contracts. Goddard had to rely on the contractors to distinguish between the government-owned and contractor-owned property. NASA officials estimate they may have as much as a 10 to 20 percent error rate in tracking the $13.4 billion worth of contractor-held property. Ineffective technical oversight.-The recent spectacular failures in the space program may have resulted from poor technical oversight by NASA. Weaknesses in NASA's technical oversight procedures, according to GAO, include the lack of uniform testing policies and the inability to adequately oversee contractor's activities. In some cases, these weaknesses contributed to increased contract costs, schedule delays, and impaired performance. For example, in April 1990, NASA deployed the Hubble Space Telescope to an orbit 380 miles above earth only to then discover that the primary mirror had been manufactured in the wrong shape. Most recently, the failures of the Mars Observer probe and a new weather satellite are suspected to be caused by faulty transistors, and the Galileo probe to Jupiter is hampered by the failure of its main antenna to unfold. b. Benefits. The subcommittee's work focused attention upon pervasive mismanagement at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In particular, the subcommittee's oversight revealed that congressional action may be necessary to address NASA's failure to appoint a Chief Financial Officer exercising full authority as mandated by the CFO Act and to correct the disarray in NASA's financial management systems. Such controls are particularly important with respect to NASA because it devotes 90 percent of its budget to procurement. c. Hearings. On October 6, 1993, the subcommittee convened an oversight hearing to examine major management issues at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where testimony was received from Frank Conahan, Assistant Comptroller General, U.S. General Accounting Office, National Security and International Affairs Division; Bill Colvin, inspector general, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Jack Dailey, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Marcia S. Smith, Acting Assistant Chief, Science Policy Research Division, Library of Congress; Howard E. McCurdy, professor of public affairs, American University; and John E. Pike, director, space policy project, Federation of American Scientists. 8. National Performance Review: Capital Budgeting for Investment. a. Summary.-The committee continues its interest in ensuring that the Federal budget process is comprehensive and thorough. The committee notes the Federal Government needs to respond to two simultaneous and conflicting budgetary goals, pursuing both growth, for productive investments, and deficit reduction. Federal investment, 3.5 percent of gross national product in 1980, currently represents just 2 percent of GNP. Increasing our productive Federal investments can strengthen our Nation, improve our ability to compete in the international marketplace, and provide opportunity for more Americans. The ability of the Federal Government to fund needed national investments is dependent upon the availability of discretionary spending, the category of spending most constrained by deficit reduction efforts. Under current law, annual spending for discretionary programs will decline in real value by $68 billion, 12.5 percent over the next 5 years, driving the share of discretionary spending to just 3.5 percent of GDP by 1998. Some analysts assert a capital budget, capable of distinguishing between spending for current consumption and the promotion of economic growth activities would offer a more useful budget for Congress and the President. b. Benefits.-None quantifiable at this time. A capital budget could improve the quality and precision of the budgetary information presented to Members of Congress. As a result, a capital budg et could contribute to improving the policy decisions and rationalizing the budget process for Congress and the executive branch, improving public confidence in the budget process. c. Hearings.-The Legislation and National Security Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on November 9, 1993, to consider capital budget options. The following witnesses offered testimony: Dr. Robert Eisner, professor of economics, Northwestern University; Dr. Dale Jorgenson, professor of economics, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Dr. David Aschauer, professor of economics, Bates College; Dr. Letitia Chambers, Chambers Associates, Inc.; and Paul Posner, Director of Budget Studies, General Accounting Office. 9. The Vice President's National Performance Review-Recommending A Biennial Budget Process. a. Summary.-The Vice President's National Performance Review [NPR] recommends adoption of a 2-year budget cycle for the President and Congress. This 2-year cycle would apply to all steps in the current annual budget cycle, including the submission of the President's budget request to Congress, the congressional budget resolution, and all appropriation bills. The proposed NPR budget cycle would commence in the even-numbered year. Consequently, no budget would be submitted by a President, or considered by Congress, in the first year of a congressional session or a new administration. The NPR also recommends more frequent usage of multiyear authorizations. b. Benefits. Supporters of a biennial budget process assert that the proposal could promote more long-term planning and improve the efficiency of the executive branch by decreasing the time devoted to budget preparation and increase the opportunity for program analysis. Others assert a biennial budget process would decrease opportunity for congressional review and hinder congressional ability to adjust spending quickly in response to shifting priorities. The NPR's biennial budget recommendation was not incorporated into H.R. 3400, "the Government Reform and Savings Act of 1993." c. Hearings.-The Legislation and National Security Subcommittee held a hearing on October 7, 1993, to evaluate the National Performance Review recommendation that the Federal Government adopt a biennial, or 2-year budget cycle. The following witnesses of fered testimony: Leon Panetta, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Robert Reischauer, Director, Congressional Budget Office; Susan Irving, Deputy Director of the Budget Issues Group, General Accounting Office; Dr. Thomas Mann, Brookings Institution; and Michael Bird, National Conference of State Legislatures. 10. The Effectiveness of Public Law 102-526, "The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992." a. Summary. In the 102d Congress, the Committee on Government Operations was the principal committee of the House of Representatives exercising jurisdiction over the legislation that was enacted as Public Law 102-526, "The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" [the Records Act]. The Legislation and National Security Subcommittee has been closely monitoring the implementation of this statute. The purpose of the Records Act is "to require the expeditious transmission to the Archivist and public disclosure" of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy (section 2(b)(2)). As the committee explained (H. Rept. 102-625, part 1, p. 17): Continued unjustified secrecy and concealment of these records increases speculation about the assassination and fuels a growing distrust in the institutions of government. The committee believes that prompt disclosure of all records relating to the assassination is the best way to fulfill the American people's right to know what happened to their President. The Records Act establishes a separate collection within the National Archives to house records pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy (section 4); requires government officials to promptly review and transmit relevant records to the collection (section 5); explicitly provides narrow grounds for postponing public release of records (section 6); and creates a special five member presidentially appointed board to review disputed records (section 7). The Records Act also authorizes the staffing of the review board (section 8) and sets out the procedures to be followed in reviewing records (section 9). In addition, the Records Act assigns to the Committee on Government Operations "continuing oversight jurisdiction with respect to the Collection" as well as "continuing oversight jurisdiction with respect to the official conduct of the Review Board" (sections 4(e) and 7(1)). Finally, the Records Act provides (section 7(0)): The Review Board and the terms of its members shall terminate not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, except that the Review Board may, by majority vote, extend its term for an additional 1-year pe "The Legislation and National Security Subcommittee convened hearings in April and May 1992 to consider this legislation. On June 3, 1992, both the subcommittee and the standing committee acted favorably on the legislation. Underscoring the subcommittee's commitment to this legislation, an additional hearing was convened on July 22, 1992. On July 27, 1992, companion legislation was passed by the Senate, and on Sept. 30, 1992, the House accepted the Senate version of the Records Act. The act was signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 1992. riod if it has not completed its work within that 2-year pe- Since the Records Act was signed into law, there has been substantial progress in assembling the collection. The bulk of these records are documents generated by the following governmental bodies: 1. The Warren Commission (363 cubic feet of materials); 2. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (325 cubic feet of materials); 3. The Presidential Libraries (105,000 pages); 4. The Department of Justice, Criminal Division (65,000 pages); 5. The Central Intelligence Agency (50,000 pages from the CIA's Lee Harvey Oswald personality file); and 6. The Secret Service (11,000 pages). There are, however, many records which have yet to be transmitted to the collection by the following governmental bodies: 1. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (499,431 pages); 3. The Church Committee (5,000 pages); and 4. The Rockefeller Commission (2,500 pages). In addition, many of the records transmitted to the collection are subject to secrecy claims based on national security or privacy grounds, and have either been withheld from the public or released in a highly redacted form. Although President Clinton has submitted the names of five nominees for the review board, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs has yet to schedule their confirmation hearing. It appears that confirmation proceedings will not be completed until the spring of 1994. Under the Records Act, the review board is responsible for adjudicating secrecy claims. The delay in appointing the review board means that records will likely remain withheld, without the review required by the Records Act, until the summer of 1994. The subcommittee oversight review revealed that there have been protracted delays in executive branch compliance with the Records Act, particularly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These delays will probably require an extension in the life of the review board established by the Records Act. b. Benefits. The subcommittee's work to ensure the prompt and full disclosure of documents relating to the assassination of President Kennedy is crucial to restoring public confidence in the Federal Government and in allaying suspicions that facts are still being concealed about that tragedy. Following the subcommittee's hearing and discussions between Chairman Conyers and FBI Director Freeh, on December 13, 1993, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced that it was transferring to the National Archives over 21,000 pages of materials relating to Jack Ruby. c. Hearings. On November 17, 1993, the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee convened an oversight hearing where testimony was received from the Honorable Trudy Huskamp Peterson, Deputy Archivist of the United States; Gerald Posner, Esq., author of "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK”; James H. Johnston, Esq., former counsel to the Senate Se lect Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities; James H. Lesar, Esq., president, Assassination Archives and Research Center; Maj. John M. Newman, Ph.D., author of "Kennedy and Vietnam"; and Randolph H. Robertson, M.D., diagnostic radiologist. 11. The Effectiveness of the Current Legal Framework for U.N. Peacekeeping Operations. a. Summary. The massive changes in the last 4 years, with the fall of the iron curtain and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, have increased the importance to U.S. foreign policy of United Nation's peacekeeping operations. Due to this heightened importance, the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee has initiated a review of the effectiveness of the current legal framework for U.N. peacekeeping operations. b. Benefits. By reviewing the efficacy of the legal framework for U.N. peacekeeping operations, the subcommittee will provide the Congress with basic information to aid in evaluating these vital programs. c. Hearings.-The Legislation and National Security Subcommittee plans to convene an oversight hearing on this subject early in 1994. 12. Alleged Air Force Suppression of Technical Report on the Follow-on Early Warning System. a. Summary.-In 1993, the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee received allegations that senior Air Force officials suppressed information about a lower cost alternative to the proposed $13 billion Follow-on Early Warning System [FEWS] satellite program. If substantiated, these actions would be an extremely serious, and possibly criminal, withholding of information vital to congressional deliberations. On October 13, 1993, Chairman Conyers requested that the DOD inspector general investigate this matter and report to the subcommittee as soon as possible. Specifically, the subcommittee received memorandums from an Air Force officer warning that statements supporting FEWS made by the chief of the U.S. Space Command are erroneous and based on "data to support a pre-selected answer, and worse yet suppressing discussion of technical alternatives." Documents from other defense officials allege that another senior Air Force officer deleted from a congressionally mandated industry study an option identifying improvements to the existing Defense Support Program as an alternative to FEWS that could save up to $10 billion. b. Benefits. By aggressively probing allegations that relevant information was withheld from Congress while inaccurate and misleading information was supplied, the subcommittee helps to ensure that congressional spending decisions are based on a true understanding of the facts. Where alleged misconduct is substantiated, the subcommittee's oversight activities help to ensure that those responsible are held accountable. Conversely, where allegations of misconduct are unfounded, they should be resolved in order to preserve the careers of the officers involved. |