Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, as Professor Green of Fordham University has said, it is explicit that a person does not waive a Fifth Amendment right by answering questions outside of a formal setting or by making statements that were not under oath, when he referred to the issue of her making statements to the Justice Department. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier), a member of our committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to thank you and Mr. Horsford and the Congressional Black Caucus and certainly Mr. Payne for being here tonight. We are, indeed, at a critical moment in our country's history. As I listened to my colleagues talk about the wealth gap, you know, a lot of times when we address these issues, people say the words, ``Here they go again,'' almost as if to say, let's dismiss this issue; this is an issue that is limited to a limited number of people. But the problem is, as we listen to the things that have been said here tonight, this is not a Black problem, this is not a Hispanic problem; this is an American problem. We have to keep in mind that when you have this kind of gap, these kind of gaps, what happens is the driving force that makes our economy run is placed in a position where they cannot make the purchases that are necessary. When I say purchases, I am not talking about purchases of washing machines and dryers and curtains and things of that nature. I am talking about being able to properly educate their children. A lot of what has been talked about here tonight is whether you can place your children in a position to do better than what you did. So what we are talking about is trying to figure out ways to close that gap so that everybody rises, as opposed to--it has been said, when you have got a wealth gap of 5 or 6 cents for Hispanics and African Americans, as compared to Whites, what that means is that, slowly but surely, you have one part of your society that simply is not participating at any reasonable level. So the question is, how do we address those issues? I know that the Black Caucus budget goes in that direction. But one of the things that I have concentrated on quite a bit is the whole situation with the loss of wealth with regard to property. African Americans and Hispanics, quite often, their wealth is tied up in property. Over the past few years, we have seen a tremendous loss of that wealth. You talked about it a little bit earlier, about how when America has a cold--is that what you said--then we have pneumonia. So what has happened is that, disproportionately, African Americans and Hispanics have lost a lot of that wealth in property because they lost their property. And when they lost that property, they no longer had collateral to make business loans, to even get loans for their kids, or to do the things that they really wanted to do to make their lives better. But just as significantly, they were losing jobs at the same time. So as quiet as it is kept, you have a situation where a lot of Hispanics and African Americans were trying to help their relatives. So not only were they losing their houses, but then whatever savings they may have had, or the little extra income that they may have had that they could have put aside for a rainy day, or in an effort to create some wealth, it simply was disappearing. Then we have had some major settlements with regard to these mortgage lenders, and the mortgage lenders have come in and basically, pretty much admitted, through these settlements, that they wronged a lot of people. As a matter of fact, in my city, in Baltimore, there were certain mortgage companies that admitted that they were pushing people into subprime situations, that they could have done even better, and these were African Americans, by the way, and giving them all these loans, ``no doc'' loans and things of that nature, and the next thing you know, the people had lost all they had. So the question now becomes, with two major settlements, what did they get? As we are doing our research on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and looking at some of this, what we have noticed is that a lot of the people who suffered the most got the least out of the settlements. There are still settlements that are going to take place, so what we are trying to do is study the settlements that have been resolved to learn from those so that future settlement monies will go to the people who actually were harmed. That is just one area. But again, we have got to do everything in our power to close this gap. This is our watch. We are here today. We are the ones who must guard the progress that has been made. Quiet as it is kept, slowly, but surely, we have seen some of that progress go in the opposite direction in a downward spiral. So what we are here to do is to make sure that not only do we stop that slide for African Americans and Hispanics, because, like I said, if we stop that slide there, then the entire economy does well, then all of us do well, and that is what it is all about. So I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for doing this. This is so important. We must be the voice, and we must constantly pound the drums because so often I think what happens--and I will close on this--is a lot of times people see things going in the opposite direction and they say, we will get to it tomorrow, or we will wait another day, or somebody else will deal with it, or maybe somebody else will speak up about it. So what happens is nobody does anything. Nobody says anything. And the next thing you know, 10 years have passed, 20 years, and you look back and you say, Wow, there was a lot of slippage there. But you know what? That slippage also represents people. I heard Congressman Payne talk about people in his district. I have heard you talk about yours and Congressman Horsford. These are people. These are people whom we represent. These are people who get the early bus, the ones who go through trying to make it possible for not only their children but their grandchildren to do well. So again, I want to thank you.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Chair, since February of 2010, more than 8 million jobs have been create in the our Nation. Over the last year, the unemployment rate has fallen by four-fifths of a percentage point. These numbers demonstrate the significant progress we have made in growing our economy and putting Americans back to work after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. However, there is still far more we can do to strengthen our economy and begin to reduce the growing income inequality in our great Nation. Sadly, instead of proposing a budget that would help us expand the middle class, Republicans have, again, offered a budget that seeks to help the wealthy at the expense of the many. Just as in the years past, the 2015 Ryan budget would slash nondefense discretionary spending without regard for the devastating consequences these cuts would have on the lives of Main Street Americans. This year's Ryan budget would cut an additional $791 billion from the postsequester funding caps from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2024. As in the past, the budget also offers an ideological wish list of policies that will increase the unemployment rate, hurt low-income families, and harm our seniors--all to protect the interests of the wealthiest among us. The Ryan budget does not extend emergency unemployment benefits, even though these benefits would help our broader economy, as well as the millions of families that have suffered the devastating consequences of long-term unemployment. Never before has Congress failed to provide Federal unemployment insurance when the unemployment rate--especially for the long-term unemployed--is as high as it is today. This budget would also hit middle class families with thousands of dollars in additional taxes every year, while lowering the top tax rate for the rich. The Ryan budget would repeal the Affordable Care Act, taking health care from millions of middle-income Americans. It would gut Medicaid, taking health care from millions of our poorest families, and it would destroy the commitments we have made to our Nation's seniors by turning Medicare into a voucher program. This budget would also be devastating for our Federal workforce, the people who care for our veterans, who protect our homeland, who ensure the food we eat is safe, and who conduct the research on which we are relying to find new treatments for cancer and other devastating diseases. Let me remind my colleagues that the Republicans have been attacking our Federal employees for years, treating them as if they were the piggybank for deficit reduction. Federal workers have already sacrificed $140 billion towards reducing this Nation's deficit through a 3-year pay freeze and retirement contribution increases. Now, House Republicans want to squeeze another $125 billion out of these middle class workers. How will they do this? The Ryan budget would increase Federal employee pension contributions to 6.53 percent, an increase of more than 5.5 percentage points for many current Federal workers, but it would not increase any benefits provided to these same workers. Of course, proposals for increasing the contributions Federal employees make to their pension funds are not new. This year's budget also includes a provision prohibiting new Federal employees from enrolling in the retirement system that has served Federal employees since the 1920s. Let me make this clear. Under the Ryan budget, one leg of the so- called three-legged stool on which Federal employees have relied for security in their retirement would be ripped out from under them. New Federal employees would be left to rely solely on the savings they accumulate in their Thrift Savings Plan and on Social Security. As if that wasn't enough, the Ryan budget would also eliminate the student loan repayment program for Federal workers, even though this is a vital recruitment and retention incentive used to attract the best and brightest to serve the American people. The budget also proposes to cut the Federal workforce by 10 percent. Contrary to the claims of some that our government is growing out of control, the Federal Government has actually cut 85,000 jobs in the last 12 months. An additional arbitrary workforce reduction isn't likely to yield the savings the Republicans expect because much of the current work of the government would simply be shifted to more expensive contractors. Such a reduction would, however, impede the government's ability to provide needed services to the American people in a timely manner. I agree that Congress must act to put our fiscal house in order, but we must do this in a balanced manner that increases economic stability and certainty in the marketplace. We must not do this on the backs of our neediest citizens, and we must not do this on the backs of the Federal employees who make government work for our Nation every day. Republicans fail to understand that we simply cannot cut our way to prosperity. Expanding opportunity and investing in America today will increase government revenues in the years to come and put our economy back on the path to prosperity. For the good of our Nation, I urge my colleagues to reject the Ryan budget.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will close. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to go back to the legislative history of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the law that would be amended by this bill today. The Senate report on the bill that was signed into law said: The primary purpose of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, is to start the process of redefining the relationship between the Federal Government and State, local, and tribal governments. In addition, the bill would require an assessment of legislative and regulatory proposals on the private sector. The bill accomplishes this purpose by ensuring that the impact of legislative and regulatory proposals on those governments and the private sector are given full consideration in Congress and the executive branch before they are acted upon. The bill we are considering today goes far beyond the purposes of the original law. This bill goes beyond simply ensuring that the Federal Government considers the potential impact of a regulation on State and local governments or the private sector. Instead, the bill would put the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of our own constituents. Something is wrong with that picture. Members should vote against this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to strike section 5 of H.R. 899. My amendment would preserve the integrity of independent agencies. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts independent agencies. The bill we are considering would remove that exemption. That would mean that these agencies would have to submit their rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review. Congress creates independent agencies to be just that, independent. Requiring these agencies to submit their rules for review by the White House, no matter who is President, would be inappropriate. Some of the agencies that would be impacted by this provision include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Communications Commission. This amendment simply maintains the exemption for independent agencies that is current in law. I urge every Member of this body to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I would like to inquire as to whether the other side has additional speakers.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the most problematic provisions of this bill is the section that expands judicial review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA. UMRA currently allows a party to challenge in court whether an agency performed the written statement required under UMRA describing the agency's analysis. A court may require the agency to prepare the written statement if the agency fails to do so. The law explicitly provides, however, that a court cannot use the inadequacy of an agency's UMRA statement or an agency's failure to prepare a written statement as a basis to hold up a rule. Here is what the statute says: The inadequacy or failure to prepare such a statement, including the inadequacy or failure to prepare any estimate, analysis, statement, or description or written plan shall not be used as a basis for staying, enjoining, invalidating, or otherwise affecting such agency rule. The bill would change the statute to allow courts to review the adequacy of an agency's analysis under UMRA and to allow rules to be delayed or invalidated based on the inadequacy of an agency's statement. This clearly contradicts the intent of the original statute. The administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy just yesterday saying that, if H.R. 899 were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto the legislation. The statement said: H.R. 899 would unnecessarily add to the already robust analytical and procedural requirements of the rulemaking process. In particular, H.R. 899 would create needless grounds for judicial review, unduly slowing the regulatory process, and, in addition, it would add layers of procedural steps that would interfere with the agency's priority setting and compliance with statutory mandates. There is another allegation that has been made that I want to address, and that is the allegation that there has been a tsunami of rules issued under President Obama. This is simply inaccurate. President Bush issued 14,387 rules in his first 4 years in office. President Obama issued 13,238 in his first term. That is over 1,000 fewer rules than President Bush issued in the same period of time. According to the Government Accountability Office, agencies published the lowest numbers of rules in 2012 since GAO began keeping data in 1997. GAO found that the first half of 2013 was also on pace to be another record low year. The Office of Management and Budget in its draft 2013 report to Congress on benefits and costs of Federal regulations compared rulemakings across the 4 years of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama presidencies. Rules issued in the first 4 years of President Obama's administration had a net benefit of approximately $159 billion. ``Net benefit'' means the benefits of the rule minus the cost. Rules issued in the first term of President Bush's administration had a net benefit of $60 billion, and rules under President Clinton's first term had a net benefit of $30 billion. That means that the rules under President Obama had a bigger net benefit than the Bush administration and the Clinton administration combined. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. As I close, let me say this, Mr. Chairman. Again, these are independent agencies. Independent agencies could be required to do cost-benefit analysis without requiring rules to go through OMB. This bill allows the administrator of OIRA to hold up a rule if he or she determines the agency didn't comply. I would urge Members to vote in favor of my amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 899, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This bill is the second major piece of legislation being considered this week that will add needless and counterproductive red tape to the rulemaking process. I have the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Oversight Committee has jurisdiction over the executive branch and legislative jurisdiction over governmentwide policies. It is our duty and our responsibility to ensure that the Federal Government is operating effectively and efficiently. It is also the responsibility of every Member of Congress, and we must hold that dearly. This legislation may be well-intended, but it would have unintended consequences that would make government less efficient and less effective. We rely on agency rulemakings to protect our children, protect our workers, and protect our economy. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 150 good government, labor, scientific, faith, health, and community organizations, sent a letter to the Oversight Committee. Here is just a portion of what that letter said: The Wall Street economic collapse, the British Petroleum oil spill catastrophe, various food and product safety recalls, and numerous industrial disasters, including the Upper Big Branch mine explosion in West Virginia and the fertilizer plant in West, Texas, have all dramatically demonstrated the need for a stronger regulatory system that is more responsive to the public interest. Congress should be moving forward to protect the public from harm, not rolling back the clock and weakening important safeguards. Mr. Chairman, now is not the time for us to be adding unnecessary, burdensome requirements to the rulemaking process. Our constituents expect us to make them safer, not to make it harder for agencies to keep them safe. The bill would give private industry an unfair advantage in the rulemaking process. Under this bill, agencies would be required to consult with corporations before consulting with customers who would be protected by the regulations. In fact, the bill requires agencies to consult with private industry ``before issuance of a proposed rulemaking.'' This means that, for example, if the Department of Agriculture planned to propose a new food safety rule, corporate agricultural interests would get advance access to the rule, and the opportunity to shape it, before food safety groups, children's health groups, doctors, or independent scientists are able to participate in the process. I believe that businesses should have the opportunity to provide comments on proposed rules. I think it is very important. They should do it through the normal public comment process, however, just like other stakeholders. The bill also would put independent agencies in jeopardy of political interference. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts independent agencies from its reporting requirements. This bill removes that exemption. That would mean that independent regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission would have to submit their rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review, which could undermine their independence. I plan to offer an amendment to strike that provision, and I hope it will be adopted. This is a well-intended bill with serious, negative consequences. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a member of our committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is a cornerstone of the Dodd-Frank Act, has already proven invaluable in ensuring that financial products offered to American consumers comply with federal law and are not abusive or misleading. The CFPB has brought transparency, accountability and clarity to our markets. Because of the CFPB's work, our residential mortgage lending system is now governed by standards that cap the points and fees a lender may charge, limit risky loan products, and prohibit loans with terms longer than 30 years. CFPB has also enacted new rules to end the abuses in the mortgage servicing process that were so common before the financial crisis. These rules require servicers to credit payments the day they are received and to respond to customer inquiries in a timely manner. They also limit ``dual tracking'' to ensure borrowers are not foreclosed on while they wait to see if they qualify for a loan modification. And through its enforcement actions, CFPB has already recovered approximately $3 billion for consumers who have been the victims of abuse. As of this month, the CFPB has received and is processing more than nine thousand complaints from residents of Maryland alone. Unfortunately, rather than ensuring the CFPB has all of the resources it needs to help consumers, Republicans in the House have routinely sought to undermine the CFPB and the bill before us today simply continues that attack. The only way to protect our constituents from entities that would take advantage of them is to vote against this bill and oppose all efforts to roll back the consumer protections enacted in the Dodd-Frank legislation.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Children's Dental Health Month. It is a critical part of overall health, yet it is also an issue frequently overlooked. Too often we think of dental care as an optional service, but in reality, it is a critical component of overall health. Its importance first hit home for me 7 years ago when I learned the story of a young Maryland boy named Deamonte Driver. In February of 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte came from school with a headache, which had started as a toothache days before. His mother, who worked hard to make ends meet with low-paying jobs, searched for a dentist who would accept Medicaid for her children. She found not one dentist. Let me say that again. She found not one single dentist who would care for her children's teeth. At wit's end, Deamonte's mother brought him to the emergency room, where he received medication for pain, a sinus infection, and a dental abscess. Unfortunately, that was not enough. The bacteria from Deamonte's cavity spread to his brain, and at 12 years old, he died for lack of a simple procedure early on to remove a tooth. He died less than 20 minutes away from where we stand today. Deamonte's case served as a jarring lesson on the lack of access to care for many families. At the time of Deamonte's death, fewer than one in three children under the age of 20 in Maryland's Medicaid program received any dental service at all. In the years since, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act and new efforts to ensure a healthier America, we made significant progress in Maryland and across the country. In other words, we have changed the trajectory of so many children's destinies. Now, 52 percent of children on Medicaid in Maryland receive dental services, even as the number of children enrolled has increased by 25 percent. In fact, through the work of government officials in Maryland's Dental Action Coalition, the State has led the way in increasing access for dental care for children. Nationally, the number of children enrolled in Medicaid who received dental care in 2010 jumped to 46 percent, numbers that suggest progress, but also signal the work left to be accomplished. The implementation of the Affordable Care Act has made a difference, allowing millions more children to receive critical medical and dental care right now. Even more children could access these services if Republican Governors in some States reverse their decisions to block the expansion of Medicaid. I have often said that our children are the living messages we send to a future we will never see. Yet, even with the improvements we have seen, more must be done to ensure that both children and adults have access to needed treatment and preventive care. That is why I introduced the Comprehensive Dental Reform Act. My legislation would provide funding to improve access to dental care through health clinics, school-based services, and other options for underserved populations; extend comprehensive dental coverage to Americans on Medicare, Medicaid, and VA benefits; increase the number of oral health professionals in communities in need; help support research and education to better integrate oral health with regular care. We have come a long way, but more must be done to protect the dental health of our children and every American. If we can assure no child loses his or her life because a dentist couldn't be found to pull a tooth, Deamonte's death won't be in vain.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. For the last three years, House Republicans have repeatedly attacked critical public health, safety, and environmental protections. This package of anti-regulatory bills is just another such attack on agency rulemakings--one that is falsely advertised as an effort to improve transparency. Title one of this bill, which was reported by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, would prevent a rule from taking effect until certain information is posted online for at least six months. The only exception to this requirement would be for the agency to forgo a notice and comment period or for the President to issue an Executive Order. This delay is completely unnecessary and is effectively a six-month moratorium on rules. It also could give agencies a perverse incentive to avoid a public comment period altogether if a statutory or court- ordered deadline could be missed. Just one example of a rule that could be affected by this bill is the Food and Drug Administration's proposed rule on electronic prescribing information, which would ensure that doctors have the most current safety information on prescription drugs. Under this bill, this drug safety rule could not be finalized until OMB posts information about the rule on its web site for six months. FDA, like other agencies, already details the status of its rulemakings on its website, and extensive information about proposed rules is also available on the website Regulations.gov. Yet under this bill, if OMB failed to post a required piece of information, FDA could not finalize the rule unless the President stepped in and issued an Executive Order. It should not be that hard for doctors to have the most up-to-date safety information about prescription drugs. That is just title one of this Frankenstein bill. The other three titles of this bill are even worse. One title would add 60 additional requirements to the rulemaking process. We should be making the regulatory process more efficient and effective. Adding 60 new requirements will do exactly the opposite and make it needlessly complex. Madam Chairman, this is a package of bad bills that would do nothing to improve our rulemaking process. I urge every Member to oppose it.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, FITARA, would make a number of improvements to the management and the acquisition of IT systems in the Federal Government. I think if we were to summarize what this bill does we would have to use the words ``effective'' and ``efficient.'' We would have to use them over and over again, and we would also say that we are going to do better. It would enhance the authority of the Federal Chief Information Officers, require agencies to optimize the functioning of Federal data centers, eliminate duplicative IT acquisition practices, and strengthen the Federal IT acquisition workforce. These reforms are needed to ensure that the Federal Government makes effective and efficient investments in information technology. I want to commend Representative Issa, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for the bipartisan approach to this legislation. We had two full committee hearings on the concepts of this bill. The draft of the bill was made available for comment prior to the committee's considering it, and we really do appreciate that. I also want to recognize Representative Gerald Connolly, the ranking member of the Government Operations Subcommittee, for his critical work on drafting this legislation on technology issues generally. He has made himself an expert in this area, and we are the beneficiaries of that expertise. A significant portion of the legislation before us is based on Ranking Member Connolly's own bill to consolidate Federal data centers. Last year, the GAO issued its most recent high-risk report, which lists several IT projects as being among the Federal Government's highest-risk investments. For instance, a contract to streamline the Army's inventory of weapons systems is more than 12 years behind schedule and is almost $4 billion over budget. Effective oversight is one of the best weapons against this kind of wasteful spending. Congress has a duty to conduct oversight as well as the obligation to give agencies the tools they need to conduct their own oversight and improve their processes. Agencies need more well-trained acquisition management professionals to effectively oversee complex systems acquisitions and to ensure that the government is a smart and diligent consumer. If you do not have the people who have the expertise who are doing the acquisitions, you often run into major problems. As has often been said, there is nothing like not knowing what you don't know. The Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act addresses this need by requiring OMB to submit a 5-year plan to develop, strengthen, and solidify IT acquisition cadres. I understand that the administration has some concerns with this legislation we are considering today, so it is my hope that we can address those concerns as the bill moves forward in the legislative process. Again, I want to thank Chairman Issa for all of his hard work and Mr. Connolly for all of his. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I close, I urge all Members to vote in favor of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Issa for sponsoring this bill with me. This bill, if enacted, would be a landmark reform of our most important open government law, the Freedom of Information Act. This legislation would make significant improvements to the current law, which has not been consistently implemented. During the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno adopted a policy under which the Department of Justice would defend an agency's use of a FOIA exemption only when the agency could reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interest protected by that exemption. In the Bush administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed this standard and directed the Justice Department to defend agency decisions to withhold records, as long as they had a legal basis for doing so. President Obama, to his credit, on his first day in office, directed agencies to implement FOIA with a presumption of openness. Attorney General Holder overturned the Ashcroft standard and reinstated the foreseeable harm standard. The legislation before us today would codify, in law, this presumption in favor of disclosure, no matter who is President. Under this bill, an agency would not be allowed to withhold information in response to a FOIA request, unless disclosure is prohibited by law or would cause specific identifiable harm to an interest protected by one of FOIA's exemptions. This bill also would create an advisory committee to make recommendations to improve government transparency. The President recently endorsed this idea in the Open Government National Action Plan issued by the administration in December of 2013. This legislation also would create a pilot project to encourage participation in a centralized FOIA portal. A centralized portal, such as FOIAonline, that is run by EPA, allows requesters to use one Webcast to file requests to multiple agencies. The bill also would strengthen the Office of Government Information Services by enhancing its role in providing guidance to agencies and ensuring that agencies notify requesters of their right to use its mediation services. The bill would strengthen the independence of this office by allowing it to send testimony and reports directly to Congress without approval from the Office of Management and Budget. I urge every Member of this body to support this open government legislation by voting for it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am about to close. Again, I want to thank Chairman Issa for his hard work on this. This is so very, very important. I often tell my constituents, Mr. Speaker, that this is our watch. We are the guardians of the democracy today, and it is important to us to pass on a stronger and a better democracy than the one we found when we came upon this Earth. A significant part of any democracy is openness, where people can know what the government is doing. When you have a representative government, people come to the town hall meetings trying to find out what is going on, and now they can go to computers and find out what is going on. We must have as much openness as possible and as is reasonable, and I think that this is a big step in the right direction of preserving that part of the democracy that calls for transparency. So I agree with the chairman. This is so much bigger than us. This is not just about this moment. This is about generations yet unborn. This is about people trying simply to be a part of their democracy, who are trying to understand it, who are trying to use information so that they can be participants in it. If they do not know what is going on, it is kind of hard to participate. If they do not know what is going on, it is kind of hard to go to their representatives to urge them to make appropriate changes. So, with that, I urge all of the Members of this body to vote in favor of this legislation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.