Gerald Connolly

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security released a joint statement saying: ``The U.S. Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.'' The U.S. Intelligence Community went on to explicitly state that ``these thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process . . . only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.'' Despite this certification, the majority in this body has demonstrated zero interest in examining the unprecedented attack on one of our most cherished institutions, democratic free elections. I am here today to plead with the majority to take an interest, not because I seek to undermine the results of the recent Presidential election. That is not my intention. Rather, it is my sincere hope that we understand the nature of the foreign interference and how to guard against it in all future elections.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch). I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar). I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) for his leadership and collaboration on this important bill that he and I have introduced and is on the floor today, the Follow the Rules Act, H.R. 6186. I appreciate Representative Duffy's efforts to work to advance this legislation that falls under the umbrella of good government, which the Oversight and Government Reform Committee usually strives to promote on a bipartisan basis. I welcome consideration of the bill, the Follow the Rules Act, to extend Congress' commitment to whistleblowers. The Follow the Rules Act upholds the committee's obligation to protect whistleblowers and help identify mismanagement at Federal agencies in supporting the oversight work of Congress. The bill's language was previously adopted by a voice vote as section 1206 of the House-passed Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2017, H.R. 5482. The bill closes a loophole in the Whistleblower Protection Act created falsely, in my view, by the ruling in Rainey v. Merit Systems Protection Board, a precedent-setting case decided on June 7 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Whistleblower Protection Act provides Federal workers with legal safeguards to disclose information that an employee reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement of a contract or a grant, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority regarding a contract or grant, or violation of law or rule regarding a contract or grant. That language ought to be fairly clear, but apparently it wasn't to the appellate court. In Rainey, the right-to-disobey provision of the Whistleblower Protection Act was determined to only provide protection to Federal workers who refuse to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law, but not to Federal workers who refuse to violate rules and regulations. God knoweth why. This distinction leaves a gap in protections originally clearly intended for Federal employees by this Congress. In effect, the ruling exposes whistleblowers who refuse to violate the rules and regulations that were promulgated as a result of laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. That is how it flows. This is a gap in coverage that must be addressed by Congress and clarified in the statute. Though, had the appellate court ruled correctly, it would be unnecessary. The only way to protect whistleblowers from this court decision is to update the law to ensure that rules and regulations are covered by the right-to-disobey provision of the Whistleblower Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to continue Congress' longstanding support for whistleblowers and vote in the affirmative for the Follow the Rules Act.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), my friend, for yielding. I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 165, reaffirming longstanding U.S. policy in support of a direct, bilaterally negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For several decades, the United States has maintained a consistent, bipartisan policy toward the conflict that supports a two-state solution and opposes settlement expansion. Explicit congressional support for the two-state solution is critically important, especially in light of President-elect Donald Trump's previous statements on this very subject. My friends on the other side have indicated an abiding fear that something bad might happen at the U.N. in the waning 52 days of the Obama administration. I don't share that concern. What I am concerned about is the next 4 years and what Donald Trump will do to the longstanding, bipartisan support for a two-state solution that has been the cornerstone of American policy. If he pulls out of that commitment, then you are right, Middle East peace is at risk, but it is not because of what Obama is going to do over the next 52 days. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, which reiterates that longstanding, bipartisan support for a two-state solution, and help combat the unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy in these difficult days of transition.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I too join the chairman and the ranking member in saluting the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I remember him telling the story that he was a teenager at the outbreak of the war in Korea, living in Harlem, and didn't know where Korea was. He sure knows today. He is an iconic figure in the Korean community. Representative Rangel, we salute you for your incredible heroism. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 40 to encourage the reunion of divided Korean American families. The division of north and south along the 38th parallel offers one of the world's most striking dichotomies. Yet, on both sides of the demilitarized zone resides a shared pain. The pain is that of families ripped apart by the war and an enduring division of one people into two countries. Reunions are a welcome respite from that separation, but, in the end, they provide yet another reminder that family reunification on the Korean Peninsula is all too fleeting. Many of these Americans--more than 100,000 according to the last estimate--have been waiting to reunite with their family members in North Korea. Too many have already passed away without ever realizing that hope. This resolution encourages Pyongyang to allow those Korean Americans to meet with their families. It also calls on the North Korean regime to take steps to build goodwill that is conducive to peace in the peninsula. Earlier this year, we passed the North Korean Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, which included my amendment conditioning sanctions relief on the promotion of family reunifications for Koreans and Korean Americans. It is vital our North Korea policy be informed with an understanding that there are human victims of this ongoing conflict in the North Korean Peninsula. I ask my colleagues to support the resolution, which demonstrates our commitment to efforts to seek to relieve the pain of separation felt by Korean families.

Mr. CONNOLLY

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

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I take my friend from California's point about data. Let's look at OMB's latest report to Congress on Federal regulation which found that the monetized benefits of Federal regulations over the past decade are significantly higher, by a 10 to 1 margin, than their cost. That is their report. It is an inconvenient fact, but there it is. I will finally end, Mr. Chairman, because I want to be respectful of my friend's intent here in trying to amalgamate these two amendments. I am sorry, this is another bill in the long process of trying to delegitimize President Obama's Presidency, and it, to me, is a shameful episode where some of my friends on the other side of the aisle--not necessarily Mr. Issa--have attempted to basically nullify his ability to function as President, and therefore he has had to rely on executive powers in the absence of legislative action and thwarting. I think the most egregious one besides this bill is, of course, leaving a vacancy open on the Supreme Court under the very dubious logic that somehow he is not entitled in the last year. That logic leads every single Member of Congress basically to not do anything in the second year here in the House because the same logic would pertain to them. They are lameducks until they are reelected or until the will of the people is heard in the next election cycle. That is, to me, foolish logic, dangerous logic, and I think it will put a cloud over the next President's tenure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the two amendments pending, 4 and 5, be amalgamated into one for the purpose of debate on the floor instead of separate consideration.

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

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I offer amendment Nos. 4 and 5 printed in part B of House Report 114-818.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on my side.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, it seems this Congress will close out the 114th session much the same as it opened. Then we considered H.R. 185, a repeat of the anti-public health, anti-environment, anti-public safety legislation that was defeated in the 112th and 113th Congresses and which would come to characterize, unfortunately, this Congress. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised that just before we adjourn, the House majority will offer one last retread of this social Darwinian philosophy. This latest iteration, the seductively titled Midnight Rules Relief Act, is nothing more than a retread, a backdoor attempt to roll back important steps to protect our constituents and our communities. My amendment would, at the very least, ensure we continue to take steps to mitigate the effects of climate change. Climate change already poses a real and growing threat to our children, our families, our national security, and our economy. Denying it exists doesn't make it so. I can tell you in my native State of Virginia, we are seeing the effects of climate change in low-lying areas, including in and around our all-important naval base in Norfolk. I know there are some who believe that the Clean Power Plan and similar rules which seek to curb climate change will crush the economy, but I will point out we have to listen to rhetoric all the time about job-killing regulations in the environment. The fact of the matter is Clean Air Act amendments and related amendments to protect our air and our water have, in fact, created jobs and, with respect to power rates, have, in fact, lowered power rates in large parts of the country, including my own in Virginia. Turning my attention, Mr. Chairman, to the second amendment amalgamated, this bill once again amends the Congressional Review Act to allow a joint resolution disapproving en bloc regulations. The title of the bill leads one to believe that the period of coverage spans the waning hours of a Presidency when, in fact, according to the nonpartisan CRS, 60 legislative days takes us back to May of 2016, before we even confirmed our final Presidential candidates. The Congressional Review Act already permits Congress to disapprove of regulations. This bill is nothing more than a partisan attempt to prevent the implementation of critical laws by our Federal Government to delegitimize President Obama's final months in office. I think it is unwise. I think it is imprudent. I think just like leaving a vacancy on the Supreme Court for an entire year on the dubious theory that a President in his last year of office ought to be somehow a lameduck in every respect as if he had not legitimately been elected by the people of this country is certainly, I think, false logic, false constitutional logic, and dangerous to the functioning of a republic. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend for yielding. I am struck by a humorous observation when he talks about what happened in the other body to a lot of legislation. I believe it may have been Sam Rayburn who said, as a Democratic Speaker, the Republicans are in the opposition but the Senate is the enemy. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, meant no disrespect. I was simply quoting a former Speaker of this body.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I have no objection to the request of the gentleman from California. Is it, from a parliamentary point of view, a possibility?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for their fine work. I rise today in support of H.R. 6297, the Iran Sanctions Extension Act. When Congress considered the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action last year, which I supported, we acknowledged that this deal was not a panacea. It was not designed to resolve the myriad issues that undergird the U.S. and our allies in their relationship with the repressive regime in Tehran and its reprehensible support for terrorist insurgencies throughout the region. No one agreement is comprehensive. It wasn't in the Soviet era, and it isn't in this era either. The Iran deal is designed to eliminate Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon and roll it back in exchange for the lifting of all U.S. nuclear-related sanctions. Abandoning this deal or reinstating the U.S. nuclear-related sanctions against Iran would be a dangerous course of action, introducing unnecessary risks into an already fraught relationship and into an already delicately balanced multilateral agreement, especially because the deal is, in fact, working. Iran has met the metrics set forth, rather rigorous metrics, in the reversal of its nuclear development program. However, the scope of the Iran Sanctions Act extends far beyond nuclear-related sanctions, as do our points of contention with the Iranian regime. Iran continues to engage in a variety of unacceptable and destabilizing activities, including domestic human rights abuses, supporting terrorist groups in the region, and advancing an illicit ballistic missile program that is of concern, as Mr. Hoyer just mentioned. We absolutely can and must continue implementation of the Iran deal while simultaneously extending this act as leverage to combat Iran's other unconscionable behavior. I want to thank the majority for bringing to the floor a clean reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, which in doing so safeguards a longstanding bipartisan consensus to counter Iran, something I think we need, especially after this election, more than ever before. Again, I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6004, the Modernizing Government Technology Act of 2016. Let me also thank my good friend and coauthor of this bill, Mr. Hurd of Texas, for his leadership in shepherding this bill through our committee and now on to the floor. Sometimes, deservedly, Congress gets dinged on for not being able to get anything done. But the fact of the matter is that, below the surface, lots of things can and do get done with leadership, collaboration, and partnership. Mr. Hurd of Texas epitomizes that, and my hat is off to him for his contribution on this whole front of IT modernization and helping to bring the Federal Government into the 21st century when it comes to the use of technology. Every day Federal agencies endure cyber attacks that have the potential to cause incalculable damage to national security and the privacy of all Americans. While the Federal Government does its best to protect our critical computer networks, our efforts are often stymied by the outdated legacy information technologies in Federal agencies. Agencies spend nearly 75 percent of their IT budgets simply trying to maintain these outdated systems. Let me repeat that: in an $82 billion program for IT acquisition procurement and management, 75 percent of that budget is not spent in updating the Federal Government in cutting- edge technologies. It is spent maintaining what we have got, and in some cases, those legacy systems go back 40 and 50 years. I am proud to lead the Modernizing Government Technology Act of 2016 with Mr. Hurd of Texas to help our cyber defenders protect our most important digital resources. When you are dealing with outmoded technology, legacy systems oftentimes can't be protected. They can't be encrypted, and that makes them terribly vulnerable--low hanging fruit to those who would do harm to our country and would compromise the data of millions of Americans. This bill in front of us marries the IT Modernization Act and the MOVE IT Act by establishing a clear role for both of these pieces of legislation in this improvement process for Federal IT systems. The MGT Act lays the foundation for the future of IT modernization funding in the Federal Government. This bipartisan legislation will provide a mechanism for agencies to get ahead of the curve and help reduce the fiscal challenges facing every agency chief information officer, or CIO. The MGT Act will authorize a significant upfront investment to retire those vulnerable large-scale legacy systems affecting multiple agencies. Under the guidance of an Information Technology Modernization Board, agencies will be able now to request funds to facilitate those modernization efforts--something that would absolutely be the practice in the private sector, as I know my friend, Mr. Hurd of Texas, knows. If approved, those funds will be repaid through savings realized by the implementation of the more modern IT systems. The bill places an emphasis on following the practice of private industry and moving toward cloud computing solutions. The MGT Act will allow agencies to invest savings generated through the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act, or FITARA for short, and other reforms to make investments in cloud transition. I was delighted to be a coauthor of the FITARA Act along with Darrell Issa of California. The MGT Act will establish working capital funds that will allow those agencies to use savings from new, secure systems and to reinvest in themselves, including in the movement toward the cloud. This creates incentives for agencies to find those savings and reinvest internally in themselves, creating a virtuous cycle. The Modernizing Government Technology Act is supported by industry experts and incorporates the same sort of mechanisms the private sector often uses to secure its networks. It is important for agencies to know that Congress not only expects agencies to implement robust, modern cyber safeguards, but that it is here to help them confront these challenges. This reform has the potential to significantly speed up the Federal Government's move to the 21st century technologies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my good friend from Texas. He is always gracious and has always been a wonderful partner in this enterprise. In closing, the United States Government must come into the 21st century. We owe it to the people we serve to protect the systems that operate within the 24 Federal agencies we are particularly concerned about. We need to streamline management of IT assets; we need to make strategic and wise investments; we need to have a schedule of replacement for most of those legacy systems; and we need to encrypt and protect against cyber attacks for the sake of the American people. I think Mr. Hurd and I share that as a critical mission not only for this Congress, but for the United States Government as a whole. I am proud, again, to be an original coauthor and cosponsor of this legislation, working with Mr. Hurd. I know we have other initiatives we are going to be working on as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this legislation, which is not a product of bipartisan collaboration as is the tradition of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The facts of this case are simple. Unfortunately, they have been muddied by election year politics and a lack of careful deliberation on this matter. In 1979, U.S. weapons sales to Iran were interrupted by the Iranian revolution, and $400 million worth of American weapons that were paid for by Iran were never delivered. In December 2015, the U.S. and Iran settled the claim over the weapons sale for $1.7 billion, including $1.3 billion in interest. Payment of the claim on January 16, 2016 coincided with Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the release of four Americans detained in Iran. The settlement was announced the next day, and Congress was briefed on the payment. For eight months this settlement was not the emergency it has somehow become. And now with less than 50 days until the election we have rushed this legislation to the Floor without any input from the Minority. We did not even bother to have a hearing on this subject, which the Majority obviously views as important. In fact, the hearing on the settlement payment was scheduled for this week, after we marked up this bill in Committee last week. The hearing was subsequently cancelled, which was probably for the best. The Committee might have looked a little foolish sending a bill to the Floor to be voted on and then seeking out the facts of the case in a hearing. Point, shoot, aim, should not the manner in which Congress conducts U.S. foreign policy. Perhaps we should go back to the drawing board and try to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. That is how the House Foreign Affairs Committee functions best. It is how we passed Iranian sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table. It is how we have gone after Iran's financing of Hezbollah. And it is how we should continue to confront the legitimate challenges Iranian behavior poses to security and stability in the world. This legislation is not in keeping with that successful tradition, and I must oppose it.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friends, for their leadership in managing today. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in strong support of this bill, which will make fundamental changes to project and program management practices and standards for the Federal Government. The bill's cosponsor, Representative Todd Young, and I currently serve as co-chairs of the Government Efficiency Caucus, which to some may seem like an oxymoron. In our capacity as co-chairs, Representative Young and I worked together on a bipartisan basis to develop the Program Management Improvement and Accountability Act. After taking input from many stakeholders, including from agency management and private sector partners, regarding the root causes of poor project performance, we identified serious deficiencies in program and project management competencies across the entire Federal Government. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, it is deeply troubling to me that so many Federal projects and programs find themselves substantially over budget or significantly behind schedule. These are all symptoms of a lack of institutional focus and attention to the mechanics of project management. This bill strengthens project management policy throughout the Federal Government by requiring consistent project standards and guidelines for program management, demanding accountability at OMB and in Federal agencies to capture and implement lessons learned, and requiring a clear identification of skills and competencies necessary for effective program management professionals. I have the honor of representing more than 13,000 project managers, Federal project managers, and the lack of requirements for the position is not acceptable. The job description for an important position where billions of dollars are being spent should be clearly defined, and this legislation instructs OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, to develop a job classification and career path for these professionals. I am proud to have worked with Congressman Young and the Government Efficiency Caucus on a bipartisan basis. We have the support of nonpartisan good government groups, including the Project Management Institute and the National Academy of Public Administration behind this bill. As a result, the PMIAA passed through our committee, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, without objection, and passed the Senate unanimously. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation that I think will lead to significant efficiencies in the Federal Government and ultimately benefit the American taxpayer.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 634, expressing support for the U.S.-Republic of Korea-Japan trilateral relationship. The United States-Republic of Korea-Japan trilateral relationship is strategically vital to countering the provocations emanating from North Korea, and this resolution provides guidance for what should be our shared priorities in addressing the threat posed by the paranoid regime in Pyongyang. As a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Korea, I remain deeply concerned with the volatility and ever-present potential of conflict on the Korean Peninsula. It is a specter that looms over 75 million Koreans and, for their sake and that of the region, the U.S., the Republic of Korea, Japan, China, and other regional stakeholders must demonstrate commitment to addressing this threat. The Korean Peninsula is one of the most dangerous flashpoints on the globe. There have been recent developments in the North Korea saga that are profoundly troubling and deserve an immediate response from Congress. North Korea's fourth nuclear weapons test and ongoing ballistic missile tests confirm that the regime in Pyongyang is committed to defying international norms and destabilizing the Asia-Pacific region. This resolution, sanctions passed by Congress, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2270, the R.O.K.'s decision to close Kaesong Industrial Complex, and the recent agreement to deploy the THAAD missile defense system to the Peninsula constitute a concerted effort to target North Korea's illicit trade networks and protect a vital U.S. ally from the illicit nuclear program that has made North Korea a world pariah. The North Korean threat endangers the security and stability of close and valued defense treaty allies, the R.O.K. and Japan. The U.S. has met this challenge with security assurances, military resources, deepened economic ties, and an effort to marshal the opposition of the international community against a nuclear armed North Korea. We must continue to demonstrate the resolve to achieve a nuclear- weapon-free Korean Peninsula.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 660, expressing support for the territorial integrity of Georgia. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for shepherding this measure through the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I introduced this resolution with my colleague and fellow co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Georgia, Judge Ted Poe. It serves as a clear and unequivocal statement in support of the sovereign territory of Georgia and it reiterates the longstanding policy of the United States to not recognize territorial changes effected by force, as dictated by the Stimson Doctrine--established in 1932 by then Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson. In Georgia and elsewhere in the region, Russia has committed gross violations of these principles by fomenting unrest and aiding separatist movements in the countries along its periphery. Foundational multilateral agreements reached for the purpose of maintaining a peaceful and stable international order, such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the Charter of the United Nations, have been willfully disregarded by Russia at Putin's behest. This resolution condemns strongly the forcible and illegal occupation of the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions in Georgia, and calls on Russia to withdraw its troops from the territories. Russian forces continue to harass civilian communities along the administrative boundary line and impede the right of return of internally displaced persons. This resolution is about restoring the territorial integrity of a sovereign state and upholding the commitments and promise of the U.S.- Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership--a framework founded on support for each other's sovereignty, the strengthening of Georgian democracy, and the Euro-Atlantic integration of Georgia. Support for this resolution would be consistent with the recent Warsaw Summit Communique issued by the NATO Heads of State and Government on July 9, 2016 in which NATO reaffirmed its support for the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia. I would ask that my colleagues support this important and timely resolution.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). I rise in opposition to H.R. 5631, the so-called Iran Accountability Act. The majority has decided, on its own, without any bipartisanship, to co-opt traditional action on a bipartisan basis to counter Iran by fast-tracking sharply partisan legislation that would undermine not only the Iran nuclear agreement but fracture the very delicate international coalition that allowed us to reverse the nuclear development in Iran. I guess that is something that happens when amateurs write a bill without any foreign policy background. This bill was drafted, as Mr. Hoyer indicated, with no input from the minority and was brought to the floor under a closed rule. How can anyone, much less our adversary Iran, take this seriously? If the majority really cared about countering Iran, it would safeguard longstanding bipartisan consensus and bring to the floor a clean reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, which I would support and I am sure most people on my side of the aisle.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Instead, the majority is scrambling to pass at the last hour of this part of our session, just before a 7-week recess, the bill before us today. It is a farce. It is a dangerous gambit by the majority to play election-year politics at the expense of U.S. bipartisan foreign policy. I urge rejection of this ill-considered bill.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate Amendment to the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2016 (H.R. 3766). I want to thank my friend, Judge Ted Poe of Texas, for working with me to introduce and advance this bill. I also want to thank Chairman Ed Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for previously marking up this measure in Committee and bringing it to the Floor today. And finally, I want to thank our colleagues in the Senate, including Senators Cardin, Rubio, and Leahy for working with us to strengthen the bill and shepherd it through the Senate. The Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act is a project that I have worked on with Judge Poe for several years now, and in December 2015 this bill passed in the House by voice vote. The bill directs the President to establish monitoring and evaluation or M&E guidelines for the federal agencies charged with implementing foreign assistance programs abroad. The guidelines will require M&E plans as part of the project development process, and agencies will be encouraged to incorporate the findings of project evaluations and impact studies into subsequent foreign assistance programs. This feedback loop will include measurable goals, performance metrics, and a clearing house for lessons learned on U.S.-led aid projects. Additionally, the legislation requires that the documents and reports created under this M&E regime be made available to the public on foreignassistance.gov. This administration has developed an encouraging record on foreign aid transparency. The Foreign Assistance Dashboard created in 2010 demonstrated a promising inclination towards disclosure that we should hope to enshrine in law. This measure will strengthen and codify those transparency best practices to ensure that they exist as agency policy under future Administrations that might not be as accommodating of the aid community's demand for this information. Aid programs that are held accountable for their performance and results can be made more effective, and their impact on communities and countries abroad can be more easily demonstrated. Perhaps with more information, we can dispel the commonly held belief that 26 percent of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid when the actual amount is less than 1 percent. I am hopeful that this bill will help foreign assistance operations become more focused and efficacious. It is time to apply a data driven approach to constructing an assistance operation that has the support of Congress and a well- informed public. We cannot ignore the increasingly important role diplomacy and development play in meeting our most pressing security challenges and demonstrating American leadership in global affairs. It is an act of political malpractice that this vital part of the federal budget is so misunderstood and that the direct link between our national security and stability and prosperity abroad is so underappreciated. I urge my colleagues to join the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, the Professional Services Council, the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, and several other well-regarded members of the foreign assistance community in supporting this bipartisan legislation and foster greater understanding of our vital investments abroad. I would like to close by thanking, once again, Judge Poe for his leadership on the issue of foreign aid effectiveness. I think his advocacy is motivated by a shared belief that our foreign assistance dollars have the potential to create a path to prosperity in the most poverty stricken areas of the world, and nurture the promise of democracy in the face of even the most repressive authoritarian regimes. I look forward to working with Judge Poe to ensure that those common goals are advanced by the implementation of this legislation.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Alexis Frost, who is a 6th grade student at Lorton Station Elementary School, for placing second in the Junior Division, Individual Performance Category, of the Virginia National History Day Contest. She, along with winners from other states competed at the Kenneth E. Behring National History Day Conference, which took place June 12 through 16 at the University of Maryland in College Park. Each year there is a specific theme on which the students' research must focus with this year's theme being: ``Exploration, Encounter, Exchange in History.'' For her entry Alexis created a performance titled ``Amelia'' in which she portrays Amelia Earhart, an early aviation pioneer who was the first female pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean and who was an inspiration to women throughout the world. This year approximately 600,000 students from across the United States participated in these contests. For the contests, students create entries showcasing original historical research utilizing primary and secondary sources. They then present their information in one of five categories: documentary, exhibit, paper, performance, and website. Less than 1 percent of all contestants are invited to go to the national competition. At the National History Day Finals, Alexis' project along with those of the other state winners were evaluated by more than 300 historians and education professionals. Scholarships totaling $150,000 were awarded to the winners of the contest ranging from $250 through $1,000 per award. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Alexis Frost for her outstanding performance in the National History Day contest and in wishing her the very best at the National Finals as well as throughout her educational career.