|
February 8, 2005
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On February 4, I received your proposal for the Committee’s
oversight agenda for the 109th Congress. I support many of the topics
you suggest for oversight and look forward to pursuing them on a
bipartisan basis.
I am writing to describe 12 additional topics and four previously
requested topics that should be incorporated into the oversight
plan and examined by our Committee this year. These topics address
significant executive branch abuses, such as the mistreatment of
detainees; the use of covert propaganda by federal agencies; the
politicization of science; the undue influence of industry on environmental
regulations; and allegations of conflicts of interest. Other topics
involve potential mismanagement involving billions of dollars in
taxpayer funds.
One of your predecessors, Chairman William Clinger, argued that
control of our Committee should belong to a member of a different
political party than the President so as to ensure that our oversight
responsibilities are performed independently. I am not proposing
such a dramatic change. I am suggesting, however, that our oversight
plan should be developed on a bipartisan basis and reflect the views
of all members of the Committee.
The oversight plan you propose lists over 140 topics for full committee
and subcommittee oversight. Among these topics are “diploma
mills,” “the activities of the Bureau of Economic Analysis,”
“the redundant nature of GSA’s structure for its Federal
Supply Service,” and “the federal government’s
migration to Internet Protocol version IPv6.” I don’t
dispute the value of these topics. But as the primary oversight
committee in the House, our Committee has a constitutional responsibility
to provide a check on the abuses of the executive branch. We cannot
fulfill this responsibility unless we are willing to take on difficult
and politically controversial issues and follow the facts where
they lead.
Abuse of Detainees
After the initial reports of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib surfaced,
the Administration claimed these actions were committed by a few
“bad apples” at a single facility. It is now apparent,
however, that there is considerable evidence of systematic abuse
of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan, as well as Iraq.
New documents released by the ACLU and uncovered by investigative
reporters in the last two months have disclosed horrific practices
such as electric shocks, sexual humiliation, beatings, forced enemas,
and the use of cigarettes to burn prisoners. Contrary to the “few
bad apples” theory, these abhorrent practices have occurred
in multiple locations and involved multiple agencies.
Yet despite severity and prevalence of
the abuses, Congress has ignored them. During the Clinton Administration,
our Committee took 140 hours of testimony in hearings and depositions
to examine whether President Clinton mishandled his Christmas card
list. After photographs revealed the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib,
the House held only five hours of perfunctory hearings in the Armed
Services Committee to investigate the abuses and their origins.
The once-promising investigation in the Senate Armed Services Committee
stalled after an initial round of hearings.
Under the rules of the House, our Committee has clear authority
to investigate the Administration’s mistreatment and indefinite
imprisonment of detainees. In fact, given the multitude of agencies
that appear to be implicated in this growing scandal, including
the White House, the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the FBI,
only our Committee is positioned to conduct the comprehensive investigation
that our nation needs.
I therefore urge you to add the following topics to the oversight
plan and to make them a top priority for the 109th Congress:
Involvement of Senior Administration Officials in Authorizing
or Condoning Detainee Abuse. The new disclosures make it increasingly
clear that the abuse of detainees cannot be dismissed as isolated
incidents of abuse by low-ranking military and civilian personnel.
Yet despite the mounting evidence, there has been no independent
oversight to assess where the system has broken down and which officials
are responsible. Our Committee should investigate to identify what
went wrong and who should be held accountable.
Involvement of Medical Personnel in Detainee Abuse. Articles
in leading medical journals have indicated that U.S. Army doctors
may have used their medical knowledge to devise coercive interrogation
methods for detainees, including sleep deprivation, stress positions,
and other abuse. These reports raise fundamental questions —
which our Committee should examine — about the proper role
of doctors and other medical personnel in intelligence and interrogation
settings.
Government Management Investigations
Our Committee has jurisdiction over the “overall economy,
efficiency, and management of government operations and activities.”
In exercising this jurisdiction, our Committee should examine the
following issues on a governmentwide basis:
Covert Propaganda and Public Relations Spending. Questions
have been raised recently about the use of taxpayer dollars to fund
public relations campaigns. GAO has found that the White House Office
of National Drug Control Policy and the Department of Health and
Human Services engaged in illegal “covert propaganda”
by hiring a public relations firm to produce and disseminate fabricated
video news reports. Investigative reporters have disclosed that
the Department of Education paid a journalist to promote the No
Child Left Behind Act in television and radio appearances and that
HHS had contracts with at least two syndicated columnists who promoted
the President’s marriage initiative. These examples of covert
propaganda and the sharp rise in spending for public relations campaigns
raise questions that our Committee should examine about the extent
to which federal agencies across the government are using taxpayer
dollars to influence public opinion.
Politicization of Science. Scientific journals, scientific
organizations, and leading scientists have called into question
the scientific integrity of many Bush Administration actions. Examples
include applying political litmus tests to appointments to scientific
advisory committees, suppressing scientific reports, gagging scientists,
misleading the public about scientific issues, and providing misleading
or erroneous scientific information to Congress. These problems,
which are occurring governmentwide, should be comprehensively investigated.
Politicization of Inspectors General. By law, the President
is required to nominate Inspectors General of federal agencies “without
regard to political affiliation” and “solely on the
basis of integrity and demonstrated ability.” Unlike past
administrations, however, the Bush Administration has increasingly
politicized the IGs, frequently selecting individuals with Republican
White House or congressional experience for these sensitive positions.
The Committee should address both these larger trends and specific
instances of questionable conduct by IGs, such as the failure of
the HHS IG to conduct a thorough investigation into the misleading
Medicare cost estimates and the failure of the Army IG to sufficiently
investigate detainee abuses.
Executive Branch Conflicts of Interest. There have been
repeated reports of conflicts of interest involving high-ranking
Administration officials, including reports that senior HHS officials
negotiated future employment opportunities at the same time they
were negotiating the Medicare prescription drug legislation; that
Interior Department officials met with former lobbying clients;
that members of federal advisory boards included executives of corporations
that won large contracts from the agencies they were advising; and
that senior White House advisor Karl Rove had meetings with executives
of companies in which he held stock. Although these conflicts of
interest appear to be occurring governmentwide, there has been no
congressional investigation of any of these abuses.
Government Secrecy. Government secrecy is expanding under
the Bush Administration. Laws like the Freedom of Information Act
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that promote government openness
are being narrowed, while laws like the Patriot Act that authorize
secret government actions are being expanded. The oversight plan
proposes to examine one piece of this problem: the growing use of
the secret but unclassified designation. This portion of the oversight
plan should be revised to call for a comprehensive examination of
the rise in government secrecy.
Procurement Investigations
Our Committee has jurisdiction over federal procurement practices
and policies. In exercising this jurisdiction, the following topics
should be added to the oversight plan:
Rise in Sole-Source Contracting. In fiscal year 2003, the
Bush Administration awarded $107 billion in sole-source and other
noncompetitive contracts, an increase of 60% compared to the last
year of the Clinton Administration. The Committee should examine
the causes and effects of this massive increase, the pitfalls of
removing basic safeguards like competition from the procurement
process, and who is benefiting from the growth in noncompetitive
contracting.
Conflicts of Interest and DHS Contracts. According to recent
press accounts, two close aides to Homeland Security Secretary Tom
Ridge left government in 2002 to work for Blank Rome, a lobbying
firm that represents dozens of companies that subsequently won billions
of dollars in contracts awarded by the Department. One staffer was
described as “the closest governmental and political adviser
to Secretary Tom Ridge for over 18 years.” The press accounts
also indicate that Secretary Ridge is “close personal friends”
with David Girard-diCarlo, Blank Rome’s chairman, and stayed
overnight for two nights at his Arizona home in November 2002 when
Blank Rome was representing Raytheon’s interest in a $10 billion
border protection contract with the Department. The Committee should
investigate whether any of these activities violated ethical or
contracting rules and whether an appearance of impropriety may have
damaged public confidence in the Department.
Health and Environment Investigations
There have been repeated reports in the news media that special
interests have had disproportionate access and influence in the
development of federal health and environmental policy. Issues in
this area that our Committee should examine include the following:
Industry Influence on EPA Rulemaking. Under the Bush Administration,
the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly allowed regulated
industries undue influence over the agency’s rulemaking and
decision-making processes. Just last week, the EPA Inspector General
reported that political appointees compromised the agency’s
scientific analysis by instructing staff members to arrive at predetermined
conclusions on a proposed rule to reduce mercury from coal-fired
power plants in order to keep cleanup costs down for the utility
industry. Investigative journalists have disclosed other examples
of unusually close coordination between EPA and industry representatives,
including in the development of regulations, agreements, or findings
involving industrial shop towels, increased air pollution from power
plants, injection of toxics into drinking water sources, farm pollution,
and formaldehyde emissions. The Committee should investigate the
overall pattern and specific instances in which regulated industries
have exercised improper influence over EPA’s rulemaking and
decision-making.
Decline of FDA Enforcement. Since the end of 2001, when
the Bush Administration put in place a new enforcement policy at
FDA, the number of enforcement actions has declined precipitously.
For example, warning letters against misleading drug advertisements
dropped by approximately 70%, and enforcement actions against biologics
companies for manufacturing violations dropped by 80%. Enforcement
delays have also increased dramatically. The Committee should investigate
the origins, implementation, and consequences of this enforcement
policy, with attention to cases where career investigators believed
official action to protect the public health was warranted but could
not proceed.
Abstinence-Only Education Programs. A minority staff report
found that millions of federal dollars are spent on abstinence curricula
that are inaccurate or are based on outdated stereotypes of men
and women. The Committee should explore how these curricula came
to be so erroneous, why HHS approved tens of millions of dollars
of funding for them, and how scientific accuracy can be assured
in the future.
Previously Requested Investigations
In addition to the investigations listed above, I renew my request
that the Committee examine the following issues:
Halliburton’s RIO Contract. Last Congress, our Committee
focused primarily on Halliburton’s logistical support contract
(LOGCAP), the largest Iraq contract. The second-largest contract
in Iraq is Halliburton’s $2.5 billion Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO)
contract. Defense Department auditors have now completed several
reports on the total amount of overcharges under this contract,
but these reports have not been provided to the Committee. The Committee
has also not yet received documents it requested seven months ago
relating to the process by which Halliburton was selected for the
RIO work. The Committee should continue its investigation and insist
on receiving this information.
Progress of Iraqi Reconstruction. There is an enormous public
interest in knowing how billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent
to reconstruct various sectors in Iraq, including electricity, water
and sewer, oil, and others. Yet there has been no systematic examination
of where federal taxpayer dollars have been spent, what results
have been achieved, and how the contractors have performed. On September
23, 2004, my staff requested that the Committee seek briefings from
the Administration to examine the progress of reconstruction through
a systematic sector-by-sector analysis. To date, there has been
no action on this issue.
Outing of CIA Operative. On September 29, 2003, and again
on December 11, 2003, I wrote to you requesting Committee hearings
on allegations that White House officials breached national security
law by disclosing the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.
You declined to pursue this investigation on the grounds that the
Justice Department had appointed a special prosecutor, Patrick J.
Fitzgerald, to investigate. Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation,
however, appears to have gotten off track by targeting journalists
rather than the White House officials involved. Moreover, there
are many issues relating to this matter that Mr. Fitzgerald is not
investigating, such as whether the White House responded appropriately
after Ms. Plame’s identity was first revealed. These issues
should be examined in our Committee.
Misleading Medicare Cost Estimates. Both the HHS Inspector
General in a cursory review and GAO have found that information
on the true cost of the 2003 Medicare reform law was suppressed
in violation of federal law. However, HHS still has not responded
to a March 2004 request for information related to the cost estimates
and why they were withheld. In addition, the White House has refused
to comment on the incident or permit officials involved to testify.
As a result, the request that I made on March 17, 2004, for a Committee
investigation remains as necessary today as it was 11 months ago.
Conclusion
With a few exceptions — some of which you are responsible
for — Congress has largely abdicated its constitutional oversight
responsibility. The House and Senate are not providing an effective
check on executive branch abuses or holding the Bush Administration
accountable for its mistakes. This has grave implications for our
nation.
As the primary oversight committee in the House, our Committee
should play a vital role in restoring checks and balances to our
system of government. Our goal should be to conduct evenhanded and
responsible oversight on a bipartisan basis. Amending the oversight
plan to incorporate the suggestions in this letter would be a major
step in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
cc: Members of the Committee on Government Reform
|
