Gerald Connolly

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, Robert Mansker, a longtime and now retired staff member in the House, asked me to recognize the passing of another longtime and dedicated staff member of this body: Patrick J. McDonough, as Chief of the Publications and Distribution Service. The House lost a fine citizen on Sunday, November 10. Patrick J. McDonough of Friendship Heights passed away from a continuing struggle with respiratory problems. His illness took him from us far too soon. He was a very familiar face to the long-time employees of the House. When the House maintained the ``Folding Room'' in years past, Pat rose to the position of Chief of the Publications and Distribution Service, as it was formally known. He maintained an incredibly personable demeanor, and he worked well with both Democrats and Republicans. Born October 25, 1943, Pat was originally from Parkersburg, West Virginia, where he attended the Parkersburg Catholic School System. He continued his higher education at The Pontifical College Josephinum, Catholic University and American University. Pat taught high school religion at St. Anthony's Catholic High School in Washington, DC, and coached junior varsity basketball during the period John Thompson, Sr. was head coach. He was an avid supporter of the Georgetown Hoyas, always inviting friends to join him to share his mid-court seats at the Verizon Center for home games. Pat then began his career in government, when he came to the House of Representatives. He then served in the Clinton Administration in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, until his retirement. Pat was a proud member of The Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick in the City of New York and joined with them each year when the group convened. A celebration of his life was held at St. Margaret Mary Church in Parkersburg on Sunday, November 18, followed by his burial at Mt. Carmel Cemetery. Our condolences are extended to his family and to his many friends.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust for receiving accreditation by the National Land Trust Accreditation Commission. The accreditation process is very rigorous and signifies the highest standards of excellence in land conservation. When Congress first passed the tax incentives for land conservation, it placed a high degree of trust in non-profit land trusts to manage these transactions properly. Over the years, land conservation has become increasingly complex and requires careful adherence to the national Land Trust Standards and Practices. This accreditation process helps give taxpayers confidence that land trusts are a worthy public investment. I want to thank the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust for its dedication and effectiveness in educating the public about the importance of conservation and preserving local natural areas, trails, streams, and parks. Its work helps to protect wildlife habitat, water quality and healthy communities. Since its founding 20 years ago, the Trust has protected 5,370 acres across Northern Virginia. And, by achieving national accreditation, the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust has expanded its capacity to accomplish this mission far into the future. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust for its hard work and commitment to our community. I wish the Trust and its supporters continued success in their conservation efforts.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and commend Merni Fitzgerald on the occasion of her retirement after a long and distinguished career in public service for the residents of Fairfax County, Virginia. For the past 13 years, Merni has been the director of the Office of Public Affairs, serving as the ``voice of Fairfax County.'' Prior to that, she spent 15 years as the public information officer for the Fairfax County Park Authority. Throughout her career, Merni dedicated herself to keeping Fairfax citizens well informed about the great work of their local government, while promoting engagement in our community. In her role as Director of Public Affairs, she managed external and internal communications for the largest county government in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the National Capital Region. She and her staff provided communications strategy and services for more than 40 county agencies and customer service to residents and visitors. From routine communications about Board of Supervisors meetings to emergency alerts, Merni ensured Fairfax remained in constant contact with its constituents, and she was instrumental in pushing the County onto social media to foster more opportunities for two-way communications. Whether she was sharing news and information about a notable accomplishment or a natural disaster, Merni was a calm, soothing, and informative voice for the County. Well-respected by her peers, Merni chaired the Northern Virginia communicators group and a similar committee at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, which encompasses 21 jurisdictions in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. In that role, she coordinated communications for the regional Emergency Preparedness Council, where we worked together for a number of years. Prior to her current position, Merni served two terms on the Falls Church City Council. She also served as Chairman of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission. Her keen political sense, expert communications skills, and firm grasp of the news business has earned her the trust of the elected leadership throughout the region. She was recognized as the Virginia Communicator of the Year in 2000, and in 2007 she was recognized as one of PR News magazine's PR Professionals of the Year for her ``untiring service to the community and the media.'' I can certainly attest to that. I had the distinct pleasure of working with Merni during my 14 years of service on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. She was a trusted member of our leadership team and helped the county manage numerous crises including: the tragic events of 9/11, which occurred shortly after her appointment as director of public affairs; local anthrax attacks, during which the government center became a screening facility and medical distribution center; the 2002 Washington sniper shootings; Hurricane Isabel in 2003, which damaged multiple roads and properties across the county and resulted in the loss of drinking water for most residents for several days; the shooting of two police officers outside the Sully District Station in 2006; a dustup over local soup kitchens caused by an over- zealous bureaucracy; the recent record snow storms, which literally shutdown the region for days; and an earthquake in 2011. Interspersed through those events, she coordinated public information about annual multi-million dollar bond referendums and countless Board ``presentations.'' Most people probably don't know Merni is a published author. Earlier in her career, Merni was an assistant to the Press Officer at the Peace Corps, an agency close to my heart given my international relations background and seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. During her time with the Corps, Merni authored two books for school-age children: one commemorating the Peace Corps' 25th Anniversary and another on the role of Voice of America radio programming in U.S. efforts overseas. As Merni begins this new chapter in her life, I want to extend my warmest regards to her and her family. I hope she is able to find a suitable new home for the growing collection of nutcrackers that adorn her office at the Government Center, and I have no doubt she will find a way to continue making contributions to our community even in retirement. Mr. Speaker, Merni Fitzgerald's commitment to public service has set an example that will benefit our community for generations to come. Her accomplishments are truly outstanding and deserving of our sincere appreciation. When I was Chairman of the County Board, we often joked when retirement announcements like this came before the Board that we should not allow such talented and dedicated staff to leave public service, and I certainly wish that was the case here. I wish Merni the best of luck in her retirement, and I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in expressing our appreciation for her long and fruitful service to the residents of Fairfax County and the National Capital Region.

Mr. CONNOLLY

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

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I don't quite understand the opposition of my friend from Oklahoma; if it is duplicative, then it is harmless. I think clarification to make sure that citizens have the same rights as special interests and corporations is actually a good thing to clarify. I don't think it adds ambiguity; I think it adds clarity, which may be why my good friend opposes it. I would also ask, at this time, a statement to every Member of Congress endorsing this amendment from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards be entered into the Record. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, February 26, 2014. Dear Representative, The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (CSS), which includes more than 150 labor, environmental, public health, scientific, consumer, financial reform, and public interest groups, strongly opposes H.R. 899, the dangerous and harmful ``Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2013.'' This proposal would undermine our nation's ability to set health, safety and environmental standards as well as new financial protections. Given that we have experienced multiple health and safety disasters in communities and workplaces across the country in recent years, it is the wrong time to thwart the progress of necessary public protections. While CSS strongly urges members to vote no on H.R. 899, CSS encourages members to support the amendments offered below: Amendment #1 sponsored by Congressman Cummings (MD): This amendment strikes section 5 of the bill, which would eliminate the current exemption from the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act for certain independent agencies. This crucial amendment would ensure that agencies that Congress designated to be independent of the Executive Branch remain so. Further, the amendment would ensure that the important regulations of these agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are not subject to this legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and unfunded requirements and can be adopted in a timely and efficient manner. Amendment #4 sponsored by Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (TX): This amendment adds Section 14 to the bill to clarify that the requirements of UMRA as amended by this Act do not apply if a cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the benefits of the regulatory action exceed its costs. This common-sense amendment makes clear that regulations whose benefits to public health and safety exceed the costs to regulated industries, thereby making them good public investments, are not legislation's wasteful, unnecessary, and unfunded requirements and can be adopted in a timely and efficient manner. Amendment #5 sponsored by Congressman Connolly (VA): This amendment ensures that other impacted entities, such as public interest organizations, are provided any opportunity for consultation afforded to the private sector under the Act. This commonsense amendment levels the playing field to allow public interest organizations the same privilege and access that the legislation only affords to the business community and ensures that the regulatory process is fair and open to all stakeholders in an equal manner. Sincerely, Katherine McFate, President and CEO, Center for Effective Government; Co- chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards. Robert Weissman, Persident, Public Citizen; Co-chair, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my good friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth). H.R. 899 boasts an Orwellian title that attempts to deceive the public into believing that the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act is simply an innocuous attempt to enhance transparency--rather than the subversive legislative assault on public health, safety, and environmental protections that it truly is. H.R. 899 is simply an effort to throw a wrench into the rulemaking process, ensuring that private industry is provided privileges and rights far above any other stakeholder in the regulatory process. In many respects, H.R. 899 represents the Mitt Romney principle on steroids, for it appears that in the minds of our friends on the other side of the aisle, not only is it a fact that ``corporations are people, my friend,'' but under this measure, Republicans appear to be embracing an ethos that treats corporations better than people. Regrettably, this bill provides private corporations with an unfair consultation advantage over every other stakeholder in the regulatory process. That is indefensible. Under this bill, Federal agencies would be required to consult with private industry ``before issuance of a proposed rulemaking,'' yet it does not afford the same level of consultation to average citizens who rely on agency rules to preserve and protect their health, welfare, and safety. There is no justification for enacting an irrational statutory framework that requires the Federal Government to consult with private firms, such as a large agribusiness firm, prior to imposing a rule that will impact that company, yet does not require consultation with public health experts, or everyday Americans who will be forced to live with the consequences of a given regulation. I cannot defend a regulatory framework that would provide big oil companies, for example, a guaranteed right to weigh in before any drilling regulation is promulgated, but would not require equal consultation with public interest organizations, such as entities committed to protecting and preserving our Nation's environment and natural resources, or the communities that could be directly impacted by such activities. To be clear, I strongly support the rights of industry to have an opportunity to provide comments on proposed rules. It fosters more informed, quality rulemaking, and benefits both businesses and our broader society. Indeed, that is why our current administrative procedures mandate that a public comment process be conducted to allow any individual or corporation to participate and provide input and feedback in an equal, fair, and open process. That is current law. The amendment that Congresswoman Duckworth and I are proposing today would simply ensure that all participants in the rulemaking process be provided equal consultation rights with agencies. For example, as Ranking Member Cummings noted earlier, if the U.S. Department of Agriculture were to propose a public health rule affecting agribusiness in an effort to protect the health of everyday Americans, our amendment would ensure that not only the agribusinesses, but also food safety experts, children's health organizations, medical associations, and scientific entities would also be provided an opportunity to consult with USDA prior to the issuance of the proposed rule. I strongly urge all Members to support our commonsense amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, my good friend from Maryland, Elijah Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my good friend, Ms. Foxx from North Carolina; and I don't doubt her commitment to try to rein in unfunded mandates, and I certainly supported the 1995 effort, as somebody working at that time in local government, because local governments are burdened with many unfunded Federal mandates. No Child Left Behind, for example, comes to mind. This legislation before us today, however, is not a simple extension of unfunded mandates. It is something else. Mr. Chairman, any lingering doubt about this week's Republican assault, which is orchestrated on the regulatory process as designed to benefit corporate interests, should be laid to rest with this bill. Agencies are already required to consult with any interested party during the rulemaking process through a robust public participation and comment period. This bill, however, would single out private sector special interests and give them special treatment and an unfair advantage by requiring agencies to consult with them before a rule is even proposed. The bill further subverts existing law by opening the door for opponents of regulation or delay to invalidate rules through frivolous litigation. Current law expressly prohibits the courts from blocking a new rule based on the advocacy of an agency's analysis. This bill would expand judicial review to give for-profit special interests a new tool to tie up regulations with unnecessary litigation. I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that agencies are currently required by existing law and executive order to consider all regulatory alternatives to promote flexibility and to promulgate regulations based on a reasonable determination that the benefits, in fact, justify the costs. That is already in existing law. Agencies are also required to conduct cost-benefit analyses and increase public participation for all interested parties, not just corporate special interests. Of course, House Republicans also fail to acknowledge that the Obama administration has directed agencies to harmonize rulemaking across agencies and conduct a systematic review of existing regulations to reduce outdated or redundant rules. Mr. Chairman, if my Republican friends really want to do something meaningful about unfunded mandates, they could work with us to correct the historic failures of the Federal Government to meet its financial obligations to our cash-strapped State and local partners, rather than catering to special, big corporate interests with well-paid lobbyists.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. This bill is a bad idea. It is an anti-consumer bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member and my friend from California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this latest Republican assault on the CFPB. It is truly baffling to see my colleagues' continued attempts to undermine the only Federal regulator created to protect American consumers. Contrary to the talking points of the other side, this mash-up of bills will only burden the CFPB with more bureaucracy, not less. For example, the bill would replace the Director, who has been on the job for just 6 months, after the Senate Republicans held up his confirmation for 2 years, with a cumbersome five-person commission. The bill also seeks to take the CFPB out of the Federal Reserve and make it subject to annual congressional appropriations. My Republican colleagues claim this is to provide tougher oversight, but that is a ruse. They have already stated they would defund CFPB altogether if they could. As ranking member of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Government Operations, I firmly believe in accountability, but I would note that Director Cordray has been before this Congress 46 times since CFPB was created. I would call that pretty responsive oversight. After the 2008 Wall Street meltdown, safeguarding our financial system ought to be a primary concern, but this bill would, once again, place the interest of banks over those of consumers. As we saw during the financial crisis, innovation led to a wave of untested and sophisticated financial products, allowing dishonest actors to take advantage of many Americans. Dodd-Frank, which my Republican friends fought against tooth-and- nail, remains Congress' sole substantive response to the greatest financial meltdown since the Great Depression. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle found it necessary not only to fight against any attempt at regulating Wall Street, but waged much of the battle against the CFPB itself. Republicans in the Senate waged a 700-day battle to prevent a confirmation of CFPB's Director-- 700 days. In just a short amount of time, since his confirmation, CFPB has become an effective champion for all Americans. It has fielded more than 280,000 consumer complaints.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Gosh, if there is a tired debate on this floor, my good friend from Georgia has just identified it. It is that hackneyed phrase, ``crushing burden of regulation.'' Well, that would come as news to most Americans who have benefited from clean air regulation, which, by the way, has net created jobs, not destroyed them. The Republican narrative here couldn't be more false except that they are protecting their base--their corporate base, in my view--at the expense of the average American citizen who wants to breathe clean air, who wants to drink clean water, and who wants to protect their children. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to offer this simple amendment that would exempt rules that further protect our Nation's air and water quality from these new proposed hurdles. It is no surprise that a 2012 American Lung Association report found that Americans support the Clean Air Act by a 2 to 1 margin. Why? Because it is working. Harmful emissions are dropping, and air quality is better than it was a decade ago. But we still have 131 million fellow Americans--42 percent of the Nation-- living in communities where pollution levels are deemed harmful for at- risk populations: young people and senior citizens. In fact, the national capital region is one of those areas. It is a nonattainment area for ground-level ozone. It is pretty clear what my friends on the other side of the aisle think of government regulation, but I am curious if they have actually asked their own constituents what they think. For example, I wonder if the residents living downstream from the West Virginia chemical spill where a toxic substance has now been carried into neighboring Ohio and other points south and west share the same disdain for water quality regulation as some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Or what about the residents near the North Carolina coal ash spill which is affecting drinking water there and in some parts of my own home State, Virginia? Maybe we should ask the millions of parents who own one of the child car safety seats that are now the subject of a massive nationwide recall if they would feel more comfortable with less rigorous standards for safety for their children. I introduced another amendment to this bill to exempt those rules for child car safety seats so we can continue to have rigorous standards. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle who control the Rules Committee refused to allow a vote on that amendment. A poll conducted by the American Lung Association found nearly three of four respondents believe we shouldn't have to choose between this health and safety standard and promoting the economy on the other hand. They understand that is a false choice and that we can and must do both. But my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to perpetuate this canard that government regulation is a heavy boot on the neck of business in America. Another poll conducted by the American Sustainable Business Council found 78 percent of employers believe responsible regulation is important for protecting small businesses from unfair competition and leveling the playing field. In fact, the most recent Wells Fargo/Gallup index of small businesses found just 11 percent cited regulations as a significant challenge when rated against other challenges they face in the economic marketplace. Employers and the American people get it, Mr. Chairman. They recognize there is a role for fair, reasonable, and responsible regulation in protecting public safety and health and in promoting the economy. Again, the American Lung Association poll found a 2-to-1 majority believes environmental safeguards will spur innovation and investment and create jobs. Now, I understand the frustration expressed by some of my colleagues that the current regulatory process can sometimes be too long, and sometimes it is, averaging 4 to 8 years in some cases. But the bill before us today will do nothing to reduce that timeline. Instead, it prolongs that process by requiring even more redundant analysis. How ironic is that? This bill would strengthen the hand of special interests by allowing them to challenge Federal agencies on whether they assessed every possible alternative and chose the one least costly to it. Their bill would erect new hurdles for citizens to petition their government to finally act on long overdue or congressionally mandated safeguards and protections. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to beat back these tired and hackneyed efforts by my friends on the other side who, on behalf of corporate polluters, have proposed this legislation. Our constituents expect safe drinking water, reliable child car safety seats, clean air, and countless other protections. Let's work together to improve the regulatory process rather than gut it and return our communities to the law of the jungle. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I certainly laud the intent of the bill. I sometimes wish, however, that we applied this same rubric to ourselves here in Congress. Wouldn't it be interesting for the taxpayers to know, for example, that a dead-end kind of inquiry on the IRS being pursued by the majority in this body just in our committee alone has already cost the taxpayers of the United States $14 million producing virtually nothing? And it would be very interesting to know how much it has cost the taxpayers of this country when we had 46 or 47 repeal of the Affordable Care Act amendments in bills in this Congress and in the previous Congress. Having said that, I certainly am not going to vote against the bill, but I am concerned that some of the concerns raised by my colleagues, particularly Congresswoman Duckworth, were not, in fact, addressed in the final bill brought before this floor. It is my hope we could continue to work together to try to resolve that with some compromise language as we work with our colleagues in the other body. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers on this side. Does the gentleman have others on his side?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could I inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend. Is there any doubt, do you think, in a taxpayer's mind that if the current situation that identifies something as paid for by the U.S. Army, then certainly we all understand that it is also paid for by the U.S. taxpayer?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Will my friend yield?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Under this legislation, Mr. Speaker, any communication an agency makes that is an advertisement or that provides information about a Federal Government program, benefit, or service would have to say that it is printed or published at taxpayer expense. Emails, radio, and television ads would have to say that they are produced and disseminated at taxpayer expense. Some agencies already identify the agencies that print them. For example, the Army prints, ``Paid for by the United States Army'' on its recruiting posters. This bill would require the Army to change its wording and say, ``Printed at taxpayer expense.'' I have not heard any explanation, either at the committee or here on the floor, for why such a change is so necessary. The gentlewoman from Illinois, Congresswoman Duckworth, the former Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs, raised an important point during our committee's consideration of this bill. She pointed out that some materials printed by the Department of Veterans Affairs state that the VA produced the materials. This is important because veterans need to be able to trust the source of the information, and seeing ``Department of Veterans Affairs'' engenders just that trust. Four years ago, this body passed a law, cosponsored by Chairman Issa, the chairman of our committee, that prohibited nongovernment parties from sending mailings marked ``census'' without a clear disclaimer with the name of the party sending the mailing. That law was passed after the Republican National Committee sent a mailing that led recipients to think it was an official census document when it was not. We passed that law because we wanted to protect consumers from being misled into believing a communication from a nongovernmental source was, in fact, an official government document. We should use that same logic and caution with this bill. I think it is important that this bill is interpreted to allow agencies to continue to say that a communication is paid for by that agency rather than being required to say that the document is printed or published at taxpayer expense. During the committee's consideration of this legislation, Chairman Issa and my friend, Chairman Farenthold, made commitments to Representative Duckworth to work with her in finding mutually agreeable language. Representative Duckworth suggested language that would address the issues we raised with the military and the Veterans Administration. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that language is not--not--included in this bill, and no changes were made at all since the committee considered it, despite the assurances given to Representative Duckworth. I will not vote against the bill, but I certainly hope that, if this bill or a similar bill moves through the Senate, the majority in the House will keep the commitments made to Representative Duckworth and the Democrats on our committee to find a satisfactory resolution to the legitimate concerns that were raised. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust for receiving accreditation by the National Land Trust Accreditation Commission. The accreditation process is very rigorous and signifies the highest standards of excellence in land conservation. When Congress first passed the tax incentives for land conservation, it placed a high degree of trust in non-profit land trusts to manage these transactions properly. Over the years, land conservation has become increasingly complex and requires careful adherence to the national Land Trust Standards and Practices. This accreditation process helps give taxpayers confidence that land trusts are a worthy public investment. I want to thank the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust for its dedication and effectiveness in educating the public about the importance of conservation and preserving local natural areas, trails, streams, and parks. Its work helps to protect wildlife habitat, water quality and healthy communities. Since its founding 20 years ago, the Trust has protected 5,370 acres across Northern Virginia. And, by achieving national accreditation, the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust has expanded its capacity to accomplish this mission far into the future. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust for its hard work and commitment to our community. I wish the Trust and its supporters continued success in their conservation efforts.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my good friend and our distinguished ranking member of the committee, Mr. Cummings, for his graciousness and generosity. He has been a great leader and a great mentor in our committee. I also thank the distinguished chairman, Mr. Issa, for his leadership on this legislation. I have been proud to cosponsor and coauthor this bill with him. In the 21st century, Mr. Speaker, effective governance is inextricably linked with how well government leverages technology to serve its citizens. Yet our current Federal laws governing IT management and procurement are antiquated and out of step with technological change and growth and yield poor results. Far too often, cumbersome bureaucracy stifles innovation and prevents government from efficiently buying and deploying cutting-edge technology. Program failure and cost overruns plague the vast majority of major Federal IT investments. As the distinguished chairman indicated, if only the rollout of the health care Web site were a unique incident. Unfortunately, it actually characterizes most major Federal IT procurement rollouts. Some Federal managers report as much as 47 percent of their budgets are spent on maintaining inadequate or antiquated IT platforms. That is 47 percent. In recent decades, taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for massive IT program failures that ring up staggeringly high costs but exhibit astonishingly poor performance. For example, the Air Force invested 6 years in a modernization effort that cost more than $1 billion but failed to deliver a usable product, prompting the Assistant Secretary to state: I am personally appalled at the limited capabilities that program has produced relative to that amount of investment. This status quo is neither acceptable nor sustainable. Again, I want to thank Chairman Issa for working with me in a productive manner to develop the bipartisan Issa-Connolly Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, or FITARA. This bipartisan legislation seeks to comprehensively streamline and strengthen the Federal IT acquisition process and promote the adoption of the best practices from the technology community. The reform measure before us recognizes that effective Federal IT procurement reform must start with leadership and accountability. It is absolutely essential that a department's top leadership understands how critical effective IT investments are to an agency's operations and ability to carry out its future mission. We must elevate and enhance the prestige and, more importantly, the authorities of CIOs across the Federal Government to hold them accountable and to give them the flexibility to effectively manage an agency's IT portfolio. Agency heads need talented leaders to serve as their primary advisers on IT management; to recruit and retain talented IT staff, as the distinguished chairman has indicated; and to oversee critical IT investments across the organization. Title I of our legislation would accomplish this while also avoiding one-size-fits-all solutions by allowing agencies significant discretion in implementing the various aspects of this new law. Our bill would also accelerate data center optimization, as the distinguished ranking member indicated, and provide agencies with flexibility to leverage efficient cloud services and strengthen the accountability and transparency of Federal IT programs. If enacted, 80 percent of the approximately $80 billion spent annually on Federal IT investment would be required to be posted on the public IT Dashboard, compared to the 50 percent or less that characterizes that activity today. Strengthening the transparency requirements is an urgent and much- needed reform in light of the most recent January 2014 GAO report that revealed the IT Dashboard has not been updated for 15 of the last 24 months. This finding is as astonishing as it is unacceptable. Fortunately, a bipartisan consensus is forming around the urgent need to further streamline and strengthen how the Federal Government acquires and deploys information technology. President Obama has embraced Federal IT procurement reform, and a number of agencies are already taking a lead in the area. Now is the time, Mr. Speaker, to ensure reforms are adopted governmentwide and carry the force of reform law. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort in supporting this important and urgently needed reform. In the 21st century, effective governance is inextricably linked with how well government leverages technology to serve its citizens. Yet, our current Federal laws governing Federal IT management remain out of step with technological change and growth, with bureaucracy stifling innovation and preventing government from efficiently buying and deploying cutting edge technology. Simply put, today Federal IT acquisition is often a cumbersome, bureaucratic, and wasteful exercise--characterized by a Federal Government that has no idea what technology it needs, struggles to manage what it has, and consequently wastes billions of taxpayer dollars on failed IT investments. In recent decades, taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for massive IT program failures that ring up staggeringly high costs, but exhibit astonishingly poor performance. Program failure and cost overruns still plague the vast majority of major Federal IT investments, while Federal managers' report that 47 percent of their budget is spent on maintaining antiquated and inadequate IT platforms. The annual price tag of this wasteful spending on Federal IT programs is estimated to add up to approximately $20 billion. The Air Force invested six years in a modernization effort that cost more than $1 billion, but failed to deliver a usable product, prompting its Assistant Secretary to state, quote ``I am personally appalled at the limited capabilities that program has produced relative to that amount of investment.'' Of course, failing mission-critical IT investments do not only waste taxpayer dollars, but they jeopardize our Nation's safety, security, and economy. From malfunctioning Census handheld computers that threatened to undermine a critical constitutional responsibility . . . to a promised electronic border fence that never materialized . . . time and time again, agency missions have been sabotaged by failed IT acquisitions and gross mismanagement. This status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. The question facing us today is how can we modernize an IT procurement process designed for the 20th Century to meet the growing technology demands of the 21st? There are no quick fixes or legislative silver bullets. However, I strongly believe that if Congress can limit partisan posturing, we may finally have an opportunity to address the core problem at the heart of the HealthCare.gov challenge--our Nation's broken Federal IT procurement system. I want to thank Chairman Issa for working with me in a productive manner to develop the bipartisan Issa-Connolly Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, also known as FITARA. Our bipartisan legislation seeks to comprehensively streamline and strengthen the Federal IT acquisition process and promote the adoption of best practices from the technology community. We have solicited extensive input from all stakeholders to refine and improve our bill in an open and transparent manner. The resulting Issa-Connolly reform measure recognizes that effective Federal IT procurement reform must start with leadership and accountability. It is absolutely vital that a Department's top leadership understands how critical effective IT investments are to an agency's operations and ability to carry out its mission. After reviewing the findings of extensive oversight reviews, and feedback from those in the trenches, I believe we must elevate and enhance the prestige, and more importantly, the authorities, of CIOs across the Federal Government to hold them accountable for effectively managing an agency's IT portfolio. Agency heads must have talented leaders to serve as primary advisors on IT management . . . recruit and retain talented IT staff . . . and oversee critical IT investments. Title I of FITARA would accomplish this, while also avoiding ``one- size-fits-all'' solutions by allowing agencies significant discretion in implementing the law. In many respects, FITARA simply provides the force of law behind the August 2011 memorandum authored by then-OMB Director Jacob Lew, which announced that the Administration was committed to, quote: ``changing the role of Agency Chief Information Officers away from just policymaking and infrastructure maintenance, to encompass true portfolio management for all IT. This will enable CIOs to focus on delivering IT solutions that support the mission and business effectiveness of their agencies and overcome bureaucratic impediments to deliver enterprise-wide solutions.'' More than two years has passed since that policy memorandum was distributed to agencies, and it has become clear that efforts to reform IT through Administrative actions alone will not suffice. In fact, if one takes the time to analyze FITARA vis-a-vis existing Administration IT initiatives, one will find that our bipartisan bill is consistent with, and seeks to build on, the nascent Federal IT initiatives that have emerged over the past five years, including those in the 25 Point Plan. For example, the Issa-Connolly FITARA would enhance the CIO Council's role, tasking it with leading enterprise-wide portfolio management, and coordinating shared services and shared platforms across government. This bipartisan bill would also empower agencies to eliminate duplicative and wasteful IT contracts that have proliferated for commonly-used, IT Commodity-like investments, such as e-mail. In this era of austerity, agencies cannot afford to spend precious dollars and time creating duplicative, wasteful contracts for products and licenses they already own. In addition to improving how the government procures IT, this amendment would also enhance how the government deploys these tools. Our bill would accelerate data center optimization, provide agencies with flexibility to leverage efficient cloud services, and strengthen the accountability and transparency of Federal IT programs. If enacted, 80 percent of the approximately $80 billion annual Federal IT investment would be required to be posted on the public IT Dashboard, compared to the 50 percent coverage that exists today. Strengthening the transparency requirements of the IT Dashboard is an urgent and much needed reform in light of the recent January 2014 GAO report that revealed the IT Dashboard has not been updated for 15 of the past 24 months! This finding was as astonishing as it was unacceptable. The IT Dashboard was launched in 2009 with great fanfare, and to this day, OMB continues to claim that, quote ``The IT Dashboard gives the public access to the same tools and analysis that the government uses to oversee the performance of the Federal IT investments.'' Clearly providing the public with accurate and updated Federal IT investment performance data for only 9 months out of a 2-year period fails to give average citizens access to the same analysis used by agencies. It certainly undermines OMB's claim that the IT Dashboard was launched to, quote shine ``light onto the performance and spending of IT investments,'' by ensuring that the public has access to data indicating not only whether a project is over budget or behind schedule, but providing specific dollars figures and dates. Consistent with the principle that public contracts are public documents, our amendment also strengthens transparency in regard to the final negotiated price a company charges a Federal agency for a good or service. Today, far too many agencies negotiate blanket purchase agreements in silos, without any knowledge that another agency has already negotiated a BPA with the same exact vendor, for the same exact product, but at a different price. Nearly two decades has passed since the Information Technology Management Reform Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act were enacted through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996--reforms that are better known today as the foundational ``Clinger-Cohen Act.'' Fortunately, a bipartisan consensus is finally forming around the urgent need to further streamline and strengthen how the Federal Government acquires and deploys IT. President Obama has embraced Federal IT procurement reform and several agencies are already taking the lead in this area. Now is the time to ensure reforms are adopted government-wide and carry the force of law. The bipartisan Issa-Connolly Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act will enhance the statutory framework established by Clinger-Cohen to create an efficient and effective Federal IT procurement system that best serves agencies, industry, and most importantly, the American taxpayer. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this important and urgently needed bipartisan reform measure. IT Alliance for Public Sector, Washington, DC, February 25, 2014. Re H.R. 1232, the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) Hon. Darrell Issa, Chairman, House Oversight & Government Reform, Washington,

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, the debt ceiling suspension expired last week, and Secretary Lew says that Treasury will only be able to ensure that the U.S. meet its commitments through Feb. 27. Sadly, some in the House Majority still find it difficult to accept that Congress should actually pay its bills, buying into the myth that not raising the debt ceiling will somehow slow government spending. My colleagues fail to acknowledge that the deficit, as CBO recently reported, fell by more than a third in the first three months of FY14, and CBO predicts it will continue to shrink and stabilize at around 4% of GDP. Last week, the Business Roundtable lamented that Congress's inaction fosters continued uncertainty, increases borrowing costs, and dampens hiring. The Speaker told reporters that he does not want to play chicken again with the full faith and credit of the United States. So let's have a clean vote on the debt ceiling and put this behind us. It's time to roll up our sleeves and tackle the real challenges facing our nation and start putting people back to work.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Tuesday, February 11, as National Accredited ACH Professional (AAP) Day. This day highlights the importance of the AAP credential, as well as celebrates the achievements and contributions of AAPs nationwide. The AAP credential is the standard of excellence in ACH payments competency. AAPs are recognized payments industry experts on subjects ranging from the NACHA Operating Rules to sound risk management practices, and as such, are highly regarded by financial regulators and examiners. They play a key role in the individual organizations they serve and the greater industry as a whole, imparting knowledge and supporting practices that help ensure continued confidence in ACH payments and the safety, security, and reliability of the ACH Network. The ACH Network, administered by NACHA--The Electronic Payments Association, provides for the efficient exchange of direct account-to- account payments for consumers, businesses, and governments. Annually, it processes more than 21 billion electronic payments--including more than 5 billion Direct Deposit transactions--totaling almost $37 trillion. Through their expertise, AAPs help safeguard the quality of the ACH Network and the billions of transactions that flow through it. To be awarded the AAP credential, individuals must pass a comprehensive exam, which is administered by NACHA each fall. The exam tests an individual's knowledge of a variety of subjects including the NACHA Operating Rules, the ACH Network and other payments systems, technical and operational ACH requirements, risk management, and payments-related regulations. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in commending the more than four thousand AAPs nationwide by recognizing today as National Accredited ACH Professional Day.