Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, there was only one amendment offered by the minority, and this bill passed unanimously on a voice vote. The gentleman on the other side could have asked for a recorded vote if he objected to it; he did not. We are trying to give the 2 million men and women who are Federal workers the right to record when they're called. This is a right every American gets, including the Federal worker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will read from the actual language, as amended, the bill before us today that says, ``Notice of rights when Federal employees engage in certain actions.'' It says: A notice of an individual's right to record conversations with employees shall be included in any written material provided by an executive agency. Mr. Speaker, that's the only notice that's required in this bill. And that's simply, quite frankly, to let people know that it's a 50-State right, where today it's a 39-State right. I appreciate the fact that unions and associations representing Federal employees have made statements. I just don't appreciate the fact that they've gotten the details of the actual bill wrong--and knowingly wrong, based on the dates of their letter. More importantly, let's understand, this bill does not require verbal notice of a right to record given by a Federal official. It does not compromise that. More importantly, in 39 States, the public has this right; and in the other States, in most cases, the worst that would happen would be, if a person pulled it out, they might not be able to use it when trying to defend themselves. But most important, this bill does not override existing Federal wiretap laws. Of course, if somebody's talking classified on an open telephone, yes, I'd like it recorded because I'd like them to be able to make the case that classified information is being inappropriately talked for. But it does not override the right to go into a classified session. But that better not be with the public generally. If you're discussing classified information, please understand that's a secure location. So I won't accept these canards, these false statements as to what could happen, because it simply isn't in the four squares of the bill.

Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, classified information said by a Federal employee has an obligation to be said in a secure location. Of course, under the law, they can say no recording devices can be here in this secure location. But of course you go into a classified briefing, one, because you're cleared, and two, you go there knowingly. So let's not accept these kinds of things. And let's understand, in 39 States, law enforcement is recording without the permission of the public--and more importantly, so is the IRS, the EPA, OSHA, Fish and Wildlife in many cases, or they're simply taking notes and holding you accountable. Remember, in America, if you answer the IRS wrong over the phone, you might very well get a bill; and your only ability to appeal that bill is to the IRS, and you must pay that bill before you can then go to the courts. Let's understand, we're dealing in all kinds of agencies, and there are good people, lots of good people there. But on behalf of the 2 million Americans who work for the Federal Government, I want them to have the right to protect themselves by being able to have a right to record in all 50 States. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. ISSA. My 10 seconds has expired.

Mr. ISSA. Pardon me?

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds and yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say, you know, if two people take the Fifth when asked about their official conduct and there isn't a scandal, I'd be surprised to find that the gentleman from Maryland would find a scandal no matter what we find there.

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the minority whip knows the Constitution. All of us have taken time to understand it. But when we investigate real wrongdoing-- wrongdoing like the IRS, wrongdoing that the American people understand, it was just wrong. Even the President started off agreeing with that. Then somehow, whether it's IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, or just somebody at the IRS putting a half-billion-dollar contract out to their buddy and then claiming that, as they got them to contract, that they didn't really know them well, somehow these become phony scandals. There's only one scandal in Washington, and that's when we find things that are wrong and we don't fix them. We don't have to worry about who at the top is in charge, but we have an obligation to fix them. When people take the Fifth when you're asking simply questions about their official conduct, yes, that's the beginning of a scandal here in Washington--and if not here in Washington, around the rest of America. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) to speak on the bill before us.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2711) to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions by Executive branch employees with individuals, 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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have the author of this legislation before us, a principled Member of Congress who saw a problem and sought to fix it, and we brought it before you today. We brought it before you today because we hear, and hear rightfully, horror stories of harassment that includes Federal officials at the IRS, the EPA, the SEC, the FEC, and a list of other ABCs. The truth is that in 39 out of 50 States, every Member on a phone, every American has a right to record that conversation without asking permission of that Federal officer on the other end. But in 11 States, States that most people don't know which is which, that is muddied. When a conversation occurs between two States, it is muddied. The gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), as the author of this bill, sought, in principle, to fix that, and I'd like to yield 2 minutes to her to explain her bill.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I would ask what day it is, what day of the month it is. Mr. Speaker, is it the 31st day of July? Can you verify that for me? Because on the 24th of July, we amended this bill to send it to the House, and the ranking member knows full well, as I'm sure the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association know full well; and I'm shocked that they would write and that, in fact, the ranking member would write in a Dear Colleague, citing them, things that just aren't so in this bill. Before us today we do not preempt States. As the ranking member rightfully so said, we make a statement on behalf of the Federal Government for our employees that we hereby consent that you may record us. In 39 out of 50 States--there's a little ambiguity in that Montana allows these recordings; it just doesn't broadly allow them, but does recording for a law enforcement officer. But having said that, whether it's 11 or 12, the gentleman cited a portion of that letter from the National Association of U.S. Attorneys, but let me give you a portion that I want to make sure gets on the record. It says, H.R. 2711 requires any employee of an executive agency, before or at a personal interview or telephonic interchange with an individual, to allow the individual to make an audio recording of the in-person or telephonic interaction. We'll let that one slide. We'll go to the next sentence. In addition, the legislation requires the executive branch employee to first provide notice to the individual of their right to make such a recording. Mr. Speaker, that's just not true. We went through a long markup and, in that markup, in a manager's amendment, we made it very clear that the only notice the Federal Government would give would be a notice in its publications, Web sites, and so on letting Americans know that they no longer had to ask, if they were in Idaho, if, in fact, somebody calling them from Maryland did or didn't need to know that they were recording. This interstate situation is one in which the American people deserve to know that they have a right to document when someone calls them, and if they trip up in that answer, they could go to jail or get a fine or lose their business. Thirty-nine out of 50 States recognize it, and all we're saying, very clearly, is the Federal Government gives its approval. These documents, sadly, were accurate, if you looked at the bill on the 23rd of July. The ranking member knows full well these documents are somewhat inaccurate. And his own letter implies that law enforcement will somehow be crippled by having to give notice. It's just not true. In 39 out of 50 States, law enforcement would already know that somebody could be recording and not telling them. That's the law of those States. But, more importantly, we're not affecting the ranking member's Maryland law enforcement. We're affecting Federal officers, such as the EPA, OSHA, and the IRS, when they call and ask you questions. And those questions could lead to real harm to you. And you would be able to document it. And if you're harassed, you'll be able to document it. That's what we're doing here today. We're empowering Americans to know that their Federal Government will never answer the question of, ``May I record this to protect myself? No.'' And in no way, shape, or form are these personal calls. This only affects when a member of our Federal employment is doing their official duty and calling a private citizen. Of course, the private citizen should have the rights since this isn't a personal call and one in which you should expect to be able to say whatever you want. These are not private. These are public conversations. These are public investigations. And the public should have a right to protect itself. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a longtime businessman and someone who knows firsthand about abusive governments.

Mr. ISSA. In closing, Mr. Speaker, we hold these truths to be self- evident: one of them clearly is our right of free speech; another, free association. But protecting from our government is what our Constitution is all about. My Democratic friends want to talk about the good workers; but the ranking member knows well there are good workers, and there are some that aren't good. There are workers who would never call and harass somebody, and there are people who have threatened Americans repeatedly. We have whistleblowers, and we have proof of that. We have wrongdoing. When you get harassed by the government or you simply want to make sure that you know what you said, you have the right to do it in 39 States. You have the right to do it in your State, but you may or may not have the right to do it in the other State which the Federal agency is calling you from. If you are a rancher--Fish and Wildlife, EPA, OSHA--these are not just names on a board; these are people who really affect your life and your liberty and your very commerce, your very ability to feed your family. The minority whip talked about the Federal workforce not having a choice except to keep working because they need the money and they can't strike. We are not going to that issue. In the vast majority of States, this is already the law. They don't need the Federal Government's approval to record. When we look at harmonizing how people in every State in the Union look to their government and expect their government to look to them, that is a solemn responsibility. We don't preempt States in any way, shape, or form. We simply make it clear that Americans have a relationship with their government that they can count on. One of them is if they get a harassing call from somebody, somebody who is out of line, or they're asked inappropriate questions, it won't be a ``he said, he said, she said, he said.'' They'll have the ability to record it if they choose. Around here, we know that fact-based documentation and recordings have made a huge difference in finding out the truth about things that have happened. We also know that what people say is often discounted here, even when they're talking about horrific things that happened to them. If we didn't have documents, not coming very quickly and usually blacked out, about the IRS's abuse of Americans simply trying to teach the Constitution or in some other way assert their rights of free speech, if we didn't have any documentation, it would just be a ``he said, she said.'' It shouldn't be a ``he said, he said.'' It should be absolutely something where you have that right. I want all 2 million American Federal workers, I want State workers, I want everyone to know that they have this ability. And, yes, I want Federal workers to have an understanding that when they send an email out on the government email system, they, in fact, are sending out a public document, and it is going to be discovered potentially and used and they should be careful what they say or do, because they represent us, they represent the American people. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that didn't need a long set of hearings. I suspect that the same groups would object to it no matter how many hearings we had about Americans' right to life and liberty, their ability to assert what people would consider to be unalienable rights. We are not talking about a complex issue. We are talking about the vast majority of States have one rule, a few have a different rule, and as to Federal workers we are making the statement that we, their government, have decided that the answer if you're asked if you can record is, yes, and you don't even have to be asked. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your consideration, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is not controversial, but it's critical. At a time when over $80 billion is spent and over 10 percent of it goes completely wasted on information technology purchases by the government, there has never been a more important time to update the legendary, historic Clinger-Cohen Act. That Act in 1996 was attached to the NDAA, exactly as this one is, and it created the positions of Chief Information Officers to oversee IT management. 1996 was a time in which you could still have an IBM AT 286 computer on your desk. The idea of cloud servers didn't exist, and the size and scope and dependency on the cyber environment was never even anticipated. So as we modernize this act, I would ask to both have it considered as important, but also have it recognized as critically necessary. One of the most important things and something that makes common sense to the people who may hear this today or read it in the transcript is that we have more chief information officers today than we have departments, and all but one have no budget authority. This legislation, when enacted, will eliminate that. It will eliminate duplicative IT purchases that give us overruns of as much as 20 percent in our purchasing of licenses, but it also will put real meaning behind the term ``chief information officer.'' Never again will someone have that title and have no budget authority or responsibility. When a program goes right, the chief information officer is responsible; when a program goes awry, it's his or her job to make it right. Once again, I urge support for a bill that was considered, numerous hearings were held, and it was passed unanimously out of my committee.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the House just recently released a five- separate committee report requested by the Speaker of the House on the aftermath of Benghazi. It tells the American people a story that needs to be told and has not yet been completed. The story is that we did not protect our people in Benghazi. The Embassy asked for more security. Secretary Clinton cabled back, ``No,'' in April of 2012. On the very day, September 11, that the Ambassador was killed along with three of his colleagues, he said: It is not a question of if, but when this attack will come. Today, Congress has not yet seen a plan that ensures this will never happen again. The safety of our men and women all over the world in the State Department and other agencies needs to be assured. Mr. Speaker, the House needs to address this in a way that we can have confidence that people who serve us abroad will be properly protected.

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1163 has many authors: Mr. Cummings and myself, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Tierney. It also has every committee chairman and every ranking member here in the House. And I would like to take a moment to thank all the committee chairmen of Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, and House Administration, because staffs from all of those committees, particularly with the acquiescence of the chairmen and ranking members, have contributed to our fact-finding to try to produce a good bill here today. I think often our committee is viewed as, what is your authority and so on. This is an odd situation in which, in order for us to bring the bill here today, we really needed all the agencies and all the personnel here to be brought to bear so that we could try to fashion a piece of legislation that would allow the Federal Government to work better, that would allow the executive branch to execute better on behalf of the American people. Lastly, I would like to thank the outside groups, many of which I mentioned in my opening statement, but even more who responded when this bill was posted for comment. They responded with constructive suggestions. I know there is a lot of trepidation any time the government is, in fact, looking at data passing through the system, but this and other legislation is a balancing act. We cannot have the economy that we enjoy today if these systems are shut down by attacks. At the same time, I know I join with the ranking member and all of the authors of this legislation in that we are committed to making sure we maintain the personal freedom and the privacy that goes with what we are entrusted to here in the government. So, in closing, Mr. Speaker, this is an update. It is not the last time we will have to update cybersecurity. It is not the last time we will be here concerned about America's economy so dependent on the Internet, but it is a good bill. It is ready. I urge its approval, and I yield back the balance of my time. Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 11, 2013. Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Issa: On March 20, 2013, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered H.R. 1163, the ``Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2013'', reported favorably to the House with certain provisions in the legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. Specifically, this legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security to share cyber threat information with an information security center, delegate the authority and primary responsibility of information security to a Chief Information Security Officer responsible for overseeing a Department-wide information security program, and recognize the existence of a Federal information security incident center, which in practice, is currently the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center at the Department of Homeland Security. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-10-28 on July 6, 2010, transferring many of OMB's Federal information security and responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security. Since Memorandum M-10-28 was issued, the Department of Homeland Security has conducted the operational aspects of Federal information security through the functions of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team. This legislation, through its accompanied report, preserves the operational capabilities of DHS pertaining to Federal information security while reaffirming OMB's supervisory role with respect to FISMA. I understand the importance of advancing this legislation to the House floor in an expeditious manner. Therefore, the Committee on Homeland Security will not seek a sequential referral over provisions within our jurisdiction. This action is conditional on our mutual understanding and agreement that doing so will in no way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security over the subject matter included in this or similar legislation. In addition, I would like to thank you for working with me on modifying the report that accompanies H.R. 1163 to ensure the operational role the Department of Homeland Security plays in the protection of the Nation's Federal information systems is in no way diminished. I request that you urge the Speaker to appoint Members of this Committee to any conference committee for consideration of any provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security in the House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation. I also request that this letter and your response be included in the committee report on H.R. 1163 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of this measure on the House floor. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Michael T. McCaul, Chairman.

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

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I want to associate myself with the ranking member's statements. Mr. Cummings does make the great point that Homeland Security is, in fact, doing a great deal. And if there is an active activity through NSA and other agencies, we applaud that. A great deal of what this bill reauthorization is intended to do, in working with the subcommittee ranking member Mr. Connolly, is to recognize that there needs to be a public-private partnership. We need our private entities to be as strong as they can be so they don't become conduits for espionage and for attacks. But also that, in fact, it's the smallest entity of government, the one that you don't think much of, the one that may not be high priority that, in fact, also has to be protected: commerce at our public parks; commerce occurring throughout the Federal Government; and, in fact, just the records that are so often collected and maintained in places like the Veterans Administration and so on. Although they may not represent an immediate threat to national security, as a veteran, I must tell you the fact that those records sit there tells all of us, millions of veterans, that we want to have a robust maintenance of cybersecurity, something that under the current statute we believe the box is being checked, but not all that needs to be done is being done. I reserve the balance of my time.