DPC REPORTS
DPC | October 30, 2007
Senate Oversight Highlights Week of October 15, 2007
“It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents…” — Woodrow Wilson
Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to perform oversight of the Executive Branch and matters of public interest. This report summarizes highlights from each week’s Senate oversight hearings.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
“Examining the TSA’s Efforts and Progress on H.R. 1, ‘Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007’”
·Witnesses discussed the importance of implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
·Witnesses discussed the high priority of securing passenger rail and mass transit systems.
·The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) witness responded to the Government Accountability Office’s findings that TSA has not made adequate efforts towards securing commercial vehicles and highway infrastructure, including bridges and tunnels.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
“One Year Later: A Progress Report on the SAFEPortAct”
·Witnesses testified that the SAFE Port Act has contributed to considerable improvements in maritime security.
·Witnesses described a number of challenges in fully implementing the SAFE Port Act.
·Witnesses highlighted the critical role of federal funding and support in improving port security.
Tuesday, October 17, 2007: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
“Oversight Hearing on the Federal Superfund Program’s Activities to Protect Public Health”
·Senator Boxer delivered remarks on why the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, is a critical tool used to protect individuals from environmental threats.
·Senator Clinton delivered remarks on the Bush Administration’s management of the Superfund program.
·Witnesses provide testimony on the need to need replenish the funds used for environment clean-ups.
Wednesday, October 17: Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
“Hearing on VA and DOD Collaboration: Report of the President’s Commission on Care For America’s Returning Wounded Warriors; Report of the Veterans Disability Benefit Commission; and other related reports”
·Witnesses testified that the Administration cannot implement the necessary recommendations alone; Congress has a critical role in overseeing efforts to improve the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense coordination.
·Witnesses called for an overhaul of the current disability ratings system and the development of a case management system for severely injured service members.
·Witnesses explained that ensuring lifetime access to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder services is critical for veterans returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
“Consumer Wireless Issues”
·Witnesses explained that the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007 will provide for greater disclosure to consumers who have entered into a contract for cellular telephone service.
·Witnesses testified that transparency in billing and contracting, early termination fees, handset locking, application blocking, and freedom of speech need to be addressed by legislation.
·Witnesses explained that unregulated competition within the wireless industry will not solve many of the problems facing wireless consumers.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
“Is DHS Too Dependent on Contractors to Do the Government’s Work?”
·Witnesses testified that the use of contractors subjects the government to the possibility of losing control and accountability, and therefore, must be monitored closely.
·Witnesses explained that there are real dangers associated with the Department of Homeland Security’s reliance on private contractors and expressed doubt as to the DHS’s ability to implement necessary changes.
·Witnesses addressed concerns regarding the DHS hiring contractors to oversee companies that employ the contractor.
Thursday, October 18, 2007: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
“Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Department of Transportation”
·Senator Inouye described the United States’s need for improved and expanded infrastructure.
·Witnesses testified that the United States must make significant investments in maintenance and new construction to correct the current shortcomings in U.S. infrastructure.
·Witnesses explained that “Value Engineering” enables the government to improve national infrastructure by reducing costs and controlling schedules.
Thursday, October 18, 2007: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
“Lead and Children’s Health”
·Senator Boxer delivered remarks on the serious health consequences of lead contamination of children’s products and the Administration’s response.
·Witnesses submitted testimony on the serious health impacts for children and adults posed by exposure to lead.
·Witnesses highlighted how exposure was an entirely preventable problem and where it is most severe.
Thursday, October 18, 2007: Senate Committee on Finance
“Growing Trade, Growing Vigilance: Import Health and Safety Today and Tomorrow”
·Witnesses testified that as the number of products imported into the United States has grown, the risks to U.S. consumers have increased.
·Witnesses explained that the federal agencies charged with ensuring the safety of goods are operating under significant capacity limitations.
·Witnesses testified that increased coordination among federal agencies and a partnership between the public and private sectors could to better ensure the safety of imported products.
“The Perils of Politics in Government: A Review of the Scope and Enforcement of theHatch Act”
·Witnesses testified that recent reports about political briefings conducted by Bush White House employees have reemphasized the need for the Hatch Act.
·Witnesses explained that the Hatch Act contains a significant legal double standard for the treatment of violations by Senate-confirmed presidential appointees and violations of other federal employees.
·Witnesses testified that Congress may need to update the Hatch Act to clarify confusion regarding political activity by federal employees.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
“Examining the TSA’s Efforts and Progress on H.R. 1, ‘Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007”
Witnesses discussed the importance of implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
EDMUND HAWLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HOMELAND SECURITY, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: The challenges of implementing all the provisions of the 9/11 Act are formidable, but TSA [Transportation Security Administration] is committed to achieve the objectives of this committee, the Congress and the 9/11 Commission. With all that we have to do, as Senator Dorgan said in his introductory remarks, we must keep our focus on the highest priority items, priorities informed and driven by the current threat information.
Since last June, we have witnessed disrupted attacks in London, Denmark and Germany, as well as completed attack on Glasgow’s airport in Scotland. There is no reason to think that we are exempt from that kind of attack planning. The National Intelligence Estimate, as Senator Dorgan mentioned, indicates that over the next three years, the threat will continue, with terrorists attempting transportation sector attacks on a grand scale. We know their focus is on using items easily available on grocery and hardware store shelves. That means we cannot rely on a checklist mentality, searching bags for a static list of specific prohibited objects or becoming stuck in a predictable and, therefore, vulnerable routine. We must use security measures that are unpredictable, agile and adaptable, that put us one step ahead of evolving threats.
As I’ve said in previous meetings with this committee, TSA has added layers of security and additional technology to our airport operations. We have continued to provide more training and real threat testing to our front-line officers. Federal air marshals move invisibly to protect Americans wherever they fly around the globe and viper teams deploy every week, including this one, somewhere in the United States to support state and local security efforts everywhere in transportation. That is our focus every day. It is on that base of daily operations that we address the new requirements from the 9/11 legislation.
…
CATHLEEN A. BERRICK, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE: In August 2007, shortly after the Department of Homeland Security’s four-year anniversary, we reported on DHS’ [Department of Homeland Security] progress in satisfying its key mission and management function, including securing aviation and surface modes of transportation. We based our assessment on over 400 reports and testimonies. We’ve completed assessing DHS’ operations and by determining whether DHS generally achieved or generally did not achieve key performance expectations set out for them by Congress, the administration and the department itself. Overall, we reported that TSA has made moderate progress in securing transportation systems.
With respect to commercial aviation, we found that TSA generally achieved about 70 percent of the 24 performance expectations established for them…. TSA also made significant progress in balancing security and efficiency in its checkpoint screening procedures and in deploying checked baggage screening equipment. However, we found that DHS and TSA have made less progress in securing airport perimeters and access to restricted areas, deploying technologies to detect explosives at checkpoints and to screen air cargo, and fielding a system to prescreen airline passengers against terrorist watch lists for domestic flights, although progress is being made in all these areas.
One of the most critical areas in which limited progress has been made is in the deployment of technologies at airport checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers and in their carry-on bags…. Regarding the security of surface modes of transportation, we reported that TSA generally achieved about 60 percent of the performance expectations established for them or three of five expectations, but their efforts especially related to commercial vehicles and highway infrastructure are still relatively in the early stages.
In terms of progress, DHS and TSA have developed an approach for securing surface transportation modes through a strategy, have conducted risk assessments of related assets, and have administered grant programs. However, TSA has not determined whether it will issue standards for securing all surface transportation modes and is still defining what its regulatory and oversight role will be for these modes.
We also found that although TSA has made progress in conducting compliance inspections of some systems, inspectors’ roles and missions have not yet been fully defined. We also reported that a variety of crosscutting issues have affected DHS’ and TSA’s efforts in implementing its mission and management functions. These include developing results-oriented goals and measures to assess performance, developing and integrating a risk-based approach to guide investment decisions, and establishing effective frameworks and mechanisms for sharing information and coordinating with stakeholders. It will be important for the entire department to continue to address these issues as it moves forward.
In closing, TSA has made considerable progress in securing the transportation network, especially related to commercial aviation, and its efforts should be commended. However, the agency still has work to do in some key areas, most especially related to the deployment of technologies to screen for explosives at checkpoints and in air cargo and more fully defining its regulatory role in securing surface transportation modes.
Witnesses discussed the high priority of securing passenger rail and mass transit systems.
DIR. BERRICK: think compared to all surface modes of transportation, TSA and DHS have placed more of a focus on passenger rail and mass transit, because based on intelligence information, they view that as a risk-based decision, focusing on the areas of surface transportation modes where they should be spending their time. So they’ve issued security directives for passenger rail. They’ve issued security action items. They’ve hired inspectors to follow-up on these requirements and work with rail operators to strengthen security.
We identified areas where they could do additional work. For example, we reported that inspectors’ roles haven’t been fully defined. Rail operators aren’t completely certain whether or not the security directives are mandatory or voluntary. There can be increased communication between TSA and the rail operators, but we found that they have put more and more focus on it and they’re continuing to do that.
SEC. HAWLEY: The focus is on the rail system more than perhaps it appears and you will see that in the transit communities with our pairing with local law enforcement and providing them the technology and we do viper teams with them. But most importantly, for both rail and transit rail, is the employee training and we’ve seen a major shift. It’s something that, in working with the Congress, we’ve done a shift priority of the grant money to front-line training, which we think has immediate application to stop terrorist attacks. And so that’s on the passenger side. On the freight side, we have an agreement that’s in place that’s already reduced the amount of toxic material that is standing unattended in high threat urban areas and we’re doing a regulation now to back that up, but we’ve already seen the improvement.
The Transportation Safety Administration witness responded to the Government Accountability Office’s findings that Transportation Security Agency has not made adequate efforts towards securing commercial vehicles and highway infrastructure, including bridges and tunnels.
SEC. HAWLEY: On the highway side, we’ve done – we’ve worked with individual states and the trucking community, basically, and have started with the hazardous materials drivers, those who have the hazardous materials endorsement, and we do full checks on those people. So that is in place today and it really is adding layers as we go. I think the bridges and tunnels would be a very high priority and that is something that we work with the states and, also, other elements of DHS. And the question of exactly what the regulatory scheme is beyond what we have in place for hazardous materials would be the next step and we are looking at the vetting, basically, watch list checking against the CDL holders, those who have commercial driver’s licenses. We also have a “see something-say something” program that is good for reporting of suspicious
Tuesday, October 16, 2007: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
“ One Year Later: A Progress Report on the SAFEPortAct”
Witnesses testified that the SAFE Port Act has contributed to considerable improvements in maritime security.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: In August, the Governmental Accountability Office rated the progress with which the Department of Homeland Security was fulfilling its core missions…GAO [Government Accountability Office] did report the department had made substantial progress in just one of the 14 categories they mentioned, though there was some progress in some of the others.
But the good news this morning is that the one area in which GAO reported substantial progress was maritime security. And there can be no doubt – there certainly isn’t in my mind – that the SAFE Port Act contributed to that high ranking.
Witnesses provided assessments on progress in implementing the SAFE Port Act’s mandates.
HONORABLE STEWART A. BAKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: I would say, as the chairman said, we have done relatively well in implementing the act, though there are plenty of challenges ahead. By our count, there were over 100 mandates in the SAFE Port Act. Almost 50 of them are now completed – again, by our count. And of the remainder, the overwhelming majority are on-track, on-schedule, and we expect to be able to complete them.
…
CAPTAIN JEFFREY MONROE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PORTS AND TRANSPORTATION, CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE: The SAFE Port Act was a very big step. Overall progress is good, but certainly not as fast as it needs to be. …we’re worried that cargo and port security sometimes lags within the Department of Homeland Security, may be low- profile, and I fear sometimes that it’s low-priority.
Witnesses described a number of challenges in fully implementing the SAFEPortAct.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Why don’t you highlight [areas of challenge that remain in the implementation of the SAFE Port Act]?
STEPHEN L. CALDWELL, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE: Recovery after an incident. But I think a couple things have to happen. We need to think of incidents as being beyond security; include environmental incidents or natural disasters and things like that.
… [DHS has] something called the Marine Infrastructure Recovery Plan, which is not bad as a national plan. Now, they have to bring that down to the individual port levels. And that’s where they’re incomplete. They need to get down at least by, say, the 2009 rewrite of all the area maritime security plans. They’ll need to add in that recovery portion.
The other thing is implementing national access control. TWIC [Transportation Worker Identification Credential] is underway. They’re certainly making progress, compared to where they were a couple of years ago.
The long-range tracking system to improve maritime-domain awareness: We’re currently doing some work to look at both the classified, as well as the unclassified, systems. And so we may find out they made more progress there than we had initially reported.… And then, finally, in terms of developing programs to screen cargo for radiation, that’s another program where we thought they needed to make more progress than indicated. And I think, as we’ve reported in several recent reports, we thought of some issues with the testing that was done in terms of the new technology for radiation scanning.
…
CAPT. MONROE: The bottom line is that we don’t have a standard, really, that works for TWIC. Things like document readers and biometric readers and all the other technology that they’re talking about: In some cases, they don’t even exist. So nobody has really any idea what the cost is going to be or the long-term implications or, in many cases, even the use for this thing.
Witnesses highlighted the critical role federal funding and support in improving port security.
CAPT. MONROE: We’ve used the port-security grant money very effectively. We’re certainly not spendthrifts, but it has helped us put up fencing, do access control, develop informational platforms, which have allowed us to communicate with each other and to share data and information…this money has allowed us to ramp up quickly. And it is as important to have this money available to smaller ports as it is the major megaports, which certainly need the money, but also have the resources, in many cases, to do this.
…
LIEBERMAN: I wonder if you think that state and local law enforcement agencies will continue to participate in programs like Project Seahawk if they are unable to receive federal assistance, which was one of the things that’s being contemplated.
REGINALD I. LLOYD, U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Thank you, Senator. And I, likewise, agree that the department has long-term held the view that our partnerships with state and local – particularly, law enforcement – agencies are key to us getting our mission done.
The issue of what happens after the pilot project with Seahawk ends, as far as it relates to our state and local partners down there, is our biggest question.
Those issues, I think, will be worked out in a little more detail and with some more concrete specificity once DHS has finished going through its process of identifying exactly how the project will be transitioned, i.e., which component, if any, of DHS will take over Seahawk. Or, will the department itself sort of step into the role that DOJ [Department of Justice] is currently undertaking.
Obviously, our state and local partners feel a lot of pressure from other priorities that they face. And what we hear, on our end, is that the issue of funding for them or reimbursement for them is key, as well as how soon they’re going to know about the transition that’s going to occur.
What we’ve done is, with re-budgeting – been able to extend the project life to the end of fiscal year 2009. That’s allowed them some more time at the local and state level to be able to, hopefully, identify funds or grants that may allow them to continue their participation.
Tuesday, October 17, 2007: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
“Oversight Hearing on the Federal Superfund Program’s Activities to Protect Public Health”
Senator Boxer delivered remarks on why the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as the Superfund, is a critical tool used to protect individuals from environmental threats.
SEN. BOXER: One in four people in America lives within four miles of a Superfund site, including ten million children. Superfund sites are among the most contaminated toxic waste sites in the country.
They are polluted with dangerous, toxic substances, including lead, arsenic, and mercury, which are known to cause cancer, birth defects, and harm the nervous system.
Superfund was created to address these threats. We made great strides in protecting communities by cleaning up sites in the 1990s. Unfortunately, in the past several years the pace of listing toxic waste sites for cleanup, and of actually cleaning up these sites, has slowed to nearly a crawl.
….
EPA [Environment Protection Agency] has also listed far fewer sites for long-term cleanups under the program. The number of sites listed has dropped from 30 per year to 17 per year – a 56 percent decline. Based upon EPA’s own documents, and studies by outside experts, EPA is likely failing to list many toxic waste sites for cleanup that are posing health and environmental risks.
The agency has also failed to quickly address sites at which human exposure is not under control. There are at least 111 of these sites, according data from earlier this year. In addition, EPA hasn’t even collected enough information to determine whether human exposure is under control at 160 other Superfund sites. These figures are alarming and telling.
Senator Clinton delivered remarks on the Bush Administration’s management of the Superfund program.
SEN. CLINTON: Most of the fifty sites (fifty of the most dangerous sites as identified by the Center for American Progress and the Center for Progressive Reform) are located in heavily populated areas. Second, many have been on the list for decades. Third, they contain a range of highly toxic chemicals such as PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls], creosote, lead, arsenic, mercury, and TCE [Trichloroethylene].
Sixty percent are located in neighborhoods where households reported median incomes in the range of $40,000, and some 26 percent were in the midst of populations comprised of 40 percent or more of racial or ethnic minorities. So, this is both an environmental health issue and an environmental justice issue. That’s why I am dismayed by the Bush Administration’s handling of this program.
The number of cleanups has fallen dramatically from the average of about 75 sites per year from 1993 to 2000 to an average of fewer than 40 sites per year under this administration.
In Fiscal Year 2007, only 24 cleanups were completed. When we’ve asked the administration to explain this sharp drop in cleanups, they claim it is due to greater complexity of the sites left to be cleaned. I don’t accept that point, but even if you take it at face value, it raises another important question. Why won’t the administration therefore ask for more money to get the program back on track to deal with the allegedly more complex sites?
Witnesses provide testimony on the need to need replenish the funds used for environment cleanup.
LENNY SIEGEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OVERSIGHT: Over the past quarter century, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act commonly known as Superfund, has been an important instrument for protecting public health and the environment in the United States. Its tools—addressing response, compensation, and liability—are like the proverbial three-legged stool. At many sites, CERCLA [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act] collapses when one of those tools is missing. Across the country, since the Superfund account was depleted, seriously contaminated sites have suffered from inadequate cleanup, inefficiencies, and inequities. I highlight four sites, all of which I have visited within the past year, to illustrate what the shortage of Fund money means to the people who live, work, or attend school on or near the some of the nation’s most contaminated properties.
Today, both at sites already dependent upon EPA funding and those that should be added to the National Priorities List, cleanup is slow and inefficient, and expenses are often borne by third parties. Replenishing the fund would be a giant step forward in recognizing, investigating, and remediation the most contaminated sites in America.
All three tools—addressing response, compensation, and liability—are necessary. Like the proverbial three-legged stool, CERCLA collapses when one of its legs is missing. Across the country, since the Superfund account was depleted, seriously contaminated sites have suffered from inadequate cleanup, inefficiencies, and inequities. From my recent visits to communities with seriously contaminated sites, I have selected four examples. In each of these cases, community members have strong reason to believe that public health and the environment are at risk, and—whether or not the site is currently on the NPL [National Priorities List]—that the insufficiency of the Superfund is a major factor. I believe that these four case studies each represents many more sites in the NPL universe.
Wednesday, October 17: Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
Hearing on VA and DOD Collaboration: Report of the President’s Commission on Care For America’s Returning Wounded Warriors; Report of the Veterans Disability Benefit Commission; and other related reports
Witnesses testified that the Senate is committed to improving the current system to ensure a seamless between Department of Defense and the Veterans Affairs for servicemen and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
SEN. AKAKA: The Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission and other groups have recently examined matters regarding coordination and collaboration between the Department of Defense and Veterans’Affairs and the care and treatment of veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Today’s hearing gives us an important opportunity to review the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala commission, the disability benefits commission and other reports that impact the interaction between DOD [Department of Defense] and V.A. [Veterans Affairs], especially in those areas which still need improvement and where there is overlap or potential disagreement…At our first hearing in January, I spoke about the stress that a new veteran with a life-altering wound or injury endures when faced with a challenge of applying for benefits and transitioning from one health care system to another, while still in the process of recovery and rehabilitation. With the input of the many recommendations that we will hear about today, I believe that we can continue to make progress toward achieving the goal of a truly smooth and seamless transition.
Witnesses testified that all four groups called for an overhaul of the current disability ratings system and the development of a case management system for severely injured service members.
JAMES TERRY SCOTT, LTG, USA (RET) CHAIRMAN VETERANS’DISABILITY BENEFITS COMMISSION: We concluded that there should be a realignment of the process and that’s essentially the same conclusion reached by the Dole-Shalala commission, the independent review group, and the Nicholson task force. We also believe that the services should determine if the servicemember is fit or unfit and V.A. should be responsible for assigning disability ratings. The Dole-Shalala commission made the same recommendation.
…
All four study groups recommended developing a case management system for severely injured servicemembers and their families to ensure the right care and support at the right time and in the right place. A single case manager should have overall responsibility. The other commissions agreed.
Ensuring lifetime access to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder services is critical for veterans returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
SEN. AKAKA: One of the commission’s recommendations is that Congress enable all veterans who need PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] care to receive it from V.A. Now, we have worked very hard this year to ensure a solid level of resources so that V.A. could continue to improve their efforts in PTSD. But I am unaware of any existing impediment in law or otherwise which now bars veterans from getting care for PTSD. My question to you is what exactly is the basis for this recommendation?
HONORABLE DONNA E. SHALALA, CO-CHAIR, PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON CARE FOR AMERICA’S RETURNING WOUNDED WARRIORS: I think we want to make sure that there’s a presumption that anyone can walk in forever, whether or not they’ve gotten care before, and we want to make it clear that there ought not to be a time constraint, because we know that PTSD can show up a year later or two years later. And one of the points that Senator Dole keeps making is this is a different generation. Many of them want to go home immediately. They’re asked the question, “Is there something we should know? Are you feeling any symptoms after coming back?” They all answer “no” and then a year later or six months later or two years later, it shows up. So I think that making it very clear that they have access to services, lifetime services, is extremely important.
Senator Murray voiced concerns about implementing these recommendations without a secretary of the VA in place.
SEN. MURRAY: One of my concerns is we do not have a secretary of the V.A. currently. We haven’t gotten a recommendation from the administration nor anyone sent over here for that position. Are you concerned that the implementation of this, which is going to put a lot of pressure on the V.A. to do, it’s going to take somebody at the top to really keep that culture that you’re talking about, are you concerned that we don’t have a head of the V.A. right now and are you working with the administration to get someone?
MS. SHALALA: I’m not.
HONORABLE BOB DOLE, CO-CHAIR, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON CARE FOR AMERICA'S RETURNING WOUNDED WARRIORS: I think we were asked that question yesterday, but it’s a good question. Right now, the deputy secretary, Gordon Mansfield, meets every week with Gordon England in DOD and they have these weekly meetings and they’re really moving ahead with these recommendations. In fact, they’ve been given a mandate by the White House to move ahead. But, obviously, the sooner we have somebody on board who is really going to push this program...
Secretary Dunne voiced support for the Senate-passed Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act.
SEN. MURRAY: Secretary Dunne, the Senate has acted on legislation. We came together, the V.A. and the DOD committee. We put together the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. It’s passed out of the Senate. Has the administration taken a position on that legislation?
HONORABLE PATRICK W. DUNNE REAR ADMIRAL, U. S. NAVY (ret) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PLANNING U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS: Senator, I think the best way I can describe reaction to the legislation is based on my experience of the past seven months and looking at the comprehensive plan that the senior oversight committee is putting in place right now to address such activities as the TBI [Traumatic Brain Injury], PTSD, case management, et cetera, and creating a center of excellence, putting that into action already on PTSD and TBI. My best understanding is with the legislation, which I participated in drafting, which was sent over here yesterday, to reflect the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala commission and what I’ve learned as a member of the senior oversight committee, I think that I would say that that is the best legislative approach to take. I don’t believe that we have an administrative position right now.
Senator Murray pressed the Veterans Affairs task force on the adequacy of its recommendations for family support programs.
SEN. MURRAY: Can you tell me what the V.A.’s recommendations are on family support programs?
HONORABLE PATRICK W. DUNNE REAR ADMIRAL, U. S. NAVY (ret) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PLANNING U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS: Well, one of our key assets is using the vets’ centers, which we have over 200 of them throughout the country, and they’re available – legislatively been made available to families and dependents, as well as servicemembers, for counseling, dealing with the challenges of deployments, et cetera, and, also, where, necessary, bereavement counseling for the families.
SEN. MURRAY: I’m sure you’ve seen the other reports. They focus a lot on what the families – the real stresses for families today in the current military and how families are the support groups and all the issues from health care to being there for someone who’s critically ill for a long period of time. Did your task force not look at all at some of the extra support, additional support, needed support for those families?
MR. DUNNE: The task force responded to the request that we received from the different information sources we saw, including our Web site, et cetera, e-mails coming in, and...
SEN. MURRAY: That sounds so bureaucratic. I’m just asking you, don’t you think out there that there’s a lot of families who, in today’s world, really need additional services?
SEC. DUNNE: I absolutely do and one of the ways we’re dealing with that is with the transition patient advocates who have the ability to communicate with the family and determine where there is a need, where there’s a special circumstance, et cetera, and for them to find an answer to that special circumstance anywhere within V.A. that they need to go to get the answer.
SEN. MURRAY: Well, don’t you think a lot of them are getting lost today because they don’t know where to go?
SEC. DUNNE: I am confident that my fellow workers at V.A. are doing their utmost to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks.
SEN. MURRAY: And you wouldn’t think that the V.A. needs today to look differently at veterans’ families than they have in the past.
SEC. DUNNE: We need to continue to emphasize that the family is a very essential element to the recovery of our veterans and active duty personnel and we need to work with them to make sure that they can focus on recovery and not on administrative procedures.
SEN. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but I do think in today’s world, with what we’re asking of our men and women who serve us and who’s serving us and the fact that many of them have families today, they end up being the caregiver, that that is something that we have to really focus on.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation
“Consumer Wireless Issues”
Senators discussed issues currently facing wireless consumers, including a lack of transparency in billing and contracting practices, and stated that S. 2033, the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007, will effectively address these issues.
SEN. KLOBUCHAR: We believe it’s time for some new rules in the wireless industry. The legislation that Senator Rockefeller and I have introduced, a cell phone bill of rights – and we appreciate Senator Dorgan’s co-sponsorship – has a very simple goal, the enable consumers to make the best choice that fits their particular needs. This legislation is narrowly tailored to allow consumers to make true market-based decisions. It’s not rate regulation. It just allows the consumers to decide what’s the best price they can get and what’s the best quality of service, which is what the cell phone industry claims that they want. To do this, you need to be able to change carriers to get better service or better price. That’s why our legislation places some simple limits on the so-called early termination fees, which have been a real sore spot for consumers….
Our legislation would require all wireless providers to prorate their fees so that at a minimum a consumer who exits a two-year contract after the end of the first year would have to pay only half of the termination fee. The legislation will also require that wireless carriers provide consumers with information on their service quality, including maps that are honest and up to date…. Consumers also need to understand their bills so they can compare wireless carriers by price. To do this, our legislation will require that wireless companies refrain from including on their bills charges or fees other than those for wireless service or that are expressly authorized by federal, state, or local regulation. Finally, this legislation will put a stop to automatic secret extensions of cell phone bill contracts. For example, some cell phone companies will extend your contract without telling you simply when you call up and you add minutes or you add a person or a kid…. Competitive markets work best when consumers have access to full information. And that is the overriding purpose of this legislation, to ensure that cell phone consumers have the necessary information that they need to make the best decisions for themselves and for their families. Thank you very much.
SEN. DORGAN: The piece of legislation that Senator Rockefeller and Senator Klobuchar have offered and I have co-sponsored is a good piece of legislation. We need to do something about early termination fees that prevent, I think, a competitive market by trapping consumers with their provider. We need to do something about better data on coverage areas, transparency in contract and billing. And I think the practice of locking in phones, which is not done in many other countries, locking in phones, making them exclusive to one provider, requiring consumers to purchase a new phone when changing carriers, I think that’s something we need to deal with as well.
Witnesses also discussed the need for governmental regulation of the wireless industry and stated that unregulated competition will not address the problems within the industry.
LORI SWANSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, MINNESOTA: The lengthy contracts and early termination penalties have the tendency to lock consumers in with one company for extended periods of time. My office has received complaints from consumers who were asked to pay sizeable termination fees even when they canceled their contracts for very legitimate reasons, like because their phone didn’t work and they couldn’t get the service that was promised in their home area or because they were military personnel deployed to serve this country abroad in Iraq or Afghanistan. Now, in a fair consumer transaction there is transparency and there is a meeting of the minds between the business and the consumer. The business agrees to sell the consumer a product with disclosed terms for a disclosed price. The consumer agrees to pay it. Both sides know what the deal is. They both want to enter the deal. And they both give their knowing consent to the terms. In other words, there is a fair agreement. Many consumers don’t feel this sense of fair dealing when it comes to dealing with their cell phone companies. Over the last three years, the Better Business Bureau reports that the cell phone industry has received more complaints than any industry in America. And that counts 3,600 industries in America….
The burden should not be on the consumer to figure out the rules of the cell phone shell game. There needs to be more transparency and more fundamental fairness in consumer cell phone transactions. The United States Congress should pass meaningful consumer protection legislation so that consumers are treated fairly and not subjected to a game of hide the ball when navigating the cell phone maze.
PATRICK PEARLMAN, CONSUMER ADVOCATE, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA: We’re excited about the proposed legislation. And we look forward to working with the committee and the committee staff in the future to address specific provisions of the bill as well as specific examples, problematic practices within the industry….
First, it’s our belief that the wireless industry, as everyone has pointed out in this room, has grown to a very, very large industry indeed with over 233 million customers. Since 1993 when there were 11,000, approximately 11,000 cell sites, we now have over 195,000 cell sites. The industry makes over $100 billion in revenues a year. And one aspect that has not been addressed in opening our statements is the fact that wireless is indeed holding itself out as a substitute for landline service. We do have consumers who are cutting the cord. The exact percentage of those consumers is somewhat open to debate. But I think the best evidence that the wireless industry considers itself a substitute for landline is the number of wireless companies that have applied to states and to the FCC for designation as eligible telecommunications carriers. Such designation, as the committee knows, entitles those carriers to receive federal support from the Federal Universal Service Fund. In most states, conditions are associated with that status that are akin to the sorts of conditions that are imposed on incumbent landline carriers.
Secondly, the market alone historically has not been a sufficient constraint on unreasonable wireless practices. That is the same experience that we have seen on the landline side as well. Examples of such market failures are instances where regulation was required to be implemented in order to deal with slamming complaints, with cramming complaints, the number of unauthorized charges appearing on landline customers’ bills. Truth in billing issues had to be finally enacted by regulation and wireless number affordability….
Third, the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] and federal law has not been adequate in acting as a restraint on carrier abusive practices. And we point out the fact that in the truth in billing context in the seven years now – excuse me – seven years since the rules went into effect, there has been one enforcement action in the FCC dealing with truth in billing.
Fourth, we support the principle of national standards to serve as a floor so long as those are vigorously enforced. But we believe that it would be a serious mistake to preempt state law and enforcement of other terms and conditions altogether.
CHRIS MURRAY, CHIEF COUNSEL, CONSUMERS UNION: The first concern I want to raise is early termination fees. And we see consumers paying about $175 for the privilege of voting with their feet even when they’re not getting a subsidy on a particular phone. And this is the head scratcher for me. The justification that we were getting from the cell phone industry was that it’s subsidy, subsidy, subsidy, that’s why we’re charging these early termination fees. Yet we see the iPhone, which does not get one thin dime of subsidy to consumers, yet consumers still get locked into that two-year deal with a $175 early termination fee. I just don’t understand that. I think it’s great that companies are prorating these fees. But if they’re prorating an already unreasonable fee in the first place, it still raises concern.
The second pocketbook issue I want to raise is the practice of handset locking or forcing consumers to throw mobile phones in the trash when they switch carriers or only activating affiliated phones with a network. We see in the U.S. about 90 to 95 percent of the cell phones that are sold are sold through the carriers themselves. In the rest of the world, it’s the converse….
The third question I’ve got is of great concern, which is the practice of application blocking. We see companies like Blackberry who want to offer a mapping service, for instance, to consumers for free. They want to just give it away on their phones so that people will buy their phone. But AT&T has said, you know, I’ve got my own mapping program. I want to charge consumers $10 a month for that mapping program. So Blackberry, I want you to turn your mapping program off on your phone. Perfectly good electronics that aren’t working as they were designed to work.
The other issue that I want to raise is the free speech issue that Senator Dorgan flagged earlier. We saw this flap a few weeks ago between Verizon and Naral over the blocking of text messages, political text messages. In the rest of the world… text messaging, has become probably the most important political organizing tool of the last five years. People are keeping elections straight in Nigeria. We see people organizing social protests in other countries. In the U.S., if you made a phone call, it would be protected and there’s no way that a network operator could interfere for it. I don’t see any reason why data should have any less protection….
So I’m here this morning to challenge the cell phone industry to begin to stop throwing switching costs at consumers. If they’re saying that, look, we’re so competitive that we don’t need any oversight, they can’t also say well, here’s a $200 switching cost for an early termination fee, here’s a $400 switching cost for a new phone. These are just throwing gravel in the gears of competition. And competition isn’t working because of these switching costs.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
“Is DHS Too Dependent on Contractors to Do the Government’s Work?”
Witnesses testified that the use of contractors subjects the government to the possibility of losing control and accountability, and therefore, must be monitored closely.
JOHN HUTTON, ACQUISITION AND SOURCING MANAGEMENT TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE: As you know, when DHS [Department of Homeland Security] was established over four years ago, it faced enormous challenges in setting up offices and programs that would provide a wide-ranging of activities that are very important to this country’s national security.
And to help address this challenge, as we know, the department relied on contractors – many for professional management support. And these are services that increased the risk of contractors unduly influencing the government’s control over programs and accountability for actions. And for this reason, long-standing federal policy requires attention to this very risk.
…
Given the decision that contractors were to be used, we then looked at DHS’s consideration and management of the risk when contracting for such services.
Federal acquisition guidance highlights the risk inherent in these services and federal internal control standards require assessment of risks.
Now, in our nine case studies, while contracting officers and program officials generally acknowledge that such support services closely support inherently governmental functions, none assessed whether these contracts could result in the loss of control and accountability for policy and program decisions.
Also, none were aware of the federal requirements for enhanced oversight in such cases and most did not believe enhanced oversight was needed.
Our nine cases studies provided examples of conditions that need to be carefully monitored to help ensure the government does not lose its control and accountability. For example, in seven of the nine cases, contractors provided services integral to an agency’s mission and comparable to those provided by government employees.
Witnesses explained that there are real dangers associated with the Department of Homeland Security’s reliance on private contractors and expressed doubt as to the Department’s ability to implement necessary changes.
ELAINE DUKE, CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Now, I’d specifically like to address the GAO [Government Accountability Office] report. And it addresses the government’s increasing reliance on government services.
I do – it’s already been said that this is not just a DHS issue. It is a federal problem…. [W]e … are looking… to see what [is] the best answer for the federal government.
I think there’s two issues raised by the report. One of them is, is DHS contracting out inherently governmental services, and the second, is it properly managing the service contracts that it has.
…There is a risk on reliance on government contractors. We do agree that we have much more to do.
…
STEVEN SCHOONER, GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT LAW PROGRAM, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: If a contractor fails, the agency can fail. Contractor failures, just like government failures, can result in harm being inflicted upon the public, the government or others. Of course, also at risk is loss of confidence in the government and always excessive expenditure of scarce public funds.
…
One area where the legal regime is not adequate is the government’s rather chaotic reliance upon private security. As recent events involving Blackwater made clear, the risks in this area are particularly grave. The existing legal and regulatory regimes are inadequate to address them. And the government has waited far too long to address them in a thoughtful and responsible manner.
…
We have no short term choice but to rely on contractors for every conceivable task that the government is understaffed to fulfill. For example, in Iraq, the military relies on contractors not only for transportation, shelter and food but unprecedented levels of battlefield and weaponry operations support and maintenance.
DHS can’t simply consolidate its mission, jettison a number of the tasks, start terminating contracts and take on only the missions that it’s appropriately staffed to perform.
Nor can it wait as it embarks upon an aggressive program to identify, recruit, hire and retain an extraordinary number of civil servants.
…
The worst case scenario is where contractors work under open-ended contracts without guidance or management from a responsible government official typically facilitated by an interagency contracting vehicle.
…
In addition to the potential conflicts of interest, the other human capital issue is that if we’re going to try to attract and retain a qualified workforce, DHS may find it increasingly difficult to articulate why an individual should come and work for DHS rather than its contractors. This is particularly problematic, where contractors use incentives such as raises, bonuses, training opportunities, travel and entertainment to reward their top talent.
This is particularly troubled now that the market for talent is increasingly global – and we see, for example, a global shortage of engineers. Serious, long-term, far-reaching personnel reforms are needed to reverse the trend.
So let me conclude by saying I agree with many of GAO’s recommendations but I am not optimistic that DHS can fully implement them.
Witnesses addressed concerns regarding the Department of Homeland Security hiring contractors to oversee companies that employ the contractor.
SEN. MCCASKILL: Ms. Duke, are there more contractors working at DHS now or at this time last year?
MS. DUKE: I don’t have information about the specific number of contractor employees, but in terms of percentage of dollars there are slightly more in our current ‘07 numbers than were in ‘06.
SEN. MCCASKILL: Well, that’s what I’m really worried about. You know, because I think that we had it – a great excuse to take a shortcut. Since you all were stood up as a new department and everyone understood the need for urgency and quick movement, and everyone understood that you didn’t have the people on staff; a federal employee workforce was not available for some of these functions.
But the problem is that was at the beginning. Well, we’re not at the beginning anymore.
And it seems to me – and what I’ve looked it, it just keeps growing, that there’s absolutely no attempt – and particularly in the area of overseeing the overseers, you have a number of contractors that have oversight responsibility. And ones that bother me are the contractors that are overseeing companies that they work for. So it’s incestuous.
You’ve got Booz Hamilton who works for Boeing who’s now overseeing Boeing on SBI-net, on the Secure Borders Initiative.
…
Can you speak to this phenomenon that you have where you are hiring people to perform the oversight function, and they’re overseeing people that they need in business relationships?
MS. DUKE: Well, I think the core issue, again, is keeping inherently governmental the true oversight in federal employees. That’s clear and that’s the way we have to go.
…
So I really think we have to … look at the risks and make sure we have the right number with the right skills of government people dedicated to overseeing these contracts and manage them.
Thursday, October 18, 2007: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
“Oversight Hearing on the U.S. Department of Transportation”
Senator Inouye described the United States’ need for improved and expanded infrastructure.
SEN. INOUYE: While the U.S. transportation system is first-rate, it is facing substantial challenges that threaten to gridlock commerce. Many of our highways, bridges, and tunnels, built in the middle of the last century, are nearing the end of their design life and must be rebuilt or replaced. The tragic Minneapolis bridge collapse this past August highlighted a growing problem across the entire nation, and serves as a wake-up call to the crisis facing all of our transportation modes and their essential infrastructure.
Simply replacing aged infrastructure will not be enough to meet the needs of our nation in the coming century. We also must expand the capacity of our transportation systems to accommodate growing commerce and an ever-increasing population. The growing daily congestion, whether on our highways or railways, or in our ports or airspace, is problematic for the public and American businesses, and is steadily becoming worse. More highway, aviation, and port infrastructure must be built, more railway tracks must be upgraded and laid, more intermodal connections must be developed, and the entire system must be managed and maintained more efficiently.
…
Improving safety, of course, is as important as taking action to improve capacity and efficiency, and the two must proceed hand-in- hand.
Witnesses testified that the U.S. must make significant investments in maintenance and new construction to correct the current shortcoming in U.S. infrastructure.
MARY E. PETERS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: The United States has the world’s largest and most capable transportation systems. Those systems have enabled unprecedented growth in domestic and international trade, have brought our diverse States closer and closer together, and have provided a critical foundation for the amazing wealth creation and economic prosperity that have taken place in the U.S. and around the world in the last 60 years. When I returned to Washington last year, I sought to ensure that the Department was focused on the challenges that were most pressing and solutions to those challenges that would have the most impact. In my view, those challenges are: reversing the decline in overall transportation systems performance that is increasingly imposing costs on American families and businesses, and ensuring a continued reduction in transportation system fatalities and injuries even as traffic volumes grow by emphasizing comprehensive, data-driven approaches and new crash prevention technologies. The results of this focus are a work in progress, but I believe that the Department has made significant strides forward in the past year.
To reverse the decline in our transportation systems, we need to look beneath the surface and explore the foundation of the problems we are facing. It is increasingly clear to me that the transportation policies and programs of the past are poorly suited to the economic, environmental and societal challenges of the future.
…
The challenges that lie ahead are difficult, though they are not difficult to identify. Our transportation networks need improvement, but as I and many others have made clear, the challenge is not to simply spend more and more money, but to insist that we utilize Federal resources with an eye to the performance improvements that we urgently need.
Witnesses explained that “Value Engineering” enables the government to improve national infrastructure by reducing costs and controlling schedules.
THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III., INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Reducing highway project costs by promoting the use of value engineering: One way to more effectively use Federal highway funds is to lower project costs by increasing value engineering (VE) usage. VE is the systematic process of review and analysis of a project during the concept and design phases. A multi-disciplined team of persons independent of the project conducts the review. In our March 2007 report on FHWA’s [Federal Highway Administration] VE program, we found that states have missed opportunities to realize hundreds of millions of dollars in additional savings that could have been reprogrammed to other transportation projects. FHWA should improve its VE program by strengthening oversight and disseminating best practices to states.
Providing vigilant oversight of transit projects to control costs and schedules: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has several massive infrastructure projects in various stages of design or construction. The Agency will be challenged to ensure that project sponsors keep these projects within budget and on schedule. Vigilant oversight of these projects will be particularly important as FTA simultaneously continues its oversight of a large portfolio of other transit projects across the country.
Thursday, October 18, 2007: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
“Lead and Children’s Health”
Senator Boxer delivered remarks on the serious health consequences of lead contamination of children’s products and the Administration’s response.
SEN. BOXER: Lead contamination of children’s products can have extremely serious consequences. In 2006, a four year old child in Minnesota swallowed a heart-shaped metal charm from a bracelet that came with Reebok sneakers. Tests showed his blood-lead level was three times the level that’s considered a medical emergency. The child died six days later.
….
In all, there have been over 60 recalls of over 9.5 million lead-contaminated products in 2007. And this clearly is just the tip of the iceberg. With more testing come more recalls.
But these lead toys and kids’ products are not the only source of lead in kids’blood. Some of the other most significant sources of lead exposure for children include deteriorating lead-based paint, lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated residential soil, lead in drinking water, and lead in food-contact surfaces such as certain dishware and pottery.
Parents are stunned, confused, and terribly worried. And the government simply has not done one of its most important jobs—protecting children from harm.
The failure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect the public from kids’ toy threats has received widespread publicity recently. I want to focus attention on EPA’s [Environmental Protection Agency] failure to use its powers to help protect our children from lead in children’s products, and how EPA’s authorities can be strengthened.
Witnesses submitted testimony on the serious health impacts for children and adults posed by exposure to lead.
BRUCE LANPHEAR, MD, MPH, CINCINNATI CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL MEDICAT CENTER:Despite the dramatic decline in children’s blood lead concentrations, leadtoxicity remains a major public health problem. Exceedingly low-levels ofexposure to environmental lead have been associated with an increased risk for reading problems, ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder], school failure, delinquency and criminal behavior in children and adolescents.
….
Lead’s effects extend beyond childhood. In adults, lead exposure has
been associated with some of the most prevalent diseases of industrialized society: cardiovascular disease, miscarriage, renal disease and cognitive decline. Consistent with research on childhood lead exposure, there is emerging evidence indicating that the risk for death from heart attacks and stroke, as well as the risk for chronic kidney disease, occur at blood lead levels considerably lower than ten μg/dL.
Witnesses highlighted how exposure was an entirely preventable problem and where it is most severe:
DAVID E. JACOBS, Ph.D., CIH, Research Director, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTHY HOUSING: The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that the major high dose source for most children in the U.S. today is existing lead-based paint in older housing and the contaminated dust and soil it generates. The existing limit for lead in new residential house paint set by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in the U.S. is 600 parts per million (ppm). But older paints already coating surfaces in housing can be more than 500,000 ppm. These older paints can produce extraordinarily high levels of lead dust, exceeding 9,300 micrograms of lead per square foot (μg/ft2) from only a single square foot of lead paint in an average sized room.
The evidence that housing with lead paint hazards is the main problem comes from several sources. Together with others, I recently published a study showing that the reduction in childhood lead poisoning from 1990 to the present can be largely explained by trends in housing demolition, window replacement and other renovation, and lead paint abatement. If housing were not the main contributor, then demolition, window replacement and abatement trends would not have tracked the trend in childhood lead poisoning as closely as it actually has.
….
There was every expectation that EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] would quickly follow suit in 2000 and regulate renovation, remodeling and painting activities in housing that does not receive federal assistance, as required by Congress in 1992. Yet it is now eleven years after Congress required that this rule be passed, and neither the Clinton nor the Bush Administrations have issued a final regulation. EPA’s own estimate is that the regulation would protect 1.1 million children each year.
The question now before us is simply this: Why should children living in unassisted housing receive no protection, while those living in federally assisted housing are protected? All children should be able to live in homes without lead hazards.
The net economic benefits of EPA’s regulation are even larger than those associated with the HUD [Housing and Urban Development] regulation, because the EPA regulation covers more housing units. The current estimates are that the EPA regulation achieves net benefits of between $2.6 billion to $7.5 billion annually. In short, the EPA regulation makes both good policy and good economic sense.
Thursday, October 18, 2007: Senate Committee on Finance
“Growing Trade, Growing Vigilance: Import Health and Safety Today and Tomorrow”
Senators and witnesses discussed the critical and immediate need to address the safety of imported products as the number of products imported into the United States steadily increases.
SEN. BAUCUS: When Americans sit down at the dinner table, a growing percentage of what we eat comes from abroad. We import 85 percent of our fish and half of non-citrus fruits. More often than not, the televisions, stereos, and toys in American households are made abroad….Growing trade brings Americans jobs, prosperity, and choice. Yet import growth also brings responsibility. It brings a responsibility to remain vigilant. It brings a responsibility to safeguard Americans’ health and safety.
Today, a growing number of Americans fear that the government is not living up to its responsibility. They hear about pets poisoned by imported pet food. They hear about kids playing with lead-painted toys. And they hear about imported toothpaste that contains poison. It is our responsibility to identify every risk, hidden or obvious. And it is our responsibility to find solutions, no matter how complex….
Today, we need to look at every aspect. We need to make sure import safety is at the core of everyone’s mission. We need to find resources and manpower to back this mission.
…
SEN. GRASSLEY: How do we ensure that imported products are safe for our consumers?
…
JEAN HALLORAN, DIRECTOR OF FOOD POLICY INITIATIVES, CONSUMERS UNION: Almost daily, we are hearing new reports of safety problems with imported food, toys, cribs and other consumer products.
…
Over the summer, more than 20 million toys manufactured in China were recalled because of various hazards that included lead levels that exceeded U.S. lead paint standards established thirty years ago. In September, one million cribs made in China were recalled due to design and construction defects that could cause babies to strangle. The cribs are believed responsible for the deaths of two infants. Two weeks ago, Halloween cups painted with scary faces were recalled after testing requested by Senator Sherrod Brown found that the paint contained even scarier illegal amounts of lead…Many of the most well publicized examples are coming from China, but they are not the only source.
Witnesses explained that the federal agencies charged with ensuring the safety of goods are operating under significant capacity limitations.
DIR. HALLORAN: Two of the most important federal agencies that the public relies on to ensure that everything in our marketplace is safe—the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission – have not kept up with globalization of the marketplace. In fact, while new demands on their expertise have arisen, these agencies have experienced budget cutbacks. In addition, Customs and Border Protection, which also plays an extremely important role, is not being utilized in the best possible way to address threats to consumer safety.
…
In recent years, imports have skyrocketed, especially from China…While these imports pose new safety challenges to both importers and all regulatory agencies, FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and CPSC [Consumer Products Safety Commission], in particular, have not kept pace with this new challenge. In fact, quite the opposite. Congress has repeatedly cut the budget of the CPSC so that it now has half the number of employees it had when it opened in 1973. It now has 15 inspectors to police the millions of toys and consumer products coming into the country at hundreds of entry points. And, according to the New York Times, it has only one full-time toy tester, named Bob. The FDA is equally hamstrung. Today, it inspects less than one percent of food imports entering the country. There are over 300 ports (many landlocked) where food can enter. At the peak of its funding, there were FDA inspectors stationed at only 90 of them, and the number of inspectors has dropped since then. This has led to a phenomenon known as “port shopping.” Indeed, if a shipment of seafood is rejected by FDA inspectors at one port because it has begun to decompose, there is nothing at all to prevent the importer from trying another port where FDA simply may not be present.
…
[W]hile imports have ballooned, regulatory capacity has shrunk. Our regulatory capacity must be overhauled to meet the import challenge.
…
THE HONORABLE CALVIN DOOLEY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION: As the volume of imported food steadily increases, the FDA’s job at the border can be compared to trying to find a needle in a haystack. We need to approach this task from different angles: by reducing the number of needles to find; and by reducing the size of the haystack in which to find them.
…
Expanding FDA resources – including personnel, equipment, laboratory capacity, and scientific expertise – is an essential component of an effective food safety system. FDA resources have not kept pace with the demands posed by rising imports and current food safety challenges. To meet these needs, Congress must provide new funds to dramatically improve FDA’s analytical testing capabilities, to increase and better target inspections conducted by FDA, to obtain real-time test results, and to enhance communications during crisis events. With additional resources that are well-deployed, FDA should be much better positioned to find any remaining needles before they cross the border and enter U.S. commerce.
…
While we would agree that inspecting products at the border is an important element of a comprehensive approach to food safety, we believe that inspections alone will not provide enough improvement to the safety of our food supply. We strongly agree with efforts to find more resources for FDA, which needs to restore its scientific base as well as its capacity to conduct an appropriate level of inspection and examination, and have urged Congress and the Administration to do so for the past several years. However, we strongly oppose the user fee proposals
Witnesses discussed the importance of a partnership between the public and private sectors in addressing import safety and measures
HON. DOOLEY: Food producers have an abiding interest in safe food... My industry devotes enormous resources toward this goal, and effective regulation and oversight by federal regulatory agencies such as the FDA are critical and complementary elements of the fabric of consumer protection. In September, GMA/FPA [The Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association] issued “Commitment to Consumers: The Four Pillars of Imported Food Safety,” a comprehensive proposal designed to protect consumers by strengthening, modernizing, and improving the system governing food imports. Our proposal envisions new mandatory requirements for the food industry to assure the adequacy of foreign supplier food safety programs and new responsibilities for FDA. Other elements include a new program to help identify and prioritize imports of potential concern, new efforts by FDA to help enhance the capacity of foreign governments to prevent and detect food safety issues, improvements to FDA’s scientific capabilities and its use of information technology, and a significant increase in FDA resources.
…
SANDRA KENNEDY, PRESIDENT, RETAIL INDUSTRY LEADERS ASSOCIATION: RILA believes that ensuring product safety is a shared responsibility between and among manufacturers, retailers, the U.S. government, and other governments. Implementation and verification of product safety protocols are rightly the roles of private industry. Manufacturers are the first line of defense, and they must be diligent in designing and building safety into the products they make. Retailers work with their suppliers to ensure safety standards are implemented through contracts and specifications. Congress and the Administration can help by establishing clear guidelines and regulations that facilitate product safety, and they can provide important oversight and inspections to ensure that such regulations are met.
…
With respect to products imported into the United States, the federal government has two important mandates – trade facilitation – to promote the exchange of goods in international commerce – and trade enforcement– to ensure that all actors adhere to internationally recognized trade rules. RILA [Retail Industry Leaders Association] believes that U.S. Government trade policies should advance these two goals by emphasizing collaborative programs with importers that facilitate legitimate trade while focusing enforcement efforts on those who attempt to evade U.S. safety standards.
…
Public-private partnerships such as those forged through the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program can serve as an effective model to achieve the shared product safety goals of U.S. Government and industry. At the same time, I caution the committee against expanding C-TPAT to address product safety because that program may not be the best way to ensure stronger product safety. For example, C-TPAT focuses on the physical security of the supply chain and the container, not an individual product. Moreover, the fundamental focus of product safety should be to ensure that safety is designed and built into a product. This objective would be difficult to achieve through C-TPAT.
…
DANIEL BALDWIN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Government agencies should share the information they collect about activities occurring along the global supply chain to prevent, identify, mitigate, and respond to product safety hazards. Manufacturers test products to ensure that they comply with relevant performance and safety standards; government agencies inspect and test products to ensure that they meet regulatory requirements associated with public health, environmental safety, and consumer protection. Marketplace recalls are conducted to remove faulty or unsafe products from commerce. Information about these activities is often collected and recorded, and should be shared among individual actors in the import life cycle or aggregated and analyzed as a whole.
Witnesses and Senators discussed the necessity for effective coordination and cooperation between federal agencies to ensure the safety of imported goods.
SEN. GRASSLEY: Earlier this year, the Administration created an interagency working group on import safety. The working group issued a framework for import safety that focuses on risk-based assessments targeting the life-cycles of individual products. The framework stresses prevention and increased communication among agencies.
…
DIR. HALLORAN: In the absence of adequate FDA and CPSC capacity, Customs and Border Protection becomes the fallback consumer protection agency at the borders. In fact, when FDA issued its “detain and test”order for Chinese seafood in June, CPB [California Boarder Patrol] appeared with FDA to discuss how it would be implemented. Until recently, however, little was being done to coordinate these fragmented inspection efforts, or to determine if there could be efficiencies developed through better coordination and communication.
…
The U.S. has been focusing inspection efforts on security matters, and that is critically important. It is essential that we prevent chemical and nuclear threats that might be hidden in shipments coming across our borders. But food can also be a vehicle for doing serious damage to the health of the U.S. population. So far, the health threats we have found in food seem to be the result of neglect, carelessness, or greed. But deliberate contamination could also occur. The CPB, FDA, CPSC, and the U.S. Dept of Agriculture must coordinate better, and get the resources they need to protect the borders.
…
MR. BALDWIN: In recent years, CBP has worked extensively to coordinate activities and enforcement actions with USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] and HHS [Health and Human Services], and in particular the FDA. As the guardian of our borders, CBP has broad authority to interdict imports at the Port of Entry. We identify, target, and interdict high-risk shipments using our data along with information from agencies. For instance, we frequently interact with USDA and FDA on questions regarding food enforcement action, as those departments house the subject matter expertise on food and agriculture admissibility standards. CBP enforces safety regulations by relying on the statutory authority of other federal agencies with the specific mandate of safety issues. It is important to note, also, that long before recent headlines CBP had been working with agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on identifying and interdicting products such as flammable children’s sleepwear and other products that present a danger to our citizens.
…
CBP remains committed to partnering with other federal agencies in order to refine our targeting skills and increase coordination of government personnel and to ensure the prevention of contaminated and dangerous products from entering the U.S.
Thursday, October 18, 2007: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia
“The Perils of Politics in Government: A Review of the Scope and Enforcement of theHatch Act”
Witnesses testified that recent reports about political briefings conducted by Bush White House employees have reemphasized the need for the Hatch Act.
SEN. AKAKA: Government works best if the American people know that their Government works for them, regardless of the political party that is in charge. The Hatch Act is an indispensable tool for making sure that it does. Equally important is the protection that theHatch Act provides for Federal workers. The Hatch Act is a central part of a merit-based civil service system that replaced the political spoils system. It restricts Federal employees’ partisan political action in order to protect them from being coerced to participate in political activities. That is why the political briefings that the White House provided to political appointees throughout the Federal Government have increased concern about the Hatch Act. According to press reports, the White House provided briefings on election results and upcoming elections over several years to political appointees across the Federal Government. For example, a January 2007 presentation given at the General Services Administration included slides analyzing Senate and Governors’ races that they predict to be competitive in 2008 elections. The White House briefing seemed designed to solicit Federal officials to engage in partisan political activities by suggesting that the White House would appreciate their assistance in the competitive races highlighted. Such a practice has no place in any administration.
Witnesses explained that the Hatch Act contains a significant legal double standard for the treatment of violations by Senate-confirmed presidential appointees and violations of other federal employees.
Sen. Akaka:Mr. Byrne, your statement notes that the Hatch Act reflects a judgment that placing time limits on employees’ partisan political activity is necessary for the Government to function fairly and effectively. High-level officials set the tone within agencies, and they are the officials most likely to be, of course, in the public eye. For those reasons, it is very important that they abide by the Hatch Act. My question is: How has the Special Counsel’s office dealt with its inability to bring Hatch Act charges to the MSPB [Merit Systems Protection Board] against most Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees and White House staff?
JAMES BYRNE, DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL, U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL: Thank you, Senator, for that question, and I have a smile on my face when you say that, because obviously there is a difference. We follow the law. We are law enforcement, and we follow it within the constraints of the statutes. And we forward recommendations on presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed individuals to the President and leave it to his discretion what to do in the discipline area. I do not really have any comment other than I acknowledge the fact that there is a difference and appreciate the question.
…
CHAD BUNGARD, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD: …The Board does not have authority to consider a complaint alleging a violation of the Hatch Act by an individual who is a presidential appointee with Senate confirmation. If [,however,] the [administrative law judge (ALJ)] determines that a federal employee has violated the Hatch Act and that removal is warranted, the ALJ issues an initial decision ordering removal of the employee, which may be appealed to the full Board on petition for review. If on petition for review the Board decides that a Federal employee has violated the Hatch Act, the penalty must be either removal of suspension without pay for not less than 30 days. If the ALJ determines that a Federal employee has violated the Hatch Act but that the appropriate penalty is less than removal, the ALJ issues a recommended decision for consideration by the Board. A penalty of less than removal requires by statute a unanimous vote of the Board. The ALJ may initiate attempts to settle the complaint at any time during the proceeding. If a settlement is reached, the settlement agreement becomes the final and binding resolution of the complaint.
Witnesses testified that Congress may need to update the Hatch Act to clarify confusion regarding political activity by federal employees.
SEN. AKAKA: Most employees know that they are not allowed to engage in political work while on duty, but they may not understand nor even know about the other restrictions. For example, Federal employees who know that they are permitted to work on a campaign while off duty may accidentally violate the Hatch Act because they do not understand that they cannot directly solicit donations for the campaign. In particular, the line between casual workplace conversation and political activity that is not permitted on duty may be unclear to many employees. Does inviting a few work friends to a campaign rally after work violate the Hatch Act? Does it matter if an employee asks his friends by e-mailing rather than while chatting in a break room? Does it matter if the employee invites two friends or 20? How do employees know where the line is? This uncertainty may discourage employees from engaging in conversation and off-duty political action that is allowed under the Hatch Act. This chilling effect is particularly likely because the Hatch Act states that an employee who violates the statute shall be removed from his or her position. That penalty can be reduced, and few employees actually lose their jobs under the Hatch Act. However, many employees may avoid doing anything that approaches the statute’s reach for fear of putting their jobs on the line. I believe that the Hatch Act should be enforced vigorously, but that punishment should be more effectively targeted to fit the seriousness of the violation at issue.
…
MR. BYRNE: This year, OSC [Office of Special Counsel] completed a successful run of litigation involving the use of e-mail to engage in political activity while on duty or in a Federal building. We realize that unfortunate wording from a 2002 OSC Hatch Act advisory opinion on the use of e-mail had been misinterpreted as a “water cooler”exception for e-mail activity. As no such exception has ever existed under the Hatch Act, we rescinded the opinion in March, following several opinions where the MSPB agreed that using the e-mail system to engage in political activity while on duty or in a Federal building is prohibited by the Hatch Act.
DPC
CONTACTS
DPC
- Leslie Gross-Davis (224-3232)