Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, substantially the same bill was passed in the previous Congress. The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, or the DATA Act, is an important piece of legislation in that it will create the opportunity for government to be more efficient, more effective, and more transparent. The American people deserve real accountability in how the taxpayer dollars are spent, now more than ever. It is unacceptable for Federal spending on data currently to be so inaccurate, unpredictable, inconsistent, and, quite frankly, expensive. Nobody can follow the money at the Federal level these days, in spite of the fact that we spend over $82 billion on IT. Political gain is often had or lost every time a major program funding proves to lead to a dead end. Whether it is a billion-dollar program for the Department of Defense or, now, the most current challenge, the one faced in healthcare.gov, it is often easy to point fingers. But, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to handle large data in a way in which we get predictable success rather than inevitable failure, we have to start by demanding that data be structured from the day it is created and formatted in a way that makes it capable of search, aggregating, downloading in bulk, and manipulating, both for the benefit of insiders trying to find accountability and outsiders legitimately exercising their right to know how government is spending their money. The DATA Act will contain a pilot to examine ways to consolidate and streamline reporting requirements. This will decrease the burden of Federal financial reporting for agencies and for States, school systems, and other recipients of Federal dollars. We found, during the Recovery Act, that the Recovery Board, using DATA Act-type transparency, was able to find huge amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse and do it in a transparent way in real-time because they required recipient reporting. Recipient reporting, in a perfect world, would already have taken place; but we recognize that consolidating and improving the way in which data is compiled needs to come first. Therefore, between the pilot in this bill and, in fact, the requirement that we begin structuring data the way the SEC and other agencies have will, in fact, make this legislation a money saver for the Federal Government. The DATA Act is bipartisan and bicameral and widely supported. A companion legislation was introduced in the Senate by Senator Warner and Senator Portman. Their legislation is substantially similar and will be easily made into a consolidated bill, one the American people can have confidence in, was thought of over multiple Congresses, well vetted, and, in fact, assure the American people that we will not make, in the next Congress and in Congresses beyond, some of the mistakes that have been made in the past. With that, I ask for early consideration of this version of the act and would note that we passed out of our committee unanimously, and by voice, not just in our committee, but in the last Congress, a bill substantially similar. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2061) to expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in Federal spending, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3343) to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the rules regarding the determination of the compensation of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia.

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, to my colleague from the District of Columbia, Eleanor, thank you. Thank you for the work you do for the District. It is our committee's jurisdiction to oversee the Federal city, and it is an honor; but it wouldn't be possible if not for the engagement of Delegate Norton, if it wasn't for the cooperation we have had with the Mayor and members of the council and with the outgoing CFO. So we don't often get an opportunity on the House floor to talk about, candidly, the fact that we are hosted by a city here. We have jurisdiction over it; but, ultimately, the day-to-day operation is not a burden to Congress but, rather, a benefit to Congress that we have by having this unique relationship. So as I urge all Members to vote for this important change, I want to thank the majority leader and all those who have brought this bill in a timely fashion to the floor so that we could make a decision and go to hiring a new CFO so we would never be without a person to oversee the finances and to report to Congress in a timely fashion so that we can have confidence that the people who so kindly host us, in fact, will remain fiscally responsible and solvent throughout anything that may come their way. So, again, to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), I thank her. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an American who has shown enormous commitment to our country and veterans during this stalemate in Washington. In response to the partial government shutdown, Chris Cox, a resident of South Carolina, travelled to Washington to assemble the Monument Militia--a one-man mission to maintain the National Mall. As some of our leaders in Washington, D.C. are unwilling to negotiate with members of the opposite political party to devise a solution to re-open the federal government--something the American people want and deserve--our national monuments and museums remain closed and National Park Service employees normally tasked with keeping the Mall clean remain furloughed. Therefore, Mr. Cox took it upon himself to ensure the lawn of the iconic Lincoln Memorial was mowed and kept tidy for the thousands of veterans who will descend on our nation's capital this weekend for the Million Vet March. When Mr. Cox was asked why he travelled from South Carolina, armed with just a chainsaw and lawn mower, to clean up our National Mall, he responded, ``These are our memorials. If they shut down our memorials, we're still going to take the trash out, we're going to clean the windows, we're going to cut the grass, we're going to pull the weeds, we're going to do the tree work.'' I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Cox just this weekend when riding my bike around the monuments--surveying how the shutdown has impacted our National Mall. Mr. Cox, carrying his state flag of South Carolina, expressed his sincerest hope that he would be able to clean the area around the Lincoln Memorial to the World War II Memorial because our veterans dedicated their lives and fought for us so we should fight and honor them, even if the government is shut down. This is the American spirit. This is the attitude and perseverance our Founding Fathers demonstrated in the face of adversity. Patriotic acts, like the ones recently displayed by Mr. Cox, serve as a great reminder of how Washington should conduct itself in this frustrating time. I again offer Mr. Cox my sincerest and humble gratitude for his service and commitment to our nation and its veterans, as well as the passion and conviction that led him to Washington to make sure our National Mall looks its best for our heroes.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I'm the gentleman, the colleague, that walked up to Mr. Dingell and asked him if he'd ever seen it this bad before. And I'm sorry to hear that he did. Because in his 57 years, he covered 57 of my 59 years of life. So I hope I'm not the petulant child when I say that, quite frankly, the disregard over the District of Columbia is on his side of the aisle. It's not an appropriations bill. It's not really part of the CR. The truth is the District of Columbia pulls quarters out of meters every day, and they're not going to be allowed to spend that. They receive revenues from building permits, but they're not going to be able to use that money to keep the people that look at those building permits employed. They receive money from the various services they do, including, obviously, making sure that the property in the District of Columbia is protected. And that creates the property value on which we who own property in the District of Columbia--and I am among them--pay our taxes. Now, the Democrats love to talk about taxation without representation. Well, I'm here today to say, Where is Eleanor Holmes Norton's representation? Give her her due. They're being taxed locally. Those moneys will build up locally. And you're saying they can't spend it? There's no question in your mind that the right thing to do is to pass a CR on everything cleanly. That's good. But until we pass a CR which would include some funds for the District of Columbia, allowing them to have what every single Member on both sides of the aisle has going on in every single city in their districts, it's just fairness. Do not treat the District of Columbia greater than what it is--it is the Federal city--but for goodness sake, it's a city. It should have the right to spend its own money. Yesterday, I was pleased to see some 34 Democrats cross former Speaker Pelosi's orders and edicts to vote ``no'' on everything and vote with Eleanor Holmes Norton. I just hope today that people will search their souls and ask the question, Don't you really want to vote ``yes''? Isn't this a time in which you show your independence and do the right thing for the District of Columbia and let them spend their own money? Or will you go home to the city you live in tonight or this weekend, knowing that they're spending the money that they collect locally and you're denying the District of Columbia the ability to spend the money it collects locally? Our committee passed unanimously a bill to make that permanent. It wasn't an appropriations bill. It was a statutory change to the Home Rule Act. I only ask that you realize that we were on a trajectory toward providing an enhancement in home rule that would cover this. I want that bill brought up as soon as possible, but this is the equivalent for this crisis period. I saw my friend Eleanor Holmes Norton almost in tears yesterday because she couldn't believe her own party wouldn't support her. Don't do that today. Support the Delegate from the District of Columbia and support the people of the District of Columbia in their ability to spend their own money, or you will be damning them to taxation without representation. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, point of order. At what point does this become dilatory activity inconsistent with the decorum of the House?

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, if I could yield my time to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, she would probably say these words better than I can. But Eleanor, thank you; thank you for your impassioned speech. Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia is different. Every Member, who in just a few minutes will vote on this piece of legislation, has the right to vote because we are from States. And every State in the Union is continuing to collect revenue and spend it as we fiddle. Here in the District of Columbia, it is different. The District of Columbia is the only place here in the United States in which full citizens--undeniably citizens of the United States, with every right and privilege, including voting in every Presidential election--find themselves shut down if we don't pass a budget, if we don't pass appropriations. Now, I heard the gentleman from New York, regrettably, lump in this bill with his opinion as though all three were the same. First of all, this is not a Tea Party bill. This is a bill inspired by both the majority and minority, under Ms. Norton's leadership, to come up with a solution similar to what we came up with 17 years ago for the District. This is also inspired by a similar bill that is sitting in the Senate that wants to accomplish the same thing. This is not Tea Party. As a matter of fact, the easiest thing to do, if you want to be strident, would be in fact to shut down the District. But every one of us who knows that, back home, our States and our cities continue to operate with their own funds knows that we have an obligation to allow the District of Columbia to spend their own funds. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Crenshaw, and the chairman of the full committee for bringing this quickly to the floor. Some months ago, we passed H.R. 2793, which would address this on a permanent basis, finding a way for--anytime this happens--the District of Columbia to continue spending its own money, and to plan their budget around the possibility that they would be offering jobs to teachers and so on during a time different than our budget year. I hope to have that bill on the floor in the reasonably near future. But today, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairman Darrell Issa, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, and all of us on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have already voted for this and more. And the Senate has supported this and more. So you're not looking at the same as the other bills. Not one penny of appropriated funds actually is being determined today. We're talking about the money from the parking meters. We're talking about the money from property taxes. We're talking about the work that Mayor Gray and the city council do every day like the mayors of our city. I talked to the mayor today, and he said: I don't know what you're going to do, but please do something. Mayor Gray deserves to have his funds overseen--because it's a Federal city? Yes. But kidnapped? No. This is a narrow bill; it is not what I want to achieve for the District of Columbia. But it is in fact what gets us from now to December. So I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle--and I will work my side of the aisle, and Eleanor, I know you're not leaving the floor on this one--we have to pass this overwhelmingly because we're talking about the same right to spend their own money as every city in America has, every country in America, and every State in America. And as Americans, we can do no less for the people of the District of Columbia.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I know I've already spoken, but as I talked to my friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the delegate made an impassioned plea to me, and it needs to be said. We need to pass this. We need to pass this to show that we can in fact--maybe not agree on everything, maybe not agree on appropriations, but we need to pass this because the District deserves not to be held hostage in our fight. I will whip every Republican to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I can't say that I'm going to intervene in everything that we do, but this one is important. I would ask all of us to really search our soul and say: Is the District of Columbia and their own funds the place we should be having an argument, or can we at least admit that if we get above the fray here today--the Senate has already gotten above it. A similar bill has already been hot-lined. This is not where the House and the Senate disagree and, as a result, it should not be where we fail to come together. I ask all my friends to join with Eleanor Holmes Norton and me and pass this bill.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as a proud Californian, I join Ms. Pelosi in congratulating Oracle Team USA. Ever since Dennis Conner brought the Cup to California, we, as Californians, are very proud of it. I didn't spend the weekend in San Francisco, though. I spent it in Libya and in Cairo, because, as we speak here today, the good things that are going on in America are often overshadowed by our poor foreign policy, our inattention to historic allies and obligations. Today, war is going on in the Sinai, and the Egyptian Army is fighting it while we debate whether or not to support their effort. We debate whether or not a coup that overthrew a dictator who was elected--a man who no sooner got his office then he began moving Egypt toward shari'a law, abolishing its form of balance, including its judiciary and its parliament. We continue to debate. The fact is we need allies in the region. Israel needs allies in the region. Egypt needs to protect borders from insurgency and terrorism to its south, in the Sinai, and along the Libyan border. More than ever, the Libyan border is a concern for all of us. It is a lawless area. The term ``Benghazi'' often is taken for the sad loss of four brave Americans at our consulate, but the truth is Benghazi is the next Afghanistan if we cannot engage and stop the terrorism that is going on there. It is a training ground for insurgents--one of many. So when many talk in foreign policy today about the Arab Spring, I'd like all Americans to understand, Mr. Speaker, the Arab Spring is, in fact, sulfur water spewing from mosques, from terrorist strongholds, from ideological extremists in the region. It is taking on a life of its own under this administration, and that life will end the secular life, the freedom of religion that many moderate Arab states have enjoyed for generations. Under President Morsi, we saw more than 50 Coptic churches burned; and in the days coming afterwards, even more by the Muslim Brotherhood, who somehow felt that one election based on one man, one vote, and one time would allow them to rule the largest Arab country forever as an Islamic state. Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of my colleagues need to begin to look at the wrong direction we have taken. Stop celebrating an Arab Spring that really is about overthrowing allies who we have questions about whether or not they're heading toward a democratic state. But we have no doubt we have pushed them toward the rule of law, toward institutions, and toward being part of a world that denounces and renounces various bad activities. Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress strongly enough that if we continue to have a policy of leading from behind, of indecision, of asking this body to spank somebody slightly for using chemical weapons while not taking an affirmative action toward a government that would respect its people, and particularly minorities and Christians in the region, then we have no policy and we have no allies. Mr. Speaker, I take no pride in saying that when President Obama attempted to go into Syria, he did not get support from his own party nor my party nor virtually any of our historic allies for a reason. His plan was ill-conceived and led to no real positive change in Syria. For our allies in the region--for Jordan, for Lebanon, for Egypt, and for Israel--we must develop a consistent policy where our enemies fear us and our allies respect and count on us always. We don't have that today. I would call on all my colleagues to become more familiar with the Arab Spring and see the sulfur that comes up and is often mixed and misunderstood for drinking water.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Then I will close at this time and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, controversy comes in all forms. Sometimes it's legitimate; sometimes there are differences that are unresolved; sometimes, though, you find yourself befuddled. These three bills passed on a voice vote. It didn't mean that they would have been authored by any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or that they loved them. It meant that they were given a full opportunity to evaluate these, to offer amendments, to have up-or-down votes on them. Many of the suggestions they made were taken into account on many of the bills marked up during that long day. Many of the things being brought up here today simply were not brought up, and it's not because they didn't know about this. When you have a version of this bill that's almost identical to that passed on December 19 of last year by a vote of 402-2, that means that you have people that today are vehemently opposed to provisions that they already voted for. I repeat, they're vehemently opposed to provisions they already voted for. I don't have the names of the two people that voted ``no.'' They certainly have a right to express why they voted ``no'' last December. I can tell you that when you have to only terminate 4/100 of 1 percent of the workforce, if you do it at all, the head of the agency has to determine that the employee has done something seriously wrong in regards to negligence of duty or misappropriation of funds or malfeasance. They have to determine that the employee did it knowingly, and they have to consider it necessary and advisable to protect this enterprise. On top of that, the employee does have to be told why they're being terminated. I think that's important, because the ranking member and I heard from a woman in a hearing who left me feeling absolutely shocked. She's been on leave without pay, and to this day, an investigation that is ongoing, months into it, she's never been told why she's on leave without pay. To be honest, she's a member of the Senior Executive Service. Maybe she would fall under this bill. But in order to fall under this bill, some things would have to happen. First of all, the head of the agency would have to make a decision of wrongdoing, and it would be held by that decision being reasonable after the fact. They'd have to have told her why she's being removed, and she would already have had an opportunity in front of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the U.S. Court of Appeals, known as the Fed circuit. She already would have had all this due process, except months go by and she doesn't know and she's on administrative leave. The fact is this is a tool. They don't have to use it. If they use it, they have to make sure that it's only for serious violations: neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds, or malfeasance. These are very serious. An extremely small part, highly compensated, respected people, and a few bad actors for neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds, or malfeasance can be removed. They still have their rights. We knew this was constitutional. To be honest, the complaint we seemed to have in committee for hours was something that I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker. Members of my committee, when talking about the idea that only one- third without special exception of employees in any agency could receive bonuses rather than the 75 or 80 percent you heard about here today, they said, But this is their right. They've negotiated that. You're interfering with their contracts. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government does not allow negotiation in collective bargaining or otherwise for wages. We have a standard scale. Bonuses were created for only one purpose, and that was, in fact, to reward good behavior as an incentive. These bills are well thought out and are only controversial today because the minority wants to make them controversial to create a controversy. I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished minority whip presumes to tell me about the private sector and how much people make. The problem is that I came from the private sector. I know the difference between management and labor, and I know the difference between people who elect to be the top-paid management of entities and who typically serve at will in the private sector. Those of the Senior Executive Service are, in fact, people who choose to get additional pay for these special responsibilities, and they know what they're doing when they get into it. We are proud of most of them, the vast majority of them. The fact is that Mr. Hoyer has people who serve at will. He fires them without notice if he chooses to. Yet he cannot understand the fact by that picture I held up--I won't hold it up again; it's reprehensible even though it has been well seen--that that man continued to work and get a bonus during the 10 months in which the GSA Administrator knew wrongdoing had occurred on his watch. It wasn't until he decided to retire--to be honest, my understanding is with criminal allegations-- that he even left and stopped getting his pay, and, today, he enjoys a very comfortable retirement. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but not his facts. In the bill itself, which I read yesterday, it says: An employee removed under this section shall be notified of the reasons for such removal within 30 days. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman from Virginia would have kept this person on for how long--weeks, months, more than a year? This individual received a bonus after more than a year. When this bill came through our committee, the amendment to say ``in all cases 30 days'' could have been offered; it wasn't. This came through in regular order of the committee. The language was published. There was every opportunity. When the gentleman from Virginia said ``redrafted,'' with all due respect, not a word was changed in any of these three bills from the time it left our committee until today when it's being considered. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 322, I call up the bill (H.R. 2879) to provide limitations on bonuses for Federal employees during sequestration, to provide for investigative leave requirements for members of the Senior Executive Service, to establish certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions by Executive branch employees with individuals, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2879 and include extraneous materials thereon.