Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 135) to amend the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 to strengthen Federal antidiscrimination laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and expand accountability within the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 135.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today I am very pleased to bring to the floor six bills from the Committee on Oversight and Reform. Each bill, I am very glad to say, enjoys bipartisan sponsorship. These measures will strengthen protections for Federal employees and for congressional interns and enhance accountability and improve the Federal procurement and grant processes. The first measure we are bringing today is H.R. 135, the Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act. This bill is essentially identical to legislation that has passed the House in each of the two previous Congresses. In the 114th Congress, the measure passed by a vote of 403- 0; and in the last Congress, it passed by voice vote. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues--Representatives Meadows, Norton, Sensenbrenner, and Jackson Lee--for working with me on this measure. I thank them for their leadership and their commitment for improving our Federal equal opportunity programs. Let me also thank Tanya Ward Jordan, Paulette Taylor, and all the members of the Coalition 4 Change, known as C4C, for their work on this measure and for their years of perseverance as we have worked to try to get this measure enacted into law. One of my highest priorities as chairman of the Oversight Committee is to protect the right of every single Federal employee, every Federal job applicant, and indeed of every citizen, to equality of opportunity. While the clear majority of Federal workplaces are in compliance with the standards for a model Equal Employment Opportunity program promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sadly, some still are not. It is past time for these failures to be corrected. During our committee's bipartisan investigations of several different agencies--including the Forest Service, the Park Service, and the Transportation Security Administration--we have seen firsthand the consequences that employees suffer when agencies fail to operate model EEO programs or when they do not handle complaints of harassment and discrimination in a fair, timely, consistent, and thorough manner. We have also seen how employees who file complaints with their agencies' EEO programs can be victimized again if appropriate steps are not taken to prevent the disclosure of complainants' identities and personal information. H.R. 135 would strengthen the management of Federal EEO programs by requiring that they operate independently of agencies' human resources and general counsel offices. H.R. 135 would require that the head of each agency EEO program report directly to the head of the agency. This policy is critical to ensuring that agencies prioritize their EEO programs at the highest levels and that their sole purpose is to ensure equal opportunity for all employees. H.R. 135 would strengthen the accountability mechanisms that are central to effectiveness of the EEO process. The bill would also prohibit any forms, policies, or agreements that seek to prevent an employee from disclosing waste, fraud, or abuse to Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, or an Inspector General. Madam Speaker, the provisions in this bill are very simple, and the entire House has repeatedly supported them on a bipartisan basis. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 135, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill as quickly as possible. Let me be clear that while the measure before us is important to improving our Federal workplaces, many of those workplaces are shut down today, and they have been shut down longer than at any time in our great Nation's history. As the legislation before us proves, we can come together in a bipartisan manner to enact measures that will help the millions of Americans who work for the Federal Government. As I have often said, our Federal employees do not want us, the government, to hurt them; they want us to help them. We ought to be able to come together on a bipartisan basis and take the simple step of reopening our government and ensuring that the programs and services on which our Nation depends are functioning and that the people who work for us get paid so they can take care of their families and take care of their bills, for they give their blood, their sweat, and their tears to keep our country together. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the words of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. So often what we see is our Federal employees often being criticized when it came to trying to find money when we have budgetary problems. It seems that there is an effort to constantly go in to the Federal employees and make them pay. And they do all kinds of jobs. I agree with the gentlewoman. This bill does not solve the problem with the shutdown. At least I hope that we are sending a message to them that we care about them and that we understand and we feel their pain. I agree with the gentlewoman. In some kind of way, we ought to be able to move from where we are to getting folks back to work, an independent group looking at, perhaps, the issues that confront the compromisers--that is, looking at this wall--and deal with that at some other time. But we need to get people back to work. People are in pain. They are feeling it. Not only are the employees feeling it, but all the people who are coming into the various parks or whatever, who simply want to have a nice day, who simply want to have some reasonable entertainment that does not cost them a lot by going for a walk in the park; for getting the services that are needed; for making sure that our airplanes do not have folks on them carrying guns. These folks who we saw in the airport over the weekend, they are the same ones who are coming in day after day and working for no pay. We are better than that, and I am praying that we will get this issue resolved. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia talked about the number of people who she has in her district who are Federal employees. We, in Maryland, have over 100,000 Federal employees, and we have so many people who work for the Federal Government through contracting. There must be a way to get this done. I am going to close, but I will give the gentlewoman her opportunity, and then I will come back, Madam Speaker. Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleagues who worked very hard on this bill: Congressman Meadows, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Sensenbrenner, and Congresswoman Jackson Lee. All of them worked in a strong, bipartisan way to make this happen. H.R. 135 is a simple, straightforward measure that would make a handful of changes to require the Federal agencies' equal employment opportunity programs conform to the model standards set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and to strengthen accountability. This bill has had overwhelming bipartisan support from the entire House of Representatives for years, and I urge the Senate to pass this measure as soon as possible. As I close, I do not want to address extraneous issues that have previously arisen regarding this measure in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I want to be crystal clear that I believe that the supervisors who engage in discriminatory or retaliatory actions must be held accountable. However, this can be accomplished without curtailing any existing due process rights for Federal employees, and I will continue to oppose efforts to roll back due process rights. Madam Speaker, I urge the House to vote in favor of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 136) to amend title 5, United States Code, to protect unpaid interns in the Federal Government from workplace harassment and discrimination, and for other purposes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 136.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill before us, the Federal Intern Protection Act, would close a loophole in Federal employment law that currently leaves unpaid interns open to discrimination and sexual harassment without any legal recourse. The Committee on Oversight and Reform has held multiple hearings about sexual harassment and retaliation occurring in various Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. During these hearings, both my Republican colleagues and I expressed our disgust at the exploitation of female employees and interns, and we demanded action to prevent future abuse. Unfortunately, the act of harassing unpaid interns on the basis of race, religion, age, or sex is not currently prohibited by Federal law. Under existing law, victims rely on the discretion and integrity of managers to prevent this behavior. One witness who testified before our committee told us that managers do not always address the problem as they should and may actually be, in fact, a part of the problem. The witness stated: ``Even after finding out about the numerous harassment victims, the direct reporting manager continued to feed the harasser a steady diet of young women.'' We saw at our hearings that allowing this kind of behavior to go unchecked can have serious consequences on the lives and careers of those who are interested in government service. Our bill will give Federal interns the same protections already provided to Federal employees. This measure passed the House in previous Congresses, and I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that this legislation passes our Chamber once again today. I want to speak to the Congressional Intern Protection Act, related legislation I introduced, which gives protections to congressional interns and which was passed at the end of the last Congress as a part of a package of reforms to the Congressional Accountability Act. This is a great start, but more must be done. Along with the Federal Intern Protection Act, I introduced the Unpaid Intern Protection Act, which would provide these protections to interns in the private sector. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 136 is a commonsense measure that would close a loophole in the Federal employment law that currently leaves the youngest, most vulnerable group of our constituents open to harassment and discrimination without legal recourse to protect them. This bipartisan bill passed our Chamber in the last Congress, reflecting bipartisan agreement that we need to solidify protections for Federal interns and ensure they have the same protections already provided to Federal employees. As I close, I want to be clear that this bill responds to very real instances of interns being victimized within the Federal Government. Without this bill, victims will be forced to continue to rely on the discretion and integrity of the managers to prevent this behavior. I still say we can do better than that, so I urge the House to join me today in supporting this measure. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to move this bill through the Senate and, finally, get it to the President's desk. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 202) to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 relative to the powers of the Department of Justice Inspector General.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure before us today.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 202, the Inspector General Access Act. I thank Representatives Richmond, Hice, and Lynch for the bipartisan manner in which they worked on this very important bill in the last Congress. The Inspector General Access Act would allow the inspector general of the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of misconduct by Department attorneys. The IG is statutorily independent and currently has the authority to investigate other DOJ personnel. The IG is barred from pursuing appropriate investigations into attorneys at the Department. Under current law, the authority to investigate attorneys is restricted to the Office of Professional Responsibility within DOJ. OPR is not statutorily independent, and its head is not confirmed by the Senate like the IG is. Treating attorneys differently from other personnel is simply unfair. Michael Horowitz, the inspector general at the Department of Justice, recently testified before our Committee on Oversight and Reform, and this is what he said: ``This bifurcated jurisdiction creates a system where misconduct by FBI agents and other DOJ law enforcement officers is conducted by a statutorily-independent IG appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, while misconduct by DOJ prosecutors is investigated by a component head who is appointed by the Department's leadership and who lacks statutory independence. There is no principled reason for treating misconduct by Federal prosecutors differently than misconduct by DOJ law enforcement agents.'' H.R. 202 would not prohibit OPR from investigating attorneys. It would simply add the ability to investigate attorneys, when appropriate to the IG's authority, an additional layer of accountability. Empowering IGs has been and should continue to be a nonpartisan issue. The Committee on Oversight and Reform relies on the work of IGs. We strongly support efforts to help them do their jobs effectively and efficiently. A bill identical to the one before us passed the House on a voice vote in the last Congress. I urge my colleagues to continue their support for IGs by supporting the Inspector General Access Act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On November 29, 2018, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz sent a letter to the Oversight and Reform Committee in support of the Inspector General Access Act, and this is what he wrote: ``Providing the OIG with authority to exercise jurisdiction in attorney professional misconduct cases would enhance the public's confidence in the outcomes of these investigations and provide the OIG with the same authority as every other inspector general.'' I include Mr. Horowitz's letter in the Record. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, November 29, 2018. Hon. Trey Gowdy, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Cummings: I write to express my strong support for H.R. 3154, the ``Inspector General Access Act of 2017'' (Access Act), which your Committee approved unanimously on September 27, 2018. The Access Act would amend the Inspector General Act (IG Act) to provide the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with authority to investigate allegations of misconduct against DOJ attorneys for their actions as lawyers, just as the OIG has authority under the IG Act to investigate allegations of misconduct made against any non-lawyer in the Department, including law enforcement agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). Currently, under Section 8E of the Inspector General Act, the OIG does not have the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct made against DOJ attorneys acting in their capacity as lawyers; this role is reserved exclusively for the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The Access Act has received broad, bipartisan support over successive Congresses because it promotes independent oversight, transparency, and accountability within DOJ and for all of its employees. For these same reasons, in 1994, the then-General Accounting Office, now the Government Accountability Office (GAO), issued a report that found that preventing the OIG from investigating attorney misconduct was inconsistent with the independence and accountability that Congress envisioned under the IG Act. The OIG has long questioned this carve-out because OPR lacks statutory independence and does not regularly release its reports and conclusions to the public. Moreover, to our knowledge, the DOJ Inspector General is the only Inspector General in the entire federal government that does not have the authority to investigate alleged professional misconduct by attorneys who work in the agency it oversees. Providing the OIG with authority to exercise jurisdiction in attorney professional misconduct cases would enhance the public's confidence in the outcomes of these investigations and provide the OIG with the same authority as every other Inspector General. Alleged professional misconduct by DOJ prosecutors, like any alleged misconduct by DOJ agents, should be subject to statutorily independent oversight: Over fifteen years ago, the Department and Congress recognized the importance of statutorily independent OIG oversight over all DOJ law enforcement components (FBI, DEA, USMS, and ATF) when Attorney General Ashcroft authorized the OIG to conduct additional law enforcement oversight in 2001 and Congress legislated it in 2002. Yet, allegations against Department prosecutors for professional misconduct continue to be handled exclusively by OPR. As a result, presently, if an allegation of misconduct is made against the FBI Director, it is reviewed by the OIG; by contrast, if an allegation of professional misconduct is made against the Attorney General, it is handled by OPR, a Departmental component that the Attorney General supervises. The rationale supporting independent oversight for alleged misconduct by law enforcement applies with equal force to alleged wrongdoing by federal prosecutors, regardless of the nature of the alleged misconduct. There is no principled reason to have two standards of oversight at DOJ--one for federal agents, who are subject to statutorily independent and transparent oversight by the OIG, and one for federal prosecutors, who are not for allegations of professional misconduct. This is particularly true given the extraordinary power that Department lawyers have to charge individuals with crimes, to seek incarceration, and to pursue the seizure of assets and property. The OIG's independence, established by statutory authorities and protections, facilitates objective and credible investigations of misconduct allegations, as well as unbiased reports that identify and make useful recommendations for improving the Department. The OIG is headed by a Senate-confirmed Inspector General who can only be removed by the President, with prior notice to Congress. The OIG's statutory independence is bolstered by the OIG's dual obligation to report findings and concerns both to the Attorney General and to Congress. The independent OIG is able to make critical investigative and audit findings without fear of reprisal. Conversely, OPR has no statutory independence or protections. The OPR Counsel is appointed by and answers to the Attorney General, and can be removed or disciplined by the Attorney General. Although a November 27, 2018 letter from DOJ's Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) on H.R. 3154 states that ``OPR has always acted independently,'' it does not point to any protections, statutory or otherwise, that exist to ensure OPR's independence from the Attorney General, nor has DOJ proposed strengthening OPR's independence by adding such protections. Indeed, the letter fails to explain or even address why DOJ believes it is better to have a non- statutorily independent entity handle attorney professional misconduct cases rather than a statutorily independent organization, as is the case for law enforcement professional misconduct allegations. The OIG's independent and transparent oversight enhances the public's confidence in the DOD's programs and improves its operations: In addition to independence, the OIG considers transparency a crucial component of its oversight mission. With limited exceptions, the OIG ensures that the public is aware of the results of our work. The majority of our reports are posted on our public website at the time of release to ensure that Congress and the public are informed of our findings, in a comprehensive and timely manner. The OIG, consistent with the IG Act, publishes on our website summaries of investigations resulting in findings of administrative misconduct by senior government employees and in matters of public interest even when the subject is not prosecuted. We post such summaries without identifying the investigative subject consistent with the legal requirements under the Privacy Act. Because of this commitment to transparency, there are currently hundreds of OIG reports, audits, and reviews posted on our web site. There are also summaries of dozens of OIG investigative reports posted, including recent reports involving significant misconduct by senior DOJ officials. In contrast, there are currently only a total of five reports (other than annual reports) posted on OPR's website. Four of those five reports are from 2008 and were the result of OPR's joint work with the OIG, and which the OIG posted on our website consistent with the IG Act and our practice. The fifth report was completed by OPR in 2013 and only released in 2015 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Moreover, although the OLA letter states that ``OPR discloses a substantial amount of information about its work and findings in its annual report,'' this information is not reported in a timely or comprehensive manner. Congress and the public only find out about some, but not necessarily all, of OPR's work when it issues an annual report. An example of this dichotomy can be found in a case involving an Oregon lawyer who was arrested by the FBI and wrongly imprisoned after mismatched fingerprints linked him to the 2004 bombing at a Madrid train station. The OIG investigated the allegations of FBI agent misconduct, while the Department's OPR investigated the allegations of attorney misconduct. This bifurcation led to inconsistent treatment. The OIG report on the actions of the FBI agents was published on the OIG's website, but OPR did not publish the report on the conduct of the DOJ attorneys who were involved in the same case. Transparency ensures greater accountability, and sends an important deterrent message to other Department employees. The credibility of the Department's disciplinary process is inevitably reduced when the responsible component operates under the direction of the Department's senior leadership and is not subject to public scrutiny because of limited transparency. The OIG has demonstrated its excellence in reviewing complex legal and factual issues, including employee ethics and misconduct matters: Over the past 30 years, the OIG has shown that it is capable of fair and independent oversight of the DOJ. The jurisdictional limitation of Section 8E(b)(3) is an unnecessary historical vestige of the fact that OPR was in existence prior to the statutory creation of the OIG in 1988. Those who unsuccessfully tried in 2002 to forestall Congress from providing the OIG with oversight of alleged misconduct by FBI and DEA agents contended that those cases required specialized expertise--just like the Department argues currently that prosecutorial oversight requires specialized expertise--and that argument was roundly rejected and has proven to be entirely without merit. The decision by Congress to extend OIG jurisdiction in 2002 to encompass misconduct by FBI and DEA agents has allowed for significant and important oversight of DOJ's law enforcement operations, and has had significant positive impact on the integrity of those agencies' operations. The OIG has consistently demonstrated our ability to handle complex legal and factual issues related to our misconduct reviews, including those involving FBI and DEA agents as well as, on occasion, ethics issues involving DOJ lawyers. In addition to our recent investigation of the FBI's actions prior to the 2016 presidential election, which involved evaluating the professional conduct by FBI agents, FBI lawyers, and FBI senior officials, we have investigated the FBI's actions involving its former agent Robert Hanssen, the FBI's activities related to James ``Whitey'' Bulger, the DEA's oversight of its confidential informant program, the DEA and other components' handling of sexual misconduct and harassment cases, the operation of the FBI laboratory, ATF's actions involving Operation Fast and Furious, and the FBI's use of its national security authorities (National Security Letters, Patriot Act Section 215, FISA Amendment Act Section 702). Each of those and many other reviews resulted in independent and transparent findings by the OIG, and resulted in changes to Department operations that enhanced their effectiveness and thereby increased the public's confidence in those programs. Moreover, OIGs throughout the government, including at the Department of Homeland Security and the Securities and Exchange Commission, have authority to investigate misconduct allegations made against attorneys at those agencies and they have demonstrated that they are fully capable of dealing with such matters covering a wide range of complex legal issues. The DOJ OIG is the only OIG, to our knowledge, that is barred by the IG Act from reviewing misconduct by lawyers within the agency it oversees. The Access Act would provide the OIG with oversight over Department lawyers in a manner that is entirely consistent with its oversight authority over Department non-attorneys: The present oversight system that applies to allegations made against any DOJ non-lawyer, as provided for in the IG Act and Department regulations, is precisely the oversight mechanism that the Access Act seeks to apply to Department lawyers. Specifically, under the current system for DOJ non- lawyers, all non-frivolous misconduct allegations must be provided to the OIG for the OIG's review and determination as to whether it is of the type and nature that warrants and necessitates independent OIG investigation. Given the OIG's limited resources, the OIG handles only those allegations that warrant an independent OIG investigation, and therefore the OIG returns routine and less serious misconduct allegations to Department components, such as the FBI's Inspections Division and the DEA's OPR, for their handling and investigation. For those matters that the OIG retains, when the OIG completes its investigation, it sends its report to the component so that it can adjudicate the OIG's findings and take disciplinary action, as appropriate. The Access Act creates a similar practice, by maintaining the Department's OPR to handle misconduct allegations that do not require independent outside review as determined by the OIG, much as the internal affairs offices at the FBI, DEA, ATF, and USMS remain in place today. We are unaware of any claims by Department leaders that this approach has resulted in ``different investigative standards,'' ``decrease[d] efficiency,'' or ``inconsistent application'' of legal standards. There is no evidence that it has impacted the components ``ability to successfully defend any significant discipline decision before the Merit Systems Protection Board.'' Yet this parade of horribles is precisely what the OLA letter claims will occur if attorneys are treated in the same manner as Special Agents and non- attorneys at the Department, rather than continuing to receive the special oversight treatment granted to them under the current carve-out provision under the IG Act. This argument is meritless. Indeed, the disciplinary processes at the FBI and the DEA have substantially improved since the OIG obtained statutory oversight authority over those components in 2002, in significant part due to the greater transparency and accountability that has resulted from the OIG's oversight. I very much appreciate your strong support for my Office and for Inspectors General throughout the federal government. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General.

Mr. CUMMINGS. On December 25, 2018, the New York Times editorial board wrote: ``It makes sense to give Mr. Horowitz's office oversight authority over the activities of Justice Department lawyers--as other inspectors general have over lawyers in their departments. Doing so would aid the cause of justice and strengthen the public's trust in an institution charged with upholding it.'' On December 30, 2018, the Miami Herald also published an editorial in support of the Inspector General Access Act. I hope the Senate will follow the quick and bipartisan action this body will take today when we pass this bill so that we can get it to the President's desk for his signature as soon as possible. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to vote in favor of this very important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 113) to require the purchase of domestically made flags of the United States of America for use by the Federal Government.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 113.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The All-American Flag Act is a commonsense bill that all Members can support. It would require that all Federal agencies purchase American flags that are manufactured right here in the United States using materials grown or produced in the United States. Under current law, the requirement applies only to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. It should be extended to all Federal agencies. As under current law, the bill would provide certain limited exceptions and allow agencies to purchase American flags made elsewhere if they are not available in sufficient quantity or quality from American manufacturers. I urge support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think this is a very important bill. The American flag is so near and dear to so many people, and, quite often, folks think that it is being manufactured here in the United States and being manufactured with materials grown here; but the fact is, quite often, that is not the case. So I think it is only fitting that, when we wave that flag and when we salute that flag, we know that it has been produced here in our country. Madam Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 247) to amend chapter 36 of title 44, United States Code, to make certain changes relating to electronic Government services, and for other purposes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure before us today.