Wm. Clay

Mr. CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act builds upon two existing laws that came through the Oversight and Government Reform Committee: the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 and the DATA Act, which was signed into law in 2014. The Obama administration launched the performance.gov Web site to implement the GPRA Modernization Act, and this bill would enhance the information available through that Web site. The bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to make available on a central Web site an inventory of all Federal agency programs that have a budget authority of more than $1 million. I thank Representative Walberg for making changes to help address those concerns in the version of the bill before us today. It is important that we continue to work together to ensure the bill will work as intended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my long-time friend Representative Duncan and Ranking Member Cummings for sponsoring this bill. Representative Duncan first sponsored a bill to improve Presidential libraries 17 years ago. I hope we can now, finally, get this important legislation enacted. The Presidential Library Donation Reform Act would make the process for building Presidential libraries more transparent. Presidential libraries have become increasingly more expensive as they have evolved into multipurpose centers. The George W. Bush Presidential Center cost an estimated $250 million to build, and President Bush raised, approximately, $500 million for the building and an endowment for his library, museum, and institute. Under current law, there is no requirement to disclose the identities of those who donate to a Presidential library and to a President while he is still in office. He is able to raise an unlimited amount of private donations. Requiring the disclosures of donors would help prevent the trading of political favors in exchange for donations. This bill would require organizations that raise money to build Presidential libraries to disclose the identity of any individual who donates more than $200. The National Archives and Records Administration would then be required to post the donation information online. The bill would also create criminal penalties for individuals who report false information on donations and for fundraising organizations that omit donation information. As was mentioned earlier, a group of 15 good government organizations, including CREW and the Sunlight Foundation, sent a letter that urged the House to support this bill. Here is what they wrote: Under the current opaque system, Presidents raise funds privately to establish their Presidential libraries. These efforts, which often begin long before they leave office, are unregulated and undisclosed, creating opportunities for--or the appearance of--influence peddling. Improved transparency would help reduce the appearance of impropriety and help deter any inappropriate behavior. This bill was approved, without opposition, by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and it passed the House last year without opposition. I urge every Member of this body to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I just urge this body to adopt the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by thanking the chairman for his understanding and his support of this legislation. I certainly appreciate it, and I am sure it will make the Federal Government run more efficiently. I rise in strong support of the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments. I have introduced this bill in previous Congresses, and it passed the House last year without opposition. The FACA was originally enacted in 1972. It is intended to ensure that committees that provide advice to Federal agencies and the President operate with transparency. Advisory committees provide the government with recommendations on a wide range of issues. For example, the EPA relies on the expertise of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to provide technical advice on setting national air quality standards. The bill we are considering today would strengthen FACA to make Federal advisory committees more transparent and to make agencies more accountable in how they select and use these committees. Agencies currently can avoid the requirements of FACA by conducting advisory committee business through subcommittees. This bill makes it clear that FACA applies to subcommittees as well as parent committees. The bill also clarifies that a committee set up by a contractor is subject to FACA if it is formed under direction of the President or an agency. Under FACA, agencies would be required to disclose how advisory members are chosen, whether they have financial conflicts of interest if they are appointed to provide their own expertise, and who they work for if they are representing a specific interest. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I hope the Senate will take it up quickly and send it to the President. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a colleague, friend, and cohort on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Virginia an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I would urge the House to adopt this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. GAO provides an invaluable aid to Congress in conducting our constitutional duty to oversee and evaluate the executive branch. To do its job effectively, GAO needs timely access to agency documents, materials, and other information. The bill before us would ensure GAO's access to the National Directory of New Hires, a valuable database of wage and employment information. Access to this database would assist GAO in its improper payment and fraud work, as well as its evaluation of programs in which eligibility is means tested. The bill would also explicitly provide GAO with standing to pursue litigation if an entity in the executive branch improperly denies the GAO access to information. Mr. Speaker, similar bills have passed the House by wide margins in a number of previous Congresses. These are needed reforms. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this bipartisan bill which reauthorizes the Office of Special Counsel. The OSC serves as a safe harbor for Federal whistleblowers to disclose wrongdoing. OSC also works to protect Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment from prohibited personnel practices. The bill 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 from whistleblower retaliation. Under this bill, if any 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. It is more important than ever for the Office of Special Counsel to have the tools it needs to protect the Federal workforce. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), who is the ranking member of the Government Operations Subcommittee.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would just urge the body to adopt the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I delivered the following remarks on behalf of my father, former Congressman William (Bill) Clay, at the funeral of Pearlie Evans on Saturday, November 26, 2016, in St. Louis, Missouri. My friendship with Pearlie spans more than 50 years. During that time we worked together, laughed together, cried together, and raised a lot of hell together. I first met Pearlie Evans in the early 1960s when a close political associate, Arthur Kennedy, introduced us. He and I had just helped A.J. Cervantes get elected. The new mayor asked me to recommend someone to fill the position of Commissioner of Social Services. I invited Pearlie to lunch and offered her the position. She was honored but turned down the offer--telling me of her deep devotion in helping residents at the Fellowship Center and Plymouth House. Without any success, I mentioned that her salary would have been twice that at Fellowship Center and help many more people like those at the Plymouth House. Then, I took her to lunch twice and once to dinner before she agreed. Finally, a well-fed Pearlie Evans accepted the offer and performed exceptionally well in the position. Her background in social work, dealing with grassroots, ghetto residents, allowed her to develop a realistic grasp of the problems faced by low-income, unemployed, poverty stricken individuals. She provided the compassion and know- how in closing the gap that kept many of them from resolving their woes. Having disdain and contempt for all kinds of discrimination and segregation, her agenda was about identifying injustice and reshaping our society until it adjusted to accommodate the needs of its underprivileged. When my first District Director left, I asked Pearlie to run my congressional district office. But this time I knew better than to invite her to lunch or dinner. She accepted and made an ideal District Director for the next 28 years. Perhaps, more than anyone else other than my wife Carol, Pearlie was able to successfully put up with me and all my audaciousness, my insolence, my sarcasm and my bluster. Her simple response of ``ohhhhhhh, Congressman'' more often than not was the perfect tonic to calm a rough or chaotic situation. She was by my side through good times and bad. Her advice and counsel was usually sound. Pearlie was also a pioneer in politics who developed a new strategy for advancing the cause of civil rights and enhancing opportunities. She ushered in the concept that it was time to stop begging for what was ours by citizenship and to start demanding rights that were ours by birth. She played a key role in our developing the political apparatus capable of delivering lopsided margins in electing candidates. She had the unique ability to attract and surround us with people of wisdom, vision, integrity and commitment to racial equality. She joined a cadre of other outstanding women like Gwen Giles, Ruth Porter, Deverne Calloway, Marian Oldham and many others that enabled our group to convince many to overcome their political apathy and to reject disgraceful absentee elected officials pretending to represent our interests. I owe a great deal of my political success to committed and dedicated women like Pearlie. In my elections to Congress, women managed all of my campaigns: Doris Moore, Gwen Giles, Gwen Reed and Pearlie Evans each served as campaign managers in all 16 of them. Pearlie, Virginia Cook, and Gwen Reed also played a key role in electing my son Lacy Clay to Congress. Pearlie journeyed through a career that forced the political system to change the face of our politics and to provide us with people who truly voiced our legitimate concerns. She was always on the picket lines, at the sit-ins, in the marches for school equality, wherever the protests against injustice were being waged. She was there to give active support in campaigns that changed the landscape of bigoted policies and replaced them with opportunities for minorities in St. Louis. Very few lived their life with the enthusiasm, the commitment, the determination, the gusto of Pearlie. She lived every day with the intent of giving back to the community and enhancing the lives of those denied the benefits of humane treatment. In touching their lives, it was a testament to her endearing respect for each individual's humanity. Carol and I join with you in acknowledging that she was an uncommon lady with a phenomenal effect on those of us who were graced by her presence. She was something special, something beautiful, something precious. Although Pearlie would tell us not to shed tears for her but rather for a world that is suffering the ravages of war, disease, hunger and racism--still, without ignoring her request not to shed tears for her passing, we are obligated to shed tears for future generations that will never experience the sight of her doing battle with the giants of society who have profited from exploiting those unable to fight back. We mourn for those who will never bear witness to her unyielding fight against bureaucratic bigots in fighting for racial justice. Yes, Pearlie, when remembering you, what you stood for, how much of your mission is yet unfulfilled, our tears are justified. We cry today because we will have no more tomorrows with you. But we thank God for all the yesterdays we spent with you. We remember all of the good you have done, all of the people you have helped, all of the causes you have championed. We take comfort in the fact that our community, our state and our nation are better as a result of your having been here. We have witnessed in you a towering, incredible, noble, dedicated defender of what's right--so we say in all sincerity--so long, our courageous sister in the struggle for equal justice--so long!

Mr. CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Frankie Muse Freeman, a remarkable American who will soon celebrate her 100th birthday on November 24, 2016. As an exceptional and groundbreaking attorney, Frankie Freeman is a long-time civil rights icon who has set a standard of excellence in the law, housing reform, social justice, protecting the right to vote and personal courage. Attorney Frankie Muse Freeman is a trailblazer who has been making history for decades. A brilliant, public service-oriented lawyer, she has devoted her life to opening up the doors of equal opportunity for all. Her career has been exceptional in many ways. It includes her dedicated service as a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and Inspector General of the Community Services Administration, as well as her long time service as an attorney for the St. Louis Housing Authority. Mrs. Freeman's extraordinary work has been recognized across generations and across this nation. This living legend was instrumental in creating the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights in 1982, inducted into the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame at the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site in 2007, and appointed by President Barack Obama to serve as a Member of the Commission on Presidential Scholars in 2015. In addition, she has been the recipient of numerous awards such as the Spingarn Medal from the NAACP and the Spirit of Excellence Award from the American Bar Association's Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession. I have known Mrs. Freeman since my earliest days growing up in St. Louis. She stood shoulder-to-shoulder with my father, former Congressman Bill Clay, and other national leaders to help break down the walls of segregation. A grand and gracious lady, and a person of total integrity, she has truly been a mentor to me, whose learned opinion I still seek out on a regular basis. A noted author, she published her memoir, ``A Song of Faith and Hope,'' to critical acclaim in 2003. She is also a Past President of the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of Congress to join me in honoring Frankie Muse Freeman on her centennial, she has helped so many and continues to inspire us to have courage, to work towards transformative change, and to confront injustice and inequality wherever it exists.

Mr. CLAY

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5226, and I cannot support this bill as drafted. This legislation is another attempt by House Republicans to attack agency rulemakings with which they disagree. This attack is done under the guise of creating more transparency, but the bill will actually lead to less openness in the agency rulemaking process. The bill we are considering today supposedly aims to prohibit improper communications by agencies, known as agency aggrandizement. What the bill actually does is muzzle agencies from talking about pending rules. This bill would prohibit agencies from making public communications to solicit support for or to promote a pending agency regulatory action. Agencies currently are prohibited from grassroots lobbying for an agency rule or from engaging in publicity or propaganda. The GAO has issued opinions that define what agencies can and cannot say. GAO says that three categories of communications are off limits: one, covert communications; two, self-aggrandizement; and three, purely partisan activities. This bill goes far beyond that by prohibiting communications that are to promote a rule. Almost anything an agency says would be considered promotion of a rule. The practical impact of this legislation is that almost any action the agency made to communicate the benefits of a rule could be considered to be improperly promoting a pending action. The bill defines public communication to include every oral, written, or electronic communication. This means that tweets as innocuous and as popular as the Department of the Interior's daily nature photo could even be considered improper promotion. I cannot believe that the sponsors of this bill would really intend to regulate nature photos on Twitter. In addition to limiting communications between agencies and the public, this legislation contains a number of other unnecessarily burdensome requirements. Yesterday, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy that said that, if this bill were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. That statement said: ``The Regulatory Integrity Act would be duplicative and costly to the American taxpayer. The separate tracking and reporting of agency communications as prescribed by the bill is unnecessary, is extremely burdensome, and provides little to no value while diverting agency resources from important priorities.'' I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5226. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter in my possession signed by numerous groups, public interest groups, stating their opposition to H.R. 5226. It is a very interesting combination of groups: the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, American Association of University Women, Americans for Financial Reform, Clean Water Action, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Earthjustice, U.S. PIRG, United Steelworkers, Voices for Progress, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, Prairie Rivers Network, and NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice. What they all agree on is that the Regulatory Integrity Act will significantly undermine a Federal agency's ability to engage and inform the public in a meaningful and transparent way regarding its work on important, science-based rulemakings that will greatly benefit the public. As a result, the bill will lead to decreased public awareness and participation in the rulemaking process in direct contradiction of the Administrative Procedure Act and agencies' authorizing statutes which specifically provide for broad stakeholder engagement. They point out that substantial ambiguities in the bill threaten to create uncertainty and confusion among agencies about what public communications are permissible and, thus, risk discouraging them from keeping the public apprised of the important work that they do on its behalf. In an era when agencies should be increasingly embracing innovative 21st century communications technologies needed to reach the public, including social media, H.R. 5226 sends exactly the wrong message. So that means that all of these groups feel as though this legislation would dampen or chill the public's ability to be able to weigh in on a rule, to be able to even know what those agencies are doing. I just, for the life of me, cannot understand what the urgency is to pass this bill into law and to have the chilling effects that it would have on the public's ability to communicate with its government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Michigan mentioned that he didn't hear in the list people that may be impacted by this legislation. The list includes 34 different groups, and some of them that I think that all of us represent that would be impacted by this arbitrary legislation are groups like Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environment America, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Prairie Rivers Network--I am not even sure where that is based, but I represent the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers right at St. Louis, so water is important to the people in my region--U.S. PIRG, Union of Concerned Scientists, United Steelworkers, and United Support and Memorial for Workplace Fatalities. Those are some of the groups that are represented in this letter. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to close by reiterating a few of the problems with the Regulatory Integrity Act. This bill would require agencies to report every interaction with the public regardless of whether it is a phone call, email, tweet, or more formal statement. The bill would prove completely unworkable and would have the effect of chilling agencies' interactions with the public and leading to less transparency with the agency rulemaking process. I would support a bill that actually improved transparency. This bill will not accomplish that, and I cannot support it. I, again, urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment does not alleviate my concerns with the underlying bill. In fact, this amendment may lead to more confusion. It would require an agency to publish a cost benefit analysis for all rules if such a study was conducted. Agencies are already required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for major rules under Executive Order 12866. Agencies publish the results of those analyses in the rulemaking dockets for those rules. This is an unnecessary amendment, and I oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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