economy, and carefully
managed their messaging in an attempt to convince the American public that it would succeed.544
However, American Taxpayers quickly began to question the positive impact if the billions of
dollars that were being invested and rightfully so. In one of the most egregious examples of
waste, the Obama Administration directed the posting of signs to identify for the public where
stimulus funds were being used. In one case, more than $10,000 was spent on a sign at Dulles
542
President Barack Obama, Remarks of President Barack Obama on the Economy (Jan. 28, 2009)
Jim Tankersley, Big Cities Are Dominating the Recovery, Leaving the Rest of America Behind, WASH. POST
STORYLINES BLOG (Nov. 18, 2014, 10:41 AM), http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/11/18/bigcities-are-dominating-the-economic-recovery-leaving-much-of-america-behind/.
544
Bloomberg reported that Obama campaign advisors David Axelrod, Jim Margolis, and Robert Gibbs were all
advising the incoming Administration on what words to use when describing the stimulus, favoring words like
recovery instead of recession. See Hans Nichols and Lorraine Woellert, Obama Uses Campaign Tactics to Sell
Stimulus Plan, BLOOMBERG, Jan. 9, 2009, available at
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ayF6GMG.c7vA.
543
111
Airport a sign that served no purpose other than advancing a political agenda ahead of the 2012
elections.545
During the years since the legislation was passed, the Committees oversight efforts have exposed
gross mishandling of taxpayer dollars in amounts that dwarf the $5 - $10 million spent on ARRA
signage.546 According to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
spending under the ARRA is estimated to increase budget deficits by $830 billion between fiscal
years 2009 and 2019 an increase of more than $40 billion from the Administrations initial
estimates.547 Unemployment skyrocketed above the Obama Administrations promised high-water
mark of 8 percent548 to more than 10 percent in 2009, the highest rate since April 1983.549 Today,
as the rate remains at nearly 6 percent550 and the long-term unemployed continue to struggle
finding work, Americans wonder whether the Administrations most recent initiative a $170
million grant program through the Department of Labor for projects designed to help the longterm jobless get back to work will actually produce results.551
Consistent with its role as the Houses primary government watchdog, the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform began demanding accountability from the Administration while
Republicans were still in the Minority. As Ranking Member, Darrell Issa drove the Committees
efforts to oversee the distribution of $87 billion to states to support Medicaid programs thereby
exposing state diversion of these funds to whatever projects they chose, undermining the promise
that stimulus funds would be targeted.552 As Chairman, Congressman Issa continued to
investigate the impact of stimulus spending; below is a discussion of the Committees activities
documenting the dangerous conditions and wasteful spending of an estimated $5 billion associated
with the Department of Energys Weatherization Assistance Program.
545
Staff Interview, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, (Feb. 16, 2010).

As estimated by the Department of Transportation, the cost of producing and placing ARRA signage ranges
between $5 million and $10 million dollars.
547
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT
ON EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC OUTPUT IN 2013 (2014), available at
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45122-ARRA.pdf. The Administration initially estimated the increase in
budget deficits would be $787 billion for the ten year period between 2009 and 2019. Id.
548
CHRISTINA ROMER & JARED BERNSTEIN, THE JOB IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT
ACT 4 (2009), available at http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM116_obamadoc.pdf.
549
Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDL-09-1331, The Employment Situation October 2009 (2009), available at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_11062009.pdf.
550
Bureau of Labor Statistics, USDL-14-1796, The Employment Situation September 2014 (2014), available at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.
551
Obama Administration Follows Up on Long-Term Unemployed, HUFFINGTON POST, Oct. 15, 2014, available at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/obama-unemployment_n_5986980.html.
552
H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, De-Targeting the Stimulus: States Diverting Medicaid funds Away from
Helping Poor, Protecting Health Care Jobs, 111th Cong. (2009).
546
112
THE $5 BILLION WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM553

In February 2009, President Obama declared, We're going to weatherize homes, that immediately
puts people back to work and we're going to train people who are out of work, including young
people, to do the weatherization. As a consequence of weatherization, our energy bills go down and
we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What would be a more effective stimulus package than
that?554 However, evidence gathered by the Committee suggests that the Department of Energys
(DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (Weatherization Assistance Program or WAP) is a
stunning example of a management failure which has wasted billions of dollars, done little to
achieve energy savings, and may have put peoples lives and homes at risk.
With some states exhibiting a failure rate 80 percent (12 out of every 15 homes fail inspection) due
to substandard workmanship, this program is far from being a shining example of what the
government can do for its citizens. DOE contractors left exposed wires in a home, installed
windows that were easily pushed out of their frames, left a home with raw sewage standing in a
crawl space, sealed a basement that accumulated mold and cat feces, left a hole in a wall, damaged a
ceiling, replaced a door with a hollow door and left a house with an unvented kerosene heater. The
stunning lack of oversight of this program by DOE created a situation where no one was checking
the quality of the work performed, allowing poor workmanship to go undetected and undeterred.
Many DOE contractors did not do the work promised by DOE and many of them actually damaged
homes, created hazards and actually made houses less energy efficient. Even the Inspector General
for the DOE said the weaknesses of the program pose health and safety risks to residents.
Overview of WAP Under ARRA

Through the ARRA, the Department of Energy (DOE) received $41.7 billion to allocate to loan and
grant recipients.555 These funds were to be spent quickly in hopes of creating government
sponsored jobs. The Weatherization Assistance Program received $5 billion of DOEs stimulus
money, a 2,000% increase over the prior year, which was to be spent on the weatherization of
600,000 homes.556 The Weatherization Assistance Programs previous annual allocation was only
$225 million.557 At a hearing before the Committee in November, the DOE Inspector General (IG)
553
In addition to funding for its Weatherization Assistance Program, the Department of Energy also received
funding intended to supplement its Loan Guarantee Program. Much of this funding was funneled to organizations
with close ties to the Obama Administration, organizations that subsequently gambled with and lost billions of
taxpayer dollars. For a discussion of the administration of stimulus funding through the Department of Energys
Loan Guarantee Program, see Chapter 4.
554
Interview by Katie Couric, Anchor, CBS Evening News, with President Obama, in Washington, D.C. (Mar. 10,
2009), http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4773752.html.
555
Oversight of DOE Recovery Act Spending: Hearing before Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations of the H.
Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Govt Accountability Office).
556
Id.
557
Id.
113
described pushing this much money through the Weatherization Assistance Program as being akin
to hooking up a garden hose to a fire hydrant.558
Providing federal funds to weatherize homes of the economically disadvantaged is not a new
concept. This practice was first authorized under the Energy Conservation and Production Act of
1976 (ECPA), with the goal of mitigating the pain of high energy prices for low income
households. 559 Between 1976 and 2008, the Weatherization Assistance Program had funded the
weatherization of approximately six million homes.560 This program had been administered on a
small scale using known subcontracting partners for over three decades. Within six months of
ARRA passage, all fifty-eight grantees received massive increases in funding, exceeding most
grantees prior Weatherization Assistance Program budgets by an order of magnitude.561 Despite
the massive surge in WAP spending, DOE failed to adequately ramp up its oversight of this program.
Doing More Harm than Good: Shoddy Workmanship and Wasted Dollars
Through the Weatherization Assistance Program, DOE awarded large sums of money to state-level
entities, who in turn hired sub-grantees responsible for much of the work. Often the sub-grantees
contracted the work out to a third party, after subtracting an administrative fee with little or no
supervision. But beyond the poor value obtained by the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, in some
cases poor workmanship may actually have endangered the health and safety of the individuals
whose homes were weatherized. Many DOE contractors actually damaged houses, created new
hazards, or made houses less energy efficient.
This concern was conveyed by DOEs Inspector General (IG), Gregory Friedman, who testified
before Congress alleging that the program suffered from significant problems relating to
workmanship quality, cost controls, and performance monitoring of grantees and contractors.562
After his audit of the Weatherization Assistance Programs implementation in Tennessee, the IG
reported that weaknesses in the Program sometimes pose health and safety risks to residents,
hinder production, and increase program costs.563
Other reports by DOEs IG reveal how sub-grantees poor workmanship impeded the programs
ability to provide an actual benefit to recipients.564 Friedman testified that substandard work
558
The Green Energy Debacle: Where Has All the Taxpayer Money Gone?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Govt Spending of the H. Comm. On Oversight and Govt Reform, 112th
Cong. (2011) (statement of Hon. Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector Gen., U.S. DOE).
559
U.S. Dept of Energy, History of the Weatherization Assistance Program (2011),
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/wap_history.html (last visited Feb. 22, 2012).
560
Id.
561
U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY WEATHERIZATION AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM, MONITORING PLAN FOR WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM STATE ENERGY
PROGRAM ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANTS (Aug. 14, 2009).
562
563
U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., AUDIT REP. OAS-RA-11-17, THE DEPT OF ENERGYS
WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM UNDER THE AM. RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT IN THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE (2011).
564
Id.
114
caused 9 of 17 weatherized homes in Illinois to fail inspections (53 percent failure rate).565 The IG
noted that in some states, the failure rate was as high as 12 out of 15 homes in the program that
failed subsequent inspection due to substandard workmanship (80 percent failure rate).566 In a
report released by the Committee March 20, 2012, scores of photographs demonstrate the extent of
the shoddy workmanship and the danger created thereby;567 below are just a few.
According to the IG, the core problem was lack of accountability within the Weatherization
Assistance Program. For example, sub-grantees those groups hired by the states to perform the
weatherization services needed proper training before they began to provide the services.
However, the grantees the states faced immense pressure to hire new staff quickly to meet
565
Id.
Id.
567
See H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Department of Energys Weatherization Program: Taxpayer
Money Spent, Taxpayer Money Lost, 112th Cong. (2012). Simonson Management Services, a company that
received a contract from DOE to help with monitoring of the weatherization projects, delivered to DOE a series of
internal Technical Assistance Reports highlighting both above average and substandard weatherization work across
the country. These reports were produced to the Committee during the course of its oversight of the program in
2012.
566
115
weatherization deadlines. As a result, auditors found that the rapid expenditure of Recovery Act
funds prevent[ed] the normal learning curve for new auditors and contractors.568 As such, states
failed to uniformly train contractors, assessors, and inspectors, which predictably resulted in
substandard work and program waste.569 The losers were the American taxpayer, who funded
shoddy work, and the recipients, who in some cases were left worse off.
The Committees investigation independently examined DOE monitoring reports, which were
conducted by a third party auditor, and uncovered a troubling pattern of low quality or even
potentially dangerous work product in the homes of low income Americans. A few examples of the
dangerous conditions created by lax program oversight by DOE include:
DOE contractors in Alabama sprayed insulation on wires in a furnace compartment
in a legally blind womans kitchen in a way that could have caused a fire.
DOE contractors in Kentucky left exposed spliced wires posing the risk of
electrocution to the homes inhabitants.
DOE contractors in Arkansas installed windows in a home in such a shoddy way that
they could easily be pushed out of their frames, creating a potential hazard for small
children.
DOE contractors in New York weatherized a basement without addressing major
health hazards. According to a monitoring report: basement extensively air sealed
in spite of possible mold and large, obviously long-standing accumulation of cat
feces in basement sump hole.
DOE contractors in Massachusetts chiseled a large hole into an interior wall to
insulate it. Rather than fix the problem they had created inside of a house, the
contractors left the huge hole in the wall.
DOE contractors in New York damaged the interior kitchen ceiling of a house in such
a way that parts of the ceiling were stained and other parts fell down.
DOE contractors in Tennessee did such a poor job weatherizing a home that the
homeowner had to use rags to plug holes under the sink and around three doors
where air leaked into the home and negated any weatherization energy efficiency
savings.
DOE contractors in North Carolina left a house with an unvented kerosene heater
and created a potential carbon monoxide hazard.570
568
See H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Department of Energys Weatherization Program: Taxpayer
Money Spent, Taxpayer Money Lost, 112th Cong. (2012).
569
MISSOURI (2011).
570
H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Department of Energys Weatherization Program: Taxpayer Money
Spent, Taxpayer Money Lost, 112th Cong. (2012).
116
These stories are just a small sample of the failures of the Weatherization Assistance Program. In
many situations, the homeowners had no way of knowing that the contractors had done
substandard work or had created health hazards in their home. In some cases, DOE auditors
inspected the homes weeks or months later and only then discovered these significant problems.571
Given the large size of WAP and the speed with which funding was expended by DOE and state
grant recipients, it is likely that thousands of other problems and hazards have yet to be discovered
and corrected in weatherized homes.
Perverse Incentives
At the outset, DOE management of stimulus funds for the Weatherization Assistance Program
created a perverse incentive for grantees to not reach project goals. DOE implemented a three-year
project period for grantees that ends March 31, 2012,572 and announced a goal to weatherize
approximately 600,000 homes before the project ended. Before collecting funds to start the project,
grantees had to submit a Weatherization Assistance Program Recovery Act plan to DOE. DOEs
project plans implemented two 50 percent disbursements to grantees. After DOE approved a
grantees Weatherization Assistance Program Recovery Act plan, they scheduled the first
disbursement. By the end of 2009, DOE approved each grantees Recovery Act weatherization
plans and distributed 50 percent of the allocated funds.573 The second and final disbursement of
Recovery Act funds to grantees, however, required a grantee to complete only thirty percent of its
approved weatherization plan.574 Accordingly, DOEs disbursement plan enabled a grantee to take
all three years just to reach thirty percent completion, yet the grantee still received all of its allotted
Recovery Act funds. Furthermore when the subcontractors are paid with taxpayer money no
incentive exists to produce adequate work product. This disbursement plan did not produce the
weatherization rates DOE anticipated and as of March 2011, two years into the project, only 44 out
of 58 of the grantees had reached thirty percent completion.575
In instances where grantee states reached its Weatherization Assistance Program stimulus goal,
DOE Inspector General (IG) audits demonstrate that grantees circumvented or violated guidelines
to meet their quota. For example, Tennessee reached its program goal of 10,500 homes; however,
audits reveal seventy percent of homes inspected did not meet DOE standards and sixty-five
571
David Eggert & Doug Caruso, Ohio Failed to Monitor Money to Weatherize Houses: Inspector Generals Report
Cites Lack of Inspections, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH (Nov. 30, 2011) available at
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/11/30/ohio-failed-to-monitor-money-to-weatherize-houses.html
[hereinafter Eggert & Caruso].
572
573
Id.
574
Id.
575
Oversight of DOE Recovery Act Spending: Hearing before Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations of the H.
Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Govt Accountability Office).
117
percent of homes violated state directives.576 As a result, the State Auditor questioned Tennessees
use of $371,770 in Weatherization Assistance Program Recovery Act funding.577
WAPs Failed Oversight and Monitoring

Although the stimulus provided unprecedented funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program,
the Administration failed to put in place sufficient mechanisms to monitor and oversee the
disbursement of billions of taxpayer dollars. The Committee tried to obtain all monitoring reports
conducted by DOE in order to review the agencys due diligence.578 However, DOE provided very
few actual audits and instead delivered to the Committee work done by Simonson Management
Services, a contractor DOE hired to assist with DOE audits. This distinction is important because
the Committee tried, for months, to obtain complete information regarding DOE monitoring to no
avail.579 The Committee has not been able to determine the extent of DOEs monitoring work
outside of the IGs audits.
Evidence gathered by the Committee does suggest that states did a poor job of meeting program
monitoring requirements. On the state level, DOE advised grantees to monitor each sub-grantee
once a year, to inspect five percent of completed units a year, and to submit their findings in a
report to DOE.580 Grantees, however, frequently ignored their obligations to conduct inspections.
In Ohio, for example, the state failed to inspect five percent of weatherized homes because Ohios
WAP budget quadrupled and the state had insufficient staff to keep up with inspections.581 But
even grantees that did conduct inspections did a poor job. According to a Tennessee state audit,
local agencies had passed 28 homes that should have failed.582 In Missouri, IG audits revealed 11 of
20 homes, or 55 percent, failed final inspections in cases where the state had initially rated the
work as acceptable.583 Furthermore, failure to re-inspect homes revealed another problem with
sub-grantee monitoring. In Ohio, for example, the state required sub-grantees to follow up with 25
percent of all weatherized units, but auditors found only three percent of homes had a documented
follow-up inspection.584
576
TENNESSEE (2011).
577
Id.
578
See Letter from the Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, to Steven Chu,
Secy, U.S. Dept of Energy (Sep. 9, 2011) (on file with author).
579
Id.
580
David Eggert & Doug Caruso, Ohio Failed to Monitor Money to Weatherize Houses: Inspector Generals Report
Cites Lack of Inspections, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH (Nov. 30, 2011) available at
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/11/30/ohio-failed-to-monitor-money-to-weatherize-houses.html.
581
Id.
582
TENNESSEE (2011).
583
MISSOURI (2011).
584
U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY, EXAMINATION REPORT ON COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF THE GREATER
DAYTON AREA WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND
REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (Sept. 2011), http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/OAS-RA-11-18.pdf.
118
Another example of failed oversight is the programs inability to track past recipients of
weatherization services, who would have been ineligible under this program. Prior to ARRA
enactment, homes that had already received weatherization services were ineligible for future
weatherization services.585 However, ARRA expanded eligibility to include homes weatherized
before September 30, 1994.586 In order to implement this change, federal regulations required each
grantee and sub-grantee to maintain records of the homes that had received weatherization
services in the past.587 Despite these regulations, the IG audits revealed numerous instances where
states kept poor track of homes that had already been weatherized. 588 Indiana, for instance,
weatherized homes that were most likely ineligible due to past assistance because the state only
began keeping a record of weatherization services after 2000.589 In Tennessee, the state did
maintain a Weatherization Assistance Program database of homes previously weatherized, but
auditors found sub-grantees gave weatherization services to ineligible homes regardless of their
eligibility status. 590 Even in cases where homes had never received weatherization services,
auditors identified sub-grantees that were providing weatherization services to homes ineligible
for service. Specifically, the IG testified that one sub-recipient gave preferential treatment to its
employees and their relatives for weatherization services over other applicants, thus
disadvantaging eligible elderly and handicapped residents.591
Dubious Sub-grantees
Because the Stimulus Act flooded the existing weatherization infrastructure with billions of
additional taxpayer dollars that needed to be spent on an expedited basis, grantees had to look
beyond sub-grantees that met the standards set by a federal statute, such as cities, counties,
community service centers, and housing services organizations. As a result, organizations with no
previous experience weatherizing homes received contracts to weatherize homes and significantly
increased the probability of mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. The Weatherization Assistance
Program grants often dwarfed these organizations primary operating budgets and introduced a
new administrative burden of responsible monitoring for sub-grantees, including monthly reports,
records of expenses, and whatever additional records the DOE deemed necessary.592 A survey of
585
U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN., AUDIT REP. OAS-RA-11-13, THE DEPT OF
ENERGYS WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUNDED UNDER THE AM. RECOVERY AND
REINVESTMENT ACT IN THE STATE OF INDIANA (2011).
586
Id.
587
Id.
588
Id.
589
Id.
590
TENNESSEE (2011).
591
591
592
10 C.F.R. 440.24.
119
grantees in 2009 reported that 90% found complying with federal reporting requirements
challenging.593
Some of the WAP funding recipients seem particularly ill-suited for participating in weatherization
projects, leaving American Taxpayers to wonder whether advocacy in the arts is a sufficient
qualification for an organization tasked with providing assistance to reduce energy costs by
improving the energy efficiency of their homes.594 For example, the African Heritage Center for
African Dance and Music (the African Heritage Center) and Prosperity Media Enterprise, Inc., both
located in Washington D.C. each received nearly one million dollars through WAP in late 2011.595
Melvin Deal, Director of the Heritage Center, claims that his organization is a natural fit for WAP:
The Greening of America has to be led by people with artistic and flexible mindsmoney is not
something that excites us. Our art excites us.596 Without a demonstrated base of knowledge for
administering the weatherization assistance program, the wisdom of putting these groups in charge
of millions of taxpayer dollars is highly questionable.
Conclusion
The Weatherization Assistance Program, as administered by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, has
resulted in excessive waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars with very little benefit to show for
it. The Weatherization Assistance Program represents the kind of failure that materializes when
you have an economic stimulus strategy contingent on asking the federal bureaucracy to absorb
billions of dollars when the structural infrastructure to administer, disseminate and manage that
influx of new money is not put in place. Secretary Chu referred to this program as one of our
signature programs and President Obama stated it was exactly the kind of program that we
should be funding. The reality is this program is the signature example of how the Obama
Administrations government-first philosophy has resulted in significant waste of taxpayer dollars
and brought very real material harm directly into the homes of the American people.
593
GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-12-195, PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES IN SPENDING WEATHERIZATION

FUNDS (2011).
594
ProPublica has compiled a list of recipients of Department of Energys Weatherization Assistance for LowIncome Persons grant program within the District of Columbia. While the citys government was the primary
recipient of a grant of more than $1.5 million, seven other organizations received smaller grants of nearly $1 million
each. See ProPublica, Recovery Tracker: How Much Stimulus Funding is Going to Your County?, Grant:
Government of District of Columbia, Administering Agency: Department of Energy, available at
http://projects.propublica.org/recovery/item/20120630/27307 (last accessed Oct. 16, 2014).
595
Id.
596
Dance Troupe and Other Non-Profits Boosted by Weatherization Program, WAMU 88.5 FM AMERICAN
UNIVERSITY RADIO, (Oct. 26, 2009), http://w.thedianerehmshow.org/news/09/10/26.php.
120
STIMULATING THROUGH MEDICAID, OR PATCHING STATE BUDGET GAPS?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided $87.2 billion597 to states
to help ensure that [state governors] dont need to make cuts to essential services Americans rely
on now more than ever.598 At the time, 49 million Americans relied on Medicaid for health
insurance, and another 20 million more Americans were expected to apply for coverage under the
program in the wake of the Great Recession.599 The additional funding was intended to provide
much needed relief to every state through a temporary increase in the Federal share of Medicaid
funding [and] prevent states from making further cuts to a program that is already in dire
circumstances due to the economic downturn.600
However, within just a few months of the programs initial distributions to states, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform found that, due to a loophole in the legislation, states were able
to effectively de-target the funding and use the windfall to close gaps in state budgets. While
federal spending rose by 16.6 percent in fiscal year 2009 over the prior year due to ARRA spending,
state funding actually decreased by 3 percent.601 Rather than using the $87 billion as intended to
ensure healthcare funding and services provided by states would not decrease during the recovery
the states were using the money to fill holes in their budgets.
Summary of Medicaid Provisions

Medicaid provides health insurance to low-income children, pregnant women, parents of
dependent children, the elderly and those with disabilities through a program funded jointly by the
Federal Government and states. The Federal Government sets certain high-level standards for the
provision of services through the program; in return for complying with the standards, the Federal
Government pays 50 percent or more of the states costs under the program. The respective states
are able to set the more detailed eligibility standards and benefit levels and pay for the remainder
of the Medicaid expenses from their own budgets. Medicaid is a more comprehensive program than
its counterpart, Medicare; Medicaid pays for prescriptions, dental services and nursing homes, and,
as a percentage of state budgets, the costs of the program has generally grown over time. State
597
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the increase in federal spending due to the ARRAs increase in
Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) funding would be $87.2 billion over the five-year period between
fiscal years 2009 and 2013. CLIFF BINDER, EVELYNE P. BAUMRUCKER & ELICIA J. HERZ, CONG. RESEARCH SERV.,
R40223, AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA, PUB. L. NO. 111-5): TITLE V,
MEDICAID PROVISIONS 5 (2009).
598
Press Release, White House Office of the Press Secy, President Obama Announces $15 Billion in Medicaid
Relief from ARRA Headed to States (Feb. 23, 2009), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-15-Billion-in-Medicaid-Relief-fromARRA-Headed-To-States/.
599
Id.
600
Senator Max Baucus, Floor Statement Regarding American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Feb. 9, 2009),
(congressional record senate, vol 155, pt. 2, pg 2320).
601
MARTHA HEBERLEIN & JOAN ALKER, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HEALTH POLICY INSTITUTE, CENTER FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, MEDICAID AND STATE BUDGETS: LOOKING AT THE FACTS 2 (2011), available at
http://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Medicaid%20and%20state%20budgets-2011.pdf.
121
spending on Medicaid rose from 7.2 percent of state budgets in 1970602 to more than 17 percent in
2006.603
The ARRA included $89.4 billion in increased federal Medicaid expenditures; of that amount, $87.2
billion was due to a 27 month increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP).604
FMAP is the percentage of state Medicaid spending that the Federal Government will reimburse; if a
states FMAP is 50 percent, the Federal Government will reimburse 50 percent of the states
expenditures on Medicaid services.605 Generally, the reimbursement percentage varies by state
states with lower per capita income receive higher reimbursement (up to a maximum of 83
percent), while states with higher per capita income will receive lower reimbursement (not to fall
below 50 percent).606
According to the FMAP increase in Section 5001 of the ARRA, all states were eligible for an increase
in the reimbursement percentage of 6.2 points.607 In order to qualify, however, states had to
maintain compliance with certain standards. The terms of the increased FMAP funds required that
states:
Not change their Medicaid eligibility standards from those that were in effect on July
1, 2008;
Continue to comply with Medicaid requirements for the prompt payment of health
care providers who provide services under the program (and report to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services such compliance);
Not shift Medicaid costs to cities and local governments from the state budget based
on what local governments were required to contribute on September 30, 2008;
Submit a report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services detailing how the
additional federal funds were used; and
Not deposit or credit the additional funds received from the Federal Government to
any reserve or rainy day fund.608
602
MARK E. RUSHEFSKY, PUBLIC POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES AT THE DAWN OF THE TWENTY-FIRST Century 18485 (4th ed. 2008).
603
MARTHA HEBERLEIN & JOAN ALKER, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HEALTH POLICY INSTITUTE, CENTER FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, MEDICAID AND STATE BUDGETS: LOOKING AT THE FACTS 2 (2011), available at
http://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Medicaid%20and%20state%20budgets-2011.pdf.
604
CLIFF BINDER, EVELYNE P. BAUMRUCKER & ELICIA J. HERZ, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R40223, AMERICAN
RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA, PUB. L. NO. 111-5): TITLE V, MEDICAID PROVISIONS 5
(2009).
605
See id.
606
Id. However, exceptions to the FMAP formula have been created for certain states by statute. Id.
607
Id. States were provided the opportunity to choose between accepting the FMAP increase with a 15 percent
increase in the states spending cap or rejecting the FMAP increase and instead receiving a 30 percent increase in its
spending cap. Id.
608
Id.
122
Plain Language of the Statute versus CMS Interpretation

As states prepared budgets in early 2009, inconsistencies between the language of the statute and
the interpretation of CMS led to questions being raised as to the intent of Congress in passing the
legislation. According to Chris Whatley of the Council of State Governments while advising various
state legislatures in the process of drafting budgets, [t]heres definitely a lot of confusion in state
capitals about what the Recovery Act means.609 As discussed in other sections of this report, the
Administration has used its regulatory power to reinterpret the legislation enacted by Congress,
creating disconnect between the will of the Legislative Branch and the proper execution of the
law.610 According to the language of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
A State is not eligible for an increase in its FMAP if any amounts attributable
(directly or indirectly) to such increase are deposited or credited into any
reserve or rainy day fund of the State.611
However, in guidance issued by the Center for Medicaid and State Operations, a division of the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) charged with administering Medicaid payments to states, seven specific
expenditures are defined as being ineligible for the increased Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage (FMAP) funding, and the guidance goes on to explain that [i]n general, CMS has
interpreted these exclusions narrowly.612 Although the letter purports to provide guidance on
expenditures for which the increased FMAP is available, it fails to mention the statutory exclusion
for use related to a reserve or rainy day fund. As such, it was no surprise to find states considering
using the increased FMAP funds to shift the burden of more Medicaid expenditures to the Federal
Government, while using state funds originally intended for Medicaid to cover other budget
shortfalls.
Targeted Medicaid Funding Replaces the Soda Tax?

Although stimulus funds were intended to be targeted such that they provided an economic
stimulus during a time of great financial strain, the American Taxpayer may have instead written a
blank check with no assurance of any such stimulus. The Committee conducted oversight of state
plans for spending the additional income due to increased income due to the Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage, finding that states took vastly different approaches. Rather than shoring up
existing Medicaid enrollment and coverage or being used to help states maintain their Medicaid
programs in the face of recession-drive[n] revenue declines and caseload increases,613 states
609
Alec MacGillis, Money Stimulates Debate in States Over Plans Goals, WASH. POST, March 9, 2009, available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030802291.html?sid=ST2009030802414.
610
For a more thorough discussion of the Committees oversight efforts related to the expansion of the
Administrative State, see Chapter 8.
611
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 5001(f)(3) 123 Stat. 115, 501 (2009).
612
Letter from Cindy Mann, Director, Center for Medicaid and State Operations, to State Medicaid Directors, SMD
#09-005, ARRA #5 (August 19, 2009) available at http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-PolicyGuidance/downloads/SMD081909.pdf.
613
Press Release, Chairman Henry Waxman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Energy and Commerce Passes
Economic Recovery Legislation (Jan. 23, 2009).
123
planned to use the additional funding in a variety of ways that held no promise of stimulating the
economy.
New York
Rather than using the additional Medicaid funds to increase net Medicaid expenditures, thenGovernor Patterson instead eliminated proposed taxes on sugared soda and music downloads
taxes that were intended to raise revenue in an effort to address New Yorks projected budget
deficit of $14 billion during the following fiscal year.614 The proposed diversion of Medicaid
stimulus funds was expected to have a negative impact on job growth. For example, New York City
Health and Hospitals Corporation, the citys public hospital system, announced it would cut jobs
and close some childrens mental health programs after the Governor suggested he would not use
the Medicaid stimulus funds to offset other health care spending cuts impacting both private and
public hospitals.615
Virginia
In response to Virginias plans for using the stimulus funding, Katie Webb, Senior Vice President of
the Virginia Hospital Association, said, I guess I thought the intent of the Medicaid stimulus was to
use the money for Medicaid.616 Despite an expected surge in state Medicaid costs in the coming
years, Virginias governor and legislature intended to use the additional Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage (FMAP) funds to balance the budget and prevent layoffs in other areas.617 Rather than
increase the states capacity to provide Medicaid services, the $800 million in additional funding
received from the Federal Government would produce a situation where $800 million in state
funds were freed up from [Virginias] Medicaid responsibilities to help save jobs in social service,
public safety, education, and other programs.618 Florida, Nevada, and Kansas, among other states,
intended to use funding in the same way.619
Nevada
While some states intended to fill budget gaps with the additional Medicaid funding, others saw an
opportunity to leverage the influx, using the state funds originally intended for Medicaid
expenditures to qualify for even more federal matching grants. In order for the Nevada to access
stimulus funds for education, the states higher education funding level had to equal 2006 levels
an increase of $268 million. Although the state had applied for a waiver of that requirement, the
state legislature was considering using the freed up state Medicaid funds to meet the education
614
See Nicholas Confessore, Patterson Announces Deal on Taxes, N.Y. TIMES CITY ROOM BLOG (March 11, 2009,
12:32 PM), http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/paterson-announces-deal-ontaxes/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.
615
Anemona Hartocollis, Citys Public Hospital System to Cut Jobs and Programs, N.Y. TIMES, March 20, 2009, at
A21.
616
Alec MacGillis, Money Stimulates Debate in States Over Plans Goals, WASH. POST, March 9, 2009, available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030802291.html?sid=ST2009030802414.
617
Id.
618
Nicholas F. Benton, Obama Stimulus Saves 7,100 State Jobs, Legislators Report, Falls Church News-Press, Mar.
5, 2009, available at http://fcnp.com/2009/03/05/obama-stimulus-saves-7100-state-jobs-legislators-report/.
619
H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, De-Targeting the Stimulus: States Diverting Medicaid Funds Away from
Helping the Poor, Protecting Health Care Jobs, 111th Cong. (2009).
124
requirement. As with other states, Nevada was also considering using the funds to plug budget
gaps in other areas, including other health and human services programs and for the state
Commission on Tourism.620
Conclusion
Rather than protect state Medicaid services and ensure availability for those falling upon hard
times in the wake of the Great Recession, the de-targeted nature of stimulus spending left states
with billions of dollars that could be used to close budget gaps, to reduce taxes and to qualify for
other federal matching grants, such as those related to higher education funding.
620
Lawmakers Support Stimulus Waiver, ASSOCIATED PRESS, Mar. 20, 2009, available at
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/10045721/lawmakers-support-stimulus-waiver.
125
TARP: WHO NEEDS A BAILOUT?

On Monday October 13, 2008, chief executives from the nine largest banks in the United States
entered a meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-Federal Reserve Bank of New
York President Timothy Geithner,621 the then-Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the
then-Chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Shelia Bair.622 Just three
hours later, the nine chief executives left having signed Major Financial Institution Participation
Commitments, in which the chief executive of the banks sold the U.S. Government preferred shares
and warrants in exchange for $125 billion. The move by the Federal Government cost the American
Taxpayer a sum greater than the Gross Domestic Product of Morocco623 and marked an opening
installment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA).624
Despite strong opposition,625 Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act in 2008,
codifying financial support and authority for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Through
EESA, $700 billion was appropriated to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the
United States.626 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in
2010 reduced funding under the program to $475 billion.627 As the Federal Governments primary
watchdog, the Committee has worked diligently to oversee the implementation of this bailout
ultimately offered to financial institutions, mortgage lenders and automakers a bailout that
required an unprecedented investment by the American Taxpayer with little assurance of
repayment.
THE TROUBLED ASSET R ELIEF PROGRAM

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted in an effort to save the United States
economy in the face of the worst domestic financial crisis since the Great Depression. Enacted as
part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, TARP was intended to provide a mechanism
whereby the Federal Government could purchase assets with declining or significantly impaired
value628 from systemically important financial institutions629 with the expectation that the
621
Timothy Geithner would later succeed Secretary Paulson as Secretary of the Treasury in early 2009.
Eric Dash & Marc Landler, Drama Behind a $250 Billion Banking Deal, NEW YORK TIMES, (Oct. 14, 2008), see
also JoAnne Allen, Paulson gave banks no choice on government stakes: memos, REUTERS, May 14, 2009.
623
For context, the estimated GDP of Morocco in 2013 was only $104.8 billion. Id.
624
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-343 div. A, 122 Stat. 3765 (2008).
625
Bill Isaac Vs. Hank Paulsons Bailout Machine -- How the FDIC Chairman ALMOST Stopped TARP, THE DAILY
MAIL, (last viewed on Nov. 13, 2014) http://dailybail.com/home/bill-isaac-vs-hank-paulsons-bailout-machine-howthe-former-f.html.
626
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-343 div. A 1(1), 122 Stat. 3765 (2008).
627
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203 sec. 1302, 115(a), 124
Stat. 1376 (2010) (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. 5225(a)).
628
To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the
purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting
taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and
conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.
Pub. L. No. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3765. The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program
(or TARP) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial
institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this chapter and
the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary. Pub. L. No. 110-343, 101.
622
126
institution, free from the risk of the troubled asset, would be more stable, and therefore able to
continue participating in the financial markets.630 TARP funds were originally granted through
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; $700 billion was appropriated to restore liquidity
and stability to the financial system of the United States.631 With the passage of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act the government rethought its initial assessments
and reduced this to $475 billion.632
Designed by the then-Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, TARP was originally planned to
address what was considered the root cause of the financial crisis illiquid mortgage assets.633
Illiquid mortgage assets mortgages owned by financial institutions that could normally be sold to
other institutions but, because they were unlikely to be repaid by the homeowner, were at risk of
default and therefore could not be sold were creating a scenario where banks could not lend
anymore money.634 Since no more money was available to be lent out it created a freeze on the
credit markets.635 Within days of EESAs passage, however, Mr. Paulson abruptly changed course,
marginalizing the purchase of toxic assets in favor of the injection of funds directly into banks and
other financial institutions through the use of TARP funds to the purchase of equity stakes.636 Thus
began the partial nationalization of the U.S. banking system.
TARP operates through five sub-programs: the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), Targeted
Investment Program (TP), Systematically Significant Failing Institutions Program (SSFI), the
Asset Guarantee Program (AGP) and the Automotive Industry Financing Program. CPP is by far
the largest of the five subprograms, having distributed $194.18 billion to 3I7 banks.637 CPP was
intended for strong banks and provides them with capital injections in exchange for preferred stock
shares and warrants. Participation in the program was voluntary and initiated by application to the
bank's regulator; participants were required to pay a strong interest rate on Treasury injections.
OVERSEEING TARP: THE ROLE OF SIGTARP

The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) was originally
appointed in 2008 with the mission to protect the interests of those who fund TARP, the American
629
See William H. Issac, A Better Way to Aid Banks, WASH. POST, Sept. 27, 2008, available at
630
Findings by SIGTARP since the implementation of TARP suggest that rather than helping the systemic failure
caused by Too Big to Fail, TARP has only reinforced the practical concerns that banks are too big to fail by shifting
markets to the organizations originally feared too big.
631
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-343, 10/3/208, p. 2, 16.
632
Tarp Programs, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financialstability/TARP-Programs/Pages/default.aspx#.
633
Politco Staff, Paulsons Rescue Plan is Called TARP, POLITICO (Sept. 19, 2008), available at
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13609.html.
634
See id.
635
Id.
636
Ruthie Ackerman, Tarp Changes Colors, FORBES, (Nov. 12, 2008 3:20 p.m.)
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/12/treasury-tarp-update-markets-equity-cx_ra_1112markets28.html.
637
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM, INITIAL REPORT TO
THE CONGRESS 56 (2009), available at
http://www.sigtarp.gov/Quarterly%20Reports/SIGTARP_Initial_Report_to_the_Congress.pdf.
127
Taxpayer.638 As part of this mission the SIGTARP looks to add transparency, oversight and
enforcement to the TARP program. Created by Section 121639 of the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008, the SIGTARP is required to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and
investigations of the purchase, management, and sale of assets by the Secretary of the Treasury,640
reflecting Congress intent that the primary purpose of TARP would be federally-funded purchases
of troubled assets from financial institutions. After it became clear that Treasurys primary activity
under TARP would be equity investments in the institutions themselves, Congress amended Section
121, broadening the SIGTARPs mandate to include audits and investigations of any action taken by
Treasury under TARP.641
Since the creation of this position, SIGTARPs office has served as an authoritative source of
information on Troubled Asset Relief Program disbursements, operations, and costs;642 it has
concluded and reported on at least 23 audits and evaluations of subprograms and activities and
made at least 151 recommendations;643 and it has conducted investigations of waste and abuse
within the program, many of which have resulted in civil or criminal actions. In addition, for each
quarter since the original taxpayer bailout, SIGTARP has produced a report that describes activities
and disbursements of the Treasury Department under each subprogram; analysis of financial
statements and investments made under the program; and recommendations for improving
638
Special Investigator for TARP Created, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ATTORNEY GENERALS, (last visited Nov.
10, 2014) http://www.naag.org/special-inspector-general-office-for-tarp-created.php.
639
121(c) It shall be the duty of the Special Inspector General to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and
investigations of the purchase management, and sale of assets by the Secretary of the Treasury under any program
established by the Secretary under 101 and the management of the Secretary under 102.
640
Pub. L. 110-343 (Oct. 3, 2008) 121.
641
Pub. L. 111-15 (April 24, 2009).
642
The first Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program was Neil Barofsky. During his tenure,
Mr. Barofskys office issued thirteen audits and nine quarterly reports. In addition, he testified seventeen times
before Congress, including three before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Upon his
departure, Congressman Issa noted that [t]he passage of TARP signaled a pivotal moment at a time of great
uncertainty and no one has been more dedicated to protecting the American peoples tax-dollars from waste, fraud
and abuse than Neil Barofsky. Press Release, Rep. Darrell Issa, Issa Praises SIGTARP Barofsky for Public
Service, Feb. 14, 2011, available at http://issa.house.gov/press-releases/2011/02/issa-praises-sigtarp-barofsky-forpublic-service/. The successor to Mr. Barofsky was his deputy inspector general, Christy Romero. Since her
succession in 2011, Ms. Romero has testified twelve times before Congress with four of those before the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee. She has continued Mr. Barofskys diligence in maintaining the same
stringent standards when dealing with the American Taxpayers funds in taking to task ineffective programs like the
Home Affordable Modification Program. Gretchen Morgenson, TARPs Watchdog: A Tough Act to Follow, NEW
YORK TIMES, Mar. 19, 2011, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/business/20gret.html; see also Les
Christie, CNN MONEY, Borrowers in Obamas housing program defaulting, watchdog says, July 24, 2013,
available at http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/24/real_estate/hamp-default/. SIGTARP issued a report in 2012 about
the Hardest Hit Fund, part of TARP that was critical to the Administrations attempt to help people that suffered due
to the housing crisis. See Annie Lowrey, Treasury Faulted in Effort to Relieve Homeowners, NEW YORK TIMES,
Apr. 12, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/business/economy/treasury-department-faulted-in-effort-torelieve-homeowners.html.
643
SIGTARP, QUARTERLY REPORT TO CONGRESS, OCTOBER 29, 2014 65 (2014), available at
http://www.sigtarp.gov/Quarterly%20Reports/October_29_2014_Report_to_Congress.pdf.
128
transparency and efficiency. The reports often include a focus on one or more specific aspects of
the financial crisis.644
A CHANGE IN FOCUS: THE BAILOUT OF AIG

When financial giants Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch were forced to sell themselves to the highest
bidder and legendary financial house Lehman Brothers sought relief in bankruptcy in the fall of
2008, the United States financial system looked to be approaching collapse. With American
International Group claiming to be days away from defaulting, it seemed that the domino that could
knock down all the rest was wobbling. If it fell, financial regulators feared an economic calamity
reminiscent of the Great Depression.
In 2007, AIG was the largest life insurer and the second largest property/casualty insurer based
on premiums written in the United States.645 Its potential collapse posed a systemic risk because
AIG was a counterparty to an unknowable number of transactions between the worlds largest
financial institutions, its collapse was widely expected to cause the collapse of other institutions,
creating a domino effect with unforeseeable but certainly disastrous consequences.646 In an effort
to prevent a collapse of the worlds financial markets, the Federal Reserve Board, with the backing
of the Treasury Department, authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) to lend
up to $85 billion to AIG.647 Even with this loan, AIG continued to skirt a precipitous edge
overlooking bankruptcy. Due to the impact of the financial crisis on other institutions heavily
invested in real estate assets, AIG ran the risk of having to make payment on a number of insurancelike agreements referred to as credit default swaps (CDS), which the institutions had purchased to
protect against the default of collateralized debt obligations (CDO). These CDS were forcing AIG to
pay out billions to counterparties, creating the risk that AIG would default on future swap
agreements. Hence, the risk of a systemic collapse became very real. Such were the stakes as the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York President attempted to create a solution that would save AIG
from default.
FRBNY to the Rescue?

Collateralized debt obligations are bundled investments that offer a cash flow to whoever holds it.
These financial instruments became very popular before the financial crisis because banks could
bundle together the various loans and mortgages they held and sell them in pieces, thereby creating
an immediate cash infusion. Over time, crafty professionals found this to be a way to hide, for
example, bad sub-prime mortgages that might present a serious risk of default. While AIGs
investment branch would bundle asset-backed payment streams into CDOs and then sell interests
644
See e.g., SIGTARP REPORT OCTOBER 2009 (discussing credit rating agencies); SIGTARP REPORT JANUARY
2010 (discussing federal support of the residential mortgage market); SIGTARP Report October 2010 (discussing
loan servicing); see SIGTARP REPORT OCTOBER 2014 19 available at
http://www.sigtarp.gov/Quarterly%20Reports/October_29_2014_Report_to_Congress.pdf.
645
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM, SIGTARP-10-003,
FACTORS AFFECTING EFFORTS TO LIMIT PAYMENTS TO AIG COUNTERPARTIES 2-3 (2009), available at
http://www.sigtarp.gov/Audit%20Reports/Factors_Affecting_Efforts_to_Limit_Payments_to_AIG_Counterparties.p
df.
646
Id. at 1.
647
Id.
129
in the CDOs to investment firms such as Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs,648 another branch of AIG
would sell CDS as insurance against default on the CDOs sometimes to the same firms. This
internal contradiction placed AIG in a precarious position where it would be forced to make
payments either way an illogical position that resulted from branches acting independently and
without an understanding of the risks posed.
Leading up to the original bailout on September 16, 2008, AIG suffered from a credit downgrade
that in turn caused the CDOs to go down in value.649 Due to this event, the terms of its counterparty
agreements required that AIG make payments to cover the CDO losses.650 AIG was facing a situation
where they did not have enough liquid assets to pay back these collateralized debts and if AIG
defaulted, the company would quickly fall into bankruptcy under demands from counterparties. It
was at this point that the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and FRBNY stepped in with an $85 billion loan
on September 16, 2008. AIG received another dose of government assistance in light of AIGs
continual decline with an extension of $40 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program that was
used to purchase preferred stock651 in AIG.
The most controversial decision by the federal regulators was, however, the Malden Lane III
program. Despite the monetary assistance from the Federal Government, AIG was still facing
potential bankruptcy. The companys situation looked dire as it ran the risk being required to make
payment on other collateralized debt obligations, which would cause their credit rating to drop
further, which would in turn cause another set of collateral obligations to be owed.652 As part of
Malden Lane III, the FRBNY hoped to purchase the CDOs from the counterparties at a reduced rate
thereby transferring the additional debts that would be owed by AIG from systemically important
financial institutions, which should be willing to sell the CDOs for less than they were purchased in
order to avoid the risk of AIGs default, to the Federal Government, which, in theory, could be paid
back over a longer period of time.653 However, counterparties were unwilling to take a haircut on
their investments, forcing the FRBNY to pay full price for the obligations, even though current
market conditions had made them essentially worthless.654 Through its Malden Lane III program,
the FRBNY paid out $27.1 billion to AIG counterparties.655 This was in addition to the $35 billion
that AIG had already doled out as part of its prior earlier payments. 656
Findings
648
Id. at 20.
Id. at 4.
650
Id. at 3
651
A class of ownership in a corporation that has a higher claim on the assets and earnings than common stock.
Preferred stock generally has a dividend that must be paid out before dividends to common stockholders and the
shares usually do not have voting rights. Preferred Stock, INVESTOPEDIA,
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/preferredstock.asp.
652
FACTORS AFFECTING EFFORTS TO LIMIT PAYMENTS TO AIG COUNTERPARTIES 5 (2009), available at
df.
653
Id. at 14.
654
See id. at 15.
655
Id. at 15.
656
Id.
649
130
The House Oversight Committee found, supported by the Special Inspector General for the
Troubled Asset Relief Programs (SIGTARP) report, that the FRBNY did not properly engage in
negotiations with counterparties to discuss taking potential haircuts and therefore could have cost
Taxpayers tens of millions657 of dollars.658 Due to the unsuccessful negotiations, the FRBNY paid the
counterparties back on par, which ultimately makes it near impossible for the Taxpayer to make
their full investment back, as the FRBNY espoused.659
Par: Good for Golf, Not for Taxpayers

For two days, November 6 and 7, 2008, the FRBNY entered into negotiations with AIG
counterparties.660 However, the SIGTARP report found that the FRBNY entered into the
negotiations with the counterparties after stressing that negotiations were voluntary.661 The report
further found that a major bargaining chip, the default or bankruptcy of AIG, was seen to be nonexistent because the US government had already guaranteed that AIG would not fail as
demonstrated by their initial bailout.662 Without any force from the FRBNY and an already weak
bargaining position the end-negotiations resulted in the counterparties being paid par for their
credit default swaps.663 As a former New York Attorney General stated:
But wait a moment, aren't we in the midst of reopening contracts all over the place
to share the burden of this crisis? From raising taxesincome taxes to sales taxes
to properly reopening labor contracts, we are all being asked to pitch in and carry
our share of the burden. Workers around the country are being asked to take pay
cuts and accept shorter work weeks so that colleagues won't be laid off. Why can't
Wall Street royalty shoulder some of the burden? Why did Goldman have to get back
100 cents on the dollar? Didn't we already give Goldman a $25 billion capital
infusion, and aren't they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash? Haven't we been
told recently that they are beginning to come back to fiscal stability? If that is so,
657
Id. at 15 (disclosing that one counterparty would be willing to take a haircut of 2% if all of the other
counterparties agreed to as well, a 2% haircut from $27 billion would have saved the United States $54 million).
658
Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Public Disclosure as a Last Resort: How the Federal
Reserve Fought to Cover Up the Details of the AIG Counterparties Bailout from the American People, 111th Cong.
(2010), available at http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20100125aigstaffreportwithcover.pdf.
659
Id. at 3.
660
Id.
661
df.
662
Id.
663
Id. at 19: (finding that despite the willingness of at least one counterparty to engage in discussions about a
potential haircut, all counterparties were paid effectively par value for the credit default swaps.). See Rick
Newman, Whats Good, Whats Bad About the AIG Bailout, U.S. NEWS MONEY BLOG, (Mar. 17, 2009 12:15 PM),
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/03/17/whats-good-whats-bad-about-the-aig-bailout (noting
that the banks that received the counterparty bailouts got par value for CDOs thats market price was only half their
face value).
131
couldn't they have accepted a discount, and couldn't they have agreed to certain
conditions before the AIG dollarsthat is, our dollarsflowed?664
Instead of offering up explanation and clarification on the reasons for paying these backdoor
bailouts for counterparties at par, AIG and FRBNY offered only obstructionist policies of trying not
to disclose how much the payments were or to whom they went.665 In addition to not revealing the
recipients and the amounts, the House Committee found examples of AIG and the FRBNY
attempting to obfuscate the full depths of the purchase of the underlying CDO. In an email from
Alejandro Latorre, an Assistant Vice President, he informed another employee that As a matter of
course, we do not want to disclose that the concession is at par unless absolutely necessary.666 In
addition, the reports to the SEC, that must meet mandatory report requirements, were doctored to
cut out clear lines like [a]s a result of this transaction, the AIGFP counterparties received 100
percent of the par value of the Multi-Sector CDO sold and the related CDO have been terminated.667
In its bailout of AIG, the FRBNY under Timothy Geithner failed to negotiate better terms for a loan
that was coming out of the pockets of the American Taxpayer. Although there were potential
necessities that inspired the need for the counterparty bailouts, the further attempts at providing
obfuscation rather than transparency only added to the confusion and distrust that surrounded the
counterparty backdoor bailouts.
664
Eliot Spitzer, The Real AIG Scandal: Its not the bonuses. Its that AIGs counterparties are getting paid back in
full, SLATE, Mar. 17, 2009, available at
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/03/the_real_aig_scandal.html.
665
df.
666
Email from Alejandro Latorre to Paul Whynott and others, Nov. 11, 2008, BATES #FRBNY-TOWNS-R1191773.
667
Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Public Disclosure as a Last Resort: How the Federal
Reserve Fought to Cover Up the Details of the AIG Counterparties Bailout from the American People, 111th Cong.
6 (2010), available at http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20100125aigstaffreportwithcover.pdf.
132
HOME AFFORDABLE MODIFICATION PROGRAM: A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL APPROACH

One of the main focuses of TARP was to preserve homeownership.668 As part of the Making Homes
Affordable program,669 the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) is a $75 billion
taxpayer-funded program that incentivizes mortgage companies to lower mortgage payments and
renegotiate rates for homeowners facing foreclosure.670 In return, The U.S. Department of the
Treasury subsidizes the modifications through direct payments to servicers, lenders, and
borrowers.671
A person can be qualified for HAMP when, because of a financial hardship, you are struggling to
make your mortgage payments; you are delinquent in danger of falling behind in your mortgage;
you obtained your mortgage on or before January 1, 2009; your property has not been condemned;
you owe up to $729,750 on your primary residence or one-to-four unit rental property, [and] you
have not been convicted within the last 10 years of a crime in connection with a mortgage or real
estate transaction.672
Under HAMP, participating mortgage servicers sign contracts with Fannie Mae, Treasurys
designated financial agent, agreeing to grant mortgage modifications to borrowers under
prescribed circumstances. In return, Treasury subsidizes the modifications through direct
payments to servicers, lenders and borrowers. Treasury initially promised that HAMP would help
up to 3 to 4 million at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure by reducing monthly mortgage
payments.673
Through its administration of HAMP, Treasury established a one-size-fits-all mortgage modification
process that obligates participating servicers to grant subsidized modifications to borrowers under
certain circumstances:
For every eligible borrower whose loan passes Treasurys secret net present value test,
payments are reduced to 31 percent of income, regardless of other circumstances. Under
HAMP, borrowers apply to their servicers to request modifications.
668
Daniele Douglas, Homeowners Defaulting in Federal Loan Modification, Report Says, THE WASH. POST,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/homeowners-defaulting-in-loan-modification-program-reportsays/2013/04/23/0fce3bf8-ac6c-11e2-a198-99893f10d6dd_story.html; 12 U.S.C. 5201(2)(b) (stating that one of
the purposes of TARP is to preserve homeownership).
669
About MHA, MAKINGHOMEAFFORDABLE.GOV, http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov/aboutmha/Pages/default.aspx.
670
Minority Staff Report, Treasury Departments Mortgage Modification Programs: A Failure Prolonging the
Crisis, (Feb. 25, 2010) available at http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2-2510Treasury.Report.pdf.
671
Id.
672
Home Affordable Modification Program, MAKINGHOMEAFFORDABLE.GOV,
http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov/programs/lower-payments/Pages/hamp.aspx.
673
Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Treasury Departments Mortgage Modification
Program: A Failure Prolonging the Crisis, 111th Cong. (2010) available at http://oversight.house.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/2-25-10Treasury.Report.pdf.
133
Only first-lien mortgages that were originated before January 1, 2009, that have principal
balances beneath prescribed limits, and that are in default or at risk of imminent default are
eligible.
A borrower must demonstrate a monthly mortgage payment that exceeds 31 percent of
monthly gross income and that the payment is not affordable due to a financial hardship.
Servicers are required to use a net present value (NPV) test on each mortgage. The test
compares the NPV of expected cash flows with and without modification.
If the NPV is greater under the modification scenario, the servicer must offer to modify the
loan.674
Treasury has chosen to reduce all monthly payments to 31 percent of the borrowers gross income.
In every HAMP modification, the lender first reduces the payment to 38 percent of income, then
Treasury and the lender share the burden of reducing the payment to 31 percent. Treasury will not
share the burden of reductions that push the resulting interest rate below 2 percent. If a payment
reduced to an interest rate of 2 percent is still above 31 percent of the borrowers gross monthly
income, the servicer must extend the payment term and/or defer a portion of the principal.
Servicers may, but are not required to, forgive a portion of the principal.675
HAMP modifications begin with a three-month trial period. If the borrower successfully makes all
payments during the trial period, and the servicer is able to verify that the borrowers income and
expense information is correct, then the servicer and the borrower execute a permanent
modification agreement. Under the modification agreement, the interest rate is fixed for five years,
but then rises by a maximum of one percentage point per year until it reaches the market rate at the
time of the original modification.676
Treasury subsidizes HAMP modifications by (a) sharing the cost of reductions in monthly
payments; (b) making direct incentive payments to the servicers of $1,000 for each loan
modification, then $1,000 annually in a pay for success fee for each loan that continues to
perform; (c) contributing up to $1,000 annually to reduce the principal for homeowners who make
their payments on time; and (d) providing bonus incentives of $1,500 to the lender/investor and
$500 to the servicer for each modification made while the borrower is still current on payments.
FAILING TO MEET EXPECTATIONS

As detailed in a joint report released by then-Ranking Members Darrell Issa and Representative Jim
Jordan, the Minority staff of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform outlined a
number of problems in the implementation of the Home Affordable Modification Program
(HAMP). According to the programs results, HAMP has failed or dramatically under-produced in
comparison to the goals and projections of the Treasury Department. Originally, HAMP was
expected to help as many as 3-4 million distressed borrowers but as of March 2013 only 816,000
674
Id.
Id.
676
Id.
675
134
permanent modifications were still outstanding.677 Moreover, according to SIGTARP, redefaults on

mortgages modified under HAMP have cost taxpayers $815 million amounting to 18 percent of
TARP funds spent for all HAMP modifications.678 Of the people that have modified their mortgage
under the program, SIGTARP has found that over 160,000 have again defaulted on payments.679 In
addition, the Committee found that in addition to the approximately 830,000 active modifications,
there were an additional 60,000 applications that had started but were cancelled before receiving a
permanent modification.680
Throughout its implementation there has been one thing that HAMP has provided consistency in:
failing to meet expectations. Yet, worse than failing to meet its expectations is the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms findings that HAMP might actually be hurting
homeowners that go through its process. A managing member of Watershed Asset Management,
Kevin Katari characterized the situation as if the government were, trying to modify our way out of
this, which has the effect of lengthening the crisis. We have simply slowed the foreclosure pipeline,
with people staying in houses they are ultimately not going to be able to afford anyway.681
677
Keith Jurow, The Governments Plan to Save Housing Will Cause People to Default Over and Over Again,
BUSINESS INSIDER, May 30, 2013, available at http://www.businessinsider.com/new-mortgage-modificationprogram-cannot-prevent-further-housing-collapse-2013-5.
678
SIGTARP, RISING REDEFAULTS OF HAMP MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS HURT HOMEOWNERS, COMMUNITIES
AND TAXPAYERS 3 (2013) available at
http://www.sigtarp.gov/Audit%20Reports/Rising_Redefaults_of_HAMP_Mortgage_Modifications.pdf.
679
Id.
680
See id.
681
Peter Goodman, U.S. Loan Effort is Seen as Adding to Housing Woes, NEW YORK TIMES, (Jan. 1, 2010),
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/business/economy/02modify.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
135
CHAPTER 3. PROTECTING AMERICA: WHO IS CARING FOR OUR

HOMELAND, OUR CITIZENS, AND OUR VETERANS?
The security of American citizens both at home and abroad is one of the most important
concerns of the Federal Government. Under Chairman Darrell Issa, the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform has worked to ensure the government is taking the steps necessary to
protect our President, our Military, our Veterans and our country. Where flaws in process exist, the
Committee has worked tirelessly to expose those flaws to sunlight so that needed repairs can be
made. The work of the Committee has led to reforms within several agencies responsible for
protection of the American people but the work continues. Highlighted below are instances
where the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has worked to ensure the Federal
Government is working to protect America.
OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS682

In 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) developed a risky new strategy to combat gun trafficking
along the Southwest Border. The new strategy directed federal law enforcement to shift its focus
away from seizing firearms from criminals as soon as possible, an action known as interdiction
and to focus instead on identifying members of trafficking networks. In response, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a branch within the Department of Justice,
implemented the Departments strategy using a reckless investigative technique called
gunwalking. ATF allowed suspects to walk away with illegally purchased guns. The purpose was
to wait and watch, with the hope that law enforcement could identify other members of a
trafficking network and build a large, complex conspiracy case.
After the Justice Department issued its new strategy, ATFs Phoenix Field Division opened an
investigation later called Operation Fast and Furious into a suspected firearms straw purchasing
ring. A key component of the operation was to allow known straw purchasers to illegally buy
firearms and then cease surveillance to see where the firearms reappeared.
Although many line ATF agents objected strongly to gunwalking, ATF leadership prevented them
from interdicting the illegally purchased firearms. ATF leadership hoped to establish a connection
between the local straw buyers in Arizona and the Mexico-based drug-trafficking organizations.
ATF knew that these guns were being placed in the hands of violent criminals. In fact, ATF knew it
would often only recover these firearms after they turned up at crime scenes. Tragically, many of
these recoveries involved loss of life, including that of U.S. Border of Patrol Agent Brian Terry in
December 2010.
682
The Committees joint investigation with the Senate Committee on Judiciary into Operation Fast and Furious is
detailed in two staff reports released as part of a series of three. See Joint Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt
Reform and Minority Staff of S. Cmte. on Judiciary, Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation (Part 1
of 3), 112th Cong. (2012). Joint Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform and Minority Staff of S. Cmte. on
Judiciary, Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation (Part 2 of 3), 112th Cong. (2012). Part three of the
report can only be prepared after the Department of Justice fulfills its constitutional obligation to cooperate with
Congress and produce documents requested pursuant to subpoena.
136
The Justice Departments leadership allowed ATF to implement this flawed strategy, fully aware of
what was taking place on the ground. Through both the U.S. Attorneys Office in Arizona and Main
Justice, headquarters in Washington, D.C., the Department of Justice monitored and supervised
ATFs activities. The U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Arizona encouraged and supported
every facet of Fast and Furious. Main Justice provided support and approved various aspects of the
Operation, including wiretap applications that would necessarily include painstakingly detailed
descriptions of what ATF knew about the straw buyers it was monitoring.
Despite support from Justice Department and ATF leadership and despite months and months of
investigative work, ATF never achieved its goal of dismantling a drug cartel. In fact, it never even
came close. Fast and Furious resulted only in indictments of 20 straw purchasers. Those
indictments only came after the death of Brian Terry. The indictments, filed January 19, 2011, were
mostly for lying and buying falsely filling out ATF Form 4473, which is to be completed
truthfully in order to legally acquire a firearm. Even worse, ATF knew most of the indicted straw
purchasers to be straw purchasers before Fast and Furious even began. In the meantime, ATF
allowed hundreds and hundreds of firearmsincluding AK-47 variants, Barrett .50 caliber sniper
rifles, .38 caliber revolvers, and the FN Five-seveNto walk across the border and into the hands of
criminals. Many of these firearms have never been recovered.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform launched its investigation in February 2011
after brave ATF agents came forward and exposed the dangerous tactics used in Operation Fast and
Furious to Members of Congress. The Committee uncovered bad decision making at every level
within the Department of Justice and ATF, bad decisions that left both American and Mexican
citizens vulnerable.
BREAKDOWNS AT ALL LEVELS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

The ATF Phoenix Field Division
In October 2009, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) in Washington, D.C.
promulgated a new strategy to combat gun trafficking along the Southwest Border. This new
strategy directed federal law enforcement to shift its focus away from seizing firearms from
criminals as soon as possible a process known as interdicting and to focus instead on
identifying members of trafficking networks. The Office of the Deputy Attorney General shared this
strategy with the heads of many Department components, including ATF.683
Members of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFs) Phoenix Field
Division, led by Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell, became familiar with this new strategy and
used it in devising Operation Fast and Furious. In mid-November 2009, just weeks after the
strategy was issued, Fast and Furious began. Its objective was to establish a nexus between straw
purchasers of firearms in the United States and Mexican drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs)
operating on both sides of the United States-Mexico border. Straw purchasers are individuals who
are legally entitled to purchase firearms for themselves, but who unlawfully purchase weapons
with the intent to transfer them to someone else, in this case DTOs or other criminals.
683
E-mail from [Dept of Justice] on behalf of Deputy Atty Gen. David Ogden to Kathryn Ruemmler, et al. (Oct.
26, 2009).
137
During Fast and Furious, ATF agents used an investigative technique known as gunwalking that
is, allowing illegally-purchased weapons to be transferred to third parties without attempting to
disrupt or deter the illegal activity. ATF agents abandoned surveillance on known straw purchasers
after they illegally purchased weapons that ATF agents knew were destined for Mexican drug
cartels. Many of these transactions established probable cause for agents to interdict the weapons
or arrest the possessors, something every agent was trained to do. Yet, Fast and Furious aimed
instead to allow the transfer of these guns to third parties. In this manner, the guns fell into the
hands of DTOs, and many would turn up at crime scenes. ATF then traced these guns to their
original straw purchaser, in an attempt to establish a connection between that individual and the
DTO.
Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), who cooperated with ATF, were an integral component of Fast
and Furious. Although some FFLs were reluctant to continue selling weapons to suspicious straw
purchasers, ATF encouraged them to do so, reassuring the FFLs that ATF was monitoring the
buyers and that the weapons would not fall into the wrong hands.684 ATF worked with FFLs on or
about the date of sale to obtain the unique serial number of each firearm sold. Agents entered these
serial numbers into ATFs Suspect Gun Database within days after the purchase. Once these
firearms were recovered at crime scenes, the Suspect Gun Database allowed for expedited tracing
of the firearms to their original purchasers.
By December 18, 2009, ATF agents assigned to Fast and Furious had already identified fifteen
interconnected straw purchasers in the targeted gun trafficking ring. These straw purchasers had
already purchased 500 firearms.685 In a biweekly update to Bill Newell, ATF Group Supervisor
David Voth explained that 50 of the 500 firearms purchased by straw buyers had already been
recovered in Mexico or near the Mexican border.686 These guns had time-to-crimes of as little as
one day, a strong indication of straw purchasing.687
Starting in late 2009, many line agents objected vociferously to some of the techniques used during
Fast and Furious, including gunwalking. The use of the tactic continued for another year, however,
until shortly after December 15, 2010, when two weapons from Operation Fast and Furious were
recovered at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Pursuant to the Deputy Attorney Generals strategy, by late January 2010 the ATF Phoenix Field
Division applied for Fast and Furious to become an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
(OCDETF) case a designation that would allow for additional funding and interagency
coordination. In preparation for the OCDETF application process, the ATF Phoenix Field Division
prepared a briefing paper detailing the investigative strategy employed in Fast and Furious. This
document was not initially produced by the Department pursuant to its subpoena, but rather was
obtained by a confidential source. The briefing paper stated:
684
Transcribed Interview of Special Agent Peter Forcelli, at 53-54 (Apr. 28, 2011).
E-mail from Kevin Simpson, Intelligence Officer, Phoenix FIG, ATF, to David Voth (Dec. 18, 2009).
686
Id.
687
Id.
685
138
Currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place,
albeit at a much slower pace, in order to further the investigation and allow for the
identification of additional co-conspirators who would continue to operate and
illegally traffic firearms to Mexican DTOs which are perpetrating armed violence
along the Southwest Border.688
Fast and Furious was approved as an OCDETF case, and this designation resulted in new
operational funding. Additionally, Fast and Furious became a prosecutor-led OCDETF Strike Force
case, meaning that ATF would join with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Internal Revenue Service and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement under the
leadership of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Arizona.
The United States Attorneys Office for the District of Arizona

The U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Arizona led the Fast and Furious OCDETF Strike Force.
Although ATF was the lead law enforcement agency for Fast and Furious, its agents took direction
from prosecutors in the U.S. Attorneys Office. The lead federal prosecutor for Fast and Furious was
Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who played an integral role in the day-to-day, tactical
management of the case.689
Many ATF agents working on Operation Fast and Furious came to believe that some of the most
basic law enforcement techniques used to interdict weapons required the explicit approval of the
U.S. Attorneys Office, and specifically from Hurley. On numerous occasions, Hurley and other
federal prosecutors withheld this approval, to the mounting frustration of ATF agents.690 The U.S.
Attorneys Office chose not to use other available investigative tools common in gun trafficking
cases, such as civil forfeitures and seizure warrants, during the seminal periods of Fast and Furious.
The U.S. Attorneys Office advised ATF that agents needed to meet unnecessarily strict evidentiary
standards in order to speak with suspects, temporarily detain them, or interdict weapons. ATFs
reliance on this advice from the U.S. Attorneys Office during Fast and Furious resulted in many lost
opportunities to interdict weapons.
In addition to leading the Fast and Furious OCDETF task force, the U.S. Attorneys Office was
instrumental in preparing the wiretap applications that were submitted to the Justice Departments
Criminal Division. Federal prosecutors in Arizona filed at least six of these applications, each
containing immense detail about operational tactics and specific information about straw
purchasers, in federal court after Department headquarters authorized them.
688
Phoenix Group VII, Phoenix Field Division, ATF, Briefing Paper (Jan. 8, 2010).
Transcribed Interview of Special Agent in Charge William Newell, at 32-33 (June 8, 2011).
690
Transcribed Interview of Special Agent Larry Alt, at 94 (Apr. 27, 2011).
689
139
ATF Headquarters
Fast and Furious first came to the attention of ATF Headquarters on December 8, 2009, just weeks
after the case was officially opened in Phoenix. ATFs Office of Strategic Information and
Intelligence (OSII) briefed senior ATF personnel about the case on December 8, 2009, discussing
in detail a large recovery of Fast and Furious weapons in Naco, Sonora, Mexico.691
The next day, December 9, 2009, the Acting ATF Director first learned about Fast and Furious and
the large recovery of weapons that had already occurred.692 The following week, OSII briefed
senior ATF officials about another large cache of Fast and Furious weapons that had been recovered
in Mexico.693
On January 5, 2010, OSII presented senior ATF officials with a summary of all of the weapons that
could be linked to known straw purchasers in Fast and Furious. In just two months, these straw
purchasers bought a total of 685 guns. This number raised the ire of several individuals in the
room, who expressed concerns about the growing operation.694
On March 5, 2010, ATF headquarters hosted a larger, more detailed briefing on Operation Fast and
Furious. David Voth, the Group Supervisor overseeing Fast and Furious, traveled from Phoenix to
give the presentation. He gave an extremely detailed synopsis of the status of the investigation,
including the number of guns purchased, weapons seizures to date, money spent by straw
purchasers, and organizational charts of the relationships among straw purchasers and to members
of the Sinaloa drug cartel. At that point, the straw purchasers had bought 1,026 weapons, costing
nearly $650,000.695
ATFs Phoenix Field Division informed ATF headquarters of large weapons recoveries tracing back
to Fast and Furious. The Phoenix Field Division had frequently forwarded these updates directly to
Deputy ATF Director Billy Hoover and Acting ATF Director Ken Melson.696 When Hoover learned
about how large Fast and Furious had grown in March 2010, he finally ordered the development of
an exit strategy.697 This exit strategy, something Hoover had never before requested in any other
case, was a timeline for ATF to wind down the case.698
Though Hoover commissioned the exit strategy in March, he did not receive it until early May. The
three-page document outlined a 30-, 60-, and 90-day strategy for winding down Fast and Furious
and handing it over to the U.S. Attorneys Office for prosecution.699
In July 2010, Acting Director Melson expressed concern about the number of weapons flowing to
Mexico,700 and in October 2010 the Assistant Director for Field Operations, the number three
691
Interview with Lorren Leadmon, Intelligence Operations Analyst, Washington, D.C., July 5, 2011.
Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (May 4,
2011) (questions for the Record of Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Atty Gen. of the U.S.).
693
Interview with Lorren Leadmon, Intelligence Operations Analyst, Washington, D.C., July 5, 2011
694
Transcribed Interview of Deputy Asst Dir. Steve Martin, ATF, at 36 (July 6, 2011).
695
See generally Operation the Fast and the Furious Presentation, Mar. 5, 2010.
696
E-mail from Mark Chait to Kenneth Melson and William Hoover (Feb. 24, 2010) [HOGR 001426].
697
Transcribed Interview of William Hoover, ATF Deputy Director, at 9 (July 21, 2011).
698
Id. at 72.
699
E-mail from Douglas Palmer, Supervisor Group V, ATF, to William Newell, ATF (Apr. 27, 2010).
692
140
official in ATF, expressed concern that ATF had not yet halted the straw purchasing activity in Fast
and Furious.701 Despite these concerns, however, the U.S. Attorneys Office continued to delay the
indictments, and no one at ATF headquarters ordered the Phoenix Field Division to simply arrest
the straw purchasers in order to take them off the street. The members of the firearms trafficking
ring were not arrested until two weapons from Fast and Furious were found at the murder scene of
Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
ATF never achieved the goal of dismantling a drug cartel. After months and months of investigative
work, Operation Fast and Furious resulted only in indictments of 20 straw purchasers only after
the death of Brian Terry. The indictments focus mainly on what is known as lying and buying.
ATF knew most of the indicted straw purchasers to be straw purchasers before Fast and Furious
even began. The investigation has discovered that some of the main Fast and Furious suspects
were paid FBI informants. Had the FBI shared this information with ATF, Fast and Furious could
have been shut down many months, if not a year, earlier than it was.
The DOJs Criminal Divisions Coordination with ATF

In early September 2009, according to Department e-mails, ATF and the Department of Justices
Criminal Division began discussions to talk about ways CRM [Criminal Division] and ATF can
coordinate on gun trafficking and gang-related initiatives.702 Early on in these discussions, Lanny
Breuer, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, sent an attorney to help the U.S.
Attorneys Office in Arizona prosecute ATF cases. The first case chosen for prosecution was
Operation Wide Receiver, a year-long ATF Phoenix Field Division investigation initiated in 2006,
which involved several hundred guns being walked. The U.S. Attorneys Office in Arizona, objecting
to the tactics used in Wide Receiver, had previously refused to prosecute the case.
According to James Trusty, a senior official in the Criminal Divisions Gang Unit, in September 2009
Assistant Attorney General Breuer was VERY interested in the Arizona gun trafficking case [Wide
Receiver], and he is traveling out [to Arizona] around 9/21. Consequently, he asked us for a
briefing on that case before the 21st rolls around.703 The next day, according to Trusty, Breuers
chief of staff mentioned the case again, so there is clearly great attention/interest from the front
office.704
When the Criminal Division prosecutor arrived in Arizona, she gave Trusty her impressions of the
case. Her e-mail stated:
Case involves 300 to 500 guns . . . . It is my understanding that a lot of these guns
walked. Whether some or all of that was intentional is not known.705
700
E-mail from Kenneth Melson to Mark Chait, et. al., (July 14, 2010) [HOGR 002084].
E-mail from Mark Chait to William Newell (Oct. 29, 2010) [HOGR 001890].
702
E-mail from Jason Weinstein to Lanny Breuer (Sept. 10, 2009) [HOGR 003378].
703
E-mail from James Trusty to Laura Gwinn (Sept. 2, 2009) [HOGR 003375].
704
E-mail from James Trusty to Laura Gwinn (Sept. 3, 2009) [HOGR 003376].
705
E-mail from Laura Gwinn to James Trusty (Sept. 3, 2009) [HOGR 003377].
701
141
Discussions between ATF and the Criminal Division regarding inter-departmental coordination
continued over the next few months. On December 3, 2009, the Acting ATF Director e-mailed
Breuer about this cooperation. He stated:
Lanny: We have decided to take a little different approach with regard to seizures of
multiple weapons in Mexico. Assuming the guns are traced, instead of working each
trace almost independently of the other traces from the seizure, I want to coordinate
and monitor the work on all of them collectively as if the seizure was one case.706
Breuer responded:
We think this is a terrific idea and a great way to approach the investigations of
these seizures. Our Gang Unit will be assigning an attorney to help you coordinate
this effort.707
Kevin Carwile, Chief of the Gang Unit, assigned an attorney, Joe Cooley, to assist ATF, and Operation
Fast and Furious was selected as a recipient of this assistance. Shortly after his assignment, Cooley
had to rearrange his holiday plans to attend a significant briefing on Fast and Furious.708
Cooley was assigned to Fast and Furious for the next three months. He advised the lead federal
prosecutor, Emory Hurley, and received detailed briefings on operational details. Cooley, though,
was not the only Criminal Division attorney involved with Fast and Furious during this time period.
The head of the division, Lanny Breuer, met with ATF officials about the case, including Deputy
Director Billy Hoover and Assistant Director for Field Operations Mark Chait.709
Given the initial involvement of the Criminal Division with Fast and Furious in the early stages of
the investigation, senior officials in Criminal Division should have been greatly alarmed about what
they learned about the case. These officials should have halted the program, especially given their
prior knowledge of gunwalking in Wide Receiver, which was run by the same leadership in the
same ATF field division.
On March 5, 2010, Cooley attended a briefing about Fast and Furious. The detailed briefing
highlighted the large number of weapons the gun trafficking ring had purchased and discussed
recoveries of those weapons in Mexico. According to Steve Martin, Deputy Assistant Director in
ATFs Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information, everyone in the room knew the weapons
from Fast and Furious were being linked to a Mexican cartel.710 Two weeks later, in mid-March
2010, Carwile pulled Cooley off Fast and Furious, when the U.S. Attorneys Office informed him that
it had the case under control.711
706
E-mail from Kenneth Melson to Lanny Breuer (Dec. 3, 2009) [HOGR 003403].
E-mail from Lanny Breuer to Kenneth Melson (Dec. 4, 2009) [HOGR 003403].
708
E-mail from Kevin Carwile to Jason Weinstein (Mar. 16, 2010) [HOGR 002832].
709
Meeting on Weapons Seizures in Mexico w/ Lanny Breuer at Robert F. Kennedy Building, Room 2107, Jan. 5,
2010, 10:00 AM [HOGR 001987].
710
Transcribed Interview of Deputy Asst Dir. Steve Martin, ATF, at 100 (July 6, 2011).
711
E-mail from Kevin Carwile to Jason Weinstein (Mar. 16, 2010, 9:00 a.m.) [HOGR DOJ 2382].
707
142
At about the same time, senior lawyers in the Criminal Division authorized wiretap applications for
Fast and Furious to be submitted to a federal judge. Fast and Furious involved the use of seven
wiretaps between March and July of 2010.
In a letter to Chairman Issa, the Deputy Attorney General acknowledged that the Office of
Enforcement Operations (OEO), part of the Justice Departments Criminal Division, is primarily
responsible for the Departments statutory wiretap authorizations.712 According to the letter,
lawyers in OEO review these wiretap packages to ensure that they meet statutory requirements
and DOJ policies.713 When OEO completes its review of a wiretap package, federal law provides
that the Attorney General or his designee in practice, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the
Criminal Division reviews and authorizes it.714 Each wiretap package includes an affidavit which
details the factual basis upon which the authorization is sought. Each application for Fast and
Furious included a memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Breuer to Paul OBrien, Director
of OEO, authorizing the interception application.715
The Criminal Divisions approval of the wiretap applications in Fast and Furious violated
Department of Justice policy. The core mission of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives is to protect[] our communities from . . . the illegal use and trafficking of firearms.716
The wiretap applications document the extensive involvement of the Criminal Division in Fast and
Furious. These applications were constructed from raw data contained in hundreds of Reports of
Investigation (ROI); the Department of Justice failed to produce any of these ROI in response to
the Committees subpoena. The Criminal Division authorized Fast and Furious wiretap applications
on March 10, 2010; April 15, 2010; May 6, 2010; May 14, 2010; June 1, 2010; and July 1, 2010.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth
Blanco, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney signed these applications on behalf of
Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.
The Office of the Deputy Attorney General

The Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) maintained close involvement in Operation
Fast and Furious. In the Justice Department, ATF reports to the Deputy Attorney General
(DAG).717 In practice, an official in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General is responsible for
managing the ATF portfolio. This official monitors the operations of ATF, and raises potential ATF
712
Letter from Dep Atty Gen. James M. Cole Chairman Darrell Issa et al., at 6 (Jan. 27, 2012).
Id.
714
See 18 U.S.C. 2516(1).
715
See, e.g., Memorandum from Lanny A. Breuer, Asst Atty Gen., Criminal Division to Paul M. OBrien,
Director, Office of Enforcement Operations, Criminal Division, Authorization for Interception Order Application,
Mar. 10, 2010.
716
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, ATFs Mission, http://www.atf.gov/about/mission (last
visited May 1, 2012).
717
USDOJ: About Department of Justice Agencies, available at http://www.justice.gov/agencies/index-org.html
(last visited May. 1, 2012).
713
143
issues to the attention of the DAG.718 During the pendency of Fast and Furious, this official was
Associate Deputy Attorney General Edward Siskel.
Officials in ODAG became familiar with Fast and Furious as early as March 2010. On March 12,
2010, Siskel and then-Acting DAG Gary Grindler received an extensive briefing on Fast and Furious
during a monthly meeting with the ATFs Acting Director and Deputy Director. This briefing
presented Grindler with overwhelming evidence of illegal straw purchasing during Fast and
Furious. The presentation included a chart of the names of the straw purchasers, 31 in all, and the
number of weapons they had acquired to date, 1,026.719 Three of these straw purchasers had
already purchased over 100 weapons each, with one straw purchaser having already acquired over
300 weapons. During this briefing, Grindler learned that buyers had paid cash for every single
gun.720
A map of Mexico detailed locations of recoveries of weapons purchased through Fast and Furious,
including some at crime scenes.721 The briefing also covered the use of stash houses where
weapons bought during Fast and Furious were stored before being transported to Mexico. Grindler
learned of some of the unique investigative techniques ATF was using during Fast and Furious.722
Despite receiving all of this information, then-Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler did not order
Fast and Furious to be shut down, nor did he follow-up with ATF or his staff about the investigation.
Throughout the summer of 2010, ATF officials remained in close contact with their ODAG
supervisors regarding Fast and Furious. Fast and Furious was a topic in each of the monthly
meetings between ATF and the DAG. ATF apprised Ed Siskel of significant recoveries of Fast and
Furious weapons, as well as of notable progress in the investigation, and Siskel indicated to ATF
that he was monitoring it.723 In mid-December 2010, after Fast and Furious had been ongoing for
over a year, Grindler received more details about the program. On December 15, 2010, Border
Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed. Two Fast and Furious weapons were recovered at the scene of
his murder. Two days later, Associate Deputy Attorney General Brad Smith sent Grindler and four
ODAG officials an e-mail detailing the circumstances of Terrys murder and its connection to Fast
and Furious.724 Smith attached a four-page summary of the Fast and Furious investigation.
THE COMMITTEES INVESTIGATION

In the pursuit of information that would expose the flawed decision-making that led to Operation
Fast and Furious and the steps taken to investigate the operation by the Department of Justice
oversight that is the constitutional responsibility of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform to conduct the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was unable to obtain
necessary information from the Department of Justice despite repeated attempts, ultimately leading
718
Transcribed Interview of Acting Dir. Kenneth Melson, at 25 (July 4, 2011).

Operation the Fast and the Furious, March 12, 2010 [HOGR 002820 HOGR 002823].
720
Id.
721
Id.
722
Id.
723
E-mail from Edward N. Siskel to Mark R. Chait (July 14, 2010) [HOGR 002847].
724
E-mail from Assoc. Deputy Atty Gen. Brad Smith to Deputy Atty Gen. Gary Grindler, et al. (Dec. 17, 2010)
[HOGR 002875-002881].
719
144
to Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt of Congress for failing to produce
documents under a congressional subpoena. Prior to instituting such dramatic proceedings, the
Committee Members and staff conducted numerous meetings and phone conversations in an effort
to clarify and highlight priorities with respect to the subpoenas; were flexible in scheduling dates
for transcribed interviews; agreed to review certain sensitive documents in camera to protect the
confidentiality of information and integrity of on-going investigations; extended production
deadlines; and narrowed the scope of documents. Despite repeated concessions, the Department
has refused to produce certain relevant documents to the Committee to aid in its investigation
representing on a number of occasions that it would not produce broad categories of documents.
The obstruction by the Department of Justice led the House of Representatives to vote to hold the
Attorney General in contempt of Congress; as such, Eric Holder became the first sitting Cabinet
official ever to face a contempt citation from Congress.725 On the same day, President Obama
asserted executive privilege over the subpoenaed documents opening the door to over two years
of litigation that will help define the scope of executive privilege and the extent to which the
President may protect documents within an executive agency from disclosure to the Legislative
Branch.726
725
Stephen Dinan, Holder heading out, but contempt lives on: Opponent says timing of resignation no coincidence,
WASH. TIMES, Sept. 25, 2014, available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/25/contempt-congresscase-will-proceed-without-holder/?page=all.
726
See Jordy Yager, Obama court appointee likely to decide contempt battle between Issa, Holder, HILL, (Mar. 19,
2013, 9:00 AM), available at http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/288895-obama-court-appointee-likely-todecide-contempt-battle-between-issa-holder.
145
AN ATTACK ON AMERICA ABROAD: BENGHAZI, LIBYA

The attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, which claimed the lives of four Americans
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woodshighlight the
need for significant security enhancements at overseas facilities to ensure Americans serving
abroad are protected. Decisions made by senior officials in the State Department, over the span of
nearly a year leading up to the attacks, contributed to a deteriorating security situation for
American personnel in Benghazi. These decisions and the U.S. response to this tragedy offer
important lessons for our countrys approach to diplomatic security abroad, and a full accounting is
required for Congress to perform its legislative responsibility to set policy and appropriate funds.
The story of the Benghazi attacks and their aftermath is one of unheeded warnings, tragic heroism,
and a lack of accountability.
THE ESCALATION
In early 2011, a popular uprising in the eastern city of Benghazi, Libya sparked a national
revolution against long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The escalation in violence prompted the
U.S. Embassy in Tripoli to suspend operations and evacuate all personnel in February 2011. To
reestablish a presence in the country and demonstrate support for the uprising, the State
Department sent J. Christopher Stevens, a career diplomat, to Benghazi as a Special Representative
to the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC), the fledgling opposition government.
Accompanied by a cadre of armed agents from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), Stevens
initially operated out of a hotel in Benghazi until security threats forced him to move to a more
secure U.S. facility. Starting in June 2011, the State Department leased three adjacent properties to
establish the Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi. Stevens remained in Benghazi as
Envoy until November 2011.
The U.S. government formally recognized the TNC as the legitimate government of Libya in July of
2011. As the Gaddafi regimes hold on the capital of Tripoli began to crumble, the TNC transferred
its operations from Benghazi to Tripoli in August 2011. The State Department subsequently
reopened the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli on September 22, 2011. As the focal point of U.S. diplomatic
activity shifted once again back to Tripoli, the future of the Benghazi special mission compound,
which had never enjoyed official U.S. diplomatic facility status, was in doubt. The property lease for
the Benghazi mission was due to expire in early February 2012.
After months of deliberation within the State Department, in December 2011, then-Assistant
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman sent an Action Memorandum to Under Secretary
for Management Patrick Kennedy requesting that Kennedy approve a continued U.S. presence in
Benghazi through the end of calendar year 2012.727 The memo cited ongoing U.S. policy interests
in maintaining a State Department footprint in Benghazi, including the need to maintain political,
economic, and public diplomacy, and commercial reporting in eastern Libya, a historically
marginalized but politically and economically important part of the country.
727
Memo from Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, Dept. of State to Patrick Kennedy,
Under Secretary for Management, Dept. of State (Dec. 27, 2011).
146
According to the memo:

[m]any Libyans have said the U.S. presence in Benghazi has a salutary, calming effect
on easterners who are fearful that the new focus on Tripoli could once again lead to
their neglect and exclusion from reconstruction and wealth distribution and
strongly favor a permanent U.S. presence in the form of a full consulate.728
Kennedy approved the memo, extending the Benghazi special mission compound for one year,
through the end of December 2012. Rather than the full consulate envisioned by the Libyans,
however, the Benghazi compound was a smaller temporary, residential facility, not officially
notified to the host government, even though it was also a full time office facility.729 The
Department consolidated its footprint onto two of the three compounds and reduced the number of
staff assigned to post. According to the action memorandum signed by Kennedy, DS would provide
a full complement of five Special Agents to protect two NEA diplomats and a communications
officer at the Benghazi mission.730
Diplomatic Security, however, struggled to provide security resources to protect the Benghazi
compound. Due to the temporary status of the SMC as approved by Ambassador Kennedy, DS was
unable to assign agents from its regular pool of candidates. Instead, the U.S. mission in Benghazi
had to rely on a recruitment system that asked volunteers to agree to short, temporary duty
(TDY) deployments to Benghazi. This voluntary system was not designed to fully staff an
overseas post like the SMC, leading to perennial shortfalls in security personnel. According to the
ARB, the Benghazi special mission had its full complement of five DS agents for only 23 days
between January 1 and September 9, 2012.731
Officials at Embassy Tripoli, including Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer (RSO), U.S.
Ambassador Gene Cretz, and his successor, J. Christopher Stevens, repeatedly sought additional
support from Washington to address security staffing shortfalls. Nordstrom believed that, despite
the written policy approved by Under Secretary Kennedy, an unwritten policy dictated that the
SMC would receive no more than three agents.732
On March 28, 2012, Ambassador Cretz sent a cable to Washington requesting, among other things,
the full complement of five DS agents for Benghazi. The cable stated, this number is required to
ensure that we have an appropriatepresence to carry out the SMCs mission.733 On April 19,
2012, the Department responded to the Ambassadors request by recommending a joint reassessment of the number of DS agents requested for Benghazi.734 The response prompted one
728
Id.
Accountability Review Board, U.S. Dept of State (Dec. 18, 2012), at 30, available at
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf.
730
Memo from Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, Dept. of State to Patrick Kennedy,
Under Secretary for Management, Dept. of State (Dec. 27, 2011).
731
Accountability Review Board, U.S. Dept of State (Dec. 18, 2012), at 31, available at
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf.
732
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Meeting with Eric Nordstrom (Oct. 1, 2012).
733
12 TRIPOLI 130, Mar. 28, 2012.
734
12 STATE 38989, Apr. 19, 2012.
729
147
frustrated diplomat in Benghazi to remark to her colleagues that it look[ed] like no movement on
the full complement of [5 DS] personnel for Benghazi, but rather a reassessment to bring numbers
lower.735
Extremists bombed the SMC on June 6, 2012, using an IED to blow a hole in the perimeter wall.
Following this incident, the RSO in Tripoli renewed the request for the full complement of five DS
agents to be stationed in Benghazi. Although at least two DS officials in Washington the Regional
Director for Near Eastern Affairs as well as the Libya desk officer supported this request, senior
State Department officials ultimately denied it.736
The June 6, 2012, attack on the SMC came amidst a sharp deterioration in the overall security
environment in Benghazi. On June 11, RPG-wielding assailants attacked the British Ambassadors
convoy. As a result, the British withdrew their diplomatic presence in Benghazi. The United
Nations and International Committee of the Red Cross also withdrew their personnel from
Benghazi after armed assailants directed attacks against them as well. These developments caused
Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood, the leader of a team of U.S. Special Forces soldiers under the
direction of the Ambassador, to recommend that the State Department consider pulling out of
Benghazi altogether. Wood explained that after these other organizations withdrew, it was
apparent to me that we were the last [Western] flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last thing on
their target list to remove from Benghazi.737
In addition to the understaffed DS detail, local, unarmed contract guards, as well as four members
of the February 17 Martyrs Brigadea revolutionary militiaprotected the Benghazi facility.
Numerous reports document the brigades extremist connections, and its likely involvement in the
kidnapping of American citizens and making threats against the U.S. military. In the days leading up
to the September 11 attacks, February 17 Brigade officials informed Department personnel that the
brigade would no longer provide security to American diplomats in Benghazi traveling off
compound.
On September 10, 2012, Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi with two Assistant Regional
Security Officers, bringing the total number of on-compound DS agents to five, and the total number
of Americans at the SMC to seven. Ambassador Stevens joined Sean Smith, an Information
Management Officer (IMO) at the SMC.
On September 11-12, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, claimed
the lives of four AmericansAmbassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods.
On September 20, 2012, just one week after the September 11-12, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S.
mission in Benghazi, Libya, Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Security, sent a letter to the Secretary of State asking for documents related to the events
735
E-mail from Jennifer A. Larson, Principal Officer, Dept of State, to Eric Nordstrom, Regional Security Officer,
Dept of State, Ambassador Gene Cretz, et al. (Apr. 21, 2012, 1:57 P.M.).
736
STAFF OF H. COMM. ON OVERSIGHT & GOVT REFORM, 113TH CONG., REPORT: BENGHAZI ATTACKS:
INVESTIGATIVE UPDATE, INTERIM REPORT ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW BOARD (Sept. 16, 2013), at 56-57.
737
The Security Failures of Benghazi: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 112th Cong.
(Oct. 10, 2012) (Testimony of Lt. Col. Andrew Wood).
148
leading up to the Benghazi attacks.738 Committee Chairman Darrell Issa joined Subcommittee
Chairman Chaffetz in writing to the Secretary of State again on October 2, 2012, asking for
additional documents.739
PUBLIC STATEMENTS SURROUNDING THE ATTACKS

In the days and weeks following the attacks, the Administrations public statements produced
conflicting accounts of what transpired in Benghazi. The resulting confusion and public outrage
came to a head on Sunday, September 16, 2012 when the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations,
Susan Rice, appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows to share what was said to be the U.S.
Governments best assessment at that time of how the attacks unfolded, namely that a
demonstration in Benghazi over a video on the Internet deemed offensive to Muslims evolved into a
military assault.740 This assessment was ultimately proven to be completely false.
Much of the public outcry over the Administrations misleading narrative focused on the actions of
Ambassador Rice and personnel at the State Department. During the course of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reforms investigation into the events before, during and after the
attacks in Benghazi, the Committee examined the role of the State Department in the development
of the now-infamous talking points used by Ambassador Rice on September 16, 2012. As has been
previously highlighted by documents released to the press by the White House, hearing testimony
and public statements, these talking points were drafted by officials of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), and reflected an assessment of the Intelligence Community (IC) and national
security interagency process.
RESPONSE TO THE ATTACKS

Much of the criticism following the tragic events in Benghazi surrounded the lack of response by the
State Department to support those in desperate need, specifically the Departments role in not
instructing Department of Defense (DOD) assets to assist those at the hands of aggressors. In the
months following the attacks, Committee hearings examined whether the State Department could
have done more to help those in need by ordering DOD assets to render much-needed assistance.
During a Committee hearing on May 1, 2014, Robert Lovell, a retired U.S. Air Force brigadier
general serving as the Deputy Director of Intelligence and Knowledge Development at U.S. Africa
Command (AFRICOM) headquarters in Germany the night of the attacks, testified that
commanders that night discussed what we should do as they waited for a request for assistance
from the State Department.741 The Department, however, never requested DOD assets to assist the
Americans in Benghazi, although assets were mobilized to respond to events in the region or to a
hostage crisis involving the Ambassador. He testified to the Committee that DOD assets should
738
Letter from Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, H. Subcomm. on Natl Security, to Hon. Hillary Clinton, Secy, U.S.
Dept of State (Sept. 20, 2012).
739
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, & Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Subcomm. on Natl Security, to Hon. Hillary Clinton, Secy, U.S. Dept of State (Oct. 2, 2012).
740
See, e.g., Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated, ABC NEWS (Sept. 16, 2012).
741
Benghazi, Instability, and a New Government: Successes and Failures of U.S. Intervention in Libya: Hearing
Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (May 1, 2014) (Testimony of Ret. USAF Brigadier
Gen. Robert Lovell).
149
have tried to save those under attack in Benghazi.742 He stated: There are accounts of time, space
and capability, discussions of the question, could we have gotten there in time to make a
difference?743 He further explained: The discussion is not could or could not of time, space and
capability. The point is we should have tried.744
SECRETARY CLINTON CONVENES AN ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW BOARD

Pursuant to statutory requirement under the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Terrorism Act of
1986, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened an Accountability Review Board (ARB) shortly
after the attacks to address these questions. The five-member Board comprised distinguished
public servants, including Chairman Thomas Pickering, former U.S. Ambassador to six countries and
the United Nations, and Vice Chairman Michael Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The ARB operated under significant time pressure, completing its work and issuing a final report in
just over two months. The State Department widely supported the ARBs recommendations, and
sought to implement them without hesitation. For some, including the Department itself, this
report represented the final word on the internal failures that contributed to the tragedy in
Benghazi. For others, however, the report overvalued certain facts, overlooked others, and failed to
address systemic issues that have long plagued the State Department.
In order to address these concerns, the Committee held a hearing on May 8, 2013, entitled,
Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage. Not only did the testimony of three State
Department officialsMark Thompson, Eric Nordstrom, and Gregory Hicks provide important
information to Committee Members about the fateful attacks, it raised additional questions about
the attacks as well as the ARBs work. In light of these questions, the Committee initiated a
comprehensive investigation of the ARB procedures, findings and recommendations.
Understanding how the ARB reached its conclusions informs the Committees interest in ensuring
that this process remains efficient and effective, and that U.S. diplomats are able to avoid situations
that compromise their safety or their mission.
Witnesses interviewed by the Committee raised a number of significant concerns with the ARB
process, findings, and recommendations. Most notably, numerous witnesses questioned the ARBs
findings regarding the four Department employees held accountable for Benghazi. In some cases
the ARB appeared to hold individuals accountable for actions which had nothing to do with security
in Benghazi. In other cases, the ARB correctly identified poor individual decisions while apparently
failing to take into account decisions made by more senior Department officials which played an
equal if not greater role in the vulnerability of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. In
particular, the decision by Department leadership to operate the Benghazi mission as a temporary
and particularly ill-defended outpost of what it calls expeditionary diplomacy was not adequately
addressed by the ARB, nor did the ARB hold any individuals accountable for that decision.
The State Departments response to the ARBs findings on accountability is also troubling.
Secretary Clinton immediately relieved the four employees identified by the ARB of their duties and
742
Id.
Id.
744
Id.
743
150
subsequently placed them on administrative leavean ambiguous status akin to bureaucratic

limbo. The Department misled these employees about what administrative leave entailed, did not
allow the employees to challenge this decision, and further prohibited them accessing the classified
ARB Report, which contained the evidence against them. Moreover, the ARB failed to question
these employees on the very topics for which they were held accountable. Further, after eight
months of paid administrative leave, Secretary of State John Kerry reinstated these four employees
to Department service. Therefore, over two years after the Benghazi attacks, no one at the State
Department has been fired for their role leading up to the attacks and it appears increasingly likely
the Departments primary objective was to create the public appearance accountability while
avoiding substantive reforms which may make U.S. diplomats overseas safer.
DETAILS OF THE COMMITTEES INVESTIGATION

During the Committees investigation into the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, the Committee
pursued numerous fact-finding measures, such as conducting transcribed interviews, depositions,
and hearings. The Committee conducted:
27 Transcribed Interviews
Two Depositions
Four Hearings
In addition, Committee investigators reviewed approximately 65,000 pages of documents and
prepared a staff report titled, Benghazi Attacks: Investigative Update Interim Report on the
Accountability Review Board, released on September 16, 2013.
Throughout the Committees investigation into the terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi,
the Department refused to work with Congress and produce requested documents and information
related to the attacks. Although Congressman Jason Chaffetz initially wrote to the Secretary of State
on the matter just one week after the attacks and was later joined by Chairman Issa in writing to the
Secretary of State on October 2, 2012, the Department did not make any documents available to
Committee majority Members and staff until the morning of October 10, 2012745, when the
Committee held its first hearing on Benghazi, entitled, The Security Failures of Benghazi.746
Over the course of the next several months, the Department made additional documents of its
choosing available to the Committee. The Department refused, however, to produce the documents
requested by the Committee. The Department required an arrangement whereby materials
including unclassified documentswere only made available to the Committee for in camera
review. This forced Committee staff to adhere to the Departments schedule, andin the presence
of Department personnelto perform their work.
745
E-mail from Hon. David S. Adams, Assistant Secy, Legis. Affairs, U.S. Dept of State, to H. Comm. on
Oversight & Govt Reform Majority Staff (Oct. 10, 2012, 5:52 a.m.).
746
The Security Failures of Benghazi: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 112th Cong.
(Oct. 10, 2012).
151
The Committee issued a subpoena to the Secretary of State on August 1, 2013 for documents
previously made available to the Committee for in camera review.747 The Department began
producing these materials on August 16, 2013; however, the Department refused to produce the
documents as required by the Committees subpoena.
The Committee issued a separate subpoena to the Secretary of State for documents related to the
Accountability Review Board on August 1, 2013.748 Although the Committee had already requested
these documents in a letter to the Secretary on January 28, 2013, the Department did not provide
any documents pursuant to this subpoena until October 22, 2013, over two months after the
subpoena return date. In addition, the Department informed the Committee that it would not
produce all documents responsive to the subpoena.
Throughout the investigation, the Committee made numerous attempts to accommodate the
interests of the Department of State. Committee staff spent over a year reviewing documents in
camera, only accessing the documents as allowed by the Department and under the watchful eye of
Department personnel; granted extensions of production deadlines; agreed to the Departments
strict conditions for the use of documents during transcribed interviews; allowed the Department
to take lock bags containing key documents identified by Committee staff back to the Department;
permitted rolling document productions; and withdrew subpoenas for witness testimony when
individuals agreed to appear voluntarily. Despite the Committees numerous attempts at
accommodation throughout the investigation, the State Department flatly refused to produce
certain documents to the Committee.
CONTINUED INVESTIGATION
The September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya
resulted in a tragic and unnecessary loss of American life. The attacks also raise a number of
important and substantive questions about U.S. foreign policy, with which policymakers will have
to grapple for some time. A key area for further discussion and analysis is the balance between the
U.S. Department of States perceived policy imperative of operating diplomatic outposts abroad
with the security realities of doing so in dangerous and unstable environments such as Libya.
Following the Committees hearing on May 1, 2014, Speaker John Boehner announced his intention
for the House to vote on the formation of a select committee to investigate the events surrounding
the attacks in Benghazi. On May 8, 2014, the House voted to establish the Select Committee on
Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. The select committee, chaired by
Representative Trey Gowdy, continues to investigate the events before, during, and after the
attacks.
747
Subpoena from H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform to Hon. John F. Kerry, Secy, U.S. Dept of State (Aug.
1, 2013).
748
Id.
152
SAFETY AT HOME: DOMESTIC SECURITY CONCERNS

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: TROUBLE WITH SCREENING TECHNOLOGIES
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, led to dramatic reforms in how the Federal
Government protects the traveling public and the Nations transportation sector. Securing
commercial aviation became a top priority for Congress and resulted in the development and
passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (ATSA). ATSA created the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and directed the agency to secure travelers
through improved passenger and baggage screening operations. To successfully carry out its
mission, TSA utilizes many layers of security, including screening technology.
During the last decade, TSA has struggled to cost- effectively utilize taxpayer funding to procure and
deploy security equipment at the Nations 463 airports where TSA provides screening operations.
The Committees oversight work highlighted serious inefficiencies in TSAs management and
deployment of screening technology, and provided recommendations for the improvement of TSAs
role in securing the U.S. transportation system. In conjunction with the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee majority, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee made
recommendations emphasizing TSAs need to more effectively develop its deployment strategy
prior to the procurement of screening technologies.749 The TSA must look for ways to reduce
significant shipping costs for the thousands of pieces of equipment it deploys annually.
Effective transportation security equipment is essential to TSAs ability to successfully protect the
Nations civil aviation system while allowing for the free flow of travelers and commerce. Since
2001, TSA has obligated more than $8 billion for the enhancement of passenger and checkedbaggage screening. In 2011, TSA had approximately 16,000 pieces of screening equipment
deployed to 463 airports nationwide.750
In order to manage the procurement and deployment of tens of thousands of pieces of screening
equipment, TSA created the Transportation Logistics Center in 2005. The Transportation Logistics
Center is the equipment clearinghouse that TSA uses to receive and ship screening equipment to
and from manufacturers and deployment locations. It is also used to store equipment awaiting
repair or redeployment.751 The TLC is located in Dallas, Texas, and is comprised of three
warehouses totaling nearly 700,000 square feet of space.752
Annual costs for leasing and managing the TLC are more than $3.5 million.753 This includes $1.7
million per year for operations at the three warehouses, which are managed by contractors754 and
749
Staff of H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform and Majority Staff of H. Comm. on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Airport Insecurity: TSAs Failure to Cost-Effectively Procure, Deploy and Warehouse its Screening
Technologies, 112th Cong. (2012).
750
TSA, briefing document, Acquisition and disposition of TSA Equipment, Aug. 9, 2011.
751
DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONS LOGISTICS CENTER, OIG 10-14, 2 (2009).
752
Briefing with TSA Officials and TLC Warehouse Manager and H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform and
H. Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure Staff, Transportation Logistics Center, Dallas, Texas, Feb. 15, 2012.
753
Id.
754
TSA, briefing document, Acquisition and disposition of TSA Equipment, Aug. 9, 2011.
153
approximately $1.8 million per year for leasing the three warehouses.755 In 2009, Department of
Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) cited TSAs inefficient management of
its security equipment as a contributing factor for TSAs addition of the third warehouse to the TLC
at a cost of $2 million.756
Since the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was created on
November 25, 2002, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has designated the Department
of Homeland Security and its programs as high risk partially due to its continuing challenges in
efficiently procuring security technologies. Despite longstanding concerns, DHS, and particularly
TSA, have struggled to implement sound and well-planned acquisition policies.
In addition to these struggles, TSAs failure to implement a risk-based approach in the procurement
and deployment of its screening technologies has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of
wasted taxpayer investment. Throughout the past decade, TSAs failure to efficiently manage its
screening technology acquisition process has led to the deployment of operationally ineffective
technologies, also resulting in the accumulation of thousands of pieces of screening equipment in
storage for excessive amounts of time.
Explosive Trace Detection Portals (Puffers)

From 2004 to 2006, TSA spent more than $30 million to procure and deploy Explosive Trace
Detection Portals, known as puffers, as part of its passenger screening operations. While TSA
procured 207 puffers, the agency deployed only 101 less than 50 percent of procured puffers
nationwide because TSA belatedly discovered the puffers were unable to detect explosives in an
operational environment.757 TSA rushed this untested product to deployment, ignoring internal
procedures designed to prevent this type of waste. After the decision was made to remove and
dispose of the puffers, TSA stored this ineffective technology for upwards of four years at taxpayer
expense prior to disposition in 2009 and 2010.
Advanced Imaging Technology Devices (AIT)

In response to the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber Attack, TSA revised the AIT procurement
and deployment strategy, increasing the planned deployment of AITs . . . and using AITs as a
primaryinstead of a secondaryscreening measure where feasible.758 According to GAO,
however, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have been able to detect the weapon Mr.
755
Id.
DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONS LOGISTICS CENTER, OIG 10-14, 2 (2009).
757
See, http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/tsa-puffer-machines-pulled-service. (last visited Nov. 24, 2014).
758
See U.S. GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, AVIATION SECURITY: TSA IS INCREASING PROCUREMENT AND
DEPLOYMENT OF THE ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY, BUT CHALLENGES TO THIS EFFORT AND OTHER AREAS OF
AVIATION SECURITY REMAIN, GAO-10-484T, (2010).
756
154
Abdulmutallab used in his attempted attack based on the preliminary TSA information we have
received. 759
Failing to learn from its failed procurement of puffers, and in the wake of the Christmas Day
Bomber, TSA rushed to install 500 Advanced Imaging Technology devices, without clear evidence of
effectiveness, at a cost of more than $122 million.760 Despite lingering passenger health concerns
and uncertainty that AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 Underwear
Bomber incident, TSA planned to increase its deployment of AITs from 878 to 1,800 by the end of
FY 2014.761 GAO has estimated increases in staffing costs alone, due to doubling the number of AITs
that TSA plans to deploy, could add up to $2.4 billion over the expected service life of the AITs.762
Despite already spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the procurement of ineffective
Advanced Imaging Technology machines, TSA is also ineffectively deploying the screening
technology. On March 26, 2012, at a joint hearing conducted by the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Stephen Lord, GAOs
Director of Homeland Security, testified that: some of the deployed AIT units were used on less
than 5 percent of the days they were available since their deployment . . . some units were used on
less than 30 percent of the days available since their installation.763 As such, the ineffective
deployment of AIT diminished any potential security benefits of the technology and highlights the
import of effective deployment.764
In-Line Explosive Detection Systems (EDS)

TSA also failed to deploy in-line Explosive Detection Systems in a cost-effective and risk-based
manner. In 2011, less than half of the nations 35 largest airports, which handled 75 percent of all
commercial passengers,765 screened all checked baggage through in-line systems. TSA estimated
that in-line explosive detection systems for checked baggage could reduce the number of required
TSA baggage screeners by as much as 78 percent.766 However, despite the potential security and
economic benefits of in-line baggage screening, GAO found that TSA struggled to upgrade its
deployed fleet of checked baggage-screening machines and that some of TSAs deployed machines
759
U.S. GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, AVIATION SECURITY: TSA IS INCREASING PROCUREMENT AND
760
E-mail from TSA Legislative Affairs to House Oversight and Govt Reform Comm. (Mar. 3, 2011, 2:00 P.M.).
761
Id.
762
U.S. GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, AVIATION SECURITY: TSA IS INCREASING PROCUREMENT AND
763
TSA Oversight Part III: Effective Security or Security Theater?: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and
764
Id..
765
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FAA AEROSPACE FORECAST: FISCAL YEARS 2011-2031, 26 (2010),
available at
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forecasts/aerospace_forecasts/20112031/media/2011%20Forecast%20Doc.pdf.
766
See U.S. GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, AVIATION SECURITY: TSA HAS ENHANCED ITS EXPLOSIVES
DETECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR CHECKED BAGGAGE, BUT ADDITIONAL SCREENING ACTIONS ARE NEEDED GAO11-740, (2011).
155
are detecting explosives at standards promulgated in 1998.767 GAO recommended that TSA develop
a plan to upgrade and deploy EDS that meet current explosive detection standards.
As previously noted, TSAs inability to follow its own procurement guidance has led to the
deployment of hundreds of millions of dollars of ineffective technologies. The importance of
conducting a cost-benefit analysis to guide he procurement and deployment needs of the agency
cannot be overstated.
BORDER SECURITY: EFFECTIVELY IDENTIFYING AND RESPONDING TO THREATS?

On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which
created the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and eventually incorporated Customs and
Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Immigration Services
into the Department.768 In keeping with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committees
pivotal role in shaping the Departments mission and goals, the Act delegated it responsibility for
conducting broad oversight of the Department and its agencies.769
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has conducted extensive oversight of U.S.
border security policies and programs. The Committee has examined border technology
procurement, the potential for spillover violence from Mexico, Port of Entry infrastructure (POE),
visa issuances, the proliferation of tunnels along the southwest border, information sharing among
agencies, intelligence collection at the El Paso Intelligence Center, existing environmental
regulations impeding border patrol operations, and border security metrics, including CBPs
reporting practices of apprehensions, got-aways and turn back south.
On April 2, 2013, Members and staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
traveled to Yuma and Nogales, Arizona, to assess the Federal Governments most recent efforts to
secure the border. The Committees oversight addressed challenges in identifying and
understanding various threats to maintain a secure border. These matters are of paramount
importance to our homeland defense and national security.
Secure Fence Act of 2006 (SFA)

The Secure Fence Act of 2006,770 intended [t]o establish operational control over the international
land and maritime borders of the United States, authorizes the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security to take necessary and appropriate actions to secure U.S. borders.771 This
authorization grants the Secretary discretion in the use of electronic surveillance equipment,
construction of new fencing structures, and establishes the requirement to achieve situational
control in border operations. These efforts were undertaken to obtain operational control of the
767
See id.
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296.
769
Hearings Conducted by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Homeland Security.
See, http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/house07ch107.html (last visited June 17, 2013).
770
Secure Fence Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-367.
771
Id.
768
156
border, which was defined in the SFA as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United
States.772
From 2006 to 2012, the security measures implemented to help achieve operational control of the
U.S. borders have cost the U.S. taxpayer approximately $75 billion.773 The Federal Government has
spent this money mostly on CBP and ICE operations to secure POEs, between POEs, and for Border
Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology.774
In the meantime, the Federal Government continues to identify emerging challenges, including Drug
Trafficking Organizations use semi-submersibles vessels and ultra-light aircrafts, the construction
of underground tunnels, and the influx of Other Than Mexicans (OTMs). The myriad evolving
challenges to securing the southwest border require innovative responses. Some of the solutions
have included the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, advanced technology, and an increase of border
patrol agents.
KEEPING OUR PRESIDENT SAFE: IS THE U.S. SECRET SERVICE PREPARED?

The United States Secret Service has two missions: criminal investigations and protection of
national and visiting foreign leaders. Most notably, the Secret Service ensures the safety of the
President, First Family and others who occupy the White House. As such, the Secret Service plays
an essential role in protecting the President against foreign and domestic security threats.
However, recently, grave lapses in security and scandals involving United States Secret Service
agents and Uniformed Division officers have plagued the prestigious agency and have imperiled the
security of those the agency protectsand, by extension, United States national security.
Moreover, Secret Service leadership failed to disclose these scandals in a forthright way. The
failure of the Secret Service to adequately respond to national security threats and to subject itself
to full and independent oversight compromises the agencys ability to protect the President of the
United States. The series of security lapses and scandals were brought to the American publics
attention when a fence-jumper scaled the White House fence and breached multiple levels of
security before actually making it inside the White House.
Lack of Accountability
The breach by Omar Gonzalez on September 19, 2014 not only constituted an unacceptable security
breach of the White House, but also exposed agency-wide lapses in judgment that revealed a larger
cultural decline within the Secret Service. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
investigated various scandals involving behavioral problems at the Secret Service which have
undoubtedly have had a detrimental effect on Secret Service operational integrity. These scandals
have undoubtedly compromised the Secret Services ability to successfully protect the President.
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a
hearing titled, White House Perimeter Breach: New Concerns about the Secret Service. The hearing
772
Id.
Congressional Research Service, Reports, R42644, R41982, R41189, 40642, RL34482, RL34004, RL33428 (on
file with author).
774
Id.
773
157
focused on the September 19 incident in light of prior USSS scandals, including the Cartagena
prostitution scandal and the Operation Moonlight scandal. As a result of the hearing, Director
Piersons leadership at the agency was heavily scrutinized, and she ultimately resigned her post on
October 1.
Prostitutes in Cartagena, Columbia

The Committee investigated the alleged impropriety of Secret Service agents and White House
staff775 during a trip to Cartagena, Columbia.776 In April 2012, off-duty Secret Service agents in
Cartagena, Colombia, reportedly brought strippers back to their hotel rooms while on a presidential
trip to the Summit of the Americas. The incident revealed the alarming lack of judgment of the
agents and officers of the Secret Service displayed. Such failures put the safety of the President,
Vice-President and other foreign leaders at risk.
The risqu incident raised questions about the culture at the Secret Service, showing Secret Service
agents and officers making a series of poor decisions, such as excessive drinking, engaging with
prostitutes, possibly allowing foreign nationals to be in proximity with sensitive security
information, and exposing themselves to blackmail and other forms of potential compromise. At
least 11 agents and officers reportedly had a role in the incident. Former Director Mark Sullivan
took steps to investigate the matter in order to prevent future occurrences. His actions included
bringing the agents home immediately, interviewing them, and revoking their clearances. Such
action was critical to determine the extent of the potential threat to national security.
In May 2013, a senior Secret Service supervisor, Ignacio Zamora Jr., attempted to forcibly enter the
hotel room of a woman at the Hay-Adams hotel in Washington, D.C. to retrieve a bullet from his
service weapon that he left in the room earlier that night.777 A follow-up investigation into the
incident found that Zamora and another supervisor, Timothy Barraclough, had sent sexually
suggestive emails to a female subordinate at the Secret Service.778 The agency removed Zamora
from his position and transferred Barraclough to a separate part of the division the following
month.779 Zamoras behavior was particularly disconcerting, as he allegedly took part in the
agencys investigation in the aftermath of agents gross misconduct in Cartagena.780
Operation Moonlight
The Committee also investigated allegations that Secret Service personnel were ordered from their
official posts to provide personal protection to a friend of former Secret Service Director Mark
775
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Hon. Kathryn Ruemmler,
Counsel to the President (Oct. 11, 2012).
776
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, & Hon. Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member, on Comm. on Oversight
& Govt Reform, to Hon. Mark J. Sullivan, Director, U.S. Secret Service (April 18, 2012).
777
Carol Leonnig & David Nakamura, Two Secret Service agents cut from Obamas detail after alleged misconduct,
WASH. POST, Nov. 13, 2013, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/two-secret-service-supervisorscut-from-obamas-detail-after-alleged-misconduct/2013/11/13/c736638c-48a8-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html.
778
Id.
779
Id.
780
Letter from Hon. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, Subcomm. on Natl Security, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform,
U.S. House of Rep., & Hon. Ron Johnson, Ranking Member, Subcomm. on Financial & Contracting Oversight.
Comm. on Homeland Security & Govt Affairs, U.S. Senate, to Charles Edwards, Deputy Inspector General, U.S.
Dept of Homeland Security (Nov. 14, 2013).
158
Sullivan.781 On May 10, 2014, the Washington Post reported, Top Secret Service officials ordered
members of a special unit responsible for patrolling the White House perimeter to abandon their
posts over at least two months in 2011 in order to protect a personal friend of the agencys
director.782 According to the Post, these Secret Service employees were sent to the home of an
assistant to then-Director Mark Sullivan as often as twice a day from June 2011 to August 2011 an
activity known internally as Operation Moonlight because Sullivan was concerned that his
assistant was being harassed by her neighbor.783
According to a Secret Service spokesman, these employees were simply directed to check on the
safety of Sullivans assistant, a standard agency response to potential threats to an employee.784
The Post report, however, states that Secret Service employees essentially staked out the assistants
neighborhood for several months and did not coordinate their activities with local law
enforcement.785 In addition, it was unclear if was appropriate for a federal law enforcement agency
to involve itself in a matter under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement. After conducting an
investigation, DHS Inspector General John Roth found that the Secret Service erred in diverting
members of a special White House unit to protect Sullivans permanent friend.786 Roth finds that
there was no legal justification for the activity. He concluded that the diversion of manpower was
a serious lapse in judgment.787 Ultimately, this course of action detrimentally impacted the
Presidents security by detailing employees normally assigned to protect the White House.
Compromised Secret Service Oversight

Unfortunately, pressures from within further compromised congressional oversight of the USSS.
Problems at USSS not only permeated throughout the agency, but also within the hierarchy of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tasked with oversight of USSS. The DHS Inspector
General (IG) is charged with independent oversight of DHS. However, on April 24, 2014, the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs issued a report documenting
that former Acting Inspector General Charles Edwards jeopardized the independence of the
OIG.788 The Senate report further stated that during Edwards tenure, which coincided with the
events of Operation Moonlight, certain information deemed derogatory was removed from an
781
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, and Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Subcomm. on Natl Security, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Hon. Julia Pierson, Director,
United States Secret Service (May 20, 2014).
782
Carol D. Leonnig, Secret Service agents pulled off White House patrol to help protect a top officials aide,
WASH. POST, May 10, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-agents-pulled-offwhite-house-patrol-to-help-protect-a-top-officials-friend/2014/05/10/8bd962bc-d453-11e3-aae8c2d44bd79778_story.html.
783
Id.
784
Id.
785
Id.
786
Susan Crabtree, Watchdog: No justification for Operation Moonlight, WASH. EXAMINER, Oct. 22, 2014,
available at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/watchdog-no-justification-for-operationmoonlight/article/2555121.
787
Id.
788
Staff of Senate Subcomm. on Financial & Contracting Oversight, Senate Comm. on Homeland Security &
Governmental Affairs, Investigation into Allegations of Misconduct by the Former Acting and Deputy Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security, 113th Cong. 2 (2014).
159
OIG report on Secret Service misconduct in Cartagena, Colombia.789 Although Secret Service
employees reported their concerns about Operation Moonlight to the OIG, no one investigated
those concerns.790 In light of this, in May 2014 Chairman Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Chaffetz
sought an independent congressional review of information related to Operation Moonlight.791
The Resignation of USSS Director Julia Pierson

The Cartagena prostitution and Operation Moonlight scandals fueled congressional oversight that
culminated in Secret Service Director Julia Piersons resignation when, on September 19, 2014,
Omar Jose Gonzalez, 42, formerly of Copperas Cove, Texas, scaled the North Fence of the executive
mansion, sprinted approximately 70 yards, and entered the North Portico entrance of the White
House. Gonzalez breached five rings of security before he was finally stopped by a plainclothes
agent within the White House.792 At the time of the intrusion, Gonzalez was carrying a Spyderco
VG-10 folding knife with a 3-and-a-half inch serrated blade in his pants pocket.793 Luckily, no one
was hurt.
Director Piersons apparent lack of candor with the White House greatly troubled the Committee,
and brought into question her fitness as the Secret Service Director. Of serious concern to the
Committee was initial reporting that Gonzalez was apprehended immediately upon entry into the
White House. These reports were proven false when Director Pierson confirmed reports794 that
Gonzalez made it into the East Room adjacent to the Green Room. He passed by a staircase leading
up to the First Family living quarters, before finally being subdued.
On the day of the Committee hearing, the Washington Post reported an additional egregious
breakdown in Presidential security three days prior to the Gonzalez incident. On September 16,
2014, during a visit to the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, the Secret Service allowed a contractor with an
arrest record and a firearm to ride on an elevator with president Obama.795 Under Secret Service
protocols, people with weapons, arrests, or convictions for assault and related offenses or any
history of mental illness are typically barred from having any access to the president. But it
appears that this man, possessing a gun, came within inches of the president after undergoing no
789
Id..
Carol D. Leonnig, Secret Service agents pulled off White House patrol to help protect a top officials aide,
WASH. POST, May 10, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-agents-pulled-offwhite-house-patrol-to-help-protect-a-top-officials-friend/2014/05/10/8bd962bc-d453-11e3-aae8c2d44bd79778_story.html.
791
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, & Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Subcomm. on Natl Security, to Hon. Julia Pierson, Dir. U.S. Secret Serv. (May 20, 2014).
792
Carol D. Leonning & David A. Fahrenthold, New Details in Fence-jumping Reveal Failures in Security Rings
Around White House, WASH. POST, Sept. 23, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/newdetails-in-fence-jumping-reveal-failures-in-security-rings-around-white-house/2014/09/23/043518ea-434a-11e4b47c-f5889e061e5f_story.html.
793
Ralph Ellis, et al, A knife, a reported prior attempt in White House security incidents, CNN, Sept. 21, 2014,
available at http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/20/us/white-house-security-incident/index.html?hpt=hp_t1.
794
Carol D. Leonnig, White House Fence Jumper Made It Far Deeper into Building than Previously Known, WASH.
POST, Sept. 29, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-fence-jumper-made-it-fardeeper-into-building-than-previously-known/2014/09/29/02efd53e-47ea-11e4-a046-120a8a855cca_story.html.
795
Carol D. Leonnig, Armed Contractor with Arrest Record Was on Elevator with Obama in Atlanta, WASH. POST,
available at Sept. 30, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/armed-former-convict-was-onelevator-with-obama-in-atlanta/2014/09/30/76d7da24-48e3-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html.
790
160
such screening. Despite the peculiar nature of the event, Director Pierson testified that she did not
inform President Obama about the incident.
Another security threat, coming on the heels of the September 19, 2014, intrusion by Omar
Gonzalez, only came to light through investigative reporting at the Washington Post. The Post
reported that the Secret Service mishandled a November 11, 2011, shooting by Oscar OrtegaHernandez.796 On November 11, a gunman fired shots at the White House, striking the faade seven
times. The Secret Service fumbled the response in the aftermath of the shooting. Secret Service
officers and agents were given the order to stand down and that no shots had been fired, and
supervisors deferred to other agencies for the investigation.797 Such action was taken despite
information showing the gunshots were likely a direct assault on the White House.798
According to the Secret Service, five minutes after the first Secret Service uniformed officer
reported hearing gunshots, at 2057 hrs A suspect vehicle, described as a black Honda Accord,
Idaho tag [redacted], was located by USSS/UD and US Park Police unoccupied at 23rd Street and
Constitution Ave with a loaded assault rifle on the front passenger seat.799 Contrary to that
evidence and the reports of officers who heard gunfire and smelled gunpowder, the Secret Service
believed there was no indication of an attack on the White House on the night of the shooting.800
An early theory was the gunshots were fired between vehicles, in what may have been gang activity
a highly unlikely scenario considering the timing and location of the activities.801
The Secret Service did not launch an investigation, and did not reach the conclusion that the
gunman had been shooting at the White House until four days after the incident.802 The delay was
in direct contrast to the observations of officers on duty at the time, who heard gunfire, smelled
gunpowder, and heard falling debris from the bullets.803 Apparently, the Secret Service did not
appreciate the gravity of situation from the beginning. In the hours and days immediately following
the shooting, the Secret Service coordinated with and assisted the U.S. Park Police and local law
enforcement without knowing that Ortega-Hernandezs bullets had struck the White House.804
Indeed, it was not until November 15, 2011, when the White House Executive Usher discovered a
796
Carol D. Leonnig, Secret Service fumbled response in after gunman hit White House residence in 2011, WASH.
POST, Sept. 27, 2014, available at www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-stumbled-after-gunman-hitwhite-house-residence-in-2011/2014/09/27/d176b6ac-442a-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html.
797
Id.
798
Id.
799
U.S. Secret Service, Protective Intelligence & Assessment Division, Risk Management Branch, Spot Report,
Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez (September 11, 2014) (Spot Report #11-21).
800
Letter from Julia Pierson, Director, U.S. Secret Service, to Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, Subcomm. on National
Security, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (Sept. 12, 2014).
801
Carol D. Leonnig, Secret Service fumbled response in after gunman hit White House residence in 2011, WASH.
POST, Sept. 27, 2014, available at www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-stumbled-after-gunman-hitwhite-house-residence-in-2011/2014/09/27/d176b6ac-442a-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html.
802
Id.
803
Id.
804
Id.
161
hole in the window of the Yellow Oval Room and other evidence of gunshots, that the Secret Service
realized the gravity of the incident.805
In light of the multitude of Secret Service scandals and fumbled security responses, as well as the
lack of effective oversight and transparency within the agency, Director Pierson came under intense
scrutiny. Within 24 hours of the Committees hearing Ms. Pierson resigned as the 23rd Director of
the United States Secret Service. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that Ms. Piersons
delay in telling the President about the Atlanta elevator security lapse was indicative of recent and
accumulating reports about the performance of the agency that informed Obamas decision to seek
new leadership.806
A New Beginning for the Secret Service

On October 3, 2014, Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings wrote to Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson expressing their support for an independent
panel of experts tasked with examining the September 19 White House intrusion and related issues
at the Secret Service.807 A complete review of the Secret Service was deemed necessary to
implement recommended reforms and restore its reputation. The frequency and gravity of recent
security breaches and culture failures exposed significant flaws within the Secret Service. The
internal review must identify internal management weaknesses and offer significant
recommendations in order to reform the agencys culture. By doing so, the Secret Service can
maintain its prestigious reputation and vindicate the hard work of dedicated agents and officers.
These fundamental steps are essential to rebuilding the Secret Services credibility, which is of
paramount importance.
EBOLA: IS AMERICA PREPARED FOR A MULTI-AGENCY RESPONSE?

In response to concerns about the Administrations preparedness for Ebola domestically, the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing titled, The Ebola Crisis:
Coordination of a Multi-Agency Response. The hearing focused on Americas ability to respond to the
crisis from several angles: the risks related to the Administrations choice of a political operative
over a qualified medical expert in coordinating the United States Ebola response; the degree to
which the Federal Government could maintain day-to-day operations in the face of a pandemic; the
Defense Departments strategy regarding preventative measures to keep American troops from
infection, and, in the event of an infection, the quality of care troops will receive; and the pervading
feeling of uncertainty created by changing Ebola-related policies, including quarantine protocols.
805
U.S. Secret Service, Protective Intelligence & Assessment Division, Risk Management Branch, Spot Report,
Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez (Sept. 11, 2014) (Spot Report #11-21).
806
Michael D. Shear & Michael. S. Schmidt, Julia Pierson, Secret Service Director, Resigns Under Pressure About
Breaches, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 1, 2014, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/us/julia-pierson-secret-ser
vice.html?_r=0.
807
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, & Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member, Comm. on Oversight &
Govt Reform, to Hon. Jeh Johnson Charles Edwards, Secretary, U.S. Dept of Homeland Security (Oct. 3, 2014).
162
Ebola in the United States

Ebola is a hemorrhagic fever virus, which causes fluid to leak from blood vessels, resulting in a
dangerously low drop in blood pressure and organ failure.808 Ebola is transmitted between
humans via direct contactthrough broken skin or mucous membraneswith the blood,
secretions, organs, or other bodily fluids of infected people, and with surfaces and materials, such
as bedding and clothing, contaminated with these fluids. Symptoms of Ebola include a high fever,
severe headache, muscle pain, weakness, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and unexplained
hemorrhaging.809 After a person contracts Ebola, there is a 2-21 day incubation period, during
which time the subject is not contagious and shows no symptoms.810 Fatality rates generally exceed
50 percent. Fatality rates in the current outbreak in West Africa are even higher: Guinea has a 70.7
percent fatality rate, Liberia a 72.3 percent fatality rate, and Sierra Leone a 69 percent fatality
rate.811
Thomas Eric Duncan, a Liberian national, was the first person diagnosed with Ebola in the United
States. Duncan likely contracted the disease in Liberia when he carried a pregnant woman, sick
with Ebola, into her house after no clinic would admit her.812 Mr. Duncan arrived in Dallas, Texas,
from Liberia on September 20, 2014, after layovers in Brussels and Washington, D.C. Although
medical staff at Texas Presbyterian Hospital dismissed Mr. Duncan when he initially sought
treatment, he was eventually admitted at Texas Presbyterian Hospital, where he was diagnosed
with Ebola and treated with brincidofovir, an experimental broad-spectrum antiviral drug.813
There are no FDA-approved vaccines or medicines for the treatment of Ebola.814
Mr. Duncan died on the morning of October 8, 2014.815 Since his death, two nurses who worked at
Texas Presbyterian have been infected with Ebola. One received treatment at the National
Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and the other at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta,
Georgia. Dr. Craig Spencer, who had returned to the United States from treating Ebola patients in
Guinea, was diagnosed with Ebola at Bellevue hospital in New York City on October 24, 2014.816
The New York Times reported that upon his arrival in New York, Dr. Spencer had traveled on the
808
Maggie Fox, Why Are Americans so Scared of Ebola?, NBC NEWS, Aug. 26, 2014, available at
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/why-are-americans-so-scared-ebola-n188806.
809
SARAH A. LISTER, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R43750, EBOLA: BASICS ABOUT THE DISEASE 2 (2014) (on file with
author).
810
Id.
811
Id.
812
Jason Beaubien, Fond Memories of Ebola Victim Eric Duncan, Anger Over His Death, NPR, Oct. 9, 2014,
available at http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/10/09/354645983/fond-memories-of-ebola-victim-ericduncan-anger-over-his-death.
813
Dough Stanglin & Liz Szabo, Dallas Ebola Patient Getting Experimental Drug, USA TODAY, Oct. 7, 2014,
available at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/thomas-eric-duncan-ebola-patient-dallashospital/16798391/.
814
Ebola (Ebola Virus Disease) Treatment, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION,
http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/treatment/ (last updated Oct. 3, 2013).
815
See Mark Berman & DeNeen L. Brown, Thomas Duncan, the Texas Ebola Patient, Has Died, WASH. POST, Oct.
8, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/10/08/texas-ebola-patient-hasdied-from-ebola/.
816
Mark Santora, Doctor in New York City is Sick with Ebola, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 23, 2014, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/nyregion/craig-spencer-is-tested-for-ebola-virus-at-bellevue-hospital-in-newyork-city.html.
163
subway, visited a bowling alley in Williamsburg, and then took a taxi back to Manhattan.817 These
reports raised questions about the appropriateness of existing voluntary quarantine measures and
prompted additional criticisms about the Administrations preparedness for the possibility of an
Ebola outbreak in the United States.
Unprepared to Protect Essential Operations

The Committee found through the Honorable John Roth, Inspector General at the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), that DHS was woefully unprepared to maintain operations in the face
of a pandemic, such as an emerging influenza virus. On August 26, 2014, the Inspector General
Roths office released a report concluding that despite a congressional appropriation of $47
million in supplemental funding to plan, train and prepare for a potential pandemic DHS has no
assurance it has sufficient personal protective equipment and antiviral medical countermeasures
for a pandemic response.818
DHS failed to adequately assess its needs and plan its acquisition of supplies, and then subsequently
failed to manage the supplies. Among the mismanagement, DHSs Office of Health Affairs (OHA)
sent more than 1,500 courses of antiviral drugs to Secret Service headquarters, but did not have
records of the drugs because OHA did not maintain shipment documentation.819 Additionally,
DHSs stockpile included 350,000 white coverall suits, although DHS could not justify this quantity
or type of protection suit as necessary for a pandemic response.820 The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) planned to sample its stock of pandemic protective equipment, including
about 200,000 respirators that were beyond their 5-year manufacture-guaranteed usability period,
to see if they could be used being the expiration date.821 DHS also stockpiled 4,184 bottles of
expired hand sanitizer.822 Inspector General Roths findings confirmed the Committees suspicion
that the Federal Government was not fully prepared to adequately respond to a potential Ebola
pandemic within the United States.
Placing Soldiers at Risk

To address the Committees concerns about soldier health and safety, as well as to describe the
United States military response in West Africa at large, the Committee invited Mr. Michael
Lumpkin, Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Defense Department, as well as Major General James
M. Lariviere, Joint Staff Deputy Director, Political-Military Affairs (Africa), J5, at the Defense
Department to testify at its hearing on October 24, 2014.823 Of prominent concern was the Defense
817
Id.
DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, OIG-12-129, DHS HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY
MANAGED PANDEMIC PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND ANTIVIRAL MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES 1 (Aug.
2014) [hereinafter DHS IG Report].
819
Id.
820
Id.
821
DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, OIG-12-129, DHS HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY
MANAGED PANDEMIC PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND ANTIVIRAL MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES 2 (Aug.
2014).
822
Id.
823
H. Comm. on Oversight & Government Reform, The Ebola Crisis: Coordination of a Multi-Agency Response:
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. 100 (2014) [hereinafter Ebola Interagency Response Hearing].
818
164
Departments plan of action in the event that a soldier contracted Ebola. Maj. Gen. Lariviere was
unable to clearly delineate the militarys response in the event of troop infection, instead repeatedly
stressing that troops would not be in direct contact with individuals at risk for Ebola because their
stated mission was merely to build the various Ebola treatment centers and provide training for
local healthcare workers.
The Committee continued to express concern that troops, in the course of daily operations, may
come into contact with individuals at risk of being infected with Ebola. When pressed on the
treatment an infected soldier would receive, Maj. Gen. Lariviere testified that the soldier would be
initially cared for at facilities in either Liberia or Senegal, and would then be evacuated to the
United States.824 However, Maj. Gen. Lariviere admitted that the United States government, through
a contract between the State Department and Phoenix Air Group (a company providing charter
airline services), could only transfer a single symptomatic Ebola patient at a time and could only
perform four evacuations per week.825 When the Committee pressed Maj. Gen. Lariviere on
whether the best treatments, including ZMapp,826 would be available to soldiers evacuated with
Ebola, he replied that whatever treatments a physician prescribes would be availableeven though
he could not make assurances that ZMapp, which is currently out of supply,827 would be available to
an infected soldier.828
To Quarantine or Not: Evolving Protocols

The Committee also probed hearing witnesses on the status of proper quarantine protocols. As of
the hearing, both the CDC and New York Governor Andrew Cuomos administration were
considering the possibility of imposing quarantines. Governor Cuomo later implemented
mandatory quarantines for returning health care workers, along with the states of New Jersey and
Illinois.829
The hearing also revealed a set of evolving quarantine protocols within the Department of Defense.
Under protocols in place at the time of the hearing, all troops would be monitored in-region and
their temperatures taken before departure. Maj. Gen. Lariviere defended these protocols,
characterizing them as exceed[ing] CDC standards in place at the time.830 Those soldiers exposed
to additional risk would possibly be subject to quarantine for 10 days in-country before departure.
Upon arrival in the United States, troops would be monitored for 21 days, although their
movements would not be restricted. The Committee recommended that the Defense Department
824
Id. at 128-29.
Id. at 68-69.
826
ZMapp is an experimental drug that has been used to treat Ebola patients, even though its effectiveness is not
completely clear. ZMapp FAQ, Mapp Biopharmaceutical, http://www.mappbio.com/zmappfaq.pdf.
827
Peter Loftus, Maker of Experimental ZMapp Ebola Virus Drug Says Supply Is Exhausted, WALL ST. J., Aug.
13, 2014, available at http://online.wsj.com/articles/maker-of-experimental-zmapp-ebola-drug-says-its-supply-isexhausted-1407799150.
828
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. 128-29 (2014).
829
Ellen Wulfhorst & David Morgan, Two U.S. States to Quarantine Health Workers Returning from Ebola Zones,
REUTERS, Oct. 24, 2014, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/24/us-health-ebola-newyorkidUSKCN0IC2CU20141024.
830
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. 134 (2014).
825
165
use its own expertise and judgment in establishing quarantine protocols, and the Committee urged
the Department not to merely defer to CDC guidance.
Following the hearing, on October 29, 2014, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered all troops
deployed to assist in the United States Ebola response be put in quarantine-like monitoring for 21
days upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.831 The controlled monitoring at a U.S.
Army base in Italy included no physical contact with the outside world, as well as eating
separately from the other service members stationed at the base.832 Pentagon press secretary
Rear Adm. John Kirby stated, [t]he Secretary believes these initial steps are prudent given the large
number of military personnel transiting from their home base and West Africa and the unique
logistical demands and impact this deployment has on the force.833 Secretary Hagel ordered a
detailed regimen in implementing the plan, as well an assessment of the monitoring regimen after
45 days.834
The International Medical Corps took another approach. Rabih Torbay, senior vice president for
international operations of International Medical Corps, testified that his organization followed
different protocols to quarantine at-risk individuals. Mr. Torbay said that the Corps prohibited atrisk healthcare workers from traveling on commercial airlines for 21 days, although he noted that
more extreme quarantine protocols for returning healthcare workers could pose further obstacles
for aid organizations seeking to recruit healthcare workers to travel to West Africa.835
The National Nurses Union emphasized to the Committee that CDC protocols are insufficient to
protect front-line healthcare workers and also advocated for greater oversight. In light of Dr. Craig
Spencer self-monitoring and subsequently testing positive for Ebola, Nurse Deborah Burger also
argued in favor of at-risk individuals, including healthcare workers, being monitored by a third
party team of professionals, rather than deferring to individuals own professional judgment: I
think it is unrealistic to expect that any healthcare professional that is working under extremely
stressful situations can effectively monitor themselves; you have to remember that they are
humans. You cant expect them to use their common sense at that point because theyre
patients.836 Moreover, a Wall Street Journal article revealed that only 5.7 percent of travelers from
the affected countries who arrived in the United States between October 11 and October 25 were
healthcare workers.837 The remaining majority of travelers from the affected countries would not
have the medical expertise that Dr. Spencer had in self-monitoring and diagnosing symptoms.
831
Dan Lamothe, Pentagon Adopts Quarantine-like Monitoring for All U.S. Troops on Ebola Mission, WASH. POST,
Oct. 29, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/10/29/pentagon-adoptsquarantine-like-monitoring-for-all-u-s-troops-on-ebola-mission/.
832
Id.
833
Id.
834
Id.
835
836
Id. at 86.
837
Betsy McKay, et. al, CDC Rejects Mandatory Ebola Quarantines, WALL ST. J., Oct. 27, 2014, available at
http://online.wsj.com/articles/federal-ebola-quarantine-guidelines-released-by-cdc1414443143?mod=WSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond.
166
On October 27, three days after the hearing, the Obama Administration laid out new guidelines
calling for voluntary isolation and monitoring of travelers deemed at-risk of Ebola.838 The new
guidelines recommended that individuals at high-risk of Ebola infection voluntary isolate
themselves for 21 days, while refraining from public transportation (including flying) and avoiding
congregate settings.839 A public health worker would take the individuals temperature twice
daily and monitor possible symptoms.840
A Leader Without Expertise?

Over the past decade, emerging national security threats have revealed deficiencies in the Federal
Governments public health preparedness and response. For example, the September 11 terrorist
attacks left New York City first-responders with respiratory illnesses that were linked to
inadequate use of personal protective equipment.841 Anthrax attacks further exposed deficiencies
in local, state and federal responses, and made public health a new subject of security
discussions.842 To better respond to myriad emerging public health threats, in 2006 President
George W. Bush signed the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) into law.
PAHPA focuses on health security, but broadens its focus from bio-terrorism to a more
comprehensive, all-hazards approach that includes reemerging infectious diseases and natural
disasters, in addition to international threats from chemical, nuclear, or radiological incidents.843
PAHPA established the office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR)
within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The ASPR is statutorily required to
[s]erve as the principal advisor to the Secretary on all matters related to Federal public health and
medical preparedness and response for public health emergencies, [o]verse advanced research,
development, and procurement of qualified countermeasures [and] security countermeasures
and [c]oordinate with federal and state officials to ensure integration of federal preparedness
and response activities for public health emergencies.844
To provide insight into the Federal Governments inter-agency coordination of a response to the
most recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
invited Dr. Nicole Lurie, the Obama Administrations ASPR, to testify. As an expert confirmed by the
Senate, Dr. Luries office was expressly created by Congress to handle health crises like the spread
of the highly-contagious Ebola virus.845 Under the terms of PAHPA, Dr. Lurie should have been at
the forefront of the Obama Administrations inter-agency Ebola response.
838
Id.
Id.
840
Id.
841
ALI S. KHAN, CDC OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE, PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS
AND RESPONSE IN THE USA SINCE 9/11: A NATIONAL HEALTH SECURITY IMPERATIVE 1 (2011), available at
http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/documents/lancet_article_sept2011.pdf.
842
Id.
843
Id.
844
Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006, 42 U.S.C. 300hh-10(a), (b)(1), (b)(3). (b)(4)(A),
(b)(4)(b).
845
See generally Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act of 2006, 42 U.S.C. 300hh.
839
167
However, Dr. Lurie denied responsibility for overseeing the inter-agency response as delegated to
her in PAHPA, instead pointing to Ron Klain as a coordinator of all the different aspects to make
sure that all the parties are working together on a day-to-day basis.846 For her part, Dr. Lurie
reported only to her boss, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary of HHS.847 Ms. Burwell, in turn,
attended high-level White House meetings. In practice, then, despite a specific congressionally
granted toolbox of duties and powers to use during times of crisis, Dr. Lurie was simply another
HHS bureaucrat who did not fulfill her leadership role in response to the emergence of Ebola.
Instead of choosing a healthcare professional with vast and varied expertise in public health, such
as Dr. Lurie, to lead the Federal Governments Ebola response, on October 17, 2014 President
Obama chose Ron Klain, a partisan political operative, to serve as the Administrations Ebola czar
beginning October 22.848 Mr. Klain, a lawyer with no medical expertise, served as chief of staff to
Vice Presidents Biden and Gore, and it is unclear whether he will be able to understand the complex
issues attendant to the Ebola threat. To assuage this concern and ensure a multi-agency response
to the Ebola outbreak had been properly coordinated, the Committee held a hearing titled, The
Ebola Crisis: Coordination of a Multi-Agency Response.849 The Committee invited Mr. Klain to testify
at the hearing, but the White House declined.
Is the Government Prepared?

The hearing raised a number of concerns regarding the Federal Governments inter-agency
response to the Ebola threat concerns that have been addressed through adoption of enhanced
protocols in several instances. The Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response failed to
fulfill her statutorily mandated obligations; instead, the Obama Administration chose a political
operative to lead the Federal Governments Ebola response coordinated effort. Lacking medical
expertise, Mr. Klains appointment seems to be politically motivated, made more to assuage the
publics concerns about Ebola than to actually address the governments response to the threat
itself.
If the troubling DHS IG report is any indication, the Federal Government is inadequately prepared
to even maintain its own operations during a potential pandemic, much less respond effectively to
contain the pandemic and protect the American people. Further, evolving CDC protocols, including
quarantine procedures, create confusion and discord between and among federal agencies and
departments. The lack of continuity in response to the Ebola threat is alarming because it reveals
the Federal Governments failures in adequately preparing for and addressing a potential infectious
disease outbreak. Finally, the safety of American troops deployed to the front lines of the Ebola
epidemic in West Africa is paramount. The Defense Departments testimony left many questions
846
847
Id. at 152.
848
Id. at 100; Juliet Eilperin & David Nakamura, Obama Taps Ron Klain as Ebola Czar, WASH. POST, Oct. 17,
2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/10/17/obama-taps-ron-klain-asebola-czar/.
849
168
regarding protocols for prevention, quarantine, and treatment capable of fully protecting American
soldiers, although monitoring regimens implemented after the hearing is a positive step.
FLAWS IN THE FEDERAL SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS: THE D.C. NAVY YARD SHOOTING
Efficient and effective background checks conducted as part of the federal security clearance
process are integral to ensuring the United States is protected against both domestic and
international threats. Security clearance processes must be as rigorous as the governments
resources will allow in order to vet security clearance applicants thoroughly. Cracks in the rigor of
the security clearance process can lead to devastating consequences, as the United States learned
when Aaron Alexis, despite having a criminal record and evidence of mental health issues in his
history, gained access to the Navy Yard using his security clearance and opened fire, killing twelve
people and injuring four more.
Slipping Through the Cracks

Aaron Alexis exposed federal security clearance procedural flaws on September 16, 2013, when he
walked into Building 197 of the Washington Navy Yard and murdered twelve people850 and injured
four others.851 The tragedy prompted the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to
thoroughly investigate of the security clearance process, culminating in a hearing entitled, D.C. Navy
Yard Shooting: Fixing the Security Clearance Process.852 Before being killed by police during his
murderous rampage, Mr. Alexis was one of roughly 4.9 million Americans over 1.5 percent of our
countrys population that hold security clearances, granting them access to some of our nations
most confidential secrets and most secure facilities. Despite a criminal past, Mr. Alexis was granted
access to the Navy Yard because he worked for a small private company that subcontracted with
the Navy to update computer hardware at Navy facilities around the world. At the time, Mr. Alexis
had worked for the company for a total of seven months. He was hired in large part because he
held a Secret level security clearance, an intermediate-level clearance, requiring a more rigorous
scrutiny process than Confidential but less so than Top Secret.
The Committees investigation found that highly relevant information about Mr. Alexis criminal
past was never obtained by investigators, and thus not considered in granting Mr. Alexis security
clearance.853 In 2004, Mr. Alexis was arrested for malicious mischief in Seattle for shooting the tires
out of a car, claiming that he had a black-out fueled by anger. Three years later, when Mr. Alexis
applied for a security clearance, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) did not include this
information in the background investigative file that went to the Navy, which ultimately granted Mr.
Alexis his clearance.
850
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Staff Report: Slipping Through the Cracks: How the D.C. Navy Yard
Shooting Exposes Flaws in the Federal Security Clearance Process, 113th Cong. (Feb. 11, 2014) [hereinafter
Security Clearance Staff Report].
851
Id.
852
Id.; D.C. Navy Yard Shooting: Fixing the Security Clearance Process: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on
Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (H. Rept. 113-105).
853
Security Clearance Staff Report at 4-12.
169
The Committees investigation also found that, after receiving his clearance, Mr. Alexis continued to
engage in behavior that should have raised red flags.854 For example: Mr. Alexis fired a gun into his
ceiling and through the apartment above; he fired a bullet through the wall of his room; and he
complained that individuals were using a microwave machine to send vibrations into his body.
None of this information was ever given to an adjudicator who had the ability to pull Mr. Alexis
Secret level clearance, which he maintained until September 16, 2013.
Improving the Security Clearance Process

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) oversees background investigations for security
clearances for non-intelligence community personnel. When an agency wants to sponsor an
individual for a security clearance, it relies primarily on OPM to conduct the background check on
the individual. OPM then transmits its findings to the agency, which adjudicates the individuals
clearance. In 2012, OPM prepared over 2.3 million investigative background checks for federal
agencies. Approximately 30 percent of this work was conducted by OPM employees, with the other
70 percent being outsourced to three companies who hold contracts with OPM.
Today, the Federal Investigative Services (FIS) branch of OPM, responsible for conducting these
background investigations, uses largely automated processes to screen security clearance
applicants.855 Although time-efficient, the automated nature of the screening processes leaves room
for error, and leading up to the Navy Yard shooting, a number of flawed policies within OPM
prevented troubling information on security clearance applicants from reaching agency
adjudicators.856 As a result, individuals such as Mr. Alexis have occasionally been granted
clearances that, had the adjudicator been aware of all the pertinent information, likely should have
been denied. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent federal
investigative agency, has found that 87 percent of OPMs background investigation files are
incomplete.857 Incomplete background investigations compromise the Nations national security,
and OPM must change its policies to ensure a more thorough security clearance process.
During the course of its investigation, the Committee identified four specific procedural flaws that
not only wasted government resources, but also compromised the safety and security of what
should be the Nations most secure information and facilities:
1. OPM investigators were not permitted to use the Internet or social media in security
clearance investigations.
2. Adjudicators who make clearance determinations did not interact in any way with the
investigators who performed the background checks.
3. Many local law enforcement agencies did not cooperate with OPM investigators even
though federal law requires them to do so, and many agencies refused to provide arrest
854
Id.
Id. at 12-32.
856
Id.
857
GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-09-400, DOD PERSONNEL CLEARANCES: COMPREHENSIVE TIMELINESS
REPORTING, COMPLETE CLEARANCE DOCUMENTATION, AND QUALITY MEASURES ARE NEEDED TO FURTHER
IMPROVE THE CLEARANCE PROCESS (May 2009).
855
170
records or other police reports that contain detailed information about an applicant that is
undiscoverable elsewhere. Specifically, at the time of the Committees hearing, OPM did not
enjoy the support of some 450 law enforcement agencies, including those in Los Angeles,
New York City, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
4. Current reinvestigation requirements did not allow for the ongoing capture and review of
relevant information about security clearance holders.
In response to these findings, the Committee has proposed four measures to tighten up the security
clearance process:
1. In furtherance of a more rigorous security clearance process, individuals approved for
clearances should undergo continuous evaluation. The notion of a continuous evaluation is
something that, though frequently discussed, has not yet come to fruition as OPM policy.
OPM must implement a continuous evaluation system to ensure that questionable conduct,
such as Mr. Alexis, will be reported to adjudicating authorities in near real-time.
2. OPMs investigative practices must comport with twenty-first century technologies by
allowing investigators to use the Internet and social media sources.
3. OPM must be equipped with the resources needed to evaluate the mental health
information of those holding security clearances.
4. Local law enforcement offices across the country must cooperate with OPM investigators by
providing specific information to security clearance investigators when they seek legal
information on applicants. Though these offices are required under current federal law to
cooperate with OPM, over 450 of these offices do not, and OPM has not taken the necessary
steps to obtain better cooperation.
The Need for Continued Coordination

Since the tragic shooting that occurred at the Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013,
multiple federal agencies have released reports supporting the Committees findings. Over a month
after the Committees investigative report on the flaws in the security clearance process was
released, the Department of Defense and OMB have also released reports reviewing the security
clearance investigation process.858 These reports affirmed the Committees troubling findings however, substantial reform has yet to be made. OMBs inter-agency working group tasked with
updating, modernizing the investigation process, and improving inter-agency cooperation on
security clearances has accomplished little in more than a year since the shooting.859 Congress,
858
See Office of Mgmt & Budget, Suitability and Security Processes Review: Report to the President (Feb. 2014)
(released Mar. 18, 2014); Dept of Defense, Internal Review of the Washington Navy Yard Shooting)Nov. 20, 2013)
(released Mar. 18, 2014); Dept of Defense, Security from Within: Independent Review of the Washington Navy Yard
Shooting (Nov. 2013) [released Mar. 18, 2014]; Dept of the Navy, Investigation into the fatal shooting incident at
the Washington Navy Yard (WNY) on 16 September 2013 and associated security, personnel, and contracting
policies and practices (Nov. 8, 2013) [released Mar. 18, 2014].
859
Office of Mgmt & Budget, Suitability and Security Processes Review: Report to the President (Feb. 2014) at 21
(released Mar. 18, 2014).
171
OPM, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies must work together to tighten this
process and ensure that fewer individuals like Mr. Alexis slip through the cracks in the future.
172
LIFE AFTER WAR: OUR VETERANS DESERVE BETTER

Dating back to 2007, a series of articles published in the Washington Post highlighted facilities and
patient treatment problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.860 The
accounts of mistreatment indicated systemic problems existed in the wounded service member
care system. As former Chairman Tom Davis stated in 2007, [This system is a] Byzantine, stovepiped, paper-choked process that was never intended to deal with so many for so long.861 The
population served by the Veterans Affairs system continues to grow: the battlefield injury survival
rate has increased to 98 percent,862 and over 63,000 medical evacuations were conducted in
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) over a ten year span,863
Unfortunately and tragically in some cases this also means that the rate of injured service
members frustrated by the overly complex systems continue to grow.
Upon their return to the United States, injured service members are taken to a medical treatment
facility for examination purposes. After the examinations, an injured service member is designated
for treatment as either an inpatient or outpatient until recovery. If the he or she is still not
medically qualified to continue military service, the service member will go through a lengthy
process of evaluation for separation or medical retirement. Although much time has passed since
the veteran returned home to the United States, this marks only the beginning of his or her often
long journey to transition into care in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system.
In response to congressional scrutiny, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the VA began
planning programs to help injured service members receive care in a timelier manner following
discharge. GAO has also submitted numerous reports to Congress outlining significant
challenges.864 A recurring theme among the recommendations was the need for a seamless
transition process for injured combat veterans and their families as they move through the DoD
health care and benefits programs to the VA system. Among the specific recommendations were
the Disability Evaluation System (DES), the need for a common electronic health records system,
and actual implementation of these programs by the DoD and the VA.865
860
Dana Priest & Anne Hull, Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration at Armys Top Medical Facility, WASH. POST, Feb.
18, 2007, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html.
861
Statement of Rep. Tom Davis, Ranking Member, Is This Any Way to Treat Our Troops: The Care and Condition
of Wounded Soldiers at Walter Reed Part I: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on National Security and Foreign
Affairs of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 110th Cong. (2007).
862
Statement of Lieutenant General Herbert J. Carlisle, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and
Requirements, U.S. Air Force, Are We Ready? The Presidents Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request and Global
Challenges to Readiness: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Readiness of the H. Comm. on Armed Services, 112th
Cong. (2011).
863
Hannah Fischer, U.S. Military Casualty Statistics: Operation New Dawn, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
Operation Enduring Freedom, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 7-8 (Sept. 28, 2010). (Medical reasons for
evacuations include being wounded in action, non-hostile injuries and other disease or medical concerns.)
864
See, e.g., Increased Information System Sharing Could Improve Service, Reduce Costs, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, (Jun. 29, 1993); Military and Veterans Disability System: Pilot Has Achieved Some
Goals, but Further Planning and Monitoring Needed, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, (Dec. 6, 2010).
865
Id.
173
DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM (DES)

Under the legacy process, each DoD branch of service provides its own DES. See inset graphic
below provided by the Department of Defense to Committee staff on March 31, 2011.
After a provider develops a case and writes a
narrative summary, the service member is
referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)
at a local Military Treatment Facility (MTF).
The MEB then provides a recommendation on
the service members fitness for retention. If
the fitness for retention is questionable, the
MEB forwards the case to the Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB). The PEB then again
determines if the service member is fit for
continued service. Upon determination that the
service member is unfit for continued service, the member then transitions to either separation or
retirement based on the disability rating assigned by the PEB. After retirement or discharge, the
service member is now considered a veteran and applies for VA benefits. However, the veteran
must now undergo another disability rating, which often differs from the DoD rating to finally
receive due benefits. The average period of time from the DoD MEB process until the veteran
actually receives VA benefits is approximately 540 days.866
As a result of the 2007 Washington Post articles on conditions at Walter Reed, a Senior Oversight
Committee (SOC) comprised of senior DoD and VA officials was established. The SOC, now cochaired by Deputy Secretary William J. Lynn
and Deputy Secretary W. Scott Gould,
approved the launch of a DES Pilot program in
November 2007 to simplify the process for the
service member and improve the members
transition from DoD to VA care. See inset
graphic on right provided by the Department
of Defense to Committee staff on March 31,
2011.
The DES Pilot, also known as the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), took the two
separate evaluation systems and integrated them into one process. Ideally, the DoD and the VA
MEB/PEB processes are conducted simultaneously. The target timeline under the IDES spans 295
days from the commencement of the MEB process until the service member receives VA benefits.
However, the actual average time period is 335 days.867 Both departments recognize that
information technology shortfalls are major challenges in creating a more efficient transition
866
Staff briefing provided by Department of Defense, Office of Wounded Warrior Care & Transition Policy (Mar.
31, 2011).
867
Id.
174
process for service members.868 On March 17, 2011, Secretaries Gates and Shinseki therefore
agreed to examine ways to reduce DES time to 75-150 days.869
COMMON ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

With approximately 12,000 service members currently going through the IDES system,870 the need
for a common electronic health records system is as great as ever. The Secretaries of Defense and
Veterans Affairs also agreed on March 17, 2011, to develop an interagency DoD-VA Electronic
Health Record (iEHR).871 As part of this effort, the secretaries agreed to a common architecture,
data and services, data centers, interface/exchange standards and presentation layer.872 Further, as
a result of the March 17 agreement, the secretaries tasked their respective teams to develop a joint
implementation plan.873 However, by February 2013, after years of development and significant
investment, DoD and VA halted plans to develop the $4 billion iEHR. By July 2013, DoD and VA both
acknowledged that plans for a single iEHR have been scrapped in favor of maintaining two separate
systems among the departments.
ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION
Many of the recommendations made by recent reports are not new. For example, President Bush
established the Presidents Commission on Care for Americas Returning Wounded Warriors, cochaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna
Shalala in March 2007. The Commission published a report entitled, Serve, Support, and Simplify in
July 2007. Among the Commissions numerous recommendations was the need for rapid transfer
capability of patient information between the DoD and the VA.874 As part of this recommendation,
the Commission recognized the need for an interactive My eBenefits website that provides a
single information source for service members.875 The website is operational under the Veterans
Benefits Administration. Similar to My eBenefits, the Veterans Health Administration launched
My HealtheVet in November 11, 2003. Yet full implementation has been slow and veterans
service organizations continue to express frustration at a perceived lack of significant progress in
these matters.876 These frustrations from veterans service organizations highlight the drastic need
for the Federal Government to immediately implement programs that work for our wounded
veterans.
868
Id.
SECDEF/SECVA Meeting Minutes (Mar. 17, 2011).
870
31, 2011).
871
Letter from Eric Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs to Darrell Issa, Chairman, U.S. House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform (Apr. 1, 2011).
872
31, 2011).
873
Letter from Eric Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs to Darrell Issa, Chairman, U.S. House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform (Apr. 1, 2011).
874
Presidents Commission on Care For Americas Returning Wounded Warriors, Serve, Support, Simplify (July
30, 2007).
875
Id.
876
Committee staff meeting with Tom Tarantino, Senior Legislative Associate, and Tim Embree, Legislative
Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) (Apr. 20, 2011); See also telephone conversation with
Disabled American Veterans (DAV) (Apr. 26, 2011).
869
175
Ultimately, the Federal Government must ensure proper treatment of our troops with the care and
consideration they deserve. In order to provide such treatment, a seamless transition from DoD to
VA care is imperative.
DISABILITY CLAIMS BACKLOG

By June 23, 2012, the VA reported over 915,000 pending disability benefits claims.877 In 2011, the
VA took an average of 188 days to complete a disability claim.878 In that same year, veterans who
sought to appeal the VAs rating determination faced an average of 883 days from the date of filing
an appeal to the date of the Boards of Veterans Appeals adjudication.879 Since 2009, the average
number of days to complete a disability rating continually grew. In 2009, the average time was
almost four weeks shorter at 161 days.880 The average claims processing time in 2011 was 188
days, meaning that the average benefits claimant was waiting more than half a year to receive a
determination on their claim from the VA.881
Meanwhile accuracy in processing disability claims also became a major issue. For example, James
Wear of the Veterans of Foreign Wars mentioned that although the average error rate remained
stationary at 16% for several preceding months in 2012, at the time, the Baltimore Regional Office
had the worst claims error rate in the country at 29%.882 A 2012 audit by the VA Inspector General
of the VA Regional Office (VARO) Oakland, California indicated in a sample audit that 83% of Gulf
War veterans claims to receive treatment for mental disorders were improperly decided by VARO
staff.883
By August 5, 2010, the VA obligated $150 million of Stimulus dollars to hire, train, and equip new
employees to improve claims processing and speed the delivery of benefits to veterans. The VA had
hired approximately 2,700 temporary and permanent employees to assist with processing
veterans claims for VA benefits.884 These employees were mainly trained to process paper-based
claims. In efforts to move toward automated processing to directly improve the accuracy and
timeliness of veterans benefits, particularly disability compensation and the new Post-9/11 GI Bill
benefit,885 President Obamas 2011 budget allocated $200 million. A significant portion of this
money was aimed toward developing the Veterans Benefit Management System (VBMS). The VA
touted the VBMS as a major solution to the paper-based system and growing backlog concerns.
877
2012 Monday Morning Workload Reports, Veterans Affairs Department (June 25, 2012) available at
http://www.vba.va.gov/REPORTS/mmwr/index.asp.
878
Department of Veteran Affairs, Part II - Performance and Accountability Report, II-125,
http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/report/PartII/2011-VAPAR_Part_II.pdf.
879
Department of Veterans Affairs, Board of Veterans Appeals Report to the Chairman Fiscal Year 2011, 18,
http://www.bva.va.gov/docs/Chairmans_Annual_Rpts/BVA2011AR.pdf.
880
Id.
881
Id.
882
Bob Brewin, VAs Disability Claims Backlog Pushes 900,000, NATIONAL JOURNAL, Apr. 23, 2012,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/va-s-disability-claims-backlog-pushes-900-000-20120419.
883
Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, Inspection of the VA Regional Office, Oakland,
California, 5, May 10, 2012, available at http://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-12-00247-175.pdf.
884
Press Release, Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Obligates Last of its Recovery Act Funds to Help Veterans
(Aug. 5, 2010) available at http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=1934.
885
Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2011, 118, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/budget.pdf.
176
However, VBMS could not directly alleviate the current inventory of backlogged clams, which were
overwhelmingly in paper form. After costing more than $490 million, VBMS users at the VA
reported that they experienced inconvenient shut downs of the system roughly on a weekly
basis.886
Today, the backlog of claims has considerably decreased. As of November 10, 2014, the VA
reported over 526,000 pending claims, with over 240,000 of these claims pending over 125 days.887
The care of the nations veterans is of paramount importance. The hundreds of thousands of
veterans waiting for so long to receive their due benefits demonstrate the technological
shortcomings and bureaucratic problems in the Federal Government. The Committees ongoing
oversight of the VA reveals that the Departments ability to implement innovative and effective
solutions to properly address our veterans needs is a matter of life and death for some.
886
Bob Brewin, AFGE Rep: VA Paperless Claims System Shuts Down on a Weekly Basis, Feb. 6, 2014,
http://www.nextgov.com/defense/whats-brewin/2014/02/afge-rep-va-paperless-claims-system-shuts-down-weeklybasis/78386/?oref=ng-flyin.
887
2014 Monday Morning Workload Reports, Veterans Affairs Department (Nov. 10, 2014) available at
http://www.vba.va.gov/REPORTS/mmwr/index.asp.
177
CHAPTER 4. CRONY CAPITALISM: PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS

Waste, abuse and crony capitalism in that escalating order are the inevitable problems of big,
unchecked government. Government must wade carefully into private markets, taking care not to
disrupt delicate balances in favor of promoting partisan agendas. As demonstrated by the crash of
the housing market in 2008, the policies of the Federal Government under both Republican and
Democrat Administrations may be grounded in laudable ambitions yet, if not carefully monitored,
lead to devastating outcomes. Under Chairman Darrell Issa, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform has exposed instances where the Federal Government has picked winners and
losers, resulting in negative consequences for the American Taxpayer. Highlights of these oversight
efforts are discussed below.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MISSION

In July, 2012, Chairman Issa announced the conclusion of the Committees three-year investigation
of Countrywide Financial Corporation (Countrywide).888 The Committees final report
documenting the investigations findings recounted years of political influence peddling by
Countrywide and its mortgage-industry allies. While the affordable housing mission of the 1990s
and 2000s encouraged taxpayer-subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to develop flexible
underwriting criteria in order to expand home ownership to more Americans, it also created an
incentive for otherwise risk-adverse lenders to reduce credit standards. These circumstances
encouraged the development of a mutually beneficial, and very profitable, relationship between
original lenders (such as Countrywide) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a relationship that
would ultimately inure to the detriment of the American taxpayer.
The Committee initially began investigating the ties between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac socalled government sponsored enterprises or GSEs because of the backing provided by the
Federal Government and the financial crisis under the leadership of then-Chairman Henry
Waxman in 2008.889 The issue initially received little attention from the Democrat majority in the
111th Congress, but then-Ranking Member Issa drove the Committee to continue investigating; in
early 2009, the Minority staff issued a report focused on Countrywides efforts to block reform of
the GSEs in the years leading to the financial crisis.890 Another report from the Republican Minority
was issued in July of that same year focusing on the role that the affordable housing mission had
played in creating the financial crisis;891 this report was updated in May, 2010.
When the Committee came under Republican leadership in the 112th Congress, Chairman Issa
continued to investigate the issue. In the fall of 2011, amid reports that taxpayer assistance
888
Countrywide Financial Corporation was purchased by Bank of America through a government-forced sale that
concluded in July 2008.
889
The Role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the Financial Crisis: Hearing Before the Comm. on Oversight &
890
Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Friends of Angelo: Countrywides Systematic and
Successful Effort to Buy Influence and Block Reform, 111th Cong. (2009).
891
Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in
Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, 111th Cong. (2009).
178
provided to Fannie and Freddie could reach $311 billion by 2014, the Committee held a hearing to
investigate the compensation received by the companies executives892 and issued a detailed report
explaining the conflict between the successes of the companies and the lavish compensation
received by their executives.893 With the close of the Committees investigation in July, 2012, the
Committee issued a final staff report describing the unethical yet intentional actions taken by
Countrywide to influence Members of Congress and other leaders.894
Now, as 2014 comes to a close, the burst of the housing bubble is still a painful reality. The
intervention of the government into housing policy created a perverse incentive rather than
profiting from payments by homeowners on performing mortgages, lending institutions instead
profited from writing loans and turning a blind eye to credit risk. Traditional notions of credit
worthiness have yet to reclaim their rightful place at the center of mortgage financing a failure
that continues to hold back the American dream. After guiding the country through the worst
economic recession since the Great Depression, even prior Federal Reserve Chairman Ben
Bernanke continues to document the hardships imposed by such overt Crony Capitalism as that
demonstrated by the relationship between Countrywide Financial and the federal housing
regulators in October 2014, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke explained at a
conference that even he had recently been unsuccessful in refinancing his mortgage. When the
audience laughed, he responded, Im not making that up. He then confessed: The housing area
is one area where regulation has not yet got it right.895
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE HOUSING MARKET

The governments foray into housing policy has its roots in the New Deal, when the Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was created as a government sponsored enterprise
(GSE).896 Established in response to the Great Depression, Fannie Maes goal was to increase the
amount of money available for mortgage lending by purchasing home mortgages from original
lenders, thereby providing those lenders with additional cash for the purpose of making additional
loans.897 In order to raise the necessary investment capital, Fannie Mae was authorized to borrow
money through the issuance of notes, bonds, debentures, or other such obligations.898 In 1965,
892
Pay for Performance: Should Fannie and Freddie Executives Be Receiving Millions in Bonuses?: Hearing before
the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 112th Cong. (2011).
893
Id.
894
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, How Countrywide Used its VIP Loan Program to Influence
Washington Policymakers, 112th Cong. (2012).
895
Elizabeth Campbell & Lorraine Woellert, You Know Its a Tough Market When Bernanke Cant Refinance,
BLOOMBERG (Oct. 3, 2014, 10:59 AM), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-02/you-know-it-s-a-toughmarket-when-ben-bernanke-can-t-refinance.html; see also Jon Hilsenrath, Hilsenraths Take: New York Fed
Declares Household Deleveraging Over, WALL ST. J. REAL TIME ECONOMICS BLOG (Nov. 26, 2014, 7:16 A.M.),
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/26/grand-central-new-york-fed-declares-household-deleveraging-over/#1
(total household debt is down $1 trillion since the beginning of the Great Recession in late 2008.).
896
National Housing Act, ch. 847, 301(a)(2).
897
See Darrell Issa, Unaffordable Housing and Political Kickbacks Rocked the American Economy, 33 HARV. J.L. &
PUB. POLY 407 (2010) and sources cited therein; see also Krishna Guha, et al, Saviours of the Suburbs, FINANCIAL
TIMES BLOG (June 4, 2008, 3:00 P.M.), http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c658585c-31d0-11dd-b77c0000779fd2ac.html#axzz3N8wbCRFX.
898
National Housing Act, ch. 847, 301, 48 Stat. 1246 (1934) (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. 1701 (2012)).
179
the Department of Housing and Urban Development was created, and Fannie Mae was placed under
its authority and oversight.899
Fannie Mae existed as a government institution until 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson
partially privatized it as the federal debt grew in the wake of the Vietnam War.900 The new Fannie
Mae continued to operate with the public purpose of increasing the availability and affordability of
homeownership for low-, moderate-, and middle-income Americans,901 but with reduced capital
costs associated with private ownership; thus, it began serving a dual purpose increasing the
availability of homeownership for more Americans while, at the same time, increasing returns for
shareholders. In 1970, a second GSE, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie
Mac), was created to provide competition for Fannie Mae.902 It, too, was soon privatized Freddie
Mac was re-chartered in 1989 and allowed to trade its shares on the public market.903
Together, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exercised a near monopoly in the secondary mortgage
market, as no other entities could compete with the advantages guaranteed by their relationships
with the Federal Government.904 The two GSEs enjoyed a $2.25 billion line of credit from the U.S.
Treasury, which encouraged the market to view them as extensions of the U.S. government. This
implicit backing from the Federal Government enabled the GSEs to borrow money at rates not
much higher than the risk-free rate private banks charged the U.S. government.905 As an added
bonus, once private the GSEs were allowed to continue operating in a tax-free environment, and
although their shares were publicly traded, they were exempt from the oversight of the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Governments primary watchdog for the securities
markets.906 Instead, all GSE securities carry an implicit AAA rating.907 Moreover, the GSEs were
only required to hold 2.5 percent capital against their on-balance sheet mortgages, far less than the
amount required for most banks.908 For mortgages the GSEs guaranteed, they needed only to
maintain 0.45 percent capital.909 As significant portions of the GSEs loan portfolios defaulted in the
mortgage crisis, these lax capital requirements left the companies with insufficient capital to cover
even a portion of their losses.
899
Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, Pub. L. No. 89-174, 5(a), 79 Stat 667, 669 (1965) (
Peter J. Wallison & Charles W. Calomiris, The Last Trillion-Dollar Commitment: The Destruction of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, AEI FIN. SERVICES OUTLOOK 2 (Sept. 2008), available at
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080930_Binder1.pdf.
901
Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (Title III of National Housing Act), 12 U.S.C. 1716 et seq.
902
See Emergency Home Financing Act of 1970 301-10, Pub. L. No. 91-351, 84 Stat. 450 (1970) (codified as
amended at 12 U.S.C. 1451-59 (2012)).
903
904
See Darrell Issa, Unaffordable Housing and Political Kickbacks Rocked the American Economy, 33 HARV. J.L. &
PUB. POLY 407 (2010).
905
Id.
906
The GSEs finally agreed to make voluntary filings after a series of scandals in 2003 and 2004. Id. at 409-10.
907
As the quality of the mortgages the GSEs were willing to buy declined, this exemption from SEC oversight
became increasingly dangerous to taxpayers.
908
See Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-550, 1362
(1992).
909
See id.
900
180
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MISSION AND THE POLITICIZATION OF MORTGAGE LENDING

In the early 1990s, Fannie and Freddie began to come under considerable pressure to lower their
underwriting standards, particularly with regards to the size of down payments and the credit
quality of borrowers. A deeply flawed study published in 1992 purported to show that minorities
faced discrimination in mortgage lending. Although the study has since been shown to have been
based on inaccurate data, which failed to support the studys model,910 the damage had been done.
Congressed seized on the study as part of a major legislative reorganization of the GSEs function.
The affordable housing mission, initiated by President Clinton and nurtured by President George
W. Bush, created a nexus of vested interests politicians, lenders911 and lobbyists that profited
either financially or politically (or both) from this arrangement and subsequently worked to kill
proposed reforms. This mission was codified in 1992 as part of the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act (the 1992 Act).912 The 1992 Act also established the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) within Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
to regulate the GSEs.913 The 1992 Act directed the HUD to establish, by regulations which
ultimately took the form of quotas, three specific affordable housing goals for the GSEs.914 The first
of these quotas was related to the purchase of mortgages on housing for low- and moderateincome families;915 the second related to mortgages on housing for low-income families in lowincome areas and very low-income families;916 finally, the third goal related to the purchase of
mortgages on housing located in central cities, rural areas, and other underserved areas.917
Congress granted HUD the authority to adjust these three affordable housing quotas for the GSEs
over time, allowing both Democratic and Republican Administrations to consistently make
campaign promises to boost home ownership through government intervention in the market.
Consequently, under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, HUD dramatically increased these
quotas. They reached their zenith under the Bush Administration of the mortgages purchased by
910
See STAN J. LIEBOWITZ, INDEPENDENT POLICY REPORT, ANATOMY OF A TRAIN WRECK: CAUSES OF THE
MORTGAGE MELTDOWN (2008), available at http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03trainwreck.pdf.
911
One of the primary lenders benefiting from the affordable housing mission was Countrywide Financial
Corporation, a mortgage lending institution. Countrywide attempted to purchase influence with politicians and
lobbyists by offering beneficial loan terms not available to the general public, creating allies that later opposed and
ensured the defeat of reform. Countrywides VIP and Friends of Angelo programs are discussed in more detail
below.
912
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-550, Title XIII
(1992).
913
Id. Neither HUD nor the new OFHEO had any previous regulatory experience and OFHEO was granted only
limited regulatory power. See Peter J. Wallison & Charles W. Calomiris, The Last Trillion-Dollar commitment: The
Destruction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AEI FIN. SERVICES OUTLOOK, 2 (Sept. 2008), available at
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080930_Binder1.pdf. Of the few powers granted to OFHEO were the approval of
payments of capital distributions and prohibiting the payment of excessive compensation to any executive
officer. Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-550,
1313(b)(6), (8) (1992).
914
See Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-550, Title XIII
1331 (1992).
915
Id.
916
Id.
917
Id.
181
the GSEs, 56 percent were required to be on housing for low-and moderate-income families, 27
percent were required to be on housing for low-income families in low-income areas and very lowincome families, and 39 percent were required to be on housing located in central cities, rural
areas, and other served areas.918
HUDs affordable housing quotas represented major departures from the GSEs prior commitment
to underwriting only sustainable mortgages. Fannie Maes original congressional charter
acknowledged the risks associated with low down payment loans because it only allowed Fannie to
purchase such mortgages not to exceed 80 per centum of the appraised value of the property.919
Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson announced the companys first large affordable housing initiative, the
$1 trillion Opening the Doors to Affordable Housing program in 1994. Johnson, a long-time friend
of both President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, took the helm of Fannie in 1991
after a stint at Lehman Brothers. By introducing qualifying flexibility for borrowers, the program
would allow low-income borrowers to reduce their down payments to as little as three percent. An
article lauding the programs potential cited pressure from President Clintons administration as
the impetus for greater lending to inner-city residents and low- to moderate-income home
buyers.920
That same year, Fannie Mae also began a campaign to ingratiate itself with Members of Congress by
establishing partnership offices in specific congressional districts and states with ties to relevant
Members of Congress. These offices would issue thousands of press releases featuring Members
of Congress assisting Fannie Mae with affordable housing initiatives.921 This political strategy
allowed politicians to claim credit for earmark-like affordable housing initiatives in their districts
without having to appropriate the money in Congress. The offices also had a reputation for hiring
relatives of Members as employees,922 strengthening the ties between the GSE and its overseers.
Government intervention in the housing market continued to grow in 1995, when the Clinton
Administration implemented a major regulatory reform of the Community Reinvestment Act
(CRA) that would force regulators to rate banks based on the volume of their lending rather than
on their efforts to lend to customers using fair procedures. By emphasizing performance-based
evaluation, the major impact of this reform was to mark a shift of emphasis from procedural
equity to equity in outcome. Furthermore, the lending test component of the regulatory review
process, which was the most heavily weighted component of CRA examination, included criteria
for the use of innovative or flexible lending practices. As demonstrated time and again by
congressional advocates of affordable lending, innovative and flexible means reduced down
918
See Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Role of Government Affordable Housing
Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, 111th Cong. (2010).
919
See National Housing Act, ch. 847, 301(a)(1), 48 Stat. 1246 (1934) (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. 1701
(2012)).
920
See Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Role of Government Affordable Housing
Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, 111th Cong. (2010).
921
See Bethany McLean, Fannie Maes Last Stand, VANITY FAIR, (Feb. 2009).
922
See Peter J. Wallison & Charles W. Calomiris, The Last Trillion-Dollar Commitment: The Destruction of Fannie
182
payments and riskier, unsustainable lending.923 The endorsement of innovative and flexible
lending in conjunction with performance-based rating criteria logically resulted in banks
originating riskier loans to purchasers of modest means, and more of them.
Another important event in 1995 was the release of the Clinton Administrations National
Homeownership Strategy, which cited President Clintons goal of raising Americas homeownership
rate to an all-time high by the end of the century.924 The Strategy enumerated steps that could be
taken to achieve this goal, including Action 35: Home Mortgage Loan-to-Value Flexibility. This
item provided that:
Lending institutions, secondary market investors, mortgage insurers, and other
members of the partnership should work collaboratively to reduce homebuyer
downpayment requirements. Mortgage financing with high loan-to-value ratios
should generally be associated with enhanced homebuyer counseling and, where
available, supplemental sources of downpayment assistance.
The Strategy thereafter favorably noted Fannie Mae recently announced a 97-percent first
mortgage requiring only a 3-percent downpayment.925 However, it only made a passing
acknowledgement of the risks associated with reducing borrowers equity in their mortgages,
explaining:
The amount of borrower equity is an important factor in assessing mortgage loan quality.
However, many low-income families do not have access to sufficient funds for a down payment.
While members of the partnership have already made significant strides in reducing this barrier to
home purchase, more must be done. In 1989 only 7 percent of home mortgages were made with
less than 10 percent down payment. By August 1994, low down payment mortgage loans had
increased to 29 percent.926
Another successful vehicle for currying favor for Fannie Mae was the Fannie Mae Foundation,
created in 1979 as the GSEs charitable giving arm. In 1995, then-Fannie Mae Chairman Jim
Johnson contributed $350 million in Fannie Mae stock to the Foundation,927 beginning a series of
irregular contributions that would grow to more than $660 million in stock and cash by the time
the Foundation was dissolved and its operations absorbed by Fannie in 2007.928 The company used
the Foundation to spread millions of dollars around to politically-connected organizations like the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute,929 and over time it became a lightning rod for criticism
that the company was using tax-exempt contributions to advance corporate interests.930
923
See Peter J. Wallison, American Enterprise Institute, Cause and Effect: Government Policies and the Financial
Crisis (2009), available at http://www.aei.org/publication/cause-and-effect/.
924
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the
American Dream, (May 1995), 2.
925
Id. at 61-62.
926
Id. at 62.
927
928
David S. Hilzenrath and Amy Joyce, Fannie Mae Shuts Down Foundation, WASH. POST, Feb. 24, 2007.
929
See Bethany McLean, Fannie Maes Last Stand, VANITY FAIR, (Feb. 2009). Maria Meier, whom served as
Executive Director of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, would later receive VIP treatment from
183
By 1999, Fannie Mae was the largest investor in every congressional district in America, and the
total federal subsidy to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was valued at more than $6 billion a year.931
Aside from charitable contributions, the Fannie Mae Foundation also worked to lend credibility to
the operations and forecasts of the GSEs by commissioning scholarly commentary. A 2002 paper
entitled Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-based Capital Standard, coauthored by a Nobel Prize winner in economics, a former Special Assistant to the President for
Economic Policy, and a former Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce at the request of Fannie Mae,
concludes that the probability of default by the GSEs is extremely small. Given this, the expected
monetary costs of exposure to GSE insolvency are relatively small.932
Under continuing political and economic pressure, the trend toward lowering mortgage lending
standards continued apace throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. GSEs altered their automated
mortgage underwriting standards933 to encourage banks and non-bank mortgage lenders to make
loans to borrowers with damaged credit.
THE POLITICIZATION OF MORTGAGE LENDING

As publicly traded corporations, the GSEs faced the obligation of all corporations to maximize the
value of shareholders equity. This meant seeking out profitable opportunities to invest in housing
and, to the maximum extent possible, pushing the envelope of innovation in mortgage finance to
compete for market share. However, unlike any other publicly traded corporation, Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac also answered in a very direct way to the Federal Government and elected officials in a
manner reminiscent of the crony capitalism of countries such as Russia or China, which preserve
a large state-owned enterprise sector.
Between 2000 and 2008, together Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donated more than $14.6 million to
the campaigns of Members of Congress, many of them with committee placements relevant to the
GSEs operations.934 Fannie Mae alone spent $79.5 million on lobbying fees between 1998 and 2008
often hiring a lobbyist only to create a conflict that would prevent the lobbyist for working for
Countrywide Financial Corporation due to a referral from Countrywides lobbyist. Under her direction, the Institute
launched a housing initiative called Hogar which would benefit from the backing of Fannie Mae. See Susan
Schmidt & Maurice Tamman, Housing Push for Hispanics Spawns Wave of Foreclosures, WALL ST. J. REAL
ESTATE BLOG (Jan. 5, 2009, 11:59 P.M.), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123111072368352309.
930
David S. Hilzenrath & Amy Joyce, Fannie Mae Shuts Down Foundation, WASH. POST, Feb. 24, 2007.
931
See Rep. Darrell Issa, Unaffordable Housing and Political Kickbacks Rocked the American Economy, 33 HARV.
J.L. & PUB. POLY 407 (2010).
932
Joseph E. Stiglitz, et al., Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-based Capital Standard,
FANNIE MAE PAPERS, 2 (March 2002).
933
Underwriting standards are [g]uidelines established to ensure that safe and secure loans are issued and
maintained. Underwriting Standards, Investopedia, www.investopedia.com/terms/u/underwriting-standards.asp. By
lowering the standards for the automated review of home mortgages, the total number of mortgages the GSEs could
guarantee or purchase without additional review increased. The result was to enable to GSEs to underwrite riskier
loans with reduced oversight and without additional assurance of payment.
934
184
Fannies opposition.935 As the mortgage crisis loomed on the horizon, Fannie Mae reported
lobbying expenditures of more than $10,160,000 in 2006 alone.936
In fact, many Fannie Mae employees had close ties to government officials:
James Johnson, Fannie Maes CEO between 1991 and 1998, was a close adviser to former
Vice President Walter Mondale and alleged to have close ties to the Clinton Administration.
Franklin Raines, Fannie Maes vice president between 1991 and 1996 and then CEO from
1999 until 2004, was Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President
Clinton.
Jamie Gorelick, Fannie Maes vice chairman between 1997 and 2003, served as Deputy
Attorney General of the United States during the Clinton Administration.937
FANNIE MAE AND COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL

By issuing mortgages with unusually beneficial terms (often to borrowers with questionable
credit), Countrywide garnered favor and influence with Washington policy figures ranging from
low-level government employees to high-ranking Members of Congress and Administration
officials. This initiative termed the Friends of Angelo or VIP program created a cast of
potential supporters that could be called upon whenever Countrywide or its governmentsponsored partners, faced criticism or possible industry reform. In the years leading up to the
mortgage crisis, at least 31 bills were proposed in the House and Senate that would have limited the
abuse of innovative and flexible lending practices that led to the creation of this cartel.
Unfortunately for taxpayers, these reform efforts were consistently opposed by those politically
and financially invested in the affordable housing mission.
In 1999, Fannie Mae entered an agreement with Countrywide Financial Corporation whereby
Countrywide agreed to sell, and Fannie Mae agreed to buy, millions of dollars in mortgages; in
return for the volume of loans offered by Countrywide to Fannie, Fannie would charge Countrywide
reduced guarantee rates.
Fannie Mae needed to purchase mortgages that would meet the quotas imposed by HUD according
to the Administrations affordable housing mission. In order to make more loans and increase its
profits, Countrywide needed to sell loans it originated so it could make future loans. The
relationship was a win-win for everyone, except the American taxpayer.
HUD also reviewed and ultimately approved Fannies plan for executive compensation. Not
surprisingly, the compensation of Fannies CEO and top executives, as approved year after year,
depended heavily on whether the HUD quotas had been met; if Fannie ensured liquidity to enough
low- and moderate-income families, especially in under-served areas, Fannie executives would
make more money.
935
Id.
CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS, Fannie Mae, Client Profile, Summary, 2006, available at
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000205&year=2006 (last accessed September 3, 2014).
937
See Owen Ullmann, Crony Capitalism: American Style, INTL ECON. (July/August 1999).
936
185
THE COST OF INFLUENCE

In 1994, Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson announced the companys intent to invest $1 trillion into the
affordable housing mission through its Opening the Doors to Affordable Housing program. The
program was praised because it would introduce qualifying flexibility, for low-income borrowers,
allowing them to reduce their down payments to as little as 3 percent.938 The following year,
Johnson provided the Fannie Mae Foundation with $350 million of Fannie stock. The company
used this foundation to spread millions of dollars around to politically-connected organizations like
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.939
Between 2007 and 2010 the City of Baltimore saw more than 18,000 foreclosures. At the request of
Ranking Member Cummings, the Committee held a field hearing at the University of Maryland
School of Law940 where it heard testimony from Maryland officials and considered a report on
Baltimore foreclosures prepared by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.941 The researchers
found that, in contradiction of the goals of the affordable housing mission, Baltimore families in
middle and working class neighborhoods were more likely to lose their homes than any other
group.942 Although the recent recession cannot be tied to any single cause, the impact of the
affordable housing mission is clear: while favored interests were selected to be winners, American
Taxpayers were selected to be losers.
938
Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in
Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, 111th Cong. 7 (2010).
939
940
The Foreclosure Crisis: Field Hearing before the Committee on Oversight and Govt Reform, 112th Cong.
(2011).
941
See Peter Rosenblatt & Katherine Newman, THE IMPACT OF FORECLOSURE WAVES ON THE CITY OF BALTIMORE
(2011) (report prepared for Rep. Elijah Cummings in preparation for Full House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform field hearing The Foreclosure Crisis, March 8, 2011).
942
Id. at 2.
186
SOLAR POWER FAVORITES AND FAILURES

On his way into office during the worst recession America has experienced since the Great
Depression, President Barack Obama championed green jobs as a means to achieve economic
recovery promising that America would create five million green jobs within ten years.943 As the
President asserted in his inaugural address, we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new
foundation for growth.944 He continued, We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel
our cars and run our factories.945 According to the President, green energy was the current
generations equivalent of the Apollo missions, which sent a man to the moon in 1969.946 However,
the entire thirteen year Apollo Program (between 1960 and 1973) cost $102.8 billion, adjusted for
inflation. In contrast, by the end of just the second quarter following the implementation of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, $90 billion had already been poured into in green
energy investments.947
The Department of Energy (DOE) was the key vessel for implementing the Obama
Administrations green agenda and was one of the largest recipients of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the Recovery Act) funds. As the DOE Inspector General pointed out,
the $35 billion in Recovery Act funding the Department received exceeded its annual budget of
about $28 billion.948 The DOEs flagship program for green energy promotion was the Loan
Guarantee Program, which provided large government-sponsored loans to many risky energy
companies many with close ties to the Obama Administration. In 2011, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform (Committee) began a multi-year investigation into the loan
programs which uncovered pervasive waste, fraud and malfeasance at the DOE.
EVOLUTION OF THE LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM

For decades federal loan guarantees supported a variety of policy objectives, including home
ownership, university education, small business growth, international development, and others.949
In 1976, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) defined loan guarantees as a loan or security on
which the Federal Government has removed or reduced a lender's risk by pledging to repay
943
See David G. Taylor, Seeds Planted for Green Jobs, but Will They Bear Fruit, POLITIFACT.COM (St. Petersburg
Times), available at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/439/create-5-milliongreen-jobs/.
944
President Barack Obama, Inaugural Speech, in N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 20, 2009 available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?pagewanted=all.
945
Id.
946
President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address (Jan. 25, 2011).
947
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT, SECOND QUARTERLY REPORT (2010).
948
Oversight of Dept. of Energy Recovery Act Spending: Hearing before H. Comm. on Energy & Commerce, 112th
Cong. 1-2 (2011) (statement of Gregory H. Friedman Inspector General U.S. Department of Energy).
949
PHILLIP R. BROWN, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LOAN GUARANTEES FOR CLEAN
ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: GOALS, CONCERNS, AND POLICY OPTIONS (2012), available at
http://www.crs.gov/pages/Reports.aspx?PRODCODE=R42152&Source=search, [hereinafter Brown].
187
principal and interest in case of default by the borrower in other words, a loan that the
government has promised to pay if the borrower defaults.950
Congress first authorized the Department of Energys Loan Guarantee Program (the Program)
under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.951 Generally, the Program attempts to incentivize
innovations in energy efficiency, renewable energy and advanced transmission by making it easier
for companies to secure loans. Section 1703 of the Act specifically authorizes the Secretary of
Energy to make loan guarantees for projects that employ innovative technology to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.952
A NEW SECTION 1705

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 amended the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and
significantly expanded the Secretarys loan guarantee authority under a newly-created Section
1705.953 Section 1705 authorized the Secretary to issue loan guarantees for renewable energy
projects including those employing non-innovative technologies that commenced construction
within a certain period of time, or by no later than September 30, 2011.954 Moreover, in contrast to
loan guarantees issued under 1703, the project sponsor did not have to pay for the cost of the loan
guarantee because the government covered the credit subsidy costs.955 The short timeframe for
eligibility and the congressional appropriation of the credit subsidy cost reflect 1705s primary
purpose: economic stimulus.956
The DOE issued its first 1705 loan guarantee solicitation on July 29, 2009.957 The DOEs Loan
Programs Office awards and administers loan guarantees under three sets of official rules: the
statutory requirements of Sections 1703 and 1705, the departmental regulations issued pursuant
to statute, and the departments formal solicitations for loan guarantee applications.958 These rules
describe the eligibility requirements with increasing specificity to encourage responsible
stewardship of the Program and to prevent the issuance of a taxpayer-financed earmark.
950
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, LOAN GUARANTEES: CURRENT CONCERNS AND

ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTROL (1978).
951
42 U.S.C. 16511-16514.
952
Id. 16513(a).
953
Id. 16516.
954
Id. 16516(a).
955
U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM, LOAN GUARANTEE SOLICITATION
ANNOUNCEMENT: FED. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR PROJECTS THAT EMPLOY INNOVATIVE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND ADVANCED TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION TECH.
(July 29, 2009) (the Recovery Act provides that five billion nine hundred sixty five million dollars
($5,965,000,000) in appropriated funds be made available until expended to pay the Credit Subsidy Costs)
[hereinafter Innovative Solicitation].
956
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 3(a), 123 Stat. 115.
957
958
42 U.S.C. 16511-16516; 10 C.F.R. 609 (2011); Innovative Solicitation, supra note 955; U.S. DEPT OF
ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM OFFICE, LOAN GUARANTEE SOLICITATION
ANNOUNCEMENT: FED. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR COMMERICAL TECH. RENEWABLE ENERGY
GENERATION PROJECTS UNDER THE FIN. INST. PSHIP PROGRAM (Oct. 7, 2009) [hereinafter FIPP
Solicitation].
188
GUARANTEEING JUNK
The 1705 loan guarantees were issued under two solicitations which differed in their eligibility
requirements and financing method. The first solicitation targeted projects that employed
innovative technologies.959 Under this solicitation, the project sponsor could acquire the underlying
loan from U.S. government through the Federal Financing Bank.960 The second solicitation created
the Financial Institution Partnership Program.961 This program accepted projects that employed
non-innovative (i.e., already commercialized) technology, but required the project sponsor to
acquire the underlying loan from a private financial institution.962
Committee staff evaluated renewable energy projects that received loan commitments from the
Department of Energy (DOE) or from private lenders partnering with DOE under 1705. Staff
identified a pattern indicative of poor management and a bias toward unconstrained lending that
resulted in the creation of a high risk, speculative and undiversified loan portfolio.
By the expiration of Section 1705 program in September 2011, the DOE had approved 27 projects
totaling over $16 billion in guaranteed loans.963 At the outset, the ratings agencies rated 23 of
these loans as non-investment grade categories, also known as junk, due to their poor credit
quality, while the other four were rated BBB, which is at the lowest end of the investment grade of
categories. Overall, DOEs Section 1705 portfolios initial average rating was BB-. According to
Fitch, a BB rating is speculative and indicates an elevated vulnerability to default risk. 964
Accordingly, a BB- is on the low end of what are considered to be speculative investments, barely
escaping the classification of highly speculative investments.
Despite lending to highly speculative and troubled projects, the government only charged those
green energy firms its own cost to borrow money. In other words, the government sought no profit
or compensation for credit risk. Given the extent of losses apparent, the failure to seek any
compensation for credit risk inevitably means the taxpayer will lose substantial funds. This is
distinguishable from normal business practices, where banks or investment firms charge a
premium or require more upfront capital as a condition for agreeing to finance riskier projects;
thus, if the project were to go completely under, the banks would have some capital to show for the
losses.
CRONY CAPITALISM AND WASTEFUL SPENDING

As the Committee reviewed the risky loans backed by the government through the Department of
Energys Section 1705 authority, it discovered a pattern within the Administration of hiring persons
959
960
Id.
961
42 U.S.C. 16516.
962
Id.
963
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Dept. of Energys Disastrous Management of Loan
Guarantee Programs, 112th Cong. (2012).
964
Fitch Ratings, Definitions of Ratings and Other Forms of Opinion (2011), available at
http://www.fitchratings.com/web_content/ratings/fitch_ratings_definitions_and_scales.pdf.
189
who worked at green energy investment groups relationships that created significant conflicts of
interest. The following are notable findings from the Committees oversight activities:
Solyndra
Steve Spinner served as an advisor to Secretary Chu from April 2009 to September 2010. In that
position, Mr. Spinner helped oversee the strategic operations of the clean energy loan guarantee
program under the Recovery Act.965 Mr. Spinner was previously an energy-focused venture
capitalist and high-tech consultant.966 He is also an Obama bundler, having raised over $500,000
for the President in 2008,967 and over $200,000 thus far for 2012.968 Mr. Spinners wife, Allison
Berry Spinner, is a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, the law firm that represented
Solyndra on matters related to the DOE loan.969 According to federal records, the firm received at
least $2.4 million in federal funds for legal fees related to the representation.970
White House e-mails released late last year indicate that Mr. Spinner was influential in securing the
$528 million loan to now-bankrupt Solyndra. Many of those emails were written just days after he
signed an ethics agreement pledging that he would not participate in any discussion regarding any
application involving his wifes law firm.971 In one message to a DOE official on August 28, 2009,
Mr. Spinner wrote, How hard is this? What is he waiting for? . . . I have OVP and WH breathing
down my neck on this.972 The e-mail went on to demand that the DOE official walk over there and
force [the official working on the Solyndra evaluation] to give [him] an answer.973
After just being contacted by Solyndra, Mr. Spinner inquires in another e-mail, Any word on OMB?
Solyndras getting nervous.974 The e-mail correspondence occurring in the final days before the
Solyndra loan closed in September 2009 centers heavily on Spinners efforts to coordinate plans
for either the President or Vice President to announce the first loan approval at a scheduled
visit to Solyndra.975
965
Matthew Daly, Steve Spinner, Energy Department Advisor, Pushed Solyndra Loan, Emails Show,
HUFFINGTON POST, Oct. 7, 2011 available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/obama-fundraiserpushed-s_n_1000826.html.
966
Matthew Mosk, Obama Fundraiser Pushed Solyndra Deal From Inside, ABC NEWS, Oct. 7, 2011 available at
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-fundraiser-pushed-solyndra-deal-inside/story?id=14691618#.TzrE9MXQIsI.
967
Center for Responsive Politics, Barack Obama Bundlers, OpenSecrets available at
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638.
968
BarackObama.com, Obama For America Victory Fund 2012 Volunteer Fundraisers available at
http://www.barackobama.com/pages/volunteer-fundraisers-Q2/.
969
Matthew Mosk, Obama Fundraiser Pushed Solyndra Deal From Inside, ABC NEWS, Oct. 7, 2011, available at
970
Matthew Daly, Steve Spinner, Energy Department Advisor, Pushed Solyndra Loan, Emails Show,
HUFFINGTON POST, Oct. 7, 2011 available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/obama-fundraiserpushed-s_n_1000826.html.
971
Matthew Mosk, Obama Fundraiser Pushed Solyndra Deal From Inside, ABC NEWS, Oct. 7, 2011, available at
972
Id.
973
Id.
974
Id.
975
Id.
190
Granite Reliable
Nancy Ann DeParle, the former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in the White House, had a financial
stake in the success of Granite Reliable, which received $168.9 million loan from DOE. Prior to
joining the White House, Ms. DeParle was a Managing Director of multi-billion dollar private equity
firm CCMP Capital and she both had a financial interest in and sat on the Board of Directors for
Noble Environmental Power, LLC.976 Noble owned Granite Reliable, a wind energy project.977 Prior
to her departure, her position on Nobles board of Directors positioned her to understand the most
confidential and material aspects of Noble Environmental and its subsidiary Granite Reliable. Ms.
DeParle misrepresented her relationship with Noble Energy, claiming on disclosure forms that her
interest had been divested, when in fact it had merely been transferred to her 10 year old son.978
During her time at the White House, Granite Reliable sought and, in September 2011, obtained a
partial guarantee of a $168.9 million loan.979 Ms. DeParles ownership stake in Noble, which owned
Granite Reliable, a beneficiary of a DOE loan, represents a clear conflict of interest.
Solar Reserve
David Sandalow served as the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at DOE, where
he acted as Secretarys Chus principal adviser on energy policy as well as coordinates DOEs foreign
policy involvement. Mr. Sandalows ties to the White House date back to the Clinton
Administration, during which he worked with President Clinton on environmental issues. After
having gained this experience, Mr. Sandalow became the influential Chair of the Energy & Climate
Working Group of the Clinton Global Initiative. He went on to advise President Obamas
presidential campaign in 2008.980 Prior to joining the Obama Administration, Mr. Sandalow was a
senior advisor to Good Energies, Inc., an energy-focused venture capital firm.981 Good Energies is
an investor in SolarReserve,982 a solar power company that received a $737 million loan guarantee
from DOE in September 2011.983
976
CCMP Capital Company Website available at http://www.ccmpcapital.com/.

Press Release, Noble Environmental Power, Noble Environmental Power Signs Agreement for the Sale of its
Interest in its New Hampshire Wind Project (Dec. 7, 2010) available at
http://www.noblepower.com/pressroom/documents/10-12-7_NEPSignsAgreementForSaleOfNHWindProject_Final.pdf.
978
Nancy Ann DeParle, Executive Branch Personnell Public Financial Disclosure Report (Mar. 9, 2009) available at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62509267/DeParle-Nancy-Ann-278-10A.
979
U.S. Dept of Energy Loan Programs Office, 1705 Program, Projects: Granite Reliable available at
https://lpo.energy.gov/?projects=granite-reliable.
980
See Energy.gov, About Us: David Sandalow available at http://energy.gov/contributors/david-sandalow; see
also Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Dept. of Energys Disastrous Management of Loan
Guarantee Programs, 112th Cong. (2012).
981
Press Release, The White House, President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts (Mar. 20, 2009)
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-more-key-administrationposts-32009.
982
Good Energies Company Website, Investments available at
http://www.goodenergies.com/investment/companies.
983
U.S. Dept of Energy Loan Programs Office, 1705 Program, Projects: SolarReserve, LLC available at
https://lpo.energy.gov/?projects=solarreserve-llc-crescent-dunes.
977
191
Michael Froman previously served as the Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National
Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs.984 He was a friend of President Obamas from
law school,985 and supported his political career by bundling over $200,000 for his 2008
presidential candidacy.986 Prior to his arrival at the White House, Mr. Froman was the Managing
Director of Alternative Investments at Citigroup,987 where he managed infrastructure and
sustainable development investments.988 Citigroup became a major investor in SolarReserve,989
which ultimately received a $737 million loan guarantee in September 2011.990
Vantage Point Venture Partners

Sanjay Wagle served as Renewable Energy Advisor to DOE under Secretary Chu, where he helped
oversee the $11 billion renewable energy program under the Recovery Act.991 Mr. Wagle was an
Obama fundraiser for the 2008 presidential campaign, garnering much of his support through his
Clean Tech for Obama group.992 Another venture capitalist that has acquired an influential role at
DOE, his industry colleagues believed that Mr. Wagle, among others, would help ensure
commercial successes from the steady flow of dollars coming out of DC.993 Prior to arriving in
Washington, Mr. Wagle was a principal at Vantage Point Venture Partners (Vantage Point), a
cleantech venture capital firm whose investments received $2.4 billion in taxpayer funds.994
Among them were Brightsource, which received $1.6 billion for solar generation; Tesla Motors,
which received $465 million for electric car manufacturing; and Mascoma, which received $80
million for an ethanol plant.995 Mr. Wagle left Vantage Point and moved to DOE shortly after
Obamas election, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the
economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.996 His former firm and the
984

985
Jonathan Weisman, Obama Taps Froman For Joint Security, Economic Post, WALL ST. J., Jan. 30, 2009
available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123328110238231817.html.
986
987
DealBook, Citigroup Fund Hit a Speed Bump, N.Y. TIMES, July 20, 2009 available at
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/citigroup-funds-hit-speed-bump/?ref=michaelfroman.
988
Press Release, Harvard Law School, Michael Froman 91 joins White House in joint security, economic post
(Feb. 3, 2009) available at http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2009/02/03_froman.html.
989
Jim McElhatton, Feds guarantee $1 billion in new solar loans, WASH. TIMES, Sept. 28, 2011 available at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/28/feds-guarantee-1-billion-in-new-solar-loans/?page=all.
990
U.S. Dept of Energy Loan Programs Office, 1705 Program: Projects available at
https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.
991
Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens, Venture capitalists play key role in Obamas Energy Department, WASH.
POST, Feb. 14, 2012 available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/venture-capitalists-play-key-role-inobamas-energy-department/2011/12/30/gIQA05raER_story.html.; Event Announcement, Full Circle Fund,
Environment/Energy Circle Meeting (Nov.16, 2011) available at http://www.fullcirclefund.org/event.php?id=838.
992
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Dept. of Energys Disastrous Management of Loan
Guarantee Programs, 112th Cong. 49 (2012).
993
Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens, Venture capitalists play key role in Obamas Energy Department, WASH.
POST, Feb. 14, 2012 available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/venture-capitalists-play-key-role-inobamas-energy-department/2011/12/30/gIQA05raER_story.html..
994
Id.
995
Id.
996
Id.
192
companies it invested in, therefore, had a large stake in the financing decisions being made by DOE
at the time.997
The cronyism discovered by the Committee tells only part of a much greater storya story of
mismanagement, waste and abuse symptomatic of reaching too far, working too fast, and spending
too much to achieve unrealistic objectives. There are significant concerns about DOEs management
and administration of the 1705 loan guarantee program. And a management structure unprepared
and incapable of dealing with the challenges it faced when pressed to push out the door tens of
billions of dollars in a short period of time. These factors lead to the political cronyism at play and
as a result a waste of billions of taxpayer dollars. Despite Chairman Issas spotlighting the shortfalls
of the 1705 program, DOE is continuing to issue 1703 loan guarantees to nuclear projects which
share many of the same characteristics that lead to the failure of the 1705 loan guarantees.
997
Id.
193
OBAMACARE LOAN GUARANTEE GAMBLE

Another stunning example of the Federal Government picking winners and losers is found in the
Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP). As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, CO-OP was created to fund the establishment and solvency of non-profit health insurance
issuers. An alternative to the public option, non-profit CO-OPs were intended to provide a
different delivery model for competition according to Senator Kent Conrad.998 With $6 billion in
taxpayer dollars in funding, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was charged with
administering the CO-OP loan program but after strong bipartisan opposition999 the programs
budget was cut to $3.8 billion in 2011.
Over time vocal opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike resulted in significant reforms to
the program with the benefit of limiting taxpayer exposure. Ultimately, only $1.98 billion was
disbursed before Congress put a stop to the wasteful spending. Notably similar to the Solyndra
scandal, in which the Obama Administration squandered $535 million in a failed solar-energy
company backed by one of Obamas largest donors,1000 the Committees examination found that
some loan recipients may have unduly influenced the final eligibility criteria and that key
employees had close ties with senior Obama Administration officials.1001
As background: Start-up loans offer funding for costs associated with establishing a CO-OP,1002 are
repayable in five years and are assessed interest, if at all, at a very low rate.1003 Solvency loans,
which are repayable in 15 years at an even lower interest rate,1004 provide funding intended to help
the recipient meet State solvency and reserve requirements."1005
According to the Administrations own estimates, taxpayers are projected to lose more than 42
percent of the nearly $8 billion distributed through the CO-OP loan program.1006 On September 26,
998
Ken Stickland, A new health-care option?, NBC NEWS (June 9, 2009), available at
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/06/09/4431391-a-new-health-care-option.
999
Some of the strongest criticism came from leading Democrats in the Senate. In a letter to the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller protested, saying, I believe it is
irresponsible to invest over $6 billion in a concept that has not proven to provide quality, affordable health care.
Letter from Hon. John D. Rockefeller, Chairman, S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci., & Transp., to S. Comm. on Fin.
Chairman Max Baucus and S. Comm. on Fin. Ranking Member Charles Grassley (Sept. 16, 2009).
1000
Avik Roy, Six Solyndas: ObamaCare blows $3 billion on Faulty CO-OP Insurance Loans, FORBES, May 30,
2012; see also H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The Department of Energys Disastrous Management of
Loan Guarantee Programs, 112th Cong. (2012).
1001
See H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Examining the Administrations $2 billion ObamaCare Loan
Guarantee Gamble: Two Case Studies of Political Influence Peddling and Millions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted,
113th Cong. (2014).
1002
Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Program, 45 C.F.R. 156.505 (2011).
1003
Id. 156.520.
1004
Id.
1005
Id. 156.505. See the Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Federal Credit Supplement, Table 1
for a breakdown of distributions by loan type.
1006
See Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Federal Credit Supplement, Table 1; Budget of the U.S.
Government, Fiscal Year 2015, Federal Credit Supplement, Table 1; and Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2015, Federal Credit Supplement, Table 1, all available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET.
194
2014, its most recent distribution, CMS distributed $274 million to five of the CO-OP programs 23
participants.1007
CO-OPS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PUBLIC OPTION

The provision of health insurance coverage through non-profit cooperatives emerged as a
substitute for the public option during the debate over health care reform in 2009.1008 Termed by
Senator Kent Conrad as an alternative to for-profit insurance companies,1009 the Consumer
Operated and Oriented Plan was added as a final piece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act. The CO-OP program, initially backed with $6 billion of taxpayer funding, was intended to help
establish private entities to serve the small and individual insurance markets both on and off the
new health insurance exchange marketplaces.1010 The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS), a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), was tasked with
administering the program, which provides loans and grants1011 to eligible non-profits in order to
facilitate the set-up and maintenance of health plans with the expectation that the loan recipients
will offer individuals and small businesses affordable, consumer-friendly and high-quality health
insurance options.1012
ELIGIBILITY AND FUNDING

In order to be eligible to receive funding through the program, CO-OP program applicants were
required to be a not-for-profit entities and to satisfy state insurance company licensure
requirements. Moreover, an applicant was statutorily ineligible if the organization or a related
entity was a health insurance issuer on July 16, 2009.1013 Approved CO-OPs received loans with
differing terms and conditions with terms ranging from five to 15 years with little or no interest
charged.1014
Democrats and Republicans alike raised concerns related to the CO-OP programs administration
and viability, long before ObamaCare became law. In a statement that proved foreshadowing,
1007
Distributions to the program by CMS were originally made to 24 entities, including the Vermont Health CO-OP,
incorporated as the Consumer Health Coalition of Vermont. However, the Vermont Health CO-OP was denied
licensure by the state after an 18-month review a license that the CO-OP was required to obtain by statute. CMS
demanded a return of all unused funds distributed to the CO-OP through the program. Taxpayers lost $4.5 million
of the more than $33 million originally distributed to an entity approved by the Administration that failed to meet
even the most basic requirements for state licensure. See H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Examining the
Administrations $2 billion ObamaCare Loan Guarantee Gamble: Two Case Studies of Political Influence Peddling
and Millions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted, 113th Cong. (2014).
1008
Ken Stickland, A new health-care option?, NBC NEWS, June 9, 2009, available at
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/06/09/4431391-a-new-health-care-option.
1009
Id.
1010
Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 1322, 124 Stat. 119.
1011
According to the Affordable Care Act, funding through the program is to be provided in two forms: loans to
provide assistance in meeting [the CO-OPs] start-up costs and grants to provide assistance in meeting any
solvency requirements of States in which [the CO-OP] seeks to be licensed to issue qualified health plans. Patient
Protection & Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 1322(b)(1), 124 Stat. 119.
1012
New Federal Loan Program Helps Nonprofits Create Customer-Driven Health Insurers, CMS.GOV,
http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Fact-Sheets-and-FAQs/coop_final_rule.html.
1013
42 U.S.C. 18042 (2012).
1014
See Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Federal Credit Supplement, Table 1, available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET.
195
Senator John D. Rockefeller sent a letter to fellow senators in 2009, stating: I believe it is
irresponsible to invest over $6 billion in a concept that has not proven to provide quality, affordable
health care.1015 Over time, opponents to the program have been successful in limiting taxpayer
exposure through the program. Funding for the CO-OP program was first cut from $6 billion to $3.8
billion in 2011,1016 and in January 2013 Congress cut the budget almost completely, leaving 10
percent for a contingency fund.1017 Of the 24 entities accepted into the CO-OP program before
January 2013, 23 continue to be eligible for loans through the program but no new applicants will
be accepted. By the Administrations own estimates, unrecoverable losses associated with lending
to these 24 entities are projected to reach more than $3.4 billion.1018
When undistributed amounts budgeted to the CO-OP program were rescinded in January, 2013, a
small amount of funding was reserved to provide assistance and oversight of participants to
which loans had already been issued.1019
After allegations that CMS had improperly distributed loans to entities that were ineligible for the
program, the Committee began its investigation in October 2012.
1015
Letter from Hon. John D. Rockefeller, Chairman, S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci., & Transp., to S. Comm. on Fin.
Chairman Max Baucus and S. Comm. on Fin. Ranking Member Charles Grassley (Sept. 16, 2009).
1016
Dept of Defense and full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10 1857, 125 Stat. 38.
1017
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-240 644, 126 Stat. 2313 (2013).
1018
See Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2013, Federal Credit Supplement, Table 1; Budget of the U.S.
Government, Fiscal Year 2015, Federal Credit Supplement, Table 1; and Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2015, Federal Credit Supplement, Table 1.
1019
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-240 644, 126 Stat. 2313 (2013).
196
WHOS DRIVING THE AUTO INDUSTRY?

The Federal Governments unusual reach into the private sector is well-documented by its
relationship with the auto industry. Yielding unusual leverage in the wake of the financial crisis, the
Obama Administration was able to significantly advance its green agenda through new fuel
economy standards. Almost simultaneously, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
was abdicating its responsibilities following allegations that the batteries used in certain electric
had a tendency to explode after serious impact. At the nexus of these two events is General Motors:
almost inextricably tied to the Federal Government yet still dependent upon consumer demand.
HOW TO FORCE AGREEMENT: STRONG-ARM TACTICS AND FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

In 2009, riding the momentum generated by his election, President Barack Obama announced the
establishment of stringent new fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for
automobiles.1020 Billed as a collaborative effort among government, the automobile industry, and
environmentalist in which everyone wins,1021 the fuel economy standards were in fact the result
of the Administrations heavy-handed politics. The Administration leveraged the economic
weakness of the domestic automobile industry and the State of Californias threat of aggressive
regulation to force automakers to agree to two rounds of rigorous standards. In so doing, the
Administration usurped congressional intent, sacrificed vehicle safety and affordability, and picked
winners and losers in both auto manufacturers and advanced technologies.
The Administrations Leverage: The Power of the Purse and the California Waiver
When President Obama entered office, the regulatory environment for motor vehicles and the state
of the automobile industry provided a distinctive set of circumstances ripe for manipulation. The
Supreme Court had recently declared that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could
regulate greenhouse gasses (GHGs) if the Administrator found that they endangered public health
or welfare.1022 The State of California, which had suffered a setback when former EPA
Administrator Stephen L. Johnson denied its preemption waiver to regulate GHGs from automobiles
in 2007, had secured a promise from the new Administration to reconsider the waiver petition.1023
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which had statutory authority to
regulate fuel economy standards for automobiles,1024 was no longer the only relevant agency, as it
faced the likelihood of encroachment of its jurisdiction by both EPA and California. This regulatory
scheme created the potential for a patchwork of automobile emissions and fuel economy
regulations a possibility that the automakers were loath to accept.
1020
The White House, Remarks by the President on National Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 19, 2009). The
relationship between fuel economy and vehicular greenhouse gas emissions is so close that compliance tests for fuel
economy standards are performed by measuring a vehicles carbon-dioxide emissions. NATL AUTO. DEALERS
ASSN, PATCHWORK PROVEN: WHY A SINGULAR NATIONAL FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD IS BETTER FOR AMERICA
THAN A PATCHWORK OF STATE REGULATIONS 11-12 (2009).
1021
The White House, Remarks by the President on National Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 19, 2009).
1022
See Massachusetts v. Envtl Prot. Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
1023
DOT- EPA Transition Team Mtg Notes. A waiver given to California would have allowed California to set its
own vehicle emissions standards, which other states could then adopt as their own. See 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1),
7507.
1024
See Delegation Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 41 Fed. Reg. 25,015 (June 22, 1976).
197
Most crucial to the Administrations machinations was the downward spiral American automakers
were facing as a result of the recent financial crisis. The automobile industry experienced a
dramatic decline in sales due to worsening economic conditions, decreased consumer demand, and
high legacy costs.1025 In 2008, overall automobile sales fell to a twenty-six-year low, with domestic
sales down eighteen percent from the previous year.1026 The three domestic auto manufacturers,
General Motors (GM), Ford, and Chrysler the so-called Detroit 3 experienced significantly
more hardship than the international automakers due to their product mixes and higher pension
and retirement obligations.1027 As a result, by late 2008, both GM and Chrysler were teetering on
the edge of fiscal insolvency.1028 Ford, while not as financially precarious as GM and Chrysler, was
also losing money.1029 Worsening financial conditions made each of them much more vulnerable to
Administration pressure.
Round One: Standards from 2012 through 2016

In January 2009 six days after taking office President Obama ordered EPA to immediately
review the denial of the California waiver request, the first step toward allowing California to
regulate GHG emissions separately from EPA.1030 In the following month the White House began
quietly orchestrat[ing] private discussions with auto industry officials on a single national fuel
economy and GHG emissions standard.1031 According to one news report, this work was
deliberately shielded from public view, keep[ing] their discussions as quiet as possible, holding no
group meetings and taking care to not leak updates to the press.1032 Throughout the spring, the
White House and the Auto Task Force a special group created to manage the financial struggles of
the automobile industry continued to engage a small group of automakers. Industry
representatives voiced concerns amongst themselves about the Administrations hard line
proposals, with one executive lamenting that the fuel economy requirements are very
aggressive.1033 However, by May 2009 the automakers acquiesced to the Obama Administrations
proposal and agreed to implement stricter and costlier fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards
through 2016.
The Administration accomplished this coup by leveraging two critical factors. First, the
Administrations bailout of GM and Chrysler gave it the power to force the companies to improve
vehicle fuel economy even though it would not be a prudent decision financially. The
1025
Bill Canis et al., Cong. Research Serv., U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Federal Financial Assistance and
Restructuring 2 (2009). These legacy costs included pensions and healthcare for industry employees. See Eric
Bryant, Explaining the burden of legacy costs, AUTO BLOG, Sept. 20, 2006.
1026
Bill Canis et al., Cong. Research Serv., U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry: Federal Financial Assistance and
Restructuring 1-2 (2009) (on file with author).
1027
Id. at 2.
1028
Id.
1029
Id. at 7.
1030
Remarks by the President on Jobs, Independence, and Climate Change (Jan. 26, 2009).
1031
Colin Sullivan, Vow of Silence Key to White House-Calif. Fuel Economy Talks, N.Y. TIMES, May 20, 2009;
Neela Banerjee, The Road to New Fuel Economy Standards Was Not Smooth, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 18, 2011.
1032
Colin Sullivan, Vow of Silence Key to White House-Calif. Fuel Economy Talks, N.Y. TIMES, May 20, 2009.
1033
Email from Mark Kemmer, Gen. Motors, to Ken Cole, Gen. Motors (May 12, 2009).
198
Administrations own estimate placed compliance costs at almost $200 billion through 2025.1034
Automobile manufacturers, cognizant of the reality that the bailout had given the Administration
broad leverage to shape not only the industrys finances but its product lines, voluntarily pledged
to increase fuel efficiency in spring 2009.1035 The White House embraced these restructuring plans,
envisioning an auto industry that is once more . . . manufacturing the fuel-efficient cars and trucks
that will carry us toward an energy-independent future.1036
The second factor that allowed the Administration to dictate the management decisions of the
automakers was the threat of the California waiver.1037 Simply put, the California waiver would
allow California to set its own vehicle emissions standards, and the accompanying threat for a
patchwork of state regulations was a gun to the head of automakers, forcing them to engage the
Administration on a path toward an integrated federal-state standard.1038 Once President Obama
ordered EPA to reconsider the waiver, the auto industry became highly incentivized to negotiate an
agreement in which the waiver would be moot. The industrys greatest fear was a patchwork of
varying regulations. Once EPA began to reconsider the California waiver, the automakers both
foreign and domestic supported an agreement to prevent that patchwork from becoming a
reality.1039
Round Two: Standards from 2017 through 2025

The Administrations heavy-handed approach to fuel economy standards proved so successful for
the White House in 2009 that it repeated the feat two years later; as one EPA official told auto
executives at the time, the President wants to secure his legacy before the 2012 presidential
election.1040 For the second round of standard dictating, the Administration adopted a divide and
1034
See Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards;
Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 25,324, 25,346 (May 7, 2010); 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. 74,854, 74,890 (Dec. 1,
2011).
1035
See Peter Whoriskey & Kendra Marr, Tough Test Emerges as Administration Aims to Bolster Automakers, Cut
Pollution, WASH. POST, Mar. 4, 2009. Automobile manufacturers included this pledge in their viability plans
submitted to the Administration in early 2009. Id.
1036
The White House, Remarks by the President on the American Automotive Industry (Mar. 30, 2009).
1037
Under the California waiver, an automaker would have to comply with several sets of standards because
compliance would have been based on the automakers sales fleet in a particular state. See NATL AUTOMOBILE
DEALERS ASSOC., PATCHWORK PROVEN: WHY A SINGLE NATIONAL FUEL ECONOMY STANDARD IS BETTER FOR
AMERICA THAN A PATCHWORK OF STATE REGULATIONS (2009).
1038
Running on Empty: How the Obama Administrations Green Energy Gamble Will Impact Small Business and
Consumers: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Govt Spending of the H.
Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, 112th Cong. (2011) (question and answer with Jeremy Anwyl, Chief
Executive Officer of Edmunds.com).
1039
Email from Peter Lawson, Ford Motor Co., to Katie Murtha, Office of Rep. Dingell (Feb. 1, 2011) (We (the
Auto Industry) supported one national standard which the White House was brokering with California, EPA, and
NHTSA. The deal through 2016 was that EPA and NHTSA would develop technically equivalent standards at CA
levels . . . .).
1040
Mazda, Handwritten Notes.
199
conquer approach to securing the automakers cooperation in establishing new, stricter standards
for model years 2017 through 2025.1041
Documents reviewed by the Committee during the course of its oversight activities detail the
Obama Administrations strong-arm tactics. As described by one participant in the closed-door
discussions with the White House: I have never seen such power coupled with such
incompetence. It is simply embarrassing from a tax-payer perspective.1042 The same
automaker explained that the discussions were intended to arrive at a predetermined result:
The govt is playing we [automakers] off of each other. They are telling us lies (we
know cause we [automakers] talk amongst ourselves) to trick us into caving or
giving us points [of] information. The entire exercise is focused on finding a way to
get us to the previously announced 56mpg (5% per year for both car an[d] truck) in
2025.1043
This unbalanced and inequitable approach to stakeholder engagement was confirmed by another
auto executive. In an email preparing the companys chief executive officer for a phone call with the
White House, the executive warned that the White House ha[s] been trying to play one company
off another so if [Auto Task Force staffer Ron Bloom] tells you others have agreed, dont buy
it.1044 As the negotiations intensified, the White House focused on securing the support of a select
few auto companies to pressure the others to agree.1045 These meetings were arranged by the
White House with little advanced notice, no discussion on the companies availability, and on
essentially a take it or leave it basis.1046
The Administration also refused to consider concerns raised by the automakers. In one meeting,
representatives from GM explained to Administration officials how their proposal was overly
aggressive and commercially unworkable.1047 [A]fter lengthy discussions . . . the Admin reps (and
[California]) eventually fell back on the point that they need an aggressive number and one that
will force substantial and increasing numbers of advanced technology vehicles into the market; the
cost of those vehicles (to customers and/or to the automakers) was clearly not a significant concern
of the regulators.1048 It is evident from that the White House sought an aggressive target that
would force the automakers to offer advanced technology vehicles.1049 When faced with the
reality that the stringency would impose . . . substantial unrecoverable costs on the auto
1041
Email from Tom Lehner, Toyota, to Kazuo Abe et al., Toyota (July 7, 2011) (Government is trying to pressure
each company into an agreement with divide and conquer approach.).
1042
Email from Dwight Brown, Gen. Motors, to Mary Sipes, Gen. Motors (July 15, 2011) (emphasis added).
1043
Id.
1044
Email from Tom Lehner, Toyota, to Jim Lentz & Dian Ogilvie, Toyota (July 16, 2011).
1045
Email from Robert Bienenfeld, Am. Honda Motor Co., to Ed Nam, Envtl. Prot. Agency (July 13, 2011) (Ron
Bloom said you are working with just a few companies, and Honda is one of them.); Email from Barbara Nocera,
Mazda, to Keiko Takihana, Mazda (July 7, 2011).
1046
Email from Stuart Johnson, Volkswagen, to Christoph Kohnen, Volkswagen (July 10, 2011).
1047
Email from Mark L. Kemmer, Gen. Motors, to Bob Ferguson, Gen. Motors (June 22, 2011).
1048
Id. (emphasis added).
1049
Id.
200
industry,1050 the Administration was forced to invent loopholes to ease automaker compliance
while maintaining the aggressive headline number.
These loopholes ultimately favored the domestic automakers over foreign manufacturers. The
foreign manufacturers noticed the inherent unfairness. The proposal lacks competitive equity,
according to one executive of a foreign automaker, [w]ithin the light truck category, there is
further inequity since the largest trucks (made by the Big 3) have almost no burden in the first
three years.1051 Another described the loopholes as unfair in that it gave a complete pass on
trucks to manufacturers with a truck-heavy product mix.1052 One executive even described the
light-truck carve-out as a second auto bailout.1053 The White House, too, recognized the inequity.
In a phone call with a Toyota executive, a senior White House official confessed: I know how
difficult this must have been in a culture where fairness is very important.1054
With the loopholes targeted for them, the three domestic automakers assisted the Administration in
lobbying other automakers to accept the deal.1055 After weeks of cajoling, the White House began
moving toward a definitive agreement in the latter half of July 2011. The second round agreement
was announced in July 2011.1056 Through coercion and enticements, the White House cobbled
together an agreement of stakeholders to support this radical re-write of fuel economy policy. But
beyond merely restructuring the process, the Administration openly sought a stringent standard
that would force alternative vehicles into the American marketplace without regard for
consumer acceptance, safety consequences, or vehicle pricing. The Obama Administrations picking
of winners and loser, as a result, will have lasting consequences for American consumers.
PROTECTING GOVERNMENT MOTORS: THE CASE OF THE CHEVY VOLT

Rather than allowing General Motors and Chrysler to enter into a traditional bankruptcy process at
the beginning of the Great Recession, the Federal Government intervened and forced the companies
to participate in a politically orchestrated process whereby GM and Chrysler emerged as quasiprivate entities, partially owned by the United States government. President Obama used this
unusual blurring of public and private sector boundaries to openly tout the results of this
partnership as a top accomplishment of his Administration1057 creating a dynamic where the
President is politically reliant on the success of GM and Chrysler.
In support of General Motors and the Presidents green-fuel agenda, the Obama Administration
offered substantial taxpayer funded subsidies to encourage production of the Chevrolet Volt, one of
the few automobiles able to meet the stricter fuel economy standards that also happened to be
1050
Id.
Email from David Geanacopoulos, Volkswagen, to Christoph Kohnen et al., Volkswagen (July 26, 2011).
1052
Email from Anna Schneider, Volkswagen, to David Geanacopoulos, Volkswagen (July 14, 2011).
1053
Email from Tom Lehner, Toyota, to Martha Voss, Toyota (July 26, 2011) (emphasis added).
1054
Handwritten Notes of Conversation between Jim Lentz, Toyota, and Ron Bloom, Exec. Office of the Pres. (July
27, 2011).
1055
Email from Ziad Ojakli, Ford Motor Co., to Ron Bloom, Exec. Office of the Pres. (July 26, 2011).
1056
The White House, Remarks by the President on Fuel Efficiency Standards (July 29, 2011).
1057
Kerry Picket, Axelrod ponders GM is Alive Bin Laden is Dead, THE WASHINGTON TIMES (Nov. 1, 2011),
available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/nov/1/picket-axelrod-ponders-gm-aliveosama-dead-campaig/ [hereinafter Picket].
1051
201
produced by General Motors. These subsidies included $151.4 million in stimulus funds for a
Michigan-based company that produces lithium-ion polymer battery cells as well as $105.9 million
directly to GM for the production of high-volume battery packs for the Volt, $105 million to GM to
construct facilities for electric drive systems, and $89.3 million to Delphi Automotive Systems, a
former division of GM, to expand manufacturing facilities for electric drive power
components.1058 It also extended a significant subsidy to encourage consumers to purchase the
vehicle, offering buyers of plug-in vehicles, including the Volt, a federal tax credit of up to $7,500
per vehicle.1059 However, in 2011-2012, the delayed public notification of serious safety concerns
relating to the Chevy Volt raised significant concerns regarding the extent of crony capitalism
existing within the Obama Administration.
Is the Volt Really safe to drive?

As part of its New Car Assessment Program, on May 12, 2011, NHTSA subjected a Volt to a side-pole
impact crash test at MGA Research Corporation, a NHTSA crash-test contractor in Burlington,
Wisconsin.1060 Because the test dummies fared well, NHTSA awarded the Volt a 5-star Crash Rating
the Agencys highest rating.1061 Three weeks later, the crash-tested Volt exploded, igniting a fire
that destroyed three vehicles parked nearby at the MGA facility.1062 In his response to the
Committees request for information, Administrator Strickland stated that NHTSA employees first
learned of the fire on Monday, June 6, 2011.1063 NHTSA retained a fire investigation firm to
determine the cause of the explosion, and on July 5, 2011, NHTSA was notified that the Volt was the
source of the fire.1064 Subsequently, NHTSA deconstructed the Volts battery and concluded that the
crash test had damaged the lithium-ion battery pack and that the resulting damage caused the
explosion.1065 Specifically, during the crash the battery was subject to battery intrusion by a
ferrous instrument in plain terms, a piece of the cars frame or chassis punctured the battery case
1058
U.S. Dept. of Energy, Recovery Act Awards for Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing
Initiative (Oct. 2011), http://www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/pdfs/battery_awardee_list.pdf.
1059
This tax credit is good until the second quarter after the manufacturer has produced 200,000 eligible vehicles, at
which point a phase out of the credit will begin. Internal Revenue Serv., Qualified Vehicles Acquired after 12-312009, http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Qualified-Vehicles-Acquired-after-12-31-2009 (last visited Dec. 16, 2014).
1060
Natl Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Summary of NHTSA Action Number PE11037, available at http://wwwodi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/results.cfm?action_number=PE11037&SearchType=QuickSearch&summary [hereinafter
NHTSA]; H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform Staff Briefing by NHTSA (Jan. 17, 2012).
1061
Natl Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Database of Vehicle Safety Ratings, available at
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicles/VehicleDetail?vehicleId=232.
1062
Natl Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Summary of NHTSA Action Number PE11037, available at http://wwwodi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/results.cfm?action_number=PE11037&SearchType=QuickSearch&summary; H. Comm.
on Oversight and Govt Reform Staff Briefing by NHTSA (Jan. 17, 2012).
1063
Letter from David L. Strickland, Administrator, Natl Highway Traffic Safety Admin., to Hon. Darrell Issa,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, (Jan. 12, 2012) [hereinafter Strickland letter].
1064
1064
Strickland letter.
1065
1065
Strickland letter.
202
piercing the battery and causing a leak in the coolant system. Over the next three weeks the
leaking coolant crystallized. When this crystallized coolant came into contact with the fuel cells,
which remained in a powered state, the battery was subject to thermal runaway and exploded.
The explosion was powerful: one of the Volts struts a fairly heavy piece of the suspension was
found almost 80 feet away from the burned-out car.1066
Administrator Strickland asserted to the Committee that, after determining the Volts battery pack
was to blame, NHTSA worked continuously to replicate the May crash test in order to understand
the possible safety implications following a severe crash event.1067 However, the Administrator
was unable to identify any actions taken by NHTSA to investigate the explosion between July 2011,
when NHTSA first learned the battery was to blame, and late September of that same year, when
the Volt was subjected to a follow-up side pole impact test.
On November 11, 2011, Bloomberg News broke the story of the June fire.1068 A week later, after
developing component-level testing procedures in conjunction with outside agencies, NHTSA
conducted a series of simulated crash tests on Volt lithium-ion battery packs.1069 One tested battery
pack began to emit smoke and sparks within a few hours of the simulated crash, but another
damaged battery did not catch fire until November 24, a full week after being tested.1070 NHTSA
opened its formal safety defect investigation of the post-crash fire risk in the Chevrolet Volt the next
day almost six months after the initial explosion occurred.1071 Despite the clear evidence to the
contrary, on December 6, 2011, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declared that the Chevy
Volt is safe to drive.1072
1066
H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform Staff Briefing by NHTSA (Jan. 17, 2012).
Strickland letter. Natl Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Summary of NHTSA Action Number PE11037,
available at http://wwwodi.nhtsa.dot.gov/defects/results.cfm?action_number=PE11037&SearchType=QuickSearch&summary; H. Comm.
1067
Strickland letter.
1068
Jeff Green, David Welch, and Angela Greiling Keane, Regulators probe lithium batteries after GMs Volt
catches fire, THE WASH. POST (Nov. 12, 2011).
1069
on Oversight and Govt Reform Staff Briefing by NHTSA (Jan. 17, 2012). Other agencies included Department of
Energy and Department of Defense. Id.
1069
Strickland letter.
1070
1070
Strickland letter.
1071
1071
Strickland letter.
1072
The Associated Press, LaHood: Chevy Volt is Safe Despite Battery Fires, MLIVE.COM (Dec. 6, 2011),
available at http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2011/12/lahood_chevy_volt_is_safe_desp.html.
1067
203
Reluctance to Admit Danger

Public statements by General Motors indicate the company was aware of the dangers of a damaged
battery even before NHTSAs May 12, 2011, side impact test.1073 After news of the June explosion
became public in November 2011, GM spokesman Greg Martin insisted that GM had already
established a set of safety protocols to prevent such explosions from occurring following similar
battery damage. The engineers tested the Volt's battery pack for more than 300,000 hours to come
up with the procedures, which include discharge and disposal of the battery pack, he said.1074 Mr.
Martin went so far as to claim that had those protocols been followed after [the May 12th test], this
incident would not have occurred.1075 Although NHTSA could have demanded the recall all Chevy
Volts with original, flawed batteries, it chose to allow GM to replace the old batteries on its own
through a voluntary customer satisfaction program.1076 On January 5th, GM announced that all of
the 8,000 Volts on the road and another 4,400 still in dealership inventory were eligible for free
repairs to their battery systems.1077 GM avoided the federal monitoring that would have occurred
under a recall conducted in cooperation with the NHTSA.1078 According to the January 5th press
release:
NHTSA crashed a Chevy Volt retrofitted with GMs newly designed steel
reinforcement device in a side-pole impact test on December 22. The results of that
crash showed no intrusion into the vehicles battery compartment . . . . [T]he
preliminary results of the crash test indicate the remedy proposed by General
Motors today should address the issue of battery intrusion.1079
Not only did this approach allow General Motors to avoid the strict federal monitoring of a
formal recall process, it also allowed the company an opportunity to put a positive spin on a
potentially deadly problem.
NHTSAs six month silence on the Volts fire risks baffled automotive safety advocates. Joan
Claybrook, a former Administrator of NHTSA and well known auto-safety advocate, told the
industry newspaper Automotive News that not to tell [the public] anything for six months
makes no sense to me. NHTSA could have put out a consumer alert and I think they should
have done so.1080 She went on to say, I believe they delayed it because of the fragility of
sales.1081
1073
Joan Lowry & Tom Krisher, Electric car battery catches fire after crash test, ASSOCIATED PRESS, Nov. 11,
2011.
1074
Id.
1075
Id.
1076
Tom Krisher & Dee-Ann Durbin, GM to add more steel to Volt to protect battery, ASSOCIATED PRESS, Jan. 5,
2012.
1077
Id.
1078
Id.
1079
Press Release, Natl Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Statement of NHTSA on GMs Plan to Address Potential
Fire Risk in Chevy Volts (Jan. 5, 2012).
1080
Christina Rogers, The Volt battery challenge, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, Dec. 5, 2011.
1081
Tom Krisher & Dee-Ann Durbin, GM to add more steel to Volt to protect battery, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Jan. 5,
2012) (emphasis added).
204
The decision by the Nations primary highway safety watchdog not to participate in the recall
process stands in marked contrast to the responses of other safety organizations. For example, as
of January 2012 the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) had, conducted thirty-nine
unique recalls involving lithium-ion batteries that presented a safety risk. These recalls were often
demanded after just a few reported incidents of overheating, and sometimes even less.1082
1082
Consumer Products Safety Commission, Database of Product Recalls, available at www.saferproducts.gov (last
visited Jan. 19, 2012). The CPSC viewed the situation as being so dangerous that, in some cases, a recall was issued
based on mere suspicion of that overheating might occur.
205
CHAPTER 5. FEDERAL FINANCIAL UN-ACCOUNTABILITY

According to Earl Devaney, former Inspector General for the Department of Interior and former
Chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, [t]he conventional estimate is
that 7 percent of government spending is lost to waste, fraud or abuse.1083 With stories about how
nearly $1 million dollars were spent on a Las Vegas conference for one agency, how billions of
dollars are spent on technology projects that never succeed and how the Social Security
Administration lacks an effective procedure by which it can remove ineligible recipients from
disability rolls, it is not surprising that Americans have lost faith in the ability of the Federal
Government to balance its budget. Exposing the truth behind allegations like these and many
others has the work of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in its efforts deliver on
the right of Americans to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent.
PUT IT ON THE COMPANY CARD: IRRESPONSIBILITY IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING

In recent years, the press has repeatedly reported stories of outrageous spending by employees of
the Federal Government. The Committees investigations into this outrageous behavior contributed
to the significant reforms adopted by a number of agencies real reforms for the benefit of the
American Taxpayer. In a number of these instances, it seemed that a mentality existed among
public servants that even irresponsible charges could be charged to the public account.
THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIONS 2010 LAVISH LAS VEGAS CONFERENCE

Throughout Chairman Issas first few years leading the Committee, the General Services
Administration (GSA) went unnoticed with the exception of routine matters the Committee
approves by virtue of its legislative jurisdiction. Then, on April 2, 2012, when news broke that
Administrator Martha Johnson resigned from the GSA, the Committee quickly began working with
the GSA Office of the Inspector General (GSA OIG) to obtain all the facts related to her resignation.
Specifically, the Committee obtained copies of the GSA OIG investigative report and underlying
documents regarding the 2010 Western Regions Conference (WRC), held in Las Vegas.
Once public, the GSA OIGs report revealed wasteful and excessive spending of taxpayer dollars by
agency officials. Following is a summary of the GSA OIGs findings. In December 2010, the GSA
Deputy Administrator contacted the GSA OIG to report details about a lavish conference held
between October 25 and 29, 2010.1084 Immediately, the OIGs forensic audit unit and investigators
began working on tracking the cost of the conference.1085 After reviewing documents, conducting
interviews, and reviewing financial information from the agency and contractors, the OIG issued its
report on April 2, 2012. The OIG reached the following conclusions:
1083
Michael Cooper, On the Lookout for Stimulus Fraud, NEW YORK TIMES, Sept. 17, 2009.
General Services Administration Office of Inspector General, Management Deficiency Report: General Services
Administration Public Buildings Service 2010 Western Regions Conference (Apr. 2, 2012) [hereinafter GSA OIG
Report] at 14.
1085
Briefing by Gen. Serv. Admin. Office of Inspector Gen. for Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform staff (Apr. 4,
2012).
1084
206
GSA spending on conference planning was excessive, wasteful, and in some cases
impermissible;
GSA wasted taxpayer dollars and failed to follow contracting regulations in many of the
procurements associated with the WRC;
GSA incurred excessive and impermissible costs for food at the WRC;
GSA incurred impermissible and questionable miscellaneous expenses; and,
GSAs approach to the conference indicates that minimizing expenses was not a goal.1086
The total cost of the conference was $822,751, which consisted of $136,504 in pre-conference
planning costs and $686,247 for the actual event.1087 In addition to the egregious spending, the OIG
also uncovered government contracting improprieties.
According to the OIG Report, Public Building Service (PBS) Regions 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the western
portion of the U.S. have held conferences since the 1990s.1088 Previously, they held an annual
conference, but it the event is now biennial.1089 Prior to the conference, GSA held eight scouting
and off-site pre-conference meetings.1090 Six of the pre-conference meetings were held at the M
Resort, where the conference took place.1091
Then-Acting PBS Region 9 Commissioner Jeff Neely directed those planning the conference to make
it over the top.1092 To achieve this goal, conference planners spent over $30,000 on catered food
and beverages during multiple pre-conference planning trips and a total of $100,405.37 on
employee travel for pre-conference planning. PBS selected A Showcase of World-Class Talent as
the conference theme.1093 The purpose was to celebrate, share, and showcase the diverse
professional and personal talents of GSA associates.1094
On April 4, 2012, in a briefing by GSA OIG staff, Committee staff learned that Martha Johnson and
her close aides were briefed on the OIG investigation in May 2011. At that time, she took no action.
Instead, regional commissioner Jeff Neely and others involved in the planning of the WRC received
sizable bonuses. On April 6, 2012, the Committee decided to hold a hearing regarding the WRC on
April 16, 2012. The notice of this hearing was made public on April 9, 2012.
On or about April 9, 2012, videos produced to the Committee by the OIG revealed the extent of
waste and abuse occurring at GSA. The American Idle video, for example, features GSA employees
joking about avoiding an investigation by the Inspector General and lavish GSA spending. After the
1086
GSA OIG Report at 1-2.

Id. at 1.
1088
Id. at 3.
1089
Id. at 3.
1090
Id. at 1, 3-4.
1091
Id.
1092
Id. at 13.
1093
Id. at 3.
1094
Id.
1087
207
video was screened at the WRC, Deputy Commissioner David Foley presented the employee
responsible for producing it with an award and joked about the scrutiny it might draw from
Congress. These videos were all made public.
Also on April 9, 2012, the Chairman wrote to Acting Administrator Daniel Tangherlini, who
succeeded Martha Johnson, requesting all documents pertaining to the WRC and the Hats Off
program. PBS Region 9 developed an awards program known as the Hats Off Program in 2001.1095
Under this program, Region 9 employees received 40 virtual cards or on-line coupons that could be
given to their co-workers for a specific, work-related reason. Employees could redeem these
virtual cards in the Hats Off store. Initially, the store maintained items of nominal value such as
mugs, mouse pads, and backpacks labeled with GSA logos. Eventually, the store also included highvalue items such as iPods, digital cameras, GPS devices, portable DVD players, and other electronic
devices.1096 Award items exceeding with values in excess of $99 violate GSA policy.
The program came to light after approximately 40 iPods were reported stolen from a GSA storage
room.1097 PBSs Region 9 is the same region which substantially planned the 2010 Western Regions
Conference. The leadership of Region 9 signed off on WRC spending.
On April 12, 2012, the Chairman authorized and issued subpoenas to Acting Administrator
Tangherlini for documents, and to Jeff Neely for his testimony at the Full Committee hearing on
April 16, 2012. Neelys attorney indicated that he would be asserting his Fifth Amendment
privilege. After a series of questions from the Chairman, Neely indeed asserted his Fifth
Amendment privilege and was excused from the hearing room. Just prior to the date of the hearing,
Neely was placed on administrative leave. He was ultimately dismissed from the agency and
indicted on September 25, 2014.
During the hearing Committee Members learned from GSA Inspector General Miller that many of
his findings may lead to prosecutions for bribery and kickbacks. From an institutional perspective,
it became clear during the hearing, that GSA lacked proper financial controls and oversight. During
the second panel, Acting Administrator Tangherlini pledged to do a top-to-bottom review, put new
controls in place, and centralize the reporting structure at GSA.
NOAA AND THE IRSS LAVISH CONFERENCE SPENDING: IS THE PROBLEM WIDESPREAD?
Out of concern that other governmental departments and agencies were similarly spending
excessive amounts on overnight conferences, on April 10, 2012, the Chairman sent letters to 23
federal departments and agencies requesting a list of all overnight conferences since 2005 attended
by more than 50 department or agency employees, the total cost of each conference, and the
funding source(s). In addition, the letter asked for copies of any websites used to promote the
conferences and the title and salary of any employees who plans conferences at each agency. This
rigorous oversight initiative caused departments and agencies to examine their prior conferences.
1095
Gen. Servs. Admin., Office of the Inspector Gen., Hats Off Employee Recognition Program, Pacific Rim
Region (Region 9) 5 (June 16, 2011).
1096
Id.
1097
Id. at 3.
208
Media reports of waste and abuse combined with whistle blower accounts of waste at conferences
flooded the Committee.
On May 4, 2012, as a result of media attention, the Chairman wrote to the head of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), part of the Department of Commerce, asking
for information regarding a solicitation NOAA issued for a magician-like motivational speaker and
information regarding NOAA Office of General Counsels conference in Philadelphia that appeared
to raise concerns.
NOAA briefed Committee staff on both topics. Regarding the magician, the agency apologized and
conveyed to the Committee results of an internal investigation. Regarding Philadelphia conference,
based on NOAAs briefing, Committee staff determined the agency did not engage in any improper
or wasteful conduct. In fact, NOAA staff conveyed cost-savings measures they had undertaken.
On April 20, 2012, after receiving information from whistleblowers, the Chairman wrote then-IRS
Commissioner Douglas Shulman requesting information about a conference the IRS held in
Anaheim, California during the week of August 23, 2010. This conference reportedly cost taxpayers
approximately $6 million. On May 18, 2012, the IRS responded to the Chairmans letter. The
Commissioner explained that the conference was necessary to provide training to employees on the
implementation of significant changes. He also pledged to continue cutting travel costs at IRS.
However, after TIGTA conducted an audit, the following came to light:
The IRS held 225 conferences at a total cost of over $50 million from 2010 to 2012.
In August 2010, the IRS held a conference in Anaheim, California at a cost of over
$4 million. Approximately 2,700 people attended. Attendees stayed at the Hilton, Marriott,
and Sheraton hotels in Anaheim.
The stated purpose for the conference was continuing professional education (CPE), but no
CPE credits were actually available.
Like the GSA conference, IRS executives stayed in lavish suites, created costly videos to be shown to
conference attendees, and were entertained by expensive speakers. In fact, the IRS hired 15 outside
speakers to present at the conference at a total cost of $135,000. One of the speakers was Erik
Wahl, a speaker and artist who led a session entitled, Leadership Through Art. Several paintings
were created during the session, including one painting of Michael Jordan, a painting of Abraham
Lincoln, a painting of Bono, and two paintings of the Statue of Liberty.1098 According to TIGTA, two
of these paintings were given away to conference attendees, at least one of the paintings was
auctioned to benefit the Combined Federal Campaign, and one was lost. On June 6, 2013, the
Chairman convened a full Committee hearing to examine this excessive spending by the IRS.
1098
An Erik Wahl original painting of Michael Jordan, labeled as one of a kind, is currently selling on eBay for
$2,500. See http://compare.ebay.com/like/181144944053?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar (last
visited June 3, 2013).
209
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Also in 2012, the media began reporting about an extravagant conference held by the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA). In the wake of the Chairmans extensive oversight of the frivolous
spending on conferences, on August 7, 2012, the Department of Veteran Affairs Office of Inspector
General contacted the Committee to discuss its ongoing investigation into the two HR conferences
held in Orlando, Florida in 2011.
On August 13, 2012, the Chairman wrote to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki regarding
reports of conferences and videos produced using taxpayer dollars. The Secretary had assured the
Chairman of the Departments full cooperation in an August 10 telephone call. On August 21, 2012,
the Chairman again wrote to Secretary Shinseki regarding the Departments failure to cooperate
with the investigation. On July 9, 2013, the Chairman issued a subpoena to Secretary Shinseki for
all documents relating to the 2011 Orlando conferences. The subpoenas return date was July 23,
2013. In August 2013 the VA finally began substantive productions of documents to the Committee.
Inspector General George Opfer released his report on the conferences on October, 1 2012. He
found:
The Department of Veteran Affairs spent at least $6.1 million on the two HR conferences.
Because there was not a firm budget and expense records were not maintained, the
Inspector General was unable to determine the exact total cost of the conferences.
According to IG Opfers report, senior VA officials demonstrated a lack of concern and
awareness for the true costs of the conference series.
IG Opfer found at least $762,000 in unauthorized, unnecessary, and/or wasteful
expenses.1099
The Committee released its own 96 page report in conjunction with a hearing before the full
Committee on October 30, 2014.1100 This hearing received significant press attention and will
hopefully serve as a deterrent to any federal employees considering engaging in waste, abuse, and
mismanagement.
The Committees investigation found that the Departments conference planners unapologetically
and recklessly wasted taxpayer dollars. The Department paid $50,000 to produce a parody video of
the movie Patton, $863 for an employee to operate karaoke equipment, and $98,000 for
promotional items, including notebooks, water bottles, fitness walking kits, and hand sanitizers.
Planners proposed using the $450,000 marketing budget for the conferences which was set aside
to hype the Department and the conferences to purchase hand clappers, aprons, and umbrellas.
Conference planners joked about adding flat screen televisions, iPads, iPhones, and Blu-ray players
to the collection of promotional items that were provided to attendees. The conference planners
1099
U.S. DEPT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, ADMIN. INVESTIGATION OF THE FY 2011
HUMAN RESOURCES CONFERENCES IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA (2012).
1100
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs 2011 Human Resources
Conferences: A Culture of Mismanagement and Reckless Spending, 113th Cong. (2013).
210
also organized gift card giveaways to incentivize government employees to fill out surveys related
to their experience at the conferences.1101
Conference planners traveled to Nashville, Dallas, and Orlando to scout possible locations for the
conferences. During these site visits, VA employees improperly accepted gifts from hotels under
consideration to host the conferences, including meals, spa treatments, gift baskets, show tickets,
and limousine and helicopter rides. The Office of Inspector General referred one of these
employees to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. E-mails between and among
conference planners show that they viewed and treated the site visits as paid vacations.1102
Because there were no budgetary restrictions, the total cost of the conferences grew rapidly. The
conference planners were advised not to worry about the escalating costs. When conference
planners inquired about the source of the money for the conferences, one senior Department
official stated, [w]e will take care of you . . . . you dont have anything to worry about.1103 Another
Department official stated that [w]e are a large agency with deep pockets.1104 So conference
planners stopped worrying about costs and focused on spending what appeared to them an
unlimited budget. Afterwards, the planners sought bonuses because they believed they saved the
Department money during the course of negotiations with the hotel that hosted the conferences.
Four VA officials ended up resigning as a result of their actions or omissions related to the 2011
Orlando conferences.
1101
See Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs 2011 Human Resources
Conferences: A Culture of Mismanagement and Reckless Spending, 113th Cong. (2013).
1102
Id.
1103
E-mail from Mary Santiago to Thomas Barritt and Alice Muellerweiss (Aug. 4, 2010).
1104
E-mail from Annie Spiczak to Thomas Barritt (Oct. 1, 2010).
211
ANOTHER RULE, ANOTHER DOLLAR, SAME PROBLEM: DUPLICATIVE GOVERNMENT

PROGRAMS
Aside from irresponsible spending associated with the previously discussed conference spending
scandals, the Federal Government wastes the investment of American Taxpayers through poorly
researched, poorly implemented, and poorly managed government programs. According to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), annual simulations of the Federal Governments fiscal
outlook show continually increasing levels of debt that are unsustainable over time, absent changes
in the Federal Governments current fiscal policies.1105 Given the environment of fiscal instability,
government waste due to unnecessary spending, poor collaboration, and negligence is
unconscionable.
To address concerns about potential government waste, Senator Tom Coburn attached an
amendment to the 2010 debt limit increase1106 that added the following provision:
The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office shall conduct
routine investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with
duplicative goals and activities within Departments and government-wide and
report annually to Congress on the findings, including the cost of such duplication
and with recommendations for consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication
identifying specific rescissions. 1107
In compliance with the statutory directive, GAO has issued annual reports identifying duplication,
overlap, fragmentation, and other opportunities for savings since 2011.1108 One of the Committees
central duties is to ensure Federal Government operations are efficient, effective, and fiscally
responsible. The GAOs series of reports on duplication, fragmentation, overlap, and other
opportunities to achieve financial benefits are important tool for congressional oversight because
they help to identify issues of concern.
GAOS ANNUAL DUPLICATION REPORTS

GAO sought to develop its annual report so that it would be informative to government
policymakers as they address the rapidly building fiscal pressures facing the Federal
Government.1109 The reports address two key issues: (1) federal programs or functional areas
where unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists and the potential benefits of
addressing of addressing the conditions and (2) other opportunities for potential cost savings or
enhanced revenues.
1105
Testimony of Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States. Opportunities to Reduce Potential
Duplication in Government Programs Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. (March 3, 2011) available at
http://gao.gov/assets/130/125629.pdf
1106
S. AMDT. 3303 Division I to H.J. RES. 45
1107
Public Law No: 111-139.
1108
GAOs annual reports, as well as a continuously updated action tracker, are available at
http://www.gao.gov/duplication
1109
Duplication in Government Programs Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. (March 3, 2011) available at
http://gao.gov/assets/130/125629.pdf
212
GAO found that problems with fragmentation, overlap, and duplication persist and the impact on
taxpayers and our economy is great and damaging. These persistent problems may be wasting
billions of dollars annually. Over the course of four annual reports, GAO has identified 188 problem
areas and over 400 actions that executive branch agencies and Congress could take to address the
opportunities for greater efficiency and effectiveness. Issues span the entire Federal Government
and include areas of potential fragmentation, overlap, duplication, or cost savings.1110
Each year, the Committee has held a hearing to highlight GAOs work and to discuss what needs to
be done to achieve greater efficiency and cost savings. As of March 6, 2014, 64 percent of actions
directed to Congress and 63 percent of actions directed to executive branch agencies identified in
2011, 2012, and 2013 remained only partially addressed or were not addressed at all. For Congress,
addressed means relevant legislation has been enacted and partially addressed means a
relevant bill has passed committee. For executive action, addressed means implementation of the
action and partially addressed means the action has been started but not completed. 1111 While the
Committee has performed its constitutional obligation, others within the Federal Government must
take action to implement reform.
MOVING FORWARD: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS BETTER DATA

In the process of conducting these annual evaluations, the Government Accountability Office has
identified a core issue that inhibits improvement: a lack of data hinders its ability to conduct
thorough and comprehensive audits. GAOs work is complicated by agencies that are unable,
unwilling or slow in providing accurate data. This, in turn, delays the transmission of information to
Congress, thus inhibiting Congress ability to provide the highest service to American Taxpayers.1112
GAO cannot provide more specific estimates because most agencies cannot provide program
specific spending information. Many agencies could not sufficiently respond to questions about
internal management of programs, funds, and/or documentation. The DATA Act, which became law
this year, requires agencies to develop program activity spending data.1113 At the Committees 2014
hearing, Comptroller General Dodaro noted that the implementation of the DATA Act will address
this problem.1114
In the 113th Congress, the House passed the Taxpayer Right-to-Know Act, introduced by
Representative James Lankford and Representative Jim Cooper.1115 The bill would require that
OMB provide vital information such as the administrative costs and expenditures of each federal
1110
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-14-343SP, 2014 ANNUAL REPORT ADDITIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE FRAGMENTATION, OVERLAP, AND DUPLICATION AND ACHIEVE OTHER FINANCIAL
BENEFITS. (2014) available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-343SP.
1111
Id.
1112
Duplication in Government Programs Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. (April 8, 2014) available at
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GAO-statement.pdf
1113
Digital Transparency and Accountability Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-101, 128 Stat. 1146. For a discussion of
the DATA Act and its implications, see the Legislative Activities section of this report above.
1114
Reducing Waste in Government: Addressing GAOs 2014 Report on Duplicative Federal Programs: Hearing
before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2014).
1115
H.R. 1423, 113th Cong. (as passed by the House, Feb. 25, 2014).
213
program in the program inventory, the number of people that the program serves, the number of
employees working on the program, and the statutory authorization of the program. The bill
currently awaits consideration in the Senate.
The Taxpayer Right-to-Know Act also allows GAO to cease production of annual reports in order to
focus on continuous updates to the Action Tracker. GAO launched the Action Tracker, a publicly
accessible website containing the status of actions suggested in these reports, in 2013.1116 The
Action Tracker will allow Congress, federal agencies and the public to track on-going progress in
addressing the issues identified in the four reports. GAO also plans to add areas and suggested
actions as they identify them through their continued work. Congressional staff on this Committee
and beyond should use this as a resource to see where to focus congressional efforts to achieve
government reform.
1116
GAOs Action Tracker, U.S. Govt Accountability Office,

http://www.gao.gov/duplication/action_tracker/all_areas.
214
ENTITLEMENT ABUSE: WHO IS THE BENEFICIARY, REALLY?

Due to their ever-increasing size and scope, agencies administering entitlement programs find it
more and more difficult to ensure payments are being made in the correct amount and to the
correct person. Americas entitlement programs have laudable goals but oversight is often lacking,
and misspent dollars means that the intended beneficiaries of these programs may not receive the
support they have been promised.
Because of the constantly growing size and scope of entitlement programs administered by
agencies such as the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS), it is inevitable that agencies become unable to effectively police not only
themselves, but also the individuals seeking services. As a result, abuses occur that may not be
detected until decades later. The Committees oversight into waste and abuse in major entitlement
programs has uncovered that both SSA and CMS have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars for
decades because of failed long-standing policies that were left unchecked. The Committee exposed
systematic problems with how SSA awards benefits to claimants, and how CMS reimburses states
under its Medicaid funding program. As a result of the Committees oversight, both CMS and SSA
instituted preliminary reforms. However, more institutional oversight mechanisms are needed to
ensure that such long-standing abuses do not continue in the future.
MEDICAID ABUSE: OVERPAYMENTS TO NEW YORK STATE

Medicaid is a program funded jointly by states and the Federal Government that finances health and
long-term care services for low-income individuals. In fiscal year 2012, combined state and federal
spending on Medicaid totaled approximately $415 billion dollars,1117 and spending under the
program has grown by more than 250 percent since 1990.1118 Given the ever-increasing size and
scope of the program and its complex funding mechanism, the Medicaid program is particularly
vulnerable to abuse.
The Federal Government reimburses state Medicaid spending at different levels, typically equal to
half of the Medicaid expenditures in states with the highest per capital income, and about 75
percent in states with the lowers per capita income. The large amount of taxpayer dollars spent on
the program underscores the need for effective oversight. Over the past six years, the Committee
has conducted extensive oversight of waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid programs, including
billions of dollars in overpayments to New York State.
In March 2013, after months of investigation, the Committee issued a report finding that New York
had misspent billions of federal tax dollars on the states Medicaid program.1119 Most notably, the
1117
http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/
In 1990, national expenditures on Medicaid equaled $73.7 billion (See National Health Expenditures, Levels and
Annual Change, Table 3, Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, available at http://www.cms.gov/ResearchStatistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/tables.pdf).
Adjusted for inflation, this would equal about $129.5 in 2012 dollars since the average annual consumer price index
was 130.7 in 1990 and 229.594 in 2012. See Consumer Price Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor,
available at www.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt).
1119
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Billions of Federal Tax Dollars Misspent on New Yorks
Medicaid Program, 113th Cong. (2013).
1118
215
report called attention to overpayments made by the Federal government to state-run

developmental centers, which the Committee estimates totaled more than $15 billion over two
decades.1120
New York has the largest Medicaid program in the country, spending $53 billion in state and federal
dollars in 2012.1121 In 2012, the Inspector General (IG) at the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) found that developmental centers in New York received nearly $1.7 billion in
Medicaid payments beyond the facilities reported costs in fiscal year 2009 alone. The high
payments resulted from a complicated methodology that was initially approved more than two
decades ago by HHS. This methodology resulted in daily payment rates exceeding $5,000 for each
institutional resident by 2011. Although the facilities housed roughly 1,700 patients in 2009, total
Medicaid payments to New Yorks developmental centers were nearly equal to the total payments
to Indianas Medicaid program made for long-term care services in 2009, and were greater than the
total Medicaid long-term care expenditures of 36 states.1122
Within one month of the reports issuance, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
cut payments to these developmental centers from a daily rate of $5,100 per patient to $1,200.1123
This cut in payments has already saved taxpayers approximately $1.2 billion in its first 18
months.1124 On July 25, 2014, CMS announced that they would seek to recover $1.26 billion in
overpayments made to New York developmental centers between 2011 and 2012. CMS has also
indicated that they would likely seek to recover additional overpayments made to New York once a
review of payments made in additional years was complete.1125
The Committees oversight of the excessive payments to New York developmental centers has also
led to a broader policy change at CMS. On July 29, 2014, Cindy Mann, Director of the Center for
Medicaid and CHIP Services, testified before the Committee that new CMS guidance would require
states to submit annual demonstrations that their federal upper limits were in fact operating
consistent with this law.1126 Ms. Mann explained:
Until the guidance was issued, States reviewed upper payment limits only when a
State made a change. As we saw in the instance of New York, without regular
review, an upper payment methodology that was approved decades ago may stay in
place and ultimately through the passage of time and events become out of
compliance with statutory requirements. We are now reviewing upper payment
1120
Id.
http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/
1122
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Billions of Federal Tax Dollars Misspent on New Yorks
Medicaid Program, 113th Cong. (2013).
1123
Gerry Shields, Medicaid payments slashed in deal between Feds and Cuomo, NY POST (Apr. 1, 2013),
http://nypost.com/2013/04/01/medicaid-payments-slashed-in-deal-between-feds-and-cuomo/.
1124
Press Release, H. Com. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Oversight Committee Prompts $1.2 Billion in Medicaid
Savings, (Apr. 1, 2013), available at http://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-committee-prompts-1-2-billion-inmedicaid-savings/.
1125
Robert Slavin, U.S. Demanding at Least $1.3 Billion from New York, BOND BUYER, Aug, 7. 2014.
1126
Testimony of Cindy Mann (July 29, 2014).
1121
216
limits annually. We have received the first submissions and are now reviewing
them.1127
Finally, at the Committees request, the Office of Inspector General agreed to undertake additional
audits of the New York Medicaid program.1128 In a letter to the Committee, the Inspector General
reported that their audits identified $150 million in questioned costs as well as an additional $346
million in potential annual cost savings.1129 Discussions between HHS and New York State
regarding those overpayments are ongoing.1130
The Committees oversight into the Medicaid program has already saved taxpayers billions of
dollars and led to changes in how CMS monitors state payment arrangements. The Committee
continues to work with HHS and the HHS OIG to strengthen internal oversight mechanisms and
protect taxpayers from overpayments in the Medicaid program.
SOCIAL SECURITY ABUSE: FAILURES IN PROGRAM OVERSIGHT

The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers two large federal disability programs: the
Social Security Disability Insurance program (SSDI) and the Supplemental Security Income
program (SSI). SSDI is the federal disability program for adults under age 65 who meet work and
payroll tax contribution requirements and for their dependents. SSI is the federal disability
program for children under age 18 and adults aged 18 to 64 who meet specified income and asset
requirements and who lack significant work history.1131 Most claims, for both SSDI and SSI, are
initially processed by state disability determination services (DDS) employees. In 40 states, the
first level of appeal goes to a different examiner in the same state DDS office. Therefore, in the vast
majority of cases adjudicated by an ALJ, the claimant has already been denied benefits twice. Over
the last decade, hundreds of ALJs routinely allowed benefits to more than 80 percent of the
claimants denied benefits by DDS, with dozens routinely allowing benefits to more than ninety
percent of the claimants denied benefits by DDS.
Over the past 25 years, the number of disabled workers enrolled in SSDI has grown by 6.1 million
people, from 2.8 million to over 8.9 million people.1132 As a result of this growth, there are now 6.2
disabled workers on SSDI for every 100 workers in the United States, compared to 2.4 disabled
workers on SSDI for every 100 workers 25 years ago.1133 Once individuals are enrolled in a federal
1127
Testimony of Cindy Mann (July 29, 2014).

Letter from Hon. Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General, Dept of Health and Human Svcs, to Representative
Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Com on Oversight & Govt Reform; Representative James Lankford, Chairman, Sub
Com on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements; and Representative Jim Jordan, Chairman, Sub Com on
Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs, Sep. 10, 2013 (copy on file with author).
1129
Id.
1130
Telephone briefing with HHS OIG, Oct. 14, 2014.
1131
Social Security Administration document, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), available at
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11000.pdf.
1132
Social Security Administration, Social Security Online Beneficiary Data, available at
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cgi-bin/currentpay.cgi. At the end of 1988, 2,830,284 people were enrolled in
SSDI as a disabled worker. At the end of 2013, this number reached 8,942,584.
1133
Id., and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, available at
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm. There were 116,104,000 workers at the end of 1988 and 143,929,000
workers at the end of 2013.
1128
217
disability program, they almost never go back to work. Less than one percent of those who were on
SSDI at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce.1134
As the number of individuals enrolled in SSDI has increased, so has program spending, which
amounted to more than $143 billion in 2013.1135 A decade ago, SSDI payroll tax revenue exceeded
program outlays by 17 percent, but this year, program spending will be 30 percent more than
dedicated payroll tax revenue.1136 The Social Security Board of Trustees1137 and the Congressional
Budget Office1138 estimate that, without reform, the SSDI trust fund will be depleted in 2016.
Growth in SSDI enrollment also increases Medicare spending since individuals enrolled in SSDI for
two years are automatically enrolled in Medicare.1139 The Medicare program spent $80 billion on
SSDI beneficiaries in 2012.1140
Currently, 8.4 million people are enrolled in SSI, 1141 at a cost to the Federal Government of nearly
$56.5 billion in 2013.1142 The number of participants in SSI has nearly doubled over the last 25
years.1143 Growth in SSI enrollment also increases Medicaid spending since individuals enrolled in
SSI are automatically eligible for Medicaid.
In March 2013, the Committee began a major oversight effort to examine the Social Security
Administrations management of the federal disability programs. The Committees oversight
consisted of three main areas: (1) SSAs mismanagement of their administrative law judges (ALJs),
(2) ALJs who essentially rubber-stamped claimants onto disability programs for years, and (3)
SSAs failure to guarantee program integrity by completing continuing disability reviews (CDRs)
in a timely manner to ensure that beneficiaries are still eligible for the programs. The Committee
also uncovered a systemic problem that prevents SSA from removing beneficiaries who were
improperly awarded benefits.
1134
Chana Joffe-Walt, Unfit for Work: The Startling Rise of Disability in America (2013), available at
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/.
1135
Social Security Administration, Data on Disability Insurance Trust Fund, 1957-2013, available at
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a2.html.
1136
Social Security Administration, Data on DI Receipts and Expenditures, available at
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html.
1137
Social Security Administration, 2012 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, available at
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html.
1138
The Congressional Budget Office, 2012 Long-Term Projections for Social Security: Additional Information,
October 2012.
1139
Social Security Administration, Disability Planner: Medicare Coverage If Youre Disabled. available at
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/dibplan/dapproval4.htm.
1140
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, CBO TESTIFIES ON THE SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE PROGRAM
(2013), available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43996.
1141
See Chana Joffe-Walt, Unfit for Work: The Startling Rise of Disability in America (2013), available at
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/.
1142
Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income Program Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Justification,
available at http://www.ssa.gov/budget/FY15Files/2015SSI.pdf.
1143
See Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income Program at Table IV.B9 at 43, available at
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ssir/SSI13/ssi2013.pdf.
218
SSAs Mismanagement of Administrative Law Judges

The Committee found that SSA mismanaged their ALJs by instituting an arbitrary production
targets meant to decrease the backlog in cases, and by failing to remove ALJs when SSA had
evidence of judicial misconduct. Over the past decade, due to a variety of political pressures, SSA
prioritized reducing the backlog of disability claimants waiting for their hearings. As part of that
prioritization, the agency encouraged SSA ALJs to decide more cases by requiring each ALJ to decide
a goal number of cases per month. At a Subcommittee hearing in June 2013, two current SSA ALJs
and two former SSA ALJs testified that the agencys policy amounted to paying down the backlog
since it is so much easier for judges to award benefits than deny benefits.1144
Then-Commissioner Michael Astrue testified before Congress on May 23, 2007, to announce his
plan to eliminate the hearings backlog: We project 360 cases per judge as the ideal pending to
maximize service to disability claimants without compromising our mission of providing both
timely and legally sufficient hearings and decisions.1145 A week later, Mark Bailey, a Director of the
SSA OIGs Kansas City Audit Division, confirmed to then Chief ALJ Frank Cristaudo that a target of
400 cases per ALJ per year is a reasonable minimum level of production.1146 Bailey noted that this
figure was based on the average and median number of cases processed by ALJs in 2006.1147On
October 31, 2007, Cristaudo formally issued the agencys comprehensive plan to eliminate the
hearing backlog and prevent a reoccurrence of the backlog.1148 The Cristaudo plan directed ALJs to
issue 500 to 700 legally sufficient decisions annually, targets substantially higher than
Commissioner Astrues projection or OIGs estimates from six months earlier. When asked to
explain the development of the 500-case minimum, CALJ Cristaudo said that he thought that
number was achievable even though there was not any empirical basis for the range.1149
Furthermore, agency policy to reduce the case backlog has benefited claimant representatives in
several ways. First, the agencys singular focus on quantity of dispositions meant that more people
overall were placed onto disability programs. Second, the agencys refusal to properly deal with
rubber-stamping ALJs meant that claimant representatives could count on hundreds of ALJs to
award benefits with near certainty. Third, SSAs disposition targets caused many ALJs to award
benefits inappropriately since issuing a denial is more time-consuming and, unlike an allowance, is
often appealed. Fourth, the immense pressure to meet agency disposition targets led many ALJs to
fail to consider all evidence when deciding cases so that they could issue decisions more quickly,
thereby reducing claimants burden of proof. Finally, as a result of pressure to dispose of as many
cases as possible by the agencys leadership, ALJs resorted to techniques like OTR decisions and
1144
Oversight of Rising Social Security Disability Claims and the Role of Administrative Law Judges: Hearing
before the Subcomm. on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt
1145
Funding Social Securitys Administrative Costs: Will the Budget Meet the Mission?: Hearing Before the S.
Comm. on Finance, 110th Cong. (2007) (testimony of SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue), available at
http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_052307_addendum.html.
1146
E-mail from Mark Bailey, Director of Kansas City Audit Division, to former CALJ Frank Cristaudo, et al. (May
30, 2007) [Request 5 004792].
1147
Id.
1148
See Letter from former CALJ Frank Cristaudo to SSA Colleagues (Oct. 31, 2007) (on file with author).
1149
Transcribed interview of Frank Cristudo at 21.
219
bench decisions which made it easier to award benefits more quickly and at reduced cost to the
claimant representatives time.
The agency has consistently emphasized the 500 to 700 annual disposition targets since 2007. In
October 2013, Chief ALJ Debra Bice implemented daily, rather than monthly or yearly, disposition
targets ranging between 2.0 to 2.8 decisions per ALJ.1150 However, Chief ALJ Bice admitted that if
you do the math, 2.0 to 2.8 is 500 to 700.1151 Despite Chief ALJ Bices efforts to create the
appearance of change, the same aggressive disposition targets instituted by former CALJ Cristaudo
remain in effect today.
On June 27, 2013 the Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements Subcommittee held a hearing
entitled Oversight of Rising Social Security Disability Claims and the Role of Administrative Law
Judges where four current or former SSA ALJs testified about fundamental problems with the
disability adjudication process.1152 Former SSA ALJ J.E. Sullivan testified that the SSA
managements high volume and speedy production goal agenda results in management pressuring
judges to stop all meaningful adjudication work and results in production of a large number of
disability decisions that have not been properly reviewed, analyzed, or decided.1153
In the fall of 2013, the Committee conducted three transcribed interviews of SSA officials to assist
with the oversight. The three witnesses testified that while SSA introduced a 500-700 production
goal for ALJs in 2007, many ALJs decided thousands of cases per year until the agency started
limiting case assignments in 2011. The witnesses also testified that any ALJs who decide more than
700 cases per year may be sacrificing quality yet the agency currently still allows ALJs to be
assigned 860 cases per year. Jasper Bede, a Regional Chief ALJ (RCALJ) for SSA, testified that
allowance rates1154 in excess of 75 percent or 80 percent raise a red flag about the quality of ALJ
decisions.1155 RCALJ Bede also testified that it was generally felt that anything over 700
[dispositions] brought into question whether or not the judge was properly handling cases and
that [i]f youre well over 700 [dispositions], you know, if youre doing 1,000, and I think thats
almost prima facie evidence that youre not doing a good job and you should be looked at.1156
As a result of the agencys pressure for ALJs to decide more cases, SSA management turned a blind
eye to ALJs who exhibited poor judicial decision-making and focused on the quantity of decisions,
over quality. Starting in 2011, SSA began conducting focused reviews of a limited number of ALJs
to assess the degree to which their decisions compiled with disability law.1157 To date, the agency
1150
Transcribed interview of CALJ Debra Bice Tr., at 84 (May 13, 2014).

Id.
1152
Oversight of Rising Social Security Disability Claims and the Role of Administrative Law Judges: Hearing
before the Subcomm. on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt
1153
Id. (testimony of Judge J. E. Sullivan, U.S. Administrative Law Judge, Social Security Administration).
1154
ALJ allowance rate equals the percentage of cases in which ALJs allowed benefits.
1155
Transcribed Interview of RCALJ Jasper Bede at 75 (Oct. 22, 2013) [hereinafter Bede Tr.]. Defined by Mr. Bede
as certainly anything over 75 or 80 percent. Several years ago, that might have been [defined as] 85 percent,
when everyone, as a whole, nationally and regionally, were reversing cases in the 65 percent range.
1156
Id.
1157
Transcribed Interview of CALJ Debra Bice at 114 (May 13, 2014) [hereinafter Bice Tr.].
1151
220
has completed focused reviews of about 50 of the agencys approximately 1,400 ALJs. A Committee
analysis of the reviews revealed troubling patterns with the manner in which ALJs decide cases.1158
Every focused review found deficiencies in ALJ decision-making and compliance with federal
disability law. Several problems permeate these reviews, including inadequate use of vocational
experts, poor assessments of an individuals ability to work, improper evaluation of claimants with
a history of drug and alcohol abuse, overreliance on claimant representatives briefs for ALJ
decisions, and inadequate hearings with claimants.
ALJs that refuse to follow the law and essentially rubber stamp claimants onto the federal disability
rolls have abused the public trust, harmed the nations truly disabled, and therefore should be fired.
It is unacceptable that SSA refused to take disciplinary action after focused reviews conducted in
2011 for ALJ Gerald Krafsur, ALJ Charles Bridges, and ALJ Harry Taylor revealed gross errors and
incompetence in applying the law. In some cases, these ALJs created their own rules and standards
for deciding cases and allowing benefits.1159 The agency conducted follow-up focused reviews on
each of these ALJs within the past year and all three reviews found the same significant problems
with the ALJs decisions. For example, ALJ Charles Bridges 2014 review found that 60 percent of a
sample of his decisions was not substantiated by evidence.1160 The agencys senior management is
directly responsible for allowing these ALJs to erroneously award benefits after their first focused
review and is, therefore, also directly responsible for these three rubber-stamping ALJs placing
more than 4,300 additional people onto federal disability programs between October 1, 2011, and
May 30, 2014.1161
In theory, the focused review program is a good first step toward improving the quality of
decisions and ensuring the integrity of the disability appeals process. In practice, the program is
effectively meaningless. Rather than disciplining or removing an ALJ when overwhelming evidence
of incompetence exists, the agency allows the ALJ to continue deciding a full caseload, hoping that
the ALJ agrees to training and that ALJ performance improves. Unfortunately, ALJs who have
received training generally fail to show improvement.
ALJs Rubber-Stamped Claimants

According to information obtained by the Committee, hundreds of ALJs rubber-stamped applicants
onto disability programs for years. As a result, at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of individuals
who are able to work and who do not meet the programs eligibility criteria are receiving benefits.
The agency failed to assess the quality of the decisions of ALJs with high disposition totals despite
widespread recognition within the agency that ALJs cannot properly evaluate the evidence if they
are deciding too many cases. The agency failed to assess the quality of the decisions of ALJs with
1158
Committee staff analysis of focused reviews of ALJs provided by the Social Security Administration on Jan. 17,
2014 and May 9, 2014.
1159
ALJ Krafsurs 2014 Focused Review found that ALJ Krafsur developed his own cause and effect theory to
decide cases. An October 28, 2013 memo from Hearing Office Chief ALJ Theodore Burock to Regional Chief ALJ
Jasper Bede details how ALJ Bridges manipulated vocational experts testimony to find claimants disabled.
1160
See Follow-up Focused Review of A.L.J. Gerald Krafsur (Mar. 2014); Fiscal Year 2013 Focused Review of
A.L.J. Charles Bridges (Jan. 2014); Focused Review of A.L.J. Harry Taylor (May 2013).
1161
SSA Public Data Files, ALJ Disposition Data (June 24, 2014).
221
high allowance rates, including ALJs who were allowing a large number of decisions without
hearings.
On June 10, 2014, the Committee published a staff report entitled Systemic Waste and Abuse at the
Social Security Administration: How Rubber-Stamping Disability Judges Cost Hundreds of Billions of
Taxpayer Dollars.1162 Among the findings: between 2005 and 2013, over 1.3 million people were
placed on the program by ALJs with an annual allowance rate in excess of 75 percent and over
650,000 people were placed on the program by an ALJ with an annual allowance rate in excess of
85 percent. Overall, there were 191 ALJs who had a total allowance rate in excess of 85 percent
during this time period. These 191 ALJs awarded more than $150 billion in lifetime benefits
between 2005 and 2013. Additionally, the agency failed to assess the quality of the decisions of ALJs
with high disposition totals in spite of widespread recognition with the agency that ALJs cannot
properly evaluate the evidence if they are deciding too many cases.
On June 10 and June 11, 2014, the Committee held two hearings entitled, Social Security
Administration Oversight: Examining the Integrity of the Disability Determination Appeals Process1163
and Social Security Administration Oversight: Examining the Integrity of the Disability Determination
Appeals Process, Part II.1164 During the first hearing, the Committee heard testimony from four
current ALJs who met RCALJ Bedes definition of red-flag ALJs. These ALJs routinely disposed of a
large number of cases, many without holding a hearing, and approved virtually every claimant who
came before them for benefits. Internal reviews showed continued policy non-compliance yet the
ALJs continued to decide full caseloads and were often praised by their supervisors and other
agency officials because they met or exceeded agency production goals and therefore helped reduce
the hearings backlog. At the second hearing, Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvins testimony
raised more questions than answers about her or the agencys appreciation of the substantial
problem created when ALJs essentially approve every claimant before them, regardless of whether
they are disabled or unable to work, and that the agency lacks commitment to fundamental
program reform.
Problems with Re-Evaluations of Disability

SSAs policy of conducting continuing disability reviews (CDRs) of beneficiaries to assess their
continued eligibility for the program is fundamentally flawed. Over the past decade, due to a
variety of political pressure, SSA prioritized reducing the backlog of individuals who applied for
disability benefits. Because SSA did not prioritize CDRs, the agency is behind schedule on over 1.3
million reviews. More importantly, however, is that the criteria used by the agency when
conducting these reviews does not properly ensure that only individuals currently meeting the
agencys definition of disability continue to receive benefits.
1162
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Systemic Waste and Abuse at the Social Security
Administration: How Rubber-Stamping Disability Judges Cost Hundreds of Billions of Taxpayer Dollars, 113th
Cong. (2014).
1163
Social Security Administration Oversight: Examining the Integrity of the Disability Determination Appeals
Process: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2014).
1164
Social Security Administration Oversight: Examining the Integrity of the Disability Determination Appeals
Process, Part II, 113th Cong. (2014).
222
On April 9, 2014, the Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements subcommittee held a hearing
entitled, Examining Ways the Social Security Administration Can Improve the Disability Review
Process. Witnesses from the National Association of Disability Examiners as well as GAO and OIG ,
testified about how the agencys decision to prioritize initial determinations lead to a backlog of
over 1.3 million reviews leading to many individuals who are able to work and who do not meet
program eligibility criteria continuing to receive benefits. Additionally, the agencys criteria for
conducting the reviews is flawed as it does not allow beneficiaries who were wrongfully awarded
benefits to be removed from the program following a CDR since the examiner must find medical
improvement to cease benefits.
From 1980 to 1983, SSA reviewed a large number of prior awards, finding that 40 percent of
program beneficiaries were not disabled.1165 The agency received additional funding in the FY 2014
appropriations for an increased number of CDRs; Congress expects a significant increase in the
number of CDRs performed this year because of this additional funding. However, an increase in
CDRs must be coupled with a change to the medical improvement standard, because this standard
does not allow the agency to remove claimants who were wrongfully awarded benefits in the first
place.1166 Under the current standard, the claimants record must show that the claimant made
significant medical improvement in order to end benefits; if the claimant was not disabled and
wrongfully received benefits initially, this standard of review will not remove them.1167
More Action Needed

After considering the recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the United States, as
well as academic literature, oversight hearings, and empirical analysis, Chairman Lankford and
Ranking Member Speier wrote a joint letter to SSA on April 8, 2014, with eleven recommendations
urging the agency to overcome bureaucratic inertia and to initiate the necessary administrative
actions to significantly improve the integrity of the disability programs.
The agency has made a few positive changes since the Committee began its oversight efforts, but
more reform and oversight is still needed. The agency received $1.197 billion of program integrity
funding for FY 2014. Thus, the agency plans to perform more CDRs and redeterminations in FY
2014 and FY 2015 than it performed in FY 2013.1168 However, the agencys current procedure to
conduct CDRs is inadequate and does not address the problem of beneficiaries added to programs
inappropriately by red-flag ALJs.
Additionally, the agency has advanced rulemaking that would require claimant representatives to
submit all evidence relating to a disability claim. However, other rules and policies within the
agency still need reform. For example, the agency currently uses outdated rules to determine
whether or not a claimant meets SSAs definition of disability. SSA has not updated the medicalvocational guidelines (the grid) it implemented in 1978 to reflect that Americans live longer, work
longer, and collect Social Security benefits later in life and for a longer period of time. SSA should
1165
Id.
20 CFR 404.1594(b)(1).
1167
Id.
1168
Letter from Scott L. Frey, Social Security Administration to Rep. James L. Lankford, H. Cmte.on Oversight and
Govt Reform (March 10, 2014).
1166
223
explore ways to update the grid more quickly and in the interim issue alternative guidance to assist
ALJs when they assess and individuals ability to work in the modern job market.
Beginning in FY 2012, the agency began limiting the number of dispositions an ALJ could be
assigned annually. Currently, ALJs cannot be assigned more than 840 dispositions per fiscal year,
but a 2012 SSA internal study about when quality is impacted by quantity shows that this limit may
not be low enough to ensure high quality, fair decisions. To date, the agency has refused to conduct
a study on the average amount of time it takes for an ALJ to evaluate evidence, hold a hearing, and
issue a decision and continues to enforce arbitrary production goals with no regard for the waste
and abuse of taxpayer dollars and the impact a shortfall in the trust fund would have on the truly
disabled.
Since the agency began publishing adjudication data in 2010, the nationwide ALJ allowance rate has
declined each year. The agency began a limited internal review system in 2011the focused review
programto review the decisions of problematic ALJs. These reviews revealed a widespread
problem of non-compliance with the law and agency policy, but to date, the agency has not
disciplined any of the ALJs with poor focused reviews or limited their caseloads. With many ALJs
defiantly refusing to absorb targeted training to improve their decision-making, the agency must
take steps to discipline and then remove ALJs who do not follow the law and are rubber-stamping
claimants onto the federal disability programs.
The Committee requested that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) review the role of
private consultants and organizations in increasing the number of individuals enrolled in federal
disability programs. GAO accepted this project as well as the Committees request that it identify
red-flag ALJs and review a statistically significant, random sample of these reversed cases to assess
whether the cases were processed in a manner consistent with SSAs policies and procedures. The
GAO is expected to post the results of its review before the end of 2014.
As a result of the agencys emphasis on high volume adjudications over quality decision-making, the
credibility of the disability appeals process has been eroded. Genuinely disabled individuals are
harmed from the programs explosive growth and face large future benefit cuts as the SSDI trust
fund is scheduled for bankruptcy in 20161169 because the program has too many beneficiaries who
do not meet the disability programs requirements. Moreover, the tens of millions of Americans
who pay taxes to finance federal disability programs have seen their hard-earned tax dollars
squandered because of the agency mismanagement that potentially has led to hundreds of billions
of dollars of improper payments. The Committee continues to investigate this issue and urges the
agency to make common-sense reforms that would ensure fairness to both claimants and
taxpayers.
1169
The Congressional Budget Office, 2012 Long-Term Projections for Social Security: Additional Information,
October 2012.
224
WASTED SPENDING ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM?

Investments in intellectual property (IT) have been a perennial source of problems for the
Federal Government in recent years. As noted by OMB:
IT has transformed how the private sector operates and has revolutionized the way
in which it serves its customer. The Federal Government has largely missed out on
these transformations, due in part to its poor management of large [IT]
investments.1170
The fiscal year 2014 budget request indicates that the Federal Government plans to invest over $82
billion in IT during fiscal year 2014.1171 The practices by which IT is acquired have been heavily
criticized by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) for their lack of efficiency
and size of redundancies and overlap. GAO has repeatedly identified broad waste and unnecessary
duplication in the governments IT investments, both within and across the agencies. Of particular
concern to the American taxpayer is the high incidence of failed IT investments. Many major IT
projects are abandoned after significant effort and significant taxpayer cost because the systems
cannot be made to work. In addition to the high-profile failure of HealthCare.gov catalogued at
length elsewhere in this report, the GAO has identified several other key failed IT projects1172:
In December 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) canceled the Air Forces
Expeditionary Combat Support System after having spent more than $1 billion. GAO issued
several reports on this system and found that, among other things, the program was not
fully following best practices for developing reliable schedules and cost estimates.
In February 2010, the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS)
was canceled after 10 years of development and approximately $850 million spent. The
system was intended to provide an integrated, standardized personnel and pay system for
all military personnel.
In January 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ended the Secure Border
Initiative Network (SBInet) program after obligating more than $1 billion to the program
because it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability standards.
In February 2010, a presidential task force decided to disband the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) after having spent 16 years and
almost $5 billion on the program. NPOESS was a tri-agency weather satellite program
managed by NOAA, DOD, and NASA.
In March 2005, the FBI discontinued the Virtual Case File project after investing 3 years and
$170 million. The FBI terminated the project after Trilogys overall projected costs grew
1170
U.S. GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-13-297T, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: OMB AND AGENCIES NEED
TO FULLY IMPLEMENT MAJOR INITIATIVES TO SAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS (2013), available at
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-297T.
1171
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget of the U.S. Government, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/budget.pdf.
1172
GAO-13-297T, supra note 1170.
225
from $380 million to $537 million, the program fell behind schedule, and pilot testing
showed that completion of VCF was infeasible and cost prohibitive.
In July 2010, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed the National Archives and
Records Administration to halt development of its Electronic Records Archive system after
having already invested $375 million on the system. OMB cited concerns about the
systems cost, schedule, and performance.
Below is a chart of failed IT investment projects, as compiled by the GAO since 2003:
226
GAO BEST PRACTICES

President Obama has called for reform of how agencies acquire and manage IT, noting that one of
the things [the Federal Government] does not do well is information technology procurement. The
President went on to call it a systematic problem that we have across the board.1173 Through its
audit work, GAO has identified nine critical factors underlying successful major acquisitions. GAO
audited seven successful investment acquisitions and found nine factors common to the success of
three or more of those acquisitions. According to testimony from the GAOs David Powner before
the Committee in November 2013, these best practices were:
1. Program officials were actively engaged with stakeholders;
2. Program staff had the necessary knowledge and skills;
3. Senior department and agency executives supported the programs;
4. End users and stakeholders were involved in the development of requirements;
5. End users participated in testing of system functionality prior to formal end user
acceptance testing;
6. Government and contractor staff were stable and consistent;
7. Program staff prioritized requirements;
8. Program officials maintained regular communication with the prime contractor;
9. Programs received sufficient funding.1174
It is noteworthy that almost every best practice identified above requires someone in the agency
exercise leadership to ensure appropriate attention is paid. In this context, GAO has also identified
opportunities to improve the role played by Chief Information Officers (CIO) in IT management.
GAO noted that agency CIOs have not always had sufficient control over IT investments and that
more consistent implementation and empowerment of CIOs authority could enhance their
effectiveness.1175 GAO publicly stated that the bipartisan IT acquisition reform legislation proposed
by the Committee could play an important role in increasing the authority of agency CIOs and
improving federal IT acquisition management practices.1176
1173
Statement by the President on the Affordable Care Act. (November 14, 3013) available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/11/14/president-obama-speaks-affordable-careact#transcript
1174
See generally Data Centers and the Cloud: Is the Government Optimizing New Information Technologies
Opportunities to Save Taxpayers Money?: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Govt Operations of H. Comm. on
Oversight and Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2013) (testimony of David A. Power, Director, Info. Tech. Mgmt. Issues,
U.S. Govt Accountability Office); see also U.S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-14-183T, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY: LEVERAGING BEST PRACTICES TO HELP ENSURE SUCCESSFUL MAJOR ACQUISITIONS (2013), available
at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/658958.pdf.
1175
1176
Id.
227
The Committee believes an agency CIO should play a central role in all aspects of IT within the
entire agency. CIOs must be able to design and deliver transformational enterprise-wide IT
solutions that support the mission and business function while overcoming bureaucratic
impediments and parochialism. The Committee also expects, along with increased stature and
authority, for each CIO to be accountable for the success or failure of the agency's overall IT
management. Perpetuation of collective failure and obscure accountability must stop and be
replaced by a culture of transformative leadership and a recognition of success or failure.
RE-INVENTING THE WHEEL

The incorporation of these best practices into major IT acquisitions will save taxpayer money and
improve the effectiveness of government. But even successful IT acquisitions can produce
considerable waste and duplication. A noticeable example of this is the staggering number of
common back office support systems or business applications in the Federal Government. In the
fiscal year 2011 budget submissions, agencies reported:
777 separate investments or $3.3 billion in supply chain management IT;
622 investments or $2.4 billion in human resource management IT;
580 investments or $2.7 billion in financial management IT;
444 investments or $5 billion in health IT;
372 investments or $1.6 billion in general science and innovation IT;
358 investments or $9.3 billion in defense and national security IT;
301 investments or $800 million in administrative management IT; and the list
continues.1177
Considering most of these back office systems perform similar functions, there are opportunities to
consolidate them into smaller, more manageable numbers within each major agency and perhaps
even share services across multiple agencies. These duplications appear most often in large
federated agencies where there are numerous CIOs at their component organizations with little or
no accountability to the central agency CIO. An empowerment of an agency CIO and associated
enterprise-wide management oversight can significantly reduce these duplications.
Not all IT acquisition issues are limited to technological failures and unnecessary duplication. In
June 2013, the Committee released a report detailing a problematic and abusive contracting
relationship between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and contractor Strong Castle. The report
found that a personal relationship between an IRS contracting official and the owner of a company,
Strong Castle/Signet Computers, facilitated contracts in a six month period that could be worth
nearly $500 million. Prior to January 2012, the company had only $250,000 in annual revenue. The
report, detailing a Committee investigation that began in February, also found that Strong
1177
Id.
228
Castle/Signet Computers gained an advantage over competitors by gaining a socioeconomic

Historically Underserved Business Zone (HUBZone) designation by making false
representations about the companys headquarters and workforce to the Small Business
Administration.1178
Despite knowing about these concerning issues with Strong Castle/Signet Computers, the IRS has
failed to revoke tainted large contract awards or take disciplinary action against IRS employees
who acted inappropriately. Throughout the report, numerous examples from texts, emails, and
witness testimony show that the IRS contracting officer played an often hands-on role in tilting the
table in Strong Castles favor in numerous contract competitions. The Committee held a hearing on
June 26, 2013 at which that employee, Mr. Gregory Roseman, the Deputy Director for Enterprise
Networks and Tier Systems Support at IRS, claimed his Fifth Amendment privilege not to
incriminate himself and refused to testify. As a result of information uncovered by the Committees
investigation, the SBA revoked the contractors HUBZone designation.1179
The Committee worked with whistleblowers at the Social Security Administration (SSA) to bring
attention to the SSAs faltering project to update their system for tracking disability claims; this
work was highlighted in Senator Tom Coburns annual Wastebook in 2014.1180 The SSA system
upgrade is two-and-half years away from completion, despite being in process for the past 6 years.
Wastebook notes the Committees analysis that the stagnation may be attributed to a failure of
leadership. There is no single person in charge of the completion of the project and the resulting IT
Boondoggle has cost taxpayers $288 million over six years and delivered nothing. This IT failure
is draining taxpayer money away from other priorities at this troubled agency. As the Committees
letters to SSA Administrator Carolyn Colvin noted, she and other agency officials routinely testified
as to the need for more funding from Congress in order to meet challenges related to disability
claims, yet have by their own admission wasted $288 million and five years time developing a
system that doesnt work and even by their own estimates is not projected to work for at least
another two to three years.1181
In addition to the waste and duplication of IT systems throughout the government, the
governments priorities in terms of IT spending often perpetuate the use of obsolete and outdated
systems. Of the approximately $80 billion federal agencies spend on IT each year, about 69 percent,
or $54 billion, is spent on the operations and maintenance of existing systems (so-called legacy IT
systems, commonly referred to as steady state investment). GAO has determined that several
major agencies, namely the Departments of Treasury, Agriculture, Energy and State, spend well
over 80 percent of their IT budget on operations and maintenance of potentially obsolete legacy
1178
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Questionable Acquisitions: Problematic IT Contracting at the
IRS, 113th Cong. (2013), available at http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Strong-Castle-IRSFinal-Report.pdf
1179
Id.
1180
SEN. TOM COBURN, M.D., 2014 WASTEBOOK: WHAT WASHINGTON DOESNT WANT YOU TO READ (2014),
available at http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6932c44c-6ef4-491d-a0f1078b69f1f800
1181
Letter to The Honorable Carolyn W. Colvin, Administrator, Social Security Administration. (July 17, 2014);
Letter to The Honorable Carolyn W. Colvin, Administrator, Social Security Administration. (July 23, 2014).
229
systems.1182 Maintaining outdated IT systems may be necessary and the risks of a technology
transition can be very high. However, agencies are supposed to be undertaking operational
analysis to stay ahead of the technology curve, and many are not. This indicates that potentially up
to two thirds of the annual $80 billion IT investment is being spent without sufficient transparency
and at a sub-optimal efficiency.
FEDERAL DATA CENTER MISMANAGEMENT

The Administration's mismanagement of federal data centers can serve as a case study of this ongoing challenge. The Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI) was first announced as
a Federal initiative in February 2010. The FDCCIs goal is to reverse the historic growth of Federal
data centers and close, consolidate or streamline existing data centers wherever possible and
practical. By optimizing redundant and wasteful data centers, the government will reduce the cost
of data center hardware, software and operations; shift IT investments to more efficient computing
platforms such as cloud solutions; promote sustainability within data centers by reducing their
energy consumption and real estate footprint; and improve the nations cyber security posture.
OMB's stated goal is for agencies to close or consolidate 40 percent of federal data centers by 2015,
for a purported savings of $3 billion.
Operating large number of data centers is a significant cost to the Federal Government, including
hardware, software, real estate, and cooling costs. According to the Department of Energy, data
center spaces can consume 100 to 200 times more electricity than a standard office space. The
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the cost of electricity alone to operate federal data
centers is $450 million annually. Information collected by OMB also shows relatively low
utilization rates (as low as 5 percent) of current infrastructure and limited reuse of data centers
within or across agencies.1183
As of December 2011, 24 major departments and agencies (i.e., CFO Act agencies) had identified
3,133 data centers. This number ballooned in 2013, with OMB reporting more than 7,000 data
centers in accordance to the expanded definition OMB is now applying.1184
GAO found significant weaknesses in the FDCCI. First, OMB has not measured agencies' progress
against its $3 billion cost savings goal. Three years into the FDCCI, neither OMB nor the
participating agencies have determined a consistent and repeatable method for tracking cost
savings. This is contrary to the basic management principle that performance measures should be
measurable, outcome-oriented, and actively tracked and reported. Second, OMB does not have a
complete inventory of data centers to be closed or consolidated. Third, OMB has not exercised
adequate management oversight over the governance of the FDCCI program. 1185 For example, the
Subcommittee on Government Operations' July 2013 hearing revealed that the CIO of GSA, an
agency serving as FDCCI program management office for the entire Federal Government, was not
1182

U.S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-13-627T, DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION: STRENGTHENED
OVERSIGHT NEEDED TO ACHIEVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SAVINGS (2013), available at
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-627T.
1184
Id.
1185
Id.
1183
230
actively engaged in the agency's data center consolidation effort. As of the date of the hearing, GSA
had 3 Core and 115 Non-core data centers. Of these data centers, GSA had closed only 1, less than 1
percent of its data centers. This again illustrates the significance of the role of agency CIOs in
improving federal IT management practices.
Recently, the FDCCI has been rolled up into the broader PortfolioStat process, an OMB-initiated
technical and programmatic review of troubled IT projects. The Committee has expressed concerns
that this will cause OMBs focus on data center consolidation to weaken. During the 113th Congress,
the Committee, together with its Subcommittee on Government Operations, held four hearings that
specifically addressed technology investment waste and failures. In the last such hearing, held on
July 25, 2013, the Committee requested GAO to compile a list of significant IT investments that have
either failed or were in trouble. The chart provided by GAO and provided earlier in this section
identify 15 failed IT investments, totaling $9.2 billion and 17 current, troubled IT investments
totaling $102 billion.
REFORMING THE PROCESS

Going forward, solving many of the Federal Governments most vexing problems will require
complex technological solutions and major IT acquisitions. Few issues have drawn as much
attention as the inability of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to
resolve problems associated with the transition of wounded service members from DoD systems to
VA systems. Despite numerous recommendations made by an Independent Review Group, a
presidential commission, the GAO, and Office of the Inspector General of DoD and VA, and this
Committee in bipartisan work conducted under the past several chairmen, problems remain.
IT acquisition was a key focus of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and
Foreign Operations hearing convened on April 28, 2011, titled Is This Any Way to Treat Our Troops?
Part III: Transition Delays, as much of the discussion focused on the joint development of an
Electronic Health Record system by VA and DoD. In February 2013, the secretaries of the two
departments decided to develop separate systems, citing cost and schedule concerns. A February
2014 GAO report criticized that decision, noting that:
Major investment decisionsincluding terminating or significantly restructuring an
ongoing programshould be justified using analyses that compare the costs and
schedules of alternative proposals. Yet, the departments have not developed revised
cost and schedule estimates for their new modernization efforts and any additional
efforts needed to achieve interoperability between the new systems.1186
DoD is currently moving forward with DoD Healthcare Management System Modernization
(DHMSM) contract, a $11 billion contract to replace its electronic health record system and
1186
U.S. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-14-302, VA AND DOD NEED TO SUPPORT COST AND SCHEDULE
CLAIMS, DEVELOP INTEROPERABILITY PLANS, AND IMPROVE COLLABORATION (2014), available at
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/661208.pdf.
231
enhance interoperability with the VA, and concerns are already being raised by outside groups.1187
The Oversight Committee as well as the other legislative committees of jurisdiction will need to be
vigilant to protect the taxpayer dollar and ensure the success of this and other critical missions.
The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), with strong bipartisan
and bicameral support, addresses many of the problems that plague the Federal Governments
efficient purchase and implementation of information technology.1188 FITARA will empower the
chief information officers of agencies by ensuring access to sufficient money and resources and
would make decision-makers more accountable and ensure program transparency.1189
1187
Verton, Dan, Chuck Hagel and the secret war over DOD & VA electronic health records, FEDSCOOP.COM (Aug.
12, 2014, 4:32 P.M.), http://fedscoop.com/chuck-hagel-and-the-secret-history-of-vas-quest-for-a-modern-electronichealth-record-system/view-all/.
1188
Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, H.R. 1232, 113th Cong. (as passed by the House, Feb.
25, 2014).
1189
For a more complete discussion of FITARA, see the Legislative Activities section of this report above.
232
DESIGNED FOR ABUSE: MISMANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL RESOURCES

The total federal real property portfolio is massive, totaling over 900,000 buildings and structures
with a combined area of over 3 billion square feet. As mentioned in the Legislative
Accomplishments chapter of this report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
repeatedly stated that nationally, the Federal Government owns tens of thousands of structures
that have been deemed vacant or underutilized.1190 As a result, the government wastes a staggering
1191
$1.67 billion in taxpayer dollars each year through the mismanagement of these assets.
OVERSIGHT OF UNDERUTILIZED AND EXCESS PROPERTIES

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has worked diligently to address some of the
key problems with disposing of excess and underutilized properties. A key piece of its oversight in
this area were the numerous hearings held highlighting the operations, maintenance, management,
and disposal costs for underutilized or excess federal real property, and the need for a more
efficient disposal process.
During the 113th Congress in particular, the Government Operations Subcommittee, led by
Representatives John Mica and Gerald Connolly, focused on the mismanagement of federal property
assets. These efforts began early in the Congress, with Subcommittee Chairman Mica holding a
hearing entitled, Failures in Managing Federal Real Property: Billions in Losses, on February 27,
2013.1192 The hearing brought to light the egregious waste that occurs annually in maintaining
underutilized and excess properties. The Government Accountability Offices witness, David Wise,
testified that poor communication between agencies and out-of-date or unreliable data on the
condition of federal properties has exacerbated this problem.
The next several hearings demonstrated that mismanagement of federal property is not an issue
with just one agency, but is pervasive throughout the Federal Government. To showcase the
mismanagement of assets firsthand, the Subcommittee held the hearings at the actual underutilized
locations. On March 8, 2013, the Subcommittee held a field hearing entitled, Addressing Unused and
Vacant Federal Courthouses: A Case Study in Miami-Dade, Florida1193 at the David W. Dyer Federal
Building and U.S. Courthouse in Miami, Florida. This particular courthouse has been vacant for
approximately six years. The General Services Administration (GSA) has struggled to reposition
it, and, unfortunately, it costs the taxpayers $1.2 million annually to maintain. This is despite the
fact that GAO testified that between 2000 and 2010, the government constructed a total of 33 new
courthouses, including 3.5 million square feet that it did not need. The unnecessary space cost
taxpayers $835 million to construct and continues to cost $51 million annually to maintain. On
April 25, 2013, the Subcommittee held a field hearing entitled, Government Operations Oversight:
Addressing Unused and Vacant Federal Property, in GSAs vacant L Street Warehouse in Washington,
1190
Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO High Risk Report 2013, GAO-13-283, Feb. 2013 at 106.
Id.
1192
Failures in Managing Federal Real Property: Hearing before Subcomm. on Govt Operations of H. Comm. on
Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2013).
1193
Addressing Unused and Vacant Federal Courthouses: A Case Study in Miami-Dade, Florida: Field Hearing
before Subcomm. on Govt Operations of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2013).
1191
233
D.C.1194 The hearing examined the cost to the taxpayers of underperforming or vacant assets and, in
particular, the status of the vacant GSA L Street Warehouse, which costs GSA approximately
$70,000 per year to operate and maintain. Another field hearing regarding the FTCs assets was
held in December, and, finally, on February 10, 2014, Chairman Mica held a hearing entitled,
Assessing NASAs Real Property Assets at the Kennedy Space Center near Cocoa Beach, Florida.1195 The
hearing explored NASAs plan for the operations, maintenance, and use by private interests of the
unneeded launch pads at the Kennedy Space Center, as well as the U.S. Air Forces plans for the
1196
600,000+ of underutilized space located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS).
The purpose of these hearings was not only to highlight problems, but to encourage GSA to find
creative ways for underutilized properties to generate revenue for the government, reduce deficit
spending, create jobs and provide new opportunities. As a result of the Committees work, many
valuable yet non- or underperforming assets were sold or leased. One prominent success story is
that of the Georgetown Heating Plant in Washington, D.C. Due to previous oversight conducted by
both the Subcommittee on Government Operations and the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committees Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management, GSA finally sold the property in March of 2013 at a net profit to the
taxpayers of $19.5 million. The complex sat vacant for nearly a decade prior. Another example is
that of the Old Post Office building, also located in Washington, D.C., which was leased by GSA to
The Trump Organization for re-development into a hotel in 2013.
GAINING ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY PROFILE

In order to inform federal real property legislation and assist in the oversight of the governments
real property assets, the Committee requested access to the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP)
data held by OMB. The Federal Real Property Council (FRPC), created in 2004 under GSA,
developed the FRPP database to collect key information about the governments real property
assets in order to better manage its requirements and implement remedial measures.1197 The data
fields include the agency occupying the property, location, square footage, use type, status (i.e.
active, inactive), operating costs for the property, and the replacement value.
In the 2013 High Risk Report, GAO found that a lack of accurate and useful data hampers GSA and
agencies ability to make informed, effective decisions on how to manage their real property
assets.1198 As a result, the FRPP does not provide a complete picture of the uses and extent of
underutilized and excess real property held by agencies. As such, GAO recommended that that GSA
and the FRPC take action to improve the FRPP.1199
1194
Government Operations Oversight: Addressing Unused and Vacant Federal Property: Field Hearing before
Subcomm. on Govt Operations of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2013).
1195
Assessing NASAs Real Property Assets at the Kennedy Space Center: Field Hearing before Subcomm. on Govt
Operations of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2013).
1196
Attachment to Letter from Mr. Joe Sciabica, Director, Air Force Civil Engineer Ctr., Dept of the Air Force, to
Hon. John Mica, Chairman Subcomm. on Govt Operations, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Jan. 17,
2014.
1197
Exec. Order No. 13292, 68 Fed. Reg. 15315 (Mar. 25, 2003).
1198
GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-13-283, HIGH RISK REPORT 2013 107 (2013).
1199
Id. at 108.
234
In December of 2011, Chairman Issa and Government Operations Subcommittee Chairman Mica
first wrote to OMB requesting FRPP data pertaining to all federal real property with an appraisal
value greater than $50 million, including those properties which OMB may consider to be high
value assets.1200 Committee staff made follow-up requests via email to OMB staff on May 24 and
May 31, 2012, and again on November 15, 2012, but the data was not received. On March 24, 2014,
the Committee wrote to OMB requesting access to the FRPP data, again to no avail.1201 Thus, on
May 23, 2014, the Committee subpoenaed OMB for all underutilized and excess properties listed in
the FRPP, including those assets valued at greater than $50 million. On May 27, 2014, almost three
years after the original request, OMB provided documents and information to the Committee.1202
On July 29, 2014, the Government Operations Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, Federal Real
Property: Eliminating Waste and Mismanagement of Real Property Assets, to examine the excess and
underutilized real property listed in the FRPP and what is being done to more efficiently manage
those assets.1203 Committee staff analysis and witness testimony from OMB, GSA and the
Department of Veterans Affairs confirmed what GAO reports: the thoroughness and accuracy of the
FRPP is in a woeful state, and the Federal Government continues to hold expensive assets that it
does not need.
As of this writing, the 4,209 properties classified as underutilized properties in the database
account for:
over 24 million square feet of property,
cost approximately $95.7 million per year to operate and
have a total replacement value of over $8 billion.
Of these properties listed in the FRPP data, 156 of these properties cannot be disposed of for
various reasons, such as security concerns, but 1,411 properties sit inactive or underutilized. The
3,293 properties that have been declared excess account for approximately 15.3 million square feet,
cost $37.2 million per year in operating costs and have a replacement value totaling nearly $6.5
billion. 1,114 properties have been classified as unable to be disposed, while 1,563 (just under half)
properties are slated to be disposed. The remaining 616 properties are divided as such: 357 have
been reported excess, and 259 have had reports of excess submitted, but not yet accepted by GSA.
The agencies with the largest number of underutilized properties are the Departments of Interior
(1,542 properties), Agriculture (749), and Energy (723). These same three agencies have the
highest number of excess properties: 1,075, 956 and 593, respectively.
1200
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy
Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, December 19, 2011.
1201
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, and Hon. John Mica,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Operations, to Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, March 24, 2014.
1202
H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform Subpoena to Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, May 23, 2014.
1203
Federal Real Property: Eliminating Waste and Mismanagement of Real Property Assets: Hearing before
Subcomm. on Govt Operations of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2014).
235
ADDRESSING THE EXCESS

During Chairman Issas tenure as leader of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, more
light has been shed on the waste and mismanagement of federal real property than ever before.
The Committee succeeded in holding agencies accountable for their use of property assets and
finally accessing the database used by the government to track its building inventory.
The foundation for ending the waste has been laid, and the next steps are crucial to preserving the
momentum toward proper management and disposal of federal real property. The Oversight and
Government Reform Committee must remain vigilant in its oversight of the real property portfolio,
particularly the costs incurred by underutilized and excess properties. In partnership with GAO,
OMB, GSA and federal agencies, the Committee must continue to explore ways to more efficiently
decrease the number of unused federal buildings.
Additionally, the Committees work analysis of the FRPP has highlighted the fact that the database
is not a useful tool for assessing the true state of the federal real property portfolio. While the FRPP
was intended to be a purely informational resource and not a property management system, it is a
crucial piece of the decision-making process. The Federal Government must first know what it has
in order to know what it can do without, or use more efficiently. Furthermore, the Congress needs,
and the public deserves, transparency from the government -- least of all in what property it holds.
Since the Government Operations Subcommittee hearing in July, Committee staff has opened
discussions with OMB and GSA as to how to implement GAOs recommendations for improving the
process by which agencies collect and report FRPP data. The Committee urges future Oversight and
Government Reform leadership to continue both the oversight of the FRPP and work with the FRPC
to find legislative and administrative avenues for raising the integrity of the database.
236
CHAPTER 6. HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS (OR DOESNT)

Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Too often, however, they
are short-changed, and the Federal Government fails to hold itself and its employees accountable to
American Taxpayers. As the size of the federal workforce continues to grow, Americans are right to
question whether their money is being well-spent. Below, this report highlights some of the efforts
by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to hold the Federal Government
accountable to the American Taxpayers it serves.
HEALTHCARE.GOV: WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER

The Obama Administration entrusted the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) with
the lead role in the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or
ACA), or commonly referred to as ObamaCare.1204 Among other provisions, PPACA established
state-based health insurance exchanges.1205 Within CMS, the Center for Consumer Information and
Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) was responsible for developing and operating the federallyfacilitated exchange, or federally-facilitated market place (FFM), in the 36 states that declined to
1206
set up their own state exchange.
The health insurance exchanges were conceptualized as an
online marketplace that facilitates the buying and selling of health insurance products.
Before the health insurance exchanges opened for enrollment in October 2013, the Committee and
non-partisan government watchdogs raised questions about the Administrations readiness. The
Government Accountability Office noted that much remains to be accomplished within a relatively
short amount of time. factors such as the still-evolving scope of CMS's required activities in each
state and the many activities yet to be performed--some close to the start of enrollment--suggest a
potential for challenges going forward.1207 Alan Duncan, with the Treasury Inspector General for
Tax Administration (TIGTA), raised concerns that there will be insufficient testing of federal
exchange components, including the portions developed and run by the IRS.1208 Finally, the HHS
Office of Inspector General raised concerns about delays with the security assessments for the
federal data services hub and FFM.1209
1204
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No 111-148, 124 Stat 119 (2010).
Id.
1206
Id.
1207
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, STATUS OF CMS EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH FEDERALLY FACILITATED
HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES, GAO-13-601 (June 19, 2013), available at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO13-601.
1208 Evaluating Privacy, Security, and Fraud Concerns with Obamacare's Information Sharing Apparatus, Before
the Subcomm. on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements, Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, joint
with the Subcomm. on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies, Comm. on Homeland
Security, 113 Cong. (July 17, 2013) (Testimony of Alan Duncan, Assistant Inspector General for security and
information technology services, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) (And also, the thing weve
been talking about quite often, which is the interagency testingthis is all the components, including the IRS, that
there is sufficient testing for the entire system, not just the pieces.).
1209
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, OBSERVATIONS NOTED
DURING THE OIG REVIEW OF CMS'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE-DATA SERVICES
HUB (Aug. 2, 2013), available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region1/181330070.asp.
1205
237
Just over two months before open enrollment began, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner testified
before the Committee: I want to assure you that October 1, 2013, the health insurance marketplace
will be open for business. Consumers will be able to log onto healthcare.gov, fill out an application
and find out what coverage and benefits they qualify for.1210 Despite the confident assurances of
Administrator Tavenner and other Administration officials, the federal health insurance website,
Healthcare.gov, crashed right after it went live. Users experienced long wait times, errors, bugs,
and other problems. The problems regarding CMSs failure to launch a functioning website are
consistent with broader issues in transparency and accountability within the Administration. Even
after the high profile functionality problems, officials at CMS and HHS refused to admit to the public
that the website was not on track to launch without significant functionality problems and
substantial security risks, despite evidence to the contrary.
By the first day of enrollment on October 1, 2013, CMS had already spent hundreds of millions of
1211
dollars on exchange development.
The widespread problems reported with Healthcare.gov
prompted the Committee to investigate the Administrations mismanagement of the project. On
October 10, 2013, Chairman Issa, along with Senator Lamar Alexander, wrote to HHS requesting
information on the design, development, and testing of Healthcare.gov and its related systems.
After HHS refused to comply with the Committees request, the Committee was forced to issue a
subpoena in order to obtain documents.
To date, the Committee has held multiple hearings on the management of the exchange
development. The Committee has interviewed over a dozen current and former Administration
officials involved with the development of the FFM. On September 17, 2014, the Committee
released a staff report titled Behind the Curtain of the HealthCare.gov Rollout which shows multiple
troubling instances where ineffective government agencies concealed information about their
failures not only from their own colleagues and leaders, but also from the news media, state
partners, Congress, and the American people.1212 Additionally, the Committee found that CMS
launched the website in the face of security concerns, thereby risking users personally identifiable
1210
Evaluating Privacy, Security, and Fraud Concerns with Obamacare's Information Sharing Apparatus, Before
the Subcomm. on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements, Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, joint
with the Subcomm. on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies, Comm. on Homeland
Security, 113 Cong. (July 17, 2013) (Testimony of Marilyn Tavenner, Administrator, Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (July 17, 2013).
1211
Estimates of the amount spent prior to October 1 , 2013, varied widely. According to HHS, $174 million was
spent on the website and its related IT components by the end of August. This number increased to $319 million by
the end of October. See Glenn Kessler, How much did HealthCare.gov cost? (Part 2), WASH. POST (Nov. 19,
2013). This number continues to grow. According to HHS, the Federal Government obligated a total of
approximately $834 million on Marketplace-related IT contracts and interagency agreements as of February 28,
2014. See Department of Health and Human Services, Responses to Questions for the Record, Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Hearing on May 8, 2014 (2014), available at:
http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/050814_HELP_Burwell_QFRs-Alexander-FINAL.pdf.
1212
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Behind the Curtain of the HealthCare.gov Rollout, 113th Cong.
(2014), available at: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Healthcare-gov-Report-Final-9-1714.pdf.
238
information (PII). This finding was corroborated by a non-partisan GAO report released on
September 16, 2014.1213
LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY DURING LAUNCH OF HEALTHCARE.GOV

Following the collapse of Healthcare.gov, the Administration endeavored to keep the true nature of
the websites problems out of the public eye. For example, on October 6, 2013, five days after the
websites disastrous launch, Todd Park, a White House official, assured the public that high volume
was the reason for the so-called glitches: These bugs were functions of volume. Take away the
volume and it works.1214 However, high-ranking CMS and HHS officials who reported to Mr. Park
knew that high volume was not primarily to blame.1215 Two days after the launch, HHSs Chief
Technology Officer, Bryan Sivak, wrote [t]his is a fucking disaster. Its 1am and they dont even
know what the problem is, for sure. Basic testing should have been done hours ago that hasnt been
1216
done.
A CMS employee responded, This is going to turn ugly and someone is going to leak that
CMS has no clue about the problem.1217
The relationship between CMS and HHS IT officials deteriorated in the months leading up to the
websites launch, as CMS officials refused to share vital information with superiors at HHS, opting
instead to communicate directly with White House officials. In January 2013, Frank Baitman, HHS
Chief Information Officer (CIO), asked Tony Trenkle, CMS CIO, and Henry Chao, CMS Deputy CIO
and a key manager in the development of Healthcare.gov, for greater access to information
regarding the development of Healthcare.gov. Mr. Baitman wrote that, [g]iven the importance of
this project to the Secretary and the White House, itll continue to receive very high level attention;
thus, we need to ensure that emerging issues which are inevitable are effectively understood
and analyzed at the appropriate level.1218 Mr. Baitman expressed concerns about poor
information flow between policy, operational and IT planners/developers, and noted that critical
1219
knowledge is concentrated in key personnel at CMS.
In September, Mr. Baitman again
reiterated his concerns about his lack of access to information related to the projects development.
Writing to a senior CMS official, Mr. Baitman wrote [o]ne of the challenges I have faced is the lack
of vision into the Marketplace development effort since I came onboard as well as the Marketplace
security preparations.1220
An August 2013 email chain further illustrates the odd relationship between CMS and HHS on the
project, as HHS officials began to secretly seek information about the project though informants.
Julie Herron, a former subordinate to Mr. Sivak, had been transferred to CMS to work on activities
1213
GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-14-730, ACTIONS NEEDED TO ADDRESS WEAKNESSES IN INFORMATION

SECURITY AND PRIVACY CONTROLS (2014), available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-730.
1214
Tim Mullaney, Obama adviser: Demand overwhelmed HealthCare.gov, USA TODAY, Oct. 6, 2013.
1215
Email between Monique Outerbridge and Tony Trenkle (Sept. 25, 2013) [HHS-0110879].
1216
Email from Bryan Sivak, Chief Technology Officer, Dept of Health and Human Services to Julie Herron,
Project Manager, Dept Health and Human Services (Oct. 3, 2013) [SIVAK_HOGR 000038-000040].
1217
Id.
1218
Email from Frank Baitman, Chief Information Officer, Dept Health and Human Services, to Tony Trenkle,
Chief Information Officer, CMS, et.al (Jan. 22, 2013) [HHS-0108861,2].
1219
Id.
1220
Email Frank Baitman to Michelle Snyder.
239
occurring on Day 2, referring to website components not needed on October 1st, but needed
shortly afterwards. Ms. Herron funneled information to Mr. Sivak about the development of
Healthcare.gov. For example, she wrote that Jon, Ketan, & Henry [Chao] are apparently locked in
the Command Center (still) working through issues and I suspect that will continue until
launch.1221 Mr. Sivak indicated that he wanted to keep communications with Ms. Herron secret
1222
from CMS, writing I dont want to tell anyone that we talk anymore :).
In reply, Ms. Herron
1223
wrote Good point.
On September 10, 2013, Ms. Herron forwarded Mr. Sivak a message from another staff member
involved with the project. The email, titled From Ed read:
I dont know who is making the calls about what gets cut and what stays. The
relationships between OIS, OC [Office of Communications], and CCIIO are very
opaque. CGI seems to have failed to deliver so much that all the timelines and
deadlines of the last 8 months seem like a total fiction. It does not surprise me that
Bryan [Sivak] has only seen parts. I would be very surprised to hear if there is a
working end-to-end version in existence. I have yet to hear of one.
So to your question of how Im feeling about launchnot good. Kind of Heartbroken,
actually. Whatever launches, if functional, will only technically meet the criteria of
launching the exchange. It will be riddled with confusing and hard-to-use
compromises. But I dont really. Im not seeing anything thats being delivered. Im
just piecing things together through the grapevine.1224
Mr. Sivak responded, like I said, its all negative. Im going to embark on a campaign to declare
1225
victory without fully launching. Well see.
Mr. Sivak testified that on September 10, 2013, he
along with Frank Baitman approached HHS leadership about implementing a phased launch of
1226
Healthcare.gov, similar to a beta test.
Mr. Baitman and Mr. Sivak brought up the idea of a limited
launch at a meeting of HHS leadership including Deputy Secretary, Bill Corr, Director of the HHS
Office of Health Reform, Mike Hash, and CMS Administrator, Marilyn Tavenner.1227 However, both
testified that their suggestion was rejected.1228
CMS and HHS officials failed to effectively collaborate and communicate during the testing and
launch of Healthcare.gov, leading to disastrous outcomes. CMS officials developing the exchange
1221
Email from Julie Herron, Project Manager, Dept Health and Human Services, to Bryan Sivak, Chief
Technology Officer, Dept of Health and Human Services (Aug. 20, 2013) [SIVAK_HOGR 000280,81].
1222
Id.
1223
Id.
1224
Id.
1225
Id.
1226
A beta test is a field test of the beta version of a product (as software) especially by testers outside the company
developing it that is conducted prior to commercial release. Beta test, MERRIAM WEBSTER http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/beta%20test.
1227
Transcribed Interview Franklin Baitman, Chief Information Officer, Dept Health and Human Services, in
Washington, D.C. (Jan. 14, 2014); Transcribed Interview of Bryan Sivak, Chief Technology Officer, Dept of
Health and Human, in Washington, D.C. (Feb. 12, 2014).
1228
Id.
240
refused to share vital information with senior IT officials at HHS, even while communicating
directly with White House officials. Left out of the loop, HHS officials resorted to using informants
within CMS to obtain crucial information, often communicating over private email. These tense
relationships resulted in blame-shifting, little collaboration, and ultimately, a complete lack of
accountability on the part of officials responsible for the Healthcare.gov debacle.
HEALTHCARE.GOV LAUNCHED WITH KNOWN SECURITY WEAKNESSES

The pressure for Healthcare.gov to meet an arbitrary launch date forced CMS officials to take risks
with users personally identifiable information (PII). The Committee found numerous problems
related to CMS oversight of the security of Healthcare.gov. These include deficiencies in the
security testing of the system, infighting amongst CMS officials and contractors over the security of
the FFM, and launching the FFM with high risks, and over the objection of the agencys Chief
Information Security Officer. The Committees findings were corroborated by the GAO, which found
that weaknesses still remained in the Healthcare.gov system as of September 2014.1229
Furthermore, GAO found that, Until these weaknesses are fully addressed, increased and
unnecessary risks remain of unauthorized access, disclosure, or modification of the information
collected and maintained by Healthcare.gov and related systems, and the disruption of service
provided by the systems.1230
Two separate teams within CMS conducted security testing for the federal exchange, also known as
the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace. The first team, headed by Thomas Schankweiler, an
Information Security Officer at CMS, coordinated the day-to-day security activities of the FFM
development, working closely with CMS Deputy CIO Henry Chao and the federal marketplace
development team. The second team was run through the Enterprise Information Security Group
(EISG) within CMS, headed by Teresa Fryer, the Chief Information Security Officer. EISGs role was
to oversee the Security Control Assessment, a key milestone the system needs to complete in order
to begin operations. Instead of collaborating, documents show significant conflicts between Mr.
Schankweilers FFM development team and Ms. Fryers EISG team. This counterproductive
infighting contributed to poor security testing results and Mr. Schankweilers scheme to contest
negative and embarrassing findings from the independent assessment.
Ms. Fryer testified she felt that the daily reports on SCA tests did not fully convey the testing
challenges experienced by the security testers.1231 For example, in a September 17, 2013, email, Ms.
Fryer wrote: there were many interruptions affecting testing such as the environment was
1229
Examining Obamacare's Failures in Security, Accountability, and Transparency: Hearing Before the Comm. On
Oversight and Government Reform, 113 Cong. (Sept. 18, 2014) (Testimony of Gregory C. Wilshusen, Director,
Information Security Issues, Government Accountability Office) (While CMS has taken important steps to apply
security and privacy safeguards to Healthcare.gov and its supporting systems, significant weaknesses remain that put
these systems and the sensitive, personal information they contain at risk of compromise.), available at:
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Mr.-Wilshusen-Statement-Bio.pdf.
1230
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-14-730, HEALTHCARE.GOV: ACTIONS NEEDED TO ADDRESS
WEAKNESSES IN INFORMATION SECURITY AND PRIVACY CONTROLS (2014), available at:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-730.
1231
Transcribed Interview with Teresa Fryer, Chief Information Security Officer, CMS, in Washington, D.C. (Mar.
26, 2014).
241
unstable and EIDM was also down. So not much testing got done.1232 Therefore, despite the fact
that there were no security vulnerability findings during that day of testing, very little testing was
actually performed given the components of the system that were inoperable that day. Ms. Fryer
then wrote to Mr. Linares Kevin Charest [HHS CISO] has asked for an update of the FFM testing by
noon tomorrow and Im going to give him a truthful update of exactly what is going on. I am tired of
1233
the cover ups.
In a transcribed interview, Ms. Fryer testified: [O]ur job as security experts is to
portray the posture or the events that are happening and to brief senior leadership management on
the security issues that are being raised during testing. And I felt that they were not being properly
being briefed or properly portrayed, the issues that were happening that week during security
testing.1234
Once MITRE completed their September Security Assessment, Mr. Schankweilers FFM
development team was unhappy with the report and sought to have it changed. On September 26,
2013, Darren Lyles, one of the IT security officials assigned to the FFM development team, wrote
Ms. Fryer:
The Draft SCA [security control assessment] Report has been called into question by
CGI [primary contractor building the FFM] and CIISG [Consumer Information
Insurance Group, the team within CMS that works with contractors to develop the
FFM and other Healthcare.gov components] Stakeholders. There are assertions
made in the report that are deemed to be erroneous and misrepresentative of what
actually occurred. I have attached the report that has been commented on by CGI
and would like to submit this for your review.1235
Michael Mellor, Ms. Fryers deputy, responded to Mr. Lyles: Keep in mind that the purpose of the
SCA is to provide an independent assessment of the security posture of a system. As part of that
independent assessment, the maintainer of the system likely will not agree with all of the findings
1236
and the SCA report.
Mr. Schankweiler, Mr. Lyles superior, then responded to Mr. Mellor, insisting that the report should
be reviewed by senior CMS officials and worried the report would be seen by others outside CMS:
We need to hit the pause button on this report and have an internal meeting about
it later next week. It is important to look at this within the context of the decision
1232
Email from Teresa Fryer, Chief Information Security Officer, CMS, to George Linares, Chief Technology
Officer, CMS (Sept. 17, 2013) [HHS-0103293].
1233
1234
Transcribed Interview with Teresa Fryer, Chief Information Security Officer, CMS, in Washington, D.C. (Mar.
26, 2014).
1235
Email from Darren Lyles, to Teresa Fryer, Chief Information Security Officer, CMS (Sept. 26, 2013) [HHS0017249] (emphasis added).
1236
Email from Michael Mellor, Deputy Chief Information Security Officer, CMS, to Darrin Lyles, Information
System Security Officer, CMS (Sept. 27, 2013) (emphasis in original).
242
memos and ATO memo that is going up for Tony [Trenkle, CMS Chief Information
Officer] and Michelle [Snyder, CMS Chief Operating Officer] to sign.1237
Mr. Schankweiler then wrote the report was only partially accurate, and extremely
opinionated, false, misrepresentative, and inflammatory. Mr. Schankweiller noted that It
is very possible that this report will be reviewed at some point by OIG, and could see the
light of day in other ways.1238 Mr. Schankweiler offered to look at the report from the
1239
government perspective and provide ... analysis.
MITREs role was to provide an independent assessment of the FFM system prior to launch.
However, at the time of testing, significant components of the FFM remained unfinished and MITRE
faced difficulties in testing the system. Their inability to effectively test the system was a significant
concern for both the MITRE testers and Ms. Fryers EISG team. Because of these concerns, Ms. Fryer
testified that she recommended denying the Authority to Operate (ATO) for the FFM, which
would prevent the system from launching.1240 However, other CMS employees disagreed with Ms.
Fryer and advocated signing the ATO regardless of security concerns.1241
Tony Trenkle, then CMS CIO, felt uncomfortable signing the ATO authorizing the FFM to go-live. At
a meeting in late September with Michelle Snyder, then-CMS Chief Operating Officer, CMS officials
1242
discussed elevating the ATO decision to CMS Administrator Tavenner.
At this meeting, Ms.
Fryers concerns were conveyed to Michelle Snyder. Some of these concerns were:
Unknown risk of applications to withstand attacks aimed at system availability high
risk.1243
Unknown risks associated with those controls and those functionalities that were not tested
high risk.1244
Risk of code being released into production and available to the public, which is not
functionally complete or security tested.1245
Risk of being vulnerable to attacks as application had insecure configuration settings and
multiple access control deficiencies in the tested environments.1246
1237
Email from Thomas Schankweiler, Security Officer, CMS, to Michael Mellor, Deputy Chief Information
Security Officer, et. al. (Sept. 27, 2013) (emphasis added).
1238
1239
1240
Transcribed Interview with Teresa Fryer, Chief Information Security Officer, CMS, in Washington, D.C. (Dec.
17, 2013).
1241
Ordinarily, the Chief Information Officers signature on an ATO signifies that the federal system was
sufficiently tested to be secure, and was ready to go-live. However, due to the problems with the security testing,
CMS CIO Tony Trenkle took the unprecedented step of elevating the ATO decision to Administrator Tavenner who
authorized the FFM on September 27, 2013.
1242
Transcribed Interview with Tony Trenkle, Chief Information Officer, CMS, in Washington, D.C. (Dec. 4, 2013).
1243
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Marketplace Security Briefing (Sept. 23, 2013).
1244
Id.
1245
Id.
243
According to Mr. Trenkle:

the reason we issued the memo as it was because of the fact that this was the biggest
effort that CMS had done since Part D, and there was a lot of political and other
interest in this effort, so we felt because we couldnt do the complete testing that
that qualified as something we would go to the administrator for to make a decision
on whether she was willing to accept the risk.1247
None of the officials interviewed by the Committee, including senior IT officials at CMS and HHS,
could recall an instance where the Administrator had authorized a system to go-live.
Along with the security authorization for the FFM, Administrator Tavenner also authorized nine
states to connect to the data services hub despite not having completed all of their security
1248
documentation.
In order for a state exchange, as well as other state eligibility systems, to
connect to the data hub, they need to obtain an authority to connect from CMS. According to
documents obtained by the Committee, CMS officials were scrambling to approve applications for
states to connect before the October 1st start of open enrollment.1249 These applications were
approved despite approximately two-thirds of the states being rated as a high risk by the CMS
CISO.
Over the past year, the Committee has conducted a thorough review of the management failures
over the development and implementation of Healthcare.gov. The Committees investigation found
numerous failures of management, including where users PII was put at risk to meet a political
deadline, as well as failures in transparency to Congress, the press, and the American public. The
Administration has already spent a billion dollars on a website that is still not fully operational, and
it remains unclear whether the Administration has corrected the many deficiencies that led to the
disastrous launch. The same government officials responsible for the lack of transparency and
accountability a year ago remain in positions of authority. Administration officials must be held
accountable for obstructing public and private access to necessary information, and the
Administration must acknowledge that it has failed to live up to President Obamas declaration that
he is running the most transparent administration in history.1250
1246
Id.
Transcribed Interview with Tony Trenkle, Chief Information Officer, CMS, in Washington, D.C. (Dec. 4, 2013).
1248
Memorandum from James Kerr and Julie Boughn, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, to Marilyn
Tavenner, Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, States Connecting to the Marketplace
Decision (Sept. 27, 2013).
1249
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, AP Exclusive: Health law cybersecurity challenges, ASSOCIATED PRESS BLOG (Feb.
25, 2014, 4:43 P.M.), http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-health-law-cybersecurity-challenges-194241774-finance.html.
1250
Jonathan Easley, Obama Says His is the Most Transparent Administration in History, HILL (Feb. 14, 2013).
1247
244
RIGHTSIZING THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

The federal workforce grew by more than 350,000 employees between 2000 and 2010. By the end
of fiscal year 2015, the size of the Federal Government will have grown by an estimated 239,000
workers, to 2.1 million employees.1251 The Presidents National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform called for immediate reforms to reduce federal spending and make the
Federal Government more efficient. The recommendations included a reduction in the size of the
federal workforce by 10 percent through attrition. The Commission estimated this proposal would
save $13.2 billion in savings by 2015.1252 In consultation with the Committee, the House Budget
Resolution included a similar policy, assuming a 10 percent reduction in the federal workforce
through attrition at a one for three replacement rate.1253 The Congressional Budget Office
estimated $248 billion in savings through 2021 from shrinking the federal workforce combined
with a pay freeze for civilian employees through 2015.
The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy held a hearing to
review the Commissions recommendation,1254 and several Committee members, including
Chairman Issa, introduced legislation to right-size the federal workforce.1255 The Reducing the Size
of the Federal Government Through Attrition Act of 2011, introduced by Congressman Mick
Mulvaney was reported by the Committee on December 19, 2011.1256
Members of the Committee appreciate our talented federal workforce and the critically essential
services it provides. However, the current size of the federal workforce is fiscally unsustainable.
Congress has an obligation to consider all policy reforms that halt the sprawl of government and
force agency heads to make government more efficient. The Committee recognizes that the ratio of
federal employees to the overall U.S. population has declined in recent decades, but this should not
be understood to mean that the Federal Government is now understaffed.
FEDERAL WORKER PAY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Federal workers receive generous benefits, pay, and job security a combination rare in the private
sector, regardless of the economy. A January 2012 CBO study found that federal employees receive
an average of 16 percent more in total compensation than their private sector counterparts.1257
1251
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND REFORM, THE MOMENT OF TRUTH (Dec. 2010)
available at
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf.
Although there is much debate over the consequences, as technology improves the need for human labor is in some
ways reduced. Should technology replace human labor? DEBATE.ORG, http://www.debate.org/opinions/shouldtechnology-replace-human-labor.
1253
H.Con.Res. 34., H. Con. Res. 96.
1254
Rightsizing the Federal Government: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Fed. Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and
Labor Policy of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 112th Cong. (2011).
1255
H.R. 2114 (Rep. Issa), H.R. 6474 (Rep. Ross), H.R. 657, H.R. 829 (Rep. Lummis), H.R. 3029 (Rep. Mulvaney).
1256
H.R. 3029, 112th Cong. (as reported by H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Dec. 19, 2011).
1257
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, COMPARING THE COMPENSATION OF FEDERAL AND PRIVATE SECTOR
EMPLOYEES (2012), available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42921.
1252
245
Much has changed since 1949 when the General Schedule was established to classify federal
workers according to their job duties and assign pay. Minimum wage was 70 cents an hour, the
average yearly wage was just under $3000, and the Federal Governments workforce consisted
mainly of clerical staff. Sixty-five years later, the government continues to classify and pay 80
percent of its workforce using the same, antiquated system, ignoring the realities of the current
labor market. It is no wonder we continue to bear the burden of an inefficient and unaccountable
Federal Government.
The Committee reviewed federal worker compensation and found that current federal salaries and
benefits are not in line with the marketplace when compared to private workforce
compensation.1258 Since the Federal Government has no incentive or obligation to reduce salaries
in order to be competitive to stay in business, it simply borrows more money or raises taxes. In
November 2010, President Obama announced a 2-year pay freeze for federal employees.
Unfortunately, the pay freeze did not impact salary increases driven primarily by the passage of
time or bonuses, meaning President Obamas pay freeze wasnt really a freeze.
Federal workers who have not reached the maximum rate of pay for his or her grade are advanced
in pay successively to the next higher rate of pay with the passage of time, provided the employees
work is of an acceptable level of competence as determined by the agency head.1259
Workers advance to the next pay level following completion of one year of service in steps
1, 2, and 3; two years of service in steps 4, 5, and 6; or three years of service in steps 7, 8,
and 9.
Each step represents, on average, a 3 percent increase in base salary.
The within-grade increase denial rate is 0.06 percent. In other words, only 4 out of every
1000 federal workers are deemed to be performing at a less-than-fully successful level.
At the same time, the percentage of federal workers fired every year by agencies fell from 0.57
percent in fiscal 2009 to 0.46 percent in 2013. The private sector fires nearly six times as many
employees about 3.2 percent.1260
Federal pay is not based on real data for real occupations in real places, nor is it kept up to date
based on data. It has been 17 years since the Bureau of Labor Statistics collected survey data for
1258
Are Federal Workers Underpaid?: Hearing before Subcomm. on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and
Labor Policy of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 112th Cong. (2011). Oversight of the Federal Workforce:
The Viability of the Senior Executive Service: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal
Service, and Labor Policy of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 113th Cong. (2014); Oversight of the Federal
Workforce: Is the Federal Governments General Schedule (GS) a Viable Personnel System for the Future?:
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service, and Labor Policy, 113th Cong. (2014).
1259
5 U.S.C. 5335.
1260
Andy Medici, Federal firings continue to drop, FED. TIMES, Jun. 23, 2014, available at
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20140623/MGMT/306230009/Federal-firings-continue-drop.
246
the benchmark jobs used for pay assessments.1261 No employer, except for the Presidents Pay
Agent, uses BLS data as its primary survey source.1262
At the Committees request, GAO examined OPMs management of the General Schedule. GAO found
that OPMs implementation of the system has diminished several attributes needed in a modern job
classification system, including transparency, internal equity, simplicity, flexibility, and
adaptability.1263 GAO recommended that OPM needs to improve the design, management, and
oversight of the General Schedule.1264
OFFICIAL TIME: GOOD VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYER?

Labor relations law currently permits federal workers to charge official time when negotiating
collective bargaining agreements, participating in proceedings before the Federal Labor Relations
Authority, and performing certain representational activities. Simply stated, official time is when
federal employees stop doing their assigned duty work to instead remain in duty status and receive
pay when performing tasks for labor unions. Official time has increased under the Obama
Administration. The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy held
a hearing to examine the use of official time.1265
Since fiscal year 2009, the total official time hours have been steadily increasing, with federal
workers spending 3.4 million hours on official time in 2012 at a cost to the taxpayer of $157 million,
an increase of 450,000 hours over 2009.1266 The increase comes with little evidence of improved
government or individual employee performance. At the same time, OPM has stated collecting and
reporting data on official time is not a priority at this time. OPM continues to use a data collection
method that may not fully represent the true cost of this taxpayer-funded activity.1267
Continued and timely release of information concerning union activities conducted by federal
employees while on official time is necessary for taxpayers to ensure such time contributes to the
productivity and effectiveness of the Federal Government.
RESTRAINING GOVERNMENT SPENDING THROUGH WORKFORCE REFORM

Our fiscal situation requires tough choices to restrain government spending. In his budget request
for FY2015, President Obama stated that the Federal personnel system remains inflexible and
outdated and that the pay and classification systems need to be updated. He further stated that
1261
Howard Risher, Analysis: Ten reasons to Replace the General Schedule, GOVT EXEC., Nov. 23, 2011, available
at http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2011/11/analysis-ten-reasons-to-replace-the-general-schedule/35481/.
1262
Howard Risher, The Heat is Turned Up on Federal Pay, FEDSMITH.COM, Apr. 22, 2014, available at
http://www.fedsmith.com/2014/04/22/the-heat-is-turned-up-on-federal-pay/.
1263
GAO-14-677.
1264
GAO-14-677.
1265
Official Time: Good Value for the Taxpayer?: Hearing before Subcomm. on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal
Service and Labor Policy of H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 112th Cong. (2011).
1266
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH,
October 2014, available at http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/labor-management-relations/reports/labormanagement-relations-in-the-executive-branch-2014.pdf.
1267
GAO-15-9.
247
An alternative, cost-effective system needs to be developed that will allow the Government to
compete for and reward top talent, while rewarding performance.
The Committee agrees. Agencies must focus on their core mission, reassess priorities, and direct
taxpayer dollars to where they are most needed. The taxpayer can no longer be asked to foot the
bill for federal employees while watching their own salaries remain flat and their benefits erode.
Going forward, Congress and the Administration have an obligation to consider all policy reforms
that overhaul federal compensation to reduce costs and better align with the private sector. At the
same time, federal workers must be held accountable for their taxpayer-funded work.
248
POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY: FAILED LEADERSHIP AT CHEMICAL SAFETY BOARD AND

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
During Chairman Issas tenure the Committee has conducted in depth investigations into egregious
mismanagement at two independent agencies. This mismanagement results in wasted taxpayer
dollars and lost efficiency resulting in a Federal Government that cannot perform the duties
expected by the American Taxpayer.
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INVESTIGATION IN 2011

In March 2011, the Committee launched an investigation into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) and the actions of its Chairman, Gregory Jaczko. Initially, the Committees investigation
focused on the Yucca Mountain license application and allegations that Chairman Jaczko abused his
position to further the political objectives of the Obama Administration and his former boss, Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Over the course of the investigation, it became apparent that Chairman Jaczkos abuse of authority
reached well beyond the NRCs Yucca Mountain activities and threatens the NRCs golden
reputation in the US and internationally.1268
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for ensuring the safe and secure use of
commercial nuclear power in the United States. It is governed by a five member Commission, with
at least two from each party, and has approximately 4000 employees. The NRC is frequently named
One of the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government and the staffs commitment at all levels
to its core values Integrity, Service, Openness, Commitment, Cooperation, Excellence, and Respect
is often credited for the high morale.
Historically, and certainly under the two previous chairmen, the five member Commission operated
as a collegial body. Over the course of its investigation, the Committee found the situation
drastically changed under Chairman Jaczko. Chairman Jaczko had a different interpretation of his
roles and responsibilities under the relevant law the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 than his
predecessors.
Under Chairman Jaczkos interpretation of the law, power was much more centralized in the
Chairmans office. The Committees investigation revealed many negative consequences of this
centralization of power, including:
Preventing the Commissions unfettered access to the advice and opinions of NRC staff,
including deletion of the staffs recommendations in formal staff papers.
Control of what policy issues are brought to the Commission and when, enabling him to
prioritize those issues of greatest importance to the Chairman.
1268
For more detailed information about the Committees investigation into the actions of Chairman Jaczko, see the
Committees staff report, A Crisis of Leadership. Staff of H. Cmte. of Oversight & Govt Reform, A Crisis of
Leadership: How the Actions of Chairman Gregory Jaczko are Damaging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
112th Cong. (2011).
249
Preventing his fellow Commissioners from contributing their advice and expertise to
agencys response to the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan through
his use of emergency authorities.
Effectively, the NRC was being run not by a bipartisan, five member Commission but rather by a
single, highly political individual. As a result, the NRC was not operating as carefully designed to
ensure the safe and secure use of commercial nuclear power, with decisions informed by the
technical expertise of the staff rather than politics.
On October 13, 2011, four Commissioners two Democrats and two Republicans signed a letter to
White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley expressing their concerns about Chairman Jaczkos leadership
and abusive management style, including harassment and intimidation of career NRC staff.
On the December 12, 2011 two months later the White House responded and encouraged the
NRC Commissioners to work with the Chairman and NRC Inspector General to resolve internal
differences. The Commissioners indicated to the Committee that they would not have sent the
letter if they felt differences could be resolved internally.
On December 13, 2011, the Committee released a report entitled, A Crisis in Leadership: How the
Actions of Chairman Gregory Jaczko are Damaging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The following day, the Committee held a hearing entitled, The Leadership of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The Committee received testimony from Chairman Jaczko, the four Commissioners,
the head of the NRC technical staff, and the General Counsel of the NRC.
At the hearing, Commissioners and NRC staff reiterated concerns about Chairman Jaczkos
leadership and behavior. Commissioner Magwood testified that he spoke with three female
employees who were humiliated and embarrassed by interactions with Chairman Jaczko.
After the December 14, 2011 hearing and the release of the Committees report, individuals within
the NRC suggested to the Committee that Chairman Jaczko has done little, if anything, to improve
his interactions with his colleagues or the NRC staff. Some are concerned that the situation is
getting worse. One March 12, 2012 the Committee sent a letter to Chairman Jaczko providing him
an opportunity to clarify a number of inconsistent statements in his testimony at the December 14,
2011 hearing. On April 6, 2012, Chairman Issa joined Chairman Jaczko on a tour of the San Onofre
Nuclear Generation Station (SONGS) to learn more about ongoing difficulties with recently replaced
steam generators. This visit did not relate to the Committees investigation but instead focused on a
policy issue important to Chairman Issas district.
On May 7, 2012, the Committee sent a second letter to Chairman Jaczko regarding inconsistent
statements before Congress. He still had not responded to the Committees March 12, 2012 letter
and staff had identified additional questionable testimony. Shortly before her term was set to
expire, the Obama Administration renominated Commissioner Kristine Svinicki a Republican for
a second five-year term on the Commission. This only occurred after Republican Members
questioned why a female Commissioner, who blew the whistle on Chairman Jaczkos conduct, had
250
not been renominated. She was confirmed by the Senate on June 29, 2012 as part of a deal
brokered to approve Chairman Jaczkos replacement.
On May 21, 2012, Chairman Jaczko announced his resignation from the NRC, conditioned on the
confirmation of his successor. On May 24, 2012, the White House announced the nomination of Dr.
Allison Macfarlane to replace Chairman Jaczko. She was confirmed by the Senate on June 29, 2012
along with Commissioner Svinicki.
More recently, beginning in the Committee investigated allegations of mismanagement and
improper treatment of whistleblowers at the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
(CSB).
THE U.S. CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD INVESTIGATION OF 2014
The CSB is an independent agency charged with investigating chemical accidents. In the fall of
2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Inspector General (EPA IG), who has authority
over the CSB, began investigating allegations that CSB General Counsel Richard Loeb learned the
identities of several CSB whistleblowers who filed complaints with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
(OSC). The whistleblowersall of whom worked in the Office of General Counselhad been
exposed to retaliation by virtue of the leak. In fact, because of the likelihood that managers may
retaliate against whistleblowers who file complaints with OSC, federal law requires OSC to protect
the identities of complainants.
In light of the seriousness of the allegations against Loeb, and the OSC employee who leaked
information to him, it was imperative that Loeb and CSB Chairman Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso fully
cooperate with the IGs investigation. They did not. Instead, Loebwith Moure-Erasos consent
refused to provide key documents to the Inspector General, citing attorney-client privilege. The
EPA IG discovered that CSB leadership used personal e-mail accounts to conduct official business to
avoid scrutiny from investigators. Loebs noveland mistakenapplication of attorney-client
privilege to documents that may have implicated him in the leak, and his and his colleagues use of
personal e-mail accounts to avoid scrutiny, caused the IG to eventually bring the matter to the
attention of Congress.
On September 5, 2013, EPA Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, Jr. sent a seven-day letter to
Congress regarding CSBs refusal to cooperate with his leak investigation. Section 5(d) of the
Inspector General Act, as amended, requires IGs to report immediately to the agency head
whenever the IG becomes aware of particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses, or
deficiencies relating to the administration of programs or operations.1269 Reports made pursuant
to Section 5(d) of the IG Act are commonly referred to as seven-day letters.1270 Because IGs
typically reserve the use of a seven-day letter for only the most urgent matters, Congressand the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform specificallytakes these matters very
seriously.
1269
1270
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, Pub. L. 110-409 [hereinafter IG Act].

Id.
251
In response to the seven-day letter, the Committee on Oversight and the House Committee on
Science and Technology sought more information regarding CSBs unwillingness to cooperate with
the EPA IGs leak investigation.1271 The seven-day letter was a red flag that CSB was suffering from
mismanagement. Once the Committee began its investigation of the seven-day letter allegations
with assistance from the Science Committee, it became clear there were in fact serious management
deficiencies at the CSB.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform conducted ten transcribed interviews of
current and former CSB employees, received several briefings, and reviewed several hundred
documents produced by the EPA OIG, the OSC, and the CSB. To date, it is unclear whether CSB has
provided the Committee with a complete production of relevant documents, given its lack of full
cooperation with the Committees investigation. The deficiencies uncovered during the course of
the investigation led the Committee to conclude that CSB is failing to fulfill its mission under
Chairman Moure-Erasos leadership.
Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso was nominated to the CSB by President Obama in March 2010 and
confirmed by the Senate in June 2010. Chairman Moure-Erasos term will expire in 2015 as CSB
Board Members serve fixed terms of five years. Since Dr. Moure-Eraso took over as Chairman in
June 2010, at least nine employeesinvestigators and attorneyshave left the agency, which has
approximately 40 employees in total. Current and former CSB employees informed the Committee
that under Chairman Moure-Erasos bullying and abusive leadership, the current work
environment is toxic. Employees fear retaliation for any action perceived as questioning the
chairman or assisting other Board Members. Many employees believe they have faced retaliation,
including being stripped of their responsibilities.
The attrition of experienced investigators has stalled major investigations involving fatalities for
years. For example, in April 2010, a fire and explosion at a Tesoro refinery in Anacortes,
Washington killed seven people. Then-CSB investigator Rob Hall traveled to the site, began
investigating, and completed a draft report on the causes of the incident. When he left CSB in March
2011 because of the toxic work environment, the CSB restarted the investigation from square one.
Apparently, there was no one at CSB who could pick up where Hall left off. Waste, redundancy, and
lack of continuity are telltale signs of mismanagement. Now, four years later, the Tesoro
investigation is finally closed. On May 1, 2014, CSB released the final report on the Tesoro tragedy.
As in the NRC investigation, the Committee uncovered a lack of collegiality among the Board
members. The delay in the issuance of a final report on Tesoro is directly related to this issue. The
CSB is made up of five board members. During the course of the investigation, the Board had only
two members, with Moure-Eraso serving as Chairman. The other member was Mark Griffon. The
three remaining seats were vacant. Dr. Beth Rosenberg resigned from the Board on May 31, 2014,
after serving just over a year. Upon her departure, Dr. Rosenberg told Bloomberg BNA:
I feel I can do more good from outside the agency than within it . . . [a]s a board
member, I expected the opportunities to influence the workings and priorities of the
1271
A more thorough discussion of the Committees oversight of the CSB, see the report Whistleblower Reprisal and
Management Failures at the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 113th Cong. (2014).
252
agency to be greater than they were. The ill-defined role of board members in
relation to the chair, as well as in relation to the staff, made it difficult to have any
meaningful influence. . . . I'm looking forward to going back to an academic
environment where open debate is valued.1272
The mission of CSB is to investigate chemical accidents, make recommendations to prevent future
accidents, and ensure that its recommendations are implemented. Chairman Moure-Erasos
leadership stylewhich includes an utter disregard for the collegial tradition of the Boarddrove
away all the experienced investigators, effectively rendering the CSB unable to issue any
recommendations and fulfill its mission.
On June 19, 2014, the Oversight Committee, along with the Science Committee released a report
and held a full Committee hearing entitled, Whistleblower Reprisal and Management Failures at the
U.S. Chemical Safety Board. Chairman Moure-Eraso, former Board Member Beth Rosenberg, and
EPA IG Elkins were among the witnesses. Based on the staff report and hearing testimony, there
were bipartisan calls for Chairman Moure-Erasos resignation during the hearing. On July 7, 2014,
Chairman Issa, Chairman Lamar Smith, and four other Members of Congress wrote President
Obama requesting that he consider whether Chairman Moure-Eraso was fit to continue leading the
CSB. To date, the President has not responded and Moure-Eraso continues to lead the beleaguered
agency.
1272
Robert Iafolla, CSB Member Resigns in Frustration: Chair Expects Vacancies to Be Filled Soon, Bloomberg
BNA, (May 27, 2014).
253
IRS ETHICS OFFICE

The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exists
to ensure that all tax practitioners and tax preparers adhere to professional standards and follow
the law.1273 While OPRs role is to be the standard-bearer for integrity in tax practice,1274 the
Committees oversight of the IRS exposed serious deficiencies in OPRs commitment to ethical
conduct. The Office is led by Karen Hawkins, an employee specifically recruited by former IRS
Commissioner Douglas Shulman under the IRSs streamlined critical pay authority, which allows
the IRS to pay Hawkins above statutorily prescribed limits. Under current leadership, OPR is an
unfortunate example of the Federal Government fails to live up to the expectations of the American
people.
TAKISHA MCGEE: AN EXPERT ON ETHICS?

In particular, according to information obtained by the Committee, Takisha McGee, an OPR section
manager, faced disbarment from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for allegedly stealing
funds from a client and making false statements to a judicial tribunal.1275 According to the Courts
Board of Professional Responsibility, which investigates attorney disciplinary actions, McGee
represented a client in a personal injury case that settled in July 2008.1276 The Board found that
McGee misappropriated client funds in that case by failing to reimburse two medical providers for
services provided to her client.1277 Even more troubling, the Board found clear and convincing
evidence that McGee provided false testimony to the Boards hearing committee about her actions
with respect to the settlement money.1278 The Board adopted the conclusions of the hearing
committee, which noted:
[W]e find clear and convincing evidence that Respondent provided false testimony
during the hearing. As discussed above, we did not credit Respondents testimony
on either of these points. With respect to the first, Respondents contemporaneous
written communications with [her client] contradict her subsequent hearing
testimony that she gave [her client] the funds owed to Dr. Randolph. . . . We also find
that Respondents hearing testimony that she entrusted to her husband . . . the funds
owed to Dr. Manderson, was deliberately false.1279 As a consequence, McGees
license to practice law in the District of Columbia was suspended as of March 25,
2014.1280
1273
Internal Revenue Serv., Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) At-A-Glance, Available at:
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/Enrolled-Agents/The-Office-of-Professional-Responsibility-(OPR)-At-aGlance-1.
1274
Id.
1275
Jim McElhatton, IRS ethics lawyer facing possible disbarment, accused of lying, WASH. TIMES, Aug. 26, 2014.
1276
In the Matter of: Takisha Brown, Docket No. 10-BD-128 (D. of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on
Professional Responsibility. Filed Dec.30, 2013).
1277
Id.
1278
Id.
1279
Id.
1280
Joseph Perry, Bar Counsel: The Martin Decision: A Lesson on Fees, DCBAR, Jun. 2014, available at
https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/june-2014-bar-counsel.cfm.
254
Additionally, the Committee learned from an IRS whistleblower that McGee mishandled
confidential taxpayer information and later lied to the inspector generals investigators about the
incident. According to the whistleblower, McGee left an IRS investigative file containing sensitive,
nonpublic information on a party bus in route to Atlantic City, New Jersey in May 2011.1281 A
cleaning crew for the bus company allegedly found the IRS file and returned it to the IRS. According
to the whistleblower, TIGTA agents contacted OPR and learned that the case file was assigned to
McGee. When TIGTA interviewed McGee, she allegedly denied having possession of the case file
and denied leaving the case file on the bus to Atlantic City.1282 However, McGee apparently
remarked to coworkers that even if TIGTA learned that she left the file on the bus, she would not be
subject to disciplinary proceedings because Karen Hawkins, the OPR Director, has [your] back.1283
A VIOLATION OF TRUST
The IRSs mission of revenue collection is one of important to the proper functioning of
government. Because this mission relies on voluntary compliance by every citizen, the IRS must
have the broad trust of all Americans. McGees misconduct, regrettably, violates this trust. Her
actions implicate several federal criminal statutes, including laws protecting the confidentiality of
taxpayer records and requirements to be truthful with governmental bodies. The fact that an
employee entrusted to be the standard-bearer of integrity could so willfully disregard laws about
candor and taxpayer confidential epitomizes the failure of government.
1281
Letter to Darrell Issa, U.S. House of Reps. (June 18, 2014).

Id.
1283
Id.
1282
255
BETTER MANAGEMENT OF THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

The U.S. Census Bureau is responsible for a number of household surveysmost notably the
Population and Housing Census, known as the Decennial Census.1284 The Decennial Census is a
constitutionally required population survey conducted every ten years.1285 While this happens only
once per decade, the Census Bureau continually collects data on U.S. social and economic conditions
through a variety of ongoing business and household surveys.1286
U.S. Census Bureau data plays an important role in the Federal Government. Indeed, federal
departments and agencies trusted this data as a reliable source of statistical information.1287 As the
2020 decennial census approaches, ensuring the integrity of the data the Census Bureau collects is a
major priority. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the House committee with
legislative jurisdiction over the U.S. Census Bureau.1288 The Committee conducts regular oversight
of the Census Bureau. Much of the Committees work on the Census Bureau relates to the
Committees legislative authority and general oversight functions.
In November 2013, however, the Committee launched a full-scale investigation into the Census
Bureau. The investigation began in response to a New York Post report that Census Bureau
employees at the Philadelphia Regional Office fabricated survey dataspecifically, the data used to
calculate the nations unemployment rate.1289 According to the story, the data fabrication was a
systematic effort to better the jobs numbers in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential
election.1290
The allegations of deliberate data falsification during the Current Population Survey (CPS) were
particularly serious because the U.S. Department of Labor uses CPS data to generate the national
unemployment rate, one of the principal measures of the nations economic health. The integrity of
this data is crucial, as both government and the private sector rely heavily on it. Census Bureau
data plays an important role in determining how American taxpayer dollars are spent. Census
Bureau data is used to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds to local, state, and tribal
governments each year.1291 The implications of unreliable data are serious and far-reaching. The
Committee investigated the specific allegations, as well as whether the Census Bureaus data
collection and quality control procedures are vulnerable to data falsification.
1284
U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census, available at

https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/demographic/decennial_census.html (last visited June 9, 2014).
1285
Id.
1286
U.S. Census Bureau, Surveys, available at http://www.census.gov/aboutus/surveys.html (last visited June 9,
2014).
1287
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), available at https://www.census.gov/cps/ (last visited
June 9, 2014) [hereinafter Current Population Survey].
1288
House rule X, clause 1(n)(8).
1289
See John Crudele, Census faked 2012 election jobs report, N.Y. POST, Nov. 18, 2013 [hereinafter Census
faked 2012 election jobs report].
1290
Id.
1291
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Design and Methodology, Forward (Jan. 30, 2014),
available at
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/survey_methodology/acs_design_methodology_forward_2014.pdf
(last visited June 9, 2014).
256
Committee investigations follow the facts and rely on those facts for an accurate telling of what
occurred. Often during the course of an investigation, the Committee discovers that the
circumstances, unfortunately, are worse than originally thought. This was the case with the
Committees investigation into the Chemical Safety Board, the investigation into the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and the investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives Operation Fast and Furious. In the investigation into the Census Bureau, however, the
Committee found the situation was not as bad as initially perceived. The Committee did not find
any link between the data falsification that occurred in the Philadelphia Regional Office and the
national unemployment rate. The documents and testimony did show, however, that the CPS is
vulnerable to data falsification. The Committee identified common sense reforms for the Census
Bureau to protect the integrity of survey data.
INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION
On November 18, 2013, a New York Post story by John Crudele described how a Census Bureau
employee falsified responses to a survey that measured the unemployment rate, among other
things. According to the story, the fabricated data was collected by Census Bureau employees
working on the CPS at the Philadelphia Regional Office.1292 Crudele reported that the falsified data
may have boosted the unemployment rate in advance of the 2012 presidential election, and that the
falsification occurred with the knowledge of senior Census Bureau employees. Crudele wrote:
In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September,
the unemployment rate fell sharply raising eyebrows from Wall Street to
Washington. The decline from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September
might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source,
were manipulated. And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey,
knew it.1293
The next day, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service, and the Census Chairman Blake
Farenthold, and Joint Economic Committee Chairman Kevin Brady wrote a letter to U.S. Census
Bureau Director John Thompson requesting documents and information that would shed light on
allegations of data falsification at the Census Bureau.1294
The Committees worked diligently to obtain all available information. Committee staff reviewed
thousands of pages of documents. The Committee conducted several transcribed interviews of both
current and former Census Bureau employees well-positioned to shed light on the operations and
processes at the Philadelphia Regional Office and on the facts and circumstances surrounding the
allegations of data falsification. The Committees conducted the investigation with full cooperation
from the Inspector Generals office, which provided a host of useful and necessary information.
Committee staff was privy to all IG records, as well as thorough briefings from IG officials.
1292
See John Crudele, Census faked 2012 election jobs report, N.Y. POST, Nov. 18, 2013.
Id.
1294
Letter from Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Hon. Blake Farenthold,
Chairman, H. Subcomm. on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service, & the Census, and Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Joint Economic Committee to Hon. John Thompson, Director, U.S. Census Bureau (Nov. 19, 2013).
1293
257
This investigation faced a series of unnecessary hurdles that damaged the extent to which the
Committees could investigate this matter. The foremost challenge was lack of cooperation from
Department of Commerce officials. The Departments obstruction made it difficult for the
Committee to proveor disprovethe allegations of widespread falsification and had significant
impact on the length of the investigation. Additional factors prevented the Committees from
obtaining all information necessary to determine the plausibility of the allegations, including lack of
cooperation from one of the primary witnesses and insufficient record-keeping on the part of the
Census Bureau.
ALLEGATIONS OF SUPERVISORS ENCOURAGING DATA FALSIFICATION

The allegations originated from a former CPS interviewer, who claimed that, in 2010, supervisors at
the Philadelphia Regional Office encouraged falsification of data with the assurance that the scam
would be covered during the quality review process. The Senior Field Representative (SFR) Stefani
Butler alleged that supervisors tolerated and even encouraged falsification in an effort to reach the
monthly 90 percent response rate goal set by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census
Bureaus Demographic Surveys Division.1295
Butler testified that one of her supervisors, Survey Statistician Timothy Maddaloni, asked that she
instruct her team members to falsify data by sending in cases as completed, despite the fact that
they had not completed the mandatory interview and were, thus, incomplete.1296 When Butler
refused to comply, she alleged that Maddaloni then contacted her subordinate Field Representative
Julius Buckmon directly to request that he send in his cases as completed.1297 Maddaloni reportedly
stated that he would cover the cases during the quality control phase of the survey, known as the
reinterview process.1298
Butlers story underlines the serious structural and systematic deficiencies within the Census
Bureaus data collection processes, especially with respect to the Bureaus ability to detect data
falsification. The Census Bureau must obtain a statistically significant survey response rate from
sample households. The Census Bureau, therefore, expects field representatives (FR) to achieve a
high interview completion rate, obtaining responses from a standard percentage of their assigned
cases. There is no evidence that the data falsification problems that plagued the Philadelphia
Regional Office were widespread; however, the Bureaus record-keeping weaknesses and data
collection priorities created a vulnerability, which could be exploited to achieve the monthly
response rate goal. Because the survey response rate is tied to employee pay rates, there may be
temptation to falsify data.
1295
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Transcribed Interview of Stefani Butler, at 33 (Jan. 16, 2014)
[hereinafter Butler Tr.]; H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Transcribed Interview of Fernando Armstrong, at
131 (Jan. 28, 2014) [hereinafter Armstrong Tr.].
1296
Butler Tr. at 33.
1297
Id. at 33-34.
1298
U.S. Dept of Commerce, Office of Civil Rights, Report of Investigation Equal Employment Opportunity
Complaint of Julius Buckmon Complaint No. 10-63-03132, at 7 (Oct. 7, 2010) [hereinafter Buckmon EEO
Complaint].
258
While the Census Bureau has taken steps to help ensure data quality, deficiencies still exist. The
Census Bureau must strive to prevent future incidents such as the one Ms. Butler brought to light.
The Committees investigation highlighted a number of vulnerabilities in the current survey
collection structures and quality control practices, as well as recommendations to address these
weaknesses.
STAFF REPORT
The investigation culminated in a joint committee staff report, released September 18, 2014.1299
The report, entitled, U.S. Census Bureau: Addressing Data Collection Vulnerabilities, detailed flaws in
the current quality assurance process for the Census Bureaus data collection efforts nationwide
and provided recommendations that would address these concerns.1300 Chief among the findings
was the data review process does little to discourage data falsification.
As the nations, if not the worlds, preeminent statistical agency, the Census Bureaus methods and
data integrity must be above reproach. Unfortunately, the Bureaus current practices make it
difficult to report or track potential data falsification and, in some cases, create clear incentives to
disregard potential data falsification. Witnesses described circumstances in which it would be
possible to circumvent the system and falsify data. Because these employees have highlighted the
potential for abuse, the Census Bureau must implement changes that will eliminate these
deficiencies and improve overall quality.
The report found that data quality-assurance efforts are fundamentally flawed. Census employees
have limited means for reporting suspected falsification. If an interviewer observes irregularities
during the course of an interview that raises suspicion of falsification, is the interviewer is expected
to report concerns by informal means up the chain of command. The Census Bureau relies on the
reinterview process as a key quality assurance mechanism for CPS. Rather than acting as an
immediate data quality check, however, the reinterview process serves as more of a deterrent for
data falsification. The reinterview process is not independent of the data collection process, and
supervisors in the original interviewers chain of command are mostly responsible for conducting
the reinterview. The performance evaluations of these same supervisors also depend, in part, on
the response rate on the survey, which can create a conflict of interest.
If a reinterviewer flags a case as suspected falsification, the supervisors are responsible for
initiating and conducting an investigation. Investigating suspected falsification is cumbersome,
time-consuming, and often thankless. There is limited tracking of the suspected falsification
process, and the investigative process, guided by paper-based forms, is dated and inefficient.
Supervisors have no incentive to identify falsification, apart from moral principles and expected
behavior. The current incentive structure rewards high response rates, which constitute the
primary criteria for FR performance standards. Documents obtained by the Committees show that
Philadelphia Regional Office supervisors pressured subordinates to obtain more interviews to
1299
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Subcomm. on Fed Workforce, U.S. Postal Serv., & the Census, U.S.
Cong. Joint Econ. Committee, Joint Staff Report: U.S. Census Bureau: Addressing Data Collection Vulnerabilities,
113th Cong. (Sept. 18, 2014).
1300
Id.
259
boost the response rate. The Committees investigation found heavy emphasis on completing more
interviews, often at the expense of data quality.
The Census Bureau can minimize the potential for conflict of interest by separating reinterview
from the regional chain of command and, thus, allowing quality control to function independently
from data collection. Reinterview should not be the only opportunity for field-based falsification
detection. As cases are sometimes assigned to different interviewers from month to month,
interviewers in the field might come across an oddity worth further review. Currently, there is no
mechanism, aside from e-mailing or calling a supervisor, whereby interviewers can simply flag
oddities for further review. Adding a falsification-reporting tool accessible by all levels of Census
Bureau staff would provide a badly needed additional quality check.
The insufficient records surrounding data collection demonstrate a lack of transparency and limited
accountability. With no master data set attached to individual case files, it is difficult, and
sometimes impossible, to determine the chain of custody. Each case has multiple data files that
record case activity. Some of the records are difficult to read, and interpreting the information is a
complicated and time-consuming process. It is impossible to match logged activity with the
employee who performed it with certainty. Some records and case notes can also be edited or
deleted with no record of the changes made. There is no streamlined data set to easily access a
cases history and determine the chain of custody, limiting both transparency and accountability.
Demands for higher response rates, limited means for reporting suspected falsification, and
insufficient data management records create a disincentive for reporting falsification. The current
structure actually discourages Census employees from reporting suspected falsification.
The Committees joint staff report offered the following recommendations to address
vulnerabilities:
The Census Bureau must establish clear procedures for Field Representatives to report
potential falsification.
The reinterview process should occur independent of the chain of command.
The Census Bureau must rapidly improve its case tracking systems.
The Field Representative Data Falsification Followup and Quality Assurance Form (Form
11-163), a document the Survey Statistician Office uses to investigate the suspected
instance and record pertinent information, must become electronic.
Both the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce need to improve their
responsiveness to congressional oversight.
RESULT OF COMMITTEES INVESTIGATION

On September 18, 2014, in conjunction with the release of the joint committee staff report, the
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service, and the Census held a hearing on the
260
matter.1301 Members heard testimony from Census Bureau Director John H. Thompson and
Department of Commerce Inspector General Todd Zinser.1302 Mr. Zinser discussed findings from
the IG investigation and May 2014 report, which was largely in line with the Committees joint staff
report.1303 Mr. Thompson agreed to implement several recommendations, from both the IG report
and the Committees staff report.1304
Mr. Thompson assured Members that the Census Bureau would implement changes to improve
quality assurance.1305 He testified that, as of the hearing, the Census Bureau already put into
practice three of the IGs recommendations.1306 Mr. Thompson committed to cooperate with the
Committee moving forward, and he described a number of efforts currently underway to improve
upon the Census Bureaus current systems.1307
This investigation resulted in substantive recommendations that will improve a government agency
and its processes. The pace of the Committees investigation was slowed because Commerce
Department officials slow-rolled document productions and interfered with witness interviews.
Despite the Departments obstruction, the Committees pushed forward with the investigation and
allowed the opportunity for fundamental improvements to the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau
was receptive of the Committees recommendations and already began to make improvements.
Implementing all of the recommendations outlined in the Committees staff report will further
affirm the Census Bureaus commitment to data integrity. The Committees will continue to assess
whether the Census Bureau is taking all necessary steps to guarantee the quality of its surveys.
1301
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Subcomm. on Fed. Workforce, U.S. Postal Serv., & the Census,
Hearing on U.S. Census Bureau: Addressing Data Collection Vulnerabilities, 113th Cong. (Sept. 18, 2014).
1302
Id.
1303
Id. (statement of Todd Zinser, Inspector Gen., Dept. of Commerce).
1304
See id.
1305
Id. (statement of John H. Thompson, Director, U.S. Census Bureau).
1306
Id.
1307
See id.
261
THE EPAS SECRET AGENT

The Committee conducted oversight of time and attendance fraud perpetuated by John Beale, a
senior-level EPA official, which was investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protecting Agency
(EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG). On September 27, 2013, Beale pled guilty to fraud and
theft charges brought by the Federal Government.1308 Beale stole nearly $900,000 in improper pay
and bonuses by impersonating a covert CIA agent while on the EPA payroll, allowing him to do little
to no official business at EPA but still be paid by the agency. Beale was sentenced to 32 months in
federal prison and agreed to repay the government $1.3 million.1309
The Committee found that Beale began the fraud that he was a covert CIA agent beginning in 1994.
He duped many of his coworkers, including his eventual boss, Gina McCarthy, who now currently
serves as the Administrator of EPA. The Committees investigation showed that Beale took
inappropriate travel, faked his retirement, received an inappropriate retention incentive bonus, and
was paid in excess of the legal statutory limit in the later stages of his EPA employment.1310 Under
the current law, Beale is entitled to his full pension despite the fraud committed against the
taxpayers. The Committees investigation as well as the investigation of the EPA OIG revealed that
EPA must address numerous internal control issues, which allowed this fraud to be perpetuated
against the American people.
RED FLAGS FROM THE BEGINNING

Beale began working at the EPA in 1988 as a temporary employee/consultant.1311 He obtained this
position with the assistance of his friend Robert Brenner, a high-ranking EPA official, with whom he
owned property together on Cape Cod in Massachusetts.1312 Beale was converted to a full-time EPA
employee in 1989. He began his full-time employment as a GS-15 step 10, the maximum non-Senior
Executive Service (SES) pay level.1313 Beale was employed in the EPA Office of Air and Radiation
and it appears that he was instrumental in drafting regulations relating to the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
In the early part of Beales EPA career, he improperly received a retention incentive bonus a
special pay increase of 25 percent lasting for three years when an employee can prove they have a
legitimate offer of employment in the private sector and the agency feels it necessary to retain their
services. This incentive bonus allowed Beale to become one of the highest paid EPA employees.
Beale began receiving the retention incentive bonus with the assistance of Brenner, in 1990.
However, according to the EPA OIG, Beale failed to prove that he had a legitimate private sector
1308
Ann E. Marimow and Lenny Bernstein, Ex-EPA Official Pleads Guilty to Theft, Pretended to Work for the CIA,
Wash. Post. Sept. 27, 2013, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/ex-epa-official-expected-toplead-guilty-of-theft/2013/09/26/2c95166e-2708-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html.
1309
Ann E. Marimow, EPA Official, Who Pretended to Work for CIA, Sentenced to 32 Months, Wash. Post, Dec. 18,
2013, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/epa-official-who-pretended-to-work-for-ciasentenced-to-32-months/2013/12/18/176d6c6c-6805-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html.
1310
Secret Agent Man? Oversight of EPAs IG Investigation of John Beale: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on
1311
Deposition of John C. Beale, in Wash., D.C. (Dec 19, 2013).
1312
Id.
1313
Id.
262
employment offer.1314 Moreover, Beale received the retention incentive bonus until 2013, far
beyond the three-year limitation of the bonus. In fact, in 2000, when Beale was promoted to the
SES, another retention incentive bonus was approved by Bob Perciasepe, who retired in 2014 as the
Deputy Administrator of the EPA. Due to this bonus pay, between 2009 and 2012, Beale was
improperly paid above the legal statutory limit. Beale did not alert EPA to this overpayment and
EPA failed to discover it until after the investigations into Beales employment status was launched.
THE DRAMA CONTINUES: EPA FUNDING OF COVERT ACTIVITIES

The Committee learned that Beale began to assume the false identity of a covert CIA agent around
1994 He used this cover to commit various acts of fraud and deceit. However, at no time was
Beale ever employed by the CIA in any capacity. Under the guise of a covert CIA agent, Beale took a
number of domestic and international trips all of which were paid for by the EPA. Beale would
often use this free travel to visit his parents in Bakersfield, CA; however, he would submit travel
vouchers that would list another domestic destination, which would not match the receipts and
plane tickets to California. EPA failed to notice the discrepancy between the vouchers submitted by
Beale and the receipts and tickets that he turned in for reimbursement. Additionally, Beale usually
flew first class on these trips, including one trip to London, costing taxpayers $14,000. Beale
claimed that he required first class travel because of a lingering back injury.
After 1994, Beale began spending large chunks of time away from his work at EPA. Eventually,
Beale almost never came in to the EPA offices. Mr. Beale would tell his superior, current EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy (then the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation), that he had
meetings at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia or was on CIA business in Afghanistan;
meanwhile Mr. Beale was spending time at his home in Alexandria/Arlington, VA reading books or
riding his bicycle.1315
In 2012, Beale appeared to have retired from EPA, throwing a retirement party for himself and two
other retiring colleagues.1316 However, Beale never officially retired at that time, instead using his
false CIA cover to remain on the EPA payroll until he officially retired in 2013. Beale along with
Brenner and another EPA employee coordinated a Potomac River boat cruise for their
retirements.1317 Current Administrator Gina McCarthy and other high-level EPA officials attended
the retirement party but Beale never submitted his retirement paperwork. The only person who
questioned Beale regarding his retirement was a co-worker in an administrative position who
reviewed the Office of Air and Radiation payroll. When she contacted Beale, he explained that the
CIA required that he stay on the EPA payroll in order to maintain his cover. He further asserted
that the reason for staying on the payroll because his replacement at the CIA had been captured or
killed by the Taliban in Pakistan.
1314
Staff Briefing with U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General.

Deposition of John C. Beale, in Wash., D.C. (Dec 19, 2013).
1316
Id.
1317
Id.
1315
263
FINALLY: CREDIBILITY QUESTIONS

Eventually, Administrator McCarthy became suspicious of Beales existence on the payroll and his
lack of attendance at EPA. She referred the situation to the EPA Office of General Counsel (OGC).
In turn, the EPA OGC referred the issue on to the EPA Office of Homeland Security (OHS), a
division within the EPA Office of the Administrator that leads and coordinates homeland security
activities and policy development across all EPA program areas.1318 The EPA Office of Homeland
Security does not have any investigative powers delegated to it for pursing instances of employee
misconduct. Despite this fact, EPA OHS conducted an investigation including interviewing Beale.
When the EPA OIG finally learned of the case and began its proper investigation of the Beale matter
it felt that its ability to investigate had been tainted by the actions of EPA OHS. EPA OIG
interviewed Beale and determined that he was never a CIA agent and had defrauded the
government out of potentially millions of dollars in improper pay. EPA OIG referred the case to the
Department of Justice for prosecution.
On October 1, 2013, the Committee held a hearing entitled, Secret Agent Man? Oversight of EPAs IG
Investigation of John Beale, in which Beale elected to assert his Fifth Amendment right to selfincrimination.1319 The Committee heard testimony on this issue from EPA Inspector General Arthur
Elkins and Assistant Inspector General for Investigations Patrick Sullivan as well as EPA Deputy
Administrator Bob Perciasepe and former EPA employee and friend to Beale, Robert Brenner.1320
Additionally, the Committee asked EPA to produce documents and communications referring or
relating to Beale from various EPA officials. The Committee also asked Brenner to produce
documents and communications from his personal email account between himself and Beale.
Pursuant to a subpoena issued by the Committee, on December 19, 2013, a deposition of Beale was
conducted by Committee staff in order to further determine the extent of the fraud conducted on
the American people. The deposition was subsequently made public to provide more visibility into
the nature of Beales activities to prevent further occurrences of abuse of resources at federal
agencies.
Beales fraud at EPA exposed many issues within EPA relating to time and attendance fraud and
how the agency handles these issues. Additionally, this investigation uncovered an ongoing dispute
between the EPA OIG and the EPA OHS, in which OHS appears to unlawfully conduct investigations
of EPA employee misconduct and may routinely withhold this information from the EPA OIG. The
Committee continues to investigate instances of employee misconduct at EPA as well as the ongoing
matter of impediments to OIG investigations by employees in the EPA OHS office. OIG has stated
that its inability to gain visibility into the investigations by EPA OHS prevent the office from
determining if there are other John Beales on the EPA payroll.1321
1318
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Homeland Security, available at http://www.epa.gov/

homelandsecurity/ (last visited Oct. 14, 2014).
1319
Secret Agent Man? Oversight of EPAs IG Investigation of John Beale: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on
1320
Id.
1321
Is EPA Leadership Obstructing Its Own Inspector General?: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt
264
THE B.P. OIL SPILL: AN ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY

On April 20, 2010, just forty one miles from the coast of Louisiana, about the distance between
Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, M.D., and about 5000 feet below the ocean floor, a surge of natural
gas burst through a recently sealed well head and traveled up the rig riser (the pipe that connects
the well head to the rig platform) and ignited when it reached the surface level.1322 Eleven deaths,
seventeen injuries, and 4.9 million barrels of leaked oil (200 million gallons) were all just part of the
damage caused by the largest marine oil spill in human history.1323 In total, 1,100 miles of the Gulf
Coast shoreline were polluted.1324
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was named after the rig stationed over the well: Deepwater
Horizon. The leak itself took months to contain. Initial attempts to activate what should have been
the fail safe failed.1325 Different attempts at capping the leak were similarly unsuccessful until June
when British Petroleum (BP) was able to place a cap that allowed a tanker to siphon off a large
percentage of the leaking oil.1326 The leak was officially closed on September 17, 2010.1327
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

On October 7, 2009, then-Ranking Member Darrell Issa and the staff of the Committees Minority
stated in a report about the Minerals Management Service that [i]t is time for Congress to overhaul
the Minerals Management Service. In January 2011, in its Report to the President on the BP
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, the National Commission explained that [t]he
rigs demise signals the conflicted evolutionand sever shortcomingsof federal regulation of
offshore oil drilling in the United States, and particularly of MMS oversight of deepwater drilling in
the United States.1328
Unfortunately, the serious overhaul recommended by then-Ranking Member Issa was not heeded,
and the Democrat-led Committee ignored multiple requests for hearings to look at proposed
problems with MMS. But within just thirty days after the Deepwater Disaster and facing the intense
scrutiny of MMS, it was officially eliminated by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI).
Foundations of Minerals Management Service

Created in 1982 by an order from Secretary of the Interior James Watt,1329 the Minerals
Management Service represented an expansion of the oil industry into the Gulf of Mexico and Deep
1322
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill of 2010, ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA,

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1698988/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill-of-2010 (last visited Nov. 19,
2014).
1323
Id.
1324
Id.
1325
Id.
1326
Id.
1327
Id.
1328
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL AND OFFSHORE DRILLING, DEEP WATER The
Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, (Jan. 2011), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPOOILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf.
1329
Secretarial Order No. 3017 on January 19, 1082 under the authority of 1978 Outer Continental Shelf Land Acts
Amendment. Id. at 64
265
Water drilling.1330 From its creation to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the MMS was the chief
regulatory agency responsible for leasing, safety, environmental compliance, and royalty collection
from offshore drilling.1331 Despite this authority, and other authority conferred to it by the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Oil
Pollution Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, MMS chose not to perform an
on-site specific review of the Deepwater Horizon Maconda well.1332 In a 398-page report to the
President finished in January 2011, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
and Offshore Drilling (BP Commission) detailed what was a systematic breakdown within MMS failures due to reasons such as the cumulative lack of adequate resources, absence of a sustained
agency mission, or sheer erosion of professional culture within some offices.1333
Almost a year and a half before that report came out and seven months before the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
issued a report dated October 7, 2009, released a report titled Teapot Dome Revisited: Dereliction of
Fiduciary Duty at the Interior Department.1334 The reports simple but ignored conclusion: Congress
and the Administration must reorganize MMS.1335
A Derelict Model
The Interior Department receives over $23.5 billion in revenues from the roughly 2.3 billion acres
of land and water that it is charged with managing.1336 When the Minority report came out, MMS
was directly charged with collecting offshore oil and natural gas fees, which accounts for more than
half of the revenues received.1337 Since MMS had oversight of such high revenue amounts, any
mistakes made could cost the American Taxpayer millions and even billions of dollars, as was
the case in the late nineties when MMS made an error in a contract that will ultimately cost the
American Taxpayer $10 billion.1338
1330
Id.
Id. at 68.
1332
Id. at 84.
1333
Id. at 78.
1334
H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Teapot Dome Revisited: Dereliction of Fiduciary Duty at the Interior
Department, 111th Cong. (2009).The Teapot Dome scandal was an issue from 1920-1923 involving an egregious
example of fiduciary irresponsibility. The Secretary of the Interior, Albert Bacon Fall, secretly granted two different
oil companies exclusive rights to the Teapot Dome, Elk Hills, and Buena Vista Hills. It was found that Fall had
received large cash gifts and no-interest loans as compensation from the two oil companies to incentivize the grant.
Teapot Dome became a catchphrase for government corruption, similar to Benedict Arnold and traitor. Teapot Dome
Scandal, ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/585252/Teapot-Dome-Scandal
(last visited Nov. 20, 2014).
1335
Minority Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Teapot Dome Revisited: Dereliction of Fiduciary
Duty at the Interior Department, 111th Cong. (2009).
1336
Id. at 2.
1337
Id. at 3.
1338
When drafting offshore Gulf of Mexico leases in 1998 and 1999, government officials omitted critical price
threshold terms required by the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995. The omission of these lease terms, which
are required by law, has allowed leaseholders to drill royalty-free until volume suspensions are met and will cost the
American Taxpayer about a billion dollars a year. Id. at 3.
1331
266
Complementing the oversight work of the Committee were fifteen reports by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO)1339 and the Department of Interior Inspector General.1340 These
reports highlighted management difficulties and programmatic shortcomings in revenue
collection; ethical violations such as senior MMS officials giving preferential treatment in awarding
contracts, receiving improper gifts and kickbacks from industry personnel in exchange for lucrative
contracts, abusing drugs with coworkers, and having sex with subordinates.1341
Beyond the internal ethical violations, the GAO found that MMS was being derelict in its external
fiduciary duties to manage the resources that belong to the American Taxpayer. The mission of the
MMS was to manage the ocean energy and mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf and
Federal and Indian mineral revenues to enhance public and trust benefits, promote responsible use,
and realize fair value.1342
However, in its report the Committee noted that multiple GAO reports dating from 2003 to 2009
had found that MMS did not know how much oil and gas was being produced.1343 The GAO reports
concluded that in some production numbers up to six percent of the data was inaccurate.1344 Using
1339
Mineral Revenues: MMS Could Do More to Improve the Accuracy of Key Data Used to Collect and Verify Oil
and Gas Royalties. Report No. GAO-09-549. Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2009; Royalty-In-Kind Program:
MMS Does Not Provide Reasonable Assurance It Receives Its Share of Gas, Resulting in Millions in Forgone
Revenue. Report No. GAO-09-744. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2009; Oil and Gas Royalties: MMS
Oversight of It s Royalty-in-Kind Program Can Be Improved through Additional Use of Production Verification
Data and Enhanced Reporting of Financial Benefits and Costs. GAO-08-942R. Washington, D.C.: September 26,
2008; Mineral Revenues Data Management Problems and Reliance on Self-Reported Data for Compliance Efforts
Put MMS Royalty Collections at Risk. GAO-08-893R. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2008.
Oil and Gas Royalties: The Federal System for Collecting Oil and Gas Revenues Needs Comprehensive
Reassessment. GAO-08-691. Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2008; Oil and Gas Royalties: Litigation over Royalty
Relief Could Cost the Federal Government Billions of Dollars. GAO-08-792R. Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2008.
Oil and Gas Royalties: Royalty Relief Will Cost the Government Billions of Dollars but Uncertainty Over Future
Energy Prices and Production Levels Make Precise Estimates Impossible at this Time. GAO-07-590R. Washington,
D.C.: April 12, 2007; Mineral Revenues: A More Systematic Evaluation of the Royalty-in-Kind Pilots is Needed.
GAO-03-296. Washington, D.C.: January, 2003.
1340
Evaluation of Royalty Recommendations Made to the Department of the Interior Fiscal Year 2006 February
2009. Report No. CR-EV-MOA-0003-2009, April 2009; Evaluation Report: Oil and Gas Production on Federal
Leases: No Simple Answer. Report No. C-EV-MOA-0009-2008, February 2009; Investigative Report of MMS Oil
Marketing Group Lakewood. Case No. PI-CO-06-0271-I, August 19, 2008; Investigative Report of Gregory W.
Smith. Case No. PI-PI-07-0120-I, August 7, 2008; Investigative Report of MMS Federal Business Solutions
Contracts. Case No. PI-PI-07-0218-I, September 4, 2008; Evaluation Report: Minerals Management Service
Royalty-in-Kind Oil Sales Process. Report No. C-EV-MMS-0001-2008, May 2008; Investigative Report: Minerals
Management Service False Claims Allegations. September 7, 2007; Investigative Report: On the Lack of Price
Thresholds in Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Leases. Spring, 2007; Audit Report: Minerals Management Services
Compliance Review Process; Report No. C-IN-MMS-0006-2006, December 2006.
1341
Department, 111th Cong. 4 (2009) (Minority Staff Report) (citing Investigative Report of MMS Oil Marketing
Group Lakewood, Case No. PI-CO-06-0271-I, August 19, 2008; Investigative Report of Gregory W. Smith. Case
No. PI-PI-07-0120-I, August 7, 2008; Investigative Report of MMS Federal Business Solutions Contracts. Case
No. PI-PI-07-0218-I, September 4, 2008).
1342
Workshop on the Outer Continental Shelf Renewable Energy Regulatory Framework, MINERALS MANAGEMENT
SERVICE (June 4, 2009), http://www.boem.gov/DCworkshop/.
1343
Department, 111th Cong. 5 (2009) (Minority Staff Report).
1344
Id.
267
self-reported data from the producers, the MMS assessed the royalty payments that they were
supposed to collect. By not knowing or verifying how much was actually produced, the inaccuracies
directly affected know how much money was received for the oil and gas that was being produced
off shore, errors that were estimated to potentially cause the loss of up to $160 million in just the
fiscal year of 2006-2007.1345 This was money owed to the American Taxpayer that was not being
paid out because the MMS was not fulfilling its fiduciary duties.
Not only did the GAO report that MMS did not know how much oil and gas was being produced in
order to appropriately charge the producers, but it also reported that MMS did not know whether it
was receiving the right amount of royalties for the numbers that it did have.1346 The GAO found that
MMS lacks in critical auditing processes to test the accuracy of the payments as well as the
production and sales data.1347 On top of the verification process for monetary submissions, the MMS
also lacked in the ability to accurately measure whether royalty-in-kind payments, payments in the
form of oil or natural gas rather than monetary, are correct.1348
THE DEEPWATER HORIZON AFTERMATH

The Mineral Management Service (MMS) was eliminated by Secretary Salazar within thirty days
of the Deepwater Disaster.1349 Despite six hearings held by Committee Republicans on the failures
within MMS in 2006, as well as repeated requests by then-Ranking Member Issa in 2007, 2008 and
2009, Democrats held no hearings on the troubles facing the agency until after the explosion.1350 As
a result, factors that likely contributed to, or at a minimum exacerbated one of the worst
environmental and economic disasters in American history escaped rigorous oversight for nearly
four years.1351
Too Little, Too Late

Upon entering office, Secretary Salazar was aware of systematic problems at MMS and indicated an
early commitment to initiate meaningful reform at the agency. In January 2009, he told MMS
employees that [w]e will make sure you have the tools you need to hold special interests
accountable, to protect taxpayers from getting fleeced, and to ensure that those who develop our
natural resources follow the law of the land.1352 Despite this pledge, there is little to suggest what,
if anything, the Secretary did over the past year to address the ongoing failures 17 within MMS.
1345
Id.
Id. at 6 (emphasis added) (citing MMS Could Do More to Improve the Accuracy of Key Data Used to Collect
and Verify Oil and Gas Royalties. Report No. GAO-09-549. U.S. Government Accountability Office, August, 2009.
p. 13).
1347
Id. at 6.
1348
Id. at 6.
1349
May 19, 2010 Secretarial Order 3299
1350
H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, The BP Oil Spill Recovery Effort: The Legacy of Choices Made by the
Obama Administration, 112th Cong. 16 (2010).
1351
Id.
1352
Ken Salazar, Secretary, Dept of the Interior, Remarks to Employees at MMS Office in Denver, CO (Jan. 29,
2009), available at http://www.doi.gov/news/speeches/2009_01_29_speech.cfm.
1346
268
Even President Obama noted in May 2010 that there wasnt sufficient urgency in terms of the pace
of how those changes [at MMS] needed to take place.1353
In the wake of the April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the acute public scrutiny of MMS
and its historic shortcomings drove Secretary Salazar to launch a hasty and massive
reorganization of the United States offshore oil and gas operations. In a May 11, 2010,
announcement, Secretary Salazar renewed calls to reorganize MMS operations, emphasizing the
need to establish an independent safety and enforcement function.1354 Two days later, on May 13,
2010, he tasked two political appointees both with just approximately one year of experience at
the Department of Interior (DOI) to build on his May 11, 2010, announcement and develop and
oversee a plan to restructure MMS.1355
It took just under one week for this handful of political appointees to evaluate and recommend a
complete restructuring of offshore oil and gas management. On May 19, 2010, Secretary Salazar
issued Secretarial Order 3299, eliminating MMS and transferring offshore oversight responsibilities
to the established Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE)
and revenue collection to a new Office of Natural Resources Revenue. BOEMRE is further divided
into the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).1356
In interviews with Committee staff, political appointees from DOI charged with restructuring MMS
professed that the only impetus for the reorganization was the April 20, 2010 accident on the
Deepwater Horizon.1357 Additionally, they stated that the public perception of an ongoing conflict of
interest at MMS played an important role in their decision to split the agency into three entities.1358
Only after the Secretary announced the new agency structure did DOI begin to assess how they
would implement the reorganization, including, for the first time, outreach to current MMS
employees. Even then, those who were afforded an opportunity to meet with the DOI team after the
initial announcement noted that their meetings were limited to about one hour and they remained
uncertain whether their concerns would be addressed.1359
1353
President Barack Obama, Remarks by the President to the Nation on the BP Oil Spill (May 27, 2010), available
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-oil-spill.
1354
Mike Soraghan, Interior: Birnbaums Game of Telephone Ends in Firing, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
DAILY, (May 28, 2010), available at http://www.eenews.net/public/EEDaily/2010/05/28/2.
1355
Id.
1356
Ken Salazar, Secretary, Department of the Interior, ORDER NO. 3299, Establishment of the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and the Office of Natural Resource
Revenue (May 19, 2010).
1357
Interview with Chris Henderson and Rhea Suh, Department of the Interior (July 15, 2010).
1358
Id.
1359
Interview with Lars Herbst, MMS Regional Director, Robert, in Louisiana (June 16, 2010); Interview with John
Goll, MMS Regional Director Alaska, Telephone Interview from Washington, D.C. (July 12, 2010); Interview
with Chris Oynes, Former Associate Director of OMM, MMS, Department of the Interior, in Washington, DC (July
13, 2010); and Interview with Ellen Aronson, MMS Regional Director Pacific, Telephone Interview from
Washington, D.C. (July 14, 2010).
269
Too Much, Too Early?

As it was preparing and organizing the new agencies to replace MMS, the GAO reported that the
Department of the Interior, may not even have the resources and skills to both run its current
programs and design the new ones that would be necessary for a new organization to be
formed.1360 Employees that had been at MMS for years even acknowledged that the reorganization
appeared to be geared more towards political expediency that an attempt at legitimate reform.1361
This was demonstrated, they noted, by a lack of understanding in the operational duties that were
necessary in the field.1362 For example, with the split of the Offshore Energy and Minerals
Management section into two distinct entities, elements of the pre- and post-lease requirements for
environmental compliance aspects of the process that need to be seamless to run effectively had
been split and made fulfilling the necessary responsibilities of the task even more layered with
bureaucratic tape than previously.
In addition to the complications of the organizational structure, creating new programs created an
added tax on the hiring department. The new entities were tasked with hiring prospectively
hundreds of new inspectors. However, due to the limited nature of people that had the requisite
experience, often these new inspectors were tasked with taking a massive pay-cut and going
through a long training program.1363
All of these challenges with the new entities reflect a general lack of understanding with the
purpose and tasks that were necessary to appropriately administer the stated goals of the new
organization. In addition to its hasty and haphazard reorganization of MMS, which ignored
concerns raised by GAO, the Interior Inspector General and others, the Interior also moved forward
without understanding the role the agency played in creating the circumstances which contributed
to the accident. At the time the reorganization was announced, there were at least five separate
official investigations and/or studies related to offshore oil and gas operations in the United States
many of which were launched in response to the incident.1364 Even so, Secretary Salazar and DOI
pushed an aggressive top-down approach to reforming MMS at the worst possible timein the
middle of a crisis and before obtaining key facts about what actually caused of the incident.
1360
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, Why Its High Risk, available at

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/risks/efficiency-effectiveness/management_federal_oil_gas.php.
1361
Interview with MMS District and Regional Office Employees Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana, (Jun. 15- 16, 2010);
Interview with John Goll, MMS Regional Director Alaska, Telephone Interview from Washington, D.C. (Jul. 12,
2010); Interview with Chris Oynes, Former Associate Director of OMM, MMS, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC (Jul. 13, 2010); and Interview with Ellen Aronson, MMS Regional Director Pacific, Telephone
Interview from Washington, DC (Jul. 14, 2010).
1362
Id.
1363
Interview with Chris Henderson and Rhea Suh, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC (July 15, 2010).
1364
See, e.g., The National Commission on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling; BPs
Deepwater Horizon Accident Investigation Report; The U.S. Coast Guard Deepwater Horizon Joint Investigation
Team.
270
WHO OWNS THE GOVERNMENTS DATA? THE RELATIONSHIP WITH DUNS AND BRADSTREET
In recent years, government officials, transparency advocates, and prospective competitors have
raised concerns about the General Services Administration (GSA) contract with Dun and
Bradstreet (D&B) to provide the Federal Government with an entity identification system for
contractors.1365 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) described the contract as a
monopoly on federal contractor identification numbers.1366 The contract includes severely
restrictive terms that may make it difficult to switch to new systems and the specific reference to a
D&Bs proprietary product in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) creates the monopolistic
environment that leads to unfavorable contract terms.1367
GSA contracts with D&B for use of the Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) numbers in
government wide procurement data systems and other related services. DUNS numbers are nine
digit unique identification numbers used to identify and track business entities.1368 All prospective
contractors, grantees, and other federal award recipients must request a DUNS number from D&B.
To obtain the number, the entity must provide D&B identifying information like name, address,
email, and phone number.
In 1996, the FAR was amended to specifically require prospective contractors to obtain a DUNS
number in order to contract with the Federal Government.1369 According to senior GSA acquisition
officials, specific mention of the DUNS identifier is likely the only such reference to a specific,
proprietary product in the entire FAR.1370 In the 2000s, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) expanded the use of DUNS by requiring grant applicants and other recipients of federal
assistance to obtain DUNS numbers.1371
The cost of the contract has increased dramatically over time. From 2002 to 2004, the cost of the
contract was $1 million per year and the price was tied to the total number of entity registrants. In
2007, the DUNS contract price rose to $19 million per year when GSA switched to a fixed
enterprise price and expanded the license to allow for public display of the DUNS number and
1365
Letter, from GAO to The Honorable E. Benjamin Nelson, Senator. Government Is Analyzing Alternatives for
Contractor Identification Numbers. June 12, 2013, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591551.pdf.
1366
Id.
1367
Id.
1368
About Us, Dun & Bradstreet website, available at http://www.dnb.com/company.html.
1369
FAR 4.605(b) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS )and FAR 4.1102; 52.204-7.
1370
Briefing, GSA officials and Oversight Committee Staff, August 18, 2014.
1371
Letter, from GAO to The Honorable E. Benjamin Nelson, Senator. Government Is Analyzing Alternatives for
Contractor Identification Numbers. June 12, 2013, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591551.pdf.
271
other information, as required by newly enacted budget transparency legislation.1372 The total cost
for the current eight-year contract is approximately $154 million.1373
The contract is also hampered by unfavorable and restrictive terms. Under the licensing agreement,
the numbers and associated data may only be used for acquisition purposes, which means other
agencies and Inspectors General Offices may not use the data without entering into an additional
contract with D&B, and incurring additional costs. The contract requires that D&B data must be
deleted from all federal databases upon termination of the contract.
The extent of damage a complete deletion of all D&B data might have on federal operations is hard
to gauge, but senior GSA acquisition officials acknowledge it would be costly. However, recent
difficulties associated with the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Boards (Recovery
Board) contract with Dun & Bradstreet provides some insight into the effects of these restrictive
terms.
RECOVERY.GOV: A MICROCOSM OF THE EFFECTS OF POOR FEDERAL CONTRACTING

In the summer of 2014, the Recovery Board contacted Committee staff about the potential loss of
valuable data publicly available on Recovery.gov.1374 The data, collected in the course of
implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), details how
Recovery Act funds were spent by award recipients. During implementation, Recovery.gov was
heralded as model for federal accountability and transparency primarily due to access to the
detailed award data and associated analytical tools made available to the public.1375
Public access to the data was in jeopardy because the data was tied to the DUNS contract. The
Recovery Board posted this notice on Recovery.gov:1376
The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board will sunset on September 30,
2015 and has decided for its last year not to renew the licensing agreement that
allows for the display of certain recipient-related data. As of October 1, 2014, maps,
charts, and graphs on the site will no longer reflect this information. This change
will also include the removal of the recipient profiles as well as the cumulative
national download file.
1372
Letter, from GAO to Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson, Senator. Government Is Analyzing Alternatives for Contractor
Identification Numbers. June 12, 2013, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591551.pdf. GAO notes that
the 2006 Federal Funds Transparency and Accountability Act required the disclosure of corporate linkage
information for grant awardees, further expanding the Federal Governments use of D&B information. GAO also
cites the fact that as technology allows greater consolidation of award systems, the DUNS number has become an
increasingly integral component in how government data systems operate. GAO report, page 5.
1373
Identification Numbers. June 12, 2013, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591551.pdf.
1374
Meeting, Recovery Board staff and Oversight Committee staff, July 16, 2014.
1375
Michael OConnell, Recovery Board opens next frontier in financial accountability, FEDERAL NEWS RADIO,
April 10, 2013, available at http://www.federalnewsradio.com/513/3281091/Recovery-Board-opens-next-frontierin-financial-accountability.
1376
Federal Spending Watchdog Pulls the Plug on DUNS, POGO BLOG, September 9, 2014, available at
http://www.pogo.org/blog/2014/09/federal-spending-watchdog-pulls-the-plug-on-duns.html.
272
Committee staff was told that the Recovery Board collected data directly from award recipients,
including DUNS numbers. The DUNS numbers were used to verify the data collected against the
data contained in other federal acquisition systems. Because the GSA DUNS contract limited use of
the data, which parties to the contract agreed did not include verification of the accuracy of data
collected under the Recovery Act, the Recovery Board entered into a contract with Dun and
Bradstreet as a modification to the core GSA contract. 1377
Recently, as the contract was coming to an end, parties to the contract agreed that all D&B data
must be removed from Recovery.gov under the terms of the contract. The Recovery Board could
extend the contract for an additional year, potentially costing as much as $1.4 million, but the
Recovery Board felt that a one year fix was not worth the expenditure.1378
The Recovery Board informed Committee staff that under the licensing agreement recipient-related
information which will be removed goes beyond DUNS identifiers or information directly obtained
from Dun & Bradstreet and includes any piece of data that was ever verified against Dun &
Bradstreet data contained with the System for Award Management or Central Contractor Registry
maintained by GSA.1379 In effect, the basic recipient identifier information, such as the name and
address of an award recipient, which was directly reported by the recipient to the Federal
Government, and verified against Dun & Bradstreet data only to comply with the governments
requirement that all awardees have a propriety DUNS identifier, has been entangled with the
proprietary information by the restrictive terms of the contract.
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE GSAS D&B CONTRACT

The Recovery Boards predicament gave the Committee an opportunity to explore an issue that
raised concerns which had been developing under multiple chairmen. D&B data restrictions
became a public concern after the enactment of the Federal Financial Accountability and
Transparency Act (FFATA), which required certain financial data to be made publicly available on
USASpending.gov.1380
Restrictions in the DUNS contract prohibited GSA from making government wide procurement data
publicly available. When GSA renegotiated the contract, to meet the requirements of the statute,
costs jumped significantly.1381 Also, D&B required that if the government was to make the data
publicly available on the Internet, the website must include a legal disclaimer.1382
1377
Meeting, Recovery Board staff and Oversight Committee staff, July 16, 2014.
Id.
1379
E-mail from Nancy K. DiPaolo, Chief, Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs, Recovery & Accountability
Transparency Board to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Staff. August 21, 2014.
1380
Letter from Chairman Darrell Issa, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Daniel M. Tangherlini,
Administrator, GSA, August 6, 2014.
1381
1382
Id.
1378
273
The current disclaimer on USASpending states:

This website contains data supplied by third party information suppliers, one of
which is D&B. The D&B data, which includes, but is not limited to, information
related to the DUNS number, is provided for internal use only. By using this website
you agree that the D&B data will be used for internal purposes only.1383
It is unclear what internal use only means when information is publicly available on the Internet,
but the intent is clearly against the spirit of FFATAs transparency requirements.
In 2012, GAO issued a report with several troubling findings about the GSAs relationship with D&B
and with federal procurement data.1384 GAO found that D&B has an effective monopoly over
government unique entity identifiers and that D&B placed significant restriction on how GSA can
use the numbers. The restrictions may hamper the ability to switch to new systems. GAO also
found that competitors believe that restrictions in the contract and federal acquisition regulation
(FAR) requirements give D&B an unfair advantage in both the government and commercial
markets for business data.1385
Another key concern for the Committee staff was the mystery surrounding some of the terms of the
contract. GSA and D&B have reported different understandings of what constitutes D&B data that
must be removed at the end of the contract. GSA and D&B also have different understandings of the
restrictions in the contract. Committee staffs were frequently frustrated in speaking with the
various parities to the contract because of these inconsistencies.
THE CONTRACT AND THE PARTIES VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS

In order to better understand the terms and condition of the contract with Dun & Bradstreet, the
Committee wrote GSA on August 6, 2014, to request the current contract.1386 The contract file,
including the contract, modifications, and other related contract documents was provided shortly
thereafter. Signed in 2010, it is an eight-year sole-source contract, including a three-year base
period and five one-year options.1387
The contract file showed that GSA officials themselves have identified the FAR requirement to use
DUNS as a critical weakness in the Federal Governments ability to negotiate better prices and
terms. According to the Limited Sources Justification and Approval document contained within
the contract file Only after the FAR language is changed can the government initiate a competitive
1383
Limitations of Liability on the DUNS Number, USASpending.gov, last access on October 24, 2014.
1385
Id.
1386
Letter from Chairman Darrell Issa and Ranking Members Elijah Cummings, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt
Reform, to Daniel M. Tangherlini, Administrator, GSA, September 4, 2014 and letter from Chairman Darrell Issa
and Ranking Members Elijah Cummings, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, to Anne Rung, Administrator,
OFPP, September 4, 2014.
1387
1384
274
award for a new contractor unique identifier number.1388 In 2010 market evaluation report, a GSA
official wrote D&B will never lower their costs unless they have a valid concern that they are going
to lose the government business. Any sole source environment like the current one results in higher
prices to the government.1389
Interestingly, the market evaluation report found that there existed at least one viable competitor
to Dun & Bradstreet.1390 D&Bs monopoly, as required by the FAR, negates GSAs ability to compete
the contract openly. As its own contract with Dun & Bradstreet expired in 2008, the United States
Postal Service chose to pursue open competition in order to reduce costs. Ultimately, a different
contractor was determined to provide a better value. USPS estimates it saved $6.4 million annually
because of this competition.1391
After reviewing the contract documents and a couple of conversations with GSA regarding their
relationship with D&B, the Committee sent bipartisan letters to the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy (OFPP) and GSA detailing the Committees understanding of the DUNS contract and the
FAR requirement to use DUNS.1392 The Committee encouraged OFPP to change the FAR to remove
the specific requirement to use a specific, privately owned proprietary product and requested
documents relating to the inclusion of DUNS in the FAR.
Committee staff met with D&B on September 9, 2014. D&B was able to explain their perspective of
the contract, which differed with GSAs report at some key provisions. The most important
difference was the parties understanding of what would happen if the contract ended and GSA was
required to remove D&B data. GSA had told Committee staff that DUNS numbers needed to be
removed, not just from databases, but from every email and any other reference to a specific DUNS
number.1393 While that would be a significant hurdle, D&Bs interpretation was much more
significant. They asserted that any data that was in the government wide databases maintained by
D&B would need to be removed because it was D&B data. That data included names, addresses, and
other basic contact information for all federal contractors.1394
D&B also discussed the restrictions under the contract. GAO had recently reported that GSA
attributed the failure to comply with FFATAs requirement to post certain information on
USASpending to restrictions in the contract.1395 However, shortly after the report was released,
D&B contacted GAO to clarify that the contract did not have any restrictions to complying with
1388
General Services Administration Justification and Approval for Other than Full and Open Competition Under
the Authority of FAR 6.302-1. June 23, 2010.
1389
GSA Evaluators Report On Contractor Identification Number (CIN) Response. August 7, 2009.
1390
Id.
1391
E-mail from Talaya S. Simpson, Manager, Government Liaison (Acting), United States Postal Service, to House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Staff. August 22, 2014.
1392
Meeting, D&B representatives and Committee Staff, September 14, 2014.
1393
Briefing, GSA officials and Oversight Committee Staff, August 18, 2014.
1394
1395
GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-14-476, DATA TRANSPARENCY: OVERSIGHT NEEDED TO ADDRESS
UNDERRPORTING AND INCONSISTENCIES ON FEDERAL AWARD WEBSITE, 2014.
275
FFATA.1396 In effect, GSA was in violation of federal law because the agency was unaware of the
terms of its own contract.
A FREE SOLUTION TO A MILLION DOLLAR PROBLEM

Importantly, at the meeting D&B officials offered a simple and free solution to the Recovery Board
data issue. Upon the termination of the Recovery Boards contract modification the government no
longer had a license to publicly display the Recovery Act data on Recovery.gov. However, the
government continued to have a license to publicly display D&B data on other specific federal
websites. D&B explained to Committee staff that all the data that was no longer permitted to be
displayed on Recovery.gov could simply be posted to a different website.1397
That solution is actually fairly clear from an initial reading of the contract. It remains unclear at this
time why the agencies were unable to identify this solution themselves. However, Committee staff
immediately communicated D&Bs interpretation to both the Recovery Board and GSA. Committee
staff also coordinated with other congressional staff with an interest in the issue, including the
Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, who also reached out to the relevant
agencies.
On October 17, Committee staff received notice from the Recovery Board that the Recovery.gov
data was now posted on the Federal Procurement Data System, FDPS.gov. This solution kept
federal award data available without incurring an additional licensing cost to the taxpayer.
A NECESSARY CHANGE TO THE FAR

At a briefing on October 24, 2014, senior GSA Acquisition officials confirmed that GSA will be
pursuing a change to the FAR to remove D&B references from regulation and will pursue
corresponding changes to the language which governs grant awards. In addition, GSA confirmed
that contract negotiations are currently underway with D&B to improve the terms and conditions
of the contract.1398
CONTINUED OVERSIGHT IS NEEDED TO FIX THE BIGGER PROBLEMS

Many parties, including Committee staff, were pleased to find a quick and easy solution to the
Recovery Boards predicament; however the larger problems with Federal Government entity
identifiers, the ownership of federal procurement and award data persists. Throughout the process,
GSA has asserted unfavorable interpretations of the contract provisions. Finally, GSA, in an effort to
reduce the expected inflated costs of the contract, negotiated even more restrictive and potentially
risky provisions to the governments data rights.
The restrictions to use of the data is particularly concerning because most people would reasonably
believe that the data in federal procurement databases is owned by the government. The fact that
the government contracts to limit rights, use, and access to federal procurement data at a time of
increasing calls for transparency and public access to federal information is indicative of the
disconnect between federal agencies and the American public.
1396

Id.
1398
GSA Integrated Acquisition Environment Quarterly Update (October 24, 2014).
1397
276
Congressional oversight staff need to continue to express to GSA and other federal agencies that,
while their specific mission is important, they must remember that they are part of a larger system
that is ultimately responsible to American citizens. In contracting, they must aggressively negotiate
terms that are both fiscally responsible and reasonable, but also favorable to the needs of the public
to understand and oversee what the government does.
Continued oversight of this specific issue will likely involve continued meetings and discussions
with federal agencies. Committee staff will continue to follow up with OFPP to encourage a
product-neutral amendment to the FAR. With GSA, Committee staff will need to regularly remind
them of their obligations to foster contracting environments that encourage competition. If this
more temperate approach proves ineffective to spark change, this Committee may consider a
legislative solution.
277
CHAPTER 7. THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY: AMERICAS CITY
ON A HILL
The District of Columbia was selected to be the permanent home for the United States Federal
Government in 1790. The United States Constitution grants Congress the authority [t]o exercise
exclusive Legislation in all Cases Whatsoever over said District . . . .1399 As with other issues
addressed by the Legislative Branch, jurisdiction over the District is divided between the House of
Representatives and the Senate. On January 27, 1808, the U.S. House of Representatives created the
Committee on the District of Columbia, which oversaw legislation regarding the administration and
development of the District. In the 104th Congress, the then-titled Government Reform and
Oversight Committee assumed the jurisdiction of the former Committee on the District of
Columbia.1400 Although the District is not represented by voting members in Congress, a non-voting
delegate to the House of Representatives is elected by citizens of the District every two years
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton has served in this role since 1991.1401
Under Chairman Darrell Issas leadership, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has
largely avoided confrontation with the District, preferring instead to encourage its self-governance.
However, Chairman Issa and Representative Norton have worked closely to pass federal legislation
to address the needs of the city, including bills to promote economic development and to ensure
fiscal stability. Although the complex relationship between the District and Congress will likely
continue to create tension, the foundation laid through the work of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform will foster sustained cooperation between the city and Congress in the future.
AN ON-AGAIN, OFF-AGAIN RELATIONSHIP WITH CONGRESS

The Residence Act of 1790, officially titled An Act for Establishing the Temporary and Permanent
Seat of the Government of the United States, established the seat of the Federal Government at a
site measuring 10 square miles within the borders of Virginia and Maryland on the Potomac River
and tasked the President with appointing three commissioners to oversee the construction of the
new capital city.1402 In 1801, Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act, which
organized the city and surrounding counties.1403 In the following year, the citys first municipal
government was created and the position of mayor would be created; initially the mayor was
appointed by the President and a 12-member council,1404 but over time the power to fill this office
would rest with the council alone1405 before moving into the hands of the citys eligible voters in
1399
U.S. CONST. art. 1, 8, cl. 17.

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (104th Cong.) Rule X, cl. 1(g).
1401
During the 113th Congress, Representative Norton and Chairman Issa worked closely for the benefit of the
District, and Representative Norton passed more legislation than any other Democrat in the House.
1402
Residence Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 130.
1403
District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, ch. 15, 2 Stat. 103.
1404
Act of May 3, 1802, 2 Stat. 195.
1405
Act of May 4, 1812, 2 Stat. 721.
1400
278
1820.1406 In 1846, a portion of the citys designated land was returned to Virginia, which has given
the city its current shape.1407
The autonomy the District gained in 1820 would not last. On June 1, 1871, Congress abolished the
mayor and council and replaced the positions with a governor and council appointed by the
president. In addition, an elected House of Delegates for the city and a federal position for a nonvoting delegate to the United States Congress were created.1408
By 1878, the territorial government of the District of Columbia had again been abolished and
replaced with three temporary commissioners appointed by the president.1409 Although this form
of government lasted 89 years, like the previous reorganizations it would be temporary; in 1967
the system was replaced with a mayor and council appointed by the president.1410
In 1973, Congress granted D.C. greater freedom and empowered citizens of the District to elect
their own mayor and city council through the Home Rule Act, which allowed locally-elected officials
to manage day to day operations of the City. However, Congress retained the authority to review
and approve all District laws.1411
In the early 1990s the District was facing serious insolvency issues, which led to legislation in 1995
that stripped away the citys control of fiscal matters. The District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Act1412 established a five member Control Board to
oversee the citys financial matters; the Control Board served as the de facto government for the
city. The law required the Control Board to suspend activities once the following four specific preconditions had been met:
1. all obligations arising from the issuance by the Authority of bonds, notes, or other
obligations have been discharged;
2. all borrowings by and on behalf of the District of Columbia from the U.S. Treasury have
been repaid;
3. the District Government has adequate access to both short-term and long-term credit
markets at reasonable rates to meet its borrowing needs; and
4. for four consecutive fiscal years the District has achieved a balanced budget as
determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.1413
1406
Act of May 15, 1820, 3 Stat. 583.

Act of July 9, 1846, ch. 35, 3, 9 Stat. 35.
1408
District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419 (1871).
1409
Act of June 11, 1878, 20 Stat. 102.
1410
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967, 81 Stat. 948.
1411
District of Columbia Home Rule Act, Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973).
1412
The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 104-8, 109 Stat.
97 (1995).
1413
Id.
1407
279
The last of the pre-conditions was achieved in February, 2001, when the fiscal year 2000
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report certified that the city had achieved its fourth consecutive
balanced budget. All Authority operations were suspended at the end of that fiscal year at
midnight on September 30, 2001.1414
1414
The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act, Pub. L.104-8, 109 Stat. 97
(1995).
280
A DESIRE FOR GREATER INDEPENDENCE: LOCAL BUDGET AUTONOMY

BACKGROUND: WHAT MAKES D.C.S BUDGET PROCESS DIFFERENT?
Even after the passage of the Home Rule Act, Congress continues to review and approve the
Districts annual budget. As required by the Home Rule Act, the city council must approve a budget
within 56 days after receiving a budget proposal from the mayor. The approved budget must then
be sent to the President who forwards it to Congress for review, modification, and approval. The
Districts entire budget is included as part of one of Congresss annual appropriations measures;
currently it is included in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. This
can be a cumbersome and arduous process for City officials who in recent years have had to deal
with Congresses that cannot pass the bulk of individual spending bills, including the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations bill. The result has left D.C. in fiscal limbo for
weeks and months at a time as they are unsure what their actual budget may be.
It is important to note that when discussing D.C.s budget, there are different terms that describe
various revenue streams that fund the citys fiscal responsibilities. Local funds describe those
dollars being spent by the District through its own revenue-gaining measures such as income
generated through the collection of fees from parking tickets or the issuance of municipal bonds.
Gross funds describe all funding streams, including local funds, federal grants, federal
appropriations, and other dollars.
The citys budget is roughly $10 billion. The District also receives federal dollars for certain
programs and services. Generally speaking, federal funds to the District are allocated in two ways.
The first is a funding stream unique to DC (Federal Payments). The second is funding that DC
receives in much the same way that the states and territories receive funds from the Federal
Government (Federal Grant Expenditures).
Federal Payments. These are payments made directly to the District from the U.S. Treasury by the
Federal Government. They are determined through the annual appropriations process.
Federal Grants Expenditures. The District also receives dozens of grants each year from various
federal agencies. This includes both formula and non-formula grants, and both mandatory and
discretionary grants. The majority of this federal grant aid is currently provided by a single source - the Medicaid program.
The total request of federal contributions to the District, which includes both above-mentioned
funding streams, is around $2.7 billion annually. The largest single expenditure for the city is its
Medicaid liability, which is $1.9 billion for fiscal year 2014. Generally speaking, the Federal
Government contributes 70% of this total, while D.C. covers the other 30%.1415 Finally, included in
1415
The cost-share is different for administrative costs (50%-50%).
281
these federal payments, the citys approved budget includes $94 million in federal
appropriations.1416
THE PUSH FOR BUDGET AUTONOMY

Local elected leaders and D.C. residents are always seeking increased autonomy for the city for
example, many cars in the District, including the automobiles in President Barack Obamas
motorcade, bear license plates with the slogan Taxation without Representation across the
bottom. Soon after taking leadership of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Chairman Darrell Issa recognized the difficulties faced by the District given its lack of budget
autonomy when Congress and the President are unable to agree on funding measures, a city
government shutdown becomes a very real possibility. Government shutdowns and even the
threat of a shutdown strain the citys budget. Because Congress approves the Districts annual
budget, D.C. would be in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act should it try and spend even locallyraised revenue without the consent of Congress.1417
As such, Chairman Issa and the Committee have worked to enact legislation that would grant the
city control over its locally-generated dollars so shutdowns and Congresss recent inability to enact
individual spending measures would no longer tie the hands of the city. While Chairman Issa
successfully shepherded legislation out of the Committee to grant the city this autonomy, the full
House and Senate have yet to take the measure up.1418
1416
REQUESTED BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, FISCAL YEAR 2014, available at
http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/Federal_Payment_DeltasJune_book_to_2014_Appproved.pdf.
1417
Antideficiency Act, Pub. L. No. 97-258, 96 Stat. 877 (1982) (prohibiting the outlay of funds without
Congressional appropriations).
1418
District of Columbia Financial Efficiency Act of 2013, H.R. 2793, 113th Cong. (as reported by H. Cmte. on
Oversight & Govt Reform, July 24, 2013). The Council also attempted to grant the city budget autonomy by
attempting to amend the citys charter via a referendum. The referendum was approved by the voters on April 23,
2013. On May 19, 2014, a federal judge struck down the referendum stating, Congress has plenary authority over
the District, and it is the only entity that can provide budget autonomy. Council of the District of Columbia v.
Gray, No. 14-655 (EGS) (D.D.C. May 19, 2014).
282
THE NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT: THE SORDID CASE OF SULAIMON BROWN
Under District of Columbia Code, the mayor has the legal authority to hire up to 220 Excepted
Service Positions.1419 At the time Mayor Vincent Gray took office in 2011, the Code stated those
employees must meet the minimum standards prescribed for the position to which he or she is
appointed.1420 In the aftermath of Mayor Gray hiring a highly controversial mayoral opponent
shortly after taking office in 2011, this section of the D.C. code came under heavy scrutiny.
A CORRUPT DEAL?
Although it is not uncommon for politicians to hire opponents after an election, offering a candidate
a position in exchange for attacking another candidate may violate a D.C. law barring corrupt
influence.1421 When reports surfaced on February 23, 2011, that Sulaimon Brown, who had recently
been fired from his position within D.C.s Department of Health Care Finance, had benefited from a
quid pro quo arrangement with newly-elected D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, questions of corruption
soon followed. The alleged arrangement called for Mr. Brown to discredit mayoral candidate
Adrian M. Fenty and solicit support for Mayor Gray; in exchange, Mr. Brown would receive an
expected service position within Mayor Grays administration.
Acknowledging what he called missteps, on March 7, 2011, shortly after Mr. Browns allegations
became public, Mayor Gray asked D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan to investigate the claims
made by Mr. Brown, and welcomed other external reviews, including ones by the Office of
Inspector General.1422 Several Council members called into question the independence of the
Attorney General, as he had been appointed by the mayor, and instead asked the D.C. Inspector
General alone to investigate.1423 However, both the Inspector General and the D.C. Attorney General
eventually decided to recues themselves from the investigation.
A VACUUM IN OVERSIGHT
On March 7, 2011, the D.C. Inspector General told the Committee that he had informed the D.C.
Attorney General that the Inspector General would recues himself from the investigation into Mr.
1419
D.C. CODE 1-610.3(2) (2001).

Id. 1-609.01 (2001). However, as a result of the scandal outlined in this section, the D.C. Council rewrote the
law to require that Excepted Service employees must be well qualified for the positions to which they are
appointed. Id. 1-609.01 (2001 & Supp. 2014) (effective May 19, 2014), available at
http://dccode.org/simple/sections/1-609.01.html.
1421
D.C. CODE 22-704 (2001). The legislation provides: Whosoever corruptly, directly or indirectly, gives any
money, or other bribe, present, reward, promise, contract, obligation . . . in consideration that such official has
nominated or appointed any person to any office or exercised any power in such official vested, or performed any
duty of such official required, with partiality or favor, or otherwise contrary to law; and whosoever, being such an
official, shall receive any such money, bribe, present, or reward, promise, contract, obligation, or security, with
intent or for the purpose or consideration aforesaid shall be deemed guilty of bribery and upon conviction thereof
[shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not less than 6 months nor more than 5 years]. Id..
1422
See Press Release, Mayor Vincent C. Gray, Mayor Gray Calls for Swift and Thorough Investigations Into
Allegations Made by Sulaimon Brown (Mar. 7, 2011),
http://www.tbd.com/articles/2011/03/gray-calls-for-investigations-into-allegations-by-sulaimon-brown-55886.html.
1423
Tim Craig, Nikita Stewart & Mike DeBonis, Gray Acknowledges Missteps: Calls for Investigation, WASH.
POST, Mar. 7, 2011, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030603934.html.
1420
283
Browns charges.1424 Nonetheless, around the same time, the D.C. Attorney General publicly stated
that the role of his office would be to help facilitate the investigations by the Inspector Generals
office.1425 The Inspector General formally recused his entire office from the matter on March 8,
2011 and the Attorney General ultimately recused his entire office from the matter, citing a conflict
of interest.
The inability of the D.C. Attorney General and the D.C. Inspector General to investigate the matter
led to congressional intervention into the scandal. Because the Oversight and Government Reform
Committees jurisdiction includes municipal affairs of the District of Columbia in general,1426 the
allegations of corrupt actions by the D.C. mayor fell squarely within the purview of the Committee.
While under Chairman Darrell Issas leadership the Committee has generally supported greater D.C.
autonomy, the Committee was forced to undertake the investigation after it became clear other
local investigative bodies would be unable to pursue sufficiently independent investigations.
THE 2010 D.C. MAYORAL ELECTION

In 2010, Sulaimon Brown, an auditor, was the first declared candidate to challenge District of
Columbia Mayor Adrian M. Fenty in the Democratic primary. As of February 2010, Mr. Brown had
raised a total of $13,765 and had less than $570 cash-on-hand.1427 Mr. Browns fundraising
prowess did not improve over the next four months. By June 2010, Mr. Brown had raised an
additional $1,198, spent $1,502 and was $277 in debt.1428 In addition to floundering financially, Mr.
Brown found it difficult to attract attention. In fact, he was excluded from the first mayoral forum
for not being a viable candidate due to his poor fundraising.1429 During the campaign, Mr. Brown
stated, he and Councilman Gray had reached an agreement: Vince [Gray] was to stay on message,
while [I] stayed on the attack [against Fenty].1430 In addition, his slogan turned to instructing
voters: If you dont vote Brown, vote Gray.1431
Mr. Brown came in dead-last in the primary, even behind the write-in candidates. Less than a
month after Mayor Gray took office in January 2011, Mr. Brown was hired as an Excepted Service
special assistant in the city's Department of Health Care Finance (HCF), receiving an annual salary
of $110,000. Although it is not unusual for new mayors to hire campaign workers for such
positions, the D.C. Code required that employee must meet the minimum standards prescribed for
1424
Interview by Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with Charles Willoughby, Inspector General,
District of Columbia (Mar. 7, 2011).
1425
Freeman Klopott, D.C. Attorney General to Facilitate Investigations into Allegations against Gray, WASH.
EXAMR, Mar. 8, 2011, at 5.
1426
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule X, cl. 1(n)(2).
1427
How Theyre Faring in the Money Race, WASH. POST., Feb. 3, 2010, available at
1428
Mike DeBonis, Candidates for Offices in D.C. File Finance Reports, WASH. POST, Jun. 11, 2010, available at
1429
Martin Austermuhle, First Mayoral Forum Announced, But Not Everyone Is Invited, DCIST, Apr. 22, 2010,
available at http://dcist.com/2010/04/mayoral_forum_announced_but_not_eve.php.
1430
Interview by Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with Sulaimon Brown (Mar. 8, 2011).
1431
Alan Suderman, The Curious Case of Sulaimon Brown, WASH. CITY PAPER LOOSELIPS BLOG (FEB. 24, 2011,
6:40 PM), available at www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2010/09/12.html.
284
the position to which he or she is appointed.1432 At the time Mr. Brown was appointed to the
position, there was no clear guidance on how this section of the D.C. Code should be interpreted.
On February 23, 2011, the news media reported:
Browns also run into legal trouble here in the District. Court records show gun
charges against Brown were dropped in 1991 in exchange for Brown going into a
diversion program, and a jury found Brown guilty in 1995 for unlawful entry. More
recently, a restraining order against Brown was signed by a judge in 2007, court
records show.1433
Officials in Mayor Gray's administration became alarmed when they later learned that the
restraining order involved allegations of stalking a 13-year-old girl.1434 On the following day, Mr.
Brown was fired from his position at HCF.1435 Mayor Gray, defending his appointment of Mr. Brown
to the position, said he thought Mr. Brown was "qualified" and continued by saying he thought Mr.
Browns resume speaks for itself."1436
Within days of his firing, Mr. Brown charged that he had previously struck a deal with the campaign
of Mayor Gray. In exchange for continuing his attacks on Candidate Grays chief rival, then-Mayor
Fenty, Mr. Brown alleged that Mr. Gray had promised him a city job if Mr. Gray won. According to
Mr. Brown, Mr. Grays campaign chairwoman, Lorraine Green, and campaign consultant, Howard
Brooks,1437 gave Mr. Brown a series of cash payments to help finance his campaign so that he could
continue his attacks on Mayor Fenty.1438
1432
D.C. CODE 1-609.01 (2001). However, there is apparently no legal definitions of the minimum standards
that Excepted Service personnel must meet. See id.
1433
Alan Suderman, The Bigger Scandal (Updated), WASH. CITY PAPER LOOSELIPS BLOG (Feb. 23, 2011, 12:22
PM), available at www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2011/02/23.
1434
Nikita Stewart & Tim Craig, Sulaimon Brown, Aide to D.C. Mayor, Is Fired After Allegations of Criminal
Record, WASH. POST, Feb. 24, 2011, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022407597.html. Documents produced by the District during the
Committees investigation show the various allegations of criminal activity reported in the media were accurate.
The records show that [I]n March 2007, [FEMALE NAME REDACTED] obtained a Temporary Restraining Order
from the Domestic Violence Unit of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against Brown. In addition to
the allegations outlined above, the documents produced to the Committee by the D.C. Attorney General show that in
the gun case, Mr. Brown was ordered to stay away from a woman. In 1995, he received one-year unsupervised
probation and was ordered to stay away from the Howard University campus due to a charge of unlawful entry.
Staff of H. Cmte. on Oversight & Govt Reform, Investigative Report on Allegations of Improper Payments and
Promises of Employment for Sulaimon Brown, 112th Cong. 41 (2011).
1435
Nikita Stewart & Tim Craig, Sulaimon Brown, Aide to D.C. Mayor, Is Fired After Allegations of Criminal
Record, WASH. POST, Feb. 24, 2011, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022407597.html.
1436
Id.
1437
During the course of its probe, Committee investigators interviewed six key witnesses including Mr. Brown and
Mrs. Green. Mr. Brooks, however, declined to be interviewed citing his Fifth Amendment privilege.
1438
Nikita Stewart, Former Mayoral Candidate Sulaimon Brown Says He Struck a Job Deal with Vincent Gray
Campaign, WASH. POST, Mar. 6, 2011, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/03/05/AR2011030504378.html.
285
THE COMMITTEES INVESTIGATION

The Committee launched its inquiry into Mr. Browns allegations of corruption soon after they
surfaced in early 2011. The Committee requested and obtained thousands of documents from the
Executive Office of the Mayor, from the Department of Health Care Finance (HCF), and the
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The Committee received text messages and cell phone
records from Mr. Brown, who also allowed Committee investigators to photograph envelopes in
which he claimed to have received cash from Mr. Gray's campaign, and a related money order
receipt.
Committee investigators also obtained several money orders that appear to have come from Mr.
Grays campaign consultant, Mr. Howard Brooks, as well as from persons related to Mr. Brooks
Mr. Brooks, claiming his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, declined to testify
before the Committee.1439 One money order was purchased the same day that Mr. Brown first met
Ms. Green, one of the investigations key witnesses and chairwoman of Mr. Grays campaign.1440
However, Ms. Gerri Mason Hall, Mayor Grays chief of staff, along with Ms. Green and Mayor Gray,
denied a quid pro quo arrangement for employment. Each stated that Mr. Brown was merely
promised an interview. During the course of the Committees investigation, some circumstantial
evidence was discovered that may support Brown's allegations, including cell phone records,
internal city e-mails, and copies of text messages between Mr. Brown, the Mayor, Ms. Green, and Ms.
Hall.1441 However, the Committee's investigation, which was completed in October 2011, found no
independent facts to corroborate Mr. Brown's charges relating to the promise of employment.
REPERCUSSIONS OF THE SCANDAL

In addition to the Committee's investigation, there were two other inquiries into Mr. Brown's
allegations: The first, by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, resulted in Mr. Brooks guilty
plea, and was continued by an investigation into the 2010 District mayoral election; and another by
the D.C. Council Committee on Government Operations and the Environment, which resulted in a
report. As a result of the scandal outlined in this section, the D.C. Council rewrote the law to require
that Excepted Service employees must be well qualified for the positions to which they are
appointed.1442
1439
A year after the Committee completed its investigation, Mr. Brooks was sentenced to 24 months of probation for
lying to the FBI when he claimed he had not given Mr. Brown a series of money orders totaling $2,810. Andrea
Noble, Gray campaign aide gets probation; Lied about 10 campaign payments, WASH. TIMES, Oct. 11, 2012.
1440
Staff of H. Cmte. on. Oversight & Govt Reform, Investigative Report on Allegations of Improper Payments and
Promises of Employment for Sulaimon Brown, 112th Cong. 19 (2011).
1441
Id. at 3, 26-35.
1442
D.C. CODE 1-609.01 (2001 & Supp. 2014) (effective May 19, 2014), available at
http://dccode.org/simple/sections/1-609.01.html.
286
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

As Chairman of the House Committee that oversees the District, Mr. Issa is one of two members of
Congress who have voting membership in the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC),
which is the Federal Governments board of zoning for the District of Columbia. NCPC protects and
enhances the extraordinary historical, cultural, and natural resources of the National Capital Region
by crafting long-range plans, analyzing emergent planning issues, reviewing site development and
building proposals, and monitoring federal capital investment.1443
During Chairman Issas tenure on the Commission, two major issues within the NCPCs jurisdiction
have garnered most of his attention: 1) Amending the DC Height of Buildings Act; 2) the Dwight
Eisenhower Memorial.
D.C. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS ACT

The Origin of the Limitation
Limitations on building heights within the District date as far back as the origins of the capital city.
In 1791, President Washington promulgated the first regulations on buildings in the city, which
included that the wall of no house [is] to be higher than forty feet to the roof, in any part of the city;
nor shall any be lower than thirty-five feet on any of the avenues.1444
In 1894, following the construction of the 164-foot Cairo Hotel in Northwest Washington,1445 the DC
Board of Commissioners approved new regulations restricting building heights in the city. These
regulations generally prohibited buildings from being erected whose height exceeded the width of
the street in front, and limited the height of residential buildings to less than 90 feet and
commercial buildings to less than 110 feet.
In 1899 and again in 1910, the Congress superseded the Board of Commissioners by enacting
federal legislation to restrict building heights in the District of Columbia.1446 The 1899 law slightly
modified and codified the regulations the Board of Commissioners set five years earlier. The law
also allowed for certain architectural elements to be built higher than the limitations.1447 Although
the popular belief is that Congress enacted the legislation to preserve and protect views of the
monuments, memorials and other significant national landmarks in the city, it is more likely that
the primary cause for the legislation was to address environmental and public safety concerns, as
the concept of skyscrapers was still new to the country. In fact, the Committee report
accompanying the bill cited these concerns.
The 1910 federal law, titled the Height of Buildings Act, modified the maximum heights for
buildings, added enforcement measures and for the first time highlighted congressional interest in
maintaining certain characteristics of federal architectural interests. Under the law, no building
could be erected higher than the width of the adjoining street plus 20 feet; in residential areas, no
1443
About Us, NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION,

http://www.ncpc.gov/ncpc/Main%28T2%29/About_Us%28tr2%29/AboutUs.html (last accessed Nov. 24, 2014).
1444
Staff of H. Cmte. on the Dist. Of Columbia, Building Height Limitations, 94th Cong. (1976).
1445
The Cairo Hotel was considered the citys first residential skyscraper.
1446
Height of Buildings Act of 1910, Pub.L. No. 61-196, 36 Stat. 452.
1447
Such as spires, towers, and domes.
287
building could be constructed higher than 85 feet;1448 in commercial areas, no building could be
erected greater than 130 feet; and between First Street and 15th Street NW on the north side of
Pennsylvania Avenue, the height restriction was capped at 160 feet.
These laws paralleled limitations in many U.S. cities during that time. However, unlike other cities
that began modifying height restrictions in 1915, the District of Columbias law has been largely
unchanged in over 100 years with the exception that residential buildings are currently permitted
to go up to 90 feet.1449 However, in many instances, specific construction projects have been
granted exemptions to law.1450
The Need for Revision

On July 19, 2012, the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Health Care, District of
Columbia, Census and the National Archives, held a hearing on the Height Act.1451 The
Subcommittee heard differing testimony from a cross section of experts. Following this hearing,
Chairman Issa sent letters to the NCPC and the city asking them to work jointly to examine the
extent to which the Height Act continues to serve federal and local interests, and how changes to
the law could affect the future of the city. In his October 3, 2012, letter, Chairman Issa wrote:
The character of Washingtons historic LEnfant City particularly the monumental
core establishes the citys iconic image as our capital. Any changes to the Height of
Buildings Act that affect the historic LEnfant City should be carefully studied
to ensure that the iconic, horizontal skyline and the visual preeminence of the U.S.
Capitol and related national monuments are retained. The Committee encourages
the exploration of strategic changes to the law in those areas outside the LEnfant
City that support local economic development goals while taking into account
the impact on federal interests, compatibility to the surrounding neighborhoods,
national security concerns, input from local residents, and other related factors that
were discussed at the July 19 hearing.1452
After receiving the Chairmans request letter, the NCPC and the city held several public hearings in
2013 on the issue of building heights.1453 On November 19, 2013, NCPC approved its
recommendations regarding amending the Height Act. They recommended:
To protect the integrity of the form and character of the nations capital, the Federal Height
Act should remain in place and no changes should be made to the formula or approach for
calculating allowable building height.
1448
It appears as though there was some concern regarding fighting fires in buildings that reached 90 feet, so
Congress scaled back the maximum height. These concerns would later be alleviated with better technology and
Congress amended the law back to the original 90 foot maximum.
1449
House Report No. 68-1192; Height of Buildings Act of 1910. Pub.L. No. 61-196 (amended 1915).
1450
E.g. The National Press Club building; the United Masonic Temple building.
1451
Changes to the Heights Act: Shaping Washington, D.C. for the Future Before the Subcomm. on Health Care,
Dist. of Columbia, Census and the Natl Archives, 112th Cong. (2012).
1452
Letter from Chairman Darrell Issa, Committee on Oversight and Govt Reform, to Preston Bryant and Mayor
Gray (Oct 3, 2012) (on file with author).
1453
More information on these meetings is available at: http://www.ncpc.gov/heightstudy/.
288
There may be some opportunities for strategic change in the areas outside of the LEnfant
City where there is less concentration of federal interests. However, additional study is
required to understand whether strategic changes to the Height Act would impact federal
interests within this area.
The citys most significant view sheds, to include without limitation, those to and from the
U.S. Capitol and the White House, should be further evaluated and federal and local
protections established, which include policies in the Federal and District Elements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Amend the Height Act to allow for human occupancy in existing and future penthouses, with
the following restrictions:
o
Include specific protections related to sightlines for select federal buildings

including but not limited to, the U.S. Capitol and White House.
Support communal recreation space on rooftops by allowing human occupancy in

roof structures, where use of those structures is currently restricted under the
Height Act to mechanical equipment, so long as the faade of these structures
continue to be set back from exterior building walls at a 1:1 ratio.
Impose an absolute 20-foot maximum height and a limitation of one story for
penthouse structures above the level of the roof, which must contain within all
mechanical equipment and elevator, stair other enclosures, with no additional
construction allowed above the penthouse roof for any purpose.
Delete certain sections of the Act which solely relate to fireproof construction. These
proposed deletions are antiquated fire and safety requirements that have been updated and
incorporated into modern day codes by the District of Columbia.1454
On November 20, 2013, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray transmitted to the Committee the Citys
recommendation on modifications to the law:
Apply the approach of reinforcing the relationship between building height and street width
within the LEnfant City. The District recommends using a ratio of 1:1.25 for street width to
building height, resulting in a new maximum building height of 200 feet for 160-foot wide
streets in the LEnfant City. To ensure that the tops of any future taller buildings contribute
to the use of and views from rooftops, mechanical penthouses would be required to be
enclosed within the upper floors and within the new height cap.
The limits currently established in the Federal Height Act should remain in place unless and
until the District completes an update to the District elements of the comprehensive plan
where targeted area(s) that meet specific planning goals and also do not impact federal
interests are identified. Under this recommendation, building heights in targeted areas may
1454
NCPC, Commission Action, Nov. 19, 2013.
289
be proposed to exceed the maximums under federal law; and these may be authorized
through the existing comprehensive plan process, pending congressional approval. Should
such targeted exceptions be authorized through the comprehensive plan, the Height Act
would remain in place for all other areas both inside and outside of the LEnfant City.
Amend the Height Act to remove any federal restrictions on the human occupancy of
penthouses and set a maximum height of 20 feet and one story. To ensure that the tops of
any future taller buildings contribute to the use of and views from rooftops, mechanical
penthouses also would be required to be enclosed within the upper floors and within the
new height cap for areas inside the LEnfant City where the ratio approach is applied.
View shed protection is a foundational component of both of the Districts draft
recommendations for changes to the Height Act. Civic structures and related views
contribute to the unique character and attractiveness of Washington, DC. The protection of
view sheds is not only a federal but also a local interest. The District is firmly committed to
protecting the majestic views to nationally significant buildings and monuments. In fact, the
District already has local protections in place to protect important view sheds. The Districts
zoning code, for example, limits height on 16th Street, NW to 90 feet, lower than what is
permitted under the Height Act. This local limit is specifically intended to protect the view
corridor south on 16th Street towards the White House. As noted previously, federal
interests in the District are already protected by other means in addition to the Height
Act.1455
The citys report explained that an Economic Feasibility Analysis had developed a preliminary
projection that from $62 million to $115 million in incremental annual tax revenues could be
generated from property and sales taxes paid by workers and residents occupying new higher-rise
office and apartment buildings developed over the twenty years.1456
Overcoming Opposition from Within

The D.C. Council has a resolution signed by 12 of the 13 council members in opposition to the Office
of Plannings recommendations.1457 What was shocking about the Councils opposition to the
Mayors proposal was that it was essentially the Council rejecting additional autonomy to make a
decision about what was best for the future of the city and its residents. Eventually, after difficult
negotiations with many elected leaders in the city, Chairman Issa brokered a deal and introduced
legislation to amend the D.C. Height of Buildings Act.1458
Under existing law, mechanical penthouses structures that cover elevator shafts or mechanical
equipment can be built on rooftops even if the penthouse height exceeds Height Act limitations
when 1) the one-to-one setback ratio is maintained between the penthouse height and the distance
1455
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF PLANNING, HEIGHT MASTER PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FINAL
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS (2013) available at
http://www.ncpc.gov/heightstudy/docs/District%27s%20Height%20Master%20Plan%20FINAL%20Recommendati
ons%20Report_Nov%2020%202013.pdf.
1456
Id. at 11.
1457
Sense of the Council Against Amending the 1910 Height Act Resolution of 2013.
1458
H.R. Res. 4192, 113th Cong. (2013).
290
from the side of the penthouse to the edge of the roof, and 2) the city approves the structure. NCPC
recommended that human occupancy be allowed in such rooftop penthouses, so long as 1) the
setback ratio is maintained, 2) the penthouse does not exceed one story that is no more than twenty
feet high and, again, 3) so long as the city approves the structure. Chairman Issas legislation
simply gave the city a little more latitude to allow attractive, human occupancy penthouses where
ugly mechanical penthouses are already allowed. On May 16, 2014 with significant bipartisan and
bicameral support the amendment to the D.C. Height of Building Act was enacted into law.1459
THE DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER MEMORIAL

In 1999, Congress created the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission to help create a
memorial dedicated to the 34th President, Dwight D. Eisenhower in DC.1460 On March 25, 2010, the
12 member Commission unanimously selected architect Frank Gehrys design concept for the
Memorial, which was then approved by the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts. The plan calls for
construction of the memorial on the land directly in front of the U.S. Department of Education. Total
anticipated cost is $112 million although the bulk will be funded through congressional
appropriations, 20 percent must be raised privately. The National Capital Planning Commission
must also approve memorial designs.
Shortly thereafter, members of the Eisenhower family began to vocalize objections to the Gehry
design, specifically the 80 foot stainless steel tapestries and the columns. For several years,
Chairman Issa used his influence on NCPC and his Chairmanship of the Committee to try and find a
compromise solution. Ultimately, the Chairman supported NCPC staffs recommendation to
preliminarily approve the design on October 2, 2014. Construction of the memorial as currently
designed is far from certain. The funding resolution that reopened the government in October
20131461 contained a provision that prohibited additional construction funds for the Memorial to be
appropriated due to the design concerns and the potential for an overall cost increase.
1459
Act to Amend the Act entitled, An Act to Regulate the Height of Buildings in the District of Columbia, Pub.L.
No. 113-103, 128 Stat. 11555 (2014).
1460
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 106-79 8162, 113 Stat. 1212, 1274 (2000).
1461
Continuing Appropriations Act, Pub.L. No. 113-46 138, 127 Stat. 558, 564 (2014).
291
WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY

SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
On June 22, 2011, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced H.R. 2297, which would
promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia.1462 The
legislation was needed to update current zoning laws to allow the District the flexibility to lease or
sell the real property on the 27 acre parcel of land to a private-sector developer,1463 in order for the
redevelopment to begin. After both chambers passed H.R. 2297, it was signed into law on July 9,
2012.1464 On March 19, 2014, the official groundbreaking took place and the estimated $2 billion
redevelopment project began.1465
OCCUPY DC
In October 2011, members of the Occupy DC movement set up a campsite in McPherson Square
complete with tents and restroom facilities to house demonstrators indefinitely as part of their
protest movement. McPherson Square is administered by the National Park Service (NPS).1466
The statute controlling activities in the Square prohibits camping unless it is specifically allowed by
the NPS. After Occupy DC took up residence, the NPS posted flyers throughout McPherson Square
citing the statute and stating in writing that camping is not permitted in McPherson Square.1467
However, despite clear evidence that protestors have been camping in McPherson Square for more
than three months, the NPS made no attempt to enforce the ban on camping.
The failure of the National Park Service to enforce the law caused significant problems for the
District. For example, the campsite caused a serious rodent infestation in McPherson Square,1468
and it negatively impacted local businesses in the area.1469 On one occasion, an infant was found
alone in one of the tents during a period of cold weather and rain.1470 The occupation by the
1462
An Act to promote the development of the Southwest waterfront in the District of Columbia, and for other
purposes, H.R. 2297, 112th Cong. (as introduced, June 22, 2011). Pub. L. 112-143, 49 Stat. 1028 (2012).
1463
In September 2006, PN Hoffman and Struever Brothers Eccles & Rouse jointly submitted a development plan
and beat out 17 other companies to redevelop the Southwest Waterfront.
1464
Pub. L. 112-143, 49 Stat. 1028 (2012).
1465
The Wharf Breaks Ground in DCs Southwest Waterfront, Washingtonian, Benjamin Freed, March 19, 2014.
1466
Section 7.96 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, found: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011title36-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title36-vol1-sec7-96.pdf
1467
Help Us Preserve McPherson Square, NATL PARK SERVICE,
http://media.nbcwashington.com/documents/McPherson+Education+Handout.pdf.
1468
Health officials say rats are a concern at Occupy DC encampment, WASH. POST, Jan. 9, 2012,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/health-officials-say-rats-are-a-concern-at-occupy-dcencampment/2012/01/09/gIQAbB9QmP_story.html.
1469
Aubrey Whelan, McPherson Square businesses getting fed up with Occupy D.C., EXAMINER, Dec. 6, 2011,
available at http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/12/mcpherson-businesses-getting-fed-occupydc/1980756
1470
Theola Labb-DeBose and Annie Gowen, Child cruelty charge after baby found alone in Occupy camp, WASH.
POST, Jan. 11, 2012.
292
protestors caused substantial damage to McPherson Square, which was recently rehabilitated using
$400,000 of federal stimulus money.1471
On December 16, 2011, District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray sent a letter to National Park
Service Director Jonathan Jarvis expressing concerns about the two tent sites on federal
property1472 within the Districts boundaries. The Mayor stated, in neither case was the District
Government consulted on the legality or appropriateness of long-term protestors inhabiting these
respective locations.1473 The Mayors letter also stated that, as of December 1, 2011, the District
had spent over $1.65 million in costs associated with the campsite. These costs included overtime
for law enforcement personnel, payment for public sanitation services, and payment for additional
street maintenance and cleaning.1474 After the Mayors request in December, health and sanitation
issues in McPherson Square continued to deteriorate, causing Mayor Gray to request that the NPS
remove the campsite.1475 In January, Mayor Gray asked the NPS to at a minimum consolidate the
two protest sites to allow for elimination of the rat infestation, clean up, and restoration of
McPherson Square.1476
On January 24, 2012, the Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the
National Archives held a hearing on Occupy D.C. and the public health and safety issues raised by
Mayor Gray. On February 4, 2012, the U.S. Park Police raided McPherson Square to crack down
more severely on the no camping policy.1477
OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

In 1996, due to the long-standing educational failures of the District of Columbia Public Schools
(DCPS), the D.C. School Reform Act1478 was passed creating charter schools in the District. At that
time DCPS was failing students, especially the poorer areas of the city, and this new law increased
educational options for students to transfer out of those schools that were consistently underperforming.1479 Today, there are 112 public charter schools within the District.1480
1471
Contracts-Award Summary: Award Number C3400100099, Recovery.Gov. Available at:

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardID
SUR=103676&qtr=2010Q4.
1472
Freedom Plaza and McPherson Square
1473
Letter from Mayor Vincent Gray to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis (Dec. 16, 2011).
1474
Id.
1475
Mayor Vincent Gray letter to the Honorable Jonathan Jarvis, January 12, 2012.
1476
Id.
1477
Annie Gowen, Occupy D.C. Camp Raided by Police, WASH. POST, Feb. 4, 2012.
1478
District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. 104-134 tit. II, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-107.
1479
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY, CHILDREN IN
CRISIS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (1996). In addition, the Control Board made this assessment of DCPS: The
deplorable record of the District's public schools by every important educational and management measure has left
one of the city's most important public responsibilities in a state of crisis, creating an emergency which can no
longer be ignored or excused. DCPS is failing in its mission to educate the children of the District of Columbia. In
virtually every area, and for every grade level, the system has failed to provide our children with a quality education
and safe environment in which to learn. Id.
1480
About Us, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD http://www.dcpcsb.org/about-us (last
accessed Nov. 24, 2014).
293
A Program with Positive Results

In 2003, as part of continuing education reform efforts in D.C., Congress created the first federallyfunded, private school voucher program in the country. Congress initially authorized and
appropriated $40 million in additional federal funding for District of Columbia school improvement
distributed to three groups: $13 million went to DCPS; $13 million went to the State Education
Office to expand charter schools in the District; and $14 million went to the Secretary of the
Department of Education to provide opportunity scholarships to low-income students in the city.
Distribution of opportunity scholarships, through what became known officially as the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP or the Program), were intended to enable students
attending consistently under-performing public schools to choose to attend private schools within
the District of Columbia instead. The Program was offered only to District students entering grades
K through 12 whose family income was a certain percent of the federal poverty line, depending on
family size. Eligible students received a scholarship of up to $7,500 for tuition, transportation to
the school and payment of other school fees. Scholarships were renewable for up to 5 years
(subject to federal appropriations), as long as the student remained eligible for the program and in
good academic standing.1481
If in any given year there were more eligible applicants than available funds for scholarships or
open slots in private schools, applicants were awarded scholarships by random selection through a
lottery. Priority was given to students attending public schools designated as a school in need of
improvement (SINI) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB)1482 and to families that lacked the
resources to take advantage of school choice options. Private schools participating in the Program
had to agree to specified requirements regarding nondiscrimination in admissions, fiscal
accountability and cooperation with the federally-mandated evaluation of the program.1483
The law mandated that the Secretary of Education enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the D.C. Mayor with respect to the OSP. The MOU included, but was not limited to, the
following criteria:
strong accountability measures and program performance evaluations;
specifications for a lottery system which will provide fair and unbiased acceptance of
students into the scholarship program, and allow participating schools to consider a sibling
preference;
joint oversight by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the Secretary of Education of
the program's operations;
the evaluation and methodology for the selection of participating schools which have met
the District of Columbia's current licensure requirements;
1481
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3, 117 (2004).
As defined in No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110 1116, 115 Stat. 1425, 1478 (2002).
1483
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3 (2004).
1482
294
the methodology for determining the tuition and fees of participating schools, including the
actual cost;
the development of appropriate oversight and accountability measures; and
teacher quality criteria.1484
The law also included a mandate for annual reports back to Congress on the effectiveness of the
program.
In June 2010, according to a contract through the Department of Educations Institute for Education
Sciences, a congressionally-mandated final report was issued through a contract through the
Department of Educations Institute for Education Sciences entitled, Evaluation of the DC
Opportunity Scholarship Program.1485 This report highlighted the long-term effects of the OSP on
students and parents who were given the opportunity to transfer from a local public school to a
participating private school; it also compared those students who did not have the chance to use a
scholarship to those who did. The findings focused on three important areas: graduation rates,
student achievement, and school satisfaction and safety. According to Dr. Patrick Wolf, the lead
investigator of the study:
The most important outcome we examined in our evaluation of the OSP was the
programs impact on student educational attainment, as measured by the rate of
high school graduation...Based on parent reports, the students in our study
graduated from high school at significantly higher rates as a result of the OSP. The
treatment group students graduated from high school at a rate of 82 percent which
was 12 percentage points higher than the control group rate of 70 percent.
Adjusting for students who never used their scholarship, the impact of using an
Opportunity Scholarship was to increase the probability of graduating from 70
percent to 91 percent -- a positive impact of 21 percentage points. We can be more
than 99 percent confident that access to school choice through the Opportunity
Scholarship Programwas the reason why OSP students graduated at these higher
rates.1486
In addition, the study concluded that the OSP had a positive impact on high school graduation for
those students who attended a school in need of improvement (SINI):
Access to the OSP increased the graduation rate for SINI students from 66 percent to
79 percent. The impact of using an Opportunity Scholarship on the likelihood of high
1484
Id.
DR. PATRICK WOLF ET AL., DEPT OF EDUCATION, EVALUATION OF THE DC OPPORTUNITY
SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM: FINAL REPORT (2010), available at
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104018/pdf/20104018.pdf.
1486
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3 (2004).
1485
295
school graduation was to increase it by 20 percentage points, from 66 percent to 86

percent.1487
The report examined student achievement through reading and math scores. While it was
determined that math scores were not significantly improved as a result of the OSP, the analysis of
the data suggests that students reading scores did improve, most likely because of the program.1488
Finally, research showed parents overall satisfaction with the schools their children attended
increased as a result of the OSP; however, students overall satisfaction did not increase at a
statistically significant level.1489 [T]he research evidence and testimonials of parents confirm that
the District of Columbia is a better place because of the Opportunity Scholarship Program.1490
Rescinding Scholarships and Denying New Students Access

Initial appropriations for the OSP were authorized through fiscal year 2008, which ended in
September 2008. The 111th Congress provided additional appropriations for the program for fiscal
years 2009 and 2010 as part of an omnibus appropriations bill.1491
Through a two-step process, the Department of Education in conjunction with Congress ended the
program for new enrollees. In March of 2009, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan rescinded 216
scholarships that had been promised to students; however, students who were currently
participating in the program continued to receive scholarships until they graduated.1492 Also that
month, Congress passed the previously mentioned omnibus appropriations bill that specified that
the use of any funds in any act for Opportunity Scholarships after the 2009-2010 school year
would only be available if the program was reauthorized and the District of Columbia adopted
legislation that approved that reauthorization.
Reinstating a Beneficial Program

In January 2011 Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner introduced legislation to
reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). Specifically, Speaker Boehners
legislation authorized funding for improvement of DC public schools and DC public charter schools,
continuing the three-sector approach to school reform begun by the original OSP legislation.
Funding under the legislation would be divided equally between the OSP, the DC public schools and
the DC public charter schools.
1487
Id.
1489
Id.
1490
The Value of Education Choices: Saving the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Hearing Before the S.
Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 112th Cong. (2011) (written testimony of Dr. Patrick
Wolf).
1491
Omnibus Appropriations Act Pub. L. No. 111-8, div. D, tit. IV, 123 Stat. 524, 653 (2009).
1492
Id.
1488
296
Among other provisions, the reauthorization made several improvements to the existing program
to help address findings by the Government Accountability Office;1493 improvements to the program
included a requirement that an administrating entity has financial controls in place; an increase in
the scholarship award amount of up to $8,000 per year for students in elementary school and up to
$12,000 per year for students attending high school; a requirement that schools participating in the
OSP maintain a valid certificate of occupancy issued by the District of Columbia; and a requirement
that each teacher of core subject matter classes has a bachelors or equivalent degree.1494
The legislation also continued the existing requirement of a rigorous evaluation of the program,
including a comparison of the academic achievement of students who use the scholarships with the
achievement of students who applied for scholarships but were not offered one. These evaluations
must also include a comparison of retention rates, dropout rates and graduation and college
admission rates of students who used the scholarships against those same rates among students of
similar backgrounds who do not participate in the program. The evaluations must also include a
measurement of school safety.
Shortly after the program was reauthorized, the new grantee, the DC Children and Youth
Investment Trust Corporation (DC Trust), ran into operating issues with a semi-hostile
Department of Education that strongly opposed it. The Department, to its credit, frequently met
with Congress in hopes of having a better working relationship with the grantee. Eventually it
became obvious that the DC Trust could and should have been doing more to elevate the program,
including taking the Department up on its offer to assist them in recruiting eligible students. While
progress has been made, Chairman Issa believes this program could be stronger still, particularly in
increasing the number of enrolled students. There currently are only 1,442 students using a
scholarship for the 2014-15 school year.1495 By comparison, the height of enrollment was 1,930
students in 2007; however, it is important to note that the total annual federal appropriation for the
program at this time was $14 million, thus there was less money for scholarships than there is
today.1496
1493
In 2007 the Government Accountability Office released a report evaluating and recommending updates to the
District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program. U.S. GOVT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-08-9,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM: ADDITIONAL POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES WOULD IMPROVE INTERNAL CONTROLS AND PROGRAM OPERATIONS (2007).
1494
Dept of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10, 125 Stat. 38 (2011).
1495
Email from Children and Youth Investment Trust to Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Nov.
14, 2014) (on file with author).
1496
297
CHAPTER 8. GROWTH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama made a commitment to job growth.
He told American Taxpayers that government regulations would be reviewed, and where they
imposed unnecessary burdens on businesses he pledged: we will fix them.1497 In the weeks
leading into the 2010 elections, the President solicited input from American job creators, seeking
suggestions for jumpstarting an economy that was still sluggish after the worst recession in
American history since the Great Depression. Responding to complaints from businesses that too
many regulations raise the cost of doing business and put a brake on expansion and hiring, the
President committed to addressing the issue, explaining his intent to go through very
systematically to see where we can eliminate unnecessary red tape, unnecessary bureaucracy,
regulations that have outlived their usefulness.1498
At the end of 2010, the total number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),1499 a book
that contains every federal regulation in force during a given year, was 165,494. By the end of
2013, the number of pages in the CFR had risen to 175,496.1500 Despite the Administrations
commitment to improving the regulatory environment so that businesses can grow and create
more jobs in America, the Federal Government added more than 10,000 pages of red tape in three
years, and 2014 is on track to be another record-breaking year.
Tracking this growth, law schools and colleges now offer more courses that study the workings of
this Fourth Branch. Georgetown University Law Center, for example, offers a course in
Administrative Law, Legislation, and Governance and Its Application to Legal Practice. Describing
the importance of the course, the schools curriculum guide notes: The reach of the modern
administrative state is vast and involves areas such as the regulation of financial institutions, health
and safety regulation, the administration of disability and welfare programs, discrimination law,
workplace regulation, food and drug law, and immigration policy, just to name a few.1501 The
University of California at Los Angeles School of Law offers a course titled Redesigning the
Administrative State which examines opportunities to improve upon the traditional administrative
state, especially through the privatization of some public services (such as national security).1502
Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, has published the book Is
1497
President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address (Jan. 25, 2011) (transcript available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address).
1498
Alister Bull & Caren Bohan, Obama Pledges Cooperation in Outreach to Business, REUTERS (Oct. 4, 2010),
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/04/us-obama-business-idUSTRE6935SS20101004.
1499
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is an annual compilation of all regulations implemented by federal
agencies. It is published electronically and in print, and is available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
1500
Clyde Wayne Crews, New Data: Code of Federal Regulations Expanding, Faster Pace Under Obama,
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE OPENMARKET BLOG (Mar. 17, 2014, 10:03 AM), https://cei.org/blog/newdata-code-federal-regulations-expanding-faster-pace-under-obama.
1501
Curriculum Guide, GEORGETOWN LAW,
http://apps.law.georgetown.edu/curriculum/tab_clusters.cfm?Status=Cluster&Detail=1 (last accessed Dec. 19,
2014).
1502
Law 515 Redesigning the Administrative State, UCLA LAW, https://curriculum.law.ucla.edu/Guide/Course/144
(last accessed Dec. 19, 2014).
298
Administrative Law Unlawful?1503 Answering that question in the affirmative, Prof. Hamburger
argues that administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the
sort of consolidated power that the US Constitution and constitutions in general were designed
to prevent.1504
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, with its broad jurisdiction and a variety of
tools at its disposal, is in a unique position to conduct a broad-based, economy-wide examination of
the barriers that stand in the way of job growth and economic recovery. Unfortunately for
American Taxpayers, while the absolute number of pages of regulations has gotten smaller in
recent years, the compliance burden imposed by those pages has grown.1505 In the following pages,
this report will provide background for understanding the threat that this expansion poses and
highlights the Committees efforts to bring transparency to the Administrative State. While under
the leadership of Chairman Darrell Issa, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has
worked diligently to uncover the opaque administrative process that has placed unreasonable
strain and stress on legitimate, hard-working American Taxpayers.
A FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT?

The scope and power of federal agencies seems to contradict the intentions of the founders of our
nation:
The framers of the United States Constitution envisioned three branches of
government each with a distinct task. Yet administrative agencies confound this
vision. Although the Constitution provides that [a]ll legislative Powers shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States,1506 agencies promulgate regulations that
have the force and effect of legislative enactments. Although the Constitution
provides that [t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish,1507 agencies routinely engage in adjudication. Agency
government has another constitutional anomaly. The Constitution provides that
[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America.1508 The Presidents responsibility to implement the laws would seem to
be hindered if the President can not fire an administrator who fails to adopt policies
1503
PHILIP HAMBURGER, IS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNLAWFUL? (2014).

Prof. Hamburgers book is published by The University of Chicago Press, which provides a summary of its
contents and several review comments from a number of legal scholars. PHILIP HAMBURGER, IS ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW UNLAWFUL? (2014), reviewed by THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, available at
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo17436684.html (last accessed Dec. 19, 2014).
1505
Patrick McLaughlin, Measuring the Content, Not Just the Number, of Executive Orders and Proclamations,
MERCATUS CTR., Oct. 16, 2014, available at http://mercatus.org/publication/measuring-content-not-just-numberexecutive-orders-and-proclamations.
1506
U.S. Const. art. I, 1.
1507
U.S. Const. art. III, 1.
1508
U.S. Const. art. II, 1.
1504
299
favored by the President. Nevertheless, Congress has forbidden the President from
firing some administrators because of a policy disagreement.1509
However, federal agencies serve a necessary function within our constitutional republic. The scope
and function of the Administrative State in America is defined by an agency relationship:
Congress, as the Legislative Branch, expresses a mandate for action through a statute (also referred
to as authorizing or enabling legislation), and the Executive Branch, including the President,
executive departments and agencies, implements (or executes) the legislation by bringing it into
force. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt helped to usher in a period of
tremendous growth in the activities of the Federal Government, overseeing the creation of over 30
agencies to implement New Deal legislation. Many of those agencies are still in existence today
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Social Security Board (SSB),
for example.1510 Because agency rules typically have the force and effect of law,1511 the
Administrative State exists in conflict with both the Legislative and the Executive Branches.
The Judicial Branch provides a check on this relationship in two important ways. First, the
Supreme Court has held that Congress may not abdicate its constitutional duty to legislate by
instructing the Executive Branch to make law; therefore, the powers vested in the Executive Branch
by the enabling legislation must be consistent with a general theory of nondelegation.1512 Second,
the Court has also required that enabling legislation provide some constraints on how the Executive
Branch may execute its mandate. According to the intelligible principle doctrine, the Legislative
Branch may grant certain powers to the Executive Branch without violating the nondelegation
doctrine as long as the enabling statute defines the boundaries of the Executives authority.1513
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT: CREATING ORDER

Aside from the constitutional, separation of powers issues just discussed, the functioning of the
Administrative State is subject to additional procedural constraints imposed by the Congress and
the President. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was enacted in 1946 to establish the
1509
WILLIAM F. FUNK, SIDNEY A. SHAPIRO, & RUSSELL L. WEAVER, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE
520 (Thomson/West 2006) (internal citations omitted).
1510
The Social Security Board was created in 1935 by the Social Security Act, the SEC was created in 1934 by the
Securities Exchange Act, the FCC was created by the Communications Act of 1934, the Banking Act of 1933
created the FDIC. See id.
1511
Included with a grant of authority to execute legislation through the promulgation of regulations, Congress often
provides agencies with the authority to enforce the regulations issued. Sometimes the regulations are referred to as
administrative laws. See SUSAN E. DUDLEY & JERRY BRITO, REGULATION: A PRIMER 26 (2d ed. 2012).
1512
The Constitution authorizes Congress [t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into
execution the powers vested in the Federal Government. U.S. Const. art. I, 8. The nondelegation doctrine
provides that Congress may not simply delegate the powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution. See FUNK,
ET AL., supra note 1509 at 522-31. Over time, the Supreme Court has used the nondelegation doctrine infrequently
to strike down legislation as unconstitutional, but it has used the doctrine to support a narrow or limited
interpretation of an agencys authority under a statute. See id. at 523.
1513
FUNK, ET AL., supra note 1509 at 524. See also J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409
(1928) (If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body
authorized to fix such [railway] rates is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of
legislative power.).
300
fundamental principles by which agency decisions are made it acts as a rule book generally
applicable to agencies exercising congressionally delegated legislative, executive, and judicial
power, and it has undergone few substantive revisions since its passage.1514 By providing the
procedures by which rules are promulgated and adjudications are conducted, the APA gives
interested parties in the private sector a voice and provides structural limits on the discretion
exercised by the agencys unelected officials.1515
Legislative rules issued by an agency have the force of law as long as the agency satisfied the
requirements of the relevant APA provisions, which are mainly concerned with providing
interested parties sufficient time and opportunity to provide input before the rule becomes binding.
However, nonlegislative rules namely interpretive or guidance documents or policy statements
are exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking process. Although they do not have the
force of law, these materials exert significant influence as a practical matter.
In a serious threat to the transparency required by the APA, the use of sue and settle practices has
become an increasingly common way for agencies to regulate behind closed doors.1516 As
discussed in more detail below, executive agencies especially the Environmental Protection
Agency have entered into settlements with advocacy groups using the courts to compel the
agencies to promulgate rules under a certain statute.
These settlements result in the agencies having a legally binding obligation to promulgate certain
rules according to the conditions defined in the settlement. Because the negotiations often take
place behind closed doors, groups that have an interest in the regulation but are not parties to the
lawsuit are denied the opportunity to provide meaningful input. This secretive process
circumvents the clear intent of the APA and threatens the ability of American job creators to build
our economy.
OIRA: AN AGENCY FOR THE AGENCIES

Congress provided additional direction for agency practice in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
in 1980,1517 signed into law under President Carter. In addition to setting guidelines intended to
reduce the information requests made by government agencies, the PRA established within the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA).
1514
Steven P. Croley, Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the APA: The Administrative Procedure Act and
Regulatory Reform: A Reconciliation, 10 Admin. L.J. Am. U. 35, 36-38 (1996).
1515
See FUNK, ET AL., supra note 1509 at 22. The procedures which govern agency rulemaking and adjudication
vary in level of formality depending upon the type of rule at issue however, they all have the force of law. The
legal authority of other agency publications is questionable.
1516
The Committees oversight of sue-and-settle practices is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. For an
excellent in-depth discussion of the practice and the threat it poses to American job creators, see U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, Sue and Settle: The Truth About Regulating Behind Closed Doors (2014), available at
https://www.uschamber.com/report/sue-and-settle-regulating-behind-closed-doors.
1517
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. 35013521).
301
OIRA was created with the instructions to:

1) develop and implement Federal information policies, principles, standards, and guidelines;
and
2) oversee the review and approval of information collection requests, the reduction of the
paperwork burden, Federal statistical activities, records management activities, privacy of
records, interagency sharing of information, and acquisition and use of automatic data
processing, telecommunications, and other technology for managing information
resources.1518
Together, the APA and OIRA review under the PRA demonstrate the basic expectation of Americans
that agency practice should reflect themes of democratic accountability as well as technical
competence. Regulators are expected to take actions consistent with the intent of Congress the
legislation crafted by Congress expresses the will of the people, and therefore it is the best
representation of the peoples voice. However, regulators are also expected to maintain expertise
in their assigned areas, to the proper use of scientific, engineering, and economic information,
including the expectation that rules will accomplish their statutory objectives while, whenever
feasible and lawful, meeting basic standards of economic efficiency.1519
THE IMPACT OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Shortly after OIRAs creation, President Ronald Reagan amended the role of the agency through an
executive order, another feature of the Administrative State that is not specifically outlined in the
Constitution. Executive orders are directives issued by the President, as head of the Executive
Branch, to the heads of departments and agencies that fall under his direction. The type and effects
of executive orders vary greatly: Some are quite forceful, making dramatic change to policy.
Others are more routine, housekeeping issues.1520 However, the Presidents executive orders are
probably not legally enforceable; instead they provide guidance, and it is unlikely the head of an
agency could be removed for failing to comply therewith.1521 Two executive orders have been
struck down as unconstitutionally encroaching upon the powers of the Legislative Branch.1522
According to President Reagans Executive Order 12291,1523 agencies1524 are to consider regulatory
action only if the benefits to society outweighed the costs. As part of the rulemaking process,
1518
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511, 3504(a), 94 Stat. 2812, 2815 (1980).
John D. Graham & James Broughel, Stealth Regulation: Addressing Agency Evasion of OIRA and the
Administrative Procedure Act, 30 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POLY: FEDERALIST ED (forthcoming 2014).
1520
Patrick McLaughlin, Measuring the Content, Not Just the Number, of Executive Orders and Proclamations,
MERCATUS CTR., Oct. 16, 2014, available at http://mercatus.org/publication/measuring-content-not-just-numberexecutive-orders-and-proclamations.
1521
Id.
1522
See Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (holding that the President exceeded his
executive authority by ordering the Secretary of Commerce to seize control of the steel mills in the midst of a
strike); Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (holding that the
National Labor Relations Act and its provisions governing federal contracting preempted the Presidents executive
order barring federal contracts from being awarded to businesses that hire permanent workers as replacements
during lawful strikes).
1523
Exec. Order No. 12291, 46 Fed. Reg. 13,193 (Feb. 19, 1981).
1519
302
agencies must prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for any regulation determined to be a
major rule,1525 and they must send proposed and final rules to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review.1526 Due to its responsibilities within OMB generally, to develop and
oversee the implementation of information gathering, analysis and distribution procedures
applicable to the rulemaking process OIRA soon became responsible for the substantive review of
most all federal agency regulations. With Executive Order 12498, President Reagan gave OIRA
even greater oversight authority, allowing the overseer to reject draft rules submitted untimely.1527
The Executive Orders implemented by President Reagan were continued throughout the
administration of President George H.W. Bush.
President Bill Clinton revoked the Regan-era executive Orders and replaced them with Executive
Order 12866 in 1993.1528 This Executive Order, which is still in effect, continued President Reagans
practice of requiring agencies1529 to submit rules to OMB prior to publication. It also continued the
practice of requiring the agencies to perform a cost-benefit analysis. However, instead of requiring
OIRA to review any major rule, review was restricted to only those actions determined to be
significant.1530 Moreover, Executive Order 12866 encouraged agencies to recognize that in some
cases, the best action would be to take no action at all: [i]n deciding whether and how to regulate,
agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including
the alternative of not regulating.1531 In 2003, OMB published Circular A-4, a document providing
guidance as to how agencies should conduct this analysis. It defines standardized methods by
1524
Certain agencies and departments are excluded from this restriction, such as the Government Accountability
Office. See id.
1525
Major rule is defined to include any regulation that is likely to result in: 1) an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more; 2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or geographic regions; or 3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export markets. Exec. Order No. 12291, 46 Fed. Reg. 13,193 (Feb. 19, 1981).
1526
Exec. Order No. 12291, 46 Fed. Reg. 13,193 (Feb. 19, 1981). The regulatory review authority granted to OMB
through the Executive Order was integrated with the responsibilities given to OMB by the PRA which ultimately
resulted in OIRA overseeing Federal information policies as well as reviewing the cost-benefit analysis conducted
by agencies in accordance with the issuance of any major rule. See CURTIS W. COPELAND, CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH SERVICE, Federal Rulemaking: The Role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 3-4 (2009).
1527
Exec. Order no. 12498, 50 Fed. Reg. 1,036 (Jan. 8, 1985).
1528
Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
1529
Consistent with the Executive Orders issued by President Reagan, President Clintons Executive Order applied
to all federal agencies except independent regulatory agencies. Exec. Order No. 12866 3(b), 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735
(Oct. 4, 1993).
1530
Exec. Order No. 12866 3(f), 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Sept. 30, 1993). Significant regulatory action is defined
as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; 2)
Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 3)
Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs o the rights and obligations
o recipients thereof; or 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out o legal mandates, the Presidents priorities,
or the principles set forth in this Executive order. Id.
1531
Exec. Order No. 12866 1(a), 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Sept. 30, 1993) (emphasis added).
303
which the costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives should be calculated.1532 While Circular A-4
should be understood to bind agencies in the Executive Branch, it does not have the force of law.1533
Executive Order 12866 continues to govern the actions of agencies under President Barack Obama,
as amended by Executive Order 13,563.1534 Given the statements he made during the State of the
Union promises to fix broken regulations and eliminate unnecessary red tape, recognizing that
too many regulations raise the cost of doing business 1535 and his appointment of Cass Sunstein
as the Administrator of OIRA, President Obama seemed committed to bringing true reform to the
Administrative State. A law review article co-authored by Mr. Sunstein in 2002 noted that
[e]xpensive regulation may well increase prices, reduce wages, and increase unemployment (and
hence poverty) and suggested a new Executive Order that would rely more heavily on the RIA.1536
1532
Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003).
See Cass R. Sunstein, Essay, The Real World of Cost-Benefit Analysis: Thirty-Six Questions (and Almost as
Many Answers), 114 COLUM. L. REV. 167, 172 (2014).
1534
Jerry Ellig & Richard Williams, Reforming Regulatory Analysis, Review, and Oversight: A Guide for the
Perplexed 4 (Mercatus Ctr., Working Paper No. 14-23, 2014).
1535
President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address (Jan. 25, 2011) (transcript available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address).
1536
Robert W. Hahn & Cass R. Sunstein, A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation? Deeper and
Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis, 150 U. PA. L. REV. 1489 (2002).
1533
304
REGULATING OUT OF BUSINESS: THE IMPACT OF REGULATIONS ON JOB GROWTH

In a study released in early 2013, economists John Dawson and Jon Seater analyzed more than 50
years of government data and concluded that, according to their estimates, annual output by 2005
is about 28 percent of what it would have been had regulation remained at its 1949 level.1537 The
study examined the relationship between growth in regulation as measured by pages in the Code of
Federal Regulations1538 and economic performance measured by growth in real output.1539
Although the estimated impact of regulation on growth is staggering, it is not without support the
pair cite a number of studies analyzing similar sets of regulation data, finding that almost all agree
with the conclusion that regulation has deleterious effects on economic activity.1540
There are, however, some signs that there may be success in rolling back at least some aspects of
the job-killing regulations agencies have issued in recent years. For example, the Supreme Court
has decided to hear a case challenging the EPAs promulgation of the Utility MACT rule,1541
discussed in more detail below. The rule, one of the most costly ever issued, is being challenged
over the sufficiency of EPAs impact analysis, and the outcome of the case could have significant
implications for the rulemaking process [i]f the court strikes the rule, the precedent is very
favorable for industry to challenge air rules based on how costs were taken into consideration.1542
However, a more favorable ruling for the EPA could reinforce agencys efforts to promulgate strict
emissions control regulations without regard to the burdens placed on American job creators.
The findings of numerous economists are supported by statements from Americas own job
creators over-regulation costs American Taxpayers, whether in the form of increased compliance
costs imposed on job creators or in the form of higher prices for consumers when those costs are
1537
JOHN W. DAWSON & JOHN J. SEATER, FEDERAL REGULATION AND AGGREGATE ECONOMIC GROWTH 2 (2013),
available at http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf.
1538
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is an annual compilation of all regulations implemented by federal
agencies. It is published electronically and in print, and is available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR. In their report, Dawson and Seater
explain why using the number of pages in the CFR as a proxy for growth in regulation for a given year is the most
appropriate measure, [a]lthough other researchers have proposed related measures, ours is more precise and covers
a much longer time span. The CFR contains literally every federal regulation in existence during a given year, and it
has a time span of more than 50 years. It thus is much more comprehensive and covers a much longer time span
than previous measures of regulation. Because all federal regulations must be published in the CFR, our page count
measure must have at least a rough correlation with the true amount of regulation that should enter an economic
model. JOHN W. DAWSON & JOHN J. SEATER, FEDERAL REGULATION AND AGGREGATE ECONOMIC GROWTH 4
(2013), available at http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf.
1539
Real output is calculated by starting with gross domestic product (GDP) for the United States and then
subtracting output produced by government, private households, and non-profit institutions. GDP is calculated by
the Bureau of Economic Analysis within the Department of Commerce. For more information on GDP, visit
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp.
1540
JOHN W. DAWSON & JOHN J. SEATER, FEDERAL REGULATION AND AGGREGATE ECONOMIC GROWTH 1 (2013),
available at http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf.
1541
See Robert Barnes, Supreme Court to hear challenge to EPAs power-plant emissions rule, WASH. POST (Nov.
25, 2014), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-toepa-power-plant-mercury-pollution-rule/2014/11/25/3086fad8-74d9-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html.
1542
Greg Stohr, EPA Power Plant Mercury Rule Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review, BLOOMBERG (Nov. 25, 2014)
(quoting Brandon Barnes, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst), available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201411-25/epa-s-power-plant-mercury-rule-gets-review-by-u-s-supreme-court.html.
305
passed on. Through hearings, reports and volumes of letters to regulatory agencies, the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform has given small businesses and large corporations alike the
opportunity to explain how regulations are restricting their opportunities for economic growth,
thereby limiting for all Americans the freedom to work, earn and achieve. In spite of this welldocumented reality, the regulatory state continues to grow, adding billions of dollars in compliance
costs to businesses and job creators costs which are ultimately passed on to hardworking
taxpayers every day in the form of higher prices. Given this reality, the Committee has demanded
accountability from federal agencies by directing them to prove their rules are based on legitimate
needs identified after a fact-based review of the situation, and that they are implemented in a way
that satisfies common sense.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT: EMPLOYER MANDATE

The Committee conducted oversight of the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Acts (PPACA or ACA) provisions on job creators throughout the country. The following section
highlights the Committees findings in this area.
For our nations job creators, the Affordable Care Acts burdensome tax penalties and regulations
directly impact their everyday business decisions, including determining whether to hire new
employees. The vast number of regulations, currently over tens of thousands of pages, has created
uncertainty among business owners as they anticipate the implementation of the employer
mandate in the next two years.1543This uncertainty has prevented businesses from hiring new
employees, taking investment risks, and the like. The largest impact of the Affordable Care Acts
mandates and regulations can be felt by small businesses. Based upon the regulations implemented
under the PPACA, the CMS Office of the Actuary estimates 65 percent of small firms will experience
increases in their premium rates while the remaining 35 percent are expected to experience rate
reductions.1544 Overall, the average monthly insurance cost for small businesses has risen from
$590 per employee in 2009 up to $1,121 in 2014.1545
In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed as an effort to ensure all United
States citizens are covered by health insurance. The legislation created an employer and an
individual mandate in order to ensure all individuals are able to receive affordable health care.
Both mandates have created adverse effects to individuals and employers. The employer mandate
imposes penalties on employers with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees that do not
provide healthcare to employees.1546 The mandate, which was initially supposed to take effect in
20141547, begins to phase in implementation in 2015.1548 The mandate will explicitly raise taxes on
1543
Impact of President Obamas Health Care Law on Jobs Committee Report.

J.D. Harrison, Obama administration: Health laws new rules will increase costs for most small businesses,
WASH. POST, Feb. 25, 2014, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/obamaadministration-health-laws-new-rules-will-increase-costs-for-most-small-businesses/2014/02/24/0623d01e-9d9c11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html
1545
Id.
1546
26 U.S.C. 4980H (2012).
1547
Elise Viebeck and Benjamin Goad, What will Obama do on employer mandate?, THE HILL, Jul. 18, 2014.
1548
U.S. DEPT OF TREASURY, FACT SHEET: FINAL REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING EMPLOYER
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA) FOR 2015 (The employer
responsibility provision [employer mandate] will generally apply to larger firms with 100 or more full-time
1544
306
businesses not in compliance with Washington mandates and implicitly raises the administrative
costs1549 on businesses. The estimated cost of penalty payments by employers over the 2015-2024
period totals $139 billion.1550 Furthermore, the mandate will force businesses to take money away
from employees paychecks as a way of mitigating the rising health insurance costs.1551
There are two main tax penalties on businesses under the employer mandate. The first is a $2,000
tax penalty per full-time worker (exempting the first 30 workers) on every large business that fails
to offer health insurance that complies with the requirements of the PPACA.1552 The second tax
penalty costs businesses that offer health insurance $3,000 for every employee who receives one of
the laws health insurance tax subsidies.1553 Businesses that are not grandfathered1554 from the
PPACA will be vulnerable to every requirement that the Obama Administration believes should be
included in employer sponsored health insurance. One such requirement is the laws essential
benefit package, the package of benefits and services that federal regulators have determined must
be included within health insurance plans comparable to a typical employer plan. Complying with
the essential benefits package will raise the price of insurance for many companies since many
employers current plans do not include all ten categories of coverage required by PPACAs
minimum essential benefits package.
Economic theory and empirical evidence suggests that the burden of paying this tax will primarily
fall on workers in the form of lower wages and fewer jobs, and on consumers in the form of higher
prices.1555 Additionally shareholders will absorb some of the penalty in the form of lower profits.
Lower profits mean fewer resources are available for the business to reinvest in the company,
expand operations, and hire more workers. The business will no longer have as much discretion in
how to compensate employees. Instead of raising salaries, investing in long time profitable
ventures, or providing bonuses, much of a businesss resources will be directed towards compliance
with the employer mandate and paying tax penalties imposed under the mandate. A CEO of a
Restaurant testified before our Committee stating:
Benefits have costs. The money to pay for those benefits has to come from
somewhere. Our business makes a profit. All of that profit is reinvested in the
employees starting in 2015 and employers with 50 or more full-time employees starting in 2016) (available at
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/Fact%20Sheet%20021014.pdf).
1549
The employer mandate, by requiring insurance to be offered to each employee, will require businesses to track
and report how many employees are receiving coverage.
1550
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf
1551
Avik Roy, Two Obamacare Mandates That Dramatically Expand the Internal Revenue Services Power,
FORBES, May 17, 2013.
1552
Hinda Chaikind and Chris L. Peterson, Summary of Potential Employer Penalties Under PPACA (P.L. 111148), Congressional Research Service, Apr. 5, 2010.
1553
PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OF 2010, PUB. L. 111-148; HEALTH CARE
AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010, PUB. L. 111-152.
1554
The Administration has estimated that 49 to 80 percent of small employer plans and 34 to 64 percent of large
employer plans will not be grandfathered meaning the employer health plans will be subject to all requirements
under the health care law. Federal Register Vol. 75, p. 34, 553.
1555
Stephen Entin, A Report of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis: Tax Incidence, Tax Burden, and Tax Shifting:
Who Really Pays the Tax?, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Nov. 5, 2004,
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2004/pdf/cda04-12.pdf.
307
business. When the profit is reduced, you invest less in the business. If the profit is
eliminated, you have nothing to invest in the business. If you don't have anything to
invest, you can't grow and you can't create jobs. So there is a benefit, and I am not
here to argue about that. I just want you to know that there is a cost associated with
the benefit, and I think the businesses that are at this table here are telling you in
some instances it might put them out of business.1556
This is arguably among the most important testimony that Congress has heard regarding the
employer mandate because it is a reminder that all public policies generate both benefits and costs.
In order to best serve the American people, Congress must carefully weigh both the benefits and the
costs of legislative ideas. The PPACA is not without benefit, as some people gain health insurance at
cheaper rates than they would have been able to otherwise. It is becoming increasingly clear,
however, that the costs of the PPACA fewer jobs, lower wages, higher taxes, and reduced
consumer choice will overwhelm these benefits.
The implementation of the employer mandate requires the creation of various new reporting
systems, guidelines, and various administrative procedures. The employer mandate, which is
regulated by the IRS, will include compliance burdens for both the government regulators as well as
the individual employers. The employer mandate, which was originally set to begin enforcement
this past year, was pushed back because of the complexities in constructing an adequate reporting
system.1557
Many businesses, specifically the large business1558, have started cutting costs in a number of ways
to prepare for the expense of transitioning into compliance with Obamacare. For example, UPS
stated they expect the cost of transition to be around $100 million for 2014 alone.1559 In
preparation for these expenses UPS no longer provides coverage on their insurance plan to spouses
or non-union part-time employees.1560 In addition, other companies are cutting costs by
withholding insurance coverage from part-time employees, cutting the hours of full-time employees
to place them below the 30 hour threshold, and withholding spousal coverage.
Moreover, the IRS did not release their first round of draft instructions relating to the employer
mandates reporting requirements until the end of August, just five months away from the first
implementation cycle.1561 Under the Employer mandate businesses are now required to: withhold
and report an additional 0.9 percent on employee wages or compensation exceeding $200,000,
1556
Andrew Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants Inc., Hearing Transcript for Impact of Obamacare on Job Creators
and Their Decision to Offer Health Insurance, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on
Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives, July 28, 2011.
1557
Mark J. Manzur, Continuing to Implement The ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner, DEPT OF TREASURY,
Jul. 2, 2013, http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Continuing-to-Implement-the-ACA-in-a-CarefulThoughtful-Manner-.aspx (The Administration stated the delay was to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to
consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to
adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable
and accessible for their employees).
1558
The employer mandate for large businesses, those with more than 100 employees, takes effect in 2015.
1559
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2013/10/28/employers-grapple-with-cost-obamacare/
1560
Id.
1561
Elise Viebeck, IRS releases O-Care employer mandate guidance after long wait, HILL, Aug. 28, 2014.
308
report the value of the health insurance coverage, file an annual return reporting whether and what
health insurance was offered to employees, and if the employer provides self-insured health
coverage they must file an annual return reporting certain information.1562Each of these reporting
requirements is accompanied with a laundry list of details and information required. Businesses, in
addition to paying for expansive coverage, must also expend large amounts of money and resources
complying with reporting requirements. The administrative burdens on companies further
constrict an employers discretion.
EPA: IMPOSING UNREASONABLE BURDENS ON BUSINESS

The EPAs regulations have been identified time and again as a significant impediment to economic
growth. The sections below document the Committees activities related to specific regulations that
have threatened material harm to American job creators.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulations

One of the most significant regulatory undertakings by the EPA is its series of greenhouse gas
(GHG) regulations stemming from the Massachusetts v. EPA1563 U.S. Supreme Court decision. In
that decision, the Court held that EPA must determine whether GHGs endanger human health and
safety.1564 After this ruling, EPA ultimately determined that GHGs from mobile sources are
pollutants, automatically triggering sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Therefore, the law
required EPA to regulate GHG emissions from stationary sources under Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Title V sections of the CAA.
Under the CAA, emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants are 100 and 250 tons per year (tpy).
EPA estimates that 82,000 PSD permits would be required each year and six million facilities would
need Title V permits in order to operate, proving compliance with the thresholds.1565 Therefore,
many commercial establishments, apartment buildings, hospitals and schools could find themselves
subject to EPA regulations. In an effort to avoid this result, EPA finalized its tailoring rule for GHG
emissions on May 13, 2010.1566 Following a challenge of all of EPAs GHG rules, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the tailoring rule on June 26, 2012.1567 However,
the court did not reach the merits of the rule; instead, the court denied petitioners standing
asserting that they were not harmed.1568
Under the tailoring rule as in force, EPA requires sources that are already subject to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements for other sources of pollution to implement GHG
1562
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions-for-Large-Employers
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
1564
Id.
1565
Business Roundtable, Background Paper on Significant EPA Regulations Pending or Proposed, March 24, 2011,
available at http://businessroundtable.org/uploads/studiesreports/downloads/20110324_Background_on_Regulation_of_GHG_Under_the_CAA.pdf.
1566
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform Preliminary Staff Report, Assessing Regulatory Impediments to Job
Creation, 112th Cong. (2011) available at http://oversight.house.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/Preliminary_Staff_Report__Regulatory_Impediments_to_Job_Creation.pdf.
1567
Tiffany Stecker, Appeals Court Gives EPA a Big Win on Greenhouse Gas Rules, ClimateWire, June 27, 2012,
available at http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2012/06/27/archive/4?terms=tailoring+rule.
1568
Id.
1563
309
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements.1569 On July 1, 2011, EPA activated step
two of the tailoring rule. Under this phase of the regulation, new projects that emit at least
100,000 tpy are subject to PSD permitting requirements meaning these projects would be
required to comply with the BACT requirements. EPA indicated in its final rule that it would revisit
the emissions threshold and make future determinations that could increase the number of
businesses subject to the onerous permitting requirements.1570
The uncertainty of the tailoring rule continues to generate concern among job creators who are
unclear whether or not their industries will be included in GHG regulations. For example, members
of the Agricultural Retailers Association fear that their farmer customers and their businesses will
eventually be brought into the rule.1571 The rule would increase electricity costs for farms, which
in turn could cause farms to shut down, depleting the customer base for the Agricultural Retailers
Associations members.1572 Furthermore, the National Federation of Independent Businesses raised
concerns about the uncertainty that the tailoring rule provides small business because the small
business protections provided in this rule could be thrown out by a court at any time.1573 The
Associated Builders and Contractors are similarly concerned that an expanded application of the
GHG rules could increase energy costs.1574 It is clear that the changing nature of the tailoring rule,
as well as the uncertainty as to whether it will apply to more sources, is of great concern to job
creators.
Boiler MACT
The Boiler MACT rule, pursuant to authority delegated to the EPA through the Clean Air Act,
regulates emissions of area source boilers and process heaters and requires that Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) be implemented by regulated entities.1575 EPA proposed
the initial rule in June 2010, issued a final rule in March 2011, and on the same day, in an
unprecedented action, also issued a notice of reconsideration.1576 On May 18, 2012, EPA submitted
a revised rule to the Office of Management and Budget signaling that the reconsidered rule should
1569
1570
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514 (June
3, 2010) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pts 51, 52, 70, 71).
1571
Letter from Daren Coppack, Agricultural Retailers Association, the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, June 7, 2012 (on file with author).
1572
Id.
1573
Letter from Susan Eckerly, Senior Vice President, Public Policy, National Federation of Independent Businesses
to the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, May 31, 2012 (on file with
author).
1574
Letter from Geoffrey Burr, Vice President, Federal Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. to
Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform, May 31,
2012 (on file with author).
1575
http://www.epa.gov/airtoxics/boiler/boilerpg.html.
1576
Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Standards for Boilers and Process Heaters and Commercial /
Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators, Regulatory Actions, available at
http://epa.gov/airquality/combustion/actions.html.
310
be finalized within 90 days.1577 The final rule was published on January 31, 2013. Perhaps
unsurprising given the regulations conflicted past, the rule has been highly criticized for setting
unattainable emission standards. On December 1, 2014, EPA announced it proposes
reconsideration of, and requests public comment on, clean air standards for industrial boilers, and
certain incinerators.1578
While industry groups acknowledged that EPA has made Boiler MACT less stringent than the initial
final rule published in March 2011, the costs and burdens of the reconsidered rule are still
substantial. According to a study performed by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO),
job creators will be on the hook for up to $15 billion in regulatory compliance costs under the
reconsidered rule.1579 The Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association
(ARIPPA), the trade association that represents electric generating plants that use stockpiled coal
refuse, sees Boiler MACT as a clear threat to existing jobs, stating, the emission standards
identified in the proposed Boiler MACT rule are not reflective of achievable emissions for ARIPPA
plants.1580 Furthermore, CF Industries informed the Committee that the primary concern with the
rule . . . is the proposed timetable for boiler inspections, which would interrupt established
inspection schedules, leading to extended production outages.1581 Accordingly, Boiler MACT
continues to be a rule whose uncertainty and high cost cause concerns amongst job creators.
Brick MACT
According to the Brick Industry Association, businesses in their trade create approximately
200,000 jobs in America.1582 However, since the construction downturn began in 2006,
approximately 9,000 direct manufacturing jobs, and approximately 86,000 indirect brick jobs
in distribution, design, installation and related fields, have been lost.1583 In addition to this
hardship, brick makers are facing onerous industry-specific regulations. The first is a re-issuing
of a Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule for clay brick and tile (Brick MACT). EPA
finalized the original Brick MACT in 2003 to regulate emissions that might be produced when
the raw brick materials are fired in kilns to make bricks. The industry spent over $100 million
to install and operate required control devices to meet the 2006 compliance date.1584 In 2007,
more than a year after enforcement of Brick MACT began; a federal court vacated the rule and
the standards in their entirety and sent them back to EPA to be rewritten.
1577
Jeremy P. Jacobs, EPA Sends Boiler Rules to White House, Greenwire, May 18, 2012 available at
http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2012/05/18/archive/3?terms=boiler+mact.
1578
Announcement, EPA, Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Dec. 1, 2014), available
at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html.
1579
Letter from Jay Timmons, President and CEO, National Association of Manufacturers to Chairman Darrell Issa
and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, June 4, 2012 (on file with
author).
1580
Letter from Jeff McNelly, Executive Director, ARIPPA to Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee Chairman
Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, May 31, 2012 (on file with author).
1581
Letter from Stephen R. Wilson, Chairman & CEO, CF Industries to Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee
Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, June 15, 2012 (on file with author).
1582
Letter from J. Gregg Borchelt, President & CEO, Brick Industry Association, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm.
on Oversight & Govt Reform 1 (Jan. 10, 2011) (on file with author).
1583
Id.
1584
Id.
311
EPA is now developing a new Brick MACT but is using the achievements of brick
manufacturers under the remanded rule against them as a basis for even more stringent
standards. The EPA estimated the revised Brick MACT would cost the industry $188 million per
year.1585 Based on figures cited by the Brick Industry Association, brick manufacturers total
revenue in 2009 was approximately $940 million.1586 According to EPAs own estimates, Brick
MACT will impose a compliance cost of approximately 20 percent of the industry's revenue,
endangering the viability of brick making, and its corresponding jobs, across the United States.
A finalized rule is projected to be published in December of this year.1587
OSHA Injury Illness and Prevention Program (I2P2)

Business groups have been concerned about OSHAs Injury Illness and Prevention Program (I2P2)
for some time; the rule would mandate how companies, both large and small, plan, implement,
evaluate and improve processes and activities that protect employee safety and health.1588 I2P2 is a
high priority for OSHA; yet, OSHA has not formally proposed a rule. When it was reported that
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, David Michaels, was asked if OSHA
would propose the rule before the 2012 elections, and he responded that it was a possibility, but
added but Im not allowed to say that.1589 Since then, the rule has been moved to the
Administrations long-term action list.1590
Employers support improvements to safety and health management; however, they do not believe
that government mandates are necessary to achieve these goals. In particular, business groups
have voiced concerns about OSHAs decision to take a regulatory approach, rather than utilize
cooperative tactics to better proliferate . . . useful programs.1591 Further, many employers
voluntarily conduct programs similar to I2P2 to improve health and safety.1592 Member companies
of the Associated Builders and Contractors and the American Forest and Paper Association
(AFPA) fear that the proposal could negatively impact employers that already have effective I2P2
programs in place1593 and believe it does not make sense for the Federal Government to . . . add an
1585
Id.
Id. at 2.
1587
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/(LookupRIN)/2060-AP69#1.
1588
Injury and Illness Prevention Program, 75 Fed. Reg. 23637 (May 4, 2010).
1589
MSDS Online, OHSAs Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2) Rising (June 11, 2012), available at
http://blog.msdsonline.com/2012/06/osha%E2%80%99s-injury-and-illness-prevention-program-i2p2-rising/.
1590
Stephen Lee, et al., OSHA Demotes I2P2 Rule to Long-Term Action List in Spring Regulatory Agenda,
BLOOMBERG BNA, May 29, 2014, available at http://www.bna.com/osha-demotes-i2p2-n17179890840/.
1591
1592
2012 (on file with author); Letter from Donna Harman, President and CEO, American Forest & Paper Association to
Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform, June 6,
1593
1586
312
additional layer of bureaucracy and command-and-control.1594 AFPA emphasizes that each

companys workplace environment is unique and in many respects the employer is in the best
position to understand what types of programs would meet the needs of its employees.1595
Therefore, a collaborative approach between OSHA and employers may be a more effective method
to improving health and safety.
The cost of the I2P2, especially to small businesses, is also a concern. The Associated Builders and
Contractors worries that significant cost and compliance burdens could be imposed on businesses,
and the proposal could lead to double dip citations for infractions (once under existing rules, and
once under the new I2P2 requirements).1596 The National Federation of Independent Business
believes that [d]eveloping a formal program could be a costly exercise for small businesses and
become a paperwork nightmare.1597 Moreover, I2P2 would likely require small businesses to
address all foreseeable hazards meaning that any workplace accident, no matter how unlikely,
could be interpreted as foreseeable and expose small firms to fines and penalties.1598 The
uncertainty of the cost appears to be a legitimate concern as the Associated Builders and
Contractors notes that OSHA has been known to significantly underestimate employer costs.1599
1594
Letter from Donna Harman, President and CEO, American Forest & Paper Association to Chairman Darrell Issa
and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform, June 6, 2012 (on file with
author).
1595
Id.
1596
1597
author).
1598
Id.
1599
313
UNPRECEDENTED EXPANSION OF REGULATORY STATE

Although the departments and agencies of the Federal Government play an important role
in facilitating the execution of laws passed by the Legislative Branch, the scope of their
authority should be interpreted narrowly. According to President Bill Clintons Executive
Order, as adopted by President Obama:
Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law,
are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need,
such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve health and safety
of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people.1600
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has conducted extensive oversight of the
unprecedented expansion of the Administrative State in recent years. As the economy continues to
slowly recover from the financial crisis, EPAs continued use of the sue and settle practice and its
attempts to redefine the Clean Water Act permitting process, the steps taken by the National Labor
Relations Board to encourage unionization through rules, and enhanced government regulation of
activities in the financial and banking sectors are just a few examples of regulatory overreach that
threaten continued economic growth.
SUE AND SETTLE

Sue and settle is a term coined by Minnesota Democratic Representative Colin Peterson that
refers to the questionable practice by regulatory agencies to include regulatory mandates in
voluntary settlement agreements.1601 Sue and settle settlement agreements are often the result of
friendly lawsuits brought by special interest groups against federal agencies. The settlements
mandate subsequent regulatory action, usually under a compressed timeline and generally, the
attorneys fees of the party initiating the lawsuit are paid by the government.1602 In doing so,
agencies bypass the proper rulemaking process and avoid basic principles of transparency and
accountability.
Rules issued in this manner are often unfair to job creators and other stakeholders because they are
denied a seat at the table, while the agency ties its hands at the behest of certain special interest
groups. For example, an EPA lawsuit in California brought by a number of environmental groups
questioned North Dakotas Regional Haze implementation plan. Even though the settlement could
have stifling effects on power and cement plants in North Dakota, the State of North Dakota was
only informed of the lawsuit after settlement terms were reached.1603
1600
Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
See Press Release, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Issa: EPA Using Sue and Settle to
Regulate Job Creators (Apr. 19, 2011).
1602
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reviewed a number of sue and settle cases in 2013, finding that attorneys fees
were awarded [to the advocacy groups filing the lawsuits] in at least 65 % (49 or 71) of the cases. U.S.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, SUE AND SETTLE: REGULATING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 12-13, note 14
(2013) [hereinafter REGULATING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS].
1603
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, EPAs New Regulatory Front: Regional Haze and the Takeover of State Programs,
(2012), available at https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/reports/1207_ETRA_HazeReport_lr.pdf.
1601
314
Sue and settle has been used to create many of the most controversial, economically significant
regulations that have plagued the business community for the past few years.1604 The agencies
voluntarily enter into a settlement in which it agrees to be legally obligated to comply with terms
for regulatory action that were negotiated with a single interest group, effectively creating rules
without going through the notice and comment process. The settlement agreements establish strict
deadlines that force the agency to act aggressively without first conducting proper research and
studies.
The rulemaking process is designed to incorporate the public into the lawmaking process and
protect against agency overreach by holding agencies accountable. Agencies have engaged in sue
and settle as a way of escaping accountability and pursuing administrative agendas. According to an
article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Sue and Settle does not reflect a careful
weighing of priorities by expert bureaucrats.1605 Rather, sue and settle is used to bypass required
compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a key component and safeguard of
delegating legislative authority to administrative agencies within the Executive Branch. Moreover,
in many cases sue and settle expands federal authority by effectively cutting States out of their
regulatory role, effectively diminishing the role of federalism. Regulations that have historically
been left up to the States to decide and implement are frequently being usurped by federal
agencies, specifically the EPA1606, by effectively shut[ting] the States out of the decision-making
process and forc[ing] them into a subservient role as enforcers of federal court orders.1607
From 2009-2012, a total of 71 sue and settle cases led to over 100 new regulations, many with
annual compliance costs around $100 million. 1608 During the Administrations first term, the EPA
1604
Id.
Henry N. Butler and Nathaniel J. Harris, Sue, Settle, and Shut out the States: Destroying the Environmental
Benefits of Cooperative Federalism, 37 HARV. J.L. & PUB. PLY 579 (2014).
1606
The Regional Haze Rule settlement resulted in EPA taking over the States role in setting compliance standards.
1607
Butler, supra note 1605.
1608
See REGULATING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, supra note 1602.
1605
315
used sue and settle nearly six times more1609 often than all other agency departments combined.
EPAs actions accounted for 84.5% of all sue and settlement cases. The Obama Administration
settled twice as many Clean Air Act lawsuits as previous administrations.1610 The concern is that
settlements can impose significant costs and expand the regulatory burden on industries while
contravening statutory and regulatory review procedures.1611 An example of these costs can be
seen in the chart below depicting ten costly sue and settle regulations.
Ten Costly Regulations Resulting From Sue & Settle

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Utility MACT Rule

Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule
Oil and Natural Gas MACT rule
Florida Nutrient Standards for Estuaries and Flowing Waters
Regional Haze Implementation Rules
Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act Rules
Boiler MACT Rules
Standards for Cooling Water Intake Structures
Revision to the NAAQS PM
Reconsideration of 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Up to $9.6 billion annually

Up to $500 million in first-year
Up to $738 million annually
$2.16 billion cost to comply
Up to $18 billion cost to comply
Up to $3 billion cost to comply
Up to $90 billion annually
Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

On August 26, 2009, the EPA voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement that legally obligated
the agency to issue regulations that met certain requirements specified in the agreement. The new
regulations would amend an existing regulation that had been developed in full compliance of the
regulatory process notice and comment requirements. The settlement agreement, which dictated
the content of the new regulations, was negotiated behind closed doors between the EPA and two
similarly situated interest groups. Essentially, the settlement required EPA to replace a rule
promulgated with public participation and full transparency with regulations predetermined in a
secret deal.
EPA issued the initial Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (LRRP) rule in 2008, pursuant to the
Toxic Substances Control Act.1612 The rule requires that renovations to a home built before 1978
follow certain work practices supervised by an EPA-certified renovator and performed by an EPAcertified firm.1613 After a review of the science and consultation with small businesses, EPA
determined that an opt-out provision in the rule, exercised at the election of a homeowner, could
1609
If a regulation issued as a result of a sue and settle case was promulgated by two agencies, it was counted toward
the total for the agency with the higher number of cases to prevent double counting regulations.
1610
REGULATING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, supra note 1602. In President Clintons second term there were
27 sue and settle cases, in President George W. Bushs first term there were 38 sue and settle cases, in President
Bushs second term there were 28 sue and settle cases, and in Obamas first term there were 71 sue and settle cases.
Id.
1611
Scott W. Harngren and Shay S. Scott, Consent Decree Cannot Circumvent the Statutory Public Review Process
to Change Federal Management Plans, 45 ABA TRENDS 21 (2014).
1612
Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, 73 Fed. Reg. 21692 (Apr. 22, 2008).
1613
Id.
316
still protect from the dangers of lead paint.1614 The opt-out provision allowed contractors to forgo
the training and work practice requirements if they obtained a certificate from the homeowner
stating that no children under age six or a pregnant woman resided in the home.1615
When special interest groups challenged this balanced approach, EPA declined to defend the rule
and opted to enter into a settlement agreement. In reaching the settlement, EPA did not provide
notice or solicit comments from the public. The settlement agreement required EPA to propose and
finalize a new rule that removed the opt-out provision.1616 On October 28, 2009, EPA proposed the
rule, and it was finalized on May 6, 2010.1617
The removal of the opt-out provision is likely not the end of changes to the LRRP rule. The
settlement agreement also mandated that additional lead paint rules be considered.1618 EPA issued
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to require that exterior renovations to public and
commercial buildings, other than those that are child-occupied, adhere to the same lead paint
practices as residential buildings.1619 Another proposed rule requires these practices be applied to
the interior renovations of non-residential buildings, such as certain public and commercial
buildings as well.1620 This rule is expected to be finalized in 2015.1621
While sharing EPAs objective of protecting children and pregnant women from lead paint hazards,
a broad array of groups continue to identify problems associated with the well-intentioned LRRP
rule. In particular, the rule requires the use of lead testing kits but many groups attest that EPA has
not yet recognized an accurate test. The National Lumber and Building Material Dealers
Association and the National Association of Home Builders, among others, emphasize that no test
kit is currently available that meets EPAs requirements. Instead, [c]urrent test kits can produce
up to 60 percent false positives, meaning that in many cases, consumers are needlessly paying
additional costs for work practices that are unnecessary.1622
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) adds that the removal of the opt-out
provision ha[s] led homeowners to explore using underground contractors that do not comply
with the EPAs requirements at all.1623 Indeed, a survey conducted by the National Association of
the Remodeling Industry shows that 77 percent of homeowners are avoiding the rule by doing
1614
Letter from Susan Walthall, Acting Chief Counsel, & Kevin Bromberg, Chief Counsel for Envtl Policy, Small
Bus. Admin. Office of Advocacy, to the Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, EPA (Nov. 27, 2009).
1615
Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, 73 Fed. Reg. 21692 (Apr. 22, 2008).
1616
Motion to Sever and Hold in Abeyance Nos. 08-1235 and 08-1258, Natl Assoc. of Homebuilders v. Envtl Prot.
Agency, No. 08-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 26, 2009) (settlement agreement between the EPA and public interest groups).
1617
EPA, Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 24802, May 6, 2010.
1618
Public Interest Petitioners (Sierra Club and New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning), et. al. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, Settlement Agreement, Case No. 08-1193.
1619
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173-0001;oldLink=false.
1620
Settlement Agreement, Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, No. 08-1193 (9th Cir. 2009).
1621
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41561.pdf.
1622
Letter from James W. Tobin III, Senior Vice President and Chief Lobbyist, Ntl. Assn. of Home Builders to
Chairman Darrell Issa, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform, June 13, 2012 (on file with author).
1623
author).
317
remodeling work on their own, or hiring a non-certified contractor to perform the work.1624 In
these instances the rule actually leads to an increased risk of lead paint exposure, while also
negatively affecting certified contractors ability to compete. The National Lumber and Building
Material Dealers Association states that legitimate businesses complying with the LRRP rule
cannot compete for much needed work against non-compliant contractors that, ironically, lack the
training to actually perform lead-safe renovations and prevent lead hazard exposures.1625 The
Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy comments that [r]eform of the expensive
requirements of the current LRRP rule continues to be one of the highest priorities of the small
business community.1626 This is unsurprising as the opt-out provision had saved the industry
approximately $500 million in compliance costs.1627
Utility MACT
Utility MACT, also known as the Mercury Air Toxic Standards, is one of the most expensive rules
ever promulgated by the EPA and it is an excellent example of how secret backroom deals produce
poor quality regulations supported by strained analysis to meet self-imposed deadlines. Utility
MACT regulations were a direct result of a consent decree reached between the EPA and various
environmental groups pushing for a stronger regulatory hand. The result was a regulation that, by
EPAs estimates, includes nearly $9.6 billion in annual compliance costs.
In 1990, amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegated authority to the EPA to regulate
hazardous air pollutants. Due to the importance of maintaining reliable electricity, the statute
required EPA to conduct a study about Electric Generating Utilities (EGUs) to determine the
hazards to public health reasonably anticipated to occur as a result of emissions and to develop
alternative control strategies for emissions.1628 In 2000, EPA published the study stating it was
appropriate and necessary after considering the results to regulate emissions of EGUs.1629 EPA
promulgated a rule in 2005 that regulated hazardous air pollutants while balancing the costs of
implementation, considering the sensitive nature of ensuring electricity reliability. However, the
rule was vacated in 2008 for failing to comply with certain statutory requirements.
After the Obama Administration took office in 2009, the EPA entered into a settlement agreement
with special interests groups to promulgate a rule to replace the vacated rule. EPA issued the
proposed rule in 2011 and the final rule in early 2012. 1630 According to the Chamber of Commerce
Utility MACT, as currently issued could threaten Americas electricity reliability, global
1624
National Association of the Remodeling Industry, Summary of Survey about the EPAs Lead Renovation,
Repair, Painting (LRRP) Rule (June 2011).
1625
Letter from Ben Gann, Director of Legislative Affairs, Ntl. Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
to Chairman Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
1626
SBA Office of Advocacy, Report on the Regulatory Flexibility Act FY 2011: Annual Report of the Chief
Counsel of Advocacy on Implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272 (Feb. 2012)
available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/11regflx_0.pdf
1627
author).
1628
Clean Air Act Amend. of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-549 112(n)(1).
1629
The study is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/eurtc1.pdf (last accessed Dec. 19, 2014).
1630
The Committee held two hearings in 2011 addressing the potentially stifling effects of the Utility MACT
regulations.
318
competitiveness, and job creation.1631 The Chamber of Commerce estimates the economy will lose
180,000 to 215,000 jobs by 2015 as a direct result of the settlement.1632 The regulations combined
with other new EPA regulations on the electric power sector will increase the total number of jobs
lost to approximately 1.65 million by 2020.1633
However, EPA was quickly back in court to address inadequacies in the new rule. The case will be
heard by the Supreme Court in the next term. While EPA claimed tens of billions of dollars in
benefits, few monetized benefits were actually attributable to reducing hazardous air pollutants
that the statute authorized EPA to regulate. The vast majority of benefits were associated with the
reduction in emissions of fine particulate matter, which is not considered hazardous air pollutants.
According to EPA, fine particulate matter is made up of a number of components, including acids
(such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.1634 It is not,
however, a substance for which EPA has statutory authority to regulate under the CAA. Despite the
$9.6 billion price tag and the lack of benefits associated with regulating the air pollutants, EPA
argues that it was not required to consider costs.1635
EPA also failed to consider feasibility. In 2013, EPA modified the standards for mercury emissions
by new coal-fired power plants because the original standard was significantly lower that what the
current technology can test. The change came as a response to comments from the Institute of
Clean Air Companies, a trade association that represents manufacturers of pollution control and
monitoring equipment. In the fall of 2014, the Supreme Court agreed to review the EPAs method of
promulgating this regulation, consolidating four cases brought by state and local governments and
industry representatives. The question the Court will consider is whether the Environmental
Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate
to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.1636
EPA CLEAN WATER ACT 404(C) PERMITTING

The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 to regulate the discharge of pollutants into the waters of
the United States and create quality standards for surface water.1637 As part of the Clean Water Act,
the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are tasked with reviewing and approving discharge
permits, also known as 404 permits.1638 The 404 permitting process vests the authority to issue
permits within the Army Corps of Engineers, through approval of disposal sites by the EPA. The
1631
Press Release, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber Disappointed with EPA Issuing Another Job-Killing
Rule (Dec. 21, 2011), available at https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/us-chamber-disappointed-epa-issuinganother-job-killing-rule.
1632
Sue and Settle: Secret backroom deals by bureaucrats and environmentalists hurt the American economy,
CAPITAL RESEARCH CTR. GREEN WATCH BLOG (Jul. 5, 2013, 11:49 AM), available at
http://capitalresearch.org/2013/07/sue-and-settle-secret-backroom-deals-by-bureaucrats-and-environmentalists-hurtthe-american-economy/.
1633
Id.
1634
Particulate Matter, EPA, http://www.epa.gov/pm/ (last accessed Dec. 19, 2014).
1635
See White Stallion Energy Ctr., LLC v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
1636
The Supreme Court granted petitions of certiorari from three appellants, agreeing to address the EPAs
consideration of the costs imposed by the EPA regulation in a consolidated action limited to the question cited on
November 25, 2014. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112514zr_32q3.pdf.
1637
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
1638
33 U.S.C. 1344.
319
EPA has a final decision to veto disposal sites as well as a final veto power if they find the discharge
will cause unacceptable adverse effects on the environment.1639
EPAs veto authority, up until the past several years, has only been invoked during the permitting
process, not before or after. Discharge permits have become vital for those involved in various
industries, including building, agriculture, mining, transportation, and energy projects in order to
run their businesses. Invoking an EPA 404(c) veto is an extremely rare occurrence, only twelve
404(c) actions have been filed since 1981.1640 Notably, in each of these twelve cases the veto
occurred prior to the issuance of a 404 permit.
Mingo Logans permit for Spruce Mine Retroactive Veto

In 2011 the EPA, in a completely unprecedented action1641, revoked a duly issued Army Corps of
Engineers 404(c) discharge permit three years after the permit had taken affect. Prior to Army
Corps issuance of the permit the EPA had the ability to raise any concerns regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed discharge material.1642 The EPA refrained from acting on
previously stated concerns and in 2007 the Army Corps issued Mingo Logan a permit for its Spruce
Mine set to expire in December of 2031.
The permit allowed Spruce Mine to initiate a surface coal mining project. However, three years
after issuance of the permit, the EPA unilaterally acted in revoking Spruce Mines permit.1643 EPAs
final determination withdrawing the Spruce Mine permit was done by withdrawing specification
sites outlined within the permit.
The authority to revoke dully issued permits has drawn heavy criticism for the potential adverse
effects of such administrative authority. Extremely concerning is Chamber of Commerces estimate
that over $220 billion of investment annually is conditioned on the issuance of these discharge
permits.1644 Uncertainties now surround 404(c) permits, which are a vital part to numerous
undertakings and projects. Investors, businesses and industry wide participants are now vulnerable
to government agencies even if they are fully complying with the terms set out within their 404(c)
permits. This vulnerability leaves permit holders with no assurances upon which to substantially
invest resources into projects due to the fear of regulatory interference.1645
Pebble Mine Preemptive Veto

The EPA continues to attempt to expand its statutory authority under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) to regulate mining operations. In 2011, the EPA received petitions from anti1639
33 U.S.C. 1344.
Deidre G. Duncan and Karma B. Brown, EPAs Unprecedented Exercise of Authority Under Clean Water Act
Section 404(c), ABA IN-HOUSE COUNSEL COMM. NEWSLETTER, Vol. 12 No. 2, Jun. 2011.
1641
The Committee held a hearing titled The Green Agenda and the War on Coal: Perspective from the Ohio
Valley to examine the effects of federal regulation on the economy and job creators.
1642
The Army Corps is required to draft and issue an Environmental Impact Statement prior to approving a permit.
1643
Important to note is Army Corps refusal to revoke or suspend the Mingo Logan permit prior to EPAs
revocation.
1644
Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. as Amicus Curiae Supporting
Petitioner, Mingo Local Coal Co. v. EPA, No. 13-599 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2013).
1645
See Duncan and Brown, supra, note 1640.
1640
320
mining activists calling for a preemptive veto of a permit for the Pebble Mine Project under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. EPA appears poised to strike down the project before it has even
applied for CWA permits and discussed a Pebble Project veto as early as January 2010, a year prior
to any assessment taking place.1646
The Pebble Mine project is a copper and other mineral extraction project that would be located in
Southwest Alaska near Bristol Bay. The Pebble Mine would create 1,000 permanent jobs and 2,000
construction jobs in an area of Alaska with high unemployment and low job growth and
opportunity.1647 These jobs would pay an average of $90,000 per year.1648 Pebble Mine would
represent an investment of billions of dollars into the economy of Alaska. Currently, the project is
undertaking environmental studies focusing on environmental impacts and exploratory drilling.
The Pebble Project has not yet applied to EPA for a CWA permit, nor has it begun the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
EPA is considering using an unprecedented and legally questionable interpretation of the CWA to
preemptively veto permits for the Pebble Mine. EPA released a draft Watershed Assessment on
May 18, 2012, which may be used as justification to deny permits to the Pebble Mine before a plan
is even submitted to the agency. In February 2014, the EPA sent a letter to Pebble Partnership
asserting that it was beginning the process to review potential adverse environmental effects.1649 In
fact, EPA believes that it possesses the authority to deny a permit before a sponsor even applies
under Section 404(c) of the CWA, as indicated in a letter sent by EPA in response to Chairmen Issa
and Jordan.1650
The Pebble Partnership has spent over $500 million in studying the environmental impacts of a
potential mine and in preparing for the 404 permitting process.1651 However, the Pebble Project
has encountered an EPA that has seemingly embraced the actions sought by our organized
opposition and is now helping them to build a justification (through a flawed watershed
assessment) for EPA to expand their jurisdiction using a legally questionable interpretation of the
Clean Water Act.1652 Moreover, the Pebble Partnership wrote that [i]f a 404(c) preemptive veto is
granted or conditions are imposed by the EPA, it will chill additional investment in and attendant
1646
COMM. OF OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, ISSA SUBPOENAS EPA FOR PEBBLE MINE
DOCUMENTS, Mar. 21, 2014, http://oversight.house.gov/release/issa-subpoenas-epa-pebble-mine-documents/. On
March 14 Chairman Issa, Subcommittee Chairman James Lankford, and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, sent a
letter to EPS Inspector General Arthur Elkins, Jr. requesting an investigation into the EPAs decision to rely on a
rarely-used provision of the Clean Water Act to preememptively veto the proposed Pebble Project. Id.
1647
JEFF DESJARDINS, VISUAL CAPITALIST, THE PEBBLE PROJECT ECONOMICS AND EMPLOYMENT (2013), available
at http://www.visualcapitalist.com/pebble-project-economics-employment/.
1648
Letter from John Shively, CEO, The Pebble Partnership, to Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight &Govt Reform, June 29, 2012 (on file with author).
1649
Diane Meyers, Pebble Mine Jumps the Gun on Challenge to EPAs 404(c) Authority, SCIENCE, LAW & THE
ENVIRONMENT, Sept. 29, 2014, http://www.sciencelawenvironment.com/2014/09/pebble-mine-jumps-the-gunon-challenge-to-epas-404c-authority/.
1650
Letter from Arvin Ganesan, Associate Administrator, EPA, to Hon. DarrellIssa, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight & Govt Reform, June 22, 2012 (on file with author).
1651
Letter from John Shively, CEO, The Pebble Partnership, to Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Oversight &Govt Reform, June 29, 2012 (on file with author).
1652
Id.
321
jobs from mining projects nationwide.1653 The Pebble Project is simply calling for due process
and to understand why, in these challenging economic times, a federal agency can operate outside
of the standard NEPA process to potentially stop a project before it has been defined or filed for a
single permit.1654
Pebble Mine has pursued and continues to pursue litigation questioning the actions of the EPA. The
Court initially dismissed Pebble Mines claim that preemptive vetoes were outside of EPAs
authority for lack of jurisdiction because EPA only commenced an action, but has not concluded any
final action.1655 Once the EPA concludes its open comment period and promulgates an official
determination on the use of waters in the Bristol Bay watershed for disposal the Court will obtain
jurisdiction.1656 Pebble Mine is now pursuing a second lawsuit alleging the EPA colluded with
opponents of Pebble Mine.
UNIONIZATION BY REGULATION
Throughout the Obama Administration there has been a significant push for regulations that
strongly promote and harbor unionization. The regulations force upon private-sector employees
unionization that otherwise would be left to their informed discretion. The most recent regulations
significantly interfere with an individuals decision to join or forego union membership as well as
attempt to force employers to set up shop in union states, both of which exceed far beyond the
bounds of the National Labor Relations Board statutory authority and call into question the
purpose behind such regulations. Commentators have stated, [t]he Obama-era National Labor
Relations Board has tilted so heavily toward union interests that companies might be forgiven for
thinking the process is rigged against them.1657
In 1935, the National Labor Relations Act established the ability of private-sector workers to
unionize and collectively bargain with the employer as well as the ability for employers and unions
to enter into union security agreements or union shop agreements. Union security contractual
agreements required employers to hire employees that were contributing members to the union or
joined the union shortly after gaining employment.1658 If the employee did not join the union and
pay union dues, they would be fired by the employer. Therefore, employees, through the union
security agreements, were directly compelled to join and pay for union membership. However, the
Taft-Hartley Act, passed in 1947, permitted states to pass legislation that would supersede these
union security agreements effectively banning such agreements from occurring.1659 The individual
states that pass such legislation are called right-to-work states because they allow employees the
1653
Id.
Id.
1655
Diane Meyers, Pebble Mine Jumps the Gun on Challenge to EPAs 404(c) AUTHORITY, SCIENCE, LAW & THE
ENVIRO., Sept. 29, 2014, http://www.sciencelawenvironment.com/2014/09/pebble-mine-jumps-the-gun-onchallenge-to-epas-404c-authority/.
1656
Id.
1657
Editorial, Another Labor Board Power Play, Wall Street J., (May 23, 2011), available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576335191478940656.html (last visited June 7, 2011).
1658
BENJAMIN COLLINS, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R42575, RIGHT TO WORK LAWS: LEGISLATIVE
BACKGROUND AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH (2014).
1659
See 29 U.S.C. 164(b). The RTW provisions of the NLRA are also sometimes referred to as 14(b) provisions,
after the section of the NLRA that permits RTW laws
1654
322
right to work regardless of whether or not they join or contribute to unions. There are currently 24
right-to-work states, with the most recent right to work statutes taking place in Indiana and
Michigan in 2012.1660 Right to work states guarantee employee freedom and provide an
environment that spurs economic growth, the importance of which cannot be understated. The
economic implication of union states versus right-to-work states has been and continues to be an
area of study for many scholars and academics across industries. The empirical evidence across the
board has shown, aggregate employment in [right-to-work] states has increased while
employment in union security states has declined.1661 While the debate between right-to-work and
union states continues it is uncontested that employers, as a matter of business judgment among
numerous other factors1662, have the freedom to choose where to locate their business.
One of the most glaring unprecedented administrative pushes towards unionization was the 2010
suit brought by Acting General Counsel of the NLRB against Boeing alleging improper transfer of
existing work. The suit was the result of Boeings decision to invest over $1 billion in building a
manufacturing plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, as opposed to opening the plant in
Washington, a union state.1663 The relief the NLRB requested was movement of the South Caroline
plant to Washington1664, directly taking away a business decision for its own company and
effectively compelling unionization by location of the plant. The allegations raised involved Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, section 1 makes it unlawful to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed [self-organize, collective
bargaining, etc.],1665 and section 3 makes it an unfair labor practice for any employer to encourage
or discourage membership in a labor organization.1666
Boeings plant in South Carolina, which opened shortly before the complaint against the
corporation was filed, brought over $1 billion in investment into the State as well as more than
9,000 jobs1667. The economic stimulus provided by one plant has had drastic effects on the
improvement of the local economy in South Carolina. The relief requested, if granted, would result
in the loss of thousands of jobs, over a billion dollars of investment, and stalled economic
production. Furthermore, if the relief requested was enforced it would explicitly favor the rights to
union workers in Washington over the rights of right-to-work employees in South Carolina.1668
1660
BENJAMIN COLLINS, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R42575, RIGHT TO WORK LAWS: LEGISLATIVE
BACKGROUND AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH (2014).
1661
Id.
1662
A contributing factor is whether the state is union or right-to-work since there are different, but important,
implications in both state structures.
1663
The Committee held a hearing on the alleged suit titled Unionization Through Regulation: The NLRBs Holding
Pattern on Free Enterprise. The hearing took place in South Caroling on June 17, 2011.
1664
Complaint; Letter from J. Michael Luttig, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Boeing, to Lafe
E. Solomon, Acting General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board (May 3, 2011).
1665
29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1).
1666
Id. 158 (a)(3).
1667
Jim McNerney, Boeing Chairman, President & CEO, Boeing is Pro-Growth, Not Anti-Union,
OPINION, WALL STREET J., May 11, 2011 available at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576315141682547796.html (last visited June 8, 2011).
1668
Motion to Intervene, Boeing and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge
751, affiliated with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, before the National Labor
323
However, the NLRB argued the current employees in Washington had a right for the plant to be
built in their State. This allegation completely disregarded the fact there was no actual transfer of
work from Washington, where an existing Boeing plant was already located, to South Carolina, but
rather a new line of production was the focus of the plant work in South Carolina.
However, the public criticism and outrage over the unprecedented action seeking to interject the
NLRB into the complex internal economic decision of Boeing resulted in the suit being dropped.
Notably, the criticism over the complaint against Boeing was bipartisan, garnering statements from
high ranking Democrats and Republicans across the aisle. In addition, sixteen state attorneys
general, including two non-right-to-work states1669, filed an amicus brief supporting Boeing. The
public outcry and subsequent dropping of the suit magnify the unprecedented action the NLRB, and
the administration as a whole, has attempted to take, directly pushing a pro-union agenda. The
South Carolina Boeing case is just one example of regulations being construed and interpreted with
an eye towards unionization, a choice voters explicitly confront when voting for right-to-work
legislation.
NLRB Notice Posting Rule

On August 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule that requires employers
subject to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to post a notice of select employee rights
under the NLRA.1670 In particular, the notice emphasizes employees right to unionize and
collectively bargain, but it does not include workers rights to object to the use of their union dues
and fees for political purposes.
A broad array of industries, spearheaded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
Association of Manufacturers, disputed the NLRBs authority to issue the rule and filed suit. On
March 2, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the NLRB had the
authority to issue the rule; however, the court invalidated most of the enforcement mechanisms as
improper under the NLRA.1671 On April 13, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina reached the opposite conclusionfinding that under the plain language and structure of
the [NLRA] the NLRB lack[ed] authority . . . to promulgate the rule.1672 Subsequent to this ruling,
the D.C. District Court directed the NLRB to delay implementation of the rule pending the outcome
of the appeals process.1673
Relations Board, Region 19, United States of America, Case No. 19-CA-34231. (The employees point out that the
NLRBs proposed remedy favors the alleged Section 7 rights of the unionized workers to strike in Washington
over the equivalent Section 7 rights of non-union employees in South Carolina, who have chosen towork in a
nonunion setting free from [the] unions economic coercion and malfeasance.).
1669
The states being Colorado and Michigan.
1670
Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act, Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 54006 (Aug.
30, 2011).
1671
National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, Memorandum Opinion, No. 11-1629
(ABJ) (D.C. Dist. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012).
1672
Chamber of Commerce of the United States and South Carolina Chamber of Commerce v. National Labor
Relations Board, Order, No. 2: 11-cv-02516-DCN (SC Dist. Ct. Apr. 13, 2012).
1673
Office of Public Affairs, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce on recent
decisions regarding employee rights posting, Apr. 17, 2012, available at http://www.nlrb.gov/news/nlrb-chairmanmark-gaston-pearce-recent-decisions-regarding-employee-rights-posting.
324
Business organizations argue that the rule is a ploy by the NLRB to achieve private-sector
unionization by regulation, and they are emphatic in their belief that the NLRB is exceeding its
statutory bounds under the NLRA. The Western Growers Association believes the rule will make it
easier for traditional union organizing efforts[,] and the Agricultural Retailers Association notes
that legislative history makes clear the intent of Congress that the NLRB does not have the
authority to issue a notice posting rule since Congress explicitly grants such authority to other
agencies in relevant statutes.1674
However, Congress did not grant such authority in the NLRA. Moreover, the National Council of
Textile Organizations (NCTO) believes that workers are fully aware of their rights in the
workplace and clearly understand that workplace complaints can be filed with the NLRB, the U.S.
Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Therefore,
the rule not only exceeds statutory authority, but it is also unnecessary.1675 Indeed, NCTO
members strive to fulfill the letter and spirit of the laws meant to protect the health and safety of
the workers who are employed by the industry.1676
Notwithstanding the status of the rule, business organizations are concerned about the cost and
practical implications if it is allowed to move forward. According to the NLRBs own estimates, six
million employers could be affected by the rule imposing a compliance burden of $386.4 million.1677
The Brick Industry Association believes the rule could set a disturbing precedent and chill job
creation.1678 The National Federation of Independent Business argues that since the NLRB can
only investigate matters brought to its attention by employees, the [rule] serves as a mechanism for
the Board to increase its caseload and influence over small businesses.1679 The Non-Ferrous
Founders Society notes that the rule is especially problematic because it is not subject to the same
open and candid . . . review as are those [rules] of other agencies . . . .1680 At a broader level, some
fear there is a danger that [the] politically-motivated Board will continue to issue decisions and
propose rules that run counter to an effective employer-employee relationship.1681 The Non-
1674
1675
Letter from Cass Johnson, President, National Council of Textile Organizations to Darrell Issa, Chairman, H.
1676
Id.
1677
National Labor Relations Board, Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act, Final
Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 54006 (Aug. 30, 2011).
1678
Letter from J. Gregg Borchelt, President and CEO, Brick Industry Association to Chairman Darrell Issa and
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, May 25, 2012 (on file with
author).
1679
author).
1680
Letter from James L. Mallory, Executive Director, Non-Ferrous Founders Society to Chairman Darrell Issa, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
1681
Letter from Robert E. McKenna, President and CEO, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association to
Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, June 1,
325
Ferrous Founders Society hopes that Congress will step in to return the NLRB to an unbiased and
non-evangelistic judge of labor-management disputes.1682
NLRB Quickie Election Rule

On December 22, 2011, the NLRB issued a final rule that alters the procedures for union organizing
elections.1683 The rule, original rule commonly known as the quickie election rule, allowed an
organizing election to occur in 15 to 20 days versus the current average of 39 days and the NLRBs
own target of 42 days. It also postpones certain pre-election challenges until after the union
election. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace challenged
the rule on multiple procedural and substantive grounds. On May 14, 2012, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia invalidated the rule on the basis that the NLRB lacked the quorum
required under the National Labor Relations Act when it issued the rule. The court quipped that,
[a]ccording to Woody Allen, eighty percent of life is just showing up. When it comes to satisfying a
quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that. Indeed, it is the only
thing that matters . . . .1684 The court chose not to rule on the additional challenges and indicated
that its ruling need not necessarily spell the end of the final rule for all time.1685 The NLRB
subsequently indicated it will likely continue to pursue the rule,1686 and it re-issued a proposed
rulemaking on February 5, 2014, and issued a revised final rule in late 2014 which will take effect in
April 2015.1687
The Committee sought feedback from businesses when the rule was initially proposed. Business
organizations argued that the rule would greatly limit an employers ability to lawfully educate
employees and tilt[s] the playing field in favor of organized labor at the expense of free speech
and due process rights.1688 The American Frozen Food Institute and the Interlocking Concrete
Pavement Association stressed that the existing labor environment provided adequate opportunity
for unions and employers to discuss their views, for or against, unionization in the workplace.
Employers believe the new rule is an attempt by union sympathizers to undermine the will of
Congress by allowing unions to be certified before employers have a chance to communicate with
employees, creat[ing] opportunities for mischief and misconduct . . . .1689The Brick Industry
Association attests that the rule restrict[s] employees full access to important facts and employers
1682
Letter from James L. Mallory, Executive Director, Non-Ferrous Founders Society to Chairman Darrell Issa, H.
Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
1683
National Labor Relations Board, RepresentationCase Procedures, Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 80138 (Dec. 22,
2011).
1684
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Coalition for a Democratic Workplace v. National Labor Relations Board,
Memorandum Opinion, No. 11-2262 (JEB) (D.C. Dist. Ct. May 14, 2012).
1685
Id.
1686
See Office of Public Affairs, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB suspends implementation of representation
case amendments based on court ruling, May 15, 2012, available at http://www.nlrb.gov/news/nlrb-suspendsimplementation-representation-case-amendments-based-court-ruling.
1687
Joel Barras, NLRB Passes Quickie Election Rules, FORBES, Dec. 15, 2014.
1688
Letter from Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce to Chairman Darrell Issa and
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
1689
Letter from Charles A. McGrath, Executive Director, Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute to Chairman
Darrell Issa, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, May 29, 2012 (on file with author); Letter from Kraig R.
Naaz, President and CEO, American Frozen Food Institute to Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee Chairman
Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
326
free speech and due process rights during union representation elections.1690 Indeed, [b]y rushing
the timeframe . . . employees will be forced to make a decision without relevant details, and
employers will be unable to offer balanced information on collective bargaining.1691
It is also believed that the NLRB significantly underestimated the cost of the rule and that small
businesses, in particular, will be hit hard by costly legal fees. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
emphasizes that the NLRB estimated the costs based on the limited number of employers who have
faced election petitions in the past, but ignored the facts that the rule could increase the filing of
petitions and that a shortened schedule imposes preparation costs on employers who have to
anticipate the risk of a petition in advance of actual filing.1692
The National Association of Manufacturers emphasized that smaller-sized manufacturers who lack
the legal expertise to navigate complex and detailed labor laws could see a significant increase in
violations for unknowing employers.1693 The NFIB had similar concerns stating [t]his shortened
timeframe would hit small businesses particularly hard, since small employers usually lack laborrelations expertise and in-house legal departments.1694
Others stress that the rule could have a negative effect on the economy. The American Bakers
Association believes that the rule will continue to deter economic growth, and it is just another
example of the NLRBs willingness to . . . to circumvent regular order to advance a specific
agenda.1695 Indeed, the Brick Industry Association believes that [s]uch extreme and unnecessary
changes to long-standing election procedures disrupt business and jeopardize job creation as the
brick industry struggles to rebound.1696
1690
author).
1691
Id.
1692
1693
Letter from Jay Timmons, President & CEO, National Association Manufacturers, to Darrell Issa, Chairman,
Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcom. on Reg. Affairs, Stimulus Oversight &
Govt Spending, June 4, 2012 (on file with the author).
1694
author).
1695
Letter from Robb MacKie, President and CEO, American Bakers Association to Darrell Issa, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
1696
author).
327
DOL Persuader Activity Rule

On June 21, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labors (DOL) Office of Labor-Management Standards
proposed a rule to revise its reporting requirements for employer and consultant persuader
activity under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).1697 Section 203 of
the LMRDA outlines reporting requirements for employers and their consultants who enter into an
agreement aimed at affecting employees decisions to unionize.1698 Currently, attorneys and other
third parties who are not in direct contact with employees are exempt from reporting requirements
under the advice exemption.1699 The proposed rule revises DOLs long-standing interpretation of,
and significantly narrows, the advice exemption, thus expanding reporting requirements beyond
active union organizing and collective bargaining activities.1700
Business groups assert that the proposed rule is a drastic expansion of communications that
trigger the reporting requirements, which will infringe upon free speech and attorney-client
confidentiality.1701 In a reverse of long-standing practice, even the most routine advice from a
lawyer to an employer facing an organizing drive would be subject to disclosure. The end result will
be a chilling effect on the number of lawyers providing labor relations advice and increased
pressure on employers not to exercise their legally protected rights, such as free speech.1702
Indeed, a shareholder at Littler Mendelson, P.C., the nations largest law firm providing advice to
employers, has expressed concern about the extensive substantive problems with the rule
because it may require both the attorney and the client to report vast amounts of confidential and
financial data discouraging attorneys from assisting employers.1703
According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the Brick Industry Association, and the
Retail Industry Leaders Association, the practical effect of the rule is an attempt to ga[g] small
businesses so that they will not have essential information on what can and cannot be legally said
or done during the election process, limiting legitimate education efforts so employees hear both
1697
Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards News Release, US Labor Department announces
proposed rule concerning reporting on use of labor relations consultants, June 20, 2011.
1698
Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards, Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act; Interpretation of the `Àdvice'' Exemption, Proposed Rule 76 Fed. Reg. 36178 (June 21, 2011).
1699
1700
Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards News Release, US Labor Department announces
proposed rule concerning reporting on use of labor relations consultants, June 20, 2011.
1701
2012 (on file with author); Letter from Jay Timmons, President & CEO, National Association Manufacturers to
Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcom. on Reg. Affairs,
Stimulus Oversight & Govt Spending, June 4, 2012 (on file with author).
1702
1703
See Letter from Michael J. Lotito, Littler Mendelson, P.C. to Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee
Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform, May 31, 2012 (on file with author).
328
sides before voting on union representation.1704 The National Federation of Independent Business
argued:
For nearly 50 years the DOL has recognized that legal advice is excluded from
reporting under federal labor law. The proposed new rule would force lawyers and
law firms that counsel a small business on most labor relations matters, and
whether the business has a union or not, to disclose not only their work with that
client, but also all fees and arrangements for all clients for all labor-relations
services. The net result could well be that many lawyers will no longer take on
clients seeking labor-relations counsel.1705
The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association echoed NFIBs sentiment, viewing the proposed
rule as potentially devastating to employers, particularly smaller employers, who need the advice
of counsel to make appropriate decisions on how to communicate with their employees within the
confines of labor law.1706
It is also believed that DOL significantly underestimated the cost of the rule. While DOL estimated
that the rule would impose a cost of $826,000 annually,1707 business groups estimate the proposed
rule is economically significantmeaning it could have an effect of $100 million or more annually
on the economy.1708 According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who conducted interviews and
received input from actual employers who must comply with the current requirements, the amount
of time required to determine whether a form must be filed is more than double DOLs arbitrary
estimate.1709 Moreover, it is argued that DOL vastly underestimated the number of employers who
would need to make the determination of whether the required form should be filed.1710
Accounting for these deficiencies, the U.S. Chamber estimates that the compliance costs could be
more than $203 million annuallywell within the barometer for an economically significant
rule.1711 Moreover, contrary to Executive Order requirements, DOL does not justify the costs of the
rule by providing a monetary estimate of the benefits.1712
1704
Govt Spending, June 4, 2012 (on file with the author); Letter from J. Gregg Borchelt, President and CEO, Brick
Industry Association to Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Govt. Reform, May 25, 2012 (on file with author).
1705
author).
1706
Letter from Robert E. McKenna, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association to Chairman Darrell Issa and
1707
Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards, Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act; Interpretation of the `Àdvice'' Exemption, Proposed Rule 76 Fed. Reg. 36178 (June 21, 2011).
1708
1709
Id.
1710
Id.
1711
Id.
1712
Letter from Michael J. Lotito, Littler Mendelson, P.C. to Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee Chairman
Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform, May 31, 2012 (on file with author).
329
GROWTH OF REGULATION IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR

The response of Congress to the financial crisis included the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which created new regulatory bodies and presented a host of
opportunities for the Federal Government to oversee the activities of banks and financial
institutions. The unprecedented growth of regulation in this area after the passage of Dodd Frank
threatens the availability of capital for investment in new businesses, imposes unnecessary and
burdensome compliance obligations and creates uncertainty for business owners that results in
restricted growth. Below are a few of the issues investigated by the Committee.
CFPB Structure, Oversight and Regulatory Authorities

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a newly created independent agency
empowered by the Dodd-Frank Act with wide-ranging supervisory, enforcement and rulemaking
authority over financial consumer products and services.1713 In the Committees preliminary staff
report on the impact of regulations on job creation, at least three organizations expressed concerns
about some aspect of the CFPB, which has been called the most powerful agency in American
history.1714 Since the reports release, the CFPB has assumed statutory power, and the number of
organizations expressing concern has almost tripled.
The American Financial Services Association (AFSA) is concerned that, unlike other independent
agencies, the CFPB is directed by a single regulator, lacks congressional oversight through the
normal budget process and has independent litigating authority.1715 There is also discomfort
about the CFPBs plans to coordinate and streamline the authorities it is assuming from six different
federal entities. For instance, the Debt Buyers Association International (DBA) is worried that the
CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission could pursue inconsistent policies when enforcing the
Federal Debt Collection Protections Act (FDCPA),1716 thereby creating additional uncertainty for
member companies.1717 AFSA is also concerned that the CFPB can enforce rulemakings on
individuals and institutions without first determining the adequacy of existing state laws and
regulations under which these companies operate.1718
Uncertainty regarding the CFPBs regulatory agenda also threatens to decrease credit availability
and affordability, harm small businesses, stunt job creation, and jeopardize full economic recovery.
For debt buyers, uncertainty over how the CFPB will exercise its unprecedented powers . . . has
stalled industry growth and chilled hiring among DBA member companies.1719 Since companies
1713
P.L. 111203, Title X, 1011 (July 21, 2010).

Mary Kissel, Cordrays Charm Offensive, Wall. St. J., Jan. 13, 2012.
1715
Letter from Bill Himpler, President, Executive Vice President, American Financial Services Association, to
Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1716
P.L. 104-208 (Sep. 30, 1996).
1717
Letter from Jan Stieger, Executive Director, DBA International, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight
& Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcom. on Reg. Affairs, Stimulus Oversight & Govt Spending (June
1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1718
Letter from Bill Himpler, President, Executive Vice President, American Financial Services Association, to
Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1719
Letter from Jan Stieger, Executive Director, DBA International, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight
& Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcom. on Reg. Affairs, Stimulus Oversight & Govt Spending (June
1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1714
330
typically pass compliance costs on to consumers through increased prices, the CFPBs actions will
invariably increase the costs of financial products and services, which could harm small businesses
disproportionately. For this reason, the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) and other
representatives of small businesses encourage the CFPB to convene panels in accordance with
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and to use its authority under
Section 1022 of the Dodd-Frank Act to exempt small financial institutions, such as credit unions,
from its rulemaking.1720
SEC Disclosure Regulations for Resource Extraction Industries

The Committee also considered the impacts of two rules proposed by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The two rules reviewed by the Committee proposed implementing certain
disclosure requirements for public companies as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The conflicts
minerals rule requires public companies whose products derive from conflict minerals (i.e., gold,
tin, tantalum and tungsten) to disclose annually whether these conflicts minerals originated in
Democratic Republic of Congo or an adjoining country.1721 The disclosure by resource extraction
issuers rule requires public companies in the U.S. to annually report payments made to U.S. and
foreign governments related to the development of oil, natural gas, and mineral extraction.1722 In
the Committees preliminary staff report, at least five organizations took issue with these rules;
since that time, the concerns have tripled.
Several respondents pointed out that compliance with the conflict minerals rule will be
burdensome and costly. For instance, IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries (IPC)
states that the rule could impose extremely burdensome reporting requirements on certain
electronics manufacturers.1723 The National Tooling and Machining Association (NTMA) also
notes that compliance costs fall disproportionally on small manufacturers, which often lack
knowledge about where materials they use originate, and the unintended effects of this rule could
strain customer relationships and lead to lost business for smaller companies. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) has raised similar concerns to the SEC about the cost.1724
While the SEC estimates that actual compliance costs for the conflict minerals rule will be around
$71 million and that the rule will impact between 1,199 and 5,551 companies, the Business
Roundtable attests that these figures vastly underestimate true costs.1725 Both the U.S. Chamber
1720
Letter from Bill Cheney, President & CEO, Credit Union National Association, Executive Director, to Darrell
Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcom. on Reg. Affairs,
Stimulus Oversight & Govt Spending (June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1721
Conflict Minerals, 74 Fed. Reg. 80948 (proposed Dec. 23, 2010) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. pt. 229, 249).
1722
Discloser of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers, 75 Fed. Reg. 80978 (proposed Dec. 23, 2010) (to be
codified at 17 C.F.R. pt. 229, 249).
1723
Letter from John W. Mitchell, President and CEO, IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries, to Darrell
Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcom. on Reg. Affairs,
Stimulus Oversight & Govt Spending (June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1724
See Letter from Thomas Donahue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to Darrell Issa, Chairman,
Govt Spending, p. 12, (June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1725
Letter from John Engler, President, Business Roundtable, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight &
Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcom. on Reg. Affairs, Stimulus Oversight & Govt Spending, p. 12,
(June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
331
of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) revealed that businesses
themselves estimate true compliance costs for the rule to be between $9-16 billion and state that
the rule could affect hundreds of thousands of companies.1726 The Business Roundtable and
American Express stated that these costs are so high that, for some companies, achieving
compliance will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.1727
Many respondents also urged the SEC to rework the proposed conflicts minerals rule before it
released a final ruling. CTIA-The Wireless Association called implementation of the rule
confusing, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said the rules reporting requirements
were too vaguely worded and the Business Roundtable implored the SEC to promulgate a rule
that is cost-effective and workable.1728 According to NAM, the necessary infrastructure is not
even currently in place to trace the origin of the minerals or to determine with certainty that they
are not conflict minerals . . . . As such, the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association
(MEMA) and the NTMA suggest the SEC adopt a phased-in approach of rule compliance. Others,
like the Manufacturing Jewelers & Suppliers of America (MJSA) and the Jewelers of America (JA),
question why the SEC is attempting to regulate the minerals trade at all, noting that using the
regulatory authority of the SEC to impact the use of raw materials . . . is troubling and perhaps the
wrong approach.1729
Respondents also expressed concerns that the SECs disclosure regulations would put their member
companies at a competitive disadvantage internationally. CTIA-The Wireless Association argues
that publicly-traded U.S. companies will be at a disadvantage thanks to the conflicts minerals rule
because companies that do not file with the SEC will not be required to comply with the rule.1730
American Express, the Business Roundtable and ConocoPhillips all point out that the one-sided
disclosure requirements in the disclosure by resource extraction issuers rule could erode the
competitiveness of U.S. companies in global markets by allowing foreign competitors access to
sensitive information on U.S. companies.1731 The American Petroleum Institute provides an
example, describing how foreign energy companies, which control about 78 percent of the worlds
1726
Letter from Thomas Donahue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to Darrell Issa, Chairman,
Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcomm. on Reg. Affairs, Stimulus Oversight &
Govt Spending, p. 12, (June 1, 2012) (on file with the author); Letter from John Engler, President, Business
Roundtable, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcomm.
on Reg. Affairs, Stimulus Oversight & Govt Spending, p. 12, (June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1727
BR Letter; Letter from Arne Christenson, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Express, to
Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (May 23, 2012) (on file with the author).
1728
Letter from Michael Petricone, Senior Vice President, Consumer Electronics Association to Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcomm. on Reg. Affairs, Stimulus
Oversight & Govt Spending, p. 12, (June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1729
Letter from David Cochran, President & CEO, Manufacturing Jewelers & Suppliers of America (MJSA) and
Matthew Runci, President & CEO, Jewelers of America, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt
Reform (May 25, 2012) (on file with the author).
1730
Letter from Steve Largent, President & CEO, CTIA Wireless Association, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on
Oversight & Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcomm. on Reg. Affairs, Stimulus Oversight & Govt
Spending, p. 12, (June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1731
Letter from Red Cavaney, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, ConocoPhillips Company, to Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (June 7, 2012) (on file with the author).
332
oil resources, would have access to proprietary information without having to disclose similar
details.1732
SEC/CFTC Over-the-Counter Derivatives Regulation

The SEC and the U.S. Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) were given significant
discretion to regulate over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives trade by the Dodd-Frank Act.1733 The
Committee exposed the interests of the regulated community, showing that the proposed OTC
derivatives rules had caused a significant amount of alarm within the U.S. business community.
Before the Committees first report on the issue, Assessing Regulatory Impediments to Job
Creation,1734 was released, at least five organizations had claimed to the Committee that OTC
derivatives rules were problematic; since the reports release, at least three more organizations
have expressed concerns.
Respondents were generally worried that new OTC derivatives regulations will create a
burdensome structure that will make it more costly to enter into derivatives transactions, which
companies use to hedge, or mitigate, business risks.1735 There was also concern that these rules
will create uncertainty in overseas markets, which could put U.S. businesses at a competitive
disadvantage internationally.1736 ConocoPhillips was concerned that the CFTC and SECs new
definitions of swap dealers and major swap participants would entail large compliance costs
and cause companies to curtail their risk management hedging activities to avoid
classification.1737 If companies are less willing to transact financial derivatives, market liquidity
could be reduced, reducing the financial flexibility needed for economic growth and job creation.1738
The main point of contention for respondents, however, was the CFTCs recently finalized end user
exception to the mandatory clearing of swaps rule. American Express, AFSA, and the Business
Roundtable believed that this rule would divert resources from business investment and job
creation because it requires certain non-financial companies that use derivatives to reduce
exposure to commercial risk (the so-called end-users) to post margin, or set aside capital in case
they fail. Respondents believed this diversion of resources could seriously harm economic
recovery, increase risk and volatility, stall economic growth and, as NAM adds, possibly driv[e] up
1732
Letter from Marty Durbin, Executive Vice President, American Petroleum Institute, to Darrell Issa, Chairman,
Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (June 6, 2012) (on file with the author).
1733
P.L. 111203, Title VII, (July 21, 2010).
1734
1735
Letter from John Engler, President, Business Roundtable, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight &
Govt Reform and Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcom. on Reg. Affairs, Stimulus Oversight & Govt Spending, p. 12,
(June 1, 2012) (on file with the author).
1736
Id. See also letter from Arne Christenson, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Express, to
Darrell Issa, Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (May 23, 2012) (on file with the author).
1737
Letter from Red Cavaney, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, ConocoPhillips Company, to Darrell Issa,
Chairman, Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform (June 7, 2012) (on file with the author).
1738
Id.
333
the cost of capital.1739 A U.S. Chamber of Commerce/Business Roundtable survey revealed that, if
end-users are required to post margin under the rule, U.S. businesses could be forced to sideline
up to $6.7 billion in working capital . . . and lead to over 100,000 jobs lost.1740
1739
1740
Letter from Thomas Donahue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to Darrell Issa, Chairman,
334
REDEFINING THE LAW

The Administration has continually engaged in practices that attempt to expand its authority to
make law whether through the IRS changing the applicability of subsidies under the Affordable
Care Act or EPA redefining waters of the U.S. As a direct effect of this expansion, burdensome
regulations are being imposed in contravention of the will of the people as expressed in statute
and a direct effect threatened by this expansion is to pull previously unregulated activities under
the purview of unelected bureaucrats lacking democratic accountability.
In less direct ways, agencies have attempted to redefine the law that applies to the promulgation of
regulations. The EPA has relied upon questionable economic analyses in promulgating potentially
burdensome rules despite the clear guidance provided in statutes, Executive Orders and OIRAs
Circular A-4, discussed above. For example, the SBA, by way of its office of advocacy, has pointed
out that on at least four occasions since 2009, the EPA has not complied with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act by considering the impacts of proposed regulations on small businesses.1741
Recently, press has reported that EPA is again circumventing procedural rulemaking requirements,
this time by releasing methane regulations prior to conducting studies required by the Clean Air
Act.1742 Defenders of this procedural violation claim that it could take too long to do the detailed
analysis that might normally accompany Clean Air Act regulation . . . . Its easier to control it than
to fully characterize it.1743
ACA REDEFINES FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE

The Affordable Care Act subjects businesses with more than 50 full-time workers to the employer
mandate, which requires employers to offer a health care plan that complies with all federal
requirements. The federal requirements for health care plans under the ACA require broader
coverage than most current employer sponsored plans provide. One of the most significant changes
to the intent of the ACA was the redefinition of full-time employee under the employer mandate.
The ACAs employer mandate tax penalty defines a full-time employee as someone who works at
least 30 hours per week. Although part-time employees count toward the 50-person penalty
threshold, businesses do not actually owe the statutory tax penalties on part-time workers.1744 This
regulatory change results in a surprising situation: businesses are incentivized to replace full-time
workers with part-time labor in order to avoid the tax penalties.1745 The 50-person penalty
1741
Sean Higgins, EPA ignores its own economic analyses, small business agency says, WASH. EXAMINER, Oct. 16,
2014, available at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/epa-ignores-its-own-economic-analyses-small-businessagency-says/article/2554859/.
1742
Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Energy Department: U.S. must act now on methane emissions, FUEL FIX BLOG (Oct. 20,
2014, 1:18 PM), http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/10/20/energy-department-u-s-must-act-now-on-methane-emissions/.
1743
Id. (quoting Mary Nichols, California Air Resources Board Chairman).
1744
PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OF 2010, PUB. LAW 111148; HEALTH CARE
AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010, PUB. LAW 111152.
1745
Larry Schuler on behalf of the National Restaurant Association, Statement on True Cost of PPACA: Effects on
the Budget and Jobs, Hearing Testimony for Energy & Commerce Committee Hearing True Cost of PPACA:
Effects on the Budget and Jobs, March 30, 2011 at 4. (As a result of this change in the definition of a full-time
employee, the industry will very closely manage employees hours to 29 hours or less. In practice, it will mean a
larger employee base, working less hoursno more than 25 hours to avoid bumping into the capand an increase
in labor and training costs, already one of the most significant line item costs for our businesses. For the employees,
it will mean the need to get a second and third job to make up for lost hours and, thus, income.); Phil Kennedy on
335
threshold has caused vast uncertainty regarding how various employees, such as seasonal workers,
student work-study employees, adjunct faculty members, and those in volunteer positions, will be
treated for purposes of calculating an employers tax penalty. Many businesses are therefore faced
with the impossible task of deciding whether to retain their current number of employees and pay
the tax penalties and increasing cost of healthcare coverage or to let go of a number of employees as
a way to mitigate the costs according to a Chamber of Commerce study, over 74 percent of
businesses stated it will be much more difficult to hire new employees under the Affordable Care
Act.1746
The number of full-time equivalent employees has actually been predicted to decline by 2.0 million
in 2017, and 2.5 million by 2024.1747 Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office found the total
net number of hours worked will reduce by about 1.5 percent to 2 percent between 2017 to 2024,
almost exclusively due to employers decision to supply less labor.1748
CHANGING THE APPLICATION OF OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES

The reforms employers and insurance companies must implement as required the Affordable Care
Act are costly; to prevent these costs being passed down to the American people generally and to
encourage states to bear a larger portion of these costs through the creation of state exchanges
the Affordable Care Act provides federal subsidies. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates that federal expenditures on the ACAs premium subsidies and related items
will total nearly $1.839 billion over the next decade.1749 While subsidies will lower the cost of
health insurance for qualified individuals, the costs of providing these health insurance
subsidies will fall directly onto the shoulders of individual taxpayers.
The largest federal expenditures under the ACA are the federal premium assistance subsidies
provided to offset the costs of purchasing affordable insurance, which are currently being
distributed to enrollees of both federally and state created exchanges. The subsidies provided
through Exchanges are an essential part of the regulatory scheme of the Affordable Care Act. The
issue surrounding the subsidies deals directly with the language of Section 1401, which creates
section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, that states premium tax credits are only available to
those enrolledthrough an Exchange established by the State under 1311.1750 Further, section
behalf of the US Chamber of Commerce, Statement on True Cost of PPACA: Effects on the Budget and Jobs,
Hearing Testimony for Energy & Commerce Committee Hearing True Cost of PPACA: Effects on the Budget and
Jobs, March 30, 2011 at 8. (It seems that there is one way for me to avoid paying these fines I can either get (and
stay) under 50 employees, or I can start forcing employees to part-time status, making them independent contractors,
outsourcing certain services, and taking similar efforts to negate the fines. . . .49 [T]he health care law may force my
hand, as well as that of many other small business people. I do not want to lose anyone on my payroll, but if comes
down to laying off a few employees or being saddled with these fines, I wont have a choice).
1746
United States Chamber of Commerce, United States Chamber of Commerce Q4 Small Business Study,
available at
http://www.uschambersmallbusinessnation.com/uploads/Chamber%20Q4_Summary%20Memo_Final%20.pdf.
1747
CONG. BUDGET OFFICE, THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: 2014 TO 2024 117 (2014),
available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45010-Outlook2014_Feb_0.pdf.
1748
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: 2014 TO 2024 117
(2014), available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45010-Outlook2014_Feb_0.pdf.
1749
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf
1750
26 U.S.C. 36B.
336
1311 of the ACA defines a health insurance exchange as a governmental agency or nonprofit entity
that is established by the state.1751
While the statutory text seems to expressly limit the availability of subsidies only to participants
purchasing insurance through state created Exchanges, the Administration has taken the position
that an Exchanged established by the State incorporates both state-created and federally-created
exchanges. In May 2012, the Treasury Department, through the IRS, promulgated a final regulation
stating tax credits (alternatively called subsidies) were available to individuals purchasing
insurance through both state created and federally created exchanges. The preamble to the IRS
regulation states, the relevant legislative history does not demonstrate that Congress intended to
limit the premium tax credit to State Exchanges.1752 The IRS interpretation has been heavily
contested1753 and continues to be litigated.1754 According to the Congressional Research Service:
[A] strict textual analysis of the plain meaning of the provision would likely lead to
the conclusion that the IRSs authority to issue the premium tax credits is limited
only to situations in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a state-established exchange.
Therefore, an IRS interpretation that extended tax credits to those enrolled in
federally facilitated exchanges would be contrary to clear congressional intentand
likely be deemed invalid.1755
Furthermore, scholars have undertaken an analysis of the legislative history of the Affordable Care
Act. In doing so, Jonathan Adler and Michael Canon found Congress express limitation of subsidy
eligibility to be an intentional and purposeful way to incentivize states to create their own
exchanges.1756 The scholars concluded the IRS rule extending subsidies to individuals purchasing
insurance from federally created exchanges violates the clear text of the Affordable Care Act
expanding beyond the scope of authority delegated to the agency and is therefore illegal.
Many experts have indicated that the IRSs rule to allow premium subsidies to participants of
federal exchanges, compared to a strict textual reading that would disallow such subsidies, will
lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in spending and higher taxes that were not authorized by
1751
ACA Sec. 1311(d)(1).

Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit, 77 Fed. Reg.
30377-8 (May 23,2012).
1753
In July 2013, the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements held a hearing addressing IRS
legal basis for expanding Obamacares taxes and subsidies. Additionally, the Full Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform issued a joint staff report along with the House Ways and Means Committee concluding the
Administration conducted inadequate review of key issues prior to expanding health laws taxes and subsidies.
1754
See Jess Bravin & Louise Radnofsky, Supreme Court to Hear Case on Health-Care Law Subsidies: Challengers
Argue Affordable Care Act Only Permits Tax Credits on State-Run Exchanges, WALL ST. J., Nov. 8, 2014, available
at http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-health-law-subsidies-1415383458.
1755
Jennifer Staman and Todd Garvey, Legal Analysis of Availability of Premium Tax Credits in State and Federally
Created Exchanges Pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, CONG. RESEARCH SERV. (Jul. 23, 2012).
1756
Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. Cannon, Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand
Tax Credits Under the PPACA, 23 HEALTH MATRIC: J. OF LAW-MEDICINE 121 (2013) (available at
http://law.case.edu/journals/HealthMatrix/Documents/23HealthMatrix1.5.Article.AdlerFINAL.pdf.).
1752
337
Congress.1757 The 36 states would account for approximately 8.3 million people are to be
eventually covered in the 36 exchanges run by the Federal Government reaching $100 billion in
annual subsidies by 2018.1758 Additionally, scholars Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon predict
the rule will account for nearly $600 billion of unauthorized spending, $178 billion of
unauthorized tax reduction, more than $100 billion in unauthorized taxes, and to increase the
federal deficits by some $700 billion by the year 2023.1759
The outcome of the Supreme Court case will shape the landscape of ACA subsidies. The resulting
decision will have serious implications on just how large expenditures for insurance subsidies will
be, directly implicating the burdens of taxpayers across the United States. Not only will the
resulting decision effect implementation and distribution of premium subsidies, but it will have
strong implications for the authority to distribute cost-sharing subsidies defined within section
1402 of the ACA.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE

On July 22, 2011, EPA proposed to revise the definition of solid waste under the hazardous waste
provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).1760 The revisions affect how
EPA determines whether secondary materials are being recycled or discarded, and hence qualify as
waste. The proposed amendments remove specific recycling exclusions from the current
regulations, thereby increasing the burden on manufacturers seeking to recycle or reclaim
secondary materials. The Non-Ferrous Founders Society called attention to an absurdity of the
rule, pointing out that the regulation would even apply to in-plant recycling of materials intended
for internal use.1761 The Non-Ferrous Founders Society urged EPA to recognize the obvious:
solid waste definitions [should] only be applied to materials that are abandoned or otherwise
destined for disposal.1762
The process that led to this proposed redefinition of solid waste is a classic example of EPAs use of
sue-and-settle rulemaking. The most recent definition of solid waste, promulgated in 2008, was
the product of two years of collaboration between the EPA and stakeholders.1763 Nonetheless, on
January 29, 2009, the Sierra Club petitioned the Obama Administration to reconsider the rule.1764
In a settlement agreement filed on September 10, 2010, EPA voluntarily committed to address all of
1757
Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. Cannon, Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand
Tax Credits Under the PPACA, 23 Health Matrix 119, 120 (2013); Jennifer Staman and Todd Garvey, CONG.
RESEARCH SERV., Legal Analysis of Availability of Premium Tax Credits in State and Federally Created
Exchanges Pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, (2012).
1758
Daniel W. Roslokken, The Great Circuit Divide Over Individual Subsidies, NEW JERSEY L. J., Sept. 24, 2014,
http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202671242078/The-Great-Circuit-Divide-Over-IndividualSubsidies?slreturn=20140901143206.
1759
http://law.case.edu/journals/HealthMatrix/Documents/23HealthMatrix1.5.Article.AdlerFINAL.pdf and sources
cited therein.
1760
Definition of Solid Waste, 76 Fed. Reg. 44,094, July 22, 2011.
1761
Letter from James L. Mallory, Executive Director, Non-Ferrous Founders Society, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, H.
1762
Id.
1763
Id.
1764
EPAs and Sierra Clubs Lodging of Settlement and Motion to Sever and Hold Case in Abeyance, Sierra Club v.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 09-1041 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2010).
338
the issues raised in the Sierra Clubs petition, and to issue a proposed redefinition by June 30,
2011.1765 EPA could not meet this deadline, demonstrating the impracticality of the settlements
prescribed timeline.
Ironically, the rule will operate to defeat one of the fundamental tenets of environmentalism:
recycling. The American Coatings Association noted that as currently written, the regulations will
discourage sustainable materials management and lead to an increase in the incineration, waste
treatment, and landfill disposal of secondary materials.1766 The IPCAssociation Connecting
Electronic Industries concurs, stating that the new definition will impose significant regulatory
burdens on recycling.1767
Ultimately the proposed redefinition will impose extraordinary costs with few discernible benefits:
the American Forest and Paper Association wrote that the new rule will add significant
administrative burdens to the industry with no environmental benefit and possibly would disrupt
the industrys practices which have proven to be effective, efficient, and environmentally
protective.1768 The Business Roundtable estimated that EPAs proposed definition of solid waste
will cost more than $100 million a year in documentation and analysis costs.1769 The National
Federation of Independent Business highlighted the rules unique harms to small businesses:
[m]any scrap yards and other small business love to recycle scrap metal because of its high value . .
. . EPA is seeking to impose a significant new paperwork requirement on these small-business
owners.1770
CLEAN WATER ACT DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

In one of the most expansive actions undertaken by the current administration the EPA redefined
waters of the United States. On April 27, 2011, the EPA issued draft guidance to provide
clarification on the question of which bodies of water are subject to federal regulation by EPA and
the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under the Clean Water Act (CWA).1771 In the draft
guidance, EPA expands its reach and seeks to regulate a broad category of wetlands, regardless of
its status as navigable water. This guidance document is intended to replace and supersede similar
guidance issued in 2008, in response to the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Rapanos v. United
States.1772 In Rapanos, the Court rejected the position of the Corps that its authority over water
1765
Id.
Letter from J. Andrew Doyle, President, American Coatings Association, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm.
on Oversight and Govt. Reform, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
1767
Letter from Dr. John W. Mitchell, President and CEO, IPCAssociation Connecting Electronics Industries, to
Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
1768
Letter from Donna Harman, President and CEO, American Forest & Paper Association, to Darrell Issa,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt Reform, June 6, 2012 (on file with author) (emphasis in original).
1769
Letter from John Engler, President, Business Roundtable, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and
Govt. Reform, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
1770
Letter from Susan Eckerly, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, National Federation of Independent
Businesses, to Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, May 31, 2012 (on file with
author).
1771
Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers, "Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters
Protected by the Clean Water Act," April 27, 2011, p. 2, available at
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/wous_guidance_4-2011.pdf.
1772
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
1766
339
was essentially limitless under the CWA.1773 Rather, the Court found that the term waters of the
United States includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies
of water forming geographic features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams[,] ...
oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.1774 In addition, the Court held that all waters with a significant nexus
to navigable waters are covered under the CWA.1775
The words significant nexus remain open to judicial interpretation and considerable controversy.
Legislation was introduced in the 110th and 111th Congress that would have expanded the definition
of waters of the U.S. to include intrastate waters and reaffirmed the original Corps interpretation
struck down by the Supreme Court.1776 These measures never gained sufficient support to pass
either chamber of Congress.
The d efinition o f w hat i s l egally a water of the U.S. i s e xtremely i mportant a s i t triggers
multiple responsibilities under the CWA, including a federal prohibition on discharges of
pollutants (Section 301), requirements to obtain a permit prior to discharge (Sections 402 and
404), water quality standards and measures to attain them (Section 303), oil spill liability and oil
spill prevention and control measures (Section 311), certification that federally permitted activities
comply with state water quality standards (Section 401), and enforcement (Section 309).1777 EPA
and the Corps acknowledge that, compared with the existing guidance, the proposed revisions are
likely to increase the number of waters identified as protected by the CWA.1778
Multiple job creators expressed their concern for EPAs draft guidance. According to NFIB, the EPA
is aiming to expand the definition of U.S. waters that are navigable in some cases to even small
depressions or farm ponds that do not impair the flow of rivers.1779 According to the National
Association of Manufacturers, [t]he EPA and the Corps are trying to accomplish through revised
guidance what the 110th and 111th Congress refused to do: an unprecedented expansion of federal
jurisdiction under the CWA.1780 The National Soy Bean Processors Association argues that the
extremely broad view of the scope of federal authority would encompass many natural landscape
features not readably recognizable as water and thwart any rational limits established by
Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court.1781 They also note that EPA has failed to explain how the new
1773
Id.
Id.
1775
Id.
1776
Claudia Copeland, Legislative Approach to Defining Waters of the United States, Dec. 29, 2010, available at
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41225.pdf.
1777
Id.
1778
Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers, "Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters
Protected by the Clean Water Act," April 27, 2011, p. 2, available at
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/wous_guidance_4-2011.pdf.
1779
to the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, May 31, 2012 (on file with
author).
1780
Letter from Jay Timmons, President, National Association of Manufacturers to the Honorable Darrell E. Issa,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, June 4, 2012 (on file with author).
1781
Letter from Thomas A. Hammer, President, National Oilseed Processors Association to the Honorable Darrell E.
Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. Oversight and Govt. Reform, June 1, 2012 (on file with author).
1774
340
expanded definition will apply to the many CWA provisions that would be implicated by the
guidance.1782
The American Forest and Paper Association points out that it is, an excellent example of regulation
by guidance -- the Administration began, but never concluded, a rulemaking process covering very
similar issues1783 The Agricultural Retailers Association worries that the guidance has serious
legal implications and will open farmers up to CWA citizen and third-party lawsuits through other
policies like the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for pesticides
and application and spray drift.1784
1782
Id.
Letter from Donna Harman, President, American Forest & Paper Association to the Honorable Darrell E. Issa,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform, May 31, 2012 (on file with author).
1784
1783
341
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE PRIVATE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS

Throughout this administration the Federal Government has continually played an increasing role
in the daily private lives of individuals, from mandating what type of health coverage they are
required to purchase to mandating which vehicles citizens can drive. The increasingly large
presence of the Federal Government continues to mandate how individuals live their lives in
unprecedented areas. The Federal Government is preventing individuals from making daily
decisions about their personal lives all the while placing the burdensome costs of such regulation
on the very individuals they are restricting.
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
One of the most vital regulations to the overall success of the Affordable Care Act is the individual
mandate. The individual mandate requires individuals to maintain minimum essential healthcare
coverage, qualify for an exemption, or pay a shared responsibility payment.1785 Individual mandate
was created to incentivize healthy individuals to purchase insurance.1786 For young healthy
individuals the costs of insurance far exceed the benefits of coverage. The cost of the penalty tax,
known as the shared responsibility payment, is set at the greater of two amounts: a flat amount for
each uninsured adult, set to rise from $95 in 2014 to $695 in 2016, or a percentage of the
household adjusted gross income set to rise from 1% in 2014 to 2.5% in 2016.1787 The
Congressional Budget Office, along with the Joint Committee on Taxation, estimate the total cost of
individual payments from 2015-2024 will total $46 billion.1788
The individual mandate is designed to prevent individuals from choosing to forego purchasing
health insurance. In addition to the mandate, the legislation requires community rating1789
essentially shifting the cost of health insurance from those high-risk individuals to be subsidized by
low-risk individuals. 1790 In preventing high-risk individuals from being charged higher rates for
insurance the insurance pool had to vastly increase. The most adversely affected individuals will be
the young adults, primarily males, who would usually forego purchasing insurance due to the cost
exceeding the net benefits. A recent study found, the sought-after 23-year-old demographic rose
most dramatically, with men in the age group seeing an average 78.2 percent price increase before
factoring in government subsidies, and women having their premiums rise 44.9 percent.1791 The
1785
26 U.S.C. 5000a (2012) (requiring most individuals to maintain certain basic level of health care, thereby
expanding the pool of insured individuals and lowering overall costs).
1786
For an overview of the reasons why such a financial incentive might be necessary, see Linda J. Blumberg &
John Holahan, Do Individual Mandates Matter?, URBAN INST. (Jan. 2008),
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411603_ individual_mandates.pdf.
1787
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45397-IndividualMandate.pdf
1788
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45397-IndividualMandate.pdf, (additionally an average $5 billion will be
collected from individual tax penalties per year over the 2017-2024 time period).
1789
[H]ealth insurers are required to offer coverage to all applicants, cannot exclude pre-existing conditions, and
are constrained in their ability to vary premiums. Amy B. Monahan, On Subsidies and Mandates: A Regulatory
Critique of the ACA, 36 J. CORP. L. 781, 787 (2011).
1790
Id.
1791
The study was conducted by HealthPocket, a nonpartisan independently managed subsidiary of Health Insurance
Innovations in Sunnyvale, California. The study examined average health insurance premiums before the
implementation of Obamacare in 2013 and then afterward in 2014. The research looked at men and women ages 20,
342
increase was similar for 30-year-old men and women. These increases did not take into account
those eligible for federal subsidies.
The large increase in premium price can be accounted for by the expansion of services required,
such as the minimum essential benefits package, as well as the increased number of less healthy
people who will be heavily reliant on insurance services through the requirement to cover
applicants with pre-existing conditions.1792Furthermore, uninsured individuals enrolling into the
insurance exchanges is vital to the overall success of the Affordable Care Act. Without a substantial
amount of the uninsured purchasing forms of insurance, premium prices will continue to rise to
subsidize the cost of carrying high risk individuals, those with pre-existing conditions. According
the Congressional Budget Office enrollment in the insurance exchanges should amount to 13
million individuals after the 2015 enrollment period set to open on November 15th, 2014.1793
However, this would require the CBO estimated 6 million1794 who sought insurance in 2014 to
continue their coverage plans as well as enrolling 7 million newly insured individuals. The result is
unlikely since the enthusiasm for the program is not near the same level as the first year of
enrollment.
In addition, this years open enrollment period will last three months closing in February 2015, as
opposed to the six month open enrollment period in 2014. Recently Health and Human Services
revealed expected enrollment in health care Exchanges to fall between 9 million and 9.5 million by
the end of 2015, a number extraordinarily lower than the CBO estimates.1795 The administrations
recent drop in expected enrollment numbers questions the popularity and strength of the
marketplace the administration continually touts as a success of the Affordable Care Act. The
revelation was released just five days prior to the roll out of the 2015 enrollment period. Since the
release of the new expected enrollment numbers there has been speculation as to the drastic
difference between CBOs and HHSs estimates. Furthermore, HHS declined to address when within
the new predictions the Department estimates reaching 25 million enrollees, the number widely
used as a marker of the health care reforms overall success.1796
Administrative Burden
The individual mandate is currently covered by final regulations issued by the Treasury
Department, the IRS, and the Department of Health and Human Services, not to mention the
Treasury Department and the IRS have also issued a number of proposed regulations to provide
guidance on additional issues identified within the final regulations.1797 The average citizen will not
only have to find and understand these regulations but will have to sort through the various federal
agencies to come across detailed information concerning the individual mandate and its
23 and 30 using data for nonsmokers, no spouses, and no children. Valerie Richardson, Obamacare premiums up
78% for some, WASH. TIMES, Oct. 29, 2014.
1792
Valerie Richardson, Obamacare premiums up 78% for some, WASH. TIMES, Oct. 29, 2014.
1793
Table 2 - http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43900-2014-04-ACAtables2.pdf.
1794
As of mid-October an estimated 7.1 million people had obtained insurance through the marketplace requiring 5.9
million newly insured individuals to enroll before the closing of the 2015 enrollment period.
1795
Rachana Pradhan, HHS: No double-digit Obamacare enrollment in 2015, POLITICO, Nov. 11, 2014,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/hhs-obamacare-enrollment-2015-112746.html?ml=tl_1.
1796
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obamacare-sign-ups-seen-30percent-lower-than-forecast/ar-AA7tmzl.
1797
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision.
343
exemptions. The complex law, in addition to the involvement of multiple government agencies, has
some experts worried individuals will be tripped up by lost paperwork, the need to verify with
multiple sources and long delays that extend beyond tax season.1798
The individual mandate includes a list of exemptions including: individuals who cannot afford
coverage, taxpayers with incomes below the filing threshold, members of Federally recognized
Indian tribes, religion, incarcerated individuals, individuals who are not lawfully present,
individuals who experience short gaps in coverage (usually three months or less), and individuals
who qualify for a hardship exemption.1799 The hardship exemption, which was released late
December 2013, created a broad exemption category stating people who have experienced
another hardship in obtaining insurance will not be penalized. There are two ways individuals are
able to file for exemptions either through a marketplace exemption or throughout the process of tax
filing.
There are 14 different categories within the hardship exemption1800: Most notably is the last
category of hardship exemptions leaving entirely open the question of what precisely qualifies as a
hardship. Additionally, the hardship is not set for any specific time span and will vary from case to
case further raising individuals uncertainty of their insurance and penalty status under the
regulations.1801 Furthermore, once an individual applies for an exemption they must wait to hear
whether they will receive the exemption; if they are approved, they then must fill out new tax
paperwork prolonging the process.1802
The broad and encompassing list of exemptions brings into question whether the original theory of
having everyone purchase insurance in order to subsidize the costs of providing community rate
coverage for high risk individuals, not allowing cost-sharing for a range of services, covering all ten
categories of essential benefits, and providing broad preventive care is holding true.
1798
Rachael Bade, A maze to opt out of Obamacare individual mandate, POLITICO, Oct. 9, 2014, available at
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-opting-out-111730.html.
1799
http://ccf.georgetown.edu/all/individual-mandate-exceptions/.
1800
Healthcare.gov. The 14 categories are: You were homeless; you were evicted in the past 6 months or were
facing eviction or foreclosure; you received a shut-off notice from a utility company; you recently experienced
domestic violence; you recently experienced the death of a close family member; you experienced a fire, flood, or
other natural or human-caused disaster that caused substantial damage to your property; you filed for bankruptcy in
the last 6 months; you had medical expenses you couldnt pay in the last 24 months that resulted in substantial debt;
you experienced unexpected increases in necessary expenses due to carrying for an ill, disabled, or aging family
member; you expect to claim a child as a tax dependent whos been denied coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, and
another person is required by court order to give medical support to the child (in this case you dont have to pay the
penalty for the child); As a result of an eligibility appeals decisions, youre eligible for enrollment in a qualified
health plan through the Marketplace, lower costs on your monthly premiums, or cost-sharing reductions for a time
period when you werent enrolled in QHP through the Marketplace; you were determined ineligible for Medicaid
because your state didnt expand eligibility for Medicaid under the ACA; your individual insurance plan was
cancelled and you believe other Marketplace plans are unaffordable; or you experience another hardship in obtaining
health insurance.
1801
https://www.healthcare.gov/fees-exemptions/hardship-exemptions/.
1802
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-opting-out-111730.html.
344
Minimum Essential Benefits Package

The Secretary of the Health and Human Services issued regulations regarding the establishment of
a minimum essential benefits package (EBP). The EBP is the menu of goods and services that must
be covered for all insurance plans purchased in the new exchanges and all non-grandfathered plans.
The EBP regulation created ten categories of essential benefits, those being: ambulatory patient
services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and
substance use disorder services; including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs;
rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness
services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision
care.1803According to a 2013 survey examining 11,100 individual health plans across the United
States, [l]ess than 2% of the existing health plans in the individual market today provide all the
Essential Health Benefits required under the Affordable Care Act.1804
The 10 categories within the essential benefits package represent the minimum requirements of an
insurance plan. Insurance plans are able to offer as many additional benefits as they choose. The 10
categories within the EBP were included to enable access to essential services all the while ensuring
coverage was affordable.1805 If a plan is deficient in one of the ten specified categories, the state
must supplement those benefits.1806 The problem with the minimum essential benefits package is
that many people will now be paying for coverage that is not needed or in certain circumstances
wanted. For example, an elderly woman with no young children who has surpassed her child
bearing years will be paying for maternity and new born care as well as pediatric services. These
expenses are ones in which the woman could have previously foregone but under the Affordable
Care Act she is forced to purchase, assuming her insurance plan complies with the minimum
essential benefits package.
ETHANOL E-15
On June 15, 2012, EPA authorized the first set of companies to begin introducing E15 into the
marketplace.1807 This rulemaking signified EPAs final step in the implementation of two partial
waivers that increased the amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent
(E15) for model year (MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles.1808
At the outset, industry organizations are concerned about the E15 partial waivers because this is
the first time that EPA has allowed the use of a fuel that is not fully compatible with the entire
existing fleet.1809 When granting the waivers, EPA excluded vehicles predating MY 2001,
motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles and non-road engines because E15 will damage those engines.1810
1803
Healthcare.gov. (section 1302(b) of the ACA.

https://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-research/infostat/few-existing-health-plans-meet-new-aca-essentialhealth-benefit-standards#.VCl0K7fu3cs.
1805
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Essential-Health-Benefits-Balancing-Coverage-and-Cost.aspx.
1806
http://www.nahu.org/meetings/annual/2012/sessions/Essential%20BenefitsJanetTrautwein.pdf.
1807
EPA, E15 (a blend of gasoline and ethanol), available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/ (last
visited July 2, 2012).
1808
76 Fed. Reg. 4,662 (Jan. 26, 2011).
1809
Letter from Charles T. Drevna, President, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, to Darrell Issa,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 2 (June 5, 2012) (on file with author).
1810
Id.
1804
345
This exclusion has raised legal questions over EPAs compliance with Sec. 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).1811 Under CAA, EPA must determine if a fuel or fuel additive will cause or contribute to
the failure of any emission control device or system; however, EPA has conceded that E15 will
cause damage to engines in vehicles manufactured before 2001.1812
Aside from the legal issues, respondents believe that as a practical matter, EPA failed to conduct
proper research of the effects of E15. Initially, EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) worked
with the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) to conduct a multi-year series of tests.1813 CRC had
received $40 million in federal funding for the testing, but for reasons unknown, EPA relied on a
2008 DOE study and hastily granted the waivers before the CRC was able to publish their
results.1814 In May 2012, CRC released results from the two-year study that corroborated the
industrys concern that EPA acted prematurely and should have waited for the CRC testing to
conclude.1815 Of utmost concern, the CRC study found that E15 caused engine failure in 25 percent
of the vehicles tested representing about five million vehicles on U.S. roads.1816 In addition, the
CRC study identified other mechanical failures in vehicles EPA approved for E15 usage, including
the potential loss of compression and power, diminished vehicle performance, poor fuel economy
and misfires.1817
EPAs partial waiver will also cause confusion for consumers at the gas pump. According to the
Association of Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers, [b]ecause E15 would theoretically be sold under
the same canopy as regular gasoline, there is a high likelihood of consumer misfueling, in other
words using the wrong fuel for their vehicle. 1818 To mitigate the potential misfueling of vehicles,
engines, and equipment excluded from the E15 waivers, EPA simultaneously issued a final rule in
June 2011 that requires a warning label to notify consumers about the vehicles approved for
E15.1819 This mitigation rule, however, may not be sufficient. Specifically, the American Fuel and
Petrochemical Manufacturers emphasized that, the mitigation rule, which is nothing more than a
cautionary label posted on the gasoline pump, is a woefully ineffective warning device.1820
Some organizations contend that EPAs push for E15 places consumers and vehicle manufacturers
at significant risk.1821 According to the Association of Global Automakers, [v]ehicle manufacturers
have serious concerns about the impact of misfueling on our customers due to potential product
damage, emissions increases, and safety problems, as well as the liabilities these consequences may
1811
Id.
Id.
1813
Letter from Mitch Bainwol, President & CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, to Darrell Issa,
1814
Id.
1815
Id.
1816
Id.
1817
Id.
1818
1819
76 Fed. Reg. 44,406 (July 25, 2011).
1820
1821
Letter from Michael J. Stanton, President & CEO, Association of Global Automakers, to Darrell Issa, Chairman,
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 2 (June 5, 2012) (on file with author).
1812
346
create for auto manufacturers.1822 In particular, studies have shown that ethanol levels exceeding
E10 may cause engine damage in vehicles and non-road engines such as chainsaws, lawnmowers,
boats, and snowmobiles.1823 These repairs are costly, and even the most likely repair of a cylinder
head replacement will cost $2,000 to $4,000 for a single cylinder head engine and $4,000 to $8,000
for a V-type engine.1824 As a result, automobile manufacturers, such as Toyota, have adopted
policies that deny warranty coverage for issues related to the misuse of fuels exceeding ten percent
ethanol volume.1825
In addition to costly repair bills, the introduction of E15 will increase industry compliance costs
that may get shifted to consumers through increased fuel prices. In particular, EPA has estimated
the cost of industry compliance with the mitigation rule at $3.64 million a year.1826 Moreover, the
American Petroleum Institute, an association representing over 500 companies involved in all
aspects of the oil and natural gas industry, recently completed a review of studies on service station
equipment and reported that half of the existing retail outlets are incompatible with E15.1827 Aside
from increased costs, ethanol blends have proven to burn at higher temperatures and to corrode
faster, which may result in serious physical injury to persons using outdoor power equipment.1828
FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

On May 19, 2009, the White House announced the Historic Agreement between the auto
manufacturers, labor unions, the State of California, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and
the EPA to set fuel economy standards for model year (MY) 20122016 automobiles.1829 On July
29, 2011, President Obama announced an agreement to set fuel economy standards for MY 20172025.1830 On November 16, 2011, DOT and EPA officially announced the proposed rule for MY
2017-2025 fuel economy standards.1831
These higher fuel economy standards could generate significant negative impacts on consumers
and job creators. If consumers do not buy the vehicles that manufacturers are forced to produce,
sales will fall, production will slow, and manufacturers and dealers will be forced to eliminate jobs.
According to Wards Automotive survey of 1,100 engineers, in order to meet these standards most
1822
Id.
1824
1825
Letter from Thomas J. Lehner, Vice President, Govt & Indus. Affairs, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., to
Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 3 (Jan. 10, 2010) (on file with author).
1826
Regulatory Announcement: EPA Finalizes Regulations to Mitigate the Potential for Misfueling of Vehicles,
Engines and Equipment with E15, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (June 2011), available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/420f11023.pdf.
1827
Letter from Marty Durbin, Executive Vice President, American Petroleum Institute, to Darrell Issa, Chairman,
H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt Reform, 2 (June 6, 2012) (on file with author).
1828
1829
Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 75 Fed.
Reg. 25324 (May 7, 2010).
1830
Press Release, White House, President Obama Announces Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard, (July 29,
2011).
1831
76 Fed. Reg. 74,854 (December 1, 2011).
1823
347
cars will have to be smaller, more expensive and less varied than they are today. 1832 Moreover, it is
unlikely the goals can be met without sacrifices in vehicle cost, size, safety and choice.1833 Indeed,
the Defour Group has found vehicle cost increases associated with the proposal could depress light
vehicle sales by 25 percent and result in the loss of as many as 220,000 automotive jobs.1834
According to the Center for Automotive Research (CAR), compliance with these higher standards
will cost American car buyers between $4,190 and $6,435 per vehicle while delivering a lifetime
fuel savings of only $1,690 to $2,693.1835
Another concern is the model year 2017-2025 standards are being issued three years ahead of
schedule and without any compelling reason to act under such an accelerated timeline. Mazda is
concerned about the extended period of time covered by the rules. Mazda states, [t]he extended
time frame creates a critical need for the regulations to be thoroughly re-examined, and mid-course
corrections made, at regular intervals. The impact . . . on the auto industry, and particularly on
smaller automakers such as Mazda, cannot be overstated.1836 The Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers also cites the long lead time for this rule as problematic: [a]ny future regulation
that encompasses long lead-times, significant potential regulatory burden/cost, and/or uncertain
consumer acceptance of new and more costly technologies should also include a mechanism for
midpoint adjustments.1837
1832
Peter Valdes-Dapena, Auto engineers: Mileage rules will hurt safety, CNNMoney, (August 3, 2011) (Available
at http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/03/autos/wards_auto_CAFE_engineer_survey/ -).
1833
Id.
1834
Defour Group LLC, STUDY: 56 MPG Standard by MY2025 to Cost 220,000 jobs, (July 7, 2011) (Available at
http://www.defourgroup.com).
1835
Jay Baron, Sean McAlinden, Greg Schroeder, & Yen Chen, The U.S. Automotive Market and Industry in 2025,
The Center for Automotive Research, (June 2011) (Available at http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/ami.pdf).
1836
Letter from Shawn W. Murphy, Vice President and General Counsel, Mazda, to Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, H.
Comm. on Oversight and Govt. Reform (June 1, 2012).
1837
Letter from Mitch Bainwol, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, to Darrell E. Issa,
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Govt. Reform (June 1, 2012).
348
APPENDIX A: COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT

REFORM, 113TH CONGRESS
DARRELL E. ISSA, CALIFORNIA, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
JIM JORDAN, Ohio
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
DOC HASTINGS, Washington
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
ROB WOODALL, Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking Member

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JACKIE SPEIER, California
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin1838
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois1839
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois1840
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois1841
PETER WELCH, Vermont1842
TONY CRDENAS, California1843
STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada1844
MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
LAWRENCE BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director
LINDA GOOD, Chief Clerk
DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director
Committee Room: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building
Staff Offices: 2157 Rayburn House Office Building (Majority)
2471 Rayburn House Office Building (Minority)
Telephone: (202) 225-5074 (Majority)
(202) 225-5051 (Minority)
Website Address: http://oversight.house.gov/
Rep. Pocan resigned October 29, 2013.
Rep. Tammy Duckworth was elected to serve as a Member of the Committee on Jan. 14, 2013, pursuant to H.Res. 22.
1840
Rep. Robin Kelly was elected to serve as a Member of the Committee on April 16, 2013, pursuant to H.Res. 163.
1841
Reps. Davis, Crdenas, and Horsford were elected to serve as Members of the Committee on Jan. 23, 2013, pursuant to H.Res. 42.
1842
Rep. Peter Welch was elected to serve as a Member of the Committee on February 13, 2013, pursuant to H.Res. 64.
1843
1844
1838
1839
349
APPENDIX B: SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE, 2009 2014

113TH CONGRESS (2013 2014)
Chairman Darrell Issa; Ranking Member Elijah Cummings
1. The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census: Chairman
Blake Farenthold (R-TX). Legislative jurisdiction over the federal civil service, the U.S.
Postal Service, and the Census Bureau.
2. The Subcommittee on Government Operations: Chairman John Mica (R-FL). Legislative
jurisdiction over government management and accounting measures, the economy,
efficiency, and management of government operations and activities, procurement, federal
property, public information, including the Freedom of Information Act and Federal
Advisory Committee Act, federal records (including the National Archives and Records
Administration and the Presidential Records Act) federal information technology and data
standards, grant reform, the relationship between the Federal Government and states and
municipalities, including unfunded mandates.
3. The Subcommittee on National Security: Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Oversight
jurisdiction over national security, homeland security, foreign operations, immigration,
emergency management, and criminal justice. Legislative jurisdiction over drug policy.
4. The Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation, and Regulatory Affairs: Chairman Jim
Jordan (R-OH). Oversight jurisdiction over regulatory affairs, impediments to economic
growth and job creation, monetary policy, banking, infrastructure, and tax policy.
Legislative jurisdiction over federal paperwork reduction, data quality, and the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs.
5. The Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements: Chairman James
Lankford (R-OK). Oversight jurisdiction over federal health care policy, food and drug
safety, energy policy, solvency of federal entitlement programs. 1845
112TH CONGRESS (2011 2012)

Chairman Darrell Issa; Ranking Member Elijah Cummings
1. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy: Chairman Dennis
Ross. Legislative jurisdiction of the federal civil service and the U.S. Postal Service.
Oversight jurisdiction over labor policy.
2. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial Management:
Chairman Todd Platts. Legislative jurisdiction over government management and
accounting measures, the economy, efficiency, and management of government operations
and activities (other than procurement and data standards), federal property, and
reorganizations of the executive branch.
1845
Cong.) Rule 6.
350
3. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives:
Chairman Trey Gowdy. Legislative jurisdiction over drug policy, the District of Columbia,
the Census Bureau, and federal records (including the National Archives and Records
Administration and the Presidential Records Act). Oversight jurisdiction over federal health
care policy, food and drug safety, public support for the arts, libraries and museums,
criminal justice, and transportation.
4. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations: Chairman
Jason Chaffetz. Oversight jurisdiction over national security, homeland security, foreign
operations, immigration, and emergency management.
5. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending:
Chairman Jim Jordan. Legislative jurisdiction over federal paperwork reduction, data
quality, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Oversight jurisdiction over
regulatory affairs, stimulus policy, federal spending, education, agriculture, and
communications policy.
6. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs:
Chairman Patrick T. McHenry. Oversight jurisdiction over financial and monetary policy,
banking, housing, and insurance regulation, financial crisis and rescues, and tax policy.
7. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and
Procurement Reform: Chairman James Lankford. Legislative jurisdiction over public
information, including the Freedom of Information Act and Federal Advisory Committee
Act, federal information technology and data standards, procurement and grant reform, the
relationship between the Federal Government and states and municipalities, including
unfunded mandates. Oversight jurisdiction over public broadcasting.1846
111TH CONGRESS (2009 2010)

Chairman Edolphus Towns; Ranking Member Darrell Issa
1. Subcommittee on Domestic Policy: Chairman Dennis Kucinich, Ranking Member Jim Jordan.
Oversight jurisdiction over domestic policies, including matters relating to energy, labor,
education, criminal justice, and the economy. The Subcommittee also has legislative
jurisdiction over the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
2. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia: Chairman
Stephen Lynch, Ranking Member Jason Chaffetz. Jurisdiction includes Federal employee
issues, municipal affairs (other than appropriations) of the District of Columbia, and the
Postal Service. The Subcommittees jurisdiction includes postal naming, holidays, and
celebrations.
3. Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement: Chairwoman
Diane Watson, Ranking member Brian P. Bilbray, Vice Ranking Member Aaron Schock.
Jurisdiction includes the management of government operations, reorganizations of the
executive branch, and federal procurement.
1846
Cong.) Rule 6.
351
4. Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives: Chairman William

Lacy Clay, Ranking Member Patrick T. McHenry, Vice Ranking Member Lynn K.
Westmoreland. Jurisdiction includes public information and records laws such as the
Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Records Act, and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, the Census Bureau, and the National Archives and Records Administration.
5. Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs: Chairman John Tierney (D-MA),
Raking Member Jeff Flake. Oversight jurisdiction over national security, homeland security,
and foreign affairs.1847
1847
Cong.) Rule 8.
352
APPENDIX C: COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE

REPORTS
2009 MINORITY OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
February 10, 2009 Minority staff report, Doubling the National Park Services Annual
Appropriation the Unique Influence of the National Parks Conservation Association.
March 19, 2009 Minority staff report, Friends of Angelo: Countrywides Systematic and Successful
Effort to Buy Influence and Block Reform.
April 15, 2009 Minority staff report, De-Targeting the Stimulus: States Diverting Medicaid Funds
Away from Helping Poor, Protecting Health Care Jobs.
April 28, 2009 Minority staff report, Comprehensive Staff Analysis of the Economic Impact of the
Waxman/Markey Cap-and-Trade Legislation.
May 11, 2009 Minority staff report, Census History: Counting Every Person Once, Only Once and in
the Right Place.
July 7, 2009 Minority staff report, The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating
the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.
July 22, 2009 Minority staff report, Justice or Avarice: The Misuse of Litigation to Harm
Consumers.
July 23, 2009 Minority staff report, Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?
August 13, 2009 Minority staff report, Medicare Experience Suggests Americans Should Expect
Massive Fraud with Nationalized Health Care.
September 28, 2009 Minority staff report, Oversight Status Report Creating Accountability and
Transparency Under One-Party Rule.
October 7, 2009 Minority staff report, Teapot Dome Revisited: Dereliction of Fiduciary Duty at the
Interior Department.
October 15, 2009 Minority staff report, The Politics of EPAs Endangerment Finding.
November 20, 2009 Minority joint staff report with Senate Finance Committee Minority, The Firing
of the Inspector General for The Corporation for National and Community Service.
353
2010 MINORITY OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS

January 26, 2010 Minority staff report, Public Disclosure As A Last Resort: How the Federal
Reserve Fought to Cover Up the Details of the AIG Counterparties Bailout From the American
People.
February 2, 2010 Minority staff report, The Failure to Address the Costs of Defensive Medicine in
Health Care Legislation.
February 18, 2010 Minority staff report, Follow the Money: ACORN, SEIU and their Political
Allies.
February 19, 2010 Minority staff report, Midway Through the 111th Congress, Creating
Accountability and Transparency Under One-Party Rule.
February 25, 2010 Minority staff report, Treasury Departments Mortgage Modification Programs:
A Failure Prolonging the Economic Crisis.
March 2, 2010 Minority joint staff report with Senate Finance Committee Minority, Update and
Supplement to the Initial Report: The Firing of the Inspector General for The Corporation for
National and Community Service.
April 1, 2010 Minority staff report, ACORN Political Machine Tries to Reinvent Itself.
April 29, 2010 Minority staff report, Whos Right on Stimulus Job Creation? The Obama
Administrations Fiction vs. The American Peoples Reality.
Originally Released July 1, 2009 Updated May 12, 2010, staff report, The Role of Government
Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.
May 18, 2010 Minority staff report, The SEC: Designed for Failure.
July 1, 2010 Minority staff report, How the White House Public Relations Campaign on the Oil Spill
is Harming the Actual Clean-up.
August 16, 2010 Minority staff report, Analysis of the First Year of the Obama administration:
Public Relations and Propaganda Initiatives.
September 13, 2010 Minority staff report, The Removal of the Inspector General for The National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).
September 22, 2010 Minority staff report, A Constitutional Obligation: Congressional Oversight of
the Executive Branch.
354
2011 OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS

February 9, 2011 preliminary staff report, Assessing Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation.
March 30, 2011 staff report, A New Era of Openness: How and Why Political Staff at DHS
Interfered with the FOIA Process.
May 23, 2011 staff report, Rising Energy Costs: An Intentional Result of Government Action.
June 2, 2011 staff report, The BP Oil Spill Recovery Effort: The Legacy of Choices Made by the
Obama Administration.
June 14, 2011 joint staff report, The Department of Justices Operation Fast and Furious: Accounts
of ATF Agents.
July 26, 2011 joint staff report, The Department of Justices Operation Fast and Furious: Fueling
Cartel Violence.
September 8, 2011 staff report, Doubling Down on Failure: Before Asking for a New Stimulus
Package, Will the Obama Administration Admit that the First one Failed?
September 14, 2011 staff report, Broken Government: How the Administrative State has Broken
President Obamas Promise of Regulatory Reform.
September 22, 2011 staff report, How Obamas Green Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs.
October 27, 2011 staff report, Uncovering the True Impact of the ObamaCare Tax Credits:
Increases the Deficit, Expands Welfare Through the Tax Code, and Implements a New Marriage Tax
Penalty.
October 31, 2011 majority staff report, Investigative Report on Allegations of Improper Payments
and Promises of Employment for Sulaimon Brown.
November 16, 2011 joint majority staff report, A Decade Later: A Call for TSA Reform.
November 16, 2011 staff report, Government-Sponsored Moguls: Executive Compensation at
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
December 13, 2011 majority staff report, A Crisis of Leadership: How the Actions of Chairman
Gregory Jaczko Are Damaging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
355

January 25, 2012 staff report, Government Motors: A Preliminary Report on the Effects of Bailouts
and Politics on the Obama Administrations Ability to Protect American Consumers.
February 6, 2012 staff report, Workplace Freedom and Fairness: Are Workers Forced to Fund
Political Causes They Oppose?
March 15, 2012 staff report, Report Card on Federal Governments Efforts to Track and Manage
FOIA Requests.
March 20, 2012 staff report, The Department of Energys Disastrous Management of Loan
Guarantee Programs.
March 20, 2012 staff report, The Department of Energys Weatherization Program: Taxpayer
Money Spent, Taxpayer Money Lost.
March 21, 2012 staff report, Impact of President Obamas Health Care Law on Jobs.
April 25, 2012 staff report, Uncovering Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the Medicaid Program.
May 9, 2012 joint staff report with House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Airport
Insecurity: TSAs Failure to Cost Effectively Procure, Deploy and Warehouse its Screening
Technologies.
June 15, 2012 staff report, FDAs Contribution to the Drug Shortage Crisis.
June 20, 2012 report, Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives find Eric H.
Holder, JR., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, In Contempt of Congress for Refusal to
Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee.
July 5, 2012 staff report, How Countrywide Used its VIP Loan Program to Influence Washington
Policymakers.
July 19, 2012 staff report, Continuing Oversight of Regulator Impediments to Job Creation: Job
Creators Still Buried by Red Tape.
July 31, 2012 joint staff report with Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Part I of III Fast and
Furious; The Anatomy of a Failed Operation.
August 10, 2012 staff report, A Dismissal of Safety, Choice, and Cost: The Obama Administrations
New Auto Regulations.
September 20, 2012 staff report, The Federal Governments Failure to Prevent and End Medicaid
Overpayments.
October 29, 2012 joint staff report, Part II of III Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed
Operation.
356
November 1, 2012 staff report, None of the Below: The Truth about President Obamas Actions
Against Domestic Energy Production.
December 13, 2012 staff report, President Obamas Pro-Union Board: The NLRBs Metamorphosis
From Independent Regulator to Dysfunctional Union Advocate.
December 14, 2012 staff report, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus Threat to Credit
Access in the United States.
December 27, 2012 staff report, Government Oversight and Accountability in the 112th Congress.
357

March 5, 2013 staff report, Billions of Federal Tax Dollars Wasted Annually by New Yorks
Medicaid Program.
March 5, 2013 staff report, Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations Could Save Taxpayers
$67 Billion.
April 15, 2013 joint staff report with House Judiciary Committee, DOJs Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul:
How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez Manipulated Justice and Ignored the Rule of Law.
April 23, 2013 staff report, Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican
Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi,
Libya.
June 25, 2013 staff report, Questionable Acquisitions: Problematic IT Contracting at the IRS.
September 16, 2013 staff report, Benghazi Attacks: Investigative Update Interim Report on the
Accountability Review Board.
September 17, 2013 staff report, Interim Update on IRS Investigation of Staff Exempt Applicants.
September 18, 2013 staff report, Risks of Fraud and Misinformation with ObamaCare Outreach
Campaign: How Navigator and Assister Program Mismanagement Endangers Consumers.
October 30, 2013 staff report, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 2011 Human Resources
Conferences: A Culture of Mismanagement and Reckless Spending.
December 16, 2013 staff report No. 2, Risks of Fraud and Misinformation with ObamaCare
Outreach Campaign: How Navigator and Assister Program Mismanagement Endangers
Consumers.
358

February 5, 2014 staff report, Examining the Administrations $2 billion ObamaCare Loan
Guarantee Gamble: Two Case Studies of Political Influence Peddling and Millions of Taxpayer
Dollars Wasted.
February 11, 2014 staff report, Slipping Through the Cracks: How the D.C. Navy Yard Shooting
Exposes Flaws in the Federal Security Clearance Process.
February 26, 2014 joint staff report, Limitless Surveillance at the FDA: Protecting the Rights of
Federal Whistleblowers.
March 11, 2014 staff report, Lois Lerners Involvement in the IRS Targeting of Tax-Exempt
Organizations.
April 7, 2014 staff report, Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives: How the IRS
and Congressional Democrats Misled America about Disparate Treatment.
May 29, 2014 joint staff report, Pseudo-Classification of Executive Branch Documents: Problems
With the Transportation Security Administrations Use of the Sensitive Security Information (SSI)
Designation.
May 29, 2014 staff report, The Department of Justices Operation Choke Point: Illegally Choking
Off Legitimate Businesses.
June 10, 2014 staff report, Systemic Waste and Abuse at the Social Security Administration: How
Rubber-Stamping Disability Judges Cost Hundreds of Billions of Taxpayer Dollars.
June 16, 2014, staff report, How Politics Led the IRS to Target Conservative Tax-Exempt Applicants
for their Political Beliefs.
June 19, 2014 joint staff report, Whistleblower Reprisal and Management Failures at the U.S.
Chemical Safety Board.
July 28, 2014 staff report, Obama-Cares Taxpayer Bailout of Health Insurers and the White
Houses Involvement to Increase Bailout Size.
July 29, 2014 staff report, Making Sure Targeting Never Happens: Getting Politics Out of the IRS
and Other Solutions.:
September 18, 2014 staff report, Behind the Curtain of the HealthCare.gov Rollout.
September 18, 2014 staff report, U.S. Census Bureau: Addressing Data Collection Vulnerabilities.
December 8, 2014 staff report, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations (FDIC) Involvement in
Operation Choke Point.
December 18, 2014 staff report, Misplaced Priorities: How the Social Security Administration
Sacrificed Quality for Quantity in the Disability Determination Process.
359
December 23, 2014 staff report, The Internal Revenue Services Targeting of Conservative TaxExempt Applicants: Reports of Findings for the 113th Congress.
360
APPENDIX D: COMMITTEE HEARINGS

2011 HEARINGS
Jan. 26, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing on Bailouts and the Foreclosure Crisis: Report of
the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP). Witnesses: The
Honorable Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program; The
Honorable Tim Massad, Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability and Chief Counsel, U.S.
Department of the Treasury.
Feb. 9, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private
Programs Hearing entitled, State and Municipal Debt: The Coming Crisis? Witnesses: Ms. Nicole
Gelinas, Manhattan Institute; Mr. David Skeel, S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law,
University of Pennsylvania Law School; Ms. Eileen Norcross, Mercatus Center, George Mason
University; Ms. Iris J. Lav, Senior Advisor, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Feb. 10, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Business Meeting regarding the Oversight Plan, and Full
Committee Hearing entitled, Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation. Witnesses: Mr. Jay
Timmons, CEO, National Association of Manufacturers; Mr. Tom Nassif, President and CEO, Western
Growers Association; Mr. Harry Alford, CEO, Black Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Michael J. Fredrich,
President, MCM Composites, LLC; Mr. Jack Buschur, Buschur Electric; Mr. James Gattuso, Senior
Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, The Heritage Foundation; Mr. Sidney Shapiro, Center for
Progressive Reform; Ms. Karen Kerrigan, President and CEO, Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Council; and Mr. Jerry Ellig, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center.
Feb. 15, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory
Overreach. Witnesses: Mayor Patrice Douglas, City of Edmond, OK; Ms. Susan Dudley, George
Washington University Regulatory Studies Center; Ms. Denise M. Fantone, Director, Strategic Issues,
U.S. GAO; Mr. Anthony H. Griffin, County Executive, Fairfax County, VA.
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, The Stimulus: Two Years Later. Witnesses: John Taylor, Ph.D.,
Professor of Economics, Stanford University; Russell Roberts, Ph.D., Professor of Economics,
Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Christina Romer, Ph.D., Professor of Economics,
University of California at Berkeley; Jared Bernstein, Ph.D., Office of the Vice President, The White
House; J.D. Foster, Ph.D., Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economic of Fiscal Policy, The
Heritage Foundation; Mr. Alex Brill, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Mr. Andrew
Busch, Global Currency and Public Policy Strategist, BMO Capital Markets Investment Banking
Division; Mr. Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute; Josh Bivens, Ph.D.,
Economic Policy Institute.
Feb. 16, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Making Sense of the Numbers: Improving the Federal Financial
361
Reporting Model. Witnesses: Mr. Thomas Allen, Chairman, The Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board; Mr. Jonathan D. Breul, Executive Director, IBM Center for the Business of
Government; Mr. Michael J. Hettinger, Executive Director, Grant Thornton LLP.
Feb. 17, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing on Waste and Abuse: The Refuse of the Federal
Spending Binge. Witnesses: Hon. Claire McCaskill, U.S. Senate; Mr. Andrew Moylan, Vice President
of Government Affairs, National Taxpayers Union; Mr. Thomas A. Schatz, President, Citizens Against
Government Waste; Ms. Debra Cammer, Vice President and Partner, IBM; Hon. Gene L. Kodaro,
Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accounting Office; Veronique de Rugy,
Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center; Mr. Vincent Frakes, Federal Policy Manager, Center
for Health Transformation; Mr. Gary Kalman, Director, Federal Legislative Office, U.S. PIRG.
Feb. 28, 2011, 10:30 a.m. Full Committee Joint Hearing with the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure entitled Americas Presidential Libraries: Their Mission and Their Future.
Witnesses: Hon. David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records
Administration; Mr. Thomas Putman, Director, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum;
Mr. R. Duke Blackwood, Director, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library; Thomas Schwartz, Ph.D.,
Illinois State Historian, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum; Ms. Anna Eleanor
Roosevelt, Chair, Board of Directors, The Roosevelt Institute; and Martha Kumar, Ph.D., Professor,
Towson University.
Mar. 1, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Hearing entitled, The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: Keeping the Door Open.
Witnesses: Mr. Ronald Holassie, Senior, Bishop Carroll High School; Ms. Lesly Alvarez, 8th Grader,
Sacred Heart School; Ms. Sheila Jackson, Mother of DC OSP Student; Ms. Latasha Bennett, Mother of
DC OSP Student; Mr. Kevin Chavous, Chairman, Black Alliance for Education Options; Patrick Wolf,
Ph.D., University of Arkansas; Ms. Betty North, Principal and CEO, Preparatory School of D.C.; and
Ramona Edelin, Executive Director, D.C. Association of Public Charter Schools.
Mar. 2, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, U.S. Military Leaving Iraq: Is the State Department Ready? Witnesses:
Mr. Grant S. Green, Commissioner, Commission on Wartime Contracting; Mr. Michael Thibault, CoChair, Commission on Wartime Contracting; Mr. Stuart Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector General, Office
of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Under
Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of State; Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, Assistant
Secretary for International Security Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Frank Kendall,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, U.S. Department of
Defense.
Mar. 2, 2011, 1:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, Pushing the Envelope: The Looming Crisis at USPS. Witnesses: Hon. Patrick
Donahoe, Postmaster General, USPS; Ms. Ruth Goldway, Chair, Postal Regulatory Commission; Mr.
Phil Herr, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. GAO; Mr. Jim Sampey, Executive Vice
President and Chief Operations Officer, Valpak; Mr. Arthur Seckler, Coordinator, Coalition for a 21st
362
Century Postal Service; and Mr. Frederic Rolando, Director of Legislative and Political Affairs
National Association of Letter Carriers (AFL-CIO).
Mar. 3, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The Refuse of the Federal Spending Binge
II: How U.S. Taxpayers are Paying Double for Failing Government Programs. Witnesses: Hon.
Thomas M. Davis, III, Director of Federal Government Affairs, Deloitte & Touche LLP; Hon. Gene L.
Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Ms.
Ryan Alexander, President, Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Mar. 8, 2011, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, The Foreclosure Crisis at the
University of Maryland School of Law located at 500, W. Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.
Witnesses: Hon. Martin OMalley, Governor of Maryland; Hon. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor of
Baltimore; Mr. Mark Kaufman, Commissioner of Financial Regulation, MD Department of Labor,
Licensing and Regulation; Mr. Kevin Jerron Matthews, Homeowner; Ms. Jane A. Wilson, Chair, Board
of Directors, St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center, Inc.
Mar. 9, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service, and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled Are Federal Workers Underpaid? Witnesses: Hon. John Berry, Director Office of
Personnel Management; Mr. Andrew Biggs, Ph.D., Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute;
Mr. James Sherk, Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics, The Heritage Foundation; Mr. Max Stier,
President, Partnership for Public Service; and Ms. Colleen Kelley, National President, National
Treasury Employees Union.
Mar. 9, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, A Look at the FY10 Consolidated Financial Report of the U.S.
Government. Witnesses: Hon. Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. GAO;
Hon. Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of Management and Budget; and Hon. Richard L. Gregg,
Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Mar. 9, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Regulation on U.S. Manufacturers.
Witnesses: Mr. Aris Papadopolous, CEO and Chairman, Portland Cement Association; Ms. Donna
Harman, CEO, American Forest and Paper Association; Mr. Michael P. Walls, Vice President,
Regulatory and Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council; Mr. Michael Kamnikar, Senior Vice
President, Forging Industry Association, Ellwood Group; Mr. Bernard Schimmel, Vice President,
Technical Services, Boral Bricks, Inc.; and Mr. David C. Foerter, Executive Director, Institute of Clean
Air Companies (ICAC).
Mar. 10, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and
Bailouts of Public and Private Programs and the Subcommittee on Government Organization,
Efficiency and Financial Management entitled, Financial Management, Work Force, and Operations
at the SEC: Whos Watching Wall Streets Watchdog? Witnesses: Hon. Mary Schapiro, Chairman,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Mr. Jeffrey Risinger, Director, Office of Human Resources,
SEC; Mr. Jonathan Katz, Former Secretary, SEC; Mr. Stephen J. Crimmins, K & L Gates, LLP; Ms. Helen
Chairman, Attorney at Law, Baker and Poliakoff, LLP.
363
Management Hearing entitled, Red to Black: Improving Collection of Delinquent Debt Owed to the
Government. Witness: David Lebryk, Commissioner, Financial Management Service, Department of
the Treasury.
Mar. 11, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Transparency Through Technology:
Evaluating Federal Open-Government Initiatives. Witnesses: Ms. Ellen Miller, Executive Director,
Sunlight Foundation; Danny Harris, Ph.D., Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Education;
Mr. Christopher L. Smith, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mr. Jerry Brito,
Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; and Hon. Danny Werfel,
Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, OMB.
Mar. 15, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the
National Archives Hearing entitled, Obamacare: Why the Need for Waivers? Witnesses: Mr. Steven
B. Larsen, J.D., Deputy Administrator and Director, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance
Oversight, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Mr. Edmund F. Haislmaier, Senior Research
Fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation; Mr. Scoot Wold, Esq.,
Shareholder, Hitesman & Wold, P.A.; and Ms. Judy Feder, Ph.D., Professor, Georgetown University.
Mar. 15, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, State and Municipal Debt: The Coming Crisis? Part II.
Witnesses: Hon. Daniel Liljenquist, Utah State Senator; Ms. Robin Prunty, Managing Director,
Standard & Poors; Dean Baker, Ph.D., Center for Economic Policy and Research; Mr. Robert Kurtter,
Moodys Investors Service; and Andrew Biggs, Ph.D., The American Enterprise Institute.
Mar. 16, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, TSA Oversight Part 1: Whole Body Imaging. Witnesses: Hon. Sharon
Cissna, Representative, Alaska State House of Representatives; Mr. Marc Rotenberg, Executive
Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center; Mr. Fred H. Cate, Senior Policy Advisor, Centre for
Information Policy Leadership, Hunton & Williams; David J. Brenner, Ph.D., Center for Radiological
Research, Columbia University; Mr. Stewart A. Baker, Partner, Steptoe and Johnson, LLP; Mr. Lee
Kair, Assistant Administrator for Security Operations, TSA; and Mr. Robin E. Kane, Assistant
Administrator for Security Technology, TSA.
Mar. 16, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Project Labor Agreements and the Cost of Doing Business in the
Construction Industry. Witnesses: Mr. John Ennis, CEO, Ennis Electric, Inc.; Ms. Linda Figg, FIGG
Engineering Group; Dale Belman, Ph.D., MSU School of Industrial and Labor Relations; Mr. John
Biagas, Bay Electric Inc.; Mr. Maurice Baskin, American Builders and Contractors, Inc.; Mr. Daniel
Gordon, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Executive Office of the President; Mr.
Robert Peck, Commissioner of Public Buildings, GSA; and David Michaels, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary
for Occupational Health and Safety, U.S. Department of Labor.
364
Mar. 17, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The Freedom of Information Act: CrowdSourcing Government Oversight. Witnesses: Ms. Miriam Nisbet, Director, Office of Government
Information, National Archives and Records Administration; Mr. Daniel Metcalfe, Executive
Director, Collaboration on Government Secrecy; Mr. Rick Blum, Coordinator, Sunshine in
Government; Mr. Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch; Ms. Angela Canterbury, Director of Public
Policy, Project on Open Government.
Mar. 30, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, Has Dodd-Frank Ended Too Big to Fail? Witnesses: Hon. Neil
Barofsky, Special IG for TARP; and Hon. Tim Massad, Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial
Stability and Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Mar. 31, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Why Isnt the Department of Homeland
Security Meeting the Presidents Standard on FOIA? Witnesses: Ms. Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief
Privacy Officer, The Privacy Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Charles K. Edwards,
Acting Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Mr. Ivan Fong, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Mr. John Verdi, Senior Counsel, Director of Open Government Project, Electronic Privacy
Information Center.
Apr. 5, 2011, 9:45 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Are Postal Workforce Costs Sustainable?
Witnesses: Hon. Louis J. Giuliano, Chairman, U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors; Hon. James C.
Miller, III, Governor, U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors; Hon. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster
General and CEO, United States Postal Service; and Mr. Cliff Guffey, President, American Postal
Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
Apr. 5, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia., Census and the
National Archives Hearing entitled, Waste, Abuse and Mismanagement in Government Health
Care. Witnesses: Ms. Deborah Taylor, CFO, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Peter
Budetti, M.D., Deputy Administrator for Program Integrity, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services; Mr. Gerald T. Roy, Deputy Inspector General for Investigations, Office of Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Hon. Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of New York; Mr. David Botsko, Inspector General, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System; Ms. Jean MacQuarrie, Vice President for Client Services, Thomson Reuters; Mr. Michael
Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute; and Ms. Rachel Klein, Deputy Director for
Health Policy, Families USA.
Apr. 6, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Hearing entitled, Assessing the Impact of Greenhouse Gas Regulations on Small Business.
Witnesses: Mr. Joe Rajkovacz, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association; David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change, The
Heritage Foundation; Mr. David D. Doniger, Policy Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources
Defense Council; Mr. Keith Holman, Deputy Executive Director, National Lime Association; Ms. Gina
McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA; and Ms. Claudia
Rodgers, Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
365
Apr. 7, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental

Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Regulatory Barriers to American Indian Job
Creation. Witnesses: Ms. Mary L. Kendall, Acting Inspector General, Department of the Interior; Ms.
Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team, U.S. GAO; Ms. Patricia Douville,
Council Member, Rosebud Sioux Tribe; and Hon. Ron Allen, Chairman, Jamestown SKlallam Tribe.
Apr. 13, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, Federal Employees Compensation Act: A Fair Approach? Witnesses: Mr. Gary
Steinberg, Acting Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor;
Mr. Douglas Fitzgerald, Director, Division of Federal Employees Compensation, U.S. Department of
Labor; Mr. Bill Siemer, Assistant IG for Investigations, USPS; Ms. Lisa McManus, President and CEO,
Contract Claim Services, Inc., Ms. Milagros Rodriguez, Occupational Health and Safety Specialist,
AMGE.
Apr. 14, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, State and Municipal Debt: Tough Choices
Ahead. Witnesses: Hon. Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin; Hon. Peter Shumlin, Governor of
Vermont; Andrew Biggs, Ph.D., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Mr. Mark Mix,
President, National Right to Work Committee; Robert Novy-Marx, Ph.D., Professor of Finance,
University of Rochester Simon Graduate School of Business; and Desmond Lachman, Ph.D., Resident
Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Apr. 14, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Tsunami Warning, Preparedness, and Interagency Cooperation:
Lessons Learned. Witnesses: William Leith, Ph.D., Acting Associate Director for National Hazards,
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior; Mr. Kenneth D. Murphy, Regional
Administrator Region X, FEMA; Ms. Mary Glackin, Dep. Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. John W. Madden, Director Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management, State of Alaska; and Ms. Nancy Ward, Regional
Administrator, FEMA.
Apr. 15, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland
Defense and Foreign Operations and Natural Resources Committees Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands entitled, The Border: Are Environmental Laws and Regulations
Impeding Security and Harming the Environment? Witnesses: Hon. Silvestre Reyes, Member of
Congress; Mr. Ronald Vitiello, Deputy Chief, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Ms. Kim Thorsen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement, Security
and Emergency Management, U.S. Department of the Interior; Mr. Jay Jensen, Deputy Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mr. George
Zachary Taylor National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers; Mr. Gene Wood, National
Association of Former Border Patrol Officers; Mr. Jim Chilton, Chilton Ranch; and Ms. Anu Mittal,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. GAO.
Apr. 15, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Improper Payments: Finding Solutions. Witnesses: Hon. Daniel
366
Werfel, Controller, OMB; and Ms. Kay L. Daly, Director, Financial Management and Assurance, U.S.
GAO.
Apr. 18, 2011, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Policies Affecting High Tech Growth and
Federal Adoption of Industry Best Practices located at the Council Chambers of the San Jose City
Hall, 200 E. Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA. Witnesses: Mr. Milo Medin, Vice President for Access
Services, Google; Mr. Stuart McKee, National Technology Officer, U.S. Public Sector, Microsoft; and
Mr. Patrick Quinlan, President, Rivet Software.
Apr. 19, 2011, 8:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation:
Assessing the Cumulative Impact of EPA Regulation on Americas Farmers located at Salinas City
Council Chambers, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, California. Witnesses: Mr. Tom Nassif, President
and CEO, Western Growers Association; Mr. Jim Bogart, President, Gowers/Shippers Association of
Central California; Mr. Richard R. Smith, Owner, Paraiso Vineyards; Mr. Norm Groot, Executive
Director, Monterey County Farm Bureau; Mr. Mike Jarrard, Mann Packing Co., Inc.; Mr. Mark Murai.
Apr. 20, 2011, 9:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation in the Northeast Part I located
at Irondequoit Town Hall, 1280 Titus Avenue, Irondequoit, NY. Witnesses: Mr. Mike Medina,
President, Optimax; Ms. Rebecca A. Meinking, Executive Vice President, Radec Corporation; Mr. Bill
Pollock, CEO, Optimation; Mrs. Cathy Martin, President, Monroe County Farm Bureau; Mr. Jonathan
L. Taylor, Oakridge Dairy; Mr. John Teeple, Teeple Farms, Inc.; Ms. Jolene Bender, Supervisor, Town
of Marion; Ms. Maggie Brooks, Monroe County Executive; and Sheriff Barry Virts, Wayne County.
Apr. 20, 2011, 3:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation in the Northeast Part II
located at South Side Innovation Center, 2610 S. Salina Street, Syracuse, NY. Witnesses: Mr. Jud
Gostin, President, Sensis Corporation; Mr. Steve Lefebvre, President, Empire ABC; Mr. Andrew
Reeves, Owner, Reeves Farms; Mrs. Nancy Hourigan, Owner, Hourigans Dairy Farm; Mr. Tom
DeMarree, Owner, Demree Orchards; Mr. Orrin MacMurray, Chairman, C & S Companies; Mr. Travis
Glazier, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Onondaga County Executive; and Mr. Thomas
Squires, Cayuga County Administrator.
Apr. 21, 2011, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Federal Policies Affecting Innovation and
Job Growth in the Biotech and Pharmaceutical Industries located at Atkinson Hall, the University of
California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA. Witnesses: David Gollaher, M.D., President
and CEO, California Healthcare Institute; Mr. Duane J. Roth, CEO, Connect; Mr. Joseph D. Panetta,
President and CEO, BIOCOM; Mr. Alexis Lukianov, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, NuVasive, Inc.; Ms. Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor, University of California, San Diego.
May 3, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Presidential Records in the New
Millennium: Updating the Presidential Records Act and Other Federal Recordkeeping Statutes to
Improve Electronic Records Preservation. Witnesses: Hon. David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the
United States, National Archives and Records Administration; Mr. Brook Colangelo, Chief
Information Officer, Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President.
367
May 4, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Is This Any Way to Treat Our Troops? Part III: Transition Delays.
Witnesses: Mr. John Medve, Executive Director, VA/DOD Collaboration Service, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs; Mr. Dan Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. GAO;
Ms. Lynn Simpson, Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Mark Bird, IT Team Assistant Director, U.S. GAO; and
Mr. Randall B. Williamson, Health Care Team Director, U.S. GAO.
May 6, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, Pathways To Energy Independence:
Hydraulic Fracturing and Other New Technologies", held at the Kern County Board of Supervisors
Chambers, 1115 Truxtun Avenue, BakersField, California. Witnesses: Assemblywoman Shannon
Grove, 32nd District of California; Mr. Rock Zierman, CEO, California Independent Petroleum
Association; William F. Whitsitt, Ph.D., Executive Vice President, Devon Energy; Mr. Steve Layton,
President, E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation; and Mr. Tupper Hull, Vice President
Western States Petroleum Association.
May 10, 2011, 12:30 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The Future of Capital Formation.
Witnesses: Hon. Mary Schapiro, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Ms. Meredith
Cross, Director of the Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission;
Mr. Barry E Silbert, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Second Market, Inc.; Mr. Eric Koester, Chief
Operation Officer and Founder, Zaarly, Inc.; Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Cato Institute;
Mr. Jon Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Securities Law and Corporate Finance, Yale
Law School; Hon. Roel Campos, Partner, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP.
Operations Hearing entitled, USAID: Following the Money. Witnesses: Hon. Rajiv Shah,
Administrator, U.S. AID; and Hon. Donald Gambatesa, IG, U.S. AID.
May 11, 2011, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, Transparency as an Alternative to the Federal Governments
Regulation of Risk Retention. Witnesses: Mr. Edward DeMarco, Acting Director, Federal Housing
Finance Agency; Anthony B. Sanders, Ph.D., Professor, George Mason University; Mr. Joshua Rosner,
Managing Director, Graham Fisher & Co., Inc.; and Ms. Janneke Ratcliffe, Executive Director, Center
for Community Capital, UNC.
May 12, 2011, 8:45 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census, and the
National Archives Hearing entitled, The District of Columbias Fiscal Year 2012 Budget: Ensuring
Fiscal Sustainability. Witnesses: Hon. Vincent Gray, Mayor, District of Columbia; Hon. Kwame
Brown, Chairman, D.C. City Council; Natwar Gandhi, Ph.D., Chief Financial Officer, District of
Columbia; Mr. Matt Fabian, Managing Director, Municipal Market Advisors; and Alice Rivlin, Ph.D.,
Brookings Institution.
May 12, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service, and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, Where Have All the Letters Gone? The Mailing Industry and Its Future.
Witnesses: Mr. Dave Riebe, President of Logistics and Distribution, Quad/Graphics; Mr. Jerry
368
Cerasale, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Direct Marketing Association; Mr. Rob Melton,
Vice President of Specialty Paper, Domtar; and Mr. Todd Haycock, Director, Postal Services, 3i
Infotech, North America.
May 12, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Politicizing Procurement: Will President
Obamas Proposal Curb Free Speech & Hurt Small Business? Witnesses: The Honorable Daniel
Gordon, Administrator for Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OMB; Mr. Alan Chvotkin, Senior
Vice President, Professional Services Counsel; Mr. Mark Renaud, Partner, Wiley Rein, LLP; Ms. M.L.
Mackey, CEO, Beacon Interactive Systems; Ms. Lawrie Hollingsworth, President, Asset Recovery
Technologies, Inc.; Mrs. Marion Blakey, President and CEO, Aerospace Industries Association; Mr.
Brad Smith, Professor Capital University Law School.
May 13, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency, and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Financial Management at the Department of Homeland Security.
Witnesses: Ms. Peggy Sherry, Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Acting CFO, DHS.
May 24, 2011, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Pain at the Pump: Policies that Suppress
Domestic Production of Oil and Gas. Witnesses: Hon. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency; and Hon. David J. Hayes, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior.
May 24, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, Whos Watching the Watchmen? Oversight of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. Witnesses: Hon. Elizabeth Warren, Special Advisor to the Secretary of
the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Mr. Todd Zywicki, Foundation
Professor of Law, George Mason University; David S. Evans, Ph.D., Chairman, Global Economics
Group; Mr. Adam Levitin, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Mr.
Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP.
May 25, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Unfunded Mandates, Regulatory Burdens and
the Role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Witness: Hon. Cass Sunstein,
Administrator, Office of Information Regulatory Affairs, OMB.
Operations Hearing entitled, Cybersecurity: Assessing the Immediate Threat to the United States.
Witnesses: Rear Admiral Michael A. Brown, Director, Cybersecurity Coordination, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Mr. James A. Lewis, Director of Technology and Public Policy Program, CSIS;
Mr. Sean McGurk, Director, National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Dean Turner, Director, Global Intelligence Network
Symantec Security Response; Mr. Phillip Bond, President, TechAmerica.
May 25, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, How Federal Reserve Policies Add to Hard Times at the Pump.
Witnesses: Mr. Vincent R. Reinhart, Resident Scholar, AEI; Robert Murphy, Ph.D., Economist,
Institute for Energy Research; Dean Baker, Ph.D., Co-Director, Center for Economic Policy Research;
369
Mr. Greg Wannemacher, President, Wannemacher Total Logistics; and Ms. Karen Kerrigan,
President and CEO, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
May 26, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor
Policy Hearing entitled, Rightsizing the Federal Workforce. Witnesses: Hon. Cynthia M. Lummis,
U.S. House of Representatives; Hon. Thomas Marino, U.S. House of Representatives; Mr. Andrew G.
Biggs, Resident Scholar, AEI; and Mr. William R. Dougan, National President, National Federation of
Federal Employees.
June 1, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor
Policy Hearing entitled, Official Time: Good Value for the Taxpayers? Witnesses: Hon. Phil
Gingrey, M.D., U.S. House of Representatives; Mr. Timothy Curry, Deputy Associate Director,
Partnership and Public Relations, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Mr. James Sherk, Senior
Policy Analyst in Labor Economics, The Heritage Foundation; Mr. F. Vincent Vernuccio, Labor Policy
Counsel, CEI; Mr. John Gage, National President, American Federation of Government Employees.
June 1, 2011, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Duplication, Overlap, and Inefficiencies in Federal Welfare Programs.
Witnesses: Ms. Patricia Dalton, Chief Operating Officer, Government Accountability Office; Mr.
Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Mr. John Mashburn, Executive
Director, The Carleson Center for Public Policy; Ms. Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, Executive Director, Ohio
Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks.
June 2, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Making the Gulf Coast Whole Again:
Assessing the Recovery Efforts of BP and the Obama Administration After the Oil Spill. Witnesses:
The Honorable Haley Barbour, Governor, State of Mississippi; Mr. Craig Taffaro, President, St.
Bernards Parish, LA; Mr. Bill Williams, Commissioner, Gulf County, FL; Mr. Cory Kief, President,
Offshore Towing, Inc.; Mr. Frank Rusco, Director, Energy and Science Issues, Government
Accountability Office; Mr. Michael Bromwich, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation, and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Interior.
June 2, 2011, 12:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency, and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, IRS E-file and Identity Theft. Witnesses: Mr. Jim White, Director of
Strategic Issues, Government Accountability Office; Ms. Sharon Hawa, Identity Theft Victim; Ms.
Lori Petraco, Identity Theft Victim; Ms. LaVonda Thompson, Identity Theft Victim; The Honorable
Douglas H. Shulman Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service.
June 2, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Hearing entitled, FDA Medical Device Approval: Is There a Better Way? Witnesses:
Congressman Erik Paulsen, Member of Congress, R-Minnesota, 3rd District; Dr. Jeffrey (Jeff) Shuren,
Director, Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Mr. Jack
W. Lasersohn, General Partner, The Vertical Group; David L. Gollaher, PhD, President and CEO,
California Healthcare Institute (CHI); Dr. Rita Redberg, Professor of Medicine, University of
California San Francisco, Editor of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
370
June 3, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental

Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, H.R. 735 and Project Labor Agreements:
Restoring Competition and Neutrality to Government Construction Projects. Witnesses: The
Honorable John Sullivan, U.S. House of Representatives; Mr. Dan Gordon, Administrator, Federal
Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget; Ms. Susan Brita, Deputy Administrator, U.S.
General Services Administration; Mr. Maurice Baskin, Counsel, Associated Builders and Contractors,
Inc.; Mr. David Tuerk, Professor and Chairman, Suffolk University and Beacon Hill Institute; Mr.
Kirby Wu, President, Wu & Associates; Mr. Mike Kennedy, Counsel, The Associated General
Contractors of America.
June 13, 2011, 1:00 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Obstruction of Justice: Does the Justice
Department Have to Respond to a Lawfully Issued and Valid Congressional Subpoena? Witnesses:
Mr. Morton Rosenberg, Former Specialist in American Public Law, American Law Division,
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress; Mr. Todd Tatelman, Legislative Attorney,
Congressional Research Services American Law Division; Mr. Louis Fisher, Scholar in Residence,
The Constitution Project; Professor Charles Tiefer, Commissioner, Commission on Wartime
Contracting.
June 14, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Achieving Transparency and
Accountability in Federal Spending. Witnesses: The Honorable Earl Devaney, Chairman, Recovery
Accountability and Transparency Board; Ms. Ellen Miller, Executive Director, Sunlight Foundation;
Mr. Patrick Quinlan, Chief Executive Officer, Rivet Software; Ms. Kim Wallin, Controller, State of
Nevada; Mr. Craig Jennings, Director of Federal Fiscal Policy, OMB Watch.
June 15, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Operation Fast and Furious: Reckless
Decisions, Tragic Outcomes. Witnesses: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, U.S.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Ms. Josephine Terry, Mother of Late Border Agent Brian Terry;
Ms. Michelle Terry Balogh, Sister of Late Border Agent Brian Terry; Mr. Robert Heyer, Cousin of
Late Border Agent Brian Terry; Special Agent John Dodson, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives, Phoenix Field Division; Special Agent Olindo Lee Casa, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, Phoenix Field Division; Special Agent Peter Forcelli, Group Supervisor,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Phoenix Field Division; The Honorable
Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney General. U.S. Department of Justice.
June 15, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, Postal Infrastructure: How Much Can We Afford? Witnesses: Mr. David Williams,
Vice President, Network Operations Management, United States Postal Service; Mr. Dean Granholm,
Vice President, Delivery and Post Office Operations, United States Postal Service; Mr. Phillip Herr,
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. Michael Winn,
President, Greylock Associates, LLC; Mr. Joe Hete, President and CEO, ATSG, Inc.; Mr. Cliff Guffey,
President, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
June 17, 2011, 12:30 p.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, Unionization Through Regulation:
The NLRBs Holding Pattern on Free Enterprise, held at the Charleston County Council Chambers,
The Lonnie Hamilton Building, 4045 Bridge View Drive, North Charleston, South Carolina.
371
Witnesses: Mr. Philip Miscimarra, Labor Attorney, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; Mr. Neil Whitman,
President, Dunhill Staffing Systems; Professor Julius G. Getman, Earl E. ShefField Regents Chair,
University of Texas at Austin School of Law; Ms. Cynthia Ramaker, Employee, The Boeing Company
(Testifying on Her Own Behalf); Mr. Lafe Solomon, Acting General Counsel, National Labor Relations
Board; The Honorable Nikki Haley, Governor of the State of South Carolina; The Honorable Alan
Wilson, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina.
June 21, 2011, 1:00 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The Hatch Act: The Challenges of
Separating Politics from Policy. Witnesses: Mr. Richard W. Painter, Professor of Corporate Law,
University of Minnesota Law School, Former Associate White House Counsel to President George W.
Bush 2005-2007; Mr. Scott A. Coffina, Partner, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP,
Former Associate White House Counsel to President George W. Bush 2007-2009; Ms. Ana GalindoMarrone, Hatch Act Unit Chief, U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
June 22, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Lasting Implications of the General Motors Bailout." Witnesses: Mr. Ron
Bloom, Former Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury;
Mr. Vince Snowbarger, Deputy Director, Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation; Mr. Dan Ikenson,
Associate Director, Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute; Mr. Bruce
Gump, Vice Chairman, Delphi Salaried Retiree Association; Dr. Thomas Kochan, Professor,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ms. Shikha Dalmia, Senior Analyst, Reason Foundation.
June 22, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and the Bailout of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, The Changing Role of the FDIC. Witnesses: The Honorable
Sheila Bair, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Improving Oversight and Accountability in
Federal Grant Programs. Witnesses: Ms. Jeanette Franzel, Managing Director, Financial
Management Assurance Team, Government Accountability Office; Ms. Natalie Keegan, Analyst in
American Federalism & Emergency Management Policy, Congressional Research Service; Ms.
Cynthia Schnedar, Acting Inspector General, Department of Justice; The Honorable Danny Werfel,
Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget; The
Honorable Tom Coburn, United States Senate.
June 24, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and National
Archives Hearing entitled, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Is There a Security
Gap? Witnesses: Mr. Richard Sarles, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; Chief Michael Taborn, Metro Transit Police Division; Chief
Cathy Lanier, Metropolitan Police Department; Mr. Anthony Griffin, County Executive, Fairfax
County Government.
June 24, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense
and Foreign Operations with the Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittees on the Western
Hemisphere and the Middle East and South Asia entitled, Venezuelas Sanctionable Activity.
372
Witnesses: The Honorable Daniel Benjamin, Ambassador-at-Large, Coordinator for

Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Kevin Whitaker, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Thomas Delare, Director for
Terrorism Finance and Economic Sanctions Policy, U.S Department of State; Mr. Adam J. Szubin,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
July 7, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Cybersecurity: Assessing the Nations
Ability to Address the Growing Cyber Threat. Witnesses: The Honorable Greg Shaffer, Acting
Deputy Under Secretary, National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Mr. James A. Baker, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of
Justice; Mr. Robert J. Butler, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cyber Policy, U.S. Department of
Defense; Mr. Ari Schwartz, Senior Internet Policy Advisor, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
July 8, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus
Oversight and Government Spending and the Committee on Education and the Workforces
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training entitled, The Gainful Employment
Regulation: Limiting Job Growth and Student Choice. Witnesses: Dr. Dario A. Cortes, President,
Berkeley College; Ms. Karla Carpenter, Graduate of Herzing University; Dr. Anthony Carnevale,
Director, Center on Education and Workforce, Georgetown University; Mr. Harry C. Alford,
President and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce.
July 12, 2011, 1:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Hearing entitled, Fulfilling a Legal Duty: Triggering a Medicare Plan from the
Administration. Witnesses: Mr. Jonathan Blum, Deputy Administrator and Director, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services; Dr. Charles P. Blahous III, Public Trustee of Social Security and
Medicare; Dr. Joseph Antos, Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy,
American Enterprise Institute; Mr. James C. Capretta, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center; Dr.
Paul N. Van de Water, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
July 13, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, TSA Oversight Part 2: Airport Perimeter Security. Witnesses: Mr.
John Sammon, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Transportation Security Administration; Mr. Rafi Ron,
President, New Age Security Solutions, Former Directory of Security Tel Aviv-Ben Gurion
International Airport; Mr. Stephen M. Lord, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Mr. William Parker, Inspector, K-9 Unit, Amtrak Police
Department; Mr. TJ Jerry Orr, Airport Director and Operator, Charlotte International Airport.
July 14, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Consumer Financial Protection Efforts:
Answers Needed. Witness: The Honorable Elizabeth Warren, Assistant to the President and
Special Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
July 14, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, EPAs Appalachian Energy Permitorium: Job Killer or Job Creator?
Witnesses: The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito (R, WV- 2), U.S. House of Representatives; Mr. Tom
373
Mackall, President, Sterling Mining; Mr. Chris Hamilton, Senior Vice President, West Virginia Coal
Association; Mr. Joe Lovett, Executive Director, Appalachian Center for Economy and the
Environment; Mr. Roger Horton, Chairman, Safety Committee Local 5958, Co-Chair, Mountain Top
Mining Coalition; Mr. John Stilley, President, Amerikohl Mining Inc.; Ms. Nancy Stoner, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency; Ms. Margaret E.
Gaffney-Smith, Chief, Regulatory Community of Practice, Army Corps of Engineers.
July 14, 2011. 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Transparency and Federal Management IT
Systems. Witnesses: Mr. Vivek Kundra, Federal Chief Information Officer, The Office of
Management and Budget; The Honorable Roger Baker, Assistant Secretary for Information and
Technology, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Lawrence Gross, Deputy Chief Information
Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior; Mr. Owen Barwell, Acting Chief Financial Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy; Mr. Joel Willemssen, Managing Director of Information Technology Issues,
Government Accountability Office.
July 26, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Operation Fast and Furious: The Other
Side of the Border. Witnesses: Mr. Darren Gil, Former ATF Attach to Mexico; Mr. Lorren Leadmon,
ATF Intelligence Operations Specialist; Special Agent Jose Wall, ATF Senior Special Agent, Tijuana,
Mexico; Special Agent William Newell, Former ATF Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division;
Special Agent Carlos Canino, ATF Acting Attach to Mexico; Special Agent William McMahon, ATF
Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations (West, including Phoenix and Mexico).
July 26, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Lights Out: How EPA Regulations Threaten Affordable Power and Job
Creation. Witnesses: The Honorable Robert Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency; Ms. Janet Henry, Deputy General Counsel, American Electric Power; Mr. Mike
Carey, President, Ohio Coal Association; Dr. Joel Schwartz, Professor of Environmental
Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health.
July 27, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Disposal of Federal Real Property:
Legislative Proposals. Witnesses: The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, Member of Congress; The
Honorable Mike Quigley, Member of Congress; The Honorable Jeff Denham, Member of Congress;
The Honorable Daniel Werfel, Controller, Office of Management and Budget; Mr. David Foley,
Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration; Ms. Theresa
Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director, Budget Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office; Mr. Joseph
Moravec, Former Commissioner, Public Buildings Administration, U.S. General Services
Administration; Ms. Maria Foscarinis, Executive Director, National Center on Homelessness &
Poverty.
July 27, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, The Thrift Savings Plan: Helping Federal Employees Achieve Retirement
Security. Witnesses: Mr. Gregory Long, Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment
Board; Mr. Clifford Dailing, Chairman, Employee Thrift Advisory Council, Secretary-Treasurer,
374
National Rural Letter Carriers Association; Mr. Joseph Beaudoin, President, National Active and
Retired Federal Employees Association.
July 28, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Improper Medicare Payments: $48 Billion in Waste? Witnesses:
The Honorable Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, Health &
Human Services; Ms. Michelle Snyder, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services; Ms. Kay Daly, Director of Financial Management and Assurance, Government
Accountability Office; Ms. Kathleen King, Director of Health Care, Government Accountability Office.
July 28, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census, and the
National Archives Hearing entitled, Impact of Obamacare on Job Creators and Their Decision to
Offer Health Insurance. Witnesses: Mr. Andrew Puzder, CEO, CKE Restaurants; Mr. Grady Payne,
Connor Industries, Inc.; Mr. Will Morey, President and CEO, Moreys Pier; Ms. Victoria J. Braden,
President and CEO, Braden Benefit Strategies, Inc.; Mr. Michael J. Brewer, President, Lockton Benefit
Group; Mr. Terry Gardiner, Vice President, Small Business Majority.
Sept. 13, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Take Two: The President's Proposal to Stimulate the Economy and
Create Jobs. Witnesses: Professor John Taylor, Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics
at Stanford University and the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at the Hoover
Institution; Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Dr. Heather Boushey,
Senior Economist, Center for American Progress; Mr. Peter Schiff, CEO, Euro Pacific Capital Inc.; Mr.
Brink Lindsey, Senior Scholar, Kauffman Foundation.
Sept. 14, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, How A Broken Process Leads to Flawed
Regulations. Witnesses: John Graham, Ph. D., Dean, Indiana University School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, former OIRA Administrator; Mrs. Robbie LeValley, Co-owner, Homestead
Meats, Member of the Board of Directors, National Cattlemens Beef Association; Mr. David Arkush,
Director, Public Citizens Congress Watch; Mr. David Barker, Owner, Vida Preciosa International,
Inc.; Mr. Mathew Palmer, Flight Attendant, Delta Air Lines (testifying on his own behalf); The
Honorable Cass Sunstein, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget.
Sept. 15, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and the Bailout of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, Crowdfunding: Connecting Investors and Job Creators.
Witnesses: Ms. Meredith Cross, Director, Division of Corporation Finance, Security Exchange
Commission; Ms. Dana Mauriello, Founder and President, Profounder; Mr. Jeff Lynn, Chief Executive
Officer, Seedrs Limited; Mr. Sherwood Neiss, Cofounder, FLAVORx; Mr. Micheal Migliozzi, Managing
Partner, Forza Migliozzi, LLC; Mr. Mercer Bullard, Associate Professor of Law, The University of
Mississippi.
Sept. 15, 2011, 10:30 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Defense Department Contracting in Afghanistan: Are We Doing
Enough to Combat Corruption? Witnesses: Mr. Gary J. Motsek, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
375
Defense for Program Support, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Logistics & Material
Readiness), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics), U.S.
Department of Defense; Mr. Kim Denver, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement,
U.S. Department of Defense; Brigadier General Stephen Townsend, USA, Director, Joint Staff
Pakistan Afghanistan Coordination Cell, U.S. Department of Defense.
Sept. 21, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the
National Archives Hearing entitled, Examining Abuses of Medicaid Eligibility Rules. Witnesses:
Mr. Stephen Moses, President, Center for Long-Term Care Reform; Mr. David Dorfman, Attorney,
Law Offices of David A. Dorfman; Ms. Janice Eulau, Assistant Administrator, Medicaid Services
Division, Suffolk County Department of Social Services; The Honorable Julie Hamon, Director,
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
Sept. 22, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, How Obamas Green Energy Agenda is
Killing Jobs. Witnesses: The Honorable Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of
Energy; Mr. Daniel Poneman, Deputy Secretary, United States Department of Energy; The
Honorable Keith Hall, Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor.
Sept. 22, 2011, 2:00 p.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and
Bailouts of Public and Private Programs and the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations entitled, Potential Conflicts of Interest at the SEC: The Becker Case.
Witnesses: The Honorable Mary Shapiro, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Mr.
H. David Kotz, Inspector General, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Mr. David M. Becker,
Former General Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Sept. 23, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, The Department of Defense: Challenges in Financial Management.
Witnesses: Mr. Mark Easton, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Daniel
Blair, Deputy Inspector General for Auditing, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Defense; Mr. Asif Khan, Director of Financial Management and Assurance, Government
Accountability Office.
Oct. 4, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Where is the Peace Dividend? Examining
the Final Report to Congress of the Commission on Wartime Contracting. Witnesses:
Commissioner Clark Kent Ervin, Commission on Wartime Contracting; Commissioner Katherine
Schinasi, Commission on Wartime Contracting; Commissioner Michael J. Thibault, Co-Chair,
Commission on Wartime Contracting; Commissioner Robert J. Henke, Commission on Wartime
Contracting; Commissioner Christopher Shays, Co-Chair,Commission on Wartime Contracting;
Commissioner Charles Tiefer, Commission on Wartime Contracting; Commissioner Dov S. Zakheim,
Commission on Wartime Contracting; Commissioner Grant S. Green (Invited), Commission on
Wartime Contracting.
Oct. 6, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Hearing entitled, Obamacares Employer Penalty and its Impact on Temporary Workers.
Witnesses: Mr. Ed Lenz, Senior Vice President, American Staffing Association; Mr. John Uprichard,
376
President/CEO, Find Great People International; Mr. Tav Gauss, President/CEO, The Action Group
Human Resources Solution; Mr. Topher Spiro, Managing Director, Health Policy, The Center for
American Progress.
Oct. 6, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, and Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Are Federal
Agencies Making Full Use of Suspension and Debarment Sanctions? Witnesses: Mr. William T.
Woods, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office; Mr.
Steven Shaw, Deputy General Counsel for Contractor Responsibility, Officer of the Air Force General
Counsel; Mr. Richard A. Pelletier, Suspension and Debarment Official, Environmental Protection
Agency; Nick Nayak, Ph.D., Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Nancy
Gunderson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Oct. 12, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Status Report on the Transition to a Civilian-Led Mission in Iraq.
Witnesses: The Honorable Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, United States
Department of State; The Honorable Alexander Vershbow, Assistant Secretary for International
Security Affairs, United States Department of Defense; The Honorable Alan F. Estevez, Assistant
Secretary for Logistics and Materiel Readiness United States Department of Defense.
Oct. 12, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Running on Empty: How the Obama Administrations Green Energy
Gamble Will Impact Small Business and Consumers. Witnesses: Mr. Jeremy Anwyl, CEO,
Edmunds.com; Marlo Lewis, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Mr. Roland
Hwang, Transportation Program Director, Natural Resources Defense Council; Mr. Scott Grenerth,
Independent Trucker, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association; The Honorable David
Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; The Honorable Gina
McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection
Agency; Ms. Margo Oge, Director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental
Protection Agency.
Oct. 27, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Hearing entitled, Examining Obamacare's Hidden Marriage Penalty and Its Impact on the
Deficit. Witnesses: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Ph.D., President, American Action Forum, Former CBO
Director; Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research;
Richard Burkhauser, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Cornell University; Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., Vice
President, Affordable Health Insurance, The Commonwealth Fund.
Oct. 27, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Internal Control Weaknesses at the Department of Homeland
Security. Witnesses: Ms. Peggy Sherry, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland
Security; Mr. Robert West, Chief Information Security Officer, Department of Homeland Security;
Mr. John McCoy, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Office of the Inspector General,
Department of Homeland Security.
377
Nov. 1, 2011, 1:00 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Lights Out II: Should EPA Take A Step
Back to Fully Conisder Utility MACT's Impact on Job Creation? Witnesses: The Honorable Kenneth
Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia; The Honorable Robert Perciasepe,
Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Josh Bivens, Ph.D., Economist,
Economic Policy Institute.
Nov. 2, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, The Green Energy Debacle: Where Has All the Taxpayer Money Gone?
Witnesses: The Honorable Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy; Mr.
Elliot Lewis, Assistant Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy; W. David Montgomery, Ph.D.,
Senior Vice President, National Economic Research Associates, Inc.; Mr. Greg Kats, President,
Capital-E; Mr. Brett McMahon, Vice President of Business Development, Miller & Long Concrete
Construction.
Nov. 2, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, and Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Are Government Contractors Exploiting
Worker's Overseas? Examining Enforcement of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Witnesses:
Ms. Liana Wyler, Senior Analyst, Congressional Research Service; Mr. David Isenberg, Independent
Analyst and Writer; Mr. Nick Schwellenbach, Director of Investigations, Project on Government
Oversight; Mr. Sam W. McCahon, Founder, McCahon Law; Ms. Evelyn R. Klemstine, Assistant
Inspector General for Audits, U.S. Department of State; The Honorable Kenneth P. MooreField,
Deputy Inspector General for Special Plans & Operations, U.S. Department of Defense; Ms. Linda
Dixon, Combating Trafficking in Persons Program Manager, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr.
Michael P. Howard, Chief Operating Officer, Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES).
Nov. 2, 2011, 10:30 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and the Bailout of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, America's Innovation Challenge: What Obstacles do
Entrepreneurs Face? Witnesses: Mr. Eric Koester, Co-founder and CEO, Zaarly, Inc.; Ms. Lonna
Williams, CEO, Ridge Diagnostics; Tsvi Goldenberg, Ph. D., CEO, eema.
Nov. 4, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Identity Theft and Tax Fraud: Growing Problems for the Internal
Revenue Service. Witnesses: The Honorable Richard Nugent (FL-05), U.S. House of Representative;
The Honorable J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; Mr. Steven T.
Miller, Deputy Commissioner for Services & Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service; Mr. Ronald A.
Cimino, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Matters, Tax Division, United States
Department of Justice.
Nov. 14, 2011, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Delphi Pension Fallout: The Federal
Government Picked Winners and Losers, So Who Won and Who Lost? Witnesses: Mr. Steve Gebbia;
Mr. Chuck Cunningham; Mr. Den Black; Mr. Bruce Gump; Ms. Mary Miller; Mr. Tom Rose; Ms.
Barbara Bovbjerg, Managing Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues,
Government Accountability Office; Mr. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Deputy Director for Operations,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
378
Nov. 15, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, Back to the Basics: Is OPM Meeting its Mission? Witnesses: The Honorable John
Berry, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Mr. Matthew Perry, Chief Information Officer,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management; The Honorable Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General, U.S.
Office of Personnel Management; Mr. Jeffrey E. Cole, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Mr. Pasquale Pat M. Tamburrino, Jr., Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy, U.S. Department of Defense; Ms. Valerie C.
Melvin, Director, Information Management and Human Capital Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Mr. Patrick W. Manzo, Executive Vice President, Global Customer Service and
Chief Privacy Officer, Monster Worldwide, Inc.; and Mr. Mark Conway, Senior Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, Monster Worldwide, Inc.
Nov. 15, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and the Bailout of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, How Roadblocks in Public Markets Prevent Job Creation on
Main Street. Witnesses: Mr. Eric Noll, Executive Vice President and Co-Head of U.S. Listings and
Cash Execution, NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.; Mr. Joseph Mecane, Executive Vice President and Chief
Administrative Officer for U.S. Markets, NYSE Euronext.
Nov. 15, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Progress of the Obama Administrations Policy Towards Iran.
Witnesses: Mr. Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies;
Kenneth M. Pollack, Ph.D., Director, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution;
Suzanne Maloney, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy,
Brookings Institution; Mr. Adam J. Szubin, Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S.
Department of the Treasury; Mr. Henry T. Wooster, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Colin H. Kahl, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for the Middle East, U.S. Department of Defense.
Nov. 16, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Pay for Performance: Should Fannie
and Freddie Executives Be Receiving Millions in Bailouts? Witnesses: Mr. Michael J. Williams,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Fannie Mae; Mr. Charles E. Ed Haldeman, Jr., Chief Executive
Officer, Freddie Mac; Mr. Edward J. DeMarco, Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Nov. 16, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, and Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, On the Frontlines of Acquisition Workforces
Battle Against Taxpayer Waste. Witnesses: Mr. Daniel Gordon, Administrator, Office of Federal
Procurement Policy, Executive Office of the President; Mr. John Hutton, Director, Acquisition and
Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. Roger Jordan, Vice President,
Government Relations, Professional Services Council; Ms. Donna Jenkins, Director, Federal
Acquisition Institute, General Services Administration; Ms. Katrina McFarland, Director, Defense
Acquisition University.
Nov. 30, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the
National Archives Hearing entitled, Drug Shortage Crisis: Lives are in the Balance. Witnesses:
Michelle Hudspeth, M.D., Division Director of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Medical University of
379
South Carolina; Mr. Walter Kalmans, President, Lontra Ventures; Mr. Ted Okon, Executive Director,
Community Oncology Alliance; Scott Gottlieb, M.D., Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute;
Kasey K. Thompson, Pharm.D. Vice President, Office of Policy, Planning and Communications,
American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.
Nov. 30, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, The Price of Uncertainty: How Much Could DOTs Proposed Billion
Dollar Service Rule Cost Customers this Holiday Season? Witnesses: Mr. Ed Nagle III, President and
CEO, Nagle Companies; Mr. Glen Keysaw, Executive Director of Transportation/Logistics,
Associated Food Stores, Inc.; Mr. Robb MacKie, President and CEO, American Bakers Association;
Mr. Frank Miller, Director of Logistics, Badcock & More; Mr. Henry Jasny, Vice President & General
Counsel, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; Jesse David, Ph.D., Senior Vice President,
Edgeworth Economics; The Honorable Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Department of Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Dec. 1, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, HHS and the Catholic Church: Examining
the Politicization of Grants. Witnesses: Mr. George Sheldon, Acting Assistant Secretary,
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Mr.
Eskinder Negash, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Dec. 7, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency
and Financial Management and Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the
National Archives entitled, A Medicaid Fraud Victim Speaks Out: Whats Going Wrong and Why?
Witnesses: Mr. Richard West, Victim of Medicaid Fraud; Ms. Robin Page West, Attorney Cohan, West
& Karpook, P.C.; Ms. Angela Brice-Smith, Director, Medicaid Integrity Group, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services; Mr. Gary Cantrell, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office of the
Inspector General, Health & Human Services; Ms. Carolyn Yocom, Director, Health Care,
Government Accountability Office; Ms. Valerie Melvin, Director, Information Management and
Human Capital Issues, Government Accountability Office.
Dec. 7, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management and Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Joint Hearing entitled, A Medicaid Fraud Victim Speaks Out: Whats Going Wrong and
Why? Witnesses: Mr. Richard West, Victim of Medicaid Fraud; Ms. Robin Page West, Attorney,
Cohan, West & Karpook, P.C.; Ms. Angela Brice-Smith, Director, Medicaid Integrity Group, Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Mr. Gary Cantrell, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations,
Office of the Inspector General, Health & Human Services; Ms. Carolyn Yocom, Director, Health Care,
Government Accountability Office; Ms. Valerie Melvin, Director, Information Management and
Human Capital Issues, Government Accountability Office.
Dec. 7, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Oversight in Iraq and Afghanistan: Challenges and Solutions.
Witnesses: The Honorable Gordon S. Heddell, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense; The
Honorable Harold W. Geisel, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Michael G.
380
Carroll, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Agency for International Development; Mr. Stuart W. Bowen,
Inspector General, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; Mr. Steven J. Trent, Acting
Inspector General, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
Dec. 14, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The Leadership of the Nuclear
Regulatory Committee. Witnesses (all from Nuclear Regulatory Commission): The Honorable
Gregory Jaczko, Chairman; The Honorable George E. Apostolakis, Commissioner; The Honorable
William C. Ostendorff, Commissioner; The Honorable Kristine L. Svinicki, Commissioner; The
Honorable William D. Magwood, IV, Commissioner; Mr. William Borchardt, Executive Director for
Operations; and Mr. Steven Burns, General Counsel.
Dec. 14, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, HHS and the Catholic Church:
Examining the Politicization of Grants (minority day of Hearing). Witnesses: Ms. Florrie Burke,
Consultant, Anti-Human Trafficking/Human Rights/Collaborations and Chair Emeritus, Freedom
Network USA; and Ms. Andrea Powell, Executive Director and Co-Founder, FAIR Girls.
Dec. 15, 2011, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, What the Euro Crisis Means for Taxpayers and the U.S.
Economy, Pt I. Witnesses: Desmond Lachman, Ph.D.,Resident Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute; Anthony Sanders, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Real Estate Finance, George Mason
University; Mr. Douglas J. Elliott, Fellow, Economic Studies, Initiative on Business and Public Policy,
Brookings Institute; Mr. Joshua Rosner, Managing Director, Graham Fisher & Company, Inc.; and Mr.
Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
Dec. 16, 2011, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, What the Euro Crisis Means for Taxpayers and the U.S.
Economy, Pt II. Witnesses: Mr. William C. Dudley, President & CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New
York; Mr. Steven B. Kamin, Director, Division of International Finance, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System; and Mr. Mark Sobel; Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
International Monetary and Financial Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
381
2012 HEARINGS
Jan. 24, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Hearing entitled, McPherson Square: Who Made the Decision to Allow Indefinite Camping
in the Park? Witnesses: Mr. Jonathan Jarvis, Director, National Park Service; Ms. Cathy Lanier,
Chief, Metropolitan Police Department; Mr. Paul Quander, Jr., Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and
Justice, District of Columbia; Mohammad Akhter, M.D., Director, District of Columbia Department of
Health; Mr. Timothy Zick, Cabell Research Professor of Law, William and Mary School of Law.
Jan. 24, 2012, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, How Will the CFPB Function Under Richard Cordray? Witness:
Mr. Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Jan. 25, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, Retirement Readiness: Strengthening the Federal Pension System. Witnesses:
Mr. Charles Chuck Grimes, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Andrew
Biggs, Ph. D., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Mr. Pete Sepp, Executive Vice
President, National Taxpayers Union; Mr. David B. Snell, Director of Retirement Benefits, National
Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE); The Honorable Howard Coble (NC-06);
The Honorable Mike Coffman (CO-06); The Honorable Robert J. Dold (IL-10); The Honorable Tim
Griffin (AR-02); and The Honorable Richard B. Nugent (FL-05).
Jan. 25, 2012, 8:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending Hearing entitled, Vole Vehicle Fire: What did NHTSA Know and When Did They Know It?
Witnesses: The Honorable David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. Daniel F. Akerson, Chairman and CEO,
General Motors; and Mr. John German, Senior Fellow, The International Council on Clean
Transportation.
Feb. 1, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Uncharted Territory: What are the
Consequences of President Obamas Unprecedented Recess Appointments. Witnesses: The
Honorable Mike Lee, United States Senator (R-UT); The Honorable C. Boyden Gray, Founding
Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates; Mr. Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown; Mr. Michael J.
Gerhardt, Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor in Constitutional Law University of North Carolina
(UNC) School of Law; Mr. David B. Rivkin, Partner, Baker Hostetler, LLP; Mr. Mark A. Carter,
Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP.
Feb. 2, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Fast and Furious: Management Failures at
the Department of Justice. Witness: The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the
United States.
Feb. 7, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Solutions Needed: Improper Payments Total $115 Billion in Federal
Misspending. Witnesses: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper, Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate; The Honorable
382
Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of Management and Budget; Mr. Mike Wood, Executive Director,
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board; and Ms. Beryl Davis, Director of Financial
Management and Assurance, Government Accountability Office.
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Jobs for Wounded Warriors: Increasing
Access to Contracts for Service Disabled Veterans Witnesses: The Honorable Bill Johnson, United
States House of Representatives (OH-6); The Honorable Max Cleland, Former United States Senator
from Georgia, Advocate for the Interests of Disabled Veterans; Ms. Belinda Finn, Assistant Inspector
General, Veterans Administration Office of the Inspectors General; Mr. James J. ONeill, Assistant
Inspector General for Investigations, Veterans Administration Office of Inspectors General; Mr. Rick
Hillman, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Investigative Service, General Accountability
Office; Mr. Rick Weidman, Executive Director, Vietnam Veterans Association; Mr. Andre Gudger,
Director, Office of Small Business Programs, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, Acquisition,
Technology & Logistics Department of Defense; Mr. Thomas Leney; Executive Director; Small and
Veteran Owned Business Programs; Department of Veterans Affairs; and Mr. William Puopolo,
President, Verissimo Global Inc.
Feb. 8, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The Right to Choose: Protecting Workers
from Forced Political Contributions. Witnesses: Ms. Claire Waites, 8th Grade Science Teacher, Bay
Minette, Alabama; Ms. Sally Coomer, Home Healthcare Agency Owner, Home Healthcare Provider,
Carnation, Washington; Mr. Terry Bowman, Line Worker, Ford Motor Company; and Kenneth G.
Dau-Schmidt, Ph.D., Willard and Margaret Carr Professor of Labor and Employment Law, Maurer
School of Law, Indiana University of Bloomington.
Feb. 13, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Exploring all the Energy Options and
Solutions: South Texas as a Leader in Creating Jobs and Strengthening the Economy held at Texas
A&M University in Corpus Christi, TX. Witnesses: Ms. Elizabeth Ames Jones, Chairman, Railroad
Commission of Texas; Mr. Charif Souki, Chief Executive Officer, Cheniere Energy, Inc.; Mr. Jeff Weis,
Executive Vice President, Orion Drilling Company LLC; Mr. Scott Stanford, Operations Manager,
Royal Offshore, Royal Production Company, Inc.; Mr. Mark Leyland, Senior Vice President, Offshore
Wind Projects, Baryonyx Corporation; Mr. Roland C. Mower, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Corpus Christi Regional Economic Development Corporation; and Mr. Robert E. Parker, President,
Repcon, Inc.
Feb. 15, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Why Reshuffling Government Agencies
Wont Solve the Federal Governments Obesity Problem. Witnesses: The Honorable Mark R.
Warner, United States Senator from Virginia; The Honorable Ron Johnson, United States Senator
from Wisconsin; Paul C. Light, Ph.D., Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service, Robert Wagner
School of Public Service; The Honorable Dan Blair, President and CEO, National Academy of Public
Administration; Mr. Robert Shea, Principal, Grant Thornton, LLP; and Mr. Max Stier, President and
CEO, Partnership for Public Service.
Feb. 16, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Separation of Church and State: Has the
Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience? Witnesses:
383
The Most Reverend William E. Lori, Roman Catholic Bishop of Bridgeport, CT, Chairman Ad Hoc
Committee for Religious Liberty, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; The Reverend Dr.
Matthew C. Harrison, President, The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod; C. Ben Mitchell, Ph.D,
Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy, Union University; Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, Director, Straus
Center for Torah and Western Thought, Yeshiva University and Associate Rabbi, Congregation
Kehilath Jeshurun; Craig Mitchell, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Ethics, and Chair, Ethics Department,
Associate Director of the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement, Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary; Mr. John H. Garvey, President, The Catholic University of America; Dr.
William K. Thierfelder, President, Belmont Abbey College; Dr. Samuel W. Dub Oliver, President,
East Texas Baptist University; Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs,
Oklahoma Christian University; Laura Champion, M.D., Medical Director, Calvin College Health
Services; and Barry W. Lynn, Esq., Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church
and State.
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, How Much is Too Much? Examining
Duplicative IT Investments at DOD and DOE. Witnesses: Mr. David A. Powner, Director,
Government Accountability Office; Ms. Teresa (Teri) Takai, Chief Information Officer, Department of
Defense; Mr. Michael W. Locatis, III, Chief Information Officer, Department of Energy; and Mr.
Richard Spires, Chief Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
Feb. 28, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Government 2.0: GAO Unveils New
Duplicative Program Report. Witnesses: The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the
United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and The Honorable Tom Coburn, United
States Senate.
Feb. 29, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, Honoring George Washingtons Legacy: Does America Need a Reminder?
Witnesses: The Honorable Frank Wolf, Member of Congress; Mr. Richard Brookhiser,
Author of George Washington on Leadership; Ms. Anne D. Neal, President, American Council of
Trustees and Alumni; Ms. Lucia Henderson, Vice Regent, District of Columbia Mount Vernon Ladies
Association.
Feb. 29, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Preventing Stolen Valor: Challenges and Solutions. Witnesses: Mr.
Lernes Hebert, Director of Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management, Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense; Colonel Jason Evans,
Adjutant General, U.S. Army; Colonel Kari Mostert, Director of Awards and Decorations, U.S. Air
Force; Mr. James Nierle, President, Department of the Navys Board of Decorations & Medals, U.S.
Navy; Mr. Scott Levins, Director, National Personnel Records Center; Mr. Joseph Davis,Director of
Public Affairs, Veterans of Foreign Wars; and Mr. C. Douglas Sterner, Curator, Military Times Hall of
Valor.
Management Hearing entitled, The Status of Government Financial Management: A Look at the
384
FY2011 Consolidated Financial Statements. Witnesses: The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro,

Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office; The Honorable
Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and
Budget; and The Honorable Richard L. Gregg, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the
Treasury.
Mar. 6, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Hearing entitled, The Pros and Cons of Making the Census Bureaus American Community
Survey Voluntary. Witnesses: The Honorable Ted Poe, Member of Congress; The Honorable
Robert Groves, Ph.D., Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Andrew Biggs, Ph.D., Resident Scholar, American
Enterprise Institute; Lawrence Yun, Ph.D., Chief Economist, National Association of Realtors; and
Mr. Patrick Jankowski, Vice President, Research, Greater Houston Partnership.
Mar. 8, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Food Stamp Fraud as a Business Model:
USDAs Struggle to Police Store Owners. Witnesses: The Honorable Kevin Concannon, Under
Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture; The
Honorable Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Ms. Jennifer Hatcher,
Senior Vice President, Government and Public Affairs, Food Marketing Institute; and The Honorable
Kenya Mann Faulkner, Inspector General, Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General.
Mar. 19, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, Failure to Recover: The State of
Housing Markets, Mortgage Servicing Practices, and Foreclosures to be held at the Brooklyn
Borough Hall, located at 209 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, NY. Witnesses: Mr. Morris Morgan, Deputy
Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; Ms. Suzanne G.
Killian, Senior Associate Director for the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Federal
Reserve System; Mr. Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency; Ms. Sheila
Sellers, National Mortgage Outreach Executive Bank of America; Mr. Eric J. Schuppenhauer, Senior
Vice President, Mortgage Banking - Core Servicing and Borrower Assistance Executive, JPMorgan
Chase Bank, NA; Mr. Joe Ohayon, Senior Vice President, Community Relations, Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage; Mr. Jeff Jaffee, Chief Regulatory Affairs Officer, CitiMortgage; The Honorable Arthur M.
Schack, Supreme Court Justice, State of New York; Ms. Meghan Faux, Deputy Director, South
Brooklyn Legal Services; and Mr. Edward Pinto, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute.
Mar. 20, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Oversight of the Department of
Energys Stimulus Spending. Witness: The Honorable Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy.
Mar. 21, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Europes Sovereign Debt Crisis: Causes,
Consequences for the United States and Lessons Learned. Witnesses: The Honorable Timothy F.
Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury; and The Honorable Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman, Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Mar. 21, 2012, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, FOIA in the 21st Century: Using Technology
to Improve Transparency in Government. Witnesses: Ms. Melanie Ann Pustay, Director, Office of
Information Policy, United States Department of Justice; Ms. Miriam Nisbet, Director, Office of
385
Government Information Services, National Archives & Records Administration; Mr. Andrew Battin,
Director, Office of Information Collection, Environmental Protection Agency; and Mr. Sean Moulton,
Director of Federal Information Policy, OMB Watch.
Mar. 22, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, Efficiency
and Financial Management and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal
Services, and International Security entitled, New Audit Finds Problems in Army Military Pay.
Witnesses: LTC Kirk Zecchini, U.S. Army Reserve; Mr. Asif Khan, Director, Financial Management
and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. James Watkins, Director, Accountability
and Audit Readiness, Department of the Army; Ms. Jeanne M. Brooks, Director, Technology &
Business Architecture Integration, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Department of the Army;
and Mr. Aaron Gillison, Deputy Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis,
Department of Defense.
Mar. 26, 2012, 1:30 p.m. Full Committee Joint Hearing with the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure entitled, TSA Oversight Part III: Effective Security or Security Theater? Witnesses:
Mr. Christopher L. McLaughlin, Assistant Administrator for Security Operations, Transportation
Security Administration; Mr. Stephen Sadler, Assistant Administrator for Intelligence and Analysis,
Transportation Security Administration; Mr. Stephen M. Lord, Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Rear Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, Assistant
Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, United States Coast Guard.
Mar. 27, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, Can a USPS-Run Health Plan Help Solve its Financial Crisis? Witnesses: Mr.
Patrick Donahoe, Postmaster General and CEO, United States Postal Service; Mr. Walton Francis,
Author and Federal Health Care Expert.
Mar. 27, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Labor Abuses, Human Trafficking, and
Government Contracts: Is the Government Doing Enough to Protect Vulnerable Workers?
Witnesses: The Honorable Richard Blumenthal, United States Senator from Connecticut; The
Honorable Rob Portman, United States Senator from Ohio; The Honorable Luis CdeBaca,
Ambassador at Large, U.S. Department of State; Ms. Cathy J. Read, Director, Office of Acquisitions
Management, U.S. Department of State; Ms. Evelyn R. Klemstine, Assistant Inspector General for
Audits, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Richard T. Ginman, Director, Defense Procurement and
Acquisition Policy, U.S. Department of Defense; Ms. Sharon Cooper, Director, Defense Human
Resources Activity, U.S. Department of Defense; and The Honorable Kenneth P. MooreField, Deputy
Inspector General for Special Plans & Operations, U. S. Department of Defense.
Mar. 29, 2012, 8:30 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Are Changes in Security Policy Jeopardizing USAID Reconstruction
Projects and Personnel in Afghanistan? Witnesses: Mr. Steven J. Trent, Acting Inspector General,
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; and Mr. J. Alexander Their, Assistant to
386
the Administrator and Director of the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs; U.S. Agency for
International Development.
Mar. 30, 2011, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Hearing entitled, Unfunded Mandates and Regulatory Overreach Part
II. Witnesses: Hon. Joni Cutler, South Dakota State Senator; Mr. Raymond J. Keating, Chief
Economist, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; and Mr. John C. Arensmeyer, Founder and
CEO, Small Business Majority.
Apr. 16, 2012, 1:30 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Addressing GSAs Culture of Wasteful
Spending. Witnesses: The Honorable Brian D. Miller, Inspector General, U.S. General Services
Administration; The Honorable Martha N. Johnson, Former Administrator, U.S. General Services
Administration; Mr. Jeff Neely, Regional Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, Pacific Rim Region
(9), U.S. General Services Administration; The Honorable Michael J. Robertson, Chief of Staff, U.S.
General Services Administration, Mr. David E. Foley, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, U.S. General Services Administration; and The Honorable Daniel M. Tangherlini, Acting
Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration.
Apr. 17, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, The SECs Aversion to Cost-Benefit Analysis. Witnesses: The
Honorable Mary Schapiro, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Henry Manne,
Ph.D., Dean Emeritus, George Mason University School of Law; Ms. Jacqueline McCabe, Executive
Director for Research, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation; Mr. Mercer E. Bullard, Jessie D.
Puckett, Jr., Lecturer and Associate Professor of Law, The University of Mississippi School of Law;
Mr. J.W. Verret, Assistant Professor Law, George Mason University School of Law; and Mr. H. David
Kotz, Managing Director, Gryphon Strategies, (Former Inspector General, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission).
Apr. 19, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Problems at the Internal Revenue Service: Closing the Tax Gap and
Preventing Identity Theft. Witnesses: Mr. Steven T. Miller, Deputy Commissioner of Service and
Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service; Ms. Nina E. Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate, Internal
Revenue Service; The Honorable J. Russell George, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration; Mr. James R. White, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government
Apr. 25, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia,
Census and National Archives and the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and
Government Spending Hearing entitled, Is Government Adequately Protecting Taxpayers from
Medicaid Fraud?" Witnesses: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, United States Senator from Iowa;
The Honorable Michele Bachmann, United States Representative from Minnesota; Gabriel E.
Feldman, M.D.; Local Medical Director for the Personal Care Services Program, New York City;
Christine Ellis, D.D.S., M.S.D., Orthodontist, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center; David
Feinwachs, M.H.A., M.A., J.D, Ph.D., Former General Counsel, Minnesota Hospital Association; Claire
Sylvia, J.D., Partner, Phillips & Cohen, LLP; Lucinda Jesson, J.D., Commissioner, Minnesota
387
Department of Human Services; Cindy Mann, J.D., Director, Center for Medicaid and State
Operations, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and Ms. Carolyn L. Yocom, Director, Health
Care, United States Government Accountability Office.
Apr. 25, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia,
Census and National Archives and the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and
Government Spending entitled, Is Government Adequately Protecting Taxpayers from Medicaid
Fraud?" Witnesses: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, United States Senator from Iowa; The
Honorable Michele Bachmann, United States Representative from Minnesota; Gabriel E. Feldman,
M.D.; Local Medical Director for the Personal Care Services Program, New York City; Christine Ellis,
D.D.S., M.S.D., Orthodontist, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center; David Feinwachs,
M.H.A., M.A., J.D, Ph.D., Former General Counsel, Minnesota Hospital Association; Claire Sylvia, J.D.,
Partner, Phillips & Cohen, LLP; Lucinda Jesson, J.D., Commissioner, Minnesota Department of
Human Services; Cindy Mann, J.D., Director, Center for Medicaid and State Operations, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services; and Ms. Carolyn L. Yocom, Director, Health Care, United States
May 9, 2012, 1:00 p.m. Full Committee Joint Hearing with the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure entitled, TSA Oversight Part IV: Is TSA Effectively Procuring, Deploying, and Storing
Aviation Security Equipment and Technology? Witnesses: Mr. David R. Nicholson, Assistant
Administrator for Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer, Transportation Security
Administration; Mr. Charles K. Edwards, Acting Inspector General, Department of Homeland
Security; and Mr. Stephen M. Lord, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. Government
May 10, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Where Are All the Watchdogs?
Addressing Inspector General Vacancies. Witnesses: The Honorable Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector
General, United States Department of Agriculture, and Chair, Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency; The Honorable Brian D. Miller, Inspector General, United States General
Services Administration; Mr. Jake Wiens, Investigator, Project on Government Oversight (POGO);
and The Honorable Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of
May 16, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Hearing entitled, Hatch Act: Options of Reform. Witnesses: The Honorable Carolyn N. Lerner,
Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel; Special Counsel Lerner will be accompanied by: Ms.
Ana Galindo-Marrone, Chief, Hatch Act Unit, U.S. Office of Special Counsel; The Honorable Irvin B.
Nathan, Attorney General, District of Columbia; The Honorable Jon J. Greiner, Former Utah State
Senator; Mr. Scott A. Coffina, Partner, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP; and Mr. Jon Adler, National
President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
May 16, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus and Government Spending
Hearing entitled, The Obama Administrations Green Energy Gamble: What Have All the Taxpayer
Subsidies Achieved? Witnesses: Mr. Jim Nelson, President and CEO, Solar3D, Inc.; Mr. Greg Kats,
President, Capital-E; Mr. Craig Witsoe, CEO, Abound Solar, Inc.; Mr. Brian D. Fairbanks, President
388
and CEO, Director, Nevada Geothermal Power, Inc.; Mr. Michael J. Ahearn, Chairman of the Board of
Directors, First Solar, Inc.; and Mr. John M. Woolard, President and CEO, BrightSource Energy, Inc.
May 31, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Rhetoric vs. Reality: Does President
Obama Really Support an All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy? Witnesses: Mr. Michael Krancer,
Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, VicePresident of Government and Public Affairs, Western Energy Alliance; Mr. Mark J. Perry, Scholar,
American Enterprise Institute; Mr. Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy,
Center for American Progress Action Fund; Mr. Charles T. Drevna, President, American Fuel &
Petrochemical Manufacturers; and Mr. Peter S.Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders LLP.
May 31, 2012, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Rhetoric vs. Reality, Part II: Assessing the
Impact of New Federal Red Tape on Hydraulic Fracturing and American Energy Independence.
Witnesses: Ms. Lori Wrotenbery, Director, Oil and Gas Conservation Division, Oklahoma
Corporation Commission; Mr. Michael McKee, County Commissioner, Uintah County, Utah; Robert
Howarth, Ph.D., Director, Agriculture, Energy and Environment Program, Cornell University; Mr.
Michael Krancer, Secretary, Department of Environmental Protection; Ms. Nancy Stoner; Acting
Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Mr. Mike Pool,
Deputy Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
June 4, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, EPA Overreach and the Impact on
New Hampshire Communities, held at Exeter, New Hampshire. Witnesses: The Honorable T.J. Jean,
Mayor of Rochester, New Hampshire; Mr. Dean Peschel, Peschel Consulting LLC; Mr. John C. Hall,
Hall & Associates; Mr. Peter Rice, Public Works Director, City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and
Mr. H. Curtis Curt Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England Headquarters, Region 1.
June 6, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled Addressing Concerns About the Integrity
of the U.S. Department of Labors Jobs Reporting. Witnesses: Mr. Daniel Moss, Executive Editor,
Economy, Bloomberg News; Mr. Robert Doherty, General Manager, United States at Reuters News;
Ms. Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Dr. Keith Hall,
Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth,
Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute; Mr. Carl Fillichio, Senior Advisor for Communications and
Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor; Mr. John M. Galvin, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics; The Honorable Jane Oates, Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training,
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
June 7, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Assessing Medicare and Medicaid Program Integrity. Witnesses:
Peter Budetti, M.D., Director of Center for Program Integrity, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid;
Ms. Ann Maxwell, Regional Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections, Office of the Inspector
General for Health & Human Services; Ms. Carolyn Yocom Director of Health Care, Medicaid, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Ms. Kathleen King, Director of Health Care, Medicare, U.S.
389
June 18, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing, Tennessee Job Creation: Do Federal
Government Regulations Help or Hinder Tennessees Economic Development?, held at the Campus
of Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Witnesses: The Honorable Bill
Haslam, Governor, State of Tennessee; The Honorable Lamar Alexander, United States Senate; The
Honorable Bob Corker, United States Senate; Mr. William Bill F. Hagerty, IV, Commissioner,
Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development; Mr. Mark Faulkner, Owner,
Vireo Systems, Inc., (on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business); Mr. H. Grady
Payne, Chief Executive Officer, Conner Industries, Inc., Mr. Scott Cocanougher, Chief Executive
Officer, First Community Bank of Bedford County; and Mr. Bob Bedell, Sales Unit Manager, CocaCola Bottling Company Consolidated (on behalf of the Beverage Association of Tennessee).
June 19, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus and Government Spending
Hearing entitled, The Obama Administrations Green Energy Gamble Part II: Were All the Taxpayer
Subsidies Necessary? Witnesses: Mr. David Crane, President and CEO, NRG Energy, Inc.; Mr. Walter
C. Rakowich, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Prologis, Inc.; Mr. Robert S. Mancini, Chief Executive Officer,
Cogentrix Energy, LLC; Ms. Dita Bronicki, Chief Executive Officer, Ormat Technologies, Inc.; and Ms.
Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
June 26, 2012, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, The JOBS Act in Action: Overseeing Effective Implementation
That Can Grow American Jobs. Witnesses: Brian Cartwright, Ph. D., Scholar-in-Residence, Marshall
School of Business, University of Southern California, Senior Advisor, Patomak Global Partners, LLC,
Former General Counsel, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission; Mr. Alon Hillel-TuchCo-Founder
and Chief Financial Officer of RocketHub Inc.; C. Steven Bradford, J.D., Professor of Law, University
of Nebraska College of Law; and Mr. John Coffee, Jr., Professor of Law, Columbia University Law
School.
Relations and Procurement Reform Hearing entitled, Mandate Madness: When Sue and Settle Just
Isnt Enough. Witnesses: The Honorable E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma;
Mr. Roger Martella, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP, Mr. William Kovacs, Senior Vice President, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; Mr. William Yeatman, Assistant Director, Center for Energy and
Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute; and Mr. Robert Percival, Robert F. Stanton
Professor of Law, Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland Francis King Carey
School of Law.
June 28, 2012, 9:15 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Assessment of the Transition from a Military to a Civilian-Led Mission
in Iraq. Witnesses: The Honorable Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, U.S.
Department of State; Mr. Peter F. Verga, Chief of Staff for the Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.
Department of Defense; The Honorable Mara Rudman, Assistant Administrator, Bureau for the
Middle East; U.S. Agency for International Development; Mr. Michael J. Courts, Acting Director,
International Affairs and Trade, U.S. Government Accountability Office; The Honorable Harold W.
Geisel, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Joseph T. McDermott, Special
Deputy Inspector General for Southwest Asia, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Michael G. Carroll,
390
Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Agency for International Development; and Mr. Stuart W. Bowen, Jr.,
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
June 28, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, The JOBS Act in Action Part II: Overseeing Effective
Implementation of the JOBS Act at the SEC. Witness: The Honorable Mary Schapiro, Chairman, U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
July 10, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the
National Archives Hearing entitled, Examining the Impact of ObamaCare on Doctors and Patients.
Witnesses: Dick Armstrong, M.D., Chief Operating Officer, Docs4PatientCare; The Honorable Jeff
Colyer, M.D., Lt. Governor, State of Kansas; Mr. Kelvyn Cullimore, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO,
Dynatronics; Eric Novack, M.D., Phoenix Orthopedic Consultants; Ms. Sally Pipes, President and
CEO, Pacific Research Institute; and Mr. Ron Pollack, Founding Executive Director, Families USA.
July 10, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, The Administrations Auto Bailouts and the Delphi Pension
Decisions: Who Picked the Winners and Losers? Witnesses: The Honorable Christy Romero,
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, United States Treasury
Department; Mr. Ron Bloom, Former Member of the Automotive Task Force, United States Treasury
Department; Mr. Matthew Feldman, Former Member of the Automotive Task Force, United States
Treasury Department; Mr. Harry Wilson, Former Member of the Automotive Task Force, United
States Treasury Department; Ms. Nikki Clowers, Director, Financial Markets and Community
Investment, Government Accountability Office; and Mr. Todd Zywicki, Professor of Law, George
Mason University.
July 10, 2012, 1:30 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Examining the Impact of ObamaCare on
Job Creators and the Economy. Witnesses: Mr. Jamie Richardson, Vice President, White Castle
System, Inc.; Mr. Michael Frederich, President and Owner, MCM Composites; Ms. Mary Miller, CEO,
JANCOA Janitorial Services, Inc.; the Honorable Daniel Wolf, Massachusetts State Senator, Founder
and CEO National Center for Policy Analysis.
July 13, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, Americas Energy Future, Part 1: A
Review of Unnecessary and Burdensome Regulations held at the University of Central Oklahoma,
Edmond, Oklahoma. Witnesses: Mr. C. Michael Ming, Secretary of Energy, State of Oklahoma; Ms.
Patrice Douglas, Commissioner, Oklahoma Corporation Commission; Mr. Mike McDonald, President
and Co-Owner Triad Energy, Inc.; President Domestic Energy Producers Alliance; Ms. Patricia D.
Horn, Vice President for Governance and Environmental Health & Safety, Oklahoma Gas and
Electric Company; Mr. Brian Woodward, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Oklahoma
Independent Petroleum Association; and Mr. Joe Leonard, Environmental Health and Safety
Engineer, Devon Energy Corporation.
July 14, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, Americas Energy Future, Part II: A
Blueprint for Domestic Energy Production held at the North Dakota State University, Fargo, North
Dakota. Witnesses: Mr. Al. R. Anderson, Commissioner, North Dakota Department of Commerce; Mr.
391
Lynn D. Helms, Director, North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources;
Mr. Michael Ziesch, Manager, Labor Market Information Center, Job Service North Dakota. Mr. Jack
R. Ekstrom, Vice president Corporate and Government Relations, Whiting Petroleum Corporation;
Mr. Jack H. Stark, Senior Vice President of Exploration, Continental Resources, Inc.; Mr. Kevin
HatField, Senior Director of Gathering Systems, Enbridge, Inc.; and Mr. Henry (Tad) A. True, Vice
President, Bridger Pipeline LLC and Belle Fourche Pipeline, Tru Companies.
July 18, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, Taking Care of Our Veterans: What is the Department of Veterans
Affairs Doing to Eliminate the Claims Backlog? Witnesses: The Honorable Allison Hickey, Under
Secretary for Benefits, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Gerald Manar, Deputy Director,
National Veterans Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; and Mr. Joseph A.
Violante, National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans.
Spending Hearing entitled, The Administrations Bet on Abound Solar: Assessing the Costs to the
American Taxpayers. Witnesses: Mr. Craig Witsoe, Former Chief Executive Officer, Abound Solar,
Inc.; Mr. Tom Tiller, Former Chairman of the Board, Abound Solar, Inc.; Mr. David Frantz, Acting
Executive Director, Loan Programs Office, U. S. Department of Energy; Mr. Jonathan Silver, Former
Executive Director, Loan Program Office, U.S. Department of Energy; Ms. Veronique De Rugy, Senior
Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University; and Mr. Gregory Kats, President,
Capital E.
July 19, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Continuing Oversight of Regulatory
Impediments to Job Creation: Job Creators Still Buried in Red Tape. Witnesses: Mr. Paul A. Yarossi,
President, HNTB Holdings, Ltd., on behalf of the American Road & Transportation Builders
Association; Mr. Jim Hamby, Chief Executive Officer, Vision Bank; Mr. J. Billy Pirkle, Senior Director
EHS, Crop Production Services, Inc., on behalf of the Agricultural Retailers Association, Mr. Howard
Williams, Vice President & General Manager, Construction Specialties, Inc.; Mr. Steve Russell, Vice
President, Plastics Division, American Chemistry Council; and Mr. Barry Rutenberg; Barry
Rutenberg & Associates, Inc., on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders.
July 19, 2012, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Hearing entitled, Changes to the Heights Act: Shaping Washington, D.C., for the Future.
Witnesses: Ms. Harriet Tregoning, Director, Office of Planning, District of Columbia; Dr. Natwar
Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia; Mr. Marcel Acosta, Executive Director, National
Capital Planning Commission; Mr. Roger Lewis, Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland School
of Architecture; Mr. Christopher Collins, Counsel, District of Columbia Building Industry
Association; and Ms. Laura Richards, Member of the Board of Trustees and past Chairman,
Committee of 100 on the Federal City.
July 24, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National
Archives Hearing entitled, Meth Revisited: Review of State and Federal Efforts to Solve the
Domestic Methamphetamine Production Resurgence. Witnesses: The Honorable R. Gil
Kerlikowske, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President; Mr.
392
Ronald Brooks, Director, Northern California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA),
President, National Narcotic Officers Associations Coalition (NNOAC); Mr. Jason Grellner, Detective
Sergeant, Franklin County Narcotics Enforcement Unit, State of Missouri, President, Missouri
Narcotic Officers Association (MNOA); Mr. Donald (Max) Dorsey, II, Lieutenant/Supervisory Special
Agent, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), State of South Carolina; Mr. Rob Bovett,
District Attorney, Lincoln County, State of Oregon; Mr. Marshall Fisher, Director, Mississippi Bureau
of Narcotics (MBN), State of Mississippi.
July 24, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and
Private Programs Hearing entitled, Credit Crunch: Is the CFPB Restricting Consumer Access to
Credit? Witnesses: Mr. Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Mr.
Douglas Fecher, President and CEO, Wright-Patt Credit Union, Inc.; Mr. Steven I. ZeiselExecutive
Vice President & General Counsel, Consumer Bankers Association; Mr. Michael D. Calhoun;
President, Center for Responsible Lending; Dr. Mark A. Calabria, Director of Financial Regulation
Studies, Cato Institute.
July 25, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, GAO Report: The Obama Administrations
$8 Billion Extralegal Healthcare Spending Project. Witnesses: Mr. James C. Cosgrove, Director,
Health Care, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Ms. Edda Emmanuelli-Perez, Managing
Associate General Counsel, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Mr. Jonathan Blum, Deputy
Administrator and Director, Center for Medicare, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Spending Field Hearing entitled, The Green Agenda and the War on Coal: Perspectives from the
Ohio Valley held at the Ohio University Eastern Campus, St. Clairsville, Ohio. Witnesses: Mr. Bob
Hodanbosi, Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; The
Honorable Andy Thompson, Representative, Ohio House of Representatives; Mr. Anthony Ahern,
President/CEO, Ohio Rural Electric Cooperatives, Inc. and Buckeye Power Inc.; Mr. Tom Mackall,
President, East FairField Coal Company; Mr. Shawn Garvin, Administrator, Region 3, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; and Mr. Bharat Mathur, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region
5, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Aug. 1, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency and Financial
Management Hearing entitled, Unresolved Internal Investigations at DHS: Oversight of
Investigation Management in the Office of the DHS IG. Witnesses: Mr. Charles K. Edwards, Acting
Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. David V. Aguilar, Acting Commissioner,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; and Mr. Daniel H. Ragsdale,
Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland
Security.
Aug. 2, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, IRS: Enforcing ObamaCares New Rules
and Taxes. Witnesses: Mr. Mark Everson, Vice Chairman, Alliantgroup; Ms. Nina Olson, National
Taxpayer Advocate, Internal Revenue Service; Professor Timothy Jost, Washington and Lee
University; Mr. Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute; Mr. Douglas
Shulman, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service.
393
Operations Hearing entitled, Dawood National Military Hospital, Afghanistan: What Happened and
What Went Wrong? Part II. Witnesses: Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV, United States
Army; Major General Gary S. Patton, United States Army; and The Honorable Kenneth P.
MooreField, Deputy Inspector General for Special Plans and Operations, U.S. Department of Defense.
Operations Hearing entitled, SIGAR Report: Document Destruction and Millions of Dollars
Unaccounted for at the Department of Defense. Witnesses: Mr. John F. Sopko, Special Inspector
General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
Sept. 13, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and
Bailouts of Public and Private Programs and the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on
Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises entitled, The JOBS Act: Importance of
Prompt Implementation for Entrepreneurs, Capital Formation, and Job Creation. Witnesses: Mr.
Rory Eakin, Co-Founder and Chief Operating Officer, CircleUp; Ms. Alison Bailey Vercruysse,
Founder and Chief Executive Officer, 18 Rabbits; Mr. Jeffrey Van Winkle, Treasurer, National Small
Business Administration; Mr. Naval Ravikant, Co-Founder, AngelList; and Mr. Robert B. Thompson,
Peter P. Weidenbruch Jr. Professor of Business Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
Sept. 20, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, IG Report: The Department of Justices
Office of the Inspector General Examines the Failures of Operation Fast and Furious. Witness: The
Honorable Michael E. Horowitz; Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice.
Sept. 20, 2012, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the
National Archives Hearing entitled, Examining the Administrations Failure to Prevent and End
Medicaid Overpayments. Witnesses: Mr. John Hagg, Director of Medicaid Audits, Office of Inspector
General, Department of Health and Human Services; and Ms. Penny Thompson, Deputy Director,
Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Sept. 20, 2012, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations Hearing entitled, SIGAR Report: Document Destruction and Millions of Dollars
Unaccounted for at the Department of Defense. Part II. Witnesses: Mr. John F. Sopko, Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; The Honorable Allen F. Estevez, Assistant
Secretary for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense; Lieutenant General
Brooks L. Bash, USAF, Director for Logistics, Joint Staff, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Donald L.
Larry Sampler, Jr., Deputy Assistant to the Administrator, Office of Afghanistan & Pakistan Affairs,
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Oct. 10, 2012, 12:00 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The Security Failures of Benghazi.
Witnesses: Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, Utah National Guard, U.S. Army; Mr. Eric Nordstrom, Regional
Security Officer, U.S. Department of State; Ms. Charlene R. Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
International Programs, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State; and the Honorable
Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of State.
394
Management Hearing entitled, Trade Adjustment Assistance for U.S. Firms: Evaluating Program
Effectiveness and Recommendations. Witnesses: Mr. Bryan Borlik, Director, Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Firms, Economic Development Corporation U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr.
William Bujalos, Director Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center; Mr. J Alfredo Gomez,
Acting Director, International Affairs and Trade U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mrs. Patricia
Britton, Vice President of Business Development, Topflight Corporation; Mr. Drew Greenblatt,
President, Marlin Steel Wire Products; and Mr. Marc L. Rothstein, President, Prime Synthesis, Inc.
Management Hearing entitled, Identity Theft and Tax Fraud: Growing Problems for the Internal
Revenue Service, Part 4. Witnesses: Ms. Beth Tucker, Deputy Commissioner for Operations
Support, Internal Revenue Service; The Honorable J. Russell George, Inspector General, Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration; Ms. Nina E. Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate, Internal
Revenue Service; and Mr. James R. White, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
Nov. 29, 2012, 2:00 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, 1 in 88 Children: A Look Into the Federal
Response to Rising Rates of Autism. Witnesses: Alan Guttmacher, M.D., Director, Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health;
Coleen Boyle, Ph.D., Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental
Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Mr. Bob Wright, Co-Founder, Autism
Speaks; Mr. Scott Badesch, President, Autism Society; Mr. Mark Blaxill, Board Member, SafeMinds;
Mr. Bradley McGarry, Coordinator of the Asperger Initiative at Mercyhurst, Mercyhurst University;
Mr. Michael John Carley, Executive Director, Global & Regional Asperger Syndrome Partnership;
and Mr. Ari Neeman, President, Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
Dec. 12, 2012, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, HGH Testing in the NFL: Is the Science
eReady? Witnesses: Lawrence A. Tabak, DDS, Ph.D., Principal Deputy Director, National Institutes
of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Larry Bowers, Ph.D., Chief Science Officer,
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency; Mr. Richard M. Butkus, NFL Hall of Fame Member, I Play Clean
(iplayclean.org); Linn Goldberg, M.D., F.A.C.S.M., Head, Division of Health Promotion & Sports
Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University; Mr. Mike Gimbel, Director, Powered by Me!,
University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center.
395
2013 HEARINGS
Jan. 22, 2013, 1:00 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Wasting Information Technology Dollars:
How Can the Federal Government Reform its IT Investment Strategy? Witnesses: The Honorable
Tom Davis, Former Member of Congress, and Chairman of the Government Reform Committee; Mr.
Steven VanRoekel, Federal CIO, Office of Management and Budget; Mr. David Powner, Director,
Information Technology Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Douglas
Bourgeois, Vice President, Chief Executive, VMware, Inc.; Michael Klayko, Advisor and CEO, Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc.; Chris Niehaus, Director, Office of Civic Innovation, Microsoft
Corporation.
Feb. 5, 2013, 1:00 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Government Spending: How Can We Best
Address the Billions of Dollars Wasted Every Year?. Witnesses: Mr. Thomas A. Schatz, President,
Citizens Against Government Waste; Mr. Ryan Alexander, President, Taxpayers for Common Sense;
The Honorable Dan G. Blair, President, National Academy of Public Administration; Mr. John M.
Kamensky, Senior Fellow, IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Feb. 13, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security Hearing entitled, U.S. Direct
Assistance in Afghanistan: Ensuring Transparency and Accountability. Witnesses: Mr. John F.
Sopko, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
Feb. 14, 2013, 10:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Exploring GAOs High Risk List and
Opportunities for Reform. Witnesses: The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the
United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Feb. 14, 2013, 1:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, The Effects of Rising Energy Costs on American Families and Employers. Witnesses: Mr.
George Hand, General Manager, Canadian Valley Electric Cooperative; Ms. Paula Carmody,
President, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates; Mr. Eugene M. Trisko,
Attorney at Law and Energy Economist; Mr. Daniel Weiss, Senior Fellow, Center for American
Progress Action Fund; Mr. Daniel R. Simmons, Director of Regulatory and State Affairs, Institute for
Energy Research.
Feb. 14, 2013, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
Hearing entitled, Unintended Consequences: Is Government Effectively Addressing the
Unemployment Crisis? Witnesses: Casey B. Mulligan, Ph.D., Professor in Economics, The
University of Chicago; Eugene Steuerle, Ph.D., Institute Fellow and Richard B. Fisher Chair, The
Urban Institute; Ms. Annie Carter, Owner and President, Carter Machine Company; Chad Stone,
Ph.D., Chief Economist, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; The Honorable Stacey Reece,
Former Member of the Georgia State House, Franchise Owner, Spherion.
Feb. 26, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
Hearing entitled, Bailout Rewards: The Treasury Departments Continued Approval of Excessive
Pay for Executives at Taxpayer-Funded Companies. Witnesses: The Honorable Christy Romero,
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, U.S. Department of the Treasury;
396
Ms. Patricia Geoghegan, Acting Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, U. S. Department
of the Treasury.
Feb. 27, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Time to Reform Information Technology
Acquisition: The Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act. Witnesses: Mr. Richard Spires, Chief
Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition
and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office; The Honorable Daniel Gordon,
Associate Dean for Government Procurement Law Studies, George Washington University Law
School, Former Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OMB; Mr. Stan Soloway,
President and CEO, Professional Services Council; Mr. Paul Misener, Vice President, Global Public
Policy, Amazon.com.
Feb. 27, 2013, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
Hearing entitled, The Road Less Traveled: Reducing Federal Travel & Conference Spending.
Witnesses: The Honorable Rush Holt, Representative for the 12th Congressional District of New
Jersey; The Honorable Danny Werfel, Controller, U.S. Office of Management and Budget; Ms.
Cynthia Metzler, Chief Administrative Services Officer, U.S. General Services Administration.
Feb. 27, 2013, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Hearing entitled, Failures in
Managing Federal Real Property: Billions in Losses. Witnesses: Dorothy Robyn, Ph.D.,
Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration; Mr. David Wise,
Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. Leonard Gilroy,
Director of Government Reform, Reason Foundation.
Mar. 5, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Reducing Waste and Mismanagement:
Implementing Agency Watchdogs Recommendations Could Save Taxpayers Billions Witnesses:
The Honorable Anthony W. Miller, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; The Honorable
Kathleen S. Tighe, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education; The Honorable John D. Porcari,
Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; and The Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III,
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Mar. 13, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Addressing Transparency in the
Federal Bureaucracy: Moving Toward A More Open Government. Witnesses: Ms. Angela
Canterbury, Director of Public Policy, Project on Government Oversight; Mr. Jim Harper, Director
of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute; Mr. Daniel Schuman, Policy Counsel, Director of the
Advisory Committee on Transparency, The Sunlight Foundation; Ms. Celia Viggo Wexler, Senior
Washington Representative, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Mar. 19, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, DOD and DHS: Implementing Agency
Watchdogs Recommendations Could Save Taxpayers Billions. Witnesses: The Honorable Robert
Hale, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), U.S. Department of Defense; Ms. Lynne Halbrooks,
Principal Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense; The Honorable Rafael Borras,
Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Charles Edwards,
Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
397
Mar. 19, 2013, 1:30 p.m. A Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation
and Regulatory Affairs and the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the
Census entitled, Sequestration Oversight: Understanding the Administrations Decision on
Spending Cuts and Furloughs. Witnesses: Mr. David Robbins, Managing Director, Federal
Communications Commission; Mr. Michael Young, USDA Budget Director, U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Mr. Hari Sastry, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resource Management, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
Mar. 19, 2013, 3:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements entitled,
The Department of Energys Strategy for Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas. Witnesses: Mr. Chris
Smith, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy; Mr. Tom Choi,
National Practice Leader Gas, Deloitte MarketPoint LLC; Mr. Paul N. Cicio, President, Industrial
Energy Consumers of America; Charles K. Ebinger, Ph.D, Director, Foreign Policy, Energy Security
Initiative, Brookings Institute.
Apr. 9, 2013, 2:00 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Reducing Waste in Government:
Addressing GAOs 2013 Report on Duplicative Federal Programs. Witnesses: The Honorable Gene
L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Apr. 10, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, U.S. Foreign Assistance: What Oversight
Mechanisms are in Place to Ensure Accountability? Witnesses: The Honorable John F. Sopko,
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; The Honorable Harold W. Geisel, Deputy
Inspector General, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Michael G. Carroll, Deputy Inspector General, U.S.
Agency for International Development; The Honorable Kenneth P. MooreField, Deputy Inspector
General for Special Plans and Operations, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr. Paul H. Cooksey, Deputy
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
Apr. 10, 2013, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
Hearing entitled, Ahead of Postal Reform: Hearing from USPS Business Partners. Witnesses: Mr.
Steven Brandt, President and Publisher, Greenville News; Ms. Joy Franckowiak, Director, Postal
Affairs and Distribution, Valpak; Ms. Meta Brophy, Director, Procurement Operations, Consumer
Reports; Mr. Carl Janssens, VP Pharmacy Operations, CVS Caremark; Mr. Ken Garner, President &
CEO, Association of Marketing Service Providers; Mr. Jerry Cerasale, Senior Vice President of
Government Affairs, Direct Marketing Association.
Apr. 11, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
Hearing entitled, The Federal Employees Health Benefit Program: Is it a Good Value for Federal
Employees? Witnesses: Mr. Jonathan Foley, Director, Planning and Policy Analysis, U.S. Office of
Personnel Management; Mr. William A. Breskin, Vice President of Government Programs, Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association; Mr. Thomas C. Choate, Chief Growth Officer, UnitedHealthcare;
Mr. Mark Merritt, President and CEO, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association; Ms. Jacqueline
Simon, Public Policy Director, American Federation of Government Employees.
Apr. 16, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Open to Visitors? Assessing the Federal
Effort to Minimize the Sequesters Impact on Access to Our Nations Capital and National
398
Treasures. Witnesses: The Honorable David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, National
Archives and Records Administration; The Honorable Jonathan Jarvis, Director, National Park
Service; G. Wayne Clough, Ph.D., Secretary, Smithsonian Institution.
Apr. 17, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Options to Bring the Postal Service Back
from Insolvency. Witnesses: The Honorable Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; The Honorable Mickey Barnett, Chairman, Board of Governors, United States
Postal Service; The Honorable Patrick Donahoe, Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer,
United States Postal Service; Mr. Frederic Rolando, President, National Association of Letter
Carriers, AFL-CIO.
Apr. 17, 2013, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on National Security Hearing entitled, Contracting to Feed
U.S. Troops in Afghanistan: How did the Defense Department end up in a Multi-Billion Dollar Billing
Dispute? Witnesses: Mr. Michael Schuster, Managing Director Logistics Division, Supreme Group
B.V.; Mr. Daniel Blair, Deputy Inspector General for Auditing, U.S. Department of Defense; Mr.
Matthew Beebe, Deputy Senior Acquisition Executive, Defense Logistics Agency; Mr. William
Kenny, Acquisition Executive, Troop Support, Defense Logistics Agency; Mr. Gary Shifton, Chief,
OCONUS Division, Defense Logistics Agency.
Apr. 18, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security Hearing entitled, Sequestration
Oversight: Prioritizing Security over Administrative Costs at TSA. Witnesses: Mr. John W. Halinski,
Deputy Administrator, Transportation Security Administration.
Apr. 24, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Broken Promises: the Small Business
Lending Funds Backdoor Bank Bailout. Witnesses: The Honorable Christy L. Romero, Special
Inspector General, Office of the Special Inspector General for the Trouble Asset Relief Program.
Apr. 24, 2013, 2:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth entitled, Green Energy Oversight:
Examining the Department of Energys Bad Bet on Fisker Automotive. Witnesses: Mr. Nicholas
Whitcombe, Supervisory Senior Investment Officer, LPO, Department of Energy; Mr. Henrik Fisker,
Former Executive Chairman, Fisker Automotive; Mr. Bernhard Koehler, Chief Operating Officer,
Fisker Automotive; Mr. Nicolas Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow, The Heritage Foundation;
Ms. Zoe Lipman, Independent Consultant.
Apr. 25, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Hearing entitled, Government
Operations Oversight: Addressing Unused and Vacant Federal Property. Off-site Hearing located at:
49 L Street S.E. in Washington, D.C. Witnesses: Mr. Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public
Buildings Service, General Services Administration; Mr. David Wise, Director, Physical
Infrastructure Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office; The Honorable Tommy Wells, D.C.
Councilmember, Ward 6; Mr. Ed Kaminski, Commissioner, Washington DC Advisory Neighborhood
Commissions.
Apr. 25, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security and Subcommittee on Economic
Growth Joint Hearing entitled, Oversight of the Federal Governments Procurement of
Ammunition. Witnesses: Nick Nayak, Ph.D., Chief Procurement Officer, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Mr. Humberto Medina, Assistant Director, National Firearms and Tactical
399
Training Unit, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
(Also Chair of the DHS Weapons and Ammunition Commodity Council); The Honorable Patrick P.
OCarroll, Jr., Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, Social Security Administration; Mr.
Jon Adler, National President, National Law Enforcement Officers Association.
Apr. 25, 2013, 10:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, Examining the Lack of Transparency and Consumer Driven Market Forces in U.S. Health
Care. Witnesses: Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S., Surgeon, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Health
Policy Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; John Goodman, Ph.D., President
and Chief Executive Officer, National Center for Policy Analysis; Ms. Lynn Quincy, Senior Health
Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.
May 7, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and
Regulatory Affairs and the Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice
entitled, DOJs Quid Pro Quo with St. Paul: A Whistleblowers Perspective. Witnesses: The
Honorable Charles E. Grassley, United States Senator from Iowa; The Honorable Johnny Isakson,
United States Senator from Georgia; Mr. Fredrick Newell, Community Activist, St. Paul, Minnesota;
Mr. Thomas F. DeVincke, Attorney representing Mr. Newell in Newell v. City of St. Paul; Ms. Shelley
R. Slade, Partner, Vogel, Slade & Goldstein, LLP.
May 8, 2013, 11:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Benghazi: Exposing Failure and
Recognizing Courage. Witnesses: Mr. Mark Thompson, Deputy Coordinator for Operations, Bureau
of Counterterrorism and Leader, Foreign Emergency Support Team, U.S. Department of State; Mr.
Gregory Hicks, Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Charg dAffairs in
Libya, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Eric Nordstrom, Diplomatic Security Officer and former
Regional Security Officer in Libya, U.S. Department of State.
May 9, 2013, 9:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Hearing entitled, Federal
Government Approaches to Issuing Biometric IDs. Witnesses: Mr. Stephen Sadler, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Transportation Security Administration; Mr.
Stephen A. Lord, Director, Forensic Audits and Investigations, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
May 9, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the Census Hearing
entitled, Is OPM Processing Federal Worker Pension Claims on Time? Witnesses: Mr. Patrick
McFarland, Inspector General, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Mr. Kenneth Zawodny,
Associate Director, Retirement Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Ms. Valerie C. Melvin,
Director, Information Management & Technology Resource Issues, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Dr. George Kettner, President, Economic Systems, Inc.; Mr. Joseph A. Beaudoin, President,
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Assoc. (NARFE).
May 14, 2013, 2:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Field Hearing entitled, Data
Centers and the Cloud: Is the Government Optimizing New Information Technologies Opportunities
to Save Taxpayers Money? Held in the Meese Conference Room in Mason Hall at George Mason
University, Fairfax, VA. Witnesses: Mr. David A. Powner, Director, Information Technology
400
Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. Bernard Mazer, Chief Information
Officer, Department of the Interior; Mr. Steve OKeeffe, Founder, MeriTalk; Ms. Teresa H. Carlson,
Vice President, World Wide Public Sector, Amazon Web Services; Mr. Kenyon Wells, Vice President
of U.S. Federal, CGI Federal.
May 15, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Briefing by the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke,
on Fed Activities. Closed Briefing only open to Committee Members.
May 16, 2013, 10:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, Opportunities Lost: Constraints on Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands and Waters.
Witnesses: Mr. Tommy P. Beaudreau, Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior; Mr. Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
May 21, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and
Entitlements and the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
entitled, Examining the Concerns About ObamaCare Outreach Campaign. Witnesses: Mr. Gary
Cohen, Deputy Administrator and Director, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance
Oversight, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
May 22, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The IRS: Targeting Americans for Their
Political Beliefs. Witnesses: The Honorable J. Russell George Inspector General, Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration, The Honorable Douglas Shulman, Former Commissioner,
Internal Revenue Service; Ms. Lois G. Lerner, Director, Exempt Organizations, Tax Exempt and
Government Entities Division, Internal Revenue Service; The Honorable Neal S. Wolin, Deputy
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
June 5, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
Hearing entitled, OPMs Revolving Fund: A Cycle of Government Waste? Witnesses: The
Honorable Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Charles D.
Grimes, III, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Linda E. Brooks Rix, CoChief Executive Officer, Avue Technologies Corporation.
June 5, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, Up Against the Blend Wall: Examining EPAs Role in the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Witnesses: Mr. Christopher Grundler, Director, Office of Transportation & Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Jack Gerard, President and CEO, American Petroleum
Institute; Mr. Lucian Pugliaresi, President, Energy Policy Research Foundation Inc.; Mr. Joel
Brandenberger, President, National Turkey Federation; Jeremy I. Martin, Ph.D., Senior Scientist,
Clean Vehicles Program, Union of Concerned Scientists.
June 6, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Collected and Wasted: The IRS Spending
Culture and Conference Abuses. Witnesses: The Honorable J. Russell George, Inspector General,
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; Mr. Gregory Kutz, Assistant Inspector General
for Audit, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; Mr. Faris Fink, Commissioner, Small
401
Business and Self-Employed Division, Internal Revenue Service; Mr. Danny Werfel, Acting
Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service.
June 10, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Field Hearing entitled, The
Delphi Pension Bailout: Unequal Treatment of Retirees. Held at the Sinclair Community College in
Dayton, Ohio. Witnesses: Mr. Bruce Gump, Delphi Salaried Retirees Association; Ms. Mary Miller,
Delphi Salaried Retirees Association; Mr. Tom Rose, Delphi Salaried Retirees Association; Mr. Paul
Dobosz, Delphi Salaried Retirees Association; Mr. James Sherk, Senior Policy Analyst in Labor
Economics, The Heritage Foundation.
June 12, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Protecting Taxpayer Dollars: Is the
Government Using Suspension and Debarment Effectively? Witnesses: Mr. John Neumann, Acting
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office; The
Honorable Angela B. Styles, Partner, Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C., (Former Administrator,
Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OMB); Mr. Scott H. Amey, General Counsel, Project on
Government Oversight.
June 13, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security Hearing entitled, Examining the
Governments Record on Implementing the International Religious Freedom Act. Witnesses: The
Honorable Suzan Johnson Cook, Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, U.S.
Department of State; Katrina Lantos Swett, Ph.D., Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom; Thomas F. Farr, Ph.D., Director of the Religious Freedom Project, Berkley Center for
Religion, Peace and World Affairs, Georgetown University; Ms. Tina Ramirez, President, Hardwired,
Inc.; Mr. Amjad Mahmood Khan, National Director of Public Affairs, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
USA; Chris Seiple, Ph.D., President, Institute for Global Engagement.
June 18, 2013, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Reinventing Government. Witnesses:
The Honorable David M. Walker, Government Transformation Initiative; The Honorable Stephen
Goldsmith, Daniel Paul Professor of the Practice of Government, Director, Innovations in
Government Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government; Ms. Elaine C. Kamarck, Ph.D.,
Director, Management and Leadership Institute, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings
Institution; Mr. Daniel J. Chenok, Executive Director, IBM Center for the Business of Government;
Mr. J. David Cox, National President, American Federation of Government Employees.
June 19, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Hearing entitled, Federal
Government Approaches to Issuing Biometric IDs: Part II. Witnesses: Mr. Charles H. Romine,
Director of the Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. Steven Martinez, Executive Assistant Director of the Science and
Technology Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice; Mr. John Allen,
Director of the Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration; Ms. Colleen Manaher,
Executive Director of Planning, Program Analysis, and Evaluation, Office of Field Operations,
Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Brenda Sprague,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, U.S. Department of State.
402
June 21, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Field Hearing entitled, Building
a Better Partnership: Exploring the Mine Safety and Health Administrations Regulation of Southern
Appalachian Mining. Held at the Mitchell County Historic Courthouse in Bakersville, North
Carolina. Witnesses: Mr. Marvin Lichtenfels, Deputy Administrator for Metal/Non-Metal, Mine
Safety and Health Administration; Mr. Sam Bratton, President, North Carolina Aggregates
Association; Mr. Jeff Stoll, Safety and Health Manager, The Quartz Corporation; Mr. Mack McNeely,
Vice President, LBM Industries and Nantahala Talc Limestone.
June 26, 2013, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The IRS Contracts with Strong Castle,
Inc. Witnesses: Ms. Beth Tucker, Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support, Internal Revenue
Service; Mr. Michael Chodos, Associate Administrator, Office of Entrepreneurial Development, U.S.
Small Business Administration; Mr. Brad Flohr, Senior Advisor for Compensation Service, Veterans
Benefit Administration, U.S. Veterans Administration; Mr. Gregory Roseman, Deputy Director,
Enterprise Networks and Tier Systems Support, Internal Revenue Service; Mr. William Sisk, Deputy
Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration; Mr. Braulio Castillo,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Strong Castle, Inc.
June 27, 2013, 9:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security Hearing entitled, Border Security
Oversight: Identifying and Responding to Current Threats. Witnesses: Mr. Michael Fisher, Chief,
U.S. Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection; Mr. David J. Murphy, Assisting Acting
Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection; Mr. Thomas Homan, Executive Associate Director,
Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement; Ms. Rebecca
Gambler, Director, Homeland Security and Justice, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
June 27, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, Oversight of Rising Social Security Disability Claims and the Role of Administrative Law
Judges. Witnesses: The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Oklahoma), Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate; Glenn E. Sklar,
Deputy Commissioner, Disability Adjudication and Review, Social Security Administration; The
Honorable Larry J. Butler, Administrative Law Judge, Miami Office of Disability Adjudication
Review, Social Security Administration; The Honorable Thomas W. Snook, Administrative Law
Judge, Miami Office of Disability Adjudication Review, Social Security Administration; The
Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge, Pittsburgh Office of Administrative Law Judges,
U.S. Department of Labor; The Honorable Drew A. Swank, Administrative Law Judge, Pittsburgh
Office of Administrative Law Judges, U.S Department of Labor; Thomas D. Sutton, Board of
Directors, National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives.
July 10, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Unaccountable Government: GAO Reports
Show Feds Struggling to Track Money and Performance. Witnesses: The Honorable Gene L.
Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
July 10, 2013, 1:00 p.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
Hearing entitled, The Combined Federal Campaign: Making Every Dollar Count. Witnesses: The
Honorable David G. Reichert (WA-08), U.S. House of Representatives; Mr. Mark Lambert, Associate
Director for Merit System Accountability and Compliance, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Ms.
403
JuCoby Pittman, President and CEO, Clara White Mission; Mr. Kalman Stein, President and CEO,
EarthShare; Ms. Debby Hampton, President and CEO, United Way of Central Oklahoma; Mr. Ken
Berger, President and CEO, Charity Navigator.
July 17, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements and
Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and
Security Technologies Joint Hearing entitled, Evaluating Privacy, Security, and Fraud Concerns
with ObamaCares Information Sharing Apparatus. Witnesses: Mr. Alan R. Duncan, Assistant
Inspector General for Security and Information Technology Services, Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration; Mr. Terence V. Milholland, Chief Technology Officer, Internal Revenue
Service; The Honorable Danny Werfel, Principal Deputy Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service;
The Honorable Marilyn B. Tavenner, Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Mr. Henry Chao, Deputy Chief Information Officer,
Deputy Director of the Office of Information Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Mr. John Dicken, Director, Health Care, U.S.
July 17, 2013, 10:15 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security Hearing entitled, Border Security
Oversight, Part II: Examining Asylum Requests. Witnesses: Mr. Joseph E. Langlois, Associate
Director, Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
July 17, 2013, 1:30 p.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, A Path Forward on Postal Reform.
Witnesses: The Honorable Adrian Smith, Member of Congress; The Honorable Patrick Donahoe,
Postmaster General & CEO, United States Postal Service; Mr. Joel Quadracci, Chairman, President &
CEO, Quad Graphics; Mr. Cliff Guffey, President, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO.
July 18, 2013, 11:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The IRSs Systematic Delay and Scrutiny
of Tea Party Applications. Witnesses: Ms. Elizabeth Hofacre, Revenue Agent, Exempt
Organizations, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Internal Revenue Service; Mr. Carter
Hull (Recently Retired), Tax Law Specialist, Exempt Organizations, Tax Exempt and Government
Entities Division, Internal Revenue Service; The Honorable J. Russell George, Inspector General,
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; Mr. Michael McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration; Mr. Gregory Kutz, Assistant Inspector General for
Management Services and Exempt Organizations, Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration.
July 18, 2013, 2:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
Hearing entitled, Regulatory Burdens: The Impact of Dodd-Frank on Community Banking.
Witnesses: Mr. Eddie Creamer, President and CEO, Prosperity Bank; Ms. Tanya Marsh, Assistant
Professor of Law, Wake Forest University School of Law; The Honorable R. Bradley Miller, Senior
Fellow, Center for American Progress (Former Member of Congress); Ms. Hester Peirce, Senior
Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University.
404
July 18, 2013, 2:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, Examining the Obama Administrations Social Cost of Carbon Estimates. Witnesses: The
Honorable Howard Shelanski, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
July 25, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Hearing entitled, Data Centers
and the Cloud, Part II: The Federal Governments Take on Optimizing New Information
Technologies Opportunities to Save Taxpayers Money. Witnesses: Mr. David Powner, Director,
Information Technology Management Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; The Honorable
Steven VanRoekel, Acting Deputy Director for Management, Federal Chief Information Officer,
Administrator for E-Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and Budget;
Dr. David L. McClure, Associate Administrator, Office of Citizen Services and Innovative
Technologies, U.S. General Services Administration.
July 31, 2013, 10:15 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, Oversight of IRSs Legal Basis for Expanding ObamaCares Taxes and Subsidies.
Witnesses: The Honorable Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma; Charles Willey, M.D.,
CEO, Innovare Health Advocates Inc.; Mr. Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel, Constitutional
Accountability Center; Mr. Jonathan Adler, Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University; Ms.
Emily McMahon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Aug. 1, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Department of Energys Bonneville
Power Administration: Discriminating Against Veterans and Retaliating Against Whistleblowers.
Witnesses: The Honorable Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Energy; The
Honorable Daniel B. Poneman, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy; Ms. Anita J. Decker,
Bonneville Power Administration.
Aug. 2, 2013, 9:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security and Committee on Natural Resources
Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Subcommittee Joint Hearing entitled, Missing
Weapons at the National Park Service: Mismanagement and Lack of Accountability. Witnesses:
Mr. Robert A. Knox, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U. S.
Department of Interior; Ms. Kim A. Thorsen, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Public Safety, Resource
Protection and Emergency Services, U. S. Department of Interior; The Honorable Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Director, National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior; Ms. Teresa Chambers, Chief of the
United States Park Police Force, National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior.
Aug. 2, 2013, 9:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Hearing entitled, Examining the
Skyrocketing Problem of Identity Theft Related Tax Fraud at the IRS. Witnesses: The Honorable
Daniel Werfel, Principal Deputy Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service; Ms. Nina E. Olson,
National Taxpayer Advocate, Office of the Taxpayer Advocate; Mr. Michael McKenney, Acting
Deputy Inspector General for Audit, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; Mr.
Douglas J. MacGinnitie, State Revenue Commissioner, Department of Revenue.
Sept. 10, 2013, 9:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Preventing Violations of Federal
Transparency Laws. Witnesses: The Honorable Gary Gensler, Chairman, U.S., Commodity Futures
405
Trading Commission; The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Vice President of Environmental Initiatives,
Apple Inc. (Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency); Mr. Jonathan Silver
Visiting Distinguished Senior Fellow, Third Way (Former Executive Director Loan Program Office,
U.S. Department of Energy); Mr. Andrew, McLaughlin, Senior Vice President, Betaworks (Former
Deputy Chief Technology Officer, Executive Office of the President); The Honorable David S.
Ferriero, Archivist of the United States.
Sept. 11, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
Hearing entitled, Ensuring an Accurate and Affordable 2020 Census. Witnesses: The Honorable
John Thompson, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Ms. Carol Cha, Director, Information Technology, U.S.
Sept. 11, 2013, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Hearing entitled, Oversight of
the SIGTARP Report on Treasurys Role in the Delphi Pension Bailout. Witnesses: The Honorable
Christy L. Romero, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program; Mr. Matthew A.
Feldman, Partner, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP; Mr. Steven Rattner, Chairman, Willett Advisors,
LLC; Mr. Harry J. Wilson, Chairman, CEO and founder, The MAEVA Group, LLC; Mr. Harvey R. Miller,
Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP; Ms. Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Managing Director, Education,
Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Ms. A. Nicole
Clowers, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
Sept. 18, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
and the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Joint Hearing entitled,
Federal Implementation of ObamaCare: Concerns of State Governments. Witnesses: The
Honorable Jeff Colyer, M.D., Lieutenant Governor, State of Kansas; The Honorable C. Bradley Hutto,
State Senator, State of South Carolina; The Honorable Alan Wilson, Attorney General, State of South
Carolin; The Honorable Katrina R. Jackson, State Representative, State of Louisiana; Ms. Kathy
Kliebert, Secretary, Department of Health and Hospitals, State of Louisiana; The Honorable Eleanor
Sobel, State Senator, State of Florida, The Honorable Matthew Hudson, State Representative, State
of Florida.
Sept. 19, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Reviews of the Benghazi Attack and
Unanswered Questions. Witnesses: Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, Chairman, Benghazi
Accountability Review Board; Admiral Michael G. Mullen, USN (Ret.), Vice-Chairman, Benghazi
Accountability Review Board; Mr. Mark J. Sullivan, Chairman, Independent Panel on Best Practices,
Former Director, United States Secret Service; Mr. Todd Keil, Member, Independent Panel on Best
Practices, Former Asst. Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Ms. Patricia Smith, Mother of Sean Smith; and Mr. Charles Woods, Father of Tyrone
Woods.
Oct. 1, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Secret Agent Man? Oversight of EPAs IG
Investigation of John Beale. Witnesses: The Honorable Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Patrick Sullivan, Deputy Inspector General for
406
Investigations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Robert Brenner, Former Director of
Policy Analysis and Review, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr.
John C. Beale, Former Senior Policy Advisor, U.S Environmental Protection Agency; The Honorable
Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Oct. 2, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, Oversight of the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit. Witnesses: Mr. Curtis G. Wilson,
Associate Chief Counsel, Passthroughs and Special Industries, Internal Revenue Service; Mr. Rob
Gramlich, Senior Vice-President for Public Policy, American Wind Energy Association; Mr. Dan W.
Reicher, Executive Director, Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy & Finance at Stanford
University; Robert J. Michaels, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Institute for Energy Research, Professor of
Economics, California State University, Fullerton.
Oct. 9, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Examining the IRSs Role in Implementing
and Enforcing ObamaCare. Witnesses: Ms. Sarah Hall Ingram, Director, Affordable Care Act Office,
Internal Revenue Service.
Oct. 16, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee and the Committee on Natural Resources Joint Hearing
entitled, As Difficult As Possible: The National Park Services Implementation of the Government
Shutdown. Witnesses: The Honorable Greg Bryan, Mayor, Town of Tusayan; Ms. Anna Eberly,
Managing Director, Claude Moore Colonial Farm; The Honorable Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director,
National Park Service; Ms. Lisa Simon, President, National Tourism Association; Mr. Myron Ebell,
Director, Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute; and Mr. Denis P.
Galvin, Board Member, National Parks Conservation Association.
Oct. 30, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, A Culture of Mismanagement and
Wasteful Conference Spending at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Witnesses: The Honorable
Gina Farrisee, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs; Mr. Edward Murray, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs; The Honorable John Seplveda, Former Assistant Secretary for Human Resources
and Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; The Honorable Richard Griffin, Deputy
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Gary Abe, Deputy Assistant Inspector
General for Audits and Evaluations, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Nov. 13, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, ObamaCare Implementation: The Rollout
of Healthcare.gov. Witnesses: Mr. David A. Powner, Director of IT Management Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Mr. Henry Chao, Deputy Chief Information Officer, Deputy
Director of the Office of Information Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Mr.
Frank Baitman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Technology and Chief Information
Officer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Mr. Todd Park, Chief Technology Officer of
the United States, Office of Science and Technology Policy; Mr. Steven VanRoekel, Chief Information
Officer of the United States, and Administrator, Office of Electronic Government, Office of
Management and Budget; Mr. Richard A. Spires, Former Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; and Ms. Karen Evans, Partner, KE&T Partners, LLC.
407
Nov. 14, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security Hearing entitled, Border Security
Oversight, Part III: Border Crossing Cards and B1/B2 Visas. Witnesses: Mr. John Wagner, Acting
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Mr.
John P. Woods, Assistant Director, National Security Investigations Division, Homeland Security
Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mr. Edward J. Ramotowski, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State; and Mr.
Juan Osuna, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice.
Nov. 14, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Hearing entitled, Reviewing
Alternatives to Amtraks Annual Losses in Food and Beverage Service. Witnesses: Mr. Tom Hall,
Chief of Customer Services, Amtrak, Mr. Ted Alves, Inspector General, Amtrak Office of the
Inspector General; Mr. Dwayne Bateman, Amtrak Food and Beverage Service Employee.
Nov. 19, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, Continuing Oversight of the Social Security Administrations Mismanagement of Federal
Disability Programs. Witnesses: The Honorable Patrick O'Carroll, Inspector General, Social
Security Administration; Mr. Glenn E. Sklar, Deputy Commissioner, Disability Adjudication and
Review, Social Security Administration; and Mr. Jasper J. Bede, Regional Chief Administrative Law
Judge, Region 3 Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Social Security Administration.
Nov. 20, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security Hearing entitled, Abuse of Overtime
at DHS: Padding Paychecks and Pensions at Taxpayer Expense. Witnesses: Mr. John Florence,
Branch Chief, Use of Force Policy Division, Field Operations Academy, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection; The Honorable Carolyn N. Lerner, Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel; Ms.
Catherine V. Emerson, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mr.
Ronald Vitiello, Deputy Chief, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and Mr.
Brandon Judd, President, National Border Patrol Council, American Federation of Government
Employees.
Nov. 22, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, ObamaCare Implementation:
Sticker Shock of Increased Premiums for Healthcare Coverage. Witnesses: Mr. Dan Waters,
President, Dan Waters & Associates; Mrs. Sherry Overbey, Director, Belmont Crisis Pregnancy
Center; Mr. Joel Long, President, Gastonia Sheet Metal Services; Mr. Jason Falls, Owner, Falls
Insurance; and Mr. Tav Gauss, President, The Action Group Human Resources Solutions.
Nov. 25, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, ObamaCare Implementation: High
Costs, Few Choices for Rural America. Witnesses: Mr. Raymer M. Sale, Jr., President, E2E Benefits
Services, Inc.; Jeff Charles Reinhardt, Ph.D., President, The Longstreet Clinic, P.C.; Mr. Michael
Boyette, Owner, Owl Town Auto; and Mrs. Emma Lucille Collins, Owner, Synergy Wellness.
Dec. 2, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Changes to The Heights Act: Shaping
Washington, D.C., for the Future, Part II. Witnesses: Ms. Harriet Tregoning, Director, DC Office of
Planning; and Mr. Marcel C. Acosta, Executive Director, National Capital Planning Commission.
Dec. 3, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations Field Hearing entitled, Federal
Trade Commission and General Services Administration Thwart Cost Saving Consolidation.
408
Witnesses: Mr. David Robbins, Executive Director, Federal Trade Commission; and Mr. Chris
Wisner, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Leasing, Public Buildings Service, General Services
Administration.
Dec. 3, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
Hearing entitled, Assessing Governments Use of Design-Build Contracts. Witnesses: Mr. James
Dalton, Chief of the Engineering and Construction Division, Directorate of Civil Works, United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Mr. Charles Dalluge, Executive Vice President, Leo A Daly
Company, On behalf of the American Institute of Architects; and Mr. Randall Gibson, President,
Whitesell-Green, Inc., on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America.
Dec. 4, 2013, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The Roll Out of HealthCare.gov: The
Limitations of Big Government. Witnesses: Veronique de Rugy, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow,
Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Clifford Winston, Searle Freedom Trust Senior Fellow,
Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution; Mark A. Calabria, Ph.D., Director of Financial
Regulation Studies, Cato Institute; and Karen Kruse Thomas, Ph.D., Historian and Communications
Associate, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Dec. 6, 2013, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee Field Hearing entitled, ObamaCare Implementation: The
Broken Promise: If You Like Your Current Plan You Can Keep It. Witnesses: Mrs. Julie Dalton,
Arizona; Ms. Diana Robinson, Arizona; Mr. Steve Montgomery, Arizona/California Border; and Mrs.
Christie Hamman, Arizona.
2014 HEARINGS
Jan. 9, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Waste in Government: Whats Being Done?
Witnesses: The Honorable Tom Carper, United States Senator; The Honorable Tom Coburn, United
States Senator; Mr. Thomas A. Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste; Mr. Chris
Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute; Mr. Brandon Arnold, Vice President of
Governmental Affairs, National Taxpayers Union; and Ms. Jaimie Woo, Tax and Budget Associate,
U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Jan. 14, 2014, 10:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, TSA
Oversight: Examining the Screening Partnership Program. Witnesses: Mr. Kelly C. Hoggan,
Assistant Administrator for Security Operations, Transportation Security Administration; Mr. Mark
Bell, Acting Deputy Inspector General for Audits, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of
the Inspector General; Ms. Jennifer Grover, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice,
Jan. 15, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Empowering Agency Oversight: Views from
the Inspectors General Community. Witnesses: The Honorable Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector
General Small Business Administration; The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Justice; and Ms. Kathy A. Buller, Inspector General, Peace Corps.
January 16, 2014, 10:00 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, HHS Own Security Concerns about
HealthCare.gov. Witnesses: Kevin Charest, Ph.D., Chief Information Security Officer, Department
409
of Health and Human Services; and Ms. Teresa Fryer, Chief Information Security Officer, Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Jan. 28, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, A Roadmap for Hackers? Documents
Detailing Healthcare.gov Security Vulnerabilities. Witnesses: Mr. Milton Shomo, Principal
Information Systems Engineer, Cyber Operations, The MITRE Corporation; Kevin Charest, Ph.D.,
Chief Information Security Officer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Feb. 4, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Government Operations Subcommittee hearing entitled, Mixed Signals: The
Administrations Policy on Marijuana. Witnesses: Mr. Michael P. Botticelli, Deputy Director, Office
of National Drug Control Policy.
Feb. 5, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, ObamaCare: Why the Need for an
Insurance Company Bailout? Witnesses: The Honorable Marco Rubio, United States Senator,
Florida; John C. Goodman, Ph.D., President and CEO, National Center for Policy Analysis,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Doug Badger, Former Senior White House Advisor for Health Policy to
President George W. Bush; Professor Timothy S. Jost, Washington and Lee University; and the
Honorable Charles E. Grassley, U.S. Senate.
Feb. 5, 2014, 2 p.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs &
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements joint hearing entitled, Co-ops:
Examining ObamaCares $2 Billion Loan Gamble. Witnesses: Devon Herrick, Ph.D., Senior Fellow,
National Center for Policy Analysis; Roger Stark, M.D., Health Care Policy Analyst, Washington
Policy Center; Ms. Sarah Horowitz, Executive Director & CEO, Freelancers Union; Mr. Avik Roy,
Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Jan VanRiper, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Alliance of
State Health Co-Ops.
Feb. 6, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
hearing entitled, The IRS Targeting Investigation: What is the Administration Doing? Witnesses:
Ms. Barbara Kay Bosserman (invited), Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice;
Ms. Catherine Engelbrecht, Founder, King Street Patriots; Ms. Cleta Mitchell, Partner, Foley &
Lardner LLP; Ms. Becky Gerritson, Founder and President Wetumpka TEA Party, Inc.; Mr. Jay
Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice.
Feb. 10, 2014, 9 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations field hearing entitled, Assessing
NASAs Underutilized Real Property Assets at the Kennedy Space Center. Witnesses: Mr. Robert D.
Cabana, Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Brigadier General Nina M. Armagno, Commander, 24th Space Wing, Director, Eastern Range, Patrick
Air Force Base, Florida, United States Air Force; John E.B. Smith, Regional Commissioner, Public
Building Service, Southeast Sunbelt Region, U.S. General Services Administration; Mr. Jim Kuzma,
Chief Operating Officer, Space Florida; Mr. Charles Lee, Director of Advocacy, Central Florida Policy
Office, Audubon Society; Mr. John Walsh, Chief Executive Officer, Cape Canaveral Port Authority.
Feb. 11, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, DC Navy Yard Shooting: Fixing the Security
Clearance Process. Witnesses: Mr. Sterling Phillips, CEO, US Investigations Services, LLC; The
Honorable Katherine Archuleta, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel and Management; Mr. Stephen
410
Lewis, Deputy Director for Personnel, Industrial and Physical Security Policy, Counterintelligence
and Security Directorate, Office of Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, U.S. Department of
Defense; The Honorable Patrick McFarland, Inspector General, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management; Ms. Susan A. Ordakowski, Vice President, Contracts and Compliance, KeyPoint
Government Solutions; Mr. Michael Rhodes, Executive Vice President, Mission Systems and
Services Business Group, CACI International, Inc.
Feb. 26, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Limitless Surveillance at the FDA:
Protecting the Rights of Federal Whistleblowers. Witnesses: The Honorable Charles E. Grassley,
United State Senator, Iowa; Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., Director, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Ms. Ruth McKee, Associate Director for Management,
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration; Mr. Walter Harris, Chief
Operating Officer and Acting Chief Information Officer, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Ms.
Angele Canterbury, Director for Public Policy, Project on Government Oversight.
Feb. 26, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
hearing entitled, Is the Obama Administration Conducting a Serious Investigation of IRS Targeting?
Witnesses: The Honorable George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; The
Honorable Hans A. von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal
Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation; Mr. Glen F.
Ivey, Partner, Leftwich and Ludaway LLC; Mr. Richard W. Painter, S. Waler Richey Professor of
Corporate Law, University of Minnesota Law School; and the Honorable Eileen J. OConnor, Former
Assistant Attorney General (2001-2007), Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
Feb. 27, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation, and Regulatory Affairs
hearing entitled, The Administrations Proposed Restriction on Political Speech: Doubling Down
on IRS Targeting. Witnesses: Ms. Jenny Beth Martin, President and Co-Founder, Tea Party
Patriots; Mr. Gabriel Rottman, Legislative Counsel/Policy Advisor, American Civil Liberties Union;
The Honorable Wayne Allard, Vice President, Government Relations, American Motorcyclist
Association (Former United States Senator from Colorado); Ms. Diana Aviv, President and CEO,
Independent Sector; Mr. James R. Mason, III, Senior Counsel, Home School Legal Defense
Association; Mr. Allen Dickerson, Legal Director, Center for Comparative Politics.
Feb. 27, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security hearing entitled, Afghanistan: Honoring
the Heroes of Extortion 17. Witnesses: Mr. Gary Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, U.S. Department of Defense; Ms. Deborah
Skillman, Director, Casualty and Mortuary Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense; Colonel John M.
Devillier, Commander, Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations, Dover Air Force Base, Delaware,
United States Air Force , Department of Defense; Colonel Kerk B. Brown, Director, Army Casualty
and Mortuary Affairs Operations Center, United States Army, U.S. Department of Defense;
Commander Aaron Brodsky, Director, Navy Casualty Services, United States Navy, U.S. Department
of Defense.
Feb. 27, 2014, 2 p.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements hearing
entitled, Examining the Endangered Species Act. Witnesses: Mr. Samuel Rauch, Deputy Assistant
411
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. Michael Bean, Counselor, Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior.
March 4, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and the Census
hearing entitled, Alaska Bypass: A Broken System. Witnesses: The Honorable Mark Begich,
United States Senator, Alaska; The Honorable Don Young, United States Representative, Alaska (AtLarge); Mr. Ronald S. Haberman, Alaska District Manager, United States Postal Service; Ms. Tammy
Whitcomb, Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, United States Postal Service; Mr.
Dennis Devany, Deputy Director, Office of Aviation Analysis, Office of Aviation and International
Affairs, United States Department of Transportation; Mr. Steve Deaton, Senior Vice President,
Alaska Central Express (ACE) Air Cargo, Inc.; Mr. Jeff Butler, Vice President, Airport Operations and
Customer Service, Alaska Airlines.
March 4, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Mixed
Signals: The Administrations Stance on Marijuana, Part Two. Witness: The Honorable Thomas M.
Harrigan, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration; the Honorable John F.
Walsh, Attorney, Colorado, Department of Justice.
March 5, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Continuation of the Full Committee hearing entitled, The IRS: Targeting
Americans for their Political Beliefs. Witness: Ms. Lois G. Lerner, Former Director, Exempt
Organizations, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Internal Revenue Service.
March 13, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and the
Census hearing entitled, At a Crossroads: the Postal Services $100 Billion in Unfunded Liabilities.
Witnesses: Mr. Frank Todisco, Chief Actuary, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. Jeffrey
Williamson, Chief Human Resources Officer and Executive Vice President, U.S. Postal Service; Mr.
Robert Moss, Chief, Budget and Resource Management, Defense Health Agency; Mr. Joel Sitrin, Chief
Actuary, U.S. Department of Defense.
March 13, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on National Security hearing entitled, Status of U.S.
Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan in Anticipation of the U.S. Troop Withdrawal. Witnesses: Mr.
Donald L. Sampler, Jr., Assistant to the Administrator, Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs, U.S.
Agency for International Development; Mr. Charles M. Johnson, Director, International Affairs and
Trade, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
March 26, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Examining the IRS Response to the
Targeting Scandal. Witness: The Honorable John Koskinen, Commissioner, Internal Revenue
Service.
April 2, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Undercover Storefront Operations:
Continued Oversight of ATFs Reckless Investigative Techniques. Witness: The Honorable B. Todd
Jones, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
April 3, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation, and Regulatory Affairs and
Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlement joint hearing entitled, Examining ObamaCares
412
Problem-Filled State Exchanges. Witnesses: Mr. Tom Matsuda, Interim Director, Hawaii Health
Insurance Exchange; Mr. Joshua Sharfstein, M.D., Chairman, Maryland Health Benefit Exchange
Board, Maryland Health Insurance Exchange; Ms. Jean Young, Executive Director, Massachusetts
Health Insurance Exchange; Mr. Scott Leitz, Interim Chief Executive Officer, Minnesota Health
Insurance Exchange; Mr. Greg Van Pelt, Advisor to the Governor, Oregon Health Insurance
Exchange; Mr. Peter Lee, Executive Director, California Health Insurance Exchange.
April 3, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on National Security hearing entitled, Afghanistan: Identifying
and Addressing Wasteful U.S. Government Spending. Witnesses: Mr. Donald Sampler, Assistant to
the Administrator, Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs, U.S. Agency for International
Development; Mr. John Sopko, Inspector General, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction.
April 8, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, The Presidents Fiscal Year 2015 Budget
Proposal for the Postal Service. Witness: The Honorable Brian C. Deese, Deputy Director, Office of
April 8, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Reducing Waste in Government:
Addressing GAOs 2014 Report on Duplicative Federal Programs. Witness: The Honorable Gene L.
Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
April 9, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements hearing
entitled, Examining Ways the Social Security Administration Can Improve the Disability Review
Process. Witnesses: Mr. Daniel Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security, U.S.
Government and Accountability Office; Ms. Jennifer Nottingham, President, National Association of
Disability Examiners; Ms. Mariana LaCanfora, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Retirement and
Disability Policy, Social Security Administration; Ms. Jennifer Shaw Lockhart, State Director, Sooner
SUCCESS, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center; The Honorable Patrick OCarroll,
Inspector General, Social Security Administration.
April 30, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements Hearing
entitled, Examining the Effect of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports on U.S. Foreign Policy. Witnesses:
Mr. Christopher A. Smith, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy; Mr. Amos J. Hochstein, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Diplomacy, Bureau of Energy
Resources, U.S. Department of State.
April 3, 2014, 2:30 p.m. Joint hearing of the Subcommittee on National Security and the Committee
on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and border Security hearing entitled, Overturning
30 Years of Precedent: Is the Administration Ignoring the Dangers of Training Libyan Pilots and
Nuclear Scientists? Witnesses: Mr. Alan Bersin, Assistant Secretary of International Affairs and
Chief Diplomatic Officer, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Janice Kephart, CEO, Secure
Identity Biometrics Association, Former Counsel to the 9/11 Commission; Mr. James M. Chaparro,
Executive Vice President for Strategy Strategic Enterprise Solutions (SE Solutions); Mr. Frederic
Wehrey, Ph.D., Senior Associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace.
413
May 1, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Benghazi, Instability and a New
Government: Successes and Failures of U.S. Intervention in Libya. Witnesses: Brigadier General
Robert Lovell, U.S. Air Force (Retired), Former Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge
Development Directorate (J-2); Kori Schake, Ph.D., Research Fellow, Hoover Institution; Frederic
Wehrey, Ph.D., Senior Associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace; Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Ph.D, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
May 6, 2014, 9:00 a.m. Plymouth Township Hall Subcommittee on Government Operations
Hearing titled, Field Hearing: Impediments to Job Creation in Michigan. Witnesses: Mr. Chris
Fisher, President & CEO, Associated Builders and Contractors; Ms. Janet Kaboth, President & CEO,
Whitacrew Greer Company; Mr. Richard Kligman, President, Superb Custom Homes; Mr. Michael
Lenahan, President, Resource Recovery Corporation of West Michigan.
May 7, 2014, 9 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Is EPA Leadership Obstructing Its Own
Inspector General? Witnesses: The Honorable Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Patrick Sullivan, Assistant Inspector General, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Alan Williams, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ms. Elizabeth
Heller Drake, Special Agent, Office of Investigations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
May 9, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Mixed Signals:
The Administrations Policy on Marijuana, Part Three. Witnesses: The Honorable Eleanor Holmes
Norton, Delegate for the District of Colombia, U.S. House of Representatives; Mr. Peter Newsham,
Assistant Chief, Metropolitan Police Department; Mr. Robert D. MacLean, Acting Chief, U.S. Park
Police; Mr. David A. ONeil, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division , U.S. Department
of Justice; Ms. Seema Sadanandan, Program Director, American Civil Liberties Union of the Nations
Capital.
May 20, 2014, 9:00 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Examining the
Federal Response to Autism Spectrum Disorders. Witnesses: Mr. Thomas R. Insel, M.D., Director,
National Institute of Mental Health, Chair, Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee; Mr. Michael
K. Yudin, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S.
Department of Education; Marcia Crosse, Ph.D., Director, Health Care, U.S. Government
May 20, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements hearing
entitled, Medicare Mismanagement: Oversight of the Federal Government Effort to Recapture
Misspent Funds. Witnesses: Shantanu Agrawal, M.D., Deputy Administrator and Director, Center
for Program Integrity, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services; Ms. Kathleen King, Director, Health Care, U.S. Government Accountability Office;
Mr. Brian P. Ritchie, Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services, Office of Inspector General, U.S.
May 22, 2014, 9 a.m. Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and the Census
hearing entitled, Examining Innovative Postal Products for the 21st Century. Witnesses: Mr.
414
James P. Cochrane, Chief Information Officer and Executive Vice President, U.S. Postal Service; Mr.
David C. Williams, Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General; Mr. Will Davis,
Chief Executive Officer, Outbox, Inc.; Mr. Seth Weisberg, Chief Legal Officer, Stamps.com; Mr. Patrick
Eidemiller, Director of Engineering and Technology, M-pack Systems; Mr. Todd Everett, Chief
Operating Officer, Newgistics, Inc.
May 22, 2014, 9 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Evaluating Public
Housing in the U.S.: Reining in Waste, Fraud, Abuse and Mismanagement at Public Housing
Authorities. Witnesses: Mr. Cecil House, General Manager, New York City Housing Authority; Mr.
Kelvin Jeremiah, President & CEO, Philadelphia Housing Authority; the Honorable David Montoya,
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
May 29, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Pseudo
Classification of Executive Branch Documents: Problems with the Transportation Security
Administrations Use of the Sensitive Security Information Designation. Witnesses: Ms. Annmarie
Lontz, Division Director, Office of Security Services and Assessments, Transportation Security
Administration; Mr. John Fitzpatrick, Director, Information Security Oversight Office, National
Archives and Records Administration; Ms. Patrice McDermott, Executive Director,
OpenTheGovernment.org Coalition.
June 10, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Social Security Administration Oversight:
Examining the Integrity of the Disability Determination Appeals Process. Witnesses: The
Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D., Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate; Mr. Charles Bridges, Administrative Law Judge, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, U.S. Social Security Administration; Mr.
James A. Burke, Administrative Law Judge, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Office of Disability
Adjudication and Review, U.S. Social Security Administration; Mr. Gerald I. Krafsur, Administrative
Law Judge, Kingsport, Tennessee, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, U.S. Social Security
Administration; Mr. Harry C. Taylor II, Administrative Law Judge, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Office
of Disability Adjudication and Review, U.S. Social Security Administration; Mr. Gerald I. Krafsur,
Administrative Law Judge, Charleston, West Virginia, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review,
U.S. Social Security Administration.
June 11, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Social Security Administration Oversight:
Examining the Integrity of the Disability Determination Appeals Process, Part II. Witness: The
Honorable Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Social Security Administration.
June 18, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
Subcommittee hearing entitled, Poised to Profit: How ObamaCare Helps Insurance Companies
Even If It Fails Patients. Witnesses: The Honorable Jeff Sessions, U.S. Senator, Alaska; Mandy
Cohen, M.D., Acting Deputy Administrator and Director, Center for Consumer Information and
Insurance Oversight, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Mr. Seth J. Chandler, Foundation
Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center; Mr. John R. Graham, Senior Fellow, National
Center for Policy Analysis; Mr. Edmund F. Haislmaier, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Health
415
Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation; Ms. Cori E. Uccello, Senior Health Fellow, American
Academy of Actuaries.
June 19, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Whistleblower Reprisal and Management
Failures at the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. Witnesses: The Honorable Rafael Moure-Eraso, Ph.D.,
Chairman, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board; The Honorable Beth Rosenberg,
Ph.D., Former Board Member, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board; The Honorable
Carolyn N. Lerner, Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel; The Honorable Arthur A. Elkins,
Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Patrick Sullivan, Assistant
Inspector General for Investigations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Mark Griffon,
Board Member, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
June 20, 2014, 9 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Mixed Signals: the
Administrations Policy on Marijuana, Part Four the Health Effects and Science. Witnesses: Doug
Throckmorton, M.D., Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Nora Volkow, M.D., Director, National Institute of
Drug Abuse; Carl Hart, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology & Co-Director of the Institute for
Research in African American Studies, Columbia University.
June 23, 2014, 7 p.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, IRS Obstruction: Lois Lerners Missing
Emails. Witness: The Honorable John Koskinen, Commissioner, U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
June 24, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, IRS Obstruction: Lois Lerners Missing
Emails, Part II. Witnesses: Ms. Jennifer OConnor, Office of the White House Counsel, The White
House; The Honorable David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, U.S. National Archives and
Records Administration.
June 25, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Management Failures: Oversight of the
EPA. Witnesses: The Honorable David Vitter, United States Senator, Louisiana; the Honorable
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Senator, Rhode Island; the Honorable Gina McCarthy,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
July 9, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Examining
Solutions to Close the $106 Billion Improper Payments Gap. Witnesses: The Honorable John
Koskinen, Commissioner, U.S. Internal Revenue Service; Ms. Beth Cobert, Deputy Director for
Management, U.S. Office of Management and Budget; Ms. Beryl H. Davis, Director, Financial
Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Dr. Shantanu Agrawal, M.D.,
Deputy Administrator and Director, Center for Program Integrity Center for Medicare and Medicaid
Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Mr. Mark Easton, Deputy Chief Financial
Officer, U.S. Department of Defense.
July 10, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee Hearing entitled, Examining New Embassy Construction: Are
New Administration Policies Putting Americans Overseas in Danger? Witnesses: Ms. Lydia Muniz,
Director, Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Casey Jones,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, U.S. Department of State; The Honorable
Grant S. Green, Jr., Former Undersecretary for Management, U.S. Department of State.
416
July 10, 2014, 2 p.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements hearing entitled,
Medicare Mismanagement Part II: Exploring Medicare Appeals Reform. Witness: Ms. Nancy J.
Griswold, Chief Administrative Law Judge, Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, U.S.
July 11, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and the Census
hearing entitled, Oversight of the Federal Workforce: The Viability of the Senior Executive
Service. Witnesses: Mr. Samuel Retherford, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Human
Resources and Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Stephen Shih, Deputy
Associate Director, Executive Resources and Employee Development, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management; Ms. Carol A. Bonosaro, President, Senior Executives Association.
July 15, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and the Census
hearing entitled, Is the Federal Governments General Schedule (GS) a Viable System for the
Future? Witnesses: The Honorable Katherine Archuleta, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management; The Honorable Donald J. Devine, Senior Scholar, The Fund for American Studies; Mr.
Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Ms. Patricia J.
Niehaus, National President, Federal Managers Association; Mr. J. David Cox, National President,
American Federation of Government Employees.
July 16, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, White House Office of Political Affairs: Is
Supporting Candidates and Campaign Fund-Raising an Appropriate Use of a Government Office?
Witnesses: Mr. Scott Coffina, Partner, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP (did not testify); The Honorable
Carolyn Lerner, U.S. Office of Special Counsel (did not testify); Mr. David Simas, Director, Office of
Political Strategy and Outreach, The White House (did not appear).
July 17, 2014, 9 a.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
hearing entitled, Examining the Justice Departments Solution to the IRS Targeting Scandal.
Witnesses: The Honorable James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice.
July 23, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs
hearing entitled, An Update on the IRS Response to Its Targeting Scandal. Witnesses: The
Honorable John Koskinen, Commissioner, U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
July 24, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, The Federal Trade Commission and Its
Section 5 Authority: Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury. Witnesses: Mr. Michael Daugherty, Chief
Executive Officer, LabMD, Inc.; Mr. David Roesler, Executive Director, Open Door Clinic of Greater
Elgin; Mr. Gerard Stegmaier, Partner, Goodwin Procter; Mr. Woodrow Hartzog, Associate Professor,
Samford University.
July 25, 2014, 9 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, White House Office of Political Affairs: Is
Supporting Candidates and Campaign Fund-Raising an Appropriate Use of a Government Office?
July 29, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and the Regulatory Affairs
hearing entitled, Examining Allegations of Corruption at the Export-Import Bank. Witnesses: The
Honorable Fred P. Hochberg, Chairman and President, Export-Import Bank of the United States; Mr.
417
Johnny Gutierrez, Former Employee, Short Term Trade, Finance Division, Export-Import Bank of
the United States; Ms. Diane Katz, Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, the Heritage Foundation.
July 29, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements hearing
entitled, Examining the Federal Governments Failure to Curb Wasteful State Medicaid Financing
Schemes. Witnesses: Ms. Katherine Iritani, Director, Health Care, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Mr. John Haag, Director of Medical Audits, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
Ms. Cindy Mann, Deputy Administrator and Director, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
July 29, 2014, 10 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Federal Real
Property: Eliminating Waste and Mismanagement of Real Property Assets. Witnesses: The
Honorable David Mader, Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, U.S. Office of
Management and Budget; Mr. Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Services,
U.S. General Services Administration; Mr. David J. Wise, Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Mr. James M. Sullivan, Director, Office of Enterprise
Management, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
July 30, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, IRS Abuses: Ensuring that Targeting
Never Happens Again. Witnesses: Mr. David Keating, President, Center for Comparative Politics;
Ms. Cleta Mitchell, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP; Mr. James Sherk, Senior Policy Analyst in Labor
Economics, The Heritage Foundation; The Honorable Hans A. von Spakovsky, Manager, Election
Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.
July 31, 2014, 9 a.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Planes, Trains and
Automobiles: Operating While Stoned. Witnesses: The Honorable Christopher A. Hart, Acting
Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board; Mr. Jeffrey P. Michael, Ph.D., Associate
Administrator for Research and Program Development, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; Ms. Patrice M. Kelly, Acting Director, Office of
Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. Ronald Flegel,
Director, Division of Workplace Programs, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
September 9, 2014, 2 p.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
hearing entitled, Examining the Administrations Treatment of Whistleblowers. Witnesses: The
Honorable Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel; The Honorable Susan Tsui
Grundmann, Chair, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board; Mr. Robert MacLean, Former Federal Air
Marshal, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Robert
Van Boven, M.D., D.D.S., Former Director, Brain Imaging and Recovery Laboratory, Central Texas
Veterans Health Care System, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Tom Devine, Legal Director,
Government Accountability Project.
September 10, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Obstructing Oversight: Concerns
from Inspectors General. Witnesses: The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Justice; the Honorable Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Ms. Kathy A. Buller, Inspector General, Peace Corps.
418
September 17, 2014 2 p.m. Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and the Regulatory
Affairs hearing entitled, The IRS Targeting Scandal: Changing Stories of Missing E-mails.
Witnesses: The Honorable John Koskinen, Commissioner, U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
September 18, 2014, 11 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Examining ObamaCares Failures in
Security, Accountability, and Transparency. Witnesses: The Honorable Marilyn Tavenner,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; Mr. Greg Wilshusen, Director, Information Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Ms. Ann Barron-DiCamillo, Director, U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team, U.S.
September 18, 2014, 2 p.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
hearing entitled, U.S. Census Bureau: Addressing Data Collection Vulnerabilities. Witnesses: The
Honorable John H. Thompson, Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Director, U.S. Census Bureau; The
Honorable Todd Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce.
September 18, 2014 2 p.m. Subcommittee on National Security hearing entitled, Protecting
International Religious Freedom. Witnesses: The Honorable Sarah Sewall, Undersecretary for
Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, U.S. Department of State; Katrina Lantos Swett,
Ph.D., Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Thomas Farr, Ph.D., Director,
Religious Freedom Project, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, Georgetown
University; Mr. Robert Smith, Managing Director and Regional Advisor for the United States
International Center for Law and Religion Studies, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young
University; Mr. Emmanuel Ogebe, Special Counsel, Justice for Jos Project, Jubilee Campaign; Mr. Tad
Stahnke, Vice President, Research and Analysis; Human Rights First.
September 30, 2014, 10 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, White House Perimeter Breach: New
Concerns about the Secret Service. Witnesses: The Honorable Julia Pierson, Director, U.S. Secret
Service; the Honorable W. Ralph Basham, Partner, Command Consulting Group, LLC; Mr. Todd M.
Keil, Senior Advisor, TorchStone Page, Inc.
October 14, 2014 1 p.m. Subcommittee on Government Operations hearing entitled, Gym
Memberships, Gift Cards, and Hair Salons: Examining the Misuse of Government-Supplied Credit
Cards. Witnesses: Ms. Anne Richards, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Office of Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Ms. Janet Kasper, Director, Contracts and
Assistance Agreement Audits, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Mr. Elliot Lewis, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Labor; Mr. John Lyle, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting), U.S. Air Force; Mr. H.L.
Larry, Deputy Director of Air Force Services, U.S. Air Force.
October 24, 2014, 9:30 p.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, The Ebola Crisis: Coordination of a
Multi-Agency Response. Witnesses: The Honorable Nicole Lurie, M.D., Assistant Secretary, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; The Honorable Michael Lumpkin, Assistant Secretary of
Defense, U.S. Department of Defense; Major General James M. Lariviere, Deputy Director, PoliticalMilitary Affairs (Africa), U.S. Department of Defense; The Honorable John Roth, Inspector General,
419
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Deborah Burger, RN, Co-President, National Nurses United;
Me. Rabih Torbay, Senior Vice President, International Operations, International Medical Corps.
November 18, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Full Committee joint hearing with the Committee on the Judiciary
entitled, "Abuse of USPTOs Telework Program: Ensuring Oversight, Accountability and Quality.
Witnesses: The Honorable Frank R. Wolf, U.S. House of Representatives; Ms. Margaret A. (Peggy)
Focarino, Commissioner for Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; The Honorable Todd J.
Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. Robert D. Budens, President, Patent
Office Professional Association; Ms. Esther Kepplinger, Chief Patent Counselor, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati; Mr. William F. Smith, Of Counsel, BakerHostetler.
November 19, 2014, 10:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the
Census hearing entitled, Examining Data Security at the United States Postal Service. Witnesses:
Mr. Guy Cottrell, Chief Postal Inspector, United States Postal Service Inspection Service; Mr. Randy
Miskanic, Vice President of Secure Digital Solutions, United States Postal Service; Ms. Tammy
Whitcomb, Deputy Inspector General, United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General; Mr.
Tim Edgar, Visiting Fellow, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University; and Mr.
Charles E. Hamby II, Captain, Narcotics Enforcement Division, Prince Georges County Police
Department.
Dec. 3, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Transforming Federal Spending:
Implementing the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. Witnesses: The Honorable Mark
Warner, United States Senator (D-VA); The Honorable Rob Portman, United States Senator (R-OH);
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; The Honorable David Mader, Controller, Office of Federal Financial
Management, White House Office of Management and Budget; and Mr. David Lebryk, Fiscal
Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
December 9, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Full Committee hearing entitled, Examining ObamaCare
Transparency Failures. Witnesses: The Honorable Marilyn Tavenner, Administrator, Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services; Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D.,
Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mr. Ari Goldmann.
December 10, 2014, 9:30 a.m. Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements
hearing entitled, Examining EPAs Management of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program.
December 10, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the
Census hearing entitled, Addressing the Backlog in the Federal Employee Retirement Process.
420

Oversight IRS Targeting Republicans Full-Report - Compressed PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oversight IRS Targeting Republicans Full-Report - Compressed PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oversight IRS Targeting Republicans Full-Report - Compressed PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Chairman Darrell Issa

Our solemn responsibility is to hold Government accountable to taxpayers,

This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.1

The Administrations Systematic ObamaCare Transparency Failures.................................................................56

The Impact of Operation Choke Point on American Job Creators .......................................................................60

A Continuing Problem .........................................................................................................................................65

Peace Corps Office of Inspector General .............................................................................................................84

Committee Actions to Improve IG Access to Agency Records .............................................................................85

Improper Use of Federal Funds ...........................................................................................................................97

Stimulating Through Medicaid, or Patching State Budget Gaps? .....................................................................121

TARP: WHO NEEDS A BAILOUT? .................................................................................................................................126

Home Affordable Modification Program: A One-Size-Fits-All Approach ...........................................................133

The Committees Investigation .........................................................................................................................144

Border Security: Effectively Identifying and Responding to Threats? ..............................................................156

Ebola: Is America Prepared For a Multi-Agency Response? .............................................................................162

LIFE AFTER WAR: OUR VETERANS DESERVE BETTER..........................................................................................................173

Solyndra ......................................................................................................................................................................... 190

OBAMACARE LOAN GUARANTEE GAMBLE.......................................................................................................................194

Protecting Government Motors: The Case of the Chevy Volt ...........................................................................201

CHAPTER 5. FEDERAL FINANCIAL UN-ACCOUNTABILITY .................................................................................... 206

WASTED SPENDING ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM? ......................................................................225

Official Time: Good Value for the Taxpayer? ....................................................................................................247

The Deepwater Horizon Aftermath ...................................................................................................................268

Overcoming Opposition from Within ............................................................................................................................. 290

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial ................................................................................................................291

CHAPTER 8. GROWTH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE .................................................................................... 298

UNPRECEDENTED EXPANSION OF REGULATORY STATE .......................................................................................................314

EPA Clean Water Act 404(c) permitting ............................................................................................................319

Unionization by Regulation ...............................................................................................................................322

Growth of Regulation in the Financial Sector ...................................................................................................330

REDEFINING THE LAW ..................................................................................................................................................335

Ethanol E-15 ......................................................................................................................................................345

113 CONGRESS (2013 2014).................................................................................................................................350

THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

A NECESSARY FUNCTION: EVOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE

the Department of State;

2 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 1ST SESSION 490 (1792).

6) the Public Buildings.17

MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE: LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES

6. Overall economy, efficiency, and management of government operations and activities,

The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative

production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it

Id. Rule XI, cl. 2(m)(1)(B).

ORGANIZING RESPONSIBILITIES: THE ROLE OF SUBCOMMITTEES

DEPOSITIONS AND TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEWS

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XI, 1(b).

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule XI, 1(b)(1).

A PLACE WITHIN GOVERNMENT: THE ROLE OF OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM IN

INCONSISTENCIES IN OVERSIGHT: THE 110TH AND 111TH CONGRESSES

A RENEWED COMMITMENT TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY: THE 112TH AND 113TH

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (113th Cong.) Rule X, cl. 4(c)(2).

OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEIGHT ACT

EXCESS FEDERAL BUILDING AND PROPERTY DISPOSAL ACT

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PHASED RETIREMENT ACT

FEDERAL INFORMATION SECURITY MODERNIZATION ACT