Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

<html>
<title> - TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998</title>
<body><pre>
[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

<DOC>

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1998

========================================================================

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
APPROPRIATIONS

JIM KOLBE, Arizona, Chairman

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

Michelle Mrdeza, Elizabeth A. Phillips, Jeff Ashford, and Melanie
Marshall, Staff Assistants
________

PART 5

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

40-085 O WASHINGTON : 1997

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,
Washington, DC 20402

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California
TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania
HENRY BONILLA, Texas ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan NITA M. LOWEY, New York
DAN MILLER, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama

James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998

----------

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS

WITNESS

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON

Mr. Kolbe. The Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service,
and General Government will come to order. This is our last
public hearing of this season, so to speak, and today is
devoted to testimony by Members of Congress and outside groups.
We have a lot of people that, of course, always want to
testify with regard to the various agencies that are under our
jurisdiction or various parts of our appropriation bill, and so
I would urge everybody that is here already listening to me
that we would like to please keep the testimony to 5 minutes.
The full statements will be placed in the record.
We will go--we have an order here; but we will go, of
course, in the order that people actually show up here. I don't
see Peter here to begin with, and so we will begin here with
the second one that is on our list here, Earl Blumenauer. Earl.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
courtesy, and I will attempt to take less than the 5 minutes. I
have submitted testimony in advance.
Basically, the reason I am here today is there is a great
deal of interest in Washington, D.C., of late of those of us in
the Federal Government walking our talk. The post office,
although a quasi-Federal agency, still represents the Federal
Government for many people. It is the heart and soul of many
small communities, and it is part of the heritage of every
community.
Last week--last year, rather, this subcommittee gave policy
direction dealing with the closures of small rural post
offices. I am here today seeking your assistance in helping
make sure that the post office is a good neighbor. It is
important to make sure that it--we build on a concept of the
Federal Government through the post office, following local
land use regulations.
I have a number of examples in Mr. Hoyer's district and Mr.
Forbe's district where local communities are very concerned by
the inability to be able to work in a constructive fashion with
the post office to make sure that the post office plays by the
same rules.
The language that I have proposed is to make sure that in
the areas of renovation, closing and consolidations that the
post office must abide by local zoning and building code
requirements and to make sure that the local community is given
meaningful input into those decisions.
As you may be aware, currently the post office is required,
under U.S. Code, to have input in areas of closure or
consolidation but not in decisions that actually many times
strike more at the fabric of community when you are talking
about renovation and relocation; and I would ask very simply
that this committee consider adding this directive to the post
office in this year's bill.
I am happy to answer any questions. If you wish, I can give
examples of where it is issues of following local planning
relating to roads, historic preservation. But, as I say, I
provided that in the previous testimony, and I know time is at
a premium.
Mr. Kolbe. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his
testimony and for this suggestion. I think it is an interesting
one and certainly one that we will want to take under
advisement. If we do have any other questions, we will
certainly be in touch with you on that.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much for coming and testifying.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Blumenauer follows:]

[Pages 3 - 4--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

WITNESS

HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO1, A RESIDENT COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM
PUERTO RICO

Mr. Kolbe. We will go next to Carlos Romero-Barcelo1, the
gentleman from Puerto Rico, Commissioner from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo1. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today. I have submitted a longer
statement for the record.
The purpose of my appearance here today is to discuss the
University of Puerto Rico's interest in acquiring a land site
located in Sabana Seca, Puerto Rico, for scientific research
currently being conducted by the University on the site with
the support of the National Institutes of Health. The site
consists of 270 acres owned by the NIH and an additional 5.6
acres of land that is currently leased to the Navy by the NIH.
For nearly 30 years, the National Institutes of Health has
leased this site to the University of Puerto Rico. The
University's Medical Science Campus currently uses the site to
support the research of the Caribbean Primate Research Center.
The Center is world-renowned for its research resources related
to the studies on the behavior, biology, genetics and the
spontaneous diseases of non-human primates.
The origins of the Center date back to 1938, when the Cayo
Santiago rhesus monkey colony was established to provide a
field site for behavioral studies and to supply rhesus monkeys
for biomedical and anatomical research.
In 1956, the NIH laboratory for Perinatal Physiologyopened
in San Juan and the Cayo Santiago site became the Library's primary
ecology section. When the Library closed in 1970, the University of
Puerto Rico formally established a Caribbean primate center and has
since leased the property at the Sabana Seca site from NIH in an effort
to continue primate research. Much of the support for the University's
research at the site comes from the NIH.
In 1996, following a review of the NIH's Space and Facility
Management Division, the agency made a determination to surplus
the land. The NIH is in the process of disposing of the
property through ordinary GSA processes, and NIH has advised
the GSA and other appropriate Federal agencies that NIH has no
objection to the University obtaining ownership of the
property.
NIH and Navy officials have expressed their support for the
University's acquisition of the Sabana Seca property. In
addition to continued use of the site as a primate facility,
the University proposes to establish a new University Science
Park and Ecological Research Center. This plan includes
development of the area to support short- and long-term
ecological research of the flora, fauna and rare species of
animals unique to this area of the Caribbean.
The University of Puerto Rico's Science Park and Ecological
Research Center will pool the scientific talent and know-how of
a number of existing research centers in Puerto Rico, the U.S.
mainland and throughout the Caribbean and Latin America to
foster collaboration and joint research projects.
Mr. Chairman, the transfer of the Sabana Seca land to the
University is essential for the continued operation and success
of the Caribbean Primate Research Center. It is my hope that
you and the other members of the subcommittee will support this
effort, and I am requesting that language be included in the
fiscal year 1998 Treasury, Postal Service and General
Government Operations appropriations bill to authorize this
transfer. I will be submitting a bill to that effect, Mr.
Chairman. I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. Thank you very much, Carlos. We
appreciate your testimony, and we will certainly take this
under consideration. This is not a normal precedent for this
subcommittee to do this but certainly one that we will want to
consider, and we will be in touch with you.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo1. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Resident-Commissioner Romero-
Barcelo1 follows:]

[Pages 7 - 11--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

WITNESS

HON. PETER VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA

Mr. Kolbe. We will go back now and take Mr. Visclosky from
Indiana.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I understand my statement will be entered in the record.
Mr. Kolbe. Yes, the full statement will be entered in the
record.
Mr. Visclosky. I would like to start out by saying that I
was lonely not being on the subcommittee any longer and
couldn't wait to get back.
Mr. Kolbe. We are happy to have you back with us here. We
would encourage you to come back often.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kolbe. Not often with requests necessarily, but at
least you are always welcome to sit up here.
Mr. Visclosky. I misunderstood the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you very much for the
opportunity to present testimony today and am here to ask that
the subcommittee consider continuing the support for the Lake
County, Indiana, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area at the $3
million that the subcommittee provided for the current year.
What we tried to do with the Lake County HIDTA is not to
reinvent the wheel but to continue support for the Lake County
Drug Task Force, the Gary Response Investigative Team and the
Northwest Indiana Investigative Support Center.
The head of ONDCP, General Barry McCaffrey visited our
HIDTA this past week, and we want to continue that cooperation
with ONDCP and try to use the HIDTA funds as efficiently and
effectively as possible. I appreciate the subcommittee's
support, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much. We appreciate the brevity
of your testimony, and we certainly have the whole thing here.
I know you and I have talked--actually, we haven't talked
about this particular issue before, but I appreciate your
bringing this to our attention here. We have been spending a
lot of time in the last few days or last couple of weeks doing
a tour of the southwest border dealing with some of the HIDTA,
and so we appreciate the work that they do and note that they
can be very successful in their effort--in our efforts to help
counteract drug trafficking. So we appreciate your interest in
this.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Visclosky.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Visclosky follows:]

[Pages 13 - 15--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, RELATED MATTERS

WITNESS

ERIC LARSON, COLLECTORS ARMS DEALERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kolbe. I don't believe we have any other Members here.
Mr. Shays was here a minute earlier. We will go to the outside
witnesses, and as these other Members show up here we will come
back to them.
Let's see who we have got here. Is Mr. Larson here?
Yes, Mr. Larson, if you would like to come on up.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to speak with you.
My name is Eric M. Larson. I testified----
Mr. Kolbe. Would you pull the microphone closer and speak
up a little bit?
Mr. Larson. How is this?
Mr. Kolbe. Just pull it towards you. Thank you.
Mr. Larson. All right. Thank you.
My name is Eric M. Larson. I testified before this
subcommittee last year about certain curio or relic firearms
manufactured in or before 1934 that have special value to
collectors at the request of the Collectors Arms Dealers
Association. I am here to do so again this year and thank you
for this opportunity.
But, first, before making my statement, I hope that the
subcommittee will continue to prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms from spending any government funds to
change the curio or relic definition, to remove any firearm
from the curio and relic list or to change the law regarding
the importation of curio or relic firearms.
Last year, at the hearing, Chairman Lightfoot said,
``Occasionally, one of these old relics that you are talking
about shows up, that has been in a drawer that grandma or
grandpa stuck there 50 years ago or whatever. This is an area
we need to look at, too, I think.''
These old animal trap guns and gadget-type items like knife
pistols, unique or strange firearms such as wrench guns and
relatively low-powered small-game guns were, for largely
technical reasons, classified as firearms subject to
registration under the National Firearms Act of 1934, although
they were not commonly used by criminals.
Most of these guns were already obsolete before 1934.
Today, they are historical artifacts. They are very highly
prized by collectors.
At the request of the collecting community, I would like to
respectfully ask the subcommittee to take administrative action
and, if necessary, legislative action to remove the following
firearms from the purview of the NFA and reclassify them as
conventional firearms--that is, as ordinary rifles, shotguns,
pistols or revolvers--as defined in Title 18, United States
Code, Chapter 44:
Any firearm classified as ``any other weapon'' under the
National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, which was originally
commercially manufactured in the United States in or before
1934, but not replicas thereof.
There are three basic reasons:
Number one, in 1960, the Congress determined that these
pre-1934 ``any other weapon'' firearms are mainly collectors
items and are not likely to be used as weapons. I estimate that
fewer than 17,000 still exist today.
Reason number two: Last year, a Federal court dismissed
five criminal convictions for nonregistration because ATF
employees have thrown registration documents away rather than
do the work to enter them into the NFA firearm registration
database. If ATF loses the registration document and a person
who owns a pre-1934 AOW can't find his copy, current law does
not allow him to reregister the gun.
Under the law, ATF must confiscate the firearm, even if it
may never have been used in criminal activities. The owner is
also subject to a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison. I
believe these penalties are unfair, inappropriately harsh and
unwarranted.
Now, I would like to distinguish the problems I have
identified with the NFA firearm registration data base as a
product of my individual research and not as the policy or
position of the Collectors Arms Dealers Association. The reason
is that my research is, in a way, simply a detail and intended
as something from me to the subcommittee--a statement by a
concerned private citizen backed up by what I believe is valid
and reliable evidence, virtually all of it obtained from ATF
itself.
While the NFA database problem is an important and perhaps
critical detail, I believe that the major case for removing
these ``any other weapon'' firearms from the NFA lies in and
has been presented in the law and legislative history relevant
to these firearms.
Last year, I reviewed this evidence in considerable detail.
I have summarized it in my detailed testimony this year and am
revisiting the concerns that I expressed last year regarding
special and more lenient treatment for these ``any other
weapon'' firearms on behalf of the collecting community.
Reason number three: No change in any law is required. All
of these pre-1934 ``any other weapon'' firearms may simply be
administratively removed from the NFA as collector's items. On
a case-by-case basis, ATF may already have removed between
50,000 and 100,000 individual firearms, such as Winchester
trapper carbines and Luger and Mauser shoulder stock pistols
from the NFA.
This subcommittee has the power to grant this request by
taking administrative action, and it is my sincere hope that
you will do so.
Finally, I would like to say the main benefit of taking
these weapons off such strict controls would be to benefitthe
individual collector, not really dealers. The individual people who own
these guns as prized family heirlooms, I think, would be eternally
grateful to the government for doing this for them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared oral statement. I
will be glad to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Larson.
Let me just ask you one quick question here. Have you had
discussions with the authorizing committee about this? Have you
approached them about legislation in this area?
Mr. Larson. Legislation isn't required. It is an
administrative action that can be taken without any change in
the law. But, no, I haven't talked with the committee.
The reason that I am testifying here this year is that I
did so last year because of concerns about ATF changing the
curio or relic definition. These firearms fell under that, and
the Collectors Arms Dealers Association asked me to do so again
this year.
Mr. Kolbe. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate
your testimony.
[Clerk's Note. Due to the volume of additional background
information provided by the witness, these documents are being
maintained in the Subcommittee's official files.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]

[Pages 19 - 139--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

WITNESS

HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
Mr. Kolbe. We will go back and take Mr. Shays, Chris Shays
of Connecticut.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kolbe. Good morning.
Mr. Shays. Good morning.
Mr. Chairman, first, it is great to see you in this
position taking care of our government's expenditures in the
Treasury, Postal Appropriations Subcommittee; and I am here to
request support for the Federal Election Commission's, the
FEC's, request for the $34.2 million appropriation in your
fiscal year 1998 budget. This includes the $29.3 million that
was their original request, plus their additional request of
$4.9 million.
I am also here to request that you appropriate $1.7 million
in the supplementary appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
Mr. Chairman, I am a strong fiscal conservative. I usually
show up in the top 10 of the Taxpayers Association and other
organizations that tend to see what our fiscal policy is and
our votes are. But I am absolutely convinced, as is my
colleague, Marty Meehan, who has--who I am working with in the
companion bill to the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate--Marty
Meehan who is not here today.
His first three paragraphs say, Mr. Chairman, I want to
deliver two simple messages today. First, our election laws
must be enforced; and, second, in order for that to happen the
Federal Elections Commission must be fully funded.
We have a meltdown in our election system. We literally
have a meltdown. And we have a system where the participants,
elected officials, those seeking office, know that by the time
people determine their wrongdoing the election will be well
passed. It might be months later, it might be years later, and
then the impact of a fine, the impact of even something more
serious, has no impact. Because they know by the time it is
discovered they may already have been elected, and it is a
story in the back page.
The FEC needs the money to properly investigate on a timely
basis and hold people accountable on a timely basis, or else
the election laws we have simply become a joke. And frankly, we
who are advocating reform of the election laws have to
acknowledge something, and that is not only do we need to
change the law, but we need to enforce the laws that exist. And
those who oppose reform point out that, hell, we are just not
even following the laws that exist. Let's at least do that.
Well, frankly, let's at least do that by funding the FEC,
giving them the money they need to do their job, giving them
the money to do the proper investigation and to properly hold
people who aren't abiding by the law accountable.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. I would just say that I do have a full statement
which I would like in the record. I know Marty Meehan has a
statement as well, and I was to be joined by Marge Roukema and
Mr. Barrett. Both of them are in transit, so they just wanted
me to relay their support.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you for telling me then that neither Mr.
Meehan nor Mr. Barrett are going to be here this morning.
Mr. Shays. Nor Ms. Roukema as well.
Mr. Kolbe. We didn't have Ms. Roukema on the list today
anyhow.
I appreciate the testimony. Do you have their statements as
well?
Mr. Shays. I think Marty Meehan was submitted.
Mr. Kolbe. We already have the statements.
Mr. Shays. Are you all set?
Mr. Kolbe. Yes, we are. I appreciate you coming and
testifying on this issue. As you know, we have had the FEC
before us and have had some discussion with them about their
workload and about how they are allocating their resources. I
very much appreciate the issues that you have raised, and I
quite agree that given what has happened in this last election,
there is certainly going to be a real need to give adequate
resources to the FEC to cover all the investigations.
Mr. Shays. Can I make one final point?
Mr. Kolbe. Yes, of course.
Mr. Shays. This wasn't my idea, but I would like to adopt
it as my idea. It was pointed out by one commentator, he said,
let me get it straight, Congress. You don't fully fund the FEC,
and people basically skirt the law and break the law, and then
you spend $10 million to investigate why people have broken the
law. Wouldn't it be better to put the money up front, enforce
the law, than to have to come after the fact, spend the same
amount of money to investigate why people didn't follow the
law? And I think that commentator is right on target.
Mr. Kolbe. I appreciate that thought and that testimony.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Shays.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Shays follows:]

[Pages 142 - 144--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE RELATED MATTERS

WITNESS

ROBERT F. REITER, ANALYTICAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Mr. Kolbe. Maxine Waters is not here. Ms. Maloney is not
here yet.
Let me ask--we are well ahead of schedule here, which is
very unusual in congressional testimony--if we have Mr. Reiter,
Robert Reiter, from Customs here?
Mr. Reiter.
Mr. Reiter. Good morning.
Mr. Kolbe. Good morning.
Mr. Reiter. I need to correct you slightly. I am not with
Customs. I am here to talk about----
Mr. Kolbe. I am sorry. Not with Customs. I was looking
under my topic, talking about an issue on Customs.
Mr. Reiter. I don't want to give anybody the wrong idea.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. This is the day for outside
witnesses. I knew you were not with Customs.
Mr. Reiter. Thank you.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. You are with Analytical Systems
Engineering Corporation.
Mr. Reiter. Yes, thank you.
I would like to talk about cost-effectiveness analyses for
nonintrusive inspection systems at ports of entry. The use of
high-technology systems for detecting illegal drugs, explosives
and other contraband is necessary to effectively pursue the
goal of keeping these materials out of the United States.
However, these systems are expensive to buy, maintain and
operate. Therefore, intelligent acquisition decisions must
include assessments of the cost-effectiveness of such systems.
Cost-effectiveness in this situation does not mean should we
buy any or should we buy none, but rather which are the most
effective at finding illegal substances?
There was a recent study completed by ONDCP, I think was
reported to this subcommittee, that evaluated just such cost-
effectiveness issues. To summarize their results, for ports,
seaports, they recommended automated targeting systems as the
highest priority; high-energy imaging X-rays as the next
priority; and Pulse Fast Neutron Analysis as their third
priority, assuming that technology can ever reach a fielding
point.
For border crossings, they recommended automated targeting
systems, high-energy X-ray, low-energy X-ray and Pulse Fast
Neutron Analysis. However, the recommendations of ONDCP have
only partly been followed. An automated targeting system
program is in progress, and there is an initial deployment at
Long Beach, I believe it is. And several low-energy X-ray
systems have been deployed; however, no high-energy X-ray
systems have been deployed.
High-energy imaging X-ray systems have been tested by the
United States Government and found to be extremely effective in
detection of illegal substances, with a rate of over 92 percent
correct. They are currently in use in seven locations overseas,
indicating, I believe, acceptance by a number of Customs
services and governments as being effective.
The criticisms of high-energy systems have been in the
past, number one, they are too expensive; number two, they take
up too much space; and, number three, they are too dangerous to
use.
Technology has advanced. Engineering designs have changed.
As a result, the costs have been significantly reduced. The
amount of land required has been significantly reduced, and I
personally disagree that they were never too safe--too unsafe
to use.
Using the results from the ONDCP study, based on tests done
at Otay Mesa, California, using low-energy X-ray, and Tacoma,
using high-energy X-ray, I have done a quick cost-effectiveness
analysis for you using the data that is in that report, looking
at a 2-, 3-, 5- and 7-year period of operation, and
specifically looking at finding drugs.
The results of this analysis are that at the 3-year period,
the high-energy imaging X-ray effectiveness offsets the
increased initial acquisition costs and operations costs, and
by the 7-year period they are more than--they are six times as
effective.
In spite of this data, there are questions that still
remain that continually are asked: What is the true cost and
effectiveness of these kinds of systems? How do we establish a
nonbiased way of evaluating these systems? What are the
detailed specific expective results in drug reduction and cost
of savings associated with the drug reductions? And can high-
energy systems be as effective at border crossings as they can
at ports?
While we are debating this in the United States, systems
have been deployed at ports, border crossings, rail lines and
airports, in England, France, Germany, China and Qatar. High-
energy systems are also being considered in Saudia Arabia, Abu
Dhabi, Dubai, Malaysia, South Africa and South Korea. The only
known low-energy X-ray site outside of the United States is a
border crossing in Abu Dhabi.
Based on this data, collected and evaluated by the United
States Government, high-energy X-ray systems are a cost-
effective and highly efficient method of detecting illegal
drugs into the United States. Why haven't they been implemented
and integrated into our drug-fighting strategy?
In order to resolve these issues and make recommendations
based on cost-effectiveness, I would like to ask or suggest
that a panel or group be chartered to review completed tests
and analyses, to evaluate current claims, and to recommend
cost-effective solutions to this subcommittee for the
nondestructive inspection of containers, trucks, cars,
etcetera, into the United States for detecting illegal substances.
I also believe this panel should be representative of the
cross-section of technologies and include industry as well as
the United States Government.
One final recommendation I would like to make is that it
not be under the specific control of the United States Customs
Service.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reiter follows:]

[Pages 147 - 149--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Reiter, thank you very much. We were just 2
weeks ago on the border at Otay Mesa and also over in Nogales
where they are testing a gamma ray, portable gamma ray unit,
which would--that would also be low-energy, I believe; is that
right?
Mr. Reiter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kolbe. And we are certainly very impressed with what we
are seeing. But this subcommittee has agreed with you in urging
the Customs to move faster in their deployment--development and
deployment of the high-energy systems. We agree with you that
they are--they are safe, that they certainly have--that they
are very effective. I think that is the bottom line. They
really work. They are very, very effective.
So your testimony will be very helpful to us, and we will
take that under advisement as to how we will proceed to get our
Federal agencies, Customs in particular, to move faster in this
field.
Mr. Reiter. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much.
We are going to go ahead here and proceed. I am trying to
get somebody to sit in the chair for me. I have a group that I
need to meet with for just a couple of moments. Since we are
running a little ahead, we will have a recess at the
appropriate moment, but they are not here yet.
----------

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RELATED MATTERS

WITNESSES

BOB TOBIAS, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
JIM CUNNINGHAM, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
DAVID SCHLEIN, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. Kolbe. Bob Tobias is here with National Treasury
Employees Union.
Bob, we will take you at this time. Thank you.
Mr. Tobias. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
Mr. Kolbe. Good morning.
Mr. Tobias. We really appreciate the opportunity to talk
about the Internal Revenue Service and the Customs Service
appropriations. These two agencies are key to this country's
financial well-being.
First, the IRS, we believe the President's proposal is a
bare bones proposal. It does not provide the funds to
significantly enhance the IRS's ability to provide the level of
customer service that I believe is needed. A planned 60 percent
level of access for 1998 is not enough.
The compliant American taxpayer deserves a better than 6 in
10 chance to reach the IRS to have a question answered.
Compliant American taxpayers deserve a faster refund than 40
days when they file a paper return. More funds solve both of
these problems.
The compliant American taxpayers also deserve a far more
vigorous compliance effort by the IRS. The people who earn
wages are 95 percent compliant. 75 percent of the taxpayers
take the standard deduction. These people are compliant. They
pay their taxes timely, and they have a reasonable expectation
that those who don't pay their taxes will be made to pay. That
belief is at the heart of our voluntary tax-compliant system.
Yet we have a tax compliance gap, which was last calculated
in 1992 at $129 billion, $22 billion more than the deficit of
$107 billion last year.
The largest group of noncompliant taxpayers are sole
proprietors, 29.2 billion; and the next largest are large
corporations, 23.7 billion.
Congress conducted an experiment in 1995 which proved IRS
could reduce the noncompliant population and increase revenue
for deficit reduction. Congress appropriated the revenue. The
IRS increased its enforcement efforts. The IRS promised 300
million marginal return as a result of its first-year efforts,
but actually returned over 800 million.
Those who pay their taxes deserve to have those who don't
pay pursued. And, Mr. Chairman, NTEU believes that Congress is
responsible for allocating sufficient funds to enable the IRS
to do the job compliant taxpayers expect and deserve.
We also urge, Mr. Chairman, that the IRS be directed to
stop its proposed reduction in force which will have a very bad
impact on taxpayers.
For example, the IRS imposes liens on taxpayer property,
and they will not be released as timely. Interest cost to
taxpayers will be increased because cases will not be processed
as timely. Taxpayers will not receive as timely a notification
that their case is closed, making them a target for continued
unwarranted notices of deficiencies. There will be
significantly less experienced problem resolution personnel.
There will be fewer people performing taxpayer outreach
efforts, and less assistance will be provided to those who want
to file their returns electronically.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, based on the report IRS
submitted to you, they plan to perform the work of 2,371
experienced employees with 1,312 inexperienced employees, and
no plan exists today concerning how the work will be
accomplished with these fewer employees.
The IRS plan, if allowed to be implemented, will harm the
credibility of the IRS with those it needs most: compliant
taxpayers and those seeking to be compliant. We urge that the
proposed RIF be cancelled and that the $97 million IRS has not
spent in fiscal year 1997, because of the cancelled TSM program
and a cancelled RIF among IRS personnel, be reprogrammed to
front-line taxpayer services and enforcement work.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly mention the
U.S. Customs Service. The Customs Service is the first line of
defense with respect to drug interdiction and ensuring
compliance with U.S. trade laws. The Customs Service is seizing
more drugs, discovering more discrepancies in claimed value of
goods coming into the United States than ever before. The
Customs Service is doing a terrific job byany measure, yet
those who perform the work in the Customs Service, inspectors and
canine enforcement officers, do not have law enforcement status. They
carry weapons, effect arrests, detain prisoners, get shot at, yet they
are not classified as law enforcement officers. We believe, Mr.
Chairman, that this injustice should be changed.
Thank you for allowing me to testify, and I will be very
pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tobias follows:]

[Pages 153 - 168--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Tobias. I appreciate
particularly the statement in your submitted testimony where
you pledge your support to this subcommittee to work with us to
try to bring about a reorganization of the IRS that will work
to benefit both the taxpayer, as well as the compliant
taxpayer, and get after the noncompliant taxpayer, and we
certainly appreciate the support that you have given us.
We have been talking, as you know, with the IRS about the
reduction in force, and this is one of the issues that this
subcommittee has dealt with as to how much more effort we are
going to put into customer service and how we can reallocate
these resources. So I think your testimony as a front-line--
representing the front-line workers is very important and very
helpful to us, and we appreciate it.
Mr. Tobias. Thank you.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Tobias.
---------- --
--------

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

WITNESS

HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Kolbe. We will go back now and take the Honorable
Maxine Waters from California. Maxine.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and Members, I really do appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today. I have
written testimony that if, in fact, I can submit it, I will do
that.
Mr. Kolbe. Yes.
Ms. Waters. But let me just try and communicate to you the
very real concern of the Congressional Black Caucus. We have
made our number one priority the eradication of drugs in our
society, and we are working very closely with our drug czar and
with the White House to support efforts to really get at
dealing with the drug problem.
The budget that you must consider for them, for the Office
of National Drug Control Policy, is a budget that basically
must support the staff. In addition to that, we are interested
in the media campaign and the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas program. Now, in two of those areas, I think the staff in
the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, they are not
really asking for increases, but they are asking to be able to
maintain their effort.
The increase really does come with the media effort. The
idea that we focus a lot of attention through the print and
electronic media directed at our young people to, basically,
try and send home the message that drugs are dangerous and that
they cannot be involved in drugs is a very important effort
that must be made.
They are proposing, I believe, about $175 million, and it
is based on a careful reading of the experience of advertisers
which indicates that to advance a specific message, a media
campaign must provide a minimum of four exposures per week,
reaching 90 percent of the target audience.
We believe that using the right kind of consultants,
putting together the right kind of program and the right
images, be it athletes, entertainers, CEOs, it does not matter,
if they put together the right message, we believe that it can
be very, very effective in getting at the drug problem that
confronts this Nation, and particularly getting at the problem
of our young people, who increasingly appear to be involved in
drugs.
So we are here, basically, to send the message that the
Congressional Black Caucus believes that it is very important
to fund the drug czar and the efforts that are identified in
the President's budget, and that we will be supporting these
efforts each step of the way and working with the White House
and others in a bipartisan effort to try and get something
done.
[The prepared statement of Congresswoman Waters follows:]

[Pages 171 - 173--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mrs. Waters. I really
appreciate your testimony. I couldn't agree more with you about
the need to really tackle the drug problem. No group in our
society is more devastated than blacks and other minorities in
the inner cities, by drugs and what they have done to our
society. And we really, as a Nation, need to face up to this
and do something about it. And I am really appreciative that
the Black Caucus has decided to tackle this as a number one
issue.
We have been talking obviously with ONDCP, as well as the
other agencies that come under our jurisdiction that have
responsibility in this area, about how we can best allocate the
resources, and we have had discussions with General McCaffrey
about the advertising campaign that is being proposed.
We want to make sure it is done and done in a thoughtful
way and in a way that will really have an impact, and I am sure
that you would agree with that.
Ms. Waters. I certainly do, and what I hope is that the
drug czar will allow for a lot of input from the Members and
others who have ideas. We want to make sure that we don't
fritter away dollars, but the dollars are targeted, they are
well spent, with the right kind of images that will connect.
And I think we all have a responsibility to just get in there
and work with them and make sure that they spend these dollars
in the most cost-effective way.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you. I quite agree.
Ms. Waters. You are welcome.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much for testifying, Mrs. Waters.
Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney is not here, and we are still now 20 minutes
ahead of schedule, so I don't feel badly about taking a couple
of minutes to recess here to meet with a group that I need to
just say hello to for a few minutes. We will resume in about 5
or 10 minutes here. Thank you.
[Brief recess.]
----------

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

WITNESS

JIM CUNNINGHAM, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Kolbe. The subcommittee will resume here. Is Mr. Jim
Cunningham here? Mr. Cunningham of the National Federation of
Federal Employees.
Go ahead, please.
Mr. Cunningham. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Jim
Cunningham, President of the National Federation of Federal
Employees. On behalf of the 150,000 Federal employees
represented by NFFE, I am pleased to be here with you this
morning to present our views on Federal employee pay and the
current state of affairs at the General Services
Administration.
The President's fiscal year 1998 budget contains only a 2.8
percent pay adjustment for Federal employees. This is
unacceptable to the members of NFFE. This minimal adjustment is
far short of the 6.6 percent pay adjustment that employees
should be receiving under the provisions of the 1990 Federal
Employees Pay Comparability Act, FEPCA.
Not only has the failure of the administration and Congress
to provide the full pay adjustments called for by FEPCA
inflicted severe financial hardship on Federal employees, but
by consistently underfunding the raises mandated by FEPCA, the
administration and Congress are endangering the future ability
of the Federal Government to provide citizens with high-quality
service and assistance they have come to expect.
NFFE maintains that Federal employees should receive fully
funded locality pay raises and national comparability
increases. Over the past 14 years, Federal employees have
shouldered a disproportionate share of the cost of deficit
reduction. Through cuts in Federal pay and benefits, the
Federal work force has contributed more than $200 billion to
deficit reduction since 1981.
NFFE is aware that in order to fund full pay raises for
Federal employees, Congress is required to find offsetting cuts
for these expenditures. NFFE asserts that the solution to the
dual concerns of Federal pay comparability and deficit
reduction lies in reducing the level of contracting out.
At a time when the structure and size of the Federal work
force is being reformed, a similar reform effort should be
aimed at Federal contracting out practices. Specifically, NFFE
urges this subcommittee to adopt the provisions of H.R. 886,
which would cut $5.7 billion from agency service contracting
funds and make the money available for pay raises that are due
Federal employees in 1998.
NFFE believes that the adoption of H.R. 886 provisions
would correct the injustices of requiring Federal workers to
give up part of their statutory pay increases, while contract
employees, who are paid from the same coffers, remain
untouched.
I would like to address the situation at the General
Services Administration. Currently, the GSA is attempting to
contract out many of its functions to the private sector. GSA
is taking this action despite numerous studies that have
clearly shown that the current employees can perform their
duties at a lower cost than private sector contractors. For
example, GSA was unable to implement a pilot project utilizing
private sector leasing contractors in Philadelphia because it
found the cost for performing identical functions increased
significantly under the private sector contractors.
In light of this evidence, NFFE is concerned that this
contracting out effort is not being driven by a desire to lower
GSA cost, but rather by the desire of the administration to cut
Federal jobs in order to meet their arbitrary downsizing goals.
In fact, the chart included in my written testimony from GSA's
fiscal year 1998 budget clearly shows that over the last 5
years, GSA's budget has dramatically increased, while at the
same time, its FTE level has plummeted.
Specifically, GSA's fiscal year 1998 budget calls for a
record low number of 14,403 FTEs, and this is a decline of
5,845 FTEs or a 28.9 percent decrease since fiscal year 1993.
Obviously, if the costs are increasing while the work force is
declining, budgetary citings are not driving the substantial
staff reductions. In fact, according to NFFE's GSA counsel, GSA
is about to award a contract that is intended to augment this
existing staff while it continues to encourage its Federal
employee work force to accept separation incentives.
Ironically, GSA justifies this course of action by stating that
its self-imposed hiring freeze prevents it from hiring
additional workers.
In light of this information, NFFE urges the subcommittee
to carefully examine GSA's operation and contracting out
proposals. The Congress and taxpayers need to be sure that the
administration is pursuing a rational, cost-effective
reorganization plan, and not haphazardly slashing Federal jobs
and opening the door for private sector contractors to
overcharge the American public in a frenzied effort to meet
downsizing targets.
Before I conclude, I would like to address one final item.
Recently, NFFE's GSA counsel learned that GSA management had
unilaterally suspended the labor management partnership that
had been in place between NFFE and GSA since October 15, 1993.
As disturbing as that decision was, even as disturbing to NFFE
was the manner in which our GSA counsel learned of this
decision. Our locals were not notified of this decision
directly by GSA management, but, rather, they had to find out
about it from a letter GSA sent to Senator Mikulski.
In fact, the relationship between NFFE and GSA has
deteriorated almost to the point of complete communications
breakdown. There is no union involvement or input in any
decisions regarding reform of GSA business practices and
adequate notification of proposed personnel moves and
reassignments and no respect for the statutory rights of GSA
employee unions.
In spite of this breakdown, NFFE's GSA counsel remains
willing to work with GSA management in an effort to reform GSA
operations. However, the relationships will only function if
GSA management is open and honest with its partners.
NFFE urges the subcommittee to take whatever action it can
to help reestablish the partnership agreement and end the
contracting out practices.
I thank you very much for this opportunity to give my
testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham. We
appreciate the testimony of your organization. We will
certainly be taking that into consideration here. Thank you.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:]

[Pages 177 - 191--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

WITNESS

DAVID SCHLEIN, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. Kolbe. David Schlein, AFG. Please go ahead.
Mr. Schlein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David
Schlein. I am the national Vice President with the American
Federation of Government Employees, which represents 700,000
Federal and D.C. Government workers. I appreciate this
opportunity to share our views with the subcommittee, and we
look forward to establishing a cordial and productive
relationship with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you.
Mr. Schlein. I will address two topics today, Federal
Employee Union busting and fair compensation for government
workers. H.R. 986, introduced recently, would effectively
outlaw Federal employee unions at all agencies, and deprive the
working and middle-class Americans who make up the Federal work
force of effective representation in their offices and plants.
Although this bill has been referred to the Government
Reform and Oversight Committee, I raise this issue here because
the bill is an outgrowth of last year's unsuccessful effort to
use the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to bust Federal employee
unions and the Social Security Administration and the Health
Care Financing Administration, an effort which could be mounted
again this year.
AFG strongly opposes this legislation, and we would
naturally oppose any amendments to the Treasury, Postal
appropriations bill, which resembles H.R. 986.
Official time is used by Federal employee union
representatives to fulfill statutory obligations to members and
nonmembers alike. That is, Federal employees, who arealso union
representatives, can use official time to engage in negotiations and
representation while on duty status; that is, on the clock. H.R. 986
would bust Federal employee unions by so greatly restricting the use of
official time as to all but eliminate it.
This actually is a complicated issue, Mr. Chairman, one not
easily reduced to tiny sound bites. By law, representatives of
Federal employee unions can use official time only for those
activities which are reasonable, necessary, and in the public
interest, such as negotiating collective bargaining agreements,
handling employee grievances, conducting and receiving
training, and working with management to improve the delivery
of services. However, any activities performed by an employee
relating to the internal business of the labor organization
must be performed while in a nonduty status. This includes
solicitation of membership, elections of officers and
collection of dues. Contrary to much misinformation that is
circulating, Federal employee representatives are also
forbidden to use official time for any partisan political
activities.
Official time is necessary because Federal employee unions
are required to represent all employees in their bargaining
units, even those who don't pay dues. Federal employee unions
have been forbidden to charge fees for the services they are
legally obligated to provide to nonmembers.
In exchange for being saddled with these additional
responsibilities, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 allowed
Federal employee unions to bargain with agencies over official
time. Of course, official time is not restricted to the Federal
sector. Many private sector companies pay their employees
official time for official union activities during the work
day, including General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Inland Steel and
Armco Steel. Official time is also used by State and local
levels of government.
Official time is used to make the delivery of services to
the American people more effective, more efficient, and more
reliable. Emulating the example of enlightened private sector
firms like Saturn, Corning Glass and Harley Davidson, the
President issued an executive order in 1993 that established a
cooperative relationship between managers and rank and file
Federal employees, often referred to as partnerships.
Managers can now finally take into account the expertise
and experience of those resourceful men and women working on
the front lines of the Federal Government when making important
workplace decisions. Partnerships between labor and management
are a practical, bottom-line approach to the public's demand
for better, more effective, more efficient and less expensive
government.
This embryonic attempt at reinventing the government
through partnership would be nipped in the bud if anti-official
time legislation is passed.
Official time is also used to improve labor management
relationships and preclude the need for costly unnecessary
litigation.
Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Schlein, let me interrupt you. You are on
the top of page 4 of an 18-page statement here.
Mr. Schlein. I have it summarized here.
Mr. Kolbe. Well, you have been going through it word by
word so far, and we are going to have to wrap it up in about 2
minutes.
Mr. Schlein. Thank you. Finally, official time is used to
ensure the effective representation of Federal employees and
their offices and plants. Union representatives also use
official time to ensure that members and nonmembers alike are
effectively represented in the workplace, whether it is
representing a few of the employees in their bargaining units,
even those who don't pay dues, through the grievance process,
are all of the employees, again, even those who don't pay dues,
through the collective bargaining process. The loss of official
time would smash and bash Federal employees unions with a one-
two punch.
Again, AFG urges the members of the subcommittee to oppose
any legislation that would eliminate official time in all
Federal agencies, as H.R. 986 does. Needless to say, Mr.
Chairman, this will be a most important issue for AFG
throughout the 105th Congress.
I would now like to turn your attention to Federal pay.
Under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, all general
schedule Federal employees should receive a 2.8 percent raise
based on documented increases and the cost of labor nationwide
as determined by the Employment Cost Index.
The President's fiscal year 1998 budget is consistent in
that it provides for a 2.8 percent nationwide adjustment. A
further salary increase is due to Federal employees because of
measured gaps between Federal and non-Federal pay on a local
basis. For 1998, the law authorizes three-fifths or 60 percent
of the target gap, which would require a 14.3 percent average
locality increase. However, the fiscal year 1998 budget
proposes no locality raises.
Following passage of FEPCA in 1990, many thought that the
pay increases due Federal white collar workers would no longer
be cut back or held up by the President and/or the Congress.
After all, a careful, painstaking and bipartisan reform of the
pay system, 2 years in the making, has been accomplished by the
Democratic-controlled Congress. Under FEPCA, the pay rates
would be based on comparability with those found in the private
sector, and raises would consist of both nationwide and
locality components.
The result of the past few years of low balling on Federal
pay increases is that the effort to close the pay gap with a
non-Federal economy is lagging.
Mr. Kolbe. We have gone almost twice the normal time. The
full statement will be placed in the record, and if you would
like to make a closing, I don't want to cut you off in the
middle of a sentence.
Mr. Schlein. Well, basically, as you know, we believe FEPCA
is very important to the future of the Federal service, and we
hope that your committee will look at providing the full pay
raises in the full amount under FEPCA. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kolbe. We appreciate your comments with regard to the
pay raises, also with regard to H.R. 986. Let me just say that
whatever the personal views of this Member or other Members
have been, that has not been a part of our appropriations bill
in the past, and I have no reason to think any of that would be
in our appropriation bill this time.
Mr. Schlein. Great.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schlein follows:]

[Pages 195 - 218--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION RELATED MATTERS

WITNESSES

BERNARD H. BERNE, M.D., PH.D.
WILLIAM BURKE, INTERNATIONAL WINDOW FILM ASSOCIATION

Mr. Kolbe. We are going to turn to some people talking
about General Services Administration. Dr. Berne.
Dr. Berne. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kolbe. Good morning.
Dr. Berne. I am a resident of Arlington, Virginia. I serve
the Food and Drug Administration as a medical officer who
reviews medical device approval applications. I am testifying
as a private individual. I am not on official time.
GSA is planning to consolidate most of the FDA at the
former White Oak Naval Surface Warfare Center in Montgomery
County, Maryland. This is a very poor location for a Federal
headquarters facility. This location will cause me and other
FDA employees a hardship. Metrorail is 3 miles away. Buses run
infrequently to the site. The nearby beltway and other roads
are already congested. This is one mile outside the beltway.
FDA and GSA are planning a country club in the White Oaks
affluent suburbs. FDA's 130-acre campus will have a visitors'
center and other amenities. Adjacent Federal property will
contain a public golf course and a woodland. Congress must stop
this extravaganza.
The 104th Congress wisely rescinded funding for the
Montgomery County phase of the FDA consolidation. There are no
funds available to proceed with the project at this time,
except for those that GSA has diverted from other projects.
I work in an excellent building, which is only about 10
years old. I see no reason to build an expensive new facility
when Congress is trying to balance the budget. Some FDA units
occupy older buildings. However, most of these are already
moving to a new facility in College Park, Maryland.
The administration has not requested any funding for the
consolidation in the fiscal year 1998 budget. In addition, the
project presently lacks an approved prospectus. President Jimmy
Carter's Executive Order 12072 requires Federal facilities and
the Federal use of space in urban areas to serve to strengthen
the Nation's cities and make them attractive places to live and
work. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to
economize on their use of space. FDA's 130-acre campus does not
economize on the use of space.
Last year, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13006,
which states, ``The administration reaffirms the commitment set
forth in Executive Order 12072 to strengthen our Nation's
cities by encouraging the location of Federal facilities in our
central cities.'' White Oak is not in any city, and it is
certainly not in any central city. It is certainly not in
Washington, D.C.
Congress should not fund projects that violate Executive
Orders. The Southeast Federal Center in downtown Washington,
D.C., is now available for a major Federal headquarters
facility. Adjacent to it is the Metro station, and it is close
to the Capitol building. The Southeast Federal Center is ideal
for FDA's facility. You may have seen this discussed in
yesterday's Washington Post in the Business Weekly.
Unlike affluent White Oak, southeast D.C. urgently needs
redevelopment. The consolidation at Southeast Federal Center
could revitalize a decaying neighborhood that is not far from
the Capitol building, Maryland, and Virginia. The consolidation
can help President Clinton's plan to revitalize D.C's failing
economy. Part of Clinton's plan is that federal workers should
not be leaving the District of Columbia. The entire FDA
consolidation, which is in several places, is actually removing
1,000 workers from the District of Columbia. The Southeast
Federal Center does not have 130 acres and a nearby golf
course. However, the FDA does not need 130 acres and a golf
course. It can occupy high-rise buildings on a smaller site.
Two Executive Orders require GSA and FDA to give the
Southeast Federal Center preference over the White Oak site.
However, because of past actions by conference committees on
appropriations, GSA and FDA refuse to evaluate the Southeast
Federal Center and continue to look at White Oak. I therefore
ask your committee to take the following four actions:
Number one, please do not appropriate any funds to support
an FDA consolidation at White Oak. These issues generally start
in the Senate, from the Maryland delegation. Please appropriate
$5 million for a GSA study of a major FDA consolidation in the
District of Columbia, with an initial focus on the Southeast
Federal Center. I am just asking for $5 million so they will
change their direction. That is the main purpose of this and
the only purpose. I don't want it built at this time until we
balance the budget.
Please ask GSA to appraise the value of the White Oak site.
A sale of the site can help fund an FDA consolidation
elsewhere. It would also support the Navy Base Closure Act,
which was really designed to close bases and save the
government money, not to convert them to something else which
is not really appropriate on that site. It was a Navy base,
which required weapons facilities and large open spaces, but
this doesn't.
Please do not appropriate any funds to prepare or acquire
any site for any part of the FDA consolidation until a
prospectus for the entire consolidation is approved in
accordance with the provisions of the Public Buildings Act of
1959. This involves the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. This project has no prospectus, and, in the past, it
was approved without a prospectus. But with a provision put in
the law, you didn't need a prospectus. The rescission, however,
removed that. That was one of the biggest things about the
rescission, that it took away the projects that didn't have
prospectuses. This has no prospectus. They shouldn't be
preparing to build on anything that isn't in the District.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Berne follows:]

[Pages 221 - --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Dr. Berne. We appreciate
your testimony. As you probably know, this year's budget does
not have any request for anything to consolidate at White Oak
Naval.
Dr. Berne. It comes out of the Senate, generally.
Mr. Kolbe. I understand that. We certainly appreciate you
alerting us to that.
----------

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

WITNESS

WILLIAM BURKE, THE INTERNATIONAL WINDOW FILM ASSOCIATION

We will go to William Burke of the International Window
Film Association. Go ahead, please.
Mr. Burke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
present testimony on behalf of the International Window Film
Association pertaining to the Treasury, Postal Subcommittee
consideration for the fiscal year 1998 General Services
Administration budget.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Burke, and I am an active
member of the AIMCAL Window Film Committee and former Executive
Director of the International Window Film Association, the
IWFA. The IWFA, headquartered in Phoenix, consists of more than
1,500 members internationally, including manufacturers,
distributors, professional dealers of security window film in
39 countries. Over 25,000 individuals are employed actively in
the U.S. in this industry. It is essentially all mom-and-pop
businesses, we might add.
The Association acts as a cohesive voice for the window
film industry and does not represent one brand of product, but
offers training, support, maintains industry ethics and
standards, encourages research and development, and functions
as a conduit for information to consumers and those who have
requirements.
Over the past two decades, the security window film
industry has interacted with various government agencies,
including USIA, FEMA, the DEA, FBI, all American embassies
abroad. These relationships have generated a wealth of accurate
scientific evidence which demonstrates the effectiveness of
window film for security purposes.
I would like to briefly give you the historical background
and the issue that I would like to bring to your attention
today. Immediately following the bombing that occurred at the
Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, President Clinton
issued a memorandum directing the GSA to upgrade all Federal
facilities with minimum security standards that were outlined
in a report recently completed by the Department of Justice
entitled, ``Vulnerability of Federal Facilities.''
The report noted one standard was the installation of
security window film. Post Oklahoma City, a number of occupant
agencies of GSA properties had funding in place to upgrade the
building security, including a number of day care centers
located inside these facilities.
Due to the GSA's desire to conduct further performance
testing, funding lapsed and the proper protection was not
provided. As we have stated before, we have made every effort
to work with GSA and will continue to do so in order to develop
the appropriate protection for glass on government buildings.
Because we represent the industry, as opposed to
onemanufacturer, the window film industry has gathered information from
a variety of sources globally and has the ability to provide access to
a variety of experts on the testing and studies that have been
conducted on security window film in the past.
One year after the President issued his memorandum on
security upgrades, your subcommittee and your companion
subcommittee in the Senate stepped in and included language in
the fiscal year 1997 appropriation report directing GSA to
develop a budget and a plan to protect government employees
with the installation of security film. The language, as you
know, instructed the GSA to submit this plan, along with the
President's fiscal year 1998 budget submission. This is still
pending.
Mr. Chairman, there have been several studies conducted by
the State Department, Department of Justice, Corps of
Engineers, FBI, the Department of Navy, all recommending the
use of window film as a cost-efficient and viable security
device that saves lives.
The most recent study was conducted in the wake of the
Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in which 19 American
servicemen were killed, and 500 others injured. The study
conducted by the Department of Defense entitled, ``The Downing
Report,'' notes that the security experts had recommended 5
months before the bombing that the apartments at the Khobar
Towers be coated with security window film, what they referred
to as Mylar coating, which is just a brand of base film, to
minimize the shattering that occurs from blasts. This was never
done, and it was concluded that blast shards was the major
factor in 12 of the 19 deaths.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I hope you and the members of
the subcommittee will assist in expediting the upgrade of
security of buildings that house government employees as
directed by Congress and the administration.
President Clinton issued his memorandum directing GSA to
begin this activity in June of 1995. We believe that these
minimum security upgrades should be adhered to immediately to
protect the lives of government employees. I urge you to help
expedite the GSA's development of the budget and the plan for
security film as outlined in your fiscal year 1997
appropriations report. Further, I urge Congress to begin to
provide funding for this year for this very important safety
measure.
Thank you very much for providing me with this time, and if
there is anything I can answer, I would be delighted to do so,
sir.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Burke. I think you
have given us some very interesting testimony on an issue which
I was not aware of before, so I appreciate you bringing it to
our attention. It is certainly one of the things we want to
talk to GSA about, as well as the other agencies.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burke follows:]

[Pages 278 - 280--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE RELATED MATTERS

WITNESS

ROBERT BYRNE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS

Mr. Kolbe. Our next individual is Mr. Robert Byrne, AARP,
Tax Counseling for the Elderly.
Mr. Byrne. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the
American Association of Retired Persons, thank you for this
opportunity to testify concerning appropriations next year for
tax counseling for the elderly, otherwise known as the TCE
program.
My name is Robert Byrne, and I am a volunteer Congressional
District Coordinator in AARP's Voter Education Program. The
Association supports the administration's proposal to freeze
TCE's appropriation next year at its current level of $3.7
million. The Association deeply appreciates the subcommittee's
continued support of tax counseling for the elderly, which is
targeted to low and moderate income older Americans. This cost-
effective program improves taxpayer compliance measurably for
the Internal Revenue Service by helping to insure that more tax
returns are prepared completely and accurately.
The agency reports that many taxpayers with incomes below
the minimal required level needlessly file tax returns each
year. This results in unnecessary costs to both the taxpayer
and the Federal Government. TCE helps prevent such occurrences.
TCE has enabled the IRS to assist older minorities more
effectively, as well as hard-to-serve taxpayers, such as the
rural elderly and shut-ins, especially those residing in
nursing homes or senior citizen housing.
In 1996, the program offered assistance in 25 languages,
including American sign language. The AARP Foundation, a
separate 501(c)(3) corporation, operates the Tax Aid Program,
which is by far the largest of the TCE programs. The value of
TCE has been amply demonstrated over the years and is reflected
in growing demands for assistance.
A report issued 4 years ago by the General Accounting
Office indicates that in 1992, TCE accounted for the
preparation of more than four times the number of returns
prepared at IRS walk-in sites. More than 33,000 volunteers are
involved in TCE services, at approximately 11,000 sites across
the country. I would also like to point out that in 1996,
according to IRS records, a 95 percent mathematical accuracy
rate was reported.
While over 1.6 million people receive tax counseling
annually, and we do not have complete data for the current tax
season, but we expect TCE to continue to grow in the future.
There are several reasons why this is likely to happen.
First, the elderly population is increasing. Secondly, the
complexities of our Tax Code cause many older taxpayers
particular problems in computing their tax obligations.
Moreover, many older citizens are not aware of the changes made
in our tax laws over the past few years. Third, the IRShas
increasingly turned to TCE to provide assistance, in large part because
budgetary constraints have stretched the ability of the agency to
respond directly to numerous public inquiries. Volunteers are
contributing over 2.8 million hours annually in direct public service
to older taxpayers.
When Commissioner Richardson testified before the
subcommittee last month, Mr. Chairman, she reported tax
counseling for the elderly along with a similar initiative, and
I am quoting, ``Increased taxpayer assistance by giving
taxpayers the opportunity to have direct contact at almost
20,000 sites with volunteers trained by IRS personnel. Last
year, over 80,000 volunteers served almost 3.5 million
taxpayers through both of these programs''.
TCE volunteers are dedicated to the program, and are
committed to helping others. The people they assist would
otherwise be forced to pay a professional consultant to prepare
their tax returns, which could result in an exorbitant cost for
anyone living on the low or moderate income.
Tax counseling for the elderly will continue to participate
in successful IRS efforts, such as the reduced unnecessary
filing initiative. In 1996, 1.8 million taxpayers were notified
by the agency they may not have to file a Federal return.
Three-fourths of the letters went to taxpayers who were at
least 61 years old. Many of these older individuals
subsequently enlisted the help of a TCE volunteer in order to
confirm they did not need to file a return that year.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on funding
next year for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Byrne follows:]

[Pages 283 - 290--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Byrne. Thank you for
the testimony of the AARP on this program. It is certainly a
worthwhile program, as you pointed out, and it helps us very
much with tax compliance and we certainly appreciate talking
about it.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you.
----------

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD RELATED MATTERS

WITNESS

JOHN F. MARKUNS, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

Mr. Kolbe. Judge John Markuns, Administrative Judge John
Markuns, on behalf of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Mr.
Markuns, please go ahead.
Mr. Markuns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kolbe. Again, let me just remind those who may have
come in after the time I said this, full statements will be
placed in the record so we can keep on track and get everybody
in that has come here to testify today. Keep your testimony to
5 minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Markuns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John
Markuns. I am Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board
Association's Special Committee on Legislation. I am here
representing judges that are represented by that Association,
and, again, thank you very much for the opportunity to present
our views before the subcommittee. We do have a written
statement for the record and we ask that you please accept it.
Mr. Kolbe. It will be placed in the record.
Mr. Markuns. Thank you. Just to provide you with some brief
background regarding our presence here today, we were here last
year before Chairman Lightfoot, regarding a problem that has
developed since 1993 at MSPB, which is an agency which hears
and decides employee appeals of adverse actions taken against
Federal employees.
We also hear a wide variety of other employment-related
matters. We came before the subcommittee last year because we
were facing a growing backlog of cases, and mostly as a result
of losing a large number of experienced judges to other
agencies. The reason we lost those judges was because a pay
disparity had developed between our class of judges and judges
in our agencies, particularly, administrative law judges and
the Social Security Administration.
That presented a situation where judges are now essentially
performing triage on their case loads. We are trying to keep up
with the cases that we have in, and we are finding ourselves
increasingly unable to do so. This year, we come before you and
our backlog has increased by some 40 percent, and essentially,
it is like at this point, we suggest you think of it as a rock
hitting the pond, and the ripples are now starting to spread
throughout the Federal system.
Over two million Federal employees have the right to appeal
to the Merit Systems Protection Board from adverse actions. To
the extent we can't timely process our cases, it has the effect
of deterring agencies from taking actions that should be taken
and also discouraging employees who may have just appeals from
filing those appeals with the Board.
It is a problem for us, and we would ask that you take
cognizance of it, and we have some solutions that we have
proposed in our written testimony for your consideration. We
understand that Congressman George Gekas is in the process of
submitting a statement for the record, and he has been very
supportive of our concerns in the past.
We thought that perhaps in the last session of Congress,
that Congress had come up with a potential solution to the
problem that we were facing through an administrative
reorganization, through the judiciary. Congressman Gekas worked
very hard on that bill.
At this point, we don't know where that legislation may go
in this session, but we ask that the subcommittee take note of
the fact that we do save money for the government when we
timely process our cases. To the extent that we have the
backlog that we do, it is costing the government millions of
dollars in potential back pay liability and attorneys' fees.
There are a number of hidden costs that inure to agencies
because we are unable to do our job in a timely fashion, and we
just ask that the committee perhaps consider that it is now
time, finally, to afford the judges at MSPB pay equity in line
with the latest group of judges, who received a pay schedule,
immigration judges who are being paid the same rate. We already
lost a judge to immigration in December. It is a practical
problem for us. We are trying to keep our finger on the dike,
but we really just ask that the committee take a look at our
problem and see if they can help us.
I would also point out that the Chairman of our agency, in
a letter to you, pointed out that if he doesn't receive
supplemental funding, that there is a possibility of a
reduction in force of judges, which is only going to make
matters worse from our standpoint. It is only going to
encourage judges to continue to look elsewhere. We do have some
concern that we are caught in the middle in this situation.
We understand that last year, Congress only allotted half
of the money that MSPB requested to fund its studies function
and that this year, the administration or our agency, through
an O&B-cleared budget, has again requested the full amount for
studies, but kept the ceiling at last year's level.
As a result, it looks as though we are now losing
additional funds that we desperately need for our adjudications
function. I just ask you take a look at the whole situation,
and if you could give us some consideration, we would
appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markuns follows:]

[Pages 293 - --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Markuns. We appreciate
you calling this to our attention because it is something I was
not personally familiar with.
Mr. Markuns. Thank you.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much.
----------

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION RELATED MATTERS

WITNESSES

DAVID HOOBER, STATE ARCHIVIST/ARIZONA
PAGE PUTNAM MILLER, NATIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE PROMOTION
OF HISTORY
LESLIE ROWLANDS, PROFESSOR/UMCP

Mr. Kolbe. We have several people to talk about the
National Archives. First, David Hoober, a State archivist from
Arizona. Welcome.
Mr. Hoober. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my
name is David Hoober. I would first like to explain my attire.
Apparently, my luggage bonded with my airline more than I did
and it is somewhere on the Southwest system.
Mr. Kolbe. That is all you needed to say. I could have
loaned you a U of A championship T-shirt to wear.
Mr. Hoober. I considered bringing you one but I thought you
probably would have to put an addition onto your home if you
got one more.
I am State Archivist of Arizona, a former President of the
National Association of Government Archives and Records
Administrators, a former member of the Governing Council of the
American Association for State and Local History, and currently
that association is representative to the National Historical
Publications and Record Commission, whose planning and budget
committee I have chaired.
I am delighted to offer testimony about the importance of
the National Archives and Records Administration and the NHPRC
to this committee, chaired by a fellow Arizonan, who is blessed
with a keen sense of our State's history, and to a House
subcommittee with an equally deep commitment to our Nation's
documentary heritage. NORA and the NHPRC share complimentary
missions. The National Archives preserves Federal records and
the NHPRC makes grants to help archivists, records managers and
others in the States' care for non-Federal records, which help
tell the rest of America's history.
I ask that this subcommittee provide at least the level of
funding that the President has requested for NORA, and I ask
that you provide more than requested in the White House budget
for the NHPRC.
The commission is authorized to receive up to $10 million,
and it badly needs an appropriation of at least $6 million if
it is to implement, even partially, its strategic plan for
documenting American history.
The NHPRC has strengthened that plan by giving in it a
priority to two things, the research and development program
and a State partnership program. Let me explain briefly why the
archival community welcomes these priorities.
The biggest current threat to our documentary heritage is
our growing reliance on electronic record keeping systems,
systems that lack sound approaches to managing the archival
records in those systems. So much of our history, now and in
the future, will be recorded in electronic format.
The research and development projects in which the NHPRC is
investing visiting will help archivists overcome obstacles to
preserving and providing access to computerized records.
Increased NHPRC support is essential if we are to master
these technologies before we lose the important records they
create. Additionally, the NHPRC State Partnership Program is
helping archivists across the country save many kinds of
records and provide public access to them.
As partners, State historical record's advisory boards make
grant contributions to meet the needs that are identified in
State documentary plans. This results in efficient grant making
and good decisions about which records are saved and how they
are made accessible to the public.
For example, the Florida regrant program, to which the
NHPRC contributed only $150,000, enabled 23 archives,
universities, and historical societies to improve local records
programs, to provide archives and records management education
and process for access, collections of historical papers
already in custody, including a collection on black education
at Florida A&M University.
The NHPRC program, to which New York contributed $150,000
in State funds, helped 56 projects to survey and process
historical records and to ensure automated access to
institutions' documentary holdings. An NHPRC program in
Kentucky led its State legislature to appropriate $950,000 for
a comprehensive program of local records management and
preservation, which subsequently continued. So far, States with
regrant programs have contributed slightly more funding to them
than has the NHPRC.
The partnership between the commission and the States is
real. I would be remiss if I did not touch briefly on the
positive effect of the NHPRC in Arizona.
Since 1976, 18 grants have been made to our State's
archives, historical societies, universities and museums. Early
grants ranged from helping guarantee preservation and access to
glass plate negatives, documenting Tucson and southern Arizona,
to caring for the Emory Kolb Photo and Manuscript Collection,
the most complete visual record of the Grand Canyon from 1902
to 1976.
Ongoing archival programs for the city of Tucson and for
the Arizona State Museum, the latter being the leading
Southwest repository of anthropological collections, were
started with seed money from the NHPRC. The most recent grant
from the NHPRC is now making possible a new strategic plan for
preservation and use of historical records in Arizona.
In conclusion, let me comment that an investment of just $6
to $10 million to help secure America's history will pay off in
better record keeping nationwide and a better historical
understanding of localities, our States, and our Nation, for
generations to come.
Thank you for letting me explain the value of the NHPRC
partnership for those of us who are trying to preserve our
history in all the States. And, Mr. Chairman, please come visit
us at the State Archives sometime when you are home in Arizona.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoober. I will take you
up on that.
I have been hearing from a lot of people in Arizona that
have an interest in the archive projects, and I am very
interested in learning more about it, so I will take you up on
that and we will make a visit. Thank you very much. I
appreciate you coming all this way. I hope your luggage catches
up to you before you are back in Phoenix.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoober follows:]

[Pages 327 - 332--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

WITNESS

PAGE MILLER NATIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE PROMOTION OF
HISTORY

Mr. Kolbe. Page Miller, National Coordinating Committee for
the Promotion of History.
Ms. Miller. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to be with you. I was also here for the agency
hearing, and I was a witness to your friendly bet with the
archivists about the basketball.
Mr. Kolbe. Oh, yes.
Ms. Miller. And I want to congratulate you on winning that.
Mr. Kolbe. I haven't heard anything from them, yet. I
thought of that a few days ago.
Ms. Miller. Yes, because you are to get a steak dinner, as
I recall.
Mr. Kolbe. That is right.
Ms. Miller. I am here on behalf of a coalition of 53
historical and archival organizations to urge you and the
committee to appropriate $206 million in operating funds for
the National Archives. I would like to talk about that part of
the budget first. This is almost a $10 million increase over
last year for the National Archives' operating budget, and we
support this very strongly.
The Archives has a mandate to appraise and describe and to
service and preserve the records of the Federal Government, and
I would like to talk about three of those components.
The appraisal. The appraisal is working with the various
agencies to decide which records are worthy to take to the
Archives and to preserve and which should be destroyed. Only
about 3 percent of what the agencies create are actually
preserved and retired to the Archives. But developing the
schedules that determine this 3 percent is called the
appraisal, and the developing of these schedules is crucial and
agencies need assistance with this.
They are just about 2 dozen employees at the Archives who
actually have hands-on work with agencies in determining these
appraisal schedules, and we feel that they sorely need to beef
up and have more people working with agencies. Agencies are
eager for more guidance, particularly in this area of
electronic records.
A second area that is crucial is the describing of records.
If you put all the records in the National Archives that are in
Washington, and College Park, on a shelf, that shelf would be
240 miles long, and so we feel that describing these records so
that users can actually use the finding aids is crucial. But 20
percent of the records in the National Archives do not have
adequate enough descriptions so that researchers can come in
and use finding aids.
The Archives is in the process now of developing an
electronic finding aid, and so they are transferring existing
information from their finding aids into this large
computerized finding aid, but for this 20 percent of the
records that do not have adequate descriptions, there is
nothing there to be transferred into this new electronic
finding aid, so we are really concerned about this descriptive
work. It is very labor intensive and that is another reason
that the Archives sorely needs this $10 million increase.
The third area is the servicing of records. Here I would
like to talk a little bit about the State Department's central
file. The central file are the cables that go back and forth
between the Washington State Department and the Embassies and
consulates abroad. This is heavily used by diplomatic
historians, probably the richest collection in the Archives,
heavily used.
Now the State Department has digitized this collection,
beginning in 1973, and from 1973 to the present, these are now
only in digitized form. They are about to transfer next year
the central file for 1973 to 1975 for the State Department to
the National Archives.
Now this is a watershed event for the National Archives
because they receive a lot of computerized records, but this is
the first time it has been a textual record, memos and cables,
that had been transferred. Before it has been data sets.
Now, if you go back into the Archives and you want to use
records that are computerized, you generally have to buy the
electronic tape, which is about $100, and then take it home and
use it either at your home or at your office. There is no
facility in the National Archives' central search room for the
hardware and the software for using these electronic records.
So when the central file arrives for the period 1973 to
1975, there is going to need to be an infusion of money for
software, hardware, technical expertise, so that the diplomatic
historians and others who come to use these very important
State Department files will have access to them in the central
search room, that they will not have to buy the electronic tape
and use it at their office. I think the Archives has to in this
reference and servicing area provide for the use of these
records in the search room. So this is just an idea of some of
the very pressing problems that certainly warrant this increase
of $10 million.
Now, one reason I have talked at length about this is
because there is a practice, I think, of robbing Peter to pay
Paul, and we are urging, as did your last witness, David
Hoober, for there to be $6 million for NHPRC. And we are
concerned that extra $2 million for NHPRC be on top of the
President's request and not come out of the National Archives'
operating budget.
So we are now turning to the issue of NHPRC.
I would just like to say that there are many areas of
grants that are needed and people that apply to NHPRC for
funds. We certainly support, as historians and archivists, the
electronic records projects. The NHPRC, in the last 3 years,
has funded 31 electronic records projects, and we think that
should continue. But we also think it is very important they
continue to fund the documentary editing projects.
As I was driving over this morning, I was listening to NPR
and there was a rundown on the Pulitzer prize winners, and one
of the winners was Jack Rackoff, whose book on the original
intent of the Constitution relied heavily on the documentary
editing projects of the ratification of the Constitution and
the first Federal Congress.
So we hope that there will be a balanced approach to grants
for NHPRC and that there will be enough money, $6 million, so
that both the State programs, the documentary editing programs,
and the electronic records programs can be funded. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Ms. Miller, for that
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:]

[Pages 336 - 338--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 18, 1997.

WITNESS

LESLIE ROWLANDS, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION FOR DOCUMENTARY EDITING

Mr. Kolbe. Last in this area is Leslie Rowlands.
Ms. Rowlands. Thank you very much. I am Leslie Rowlands. I
teach history at the University of Maryland, and I am a
documentary editor of a project that I will say a little more
about as I go on.
Now, since I am an historian, I want to begin with a little
story from the past, and this is a story about a man named John
Boston, who was a slave in Maryland, who, during the first year
of the Civil War, escaped from his owner and took refuge with a
regiment that had been recruited in Brooklyn, New York.
As soon as he was safe, he took the occasion to write a
letter to his wife, and I want to read you just a few lines
from that:
(Original text.)
``My Dear Wife,'' he wrote, ``it is with grate joy I take
this time to let you know Whare I am i am now in Safety in the
14th Regiment of Brooklyn this Day i can Adress you thank god
as a free man I had a little truble in giting away But as the
lord led the Children of Isrel to the land of Canon So he led
me to a land Whare fredom Will rain in spite Of earth and
hell.''
After describing more about his circumstances, he then
turned to personal comments. ``My Dear,'' he wrote, ``I Cant
express my grate desire that i Have to See you i trust the time
Will Come When We Shal meet again And if We dont met on earth
We Will Meet in heven Whare Jesas ranes.''
``rest yourself Contented i am free,'' he concluded,
signing himself, ``Your Affectionate Husban,'' and then adding
two postscripts, ``Kiss Daniel For me,'' and ``Give my love to
Father and Mother.''
Now, this letter is part of a story that is being
documented by the Freedmen and Southern Society Project, a
historical editing project that I direct. John Boston's letter
is one of thousands that my coeditors and I have discovered and
are publishing in a multivolume edition entitled ``Freedom: A
Documentary History of Emancipation,'' in 900 page volumes that
look like this.
Now this documentary edition, like many others, would
simply never have come into existence without grants from the
NHPRC, whose appropriation for fiscal year 1998 you are
considering.
During the initial years of our research, the NHPRC
constituted our principal source of funds. Now as we
transcribe, annotate, and index the documents, prepare them for
publication, NHPRC grants generally constitute about one-third
or less of our total budget. That is, we have used that money
to generate other funds, but we could not generate that
remaining support without the stable foundation that the NHPRC
funds provide. In that regard, I think this is typicalof most
editing projects.
Since 1964, which is when the NHPRC first acquired grant-
making authority, it has played an absolutely critical role in
democratizing access to our Nation's documentary heritage, that
is, making it available to all the American people.
With really only very small appropriations from Congress,
it has achieved remarkable success. To date, there are nearly
800 NHPRC volumes in print, not to mention thousands of reels
of microfilm. Recent years have been especially productive, as
we witness the published results of earlier investments in the
very time-consuming process of locating documents in
repositories and private collections across the country and
abroad as well. Just from 1992 to the present, I count 117
volumes that have been published by NHPRC-sponsored documentary
projects. I appended to my prepared statement a list of those
volumes published since 1992.
Now if funding is sustained for NHPRC, this record can
easily be matched and even exceeded in coming years, as past
investments reach the pay-off stage, but unfortunately, those
investments are in increasing jeopardy because the NHPRC is
being strangled by stagnant appropriations, and now, still
worse, by a threatened 20 percent cut, if the amount proposed
by the administration is granted. That $4 million recommended
by the administration would return the NHPRC's appropriation to
the same amount it received almost two decades ago in 1979, and
in real dollars, that of course is a cut of enormous
proportions. So I strongly urge you to support funding the
NHPRC at the level of $6 million for fiscal year 1998.
Now the impact of that $6 million would be widespread
because the NHPRC-sponsored editions are bringing within reach
citizens, students, and scholars nationally significant
documents of the American past, of which they would not have
otherwise accessed.
You are probably aware of the use of these editions by
scholars, and Page Miller has just cited one recent example. A
vivid number that I think illustrates this results from a 1992
study that the NHPRC conducted with the American Council of
Learned Societies, which found that more researchers used
NHPRC-sponsored documentary editions than used all the
Presidential libraries combined, and think of the Federal funds
spent on the Presidential libraries.
What may be less well-known to you, and what I would like
to note before concluding, is the use of documentary editions
beyond the academy and outside the classroom. That is, for
example, the words of John Boston, with which I opened, have
been part of dramatic readings performed by theater companies
and on radio programs. In 1993, the National Black Theater
Company of New York alone performed 20 dramatic readings for
hospital workers in auditoriums and hospitals for workers
during their lunch breaks. The Prenumbra Theater Company of
Minneapolis/St. Paul performed dramatic readings from Freedom
the following year. One radio station in New York devoted a
whole evening to readings, almost 5 hours. I can't imagine that
any one listener heard all of them, but for 5 hours, they did
readings from Freedom. Legislators, like yourself, rely on
documentary editions.
Mr. Kolbe. Let me just ask you to finish up as soon as
possible.
Ms. Rowlands. All right. As well as museum curators,
filmmakers, the Arizona State Museum in Tucson, for example,
has created a division that is dedicated to contact history in
the greater Southwest, made possible by the documentary
relations of the Southwest.
Finally, students are using these, particularly in National
History Day projects. Federal Congress papers and sites of
editions on the World Wide Web are receiving numerous
inquiries. The George Washington papers web site, for example,
is visited more than 4,000 times a month.
Stagnant funding, I think, threatens this access and I
would call upon you to appreciate the ways in which editions
are used, not only by scholars, but by the American people in
general and fund the commission at $6 million.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much for your testimony and for
the stories that you told. We appreciate hearing that.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rowland follows:]

[Pages 342 - 350--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

WITNESS

RALPH BROWN, NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR MODEL STATE DRUG LAWS

Mr. Kolbe. We have three more. We are falling a bit behind,
but we will try and wrap this up as quickly as possible here.
Next is Ralph Brown, speaking on behalf of the National
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws.
Let me repeat again, the full statement will be placed in
the record, and we ask that you summarize this in the time
allotted.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I am Ralph Brown of Dallas Center,
Iowa, and I am Chair of the National Alliance for Model State
Drug Laws. Thank you for this chance to share with you the
successes of our model State drug law conferences.
Under the leadership of this subcommittee and your former
Chair, Jim Lightfoot of Iowa, the Congress appropriated $1
million for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to allow the
Alliance to provide model State drug law conferences.
We work with State leaders to review the model laws drafted
by our predecessor, the President's Commission on Model State
Drug Laws. In doing so, we are carrying out the sense of the
Congress in the legislation that created this commission. That
commission set out to accomplish the mission of developing
model laws for the States to use in addressing drug and alcohol
abuse problems.
Misperceptions and skepticism gave way to understanding and
consensus. As a consequence, on the commission, those in law
enforcement became convinced that good treatment works and
enhances public safety. Those in treatment came to better
appreciate the role that law enforcement must play in tackling
alcohol and other substance abuse.
Mr. Brown. From a new understanding, the Commission drafted
42 model laws that combine a carrot-and-stick approach to
reducing alcohol and other substance abuse. Tough sanctions are
used where appropriate. Equally important, the sanctions are
designed to be constructive, to promote prevention and to
attempt to leverage alcohol and other drug abusers into
treatment.
To continue the Commission's work, we then formed the
National Alliance, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.
By your appropriations, you have allowed States to recreate
for themselves some of the educational and consensus-building
processes we experienced on the Commission.
To date we have held eight conferences, in Oregon, Georgia,
Louisiana, Utah, Mississippi, Nevada, Iowa and Oklahoma.
Tomorrow we go to New Jersey. Each conference is a day of
intense hands-on sessions, dedicated to hammering out which of
the model laws that State should pursue.
We have active participation from law enforcement,
treatment providers, judges, State legislators, education and
prevention specialists, schoolteachers, administrators,
corrections officials, Governors' staff, business and labor
leaders, community advocates and parents.
The model law gatherings are more than what we
traditionally think of as conferences. They are forums in which
individuals, whose lives are touched by alcohol and other
drugs, can begin to reshape their State's alcohol abuse
policies. State individuals use these conferences to share
concerns, to hear different disciplines' perspectives on the
issues, flesh out problems, identify priorities and needs,
foster cooperative efforts among professions and agree on
coordinated system-wide responses to the problem.
This freedom of discussion flows from the nature of the
conferences themselves. The ultimate decisions of what to do in
each State rest with the conference participants, but States do
look to the Alliance to help fine-tune these plans and turn
their suggestions into reality.
States depend upon the Alliance's analysis of legislation
and existing statutes. This is especially true of hot topics
involving system changes and delivery of services, such as
managed care. By relying upon the Alliance's services, State
leaders strive to prevent some age-old problems: Inconsistent,
temporary statutory solutions; needless mistakes in application
of laws; and a lack of reliable information regarding the
effectiveness of laws. They want to avoid wasting time and
resources on a legislative treadmill which can only keep them
in the same place.
The Alliance will continue to work hard to help State and
local leaders take positive steps toward enacting strong,
effective laws on alcohol and other substance abuse, tobacco
issues. Just as General McCaffrey has lent his encouragement to
the Alliance's efforts, it is our fervent hope that the support
shown by this subcommittee and the Congress for our current
activities will continue into the coming year.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much. And we certainly agree that
the work of the Alliance on this model drug law is a very
important project and one which I had some knowledge of when I
was in the Arizona State Legislature working on similar kinds
of projects on model State laws. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

[Pages 353 - 373--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

GSA RELATED MATTERS

WITNESS

MICHAEL SHEHADI, BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Kolbe. Michael Shehadi, representing the Building
Owners and Managers Association International. Mr. Shehadi,
please. Welcome and thank you. Please proceed.
Mr. Shehadi. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
committee, my name is Michael Shehadi, and I am Group Senior
Vice President for the Charles E. Smith Companies. We are a
full-service real estate firm located here in Washington, and
we are the largest provider to the Federal Government for at
least office space here in the National Capital region.
This morning I am speaking with you as a member of BOMA,
and as former Chair of its National Advisory Council. Our
16,000 members develop, own and manage over half the commercial
office space in the United States, and the Federal agencies
make up a considerable portion of that space.
BOMA is pleased to have a constructive working relationship
with GSA, especially with officials of the BPS, the Public
Buildings Service. The BPS is a member of BOMA's National
Advisory Council, which is a group composed of the largest real
estate companies in America.
Agency officials are members of BOMA committees, and BOMA
has testified before Congress to encourage the reevaluation of
restrictions that hamper GSA's operations.
In the past few years, there has been tremendous change in
the Agency's direction, and as commercial owners and managers
we have witnessed the transformation firsthand. GSA has made
tremendous strides to become an agency that, in the
administration's words, works better and costs less. At a time
when other Federal agencies are requesting higher funding
levels, GSA's cost to the taxpayer, whether operating
appropriations or through the Federal Buildings Fund, continues
to decrease. Moreover, the Agency functions not only with less
funding but also with fewer employees as the Agency's total
manpower has decreased by 29 percent since 1993.
The GSA clearly desires to fundamentally alter the way it
conducts its business. As indicators of this commitment, let me
offer the following initiatives, each of which have been
enacted in the last year: First, the Can't Beat GSA Leasing
Program. By instituting more cost-effective and timely leasing
practices, the Agency now activity competes for the leasing
business of Federal agencies. As a result, and utilizing
streamlined procedures, industry benchmarks and universal
standards like the BOMA Floor Area Measurement Standard, the
Agency makes it easier for private commercial companies to
interact with the GSA.
Second, the National Real Estate Service Contract. Under
this new program up to eight different private sector
commercial brokers will provide leasing services for GSA's
tenant agencies, covering all functions from initial space
requests to postlease services. By contracting withcommercial
brokers, GSA will augment its staff with the skills and expertise of
the private sector.
Third, the Good Neighbor Policy. GSA seeks to be a full
partner in local affairs by actively participating in Business
Improvement Districts, which are private sector initiatives
created to resolve community problems. Thus, the cost of
security, maintenance and cleaning within these districts can
now be shared equally without others covering Federal
structures' costs.
And fourth, the Private Sector Cooperation. GSA now
actively seeks greater private sector interaction for its
employees. Thus, helping to improve performance. GSA's
employees are enrolled, through BOMA International and real
estate educational programs, which update their skills and
foster interaction with private sector professionals. Thus, the
GSA continues to advance as an organization for transforming
the way it performs.
For some ``business reinvention'' is merely a popular catch
phrase, but for GSA we are witnessing that they really do mean
it.
The GSA has come a considerable distance in reinventing
itself, but the larger question remains is what should the
Agency's future role be? BOMA believes that the appropriate
approach for Congress is not to radically alter the GSA. BOMA
maintains that opportunities exist for the private sector to
assist in improving service and cutting costs, an example being
the National Real Estate Services Contracts.
However, we caution against indiscriminate cuts that would
undermine the Agency and decimate its ability to carry out its
functions of real property oversight. Thus BOMA urges this
subcommittee not only to provide the necessary funds for GSA's
business operations, but also to support the Agency's efforts
to reshape itself and better serve its customers and the
taxpayer.
In summary, BOMA is pleased with the dramatic changes being
implemented by the GSA. We are particularly impressed with the
efforts of David Barram and Bob Peck and their employee teams.
Their initiatives have helped to facilitate greater and more
efficient interactions between private and public sectors. Yet,
of greater importance, these efforts allow GSA to better serve
its primary customer, the Federal Government, and the user
agencies.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, and I certainly share your
enthusiasm for the work of David Barram and Bob Peck. I am very
impressed with them as I have gotten to know them. Thank you
very much for giving that testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shehadi follows:]

[Pages 376 - 382--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Tuesday, April 8, 1997.

FLRA RELATED MATTERS

WITNESS

RALPH STRNAD, WASHINGTON AREA METAL TRADES COUNCIL

Mr. Kolbe. Our last statement this morning or this
afternoon now is for Ralph Strnad. Welcome.
Is that the correct pronunciation, sir?
Mr. Strnad. Good morning. No, sir. It is Strnad.
Mr. Kolbe. Please go ahead.
Mr. Strnad. Good morning, and thank you for the support of
your staff in seeing that I was able to do this this morning.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, I appreciate
this opportunity to appear before you this day and express our
views and concerns relating to the continued funding of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority at the proposed budgeted
levels. The point of my appearance here is that I and my
colleagues believe that to allocate funds for this Agency,
uncritically, without specific direction, is to sanction
pernicious conducts, practices and policies of its leadership
and other agents over the past few years, at least in the
Washington regional area.
My name is Ralph Strnad. I am the Secretary of the
Washington Area Metal Trades Council and the Chief Steward at
the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
I am here with the approval of the WAMTC, as well as the
Goddard Engineers, Scientists, and Technicians Association,
GESTA, which is an IFPTE Local 29, whose president, Dennis
Olivares, could not be here today. Between these two unions we
jointly represent nearly 2,000 Goddard employees.
Our experiences with the FLRA are as similar as they are
disappointing. The FLRA is simply too politicized and
operationally too pro-management. They seemingly have no
expertise nor even the requisite bare sensitivity to the
potentially oppressive working conditions visited on our
bargaining unit members.
In any kind of a generic adjudicatory body whose operations
are objectively viewed as fair, legal and equitable, the
direction of the decisions and judgments are usually somewhat
balanced, which is to say, in FLRA terms, about half the
decisions would be pro-management, and about half would be pro-
union. But with the FLRA, the decisions are grossly and
disproportionately lopsided in favor of the agencies at the
expense of the unions.
We are lucky to prevail at a rate of 16 percent of filing
unfair labor practices, and those victories are frequently
tainted with face-saving compromises such as innocuous
statutory language in notice-postings on Agency bulletin
boards.
Their investigations are slipshod, and, along with the
tortured logic of their so-called legal analyses, are largely
boilerplate and forced to a preordained conclusion. Labor is
wasting its time in this forum.
Customer service ratings must surely be high for the FLRA,
but only because their obvious customer is agency management.
This Agency does not even provide an internal complaint form
for the innumerable problems we have encountered during the
handling of a ULP or a petition.
Individuals fare even worse in ULP decisions than unions.
Agency brutality in this era of Federal downsizing knows no
bounds, and far too many of our victims are exposed to
irreparable harm as a consequence of trumped-up charges by
desperate managers. Many heated arguments have failed to
persuade the FLRA general counsel to follow their own
regulations and honor petitions for temporary restraining
orders and other injunctive relief in plain compliance with 5
U.S.C. 7123(b-d).
For the past 2 years the general counsel has been busy
eroding what few pro-union doctrines the FLRA has managed to
put in its books during its more enlightened past. Things have
gotten to where we dread the publication of the next issue of
the FLRA NEWS. Their new ``Covered-by Doctrine'' is a needless
cruelty and serves no purpose but to crassly clear caseloads
and accelerate the rate at which our ULPs are dispatched to the
dustbin.
We are not merely complaining that we want to win more or
that we are tired of losing so many meritorious cases in what
at best seems a capricious game at the taxpayers' expense.
Rather we want a more level and equitable playing field ofthe
sort Congress envisioned when it enacted Title 7 of the Civil Service
Reform Act and established the independent FLRA.
If you fully fund these people, thereby reinforcing their
biased behaviors, and things proceed as they have been going,
you will actually be placing that Agency at an increasing risk
of totally losing its adjudicatory credibility and respect as
an impartial government entity, and we have suggested three
recommendations.
One: Instruct the entire FLRA to implement and follow to
the letter the plain-language meaning and mandates of their
enabling statute and their own regulations published in Title 5
of the CFR. Eliminate their reliance on unpublished or secret
local practices of any kind, especially those which diminish
the letter and spirit of the statute.
Two: Mandate a customer satisfaction system for the FLRA
where serious mishandling of cases can be registered and
measured and monitored by the public and by Congress. Order the
Government Accounting Office to help set up this system and
require the FLRA to submit semiannual reports to this
subcommittee evidencing compliance with the system's procedures
and with the instruction requested above.
Three: Instruct the FLRA to amend its regulations and other
internal directives such that notice-postings that can be made
into a meaningful remedy; i.e., notices should generally
contain an admission clause on the part of the agency found in
violation of the statute. Language should not be negotiable by
or on behalf of the violator in so-called ``bilateral
settlements,'' for which the FLRA is notorious, despite
contrary instruction from its own general counsel, and see
general counsel's memo entitled ``Settlement Policy May 25th,
1994.'' See that all unilateral settlements are eliminated and
expunged as an adjudicatory option for the FLRA casehandlers.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to--this time to
express this important issue.
Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Strnad, for that
testimony. We appreciate it very much.
Mr. Strnad. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strnad follows:]

[Pages 386 - 387--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Kolbe. We have another written testimony that will be
placed in the record here from Mr. Maldonado, University of
Puerto Rico.
[The statement of Mr. Maldonado follows:]

[Pages 389 - 391--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

Mr. Kolbe. No further testimony, this subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[The following statements were submitted for the record
from Congresswoman Maloney, Congressman Jenkins, Congressman
English, Congressman Meehan, Congressman Gekas, and Mr. Sharpe
follow:]

[Pages 393 - 425--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]

W I T N E S S E S

----------
Page
Berne, B. H...................................................... 219
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl............................................ 1
Brown, Ralph..................................................... 351
Burke, William................................................. 219, 276
Byrne, Robert.................................................... 281
Cunningham, Jim................................................ 150, 174
English, Hon. Phil............................................... 405
Gekas, Hon. G. W................................................. 412
Hoober, David.................................................... 324
James, Sharpe.................................................... 424
Jenkins, Hon. W. L............................................... 394
Larson, Eric..................................................... 16
Maldonado, Dr. N. I.............................................. 389
Maloney, Hon. C. B............................................... 393
Markuns, J. F.................................................... 291
Meehan, Hon. Marty............................................... 407
Miller, P. P................................................... 324, 333
Reiter, R. F..................................................... 145
Romero-Barcelo1, Hon. Carlos..................................... 5
Rowlands, Leslie............................................... 324, 339
Schlein, David................................................. 150, 192
Shays, Hon. Christopher.......................................... 140
Shehadi, Michael................................................. 374
Strnad, Ralph.................................................... 383
Tobias, Bob...................................................... 150
Visclosky, Hon. Peter............................................ 12
Waters, Hon. Maxine.............................................. 169

I N D E X

----------

U.S. Postal Service Related Matters:
Page
Honorable Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)............................. 1
General Services Administration Related Matters:
Honorable Carlos Romero-Barcelo1 (D-PR)...................... 5
Bernard H. Berne, M.D., Ph.D., Private Individual............ 219
International Window Film Association, William Burke......... 276
Building Owners and Managers Association, Michael Shehadi.... 374
University of Puerto Rico, Dr. Norman I. Maldonado........... 389
Honorable William L. Jenkins (R-TN).......................... 394
Honorable Phil English (R-PA)................................ 405
City of Newark, New Jersey, Hon. James Sharpe, Mayor......... 424
Internal Revenue Service Related Matters:
American Association of Retired Persons, Robert Byrne........ 281
Merit Systems Protection Board Related Matters:
Merit Systems Protection Boards Professional Association,
John Markuns............................................... 291
Honorable George W. Gekas (R-PA)............................. 412
Office of National Drug Control Policy Related Matters:
Honorable Peter Visclosky (D-IN)............................. 12
Honorable Maxine Waters (D-CA)............................... 169
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws.................. 351
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Related Matters:
Collectors Arms Dealers Association, Eric Larson............. 16
Federal Election Commission Related Matters:
Honorable Christopher Shays (R-CT)........................... 140
Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY).......................... 393
Honorable Marty Meehan (D-MA)................................ 407
U.S. Customs Service Related Matters:
Analytical Systems Engineering Corporation, Robert F. Reiter. 145
Federal Employee Related Matters:
National Treasury Employees Union, Bob Tobias................ 150
National Federation of Federal Employees, Jim Cunningham..... 174
American Federation of Government Employees, David Schlein... 192
National Archives and Records Administration and Related Matters:
State of Arizona, David Hoober............................... 324
National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History,
Page Miller................................................ 333
The Association for Documentary Editing, Leslie Rowlands..... 339
Federal Labor Relations Authority Related Matters:
Washington Area Metal Trades Council, Ralph Strnad........... 383