Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

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

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished lady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I cannot emphasize strongly enough how unnecessary, damaging, and constitutionally defective this legislation is. You know, as Ms. Jackson Lee was speaking, Mr. Chairman, I could not help but think about a young lady that I met at NIH a few years ago when the government was shut down. I was talking to her, and I was asking her about her job. And one of the things she said was that she was very, very upset. And I said: ``Well, are you upset that you are going to possibly lose money? Or are you upset that you are going to have problems?'' She said: ``No, I am not so upset about losing my job because I can always find a job.'' She said: ``The thing I am upset about is that if the government shuts down, that means that there are all kinds of research that is going to be stopped and we won't be able to see the breakthroughs that I thought we would be able to see.'' My point is that there are so many Federal employees, just like the ones who work for us, who come to work every day and they have dedicated their lives to giving to the public. In other words, it is about the business of feeding their souls. So often what happens, I have noticed, is we have a way of not treating them right all the time. And I have been a fierce defender of the public employee and the Federal employee because I realize that they are the backbone of this Nation. Yet, when we look at the negative consequences of this legislation, they are truly terrible. The bill would reduce due process protections for new Federal employees and senior executives, enable whistleblower retaliation. And whistleblower retaliation is something that our committee has fought and tried to make clear that we would not tolerate under any circumstances, and I am pleased to say that that has always been something that both sides of the aisle has been adamant about, and we should be. This legislation would bar the President from issuing rules to protect health and safety during his last months in office. Whether it was President Obama or any other President, I want our President to serve out every second of his term and I want him or her to be able to accomplish the things that the American people elected them to do right down to the very last second. Another thing that it does, it erodes collective bargaining rights. It requires duplicative and burdensome reporting by the Office of Personnel Management and agencies. It imposes unnecessary guidelines regarding computer usage. And it requires the IRS to establish an arbitrary recordkeeping system. I would like to remind our colleagues that the Federal circuit court of appeals is reviewing the constitutionality of nearly identical provisions in the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act enacted in 2014. And the Department of Justice has decided not to defend the constitutionality of some of these provisions before the Federal circuit court. Before I conclude, I want to underscore my disapproval of this bill's unjustified interference with President Obama's authority to issue regulations that are critical to ensuring the safety of the American people. I would like to quote from a March 1, 2016, letter sent to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in opposition to title 6, and it says: ``Taking the claims of `midnight regulation' critics at face value, there is simply no principled basis for allowing deregulatory measures to be rushed through the process without `adequate vetting' while at the same time preventing agencies finalizing and implementing public protections by falsely claiming that they did not receive adequate consideration. This Administration ends on January 20, 2017. It is incumbent upon them to do their constitutional duty to implement the laws of the Congress until that date.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the Palmer amendment and find that it only makes technical changes to the bill, so I will not oppose it. However, it does nothing to improve the bill, which I will continue to oppose. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment but do not oppose it, as modified by Representative Posey.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, it is not clear what this amendment does or what it is intended to do. I agree that there should be accountability for IT security, but we have had no hearings or other discussion on this issue. The Federal Information Security Management Act already ensures that senior agency personnel take responsibility for ensuring the agency systems are secure. Unfortunately, the amendment does nothing to address the larger underlying problem with the bill, which would simply trample on Federal employees' due process protections and block the President from issuing critical regulatory protections at the end of his term. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment offered by one of the freshman stars of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman. This amendment would exempt from the bill rulemakings that agencies have included in their regulatory plans for a year or more. Agencies are required to submit to OMB twice a year a plan for rulemakings they plan to pursue. OMB publishes those plans twice a year as part of what is called the Unified Agenda. This amendment would still block any rule an agency tries to rush through the process. This amendment would not, however, block rules that have been through the proper procedures just because they happen to be finalized during the last months of the administration. This amendment allows the focus to be on true so-called midnight regulations. If those rules are truly the target of this bill, then the House should adopt this amendment.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation to reauthorize the Office of Special Counsel. I thank Representatives Blum, Connolly, and Meadows, as well as Chairman Chaffetz, for working with me in such a bipartisan way on this legislation. As my colleagues know, one of my top priorities as Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee is the protection of federal employees from discrimination and retaliation. The Office of Special Counsel plays an especially important role in ensuring that the work environment of federal employees is free of such prohibited personnel practices. OSC's last reauthorization ended in 2007. It is unacceptable that OSC still hasn't been authorized nearly ten years later. This legislation would reauthorize OSC through 2020, and it would make changes to help OSC be more effective. For example, it would make clear that OSC is entitled to access agency information in its investigations. This bill would also allow OSC to hold agencies more accountable for whistleblower retaliation. Under the bill, if an agency substantiates a whistleblower disclosure from OSC but fails to take a recommended corrective action, the agency must explain why it failed to take the action. This legislation would strengthen the tools available to OSC for addressing and correcting retaliation and discrimination in the federal workplace. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting passage of H.R. 4639.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Inspector General Empowerment Act. Inspectors General play a crucial role in making the federal government more effective and efficient. The bill we are considering today will help the IGs do their jobs even better. I appreciate the time and effort that Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz and his staff put into making this bill a truly bipartisan product. I also want to thank Representative Mark Meadows for his work on this bill. This bill would make crystal clear that Inspectors General have the right to access any information available to the agency the IG oversees. An agency could not deny an IG access to information unless Congress expressly limits the rights of an IG to access the information in a statute. The bill includes special provisions for grand jury information held by the Department of Justice. Under the bill, the IG for DOJ would have unfettered access to grand jury information, but the Attorney General could limit access to grand jury information for other agency IGs under certain exceptions. This language was painstakingly worked out with feedback from DOJ and the Inspectors General. The Inspector General Empowerment Act would also give Inspectors General the ability to subpoena witnesses. This would be a significant new authority. I believe most IGs would act responsibly and use this authority only when absolutely necessary. There is a potential for abuse, however, so the bill includes several safeguards. The bill would require an IG, before issuing a subpoena, to go through two reviews. The first review would be conducted by the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency. A panel of three Inspectors General would approve or deny any request by an IG to issue a subpoena for witness testimony. The second review would be conducted by the Attorney General, who would have the opportunity to object if the subpoena would interfere with an ongoing investigation. I believe the bill strikes a careful balance in granting IGs the authority to interview witnesses outside of the government while also providing these important checks against potential abuse. The Inspector General Empowerment Act would also make needed reforms to the process used for investigating allegations of wrongdoing by Inspectors General. The current process can be agonizingly slow. The bill also contains several other reforms aimed at helping IGs perform independent audits and investigations. This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to thank Mr. Meadows and Mr. Chaffetz and, certainly, Speaker Ryan for getting this bill to the floor. I associate myself completely with the words of the former chairman of our Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Issa. I don't think there has been anyone who has worked harder on getting this bill to the floor than Mr. Issa. Without a doubt, his fingerprints are all over it. I really do, from the depths of my heart, thank him for all that he has done to make this happen. The FOIA Improvement Act is a product of a 3-year journey--that is a long time--that began when Representative Issa and I first introduced the basis for the bill in 2013. Mr. Issa worked with me on the House version of this bill, and Senators Leahy and Cornyn took the lead in the Senate. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz, for his work on FOIA reform and for his support bringing the bill to the floor. He has proposed some additional initiatives that did not make it into this version of the bill but that deserve continued attention. Even in our negotiations, I give it to Chairman Chaffetz. You know, a lot of times when you are trying to work things out and get things done between the House and the Senate, there has to be some compromise. There are a lot of good things that he wanted in the bill that I strongly supported, but we were not able to get them in. For example, one of his provisions would have required every agency to accept FOIA requests by email. This is a simple improvement that every agency should adopt, and I look forward to working with Chairman Chaffetz in the years ahead on such commonsense reforms. I would like to recognize a few of the staff for both Representatives Issa and Chaffetz who deserve recognition, strong recognition, for the work they put into this legislation over the last few years: Tegan Gelfand, Ali Ahmad, and Katy Rother. I want to thank them for all of the work that they have done in making this happen. In addition, advocacy groups, as Mr. Issa mentioned, such as OpenTheGovernment.org and Sunshine in Government Initiative, as well as experts such as Anne Weismann at Campaign for Accountability, have been critical to the success of this legislation. Finally, I would like to take time to thank our Speaker. His office has been extremely helpful, and he also deserves credit for bringing this bill to the floor today. It simply would not have been possible without his leadership. The FOIA Improvement Act is a truly bicameral, bipartisan bill. With its passage today, it will now go on to the President for his signature. It builds on the work of the Obama administration, which has done more to advance transparency than any administration in history. The bill would codify the presumption of openness standard that President Obama put in place on his first day in office. The bill would also put a 25-year sunset on exemption No. 5 of FOIA-- the deliberative process exemption. It would modernize FOIA by requiring the Office of Management and Budget to create a central portal to allow FOIA requests to any agency through a single Web site. The Office of Government Information Services, which is the FOIA ombudsman that was created by Congress in 2007, would become more independent under this bill and would be allowed to submit testimony and reports directly to Congress without going through political review. Finally, FOIA officers could share best practices through a Chief FOIA Officers Council that would be established under the bill. These are just some of the examples of the many improvements to FOIA that are contained in this legislation. The FOIA Improvement Act is a big step forward in transparency, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ``fix FOIA by 50.''

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which would repeal the District of Columbia's Local Budget Autonomy Act and prohibit D.C. from passing such laws in the future. I do not believe there is a Member of Congress who would stand for the Federal Government dictating the local budget of a city in his or her district, and D.C. should be treated no differently. Granting D.C. local budget autonomy is not only the right thing to do, it would also have significant financial benefits for the District, such as lowering borrowing costs. It would also mean an end to the threat of a cutoff of D.C. municipal services in the event of a Federal Government shutdown. I also want to express my disappointment that some Members have threatened jail for D.C. employees who implement the Autonomy Act. The threat is backwards. The only court ruling in effect on this law upheld it and ordered all District employees to implement it. House Republicans have taken a regrettable turn in their approach to D.C. home rule. The last four chairmen of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, including Republicans Tom Davis and Darrell Issa, sought to give the District more home rule and more budget autonomy, not less. Yet, in this Congress, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has passed legislation to overturn a District law that prohibits employment discriminating based on reproductive health decisions and launched an investigation into the District's marijuana legalization initiative. This bill is not only unprincipled. It is simply bad policy. The former counsel for the District of Columbia Committee and the majority's own hearing witness said this: ``It is the duly elected representatives for the citizens of the District of Columbia who should determine how taxpayer money is spent.'' We hear a lot of rhetoric about devolving authority to local governments. Yet, this bill tramples on local government and the will of their local citizens. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reject this bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4901, as I did when the House debated a nearly identical measure last October. We have been told that the purpose of this bill is to help all DC children get a better education. I strongly support that objective, but this bill does not. Let me be crystal clear: public funds should support public education. But this bill proposes to spend 100 million dollars over five years to fund vouchers to send students in the District of Columbia to private schools. Coming from the city of Baltimore, I understand the complexities of turning around struggling inner city schools. Almost ten years ago, I became deeply involved in improving one of my own neighborhood schools, the Maritime Industries Academy. It takes vision, commitment, accountability and, yes, resources to begin the process of turning troubled schools around. However, it is extremely difficult to turn around public schools if we divert public resources to private schools. By dividing funding among DC Public Schools, DC Charter Schools, and private school vouchers, this bill provides one-third of its total funding to voucher students, a tiny fraction of the District's students. The lack of equity is stunning. Our focus should be on maximizing the impact of the federal government's limited resources to serve ALL of the District's students. This program was last authorized in 2011, over my strong objection and along party lines, despite the fact that the study on the program's impacts mandated by law found that the use of vouchers had no effect on academic achievement, as measured by math and reading test scores. Vouchers also had no impact on students' perceptions of school safety and satisfaction. We have heard all the Republican rhetoric justifying massive cuts to education funding--all the talk about budget constraints, about tightening our belts, and about making sacrifices. But apparently all that goes out the window when Republicans want to give 100 million dollars in taxpayer funds to private schools. As a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of quality public education, I believe our highest priority must be to use limited taxpayer dollars to support programs that will truly meet the educational needs of all children. This bill does not do that. So I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4901.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3340, a bill that would cause severe damage to the integrity of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Office of Financial Research. It is through these entities that the Dodd-Frank Act identifies risks in our financial systems and guards against another financial crisis. FSOC and OFR have been intentionally placed outside political pressure. They make our financial system safer and protect the American people from a future financial crisis. However, the bill we are debating today would cripple FSOC and OFR by subjecting them to unnecessary political influence, putting our financial system at risk. My colleagues across the aisle would have us believe that FSOC and OFR have free rein to set and approve their own budgets, and are, therefore, agencies that have run amok. FSOC's budget is approved by a majority vote of its members. FSOC does not have unchecked budget authority. FSOC's budget is similar to, and modeled after, the FDIC's budget mode. The FDIC also sets its own budget. It has time and time again acted to protect the American people from financial collapse while setting a reasonable and prudent budget. No one is calling on Congress to rein in the FDIC. The bill is nothing more than an attempt by the majority to undo the progress made by Dodd-Frank and to eliminate the ability of FSOC to act on behalf of the American people by cutting its funding. As I listened to my colleague from Maryland a few minutes ago talk about the folks who are right outside this Capitol, complaining about Citizens United, people want to know that they have power. These people are very upset. They want to know that their democracy is not being taken away from them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and against all bills that seek to roll back our progress in making the financial system safer.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to celebrate Mrs. Henrietta Lacks, whose family knew her as a phenomenal woman. Decades after her death, the world now knows her phenomenal life-giving contributions. Mrs. Lacks could hardly have known the impact her life would have. She grew up humbly in rural Virginia, moving as a young mother with her husband Day to find opportunity in Baltimore. The Lacks family continued to grow until she received her fateful diagnosis. The doctors at Johns Hopkins attempted to treat her cervical cancer, but were unable to save her life. Of course, that is not the end of the story. In fact, her story is still being told through her immortal cells, the first to replicate indefinitely, providing clinicians with an invaluable resource for their medical research. In her lifetime, Henrietta Lacks never witnessed a man land on the moon. She could have hardly imagined that her cells would travel in space to help determine the effects of zero gravity. Mrs. Lacks died decades before the discovery of AIDS. And still, her cells have contributed to treatments for those living with HIV. That is immortality. This woman, who gave so much to her family in life, continues to give in her death. As we celebrate her contributions, we must also acknowledge that they were not freely given. As an African-American woman of few means, she was not afforded in life the respect that she deserved. Her cells were used without her knowledge or her consent. In fact, Henrietta Lacks' family did not know that her cells had been cultivated until researchers contacted them 25 years after her death requesting additional genetic material. How could they have known the lengths her cells had traveled? Or the fortunes they had made? It is tragic that the gift that Henrietta Lacks gave the world was really not a gift at all. Still, the Lacks family continues to give. They have not shared in the riches that the HeLa cells have made possible. But they have reclaimed their privacy rights, working in cooperation with the National Institutes of Health to control access to their family's genetic code. Today, their experience informs discussions of bioethics and patient consent. Truly, there will never be another Henrietta Lacks. This phenomenal woman left a legacy of generosity and humility in her remarkable family. I am proud to introduce a resolution today in the House of Representatives to honor Mrs. Henrietta Lacks. This Women's History Month, I am honored to recognize Mrs. Henrietta Lacks, her life, and her remarkable place in history. On behalf of a grateful nation, thank you to the Lacks family for the countless ways you have enriched our lives.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 653, the FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act. I want to start by thanking Representative Darrell Issa for working with me on this legislation. We first introduced the FOIA Act in March 2013. The bill before us today is the product of 3 years of work--hard work--feedback, negotiation, and perseverance. I also want to thank the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz, for his work on this bill and his strong support for bringing it to the House floor today. I would say that this is a bipartisan effort, but it is more than that. We actually worked very, very hard together, all of us, to make this happen. If there was any case where we had to use this term of not moving to common ground but moving to higher ground, it would be this legislation. Open government advocates--journalists, editorial boards, and everyday citizens--who support this bill also deserve a tremendous amount of gratitude. The FOIA Act would strengthen the cornerstone of our open government laws and the Freedom of Information Act. This legislation builds on the historic work of the Obama administration, which I believe will go down in history as the most transparent administration to date. The bill would codify the presumption of openness standard that President Obama put in place in a memo issued on his first day in office. The bill would require agencies to identify specific identifiable harm to an interest protected by exemption unless disclosure is prohibited by law. This provision would not require agencies to disclose classified information, it would not require agencies to disclose anything they are prohibited from disclosing by law, and it would not remove any of FOIA's existing time exemptions. It would, however, put the burden on agencies where it should be: to justify keeping government information secret. The bill would also put a 25-year sunset exemption 5 of FOIA--the deliberative process exemption--and limit the scope of records that agencies could withhold under that exemption. It would modernize FOIA by requiring the Office of Management and Budget to create a central portal to allow FOIA requests to any agency through one Web site. The Office of Government Information Services, the FOIA ombudsman created by Congress in 2007, would become more independent, which is very important under this bill, because that office would be allowed to submit testimony and reports directly to Congress without going through political review. This bill is coming to the floor with an amendment that makes a number of changes, and many of them proposed by Chairman Chaffetz. Some of these additions include requiring agencies to provide each FOIA requester with a contact name and information for an agency employee who can provide information on the status of the request. This is so very, very important. Our bill has widespread support. A coalition of 47 open government groups sent a letter in support of this bill on February 5, 2015, that said: ``Congress must act this year to ensure that FOIA stays current with people's need to access government information and resilient in the face of attempts to subvert that access.'' Numerous editorial boards have written, urging Congress to pass FOIA reform legislation. A New York Times editorial from February 2015 reads: ``This is a rare chance to log a significant bipartisan accomplishment in the public interest.'' A USA Today editorial in March 2015 called for the enactment of this bill's reforms. A Los Angeles Times editorial read that this legislation and a similar bill in the Senate ``deserves to be passed.'' This is a movement called Fix FOIA by 50. That movement is aimed at getting H.R. 653 enacted before the 50th anniversary of FOIA in July of this year. An online clearinghouse for the movement includes stories from journalists about why FOIA is critical to their work and why this legislation must be enacted. It is important to note that, even with the enactment of this legislation, the work of Congress must continue. Agency FOIA staff are being asked to do more than ever before. From 2009 to 2014, the overall number of FOIA requests submitted to Federal agencies increased by 28 percent with new records set in each of the past 4 years in a row. The total number of FOIA personnel, however, decreased by about 4 percent. Congress must give these agencies more resources. Again, I thank Congressman Issa for all of his hard work. I know that he has been on this bill for a long time and has tried to make sure it gets passed. Again, I want to thank both staffs for working so hard. Since Chairman Chaffetz became chairman, we have had two meetings, and I know our staffs have had numerous meetings and have hammered out the details to make a very good bill a better bill. I want to thank them. I urge my colleagues to vote for transparency and for the American people by voting ``yes'' on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I close by highlighting a few additional provisions of FOIA. This bill would require agencies to review existing records to identify categories of records to proactively disclose rather than waiting for FOIA requests. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to report to Congress on categories of records that would be appropriate for proactive disclosure. Finally, the bill would tackle the proliferation of statutory FOIA exemptions by requiring the Government Accountability Office to catalog all of the statutory exemptions on the books. Again, I urge the support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. 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. Earlier this year our committee held a hearing at which we heard testimony about sexual harassment and retaliation in an EPA regional office. During that hearing, both Chairman Chaffetz and I expressed our disgust at the exploitation of these young women and demanded that action be taken to prevent this in the future. Unfortunately, the act of harassing unpaid interns on the basis of race, religion, age, or, in this case, sex is not prohibited by Federal law. Under current law, victims rely on the discretion of managers to prevent the recurrence of this behavior, something that does not always occur. As one witness testified: ``Even after finding out about the numerous harassment victims, the direct reporting manager continued to feed the harasser a steady diet of young women.'' As we saw at our hearing, 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 and on those who are simply trying to be all that God meant for them to be. There are many unpaid interns who are willing to commit to working for the Federal Government. We should protect them from this kind of despicable behavior. I want to take a moment to thank Chairman Chaffetz for helping us to move this bill through the committee expeditiously and to bring it to the floor. As a matter of fact, in our committee, we received a unanimous vote on it, and I am hoping that there will be a unanimous vote on the floor today. I thank him and I thank his staff and our staff for pulling all of this together to get us to this moment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.