Blake Farenthold

Mr. FARENTHOLD

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

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1036) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 Center Street West in Eatonville, Washington, as the ``National Park Ranger Margaret Anderson Post Office''.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, once again, it is my honor to be up here speaking about a bill, this one, H.R. 1036, introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert) that would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 Center Street West in Eatonville, Washington, as the National Park Ranger Margaret Anderson Post Office. Mount Rainier National Park Ranger Margaret Anderson was fatally shot in the line of duty on January 1 of 2012. On the morning of January 1, at approximately 10:30 in the morning, Ranger Anderson was at Paradise, the park's most popular winter destination, when she responded to a radio call while she was welcoming visitors. The radio call asked her to set up a traffic block to intercept a vehicle that failed to stop at a chained-up checkpoint in the park. The driver of the vehicle opened fire on Ranger Anderson and then fled on foot into the woods. Unbeknownst to Ranger Anderson, the suspect was wanted in connection with a shooting the previous day in which four people were wounded. Ms. Anderson was an exceptional park ranger who served the National Park Service for 12 years and worked at Mount Rainier for 3 years. She is survived by her husband, Eric, who is also a Mount Rainier park ranger, and two children, Annalise and Kathryn. Margaret was only 34 years old at the time of her death. Ranger Anderson gave her life protecting park visitors and staff from a dangerous criminal. Paradise is a magnet for sledders, skiers, and families with small children, and at least 100 people had already arrived at the park on this day when Ranger Anderson was shot. Margaret's brave action very possibly saved many lives that day, and she is to be commended and remembered as a hero. I urge all Members to join me in strong support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from the State of Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I look to my colleagues here in the House of Representatives and say please join Mr. Reichert, Mr. Clay, the entire Washington delegation, and me in voting to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service at 103 Center Street West in Eatonville, Washington, to honor a hero who gave her life protecting park patrons, to name that post office the National Park Ranger Margaret Anderson Post Office. Please join me in voting ``yea'' on this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3308) to require a Federal agency to include language in certain educational and advertising materials indicating that such materials are produced and disseminated at taxpayer expense, as amended.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am here today to speak on H.R. 3308, which requires the Federal Government to disclose that advertisements and information on government programs and services are paid for by the taxpayer. Advertisements provide information, but in many instances, they are designed to induce people to buy or use a product or service. While we can debate whether individual Federal advertising campaigns are overly promotional, surely we can agree that the public should know that they, themselves, are sponsoring a government marketing piece. Americans deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and H.R. 3308 adds needed transparency to the business of government by requiring disclosures when taxpayer dollars are spent on advertising and educational materials. This bill is designed to help people know what is going on. It is not intended to be a burden on local broadcasters, their advertisers, or any of the work that they do in local communities. As a former broadcaster, I understand the important role that advertising plays, but it is also important that the people know what is an advertisement being paid for with government money, what is a public service announcement, and what is being paid for by private individuals. This bill adds a disclaimer to ads in printed material very similar to what all of us in this Chamber are familiar with. There are advertising rules for Members' campaigns, where you have to indicate, This was paid for by so-and-so. This would just require government agencies who purchase advertising or produce written material to add a disclaimer saying something to the effect of, Produced and aired at taxpayer expense. I will reserve the balance of my time at this point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to take a moment to address the concerns raised by the gentleman from Virginia before yielding to the author of the bill, Mr. Long. During the markup, Representative Duckworth was concerned about certain agencies like the VA and the Department of Defense; and during the markup, we did add a provision, at the minority's request, that allowed the Office of Management and Budget to implement regulations in exactly how this is going to be done. It certainly does not prohibit ``paid for by the Army'' or ``paid for by the Veterans Administration.'' It would simply add, ``paid for by the Army at taxpayer expense,'' which would clearly be compliant with this law, the idea being to determine what the taxpayers are paying for and what is being donated for time, for instance, by a broadcast facility for public service announcements or to differentiate ads that are not paid for by the government. There is no disclaimer. We know it is not paid for with taxpayer dollars. What we are after here is to let the taxpayer know when they see something on the television, hear something on the radio, or see a printed material that their tax dollars funded it and it is something they can either be proud of or they can pick up the phone and call us up here in Washington, D.C. and say, What the heck are you doing wasting our money on these types of ads? It empowers the public to know. We are not trying to limit Federal agencies. We are not trying to detract from the fine work that the VA does or to detract from the recruiting efforts that our Armed Forces are in.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Reclaiming my time, we have got an alphabet soup of government agencies. As I review documents for the budget, I sometimes have to Google what some of the agencies in the Federal Government do. Obviously, almost everybody knows what the Army is, but if you are not in the financial services, do you know what the CFPB is? Or do you know what some of the smaller subagencies are? And I think that is what we are getting at. At this point, I will, however, yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Billy Long, the author of this bill, my good friend and a fellow broadcaster, I might add.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I don't have any further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Without getting into the pros and cons of the various investigations that this body does, I will say that it is our constitutional obligation to provide oversight to the various Federal agencies. One of the ways we do that is through the investigation that our committee does bring up. I do want to say we did visit with Representative Duckworth, and we do feel as if her concerns have been addressed. We could not agree on specific language with Ms. Duckworth, but we were able to come up with these provisions that the minority requested at the markup that allowed the OMB to come up with the implementing regulations. It also includes a provision suggested by the minority to make clear that communications funded entirely by user fees or by sources other than that that do not include Federal funds may indicate how it is funded through the United States Government. But this is a bill all designed to provide transparency, let taxpayers see the fruits of the spending of taxpayer dollars on advertisements, and to make a judgment about that on their own and know what is going on and know how their money is being spent. As my colleague from Missouri pointed out, sunshine is the best disinfectant. It is what we are about in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It is what this bill does, again, designed as a regulation on government agencies, not as an attempt to go after broadcasters, print shops, or anything like that. This is just to get the government agencies to tell the taxpayers what they bought with the disclaimer on there. It is commonsense legislation. I urge all my colleagues to stand behind it. It is something that I think will be a huge step forward towards transparency, and I look forward to this bill's passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2860) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management may use amounts in the revolving fund of the Office to fund audits, investigations, and oversight activities, and for other purposes.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2860 responds to the Office of Personnel Management Inspector General's call for increased oversight of the OPM's revolving fund by providing the IG access to a portion of that revolving fund moneys for oversight. H.R. 2860 recognizes oversight as a legitimate business cost by using existing funds to help the IG respond to the increased referrals of alleged fraud within the OPM's revolving fund operations, including especially in the background investigation used to determine an individual's eligibility for a security clearance. The Office of Personnel Management serves as the regulator for these rules affecting the management of Federal workers, but has also evolved into a fee-based service provider that provides billions of dollars in services each year to the very agencies governed by OPM's rules. The revolving fund budget has grown significantly over the past 15 years, from $191 million to more than $2 billion today. OPM's revolving fund budget is almost 91 percent of OPM's budget; yet the resources available for the IG to audit these funds have not kept pace with the growing amounts. For over 30 years, both the General Accountability Office and OPM Inspectors General have been concerned about the management of resources in the revolving fund. Each has issued a number of reports and audits examining various and, often recurring, problems. Last year, OPM Inspector General McFarland informed the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform of what he described as a ``serious problem'' inhibiting his ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his office. McFarland stated his office was at a point where it could not meet its statutory obligation to effectively oversee revolving fund activities. He noted that his office had been ``inundated with requests from OPM to audit and/or investigate different parts of revolving fund programs,'' from technical audit work to the continuing flow of allegations involving falsifications of background investigations and abuse of authority. The OPM Inspector General has investigated a number of cases involving the falsification of background investigations, including reporting of investigations that never occurred, recording answers to questions that were never asked, and documents record checks that were never conducted. Within the military departments at 81 percent of OPM's customer base, these cases have serious national security implications. Inspector General McFarland testified before the Federal Workforce Subcommittee in June, and he said the OPM's revolving fund programs ``have been operating in the shadows for too long,'' adding the often- cited phrase ``sunshine is the best disinfectant.'' H.R. 2860 would allow the OPM IG to use a portion of the revolving fund moneys to pay for related audit and investigation work. The OPM IG's resources would be limited to one-third of 1 percent of the revolving fund budget, and the IG would be required to submit an annual budget request and report detailing its revolving fund oversight work. H.R. 2860 provides resources for critical oversight that can be accomplished at relatively low cost, using existing funds. I urge the adoption of this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank Mr. Cummings and Mr. Lynch for working together in such a bipartisan manner on this very important national security bill. It is a commonsense, good government bill that is designed to use existing funds that are brought into the OPM to oversee the OPM. They have got a huge chunk of money here that is coming from the background checks, and they don't have the resources necessary to adequately make sure these background checks are going to be done. Mr. Cummings cited numerous examples of how the failures in the system have resulted in tragedies and have resulted in information getting out. We need to make sure these background checks are being done properly, we need to make sure this money is being administered properly, and this bipartisan bill does that. I too urge my colleagues to pass the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of the gentleman from Maryland if he has any additional speakers.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. At this point, I would like to wrap it up and close. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, this is a commonsense, good government bill that has strong national security implications and I am going to urge all my colleagues to support it. Again, even though it was included in the omnibus that is coming through that is 1 year, this creates permanent law where we continue to do this necessary and appropriate oversight at a fraction of the percent of the cost of the budget, absolutely a phenomenal bill that we all need to get behind and support. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FARENTHOLD

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1233) to amend chapter 22 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as the Presidential Records Act, to establish procedures for the consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against disclosure of Presidential records, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1233 would codify the existing executive order that requires former Presidents to appeal to incumbent Presidents to keep certain Presidential documents privileged under the Presidential Records Act. This bill would lock into statute a process established by President Ronald Reagan in 1989, restored by President Obama in 2009, and used without controversy by four of the last five Presidents. The bill would ensure greater transparency for the privilege extension requests by former Presidents and help prevent abuses of the system. The bill does not expand the limits of executive privilege, nor would it give former Presidents custodial rights over their administration's Presidential records. Let me say that again to make perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. The bill does not expand the limits of the executive privilege, nor does it give former Presidents custodial rights over their administrations' Presidential records. What the bill does is shift the focus from the technology used to capture and store information to the information itself. Historically, Federal recordkeeping has taken a medium-focused approached to keeping records. In a world where technological advances rapidly and equipment and software become obsolete in months instead of years, making agencies focus their efforts on preserving all information rather than the information in certain forms ensures a more robust historical record, and does so without constant legislative updating. H.R. 1233 would also create a framework to end the all-too-common practice of executive branch employees using personal email, IM, instant messages, and similar technologies to engage in official Federal business. Specifically, the bill requires official business done on personal accounts be forwarded to an official account within 5 days and authorizes negative personnel actions against individuals who intentionally violate this disclosure requirement. The bill also phases out paper-focused relics of the current Federal recordkeeping law. The bill would change the so-called 30-year presumption, which lets Federal agencies hold on to their records for a 30-year period before turning them over to the National Archives, a rule which, in the current environment, all but guarantees the information will disappear as the technology used to store that information changes. Imagine delivering punch cards today to the National Archives. It would be a massive challenge to try to make that in a readable form today. Betamax tapes, we see technology change and the need for this to be updated. It would also make it much easier for agencies to turn over their records to the National Archives sooner. This bill would also eliminate the so-called print-to-file rule, which actually encourages agencies to print out their electronic files and send the paper to the National Archives. Archaic rules like these actually stand in the way of effective recordkeeping. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I stand with Mr. Cummings in supporting this good government bill that continues to preserve information from the Federal Government for historians and future generations, adapts to modern technology and closes the loophole with respect to private email accounts. I am a huge supporter, happy we are working together in a bipartisan manner on these and other good government bills. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.