Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mike Love, a founding member of The Beach Boys, one of the most popular rock groups in history. Love has spent an extraordinary fifty-five years and counting as the group's lead singer and one of its principal lyricists, with thirteen Gold albums, fifty-five Top 100 singles, and four number-one hits. He has received an Ella Award for his songwriting and, as a member of The Beach Boys, is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the California Hall of Fame, the Vocal Group Hall of Fame and he has received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award. The Beach Boys, from their California roots to their international fame, are a unique American story, one of overnight success, age- defying longevity, musical genius and spirituality. Mike Love is the only band member to be part of it each and every step of the way. It's an American story of how a sheet metal apprentice became the quintessential front man for one of America's most successful rock bands, singing in more than 5,600 concerts in twenty-six countries. Love wrote the lyrics for pop classics such as ``Good Vibrations,'' ``California Girls,'' ``Surfin' USA,'' and ``Kokomo.'' Mike's partnership with his cousin Brian Wilson has few equals in American pop music, though Mike has carved out a legacy of his own. He co-wrote the lyrics to eleven of the twelve original Beach Boys songs that were Top 10 hits while providing the lead vocals on ten of them. The band's unprecedented durability also provides a glimpse into America's changing cultural mores over the past half century. Mike's latest solo album, ``Unleash the Love,'' was released in November 2017 with his hope that ``if we all can unleash whatever love inside of us, we can collectively make this world better.'' His memoir, Good Vibrations: My Life as a Beach Boy, released in 2016 and is a New York Times bestseller. A husband, a father, and an avid environmentalist, Love's life is as rich and layered as The Beach Boys' harmonies themselves. Love has been married to his wife, Jacquelyne Piesen, since 1994 and has eight children: Brian Love, Ambha Love, Michael Love, Jr., Melinda Love, Summer Love, Christian Love, Teresa Love and Hayleigh Love.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I come to the House floor today to speak about a husband, a father, an avid environmentalist with over 55 years' experience in just one profession. Madam Speaker, I come here to speak about and to honor the life of Mike Love, a founding member of The Beach Boys, one of the most popular music groups of all time, a group that has entertained us on The Mall of the Capitol more than any other band in history, a patriotic group that speaks in lyrics that are timeless. Love has spent an extraordinary 55 years and counting as the group's lead singer and one of its principal lyricists, with 13 gold albums, 55 Top 100 hits, and 4 singles alone. He, himself, wrote the lyrics to the great pop classics ``Good Vibrations,'' ``California Girls,'' ``Surfin' USA,'' and ``Kokomo,'' for the father. The Beach Boys, from their California roots, have, in fact, been a global ambassador for California and for America. But more importantly, at a time in which words are sometimes vulgar or unintelligible, that is never the case with The Beach Boys. They sing of the greatness of our country, of our lands, and particularly of California. So, with the unprecedented success and continuation of this band under Mike Love's leadership, I ask that we honor him again as a father, a husband, an environmentalist, and, yes, a man who has given us the most beautiful, layered music of American modern history as it continues 55 years on.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At this time, I would like to include in the Record a number of exhibits: Exhibit A, in which under oath we had testimony that said the Department of Justice did not want to be in the business of picking or choosing organizations that may or may not receive any funding under an agreement. Yet, exhibit B, in which the number three at Department of Justice under President Obama said, ``Can you explain to Tony the best way to allocate money toward organizations of our choosing,'' in a $9 billion settlement. And in exhibit C, in which they specifically said they had concerns, including not allowing Citibank to pick a statewide intermediary like Pacific Legal Foundation that does conservative causes. exhibit a Chairman GOODLATTE. Well, let me just add that this committee will not stand silent, nor will, I am sure, the Financial Service Committee, and you can expect that this will escalate if you do not provide the documentation that we requested over 2 months ago. Secondly, did anyone at the Department of Justice ever consider the serious appearance of impropriety in requiring banks to make available to activist organizations the lion's share of funding that Congress has previously cut off to them? That is one of the reasons why we want to see the communications. We want to know what considerations went into making this decision to take this action. Mr. GRABER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, understand the concern. And I can tell you that one of the reasons that the Department wanted to use a preexisting list, the one that I believe you are referring to, the HUD approved counseling agency list, is because that list is preexisting. The Department did not want to be in the business of picking and choosing which organization may or may not receive any funding under the agreement. Chairman GOODLATTE. No, but it is the Congress' responsibility to appropriate funds, and the Congress' responsibility to be picking and choosing who gets appropriations for expenditures. And we want to know what connection there is between the fact that cuts were made and . . . exhibit b From: Taylor, Elizabeth G. (OAAG) Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 10:58 AM To (OLC); Seitz, Virginia A (OLC) Cc: Martinez, Brian (OAAG); Graber, Geoffrey (OAAG) (OLC) Subject: back again with questions I'm sorry to be a pest. We keep tinkering with the settlement agreement and I want to make sure that we are doing it right. I also am not sure that I am a good messenger between you and Tony because he asks me follow up questions that I'm not sure I can answer. Do you have a few minutes today to meet with Tony and let him ask you questions directly? Here are our current issues: Can you explain to Tony the best way to allocate some money toward an organization of our choosing? We have been discussing having the agreement provide that JPM agreed to pay $9 billion but that, if, by the time we sign the settlement agreement, JPM has given $60 million to x organization, they will only have to pay $8.04 billion. I think that's ok. We understand that we would have no control over what x organization does with the money. Thanks exhibit c part i From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi-Mensah (OAAG) Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 1:07 PM To: (A2J) Subject: RE: new language Thanks! We made the proposal. They had one question whenever you have a moment. From: (A2J) Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:47 AM To: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG) Subject: RE: new language You go girl. The prospective settlement was on NPR this morning, in case you didn't have your radio on . . . Acting Senior Counselor for Access to Justice U.S. Department of Justice From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG) Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:42 AM To: (A2J) Subject: RE: new language Cool. I will keep you posted. From (A2J) Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:34 AM To: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG) Cc (A2J) Subject: RE: new language Importance: High Got it. Ok, this will hopefully address the concerns we'd like to avert: Donations to state-based Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account (IOLTA) organizations (or other statewide bar-association affiliated intermediaries) that provide funds to legal aid organizations, to be used for foreclosure prevention legal assistance and community redevelopment legal assistance. Concerns include: a) not allowing Citi to pick a statewide intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation (does conservative property-rights free legal services) or a statewide pro bono entity (will conflict out of most meaningful foreclosure legal aid) we are more likely to get the right result from a state bar association affiliated entity; b) making exhibit c part II sure that it's legal assistance provided, not a scenario where the bank can direct IOLTA or other intermediary to give to even a legal aid organization but to do only housing counseling, for example, under the umbrella ``foreclosure prevention assistance.'' This get you closer? Acting Senior Counselor for Access to Justice U.S. Department of Justice From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG) Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 6:10 PM To (A2J) Subject: new language H I think we are going to have to be as thin as possible here, not add new definitions, and not limit to particular states. What do you think about the following: Donations to state-based Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account (IOLTA) organizations or other statewide intermediaries that provide funds to legal aid organizations, to be used for foreclosure prevention assistance and community redevelopment assistance. Regards, Maame Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Office of the Associate Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice exhibit d From: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi-Mensah (OAAG) Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 4:01 PM To: Canale, Ellen (OPA) Subject: ``stretching by the banks'' Hi Ellen Here are some examples of consumer relief items that we believe require the banks to do more than they would be economically motivated to do on their own in Citi: Make donations to categories of entities we have specified (as opposed to what the bank might normally choose to donate to). I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have questions or need more. Big picture, we are requiring the bank to change its behavior and at the very least, choose the actions we prefer among various options that it might be economically motivated to take. This in itself is valuable because we are pushing them to focus their activities on the borrowers and areas and relief of most concern to us and that we believe will have the greatest impact in redressing the harm their actions caused to consumers and communities. Thanks! Maame exhibit e From: Martinez, Brian (OAAG) Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:04 PM To: Graber, Geoffrey (OAAG) Subject: Consumer Relief Geoff, this is what we received from HUD a little while ago. From: Smith, Damon Y Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:06 PM To: Taylor, Elizabeth G. (OAAG) Cc: Martinez, Brian (OAAG) Subject: RE: update for Tony? Attached is a clean and redline of where we are. Don't be afraid of the extent of the redline. Much of it is shifting around and the preamble, footnotes and other language are all new so we're just getting down to negotiating it. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Damon From: Taylor, Elizabeth G. (OAAG) Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:48 AM To: Smith, Damon Y (HUD) Cc: Martinez, Brian (OAAG) Subject: update for Tony? Right after I sent my email, Tony called me asking for an update, especially on where we are on liquidated damages and on one or more third party beneficiaries. Can you get on a call with Tony (and me) and update him? I'm copying Brian to assist in scheduling. Let me know if you think Sec. Donovan needs to be included, but I'm sure that would complicate scheduling and Tony really just want to know where things are. Exhibit F From (A2J) Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:28 AM To: Frimpong, Maame Ewusi Mensah (OAAG) Cc (A2J) Subject Memo re: bank settlement Hi Maame, Hope all is well and that you are settling in on the 5th floor. We wanted to give you a heads up that we will be sending a memo your way today. By way of background, Cindy contacte yesterday about an issue that we've been discussing with Tony for months and one that we've been meaning to connect with you on adding language that incorporates legal aid into the Department's large bank settlement agreements (as part of consumer/victim relief). We understand that Tony wants a quick turnaround on this, so please feel free to reach out to us with any questions. Best, an Senior Counsel Access to Justice Initiative U.S. Department of Justice Exhibit G

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If the minority has not gone through the discovery that we have, that we placed in the Record, I will be glad to give Mr. Cicilline or anyone else a copy. I am just going to repeat, though, after receiving testimony that they didn't pick winners and losers, what we are marking as exhibit B and exhibit C make it clear they were, and specifically choosing, to exclude a ``conservative group.'' I think the important things here, though, Mr. Chairman, are if they want to have money in a settlement, such as the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, they certainly could, as long as it directly provides aid to the victims; which, of course, cleanup did. But when we look at these others, one of the great things is if they want to put it into a victim's fund as part of it, a government-controlled fund, they can if they want. If the Department of Justice wants specific authority the way they do, for example, in water settlements, particularly related to Native American Tribes, they offer a deal, they put one together, and, Mr. Chairman, they come to Congress. This Congress, in the last Congress, settled multiple longstanding disputes with Tribes. What is interesting is they made sure the money went to those who had been harmed when they came to Congress and said: Please codify this agreement. But in the many agreements that seems to go on in the Obama administration--and we now have the smoking gun of that--they made political decisions. Making political decisions is why you have to put this back in the light of day and with real congressional oversight. What is amazing is, during the markup of this bill, there were a number of Members of the other party who specifically talked about not trusting the current occupant of the White House and the current Attorney General. It baffles me that they would not want to take back this authority knowing that the Department of Justice could bring to us a request for a bill that would authorize a specific settlement that could have outside groups or grant authority on a case-by-case basis. The reality is the slush fund system has to stop. That is why Chairman Goodlatte's bringing this bill today was so critical. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. It is majority. Yes, you have copies of it.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asks for a colloquy. Although I don't have them, I am sure they prove the same point: that the light of day, the cleanliness of sunlight, and congressional oversight and appropriation would have protected against the abuses the gentleman is probably describing.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's points are good. I am afraid his conclusion may be the part I have to differ slightly with, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Tennessee is right to note past and other indiscretions. That is why we have this bill before you today. In fact, it is why passage is so important. We don't want to have anybody of either party--the current occupant of the White House is from my party, a Republican. The current Attorney General is from my party, a Republican and former Republican Senator. The fact is that now is the time not to necessarily disparage any past activity but to stop it. We are not a body that is supposed to trust as much as we are a body to have some trust and to verify. When we find wrongdoing, it is our job to make sure it doesn't happen again. This bill, including the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee, seeks to do that. I am convinced that it is good for that reason, and it is even good for the example that Mr. Cohen suggests. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure I provide a little clarity. We are not talking about leftwing, rightwing, or other groups who get it. What we are talking about is a basic question of fungibility of money. If something has been done wrong and a judge or the Department of Justice has X amount of determination of wrongdoing, the first question is: How much of that money can get to the victims? In a perfect world, the victims are made 100 percent whole. In a perfect world, 100 percent of the money passes from the perpetrator to the victim. The Department of Justice making a decision not to a left- or rightwing group, but a political decision to give $1 million to the Coast Guard, to their charitable foundation, was a decision that clearly was not part of the mitigation but, rather, a general charitable decision. That was $1 million that did not go to the victim, did not go to the general Treasury, but it went to the whims of a bureaucrat. We seek to make sure that, if that is an appropriate action, they come to Congress with that and not decide that charity begins with some unelected individual in the Department of Justice. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute in short response. Mr. Chairman, sometimes the obvious is missed in the debate. The gentleman from Georgia talks about locking down power. Quite frankly, Republicans do have a majority in the House and a slim majority in the Senate, and the current occupant of the White House is from my party. So when we are trying to reduce potential misconduct by the executive branch, we are not doing it to take any money away. As a matter of fact, this law would clearly cause more money to flow from the same amount of initial payment, more money to flow to the victims. So we are trying to flow more money to the victims. We are in no way reducing any aspect of settlements other than, if the current occupant of the White House, the President, and the Attorney General want to give to the charity of their choice, they can either do it with their own money or they can come to Congress for authority. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. The idea that you can pay a fine to get out from underneath criminal prosecution is one that I would like to see either eclipsed to where it is almost invisible and rarely used or done away with altogether. I would certainly agree to join with the gentleman in finding further prohibitions to that practice. It has been too often that a corporation able to pay large amounts of money not only escapes its actions, but, of course, it escapes the prosecution of key individuals who may, in some cases, be responsible for the loss of life and/or health. So I want to join with the gentleman from New Jersey. That is not what this bill is about. It doesn't deal with it, nor does it fail to deal with it. It is not the subject of the bill. I urge the gentleman, who does agree with a portion of what we have to say, to work with me. I will be happy to be his cosponsor on a piece of legislation to try to curtail that practice. Today, we are trying to curtail a practice in which we have examples of both Republicans and Democrats in the Office of the Attorney General, their justice departments, from making settlements that seem to have political bias. And that is what we are here to stop. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman spoke quickly, and I know she had a lot of important information there. Some of it simply was wrong. One of them is that she touched on environmental cleanup. Very clearly, nothing in this legislation would limit the cleanup related to the wrongdoing or the damage. Not so. A third party could be hired to do the cleanup. Additionally, nothing stops a settlement from requiring a company to have counseling or other mitigation. It simply stops the Department of Justice from picking a charity of its choosing to go do it. Now what I would really like the gentlewoman--who may not be on the floor any longer--to understand is that the Department of Justice has grant authority and does multiple grants every single month of the year to some of the very same groups under its authority that these settlements are going toward. Congress has allowed it a certain amount of money to provide grants for general harm. Additionally, every year, Congress allocates hundreds of millions of dollars to some of the very same groups and efforts the gentlewoman knows that we are talking about. So, although her speech was quick, the thing that she said that may have misled some people here in the Chamber I think needs to be corrected. Direct harm will be mitigated. It can be done by anyone. A company can agree and be forced under supervision to mitigate and to hire people to help in that effort. Very clearly, many of the groups being talked about here today already receive money through the grant process or through direct appropriation by Congress. That is the right way to do it. It is the reason this is a bipartisan bill and this is an effort by our Congress to make sure that we hold the reins of authority where they should be under the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am putting this sign up not for the people in the Chamber, because people in the Chamber on the other side have continued to read the same talking points from their leadership that says there is no evidence. This is in the record. This is a bigger part of it. So for the people in their offices who will come down to vote, if there is not a motion to recommit, they are not going to get an opportunity to see this. So I hope that they will look just now and realize this is one of those things you don't normally get. As Chairman Goodlatte said, this is a smoking gun. This is a clear statement that an ideological bent against a nonprofit was very specifically there, while other emails in the same chain of emails shows that they were picking who they wanted. That is the politics that was going on. It is the politics we are trying to prevent. As I said in my previous statement, the Department of Justice is given a number of dollars for grant programs, and we may not always agree with how those grant programs are run, but we give them that. Additionally, the Congress appropriates a tremendous amount of money, much of it going to the same groups. A little over 1\1/2\ years ago, 2 years ago, this body came together on the reauthorization on Violence Against Women, which has and will continue to do very good work in exactly the area that people are talking about. This is the reason we have legislation before us today. We have had political activity that has been going on, according to the Democrats, by Republican Attorneys General; according to this document, by the last Attorneys General. The fact is, we need the legislation. We have to have it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I don't believe there is any question at all but that the minority has missed the point. In no way, shape, or form are we changing. We intend to make sure the Department of Justice prosecutes wrongdoing, both criminal and civil. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) rightfully said we shouldn't have money paid in lieu of criminal prosecution; it should be both. I agree with him. What we are dealing with here is a recognition that, under Republican and Democratic administrations, we have had mandatory donations that, in fact, went to charities, if you will, or organizations of the choice of those political entities. The fact is what we are doing is reining in--reining in--wrongdoing that is actual and has been observed, nothing more. One of the challenges we face every day and one of the reasons I am imploring both sides to come together on this vote, one of the challenges we face is how much of our obligation we have ceded to the executive branch, often then only to be horrified when, behind closed doors, unelected, unaccountable people make decisions that would never be made on the House floor or the Senate floor, and this is one of them. We are scrutinized when we pick nonprofits to provide funding to on the left, on the right, or, if there is such a thing left in America, in the middle. We are scrutinized. But when we scrutinize the Department of Justice's action, according to my colleagues, under Republicans, there has been clear wrongdoing. According to the documents that we put in the Record today and showed on the floor, in the last administration, there was clear partisan politics. We are simply saying, if they want to make that kind of a settlement, bring it to Congress; otherwise, it is very clear that they must--and I repeat, must--stop the action of taking money that would otherwise go to the victims and moving it to nondescript third parties of their choosing, no matter how benevolent they might be, including the Coast Guard Foundation. It can't continue to happen. We have to have the money that is in settlements flow to the victims or flow to the Treasury. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4010, currently under consideration.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4010) to amend the Revised Statutes of the United States and title 28, United States Code, to enhance compliance with requests for information pursuant to legislative power under Article I of the Constitution, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill comes to you, having been unanimously voted on a recorded vote out of committee, but it has been a long time in coming and it has a long history of its need. Both under Chairman Conyers, during the last years of the Bush administration, and under my chairmanship on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we discovered a flaw in Congress' subpoena power. Congress has, and has always had, and has been supported all the way by the Supreme Court, the need to do oversight. With that, we issued subpoenas. The enforcement of those subpoenas has come into conflict over the last several years, both during Mr. Conyers' chairmanship when he subpoenaed Harriet Miers to appear, and during my time when I subpoenaed records by the Department of Justice. In both cases, the administrations decided that it was appropriate to question the standing and to delay. Those delays were unfair to the body and unfair to the American people because it denied them in any reasonable period of time the effect of factfinding. This is not a partisan issue. It is, in fact, an issue that has already been decided for the American people. Under the Freedom of Information Act, if you do not receive documents within a reasonable period of time, you have the right to go to court. You have standing as a private citizen or an interest group, and the court will decide what documents are appropriate for you to receive. Yet this very question that was not once, but twice, defended by two different administrations of two different parties calls into question the ability in a timely fashion for Congress, the House or the Senate, to receive the information or the appearance of a witness it needs. We do not seek any new power under this legislation. We only seek an expeditious review by a Federal judge of a claim, either for the appearance of an individual or for documents appropriate to our oversight. For that reason, I am pleased that both Republicans and Democrats within the committee saw fit to unanimously support this legislation. We believe that it is measured and it is also time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to further echo the gentleman from New York's comments. Mr. Nadler is right. We will often, almost unanimously, find a way to disagree on what to look into at various times as a body. But whether it is a Democratic chairman or Republican chairman looking into something, whether it is a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, it is clear that we must, in fact, if a subpoena is issued, be able to enforce it in a timely fashion. Under this legislation, it has a number of safeguards, but the most important one is the three-judge panel that will review these, followed by an expedited process at the U.S. Supreme Court. I might note, the interesting history of the two cases Mr. Nadler and I are talking about is one in which a Democratic chairman enforced a subpoena, but had to go to a recently appointed Republican judge, who, in a fairly reasonable period of time, reached the conclusion that: one, the committee had standing, and the House had standing and; two, that it was really without merit for the administration--then the Bush administration--to claim this immunity, this newfound immunity. Similarly, in a slightly longer period of time, but coincidentally, a Republican chairman went before a freshly minted appointee of the very President who was refusing to comply, and she reached the decision that the documents were unfairly withheld and ordered them released. So I think the interesting thing to all of us is the independence of the judiciary has worked not once but twice. We only want to codify it in a way that would cause the judiciary to have that opportunity in a timely fashion, and for the people's right to know to be recognized in that same expeditious fashion. As Mr. Nadler said, the Senate has, for a long time, had a portion of what we are doing here today. It is an oddity that two coequals have not had the same ability during those many years since the late 1970s. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, too, urge the House to pass this bill, move it to the Senate in a timely fashion, and create an equal standing between the House and the Senate as to enforcement of its subpoenas. I join with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell), in the frustration that individuals often feel that they have privileges in a vague sense that are not to be asserted, but simply not to occur. In the last administration, we have even had individuals claim that they basically lied as little as they needed to, to protect some question of a classified nature. These kinds of claims, in addition to the law enforcement sensitive, confidential, and other security clearance claims, which are not codified in statute, yet often are the reason for delay or outright refusal to deliver documents, flies in the face of the ability--sometimes behind closed doors, sometimes in public--for Congress' ability to conduct oversight. I look forward to this legislation becoming law, and I think I will close with just one more item. Mr. Nadler and I have served together as chairman and ranking member for a number of years. We share something which is the many years that we have been here in Congress, we have seen the frustration of both parties trying to do their job against another branch that often takes advantage of the natural rivalry between two different parties. This legislation is designed to reduce that, to reduce the ability for the executive branch or other outside groups to, if you will, take advantage of the natural division between the two of us. After so many years of being here, the one thing I have learned is that to diminish the House's and the Senate's ability to represent the American people is to diminish our Republic. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to Breast Cancer including one of the rarest, but most lethal forms, Inflammatory Breast Cancer, or IBC. One in eight women in the United States are diagnosed with Breast Cancer every year, and too many women die because of late diagnosis. Any opportunity to raise awareness is an opportunity to save lives. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Although IBC is not the most common form of breast cancer, it is one of the most aggressive. It is critical that we recognize the severity of IBC and the importance of education and prevention efforts. IBC is not commonly known as it accounts for only 1 to 5 percent of all breast cancer cases. However, it is one of the most aggressive and deadliest forms of the disease. This form of cancer does not display the early symptoms ordinarily looked for by medical professionals. Since it is one of the rarest forms of Breast Cancer, many nursing and medical programs do not train students on IBC screening, leading to misdiagnosis and increased fatalities. The patients who start to show symptoms of this disease tend to be correctly diagnosed at stage 3, leaving little to no time to seek treatment. The courage of women battling Breast Cancer and IBC should not go unnoticed and they deserve our continued support for continued research efforts to seek for prevention and treatment for this deadly disease.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, no one has ever had a better partner on a piece of legislation than I have had. The best way I can describe Mr. Connolly is, like anyone else who came to a realization of something, he came to it with a great deal of zeal. This partnership, which began before the passage in 2014, to modernize a 1996 initiative that had fallen short, has been his passion and mine. Normally, when you are chairman, people talk about what divides the committee. But nothing united us more than recognizing that over $80 billion was being spent--and much of it needlessly. We don't achieve what we want to because there is never enough. Part of it is how we procure. Prior to the passage of this legislation, it certainly was possible to have major pieces of procurement have somebody in charge who could not, in fact, change or drop the expenditure and who could not simply say: This isn't working. On top of that, often the people who did have the authority lacked the expertise. This has been true in all sorts of areas. There is much more work to be done. Unlike Clinger-Cohen, which went on for 18 years before being updated, we were just 3 years past the implementation of this bill. With Congressman Connolly's effort, we are coming back and making real changes--ones that can continue the process and speed it up. Obviously, there are some areas like the IT dashboard and others that simply need to be continued to be renewed. This bill does it. When I first talked to Mr. Connolly, he was the best known for absolutely wanting to consolidate processing centers; consolidate these server farms that had proliferated. The number he had at the time turned out to be, although exorbitant, less than a quarter of the number we found. So there is more work to be done. Procurement has to be done smart and is often consolidated. With the help of my colleague and Senator Warner, the passage of the DATA Act allowed us to find, with greater detail, redundancy of expenditure. So as we reauthorize FITARA, we also have the information to consolidate purchasing across vast numbers of agencies, eliminate redundancy, and, in fact, buy better. More needs to be done. As Mr. Connolly said so accurately, more money is spent on legacy systems than is spent on new systems that will actually save money and provide better services both to government workers and to the public. So as we reauthorize the bill, I look forward to the oversight that the Oversight Committee has done and is able to do, and I look forward to continuing to work with my partner from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3229) to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ISSA. 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 material on H.R. 3229, currently under consideration.