James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chair, it may be a good moment to shine some facts into this debate. I agree that expanding the consultation requirements for the impacted parties is important. Those parties directed affected by the regulation should have an opportunity to be able to voice concerns about feasibility and offer sensible corrections from people with expertise from years of experience. That is a large part of what this bill does; when a regulation comes down, impacted individuals should be able to come to the table to be able to discuss what is the impact of this. This particular amendment is completely redundant. It requires that any opportunity for consultation afforded to impacted parties within the private sector under the section shall be afforded to representatives of all other impacted parties. Well, UMRA already defines the private sector as individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, educational and nonprofit institutions, but it shall not include State, local, and tribal governments since State, local, and tribal governments are already covered in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the original one. So I have to ask the question: Who is left? If it already covers individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, educational and nonprofit institutions, State, local, and tribal governments, it covers everyone already. If you are impacted by legislation and by regulation, you should have the opportunity to respond to that. We completely agree. It is important to note this is not the only opportunity to offer suggestions and critiques though. Those not directly regulated by the rule have an opportunity for input during the comment period as required by the Administrative Procedures Act in the executive order. This perception that somehow people are being locked out of the process is incorrect. It is the people that are impacted, though, that should have the first voice. That would be people impacted in the community, that would be people impacted in business, or any kind of government. For example, under current law, taxpayers and public workers are not required to be consulted prior to an agency proposing a rule that will put a Federal mandate on the States and local governments, a mandate that could require public entities to ship resources that could affect hiring decisions or a reduction in public services. Taxpayers, public workers, consumer groups, and anyone else who is interested--but not directly impacted--have that opportunity to provide input at notice and comment stage; but this amendment, however, appears to repeat the consultation requirement that H.R. 899 seeks to provide. Those Members who want impacted parties to have an early voice in development of regulations that impose burdensome mandates on the private sector ought to just vote for the bill. Adding a repetitive requirement creates ambiguity about the intent of Congress, and for that reason, I oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, as I have stated before, it is entirely appropriate for independent agencies to have to also review the cost in the actual context of what they are accomplishing and the economy itself. That is an appropriate thing for every agency to do. We should count the costs before regulations are actually imposed on our economy. So I oppose this amendment. I have great respect for my colleague, but I have to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, independent regulatory agencies impose significant costs on our economy and often impose Federal mandates on State and local governments and the private sector. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Communications Commission are just a few examples of agencies that impose regulations without consideration of the actual cost or impact on the public. Now, this bill does not prevent agencies from creating regulations. The amendment gives the impression that this will be a wild West, and all of these agencies will be limited. It only asks them to consider the cost and the impact of those regulations and to have some conversation with people on how it could be done less burdensome or less expensive. According to a 2011 Administrative Law Review article: Analysis conducted by independent regulatory agencies is generally the minimum required by statute. In many instances, the independent regulatory agencies appear to be issuing major regulations without reporting any quantitative information on benefits and costs. OMB's 2013 draft report to Congress on the benefits and costs of Federal regulations and unfunded mandates provides a limited view of the cost-benefit analyses conducted by a limited number of independent regulatory agencies. For major rules issued by agencies included in the report, more than 35 percent were issued without any cost-benefit analysis at all. CRS reports that from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2012, 57 major rules were issued by nine independent agencies, but none of those rules included monetized cost-benefit analyses, and less than 50 percent provided any estimate as to costs at all. The cost-benefit analyses under UMRA are essential for a transparent and accountable regulatory system. Reporting on the analyses does nothing to compromise the independence of these agencies, and we know this because OMB already reports on whether or not several independent agencies are conducting the analyses--including the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Requiring that these agencies are covered by UMRA does not require that OMB review or approve of the analyses, only that the agencies are accountable for considering the costs and the benefits of imposing unfunded mandates on State and local governments and the private sector. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. It is a simple, straightforward bill that asks a couple of quick questions: Do the people of America work for the Federal Government, or does the Federal Government work for the people of America? It is a straightforward question. This bill requires that the Federal Government and every agency have a conversation with the people they regulate to make sure that they actually understand what they are doing when they regulate. I understand full well, there are plenty of well-meaning people here in Washington, D.C., who are serving our Nation faithfully, but they do not know every State in the country. They don't know every business in the country. That is not what they do full time. They manage here for the Federal Government full time, but they are given the responsibility to be able to promulgate rules and regulations that they may or may not have any idea even how that will be accomplished when they get there, or the real cost of that. The estimates that occasionally come up for the different costs we find out later are much, much higher than were ever estimated by a Federal agency. So this bill does a few things. In 1995, we said we are not going to put unfunded mandates on cities, States, and counties or tribes unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and then we could override and do that. This bill says that should be true of the American people as a whole, that we should not pour out some unfunded mandates across the entire economy unless there is some compelling reason to do so, and then Congress still has the authority to do that at that point, if needed. This also says there should be some sort of judicial review so if someone in some agency makes a mistake, which we all as humans do, there is an opportunity to be able to respond to that, and an outlet where they can go to get justification for that, rather than having to go back to the agency that created the rule to say, Would you please change it? They say, No, but you can appeal it to the person in the cubicle next to me, appeal it to them. They says let's go to an outside entity. That seems to be an American system, that when you have a difference of opinion, you have an opportunity to be able to resolve that with someone outside the system. This is an opportunity to reconnect the Federal Government back to the people that we are sent to represent and to say it is essential that we close the loopholes that exempt out some agencies, that we close the loopholes that allow agencies to move forward on putting down major regulations without evaluating those things, and we allow a distinct opportunity for the American people and their own government to have dialogue again and to say if we are going to resolve our differences on this and we are going to provide safety and security for people across the Nation, let's do it together in the least costly, least burdensome way possible. I support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to stand with me to provide greater transparency and greater conversation to the American people and their own government. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD. We do not, sir. We are prepared to close.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few brief comments. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have the opportunity to be able to just dialogue a little bit about some of the things we just heard about, things like judicial review. It is a belief of many people on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle that agencies are not infallible. They do make mistakes at times, and there are times that an agency will make an estimate on a cost, and it is, let's say, $90 million, just under the $100 million threshold. And someone wants to challenge it and says, how did you do the math on that that you ended up just under the major rule threshold? There is a reason to be able to go back and evaluate some of these things and to have the opportunity to go through a judicial review so in a moment of judicial review there can be a conversation to say, let's check the math before these decisions are made to be able to evaluate, because there has been a large increase in major rules. And while I understand that around election time there was a slowdown of regulations that came up, if you look at the first 5 years of this administration, of their 13,000 rules that were promulgated, 330 of them are classified as major rules--330 of those, major rules--defined as having an estimated annual economic impact of $100 million or more. It is a very serious issue to be able to put that many new rules with that large of an impact. It does have a change. And while I understand that some would say this benefits to the economy, what has happened is, year after year for the last several years, CBO comes back and looks at our long-term economic forecast and gives a slower forecast. In 2014 again, they have come out and said that, in this current economy with what is happening, it is another slowdown and another over $1 trillion loss in our economy that CBO has estimated over the next 10 years because the economy continues to slow down. We are just asking the question, is it possible? Because so many major regulations are coming out and no one has had a check on that. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, comments have closed on a proposed rule from OSHA for sand in the workplace. Prolonged breathing of silica, sand, can cause serious health issues. No one will dispute that. But this new rule is interesting in its design. In the comment request, OSHA specifically singles out one industry--oil and gas--as a key reason for the rule change. They write, in part, ``A recent cooperative study identified overexposures to silica among workers conducting hydraulic fracturing operations,'' as their prime reason for the rule change. It is interesting that after the rule has been in place since 1971, OSHA has made this change. Fracking is not new. It has been around for decades. Why the sudden change in this administration? I believe the change is because this administration is looking for one more way to impede oil and gas development in the United States. If this is not just about oil and gas, will OSHA set new rules for beach lifeguards who work in sand all day? How about road crews in Arizona who work in blowing sand all day? How about gift shops and restaurants along our coasts? What about dune buggy operators in the sand dunes of Little Sahara State Park in northwest Oklahoma? The people of my district work every day to provide our Nation energy independence and to get our Nation out of the Middle East. But they are tired of fighting mounds of new regulations, unfunded mandates, and attacks on their livelihood as they serve our Nation.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the conversation and the debate today. This is something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on. We should have transparency. Again, this is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. This is a size and scope of our government issue. We have grown extremely large in the Federal Government. We have duplication that none of us can even find, large budget categories with no specific items underneath them to be able to identify how much things cost, what their effectiveness includes. This is a moment for us to begin to get the details of all these programs that Congress has authorized back to the Congress for us to be able to evaluate their effectiveness. This is the right move to be able to make in the days ahead, for us to be able to get our arms around an extremely large, extremely complicated budget with a tremendous amount of duplication and waste that we can't find until we shine some light on it through this bill. I urge all Members to be able to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1423) to provide taxpayers with an annual report disclosing the cost and performance of Government programs and areas of duplication among them, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I believe that the American people should know what their government spends and what their government does. It is a reasonable request to be able to make of a government that is designed to serve the people. The people should be able to look back and be able to evaluate, Is this government serving the people, and are they doing it in such away that is actually efficient and making a difference? Every company in America can tell you what their staff is spending their time on and what the cost of their activities are, how many customers they have, and whether they are successful at reaching their basic goals. But we do not have that within the Federal Government. H.R. 1423 asks just a few specific things of our government to be able to delineate, again, what every business in America does. It is just six specific things, such as the name of the program, the basic description of that program, the administrative costs of that program, the number of staff for that program, the number of beneficiaries of that program, the statutory authority for that program, and, very importantly, how that program is actually evaluated and what are the metrics to determine if this program is getting the job done that it needs to get done. We have started in the right direction. OMB is working to comply with the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 by publicly listing all of the programs that the government administers and their performance goals, but that information is incomplete. H.R. 1423 fills the gaps in the information provided to the public by requiring OMB to include such vital information as the administrative costs and expenditures of each Federal program, the number of people the program serves, the number of employees working on the program, and where in the statute the program is authorized. This bill offers a simple list that Congress can use to evaluate Federal programs and to make informed decisions about how to make government work smarter and better. Agencies could cut billions of dollars in costs, without compromising services. In many cases, they could improve their services while we are still saving money to the taxpayer. If we just cut duplicative administrative costs and eliminate the programs that do not work, we can protect taxpayer dollars. We have an enormous Federal deficit. We should do everything we can to be able to evaluate what we are doing as a government and be able to determine where are we wasting taxpayer dollars. There are not taxpayer dollars left to waste. Under the bill, any person anywhere in the country can, at any time, access information about the cost, scope, and performance of every Federal program. H.R. 1423 requires OMB to report publicly any finding of duplication by GAO, an inspector general or any other report. It also requires GAO to maintain a database that tracks how quickly and how well Congress and the administration respond to these findings of duplication. It may come as a surprise: Congress occasionally finds duplication and does nothing about it. This would provide the opportunity for the American people to be able to look back and to be able to track, are we doing something about inefficiencies that have already been isolated in government? The Vice President was asked during the State of the Union, in this very Chamber, by the President of the United States, to begin a study of job training programs. We know there are more than 57 job training programs that already exist across the Federal Government in multiple agencies. The Vice President was asked to be able to locate those programs, evaluate those programs, and to help determine what is the right process forward for those programs. Now, that is something that we in the House did earlier last year, the SKILLS Act, but it is something that we would welcome participation from the administration on. I ask the question: Why can't we already do that in every area, not just duplicative job training programs? We have multiple programs in multiple agencies that are duplicative. Why do we just do it in job training programs? Let's do it in all of them. This is the beginning of a process to get after that duplication and that waste. No one here, on either side of the aisle, wants to see a program that is unnecessary or ineffective. Waste in government is not a Democrat or Republican issue; it is a Big Government issue. With a government the size that we have, we have duplication and we have waste. Let's identify it. The Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act will ensure we do that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I remind my colleagues that multiple groups have already leaned into this bill to say, please pass this, including the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and the National Taxpayers Union. America is watching us. Let's deal with our inefficiency. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LANKFORD. 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. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, let me make one quick comment, then I would like to yield a minute to my colleague. This does allow us to be able to gather that information. It is a good thing to have the information. Over the past several years there has been a push to provide greater transparency in the Federal Government, but the difficulty of bits of information scattered in different parts in different reports has forced the need for this; to say, let's put all that data together. Not only the number of staff and the number of programs and duplication reports, but let's gather that into one readable report so that every American doesn't have to know where to chase down to get bits of information. They can actually go to one spot and be able to look at it, whether it is a watchdog group, Members of Congress, or any citizen at any computer in America, they can be able to do that kind of research. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. There are a lot of things that we have done as a Nation that really have greatly benefited the health and economy of our Nation. We have engaged. There are some that would say to Republicans that Republicans just want dirty air and dirty water and they just assume we want unhealthy kids and all those things. I have people who have complained to me here while I have been in the House of Representatives and say: Don't you care about kids with asthma? And I look at them and say: Yeah, my daughter is one of them. So don't throw back in my face we don't care about our own kids and we don't care about the environment. My youngest daughter, a couple of years ago we were sitting at an intersection and the car in front of us took off and black smoke came out of the back of it, and she said out loud: Is that car on fire? As a kid who grew up in the 1970s like I did, I thought: No, that is what every car did in the 1970s, but we have made real changes, and it has affected our environment. It is fascinating to me now that the EPA and the rules that were put in place to protect all Americans have moved from where they were in the 1970s to now trying to get to the most granular small level that is pushing beyond health and safety down to a level that is actually controlling business and the basic operation of our economy. This is no longer about health and safety of people anymore. Those rules have long been changed and been in place. This is something different. The basic rules: There is a rule that probably no one tracks. It is a 316(b) rule. No one has heard of the 316(b) rule, but what it does with power plants, most power plants, as people drive past all the time and see them, they have a lake around them. In that lake there are, typically, fish. Quite frankly, for many power plants that are there in many parts of the country, the power company actually built that lake and then stocked it. In Oklahoma, some of the best fishing lakes are right around power plants because the water is a little bit warmer and the fish multiply. The water that comes in through one side of that lake actually goes underneath the power plant to actually cool the power plant. It is not the steam that comes out of the top. It is just like a big radiator that comes in. There is a grading screen that keeps all the fish out and everything else because they don't want them going underneath the plant as well and hurting the tubing and such. Occasionally, a fish gets what is called impinged on that screen. They are typically minnows, what we use in Oklahoma for fishing bait. So the EPA is stepping in to power companies and making massive changes in their requirements to the screens around the outside of that to keep fish--minnows, bait fish--from being caught on that. Well, the offer has been made to say, if 100 bait fish are killed on this screen during this time, can we just buy 100 bait fish and put it in? We can go down to the local bait shop and get 100 fish and just restock it-- and they say no. It requires millions of dollars of change to go around that screen to prevent that. Who pays for that? Ratepayers pay for that. The President made a statement in his State of the Union address when he said: these things will be hard, but they are right for the environment. Do you know who it is hard on? The poorest in our society, elderly people that are on fixed incomes. That electricity bill matters to them, and you can't just flippantly say, Mr. President, this is going to be hard but we have got to do it, when the people that it is going to be hardest on and are going to be affected the most are the people that this government should protect rather than just look at them and say: this is going to be hard, but you are going to pay a higher bill. Simple things like regional haze. Rules were made years ago on regional haze. Regional haze is a rule dealing with aesthetics, what the air looks like. Not air quality, not what we breath, not health, just aesthetics. So the rule was made if this is just about aesthetics, not about health, the State should make those rules. Then there was what's called a ``sue and settle'' agreement. This administration allowed a lawsuit, broke off separately from the normal judicial process, made an arrangement with these environmental groups, and then came back to States and said, a judge is imposing that. A judge is not imposing that. They made a deal with environmentalist groups around the people that it would affect and are now imposing it on States. What is the result of that? Higher prices for electricity. Not because of health, but because of aesthetics. Again, the President's statement: this is going to be hard, we are aware. It is going to be hard on the people that should be protected by this Nation, not just someone stepping into their house and saying: sorry your electricity bill is higher, this is going to be hard. That doesn't help anyone. Families know that day-to-day life is hard. They don't need this government making it harder for them. We need to stand up and protect them. It is important that we have clean air and clean water. It is also important that we protect our families and not bring them undue expense that matters nothing for basic human health and population. I thank the gentlelady for hosting this time and for this conversation because these EPA issues are not just Washington issues; they are issues that matter to our families. They are issues that do change the price of our electricity and our energy. When people say all the time: Why doesn't my check go as far as it used to go, why does life seem to cost so much now, I say to them: Welcome to the regulation world that we live in, where someone from D.C. says: this is going to be hard and you pay more.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, over the past months since September 11, 2012, we have learned a great deal about what happened in Benghazi that fateful night when Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were murdered in our facility. Their work to make the world safer and to build peaceful relationships was met with aggression and brutality. While we have some answers, I grow weary of asking questions over and over again in hearings, letters, and on this floor to get some very basic answers for the families and the American people. Let me run some of those questions past us again. It was known within the State Department at the highest levels that neither facility in Libya, the one in Tripoli or the one in Benghazi, met the minimum physical security standards set after our Embassy was attacked in Kenya in 1998. Who made the decision to put so many American diplomats in facilities that did not meet that standard? That same question was asked yesterday by a Senate committee intelligence report asking the same question. Who made the decision to put people in facilities we knew did not meet the minimum security standards? The Embassy had access to additional military personnel for security and training. They had been there for a long time. The regional security officer and the Ambassador requested to keep the additional security on the ground. That request was denied in August 2012, and in September 2012 there was an attack on our facility, and we did not have the manpower to repel them. What was the reason for the decision to remove the existing security force from Libya and leave only a small security team there? In fact, the security force was so small that when the Ambassador traveled in Tripoli, it took the entire security team just to travel with him. So for long stretches during the day, the other American diplomats were completely exposed; so exposed, the diplomats asked the security forces to train them how to use a gun so they could defend themselves in the moments when they were left with no defense. In a country that has just gone through a brutal, long civil war and there was no strong central government or national police force, why were diplomats left to defend themselves in Tripoli? Multiple intelligence reports from the CIA, the Ambassador, and the regional security officer all noted increasing violence in Benghazi and terrorist training camps nearby. There were more than 20 security incidents in that area in the previous month. Every other international facility in Benghazi closed in the previous year because of security risks. Their facility or personnel was attacked, and they made the determination, one of two things, either increase security or pull out. They chose to pull out. We had the same option; but, instead, we chose to stay and decrease our security. Who made that decision, and what information did they use to make that decision? We have a joint operation called the Foreign Emergency Support Team to assist during and after State Department crises. They never mobilized that night because no one ever sent them. Apparently, they were too far away. They were stationed in the United States. Can someone tell me why we have a Foreign Emergency Support Team if they are not for events like this? What level of attack is required to mobilize that team? If they are too far away to make a difference, why are they stationed in America? We are not worried about our embassies in America being attacked. We spend millions of dollars training and equipping this team to apparently stand down during an emergency. Why? On September 11, our American Embassy in Egypt was stormed about 6 local time. The mob climbed the walls and put up the al Qaeda flag. I would assume it is an event that would warrant some sort of status change in our military preparedness, but no one from the State Department requested a status change or increased preparedness. So when the country next-door was attacked 4 hours later, the military still was not prepared. There are millions of questions about what happened that night. Were we overwhelmed by a highly organized military force? Was it a street protest that went violent like the administration first claimed? The administration claims the attack was so overwhelming that additional American security forces would not have made a difference. I know how we can resolve this issue: release the video of that attack that night. For some reason, the administration cannot identify the killers that night because none of them have been brought to justice a year and a half later. I have an idea: if the administration cannot identify them, show the world the video of the attack and let the world help identify who that is. If there is a bank robbery, the next day the video footage is on television so that everyone can figure out who that person is and they can be brought to justice. That is standard practice for the FBI here. Why is the video of the attack in Benghazi being withheld? If you cannot figure out who attacked the compound, ask CNN or FOX News or The New York Times. They have all interviewed the people who attacked the compound, but the administration can't seem to find them. Many Americans have not even heard there is high quality, multiple angle video footage of that night, both on the ground and from the air in drones. There is only one reason why the administration will not release the video: they do not want the American people to see what really happened that night and to see that two additional security personnel would have made a huge difference. We need to release the video, allow the American people to see what really happened. Let's get these questions answered.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, this week the congressional conversation is on spending, the national debt, and rightfully so. The budget work in the past 3 years has only made a dent in the looming debt crisis in our future, but America's story is about more than budget and spending. America is about its people, their opportunity and hope and dream for a better future for all of our children. A few months ago, the March of Dimes released its scorecard for premature birth rates in Oklahoma. We lowered our preterm birth rate for the third year in a row in Oklahoma. That is good. Every child is a gift of God, and they should have a chance to live to his or her fullest potential. We all know that a baby in the womb is not tissue; that is a child. A child that should have the same opportunity, the same chance for hope, the same dreams for a better future. That dream begins with the opportunity for life. How can we as a Nation work so hard to prevent premature births so each child can reach their full potential and then be callous to the reality that some children will never have the chance to even be born? That is why Americans will stand on the National Mall for the March for Life January 22. We are Americans. We believe in the inherent right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That right extends to all people, regardless of their size.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of January 2014 being National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. Human trafficking victims suffer repeatedly with no apparent way out. An estimated between 100,000 and 300,000 children each year become victims in America of this abhorrent practice. Many runaway children become victims of human trafficking within 48 hours of leaving home, and it is crucial that we, as Americans, are aware of our surroundings and immediately contact authorities when we see anything suspicious around children. Traffickers can be found at airports, parking lots, schools, malls, and other places where they search for young victims. Two years ago, I authored a bill which this House passed, the Senate passed, and the President signed at the end of 2012 eliminating trafficking on our military bases around the world and our State Department facilities around the world. We, as Americans, believe every person has value. Every person has rights that are given to them by their creator. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage every American, if they come into contact with someone that they suspect is a victim of human trafficking, to contact the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 888-373-7888. Let's help our fellow Americans.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your oversight of this evening. The gentlelady and I do not agree at all on football, she being from Missouri and my being an Oklahoma State fan, but we do agree on this. This is a critical area, and it gets to the basic element of what we do as a Nation and what a government is supposed to do. A government is designed to protect and to serve the people. The people don't serve the government. The government serves the people. The government is set to allow people to be able to live their lives as they choose. Then along comes the Affordable Care Act, where the government looks down at the people, literally, and says, ``I am going to make better decisions for you. Instead of your choosing your doctor, instead of your choosing your hospital, instead of your choosing your insurance, I am going to pick a group of insurance policies and hospitals and doctors I like as the government, and you get to pick from my list.'' It removes those choices from individuals to then set up a Web site and say, ``You are required to go on this Web site and enter your information on this Web site.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you handle shopping online, but when I shop online, I am careful of what Web sites I go to. I want to make sure there are security protocols and there is some backing to that so I am not entering information onto some site where I don't know how the security is handled. But this one is different. On this one, the power of the Federal Government is coming down on an individual to say, ``I don't care what you think about the security of this site. Enter your information there, and not only enter your information there, enter your children's information there.'' Chief Information Security Officer Teresa Fryer, she is the one who was set to be able to sign off on the security protocols for the Web site when it was to be launched, but in September, she refused to sign off and to put her name onto the exchanges and the data hub and say that it was ready to go and that the security was there. In fact, her statement was that there was a high risk of security and that there had been no end-to-end testing of this site, and she refused to sign off on the security. This is the chief information security officer who was assigned to oversee that for the government. Instead, it was pushed up to Marilyn Tavenner, the Director of CMS, to have to make the signoff because the person under her refused to do it. Should Americans be concerned in entering their information? Absolutely, they should be concerned in entering their information because there is still no certification that this is fully tested, fully approved and that there are not serious vulnerabilities. In the first week that the site was launched, the Federal Government brought in what is called a ``white hacker,'' someone who is going to come in and test the system, try to hack into the system. Were they successful? Absolutely, they were successful. They found multiple vulnerabilities in the site, itself, and then reported it back to CMS. There are a lot of security vulnerabilities there. Is this an issue? Yes, but as ironic as all that is, a government that is set up to serve the people is actually trying to protect itself and not report when there is a problem. You see, when Target had 40 million credit cards stolen in a very rare incident for a retailer like that--my family's being one of those--we were all notified. We were told, ``You are at risk. Here is what has occurred, so go change your credit card. Go protect your identity,'' because Target has the responsibility to protect us and to be able to let us know you have got a risk. The Federal Government right now is saying, ``If someone breaks into our system, we have the responsibility to protect the Federal Government and not to let anyone know,'' instead of protecting the individual. That is government on its head. Government is designed to serve and protect the people, not to have them say, ``I can't tell you that information because it will look bad for the Federal Government.'' No. This bill does a basic thing. It says the people are more important than the program that the government has set up--the people are--and that if their information has been stolen, if there has been a compromise to that information, they should be informed of that so that they can take the steps that are necessary to make sure they and their children who they have entered on their site have their information protected in the days ahead. This is the right thing to do. This is not some blanket partisan issue. We would want this in every aspect of every Web site that the Federal Government has, whether that be IRS information, whether that be ObamaCare information, whether that be information on an EPA computer. If it is compromised, that citizen should know so steps can be taken to be able to protect himself. It is a reasonable protection for the American people. That is why I think this is a reasonable thing to be able to do. Quite frankly, we believe that the Affordable Care Act will be completely repealed and that the American people will have the ability to choose for themselves again rather than have the Federal Government say we are going to make choices for you. Until that day comes, it is a reasonable thing to at least begin with this. With that, I thank the gentlelady from Missouri. Again, I can't root for your football team, but I can stand with you on this issue.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish a happy anniversary to an organization that is actually helping people. Seventy-five years ago, the Wagner-O'Day Act was signed here in the United States Congress. It is now known as the AbilityOne Program. It honors each individual person across our country with unique disabilities to be able to say as a Nation we are going to stand with you on that. I believe firmly that every individual evaluates success in a different way, but I think part of how they evaluate success is do they have a great family experience, do they have a great community of friends around them, are they deep in their own personal faith, and do they have work that is meaningful. The AbilityOne Program--and what is happening specifically in my State with an organization connected to them called NewView Oklahoma-- they are helping people have great value and understanding that people that are blind and visually impaired can have great success in life and can contribute to society. They are producing products that are sold commercially and to governments that are all over the world. In fact, 2 years ago I was in Afghanistan; and when we landed, as we got off the back of the aircraft there, there was one of the bright yellow chalks that is uniquely made in Oklahoma by people that are blind and visually impaired. This is a great gift that we are doing, and I wish them happy anniversary.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for an admonition and a redirection, somewhat of a philosophical conversation. America started with a great, healthy reality of what government can do and what government cannot do. A government can't really control all of what is happening in every State from one central area. We begin at the very beginning with individual States, individual local government, individuals making decisions for their family. Right now, we see in every poll, in every conversation, that every one of us has this great frustration that is rising among the American people. That frustration is not rising because the American vision, the American Dream, and the American spirit is failing. That frustration is rising somewhat because of what we are doing and because of this constant challenge that is occurring nationwide to the concept of a representative republic, the constant asking of the question: Has this become too gridlocked? Has it become too partisan? Has it become too hard to be able to get things done? Maybe we need to do it a different way. Quite frankly, the American people know in their hearts that they should be represented, they should be heard, justice should be done, trust should be here, common sense should prevail. The basic principle among so many people, that we should speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, that every American should be heard, it goes from the Book of Proverbs to the very foundation of our constitutional system now. So what do we do about that? Well, around the world we see it. We see the frustration of other people in other countries. We see it in Syria as they are split up in a civil war. We see it in Cairo, in the streets at yet another set of protests. We see in Thailand, the absolute corruption of their government breaking out in things. We see votes in the Parliament in the Ukraine right now as worldwide, continent by continent, there is constant frustration with their government and people rise up in the streets. What do we do about it? How do we lead? We are the leaders in our country. So what do we do? Here is my quick admonition to us: Stop running down America and each other. We are different. We think different, we function different, our families function different, but we should still be able to honor each other. We see each other's worst. We see on the social media sites and we see on the press reports and we see everything else. We know so much about each other that there is this sense that it is different now. But quite frankly, Americans have always been flawed people. But we are people that are gathered around our work, our faith, our community, and our family, and that has made us different. We have got to stop demeaning a representative republic. This constant statement of ``we are gridlocked and things aren't working'' implies to people all over the country maybe this system of government that made us the most powerful economy, the most powerful military, the greatest bastion for freedom the world has ever known, maybe it doesn't work anymore. The problem is not a representative republic. The problem is not our Constitution. The problem is we are trying to do something that is not that. We are shifting away from the way that we were founded into something that doesn't really exist. Quite frankly, the partisan gridlock is not something new. The patron saint of Oklahoma is Will Rogers. You can take every joke he made about Congress in the 1920s and pull it up today and it is still funny because things haven't changed on that because, quite frankly, we think different. But that is the nature of a country that is like ours. We have all these voices from all over the country that should come together and that should work together; but they should find us with solutions, not getting into their life and taking things over. They need to see a government that is thinking for them, not trying to make them the servant. They see it. Why did we have to vote this week about lead in fire hydrants? Isn't that a no-brainer issue? The government has become so strong and so powerful in communities that communities are not sure if they can replace their fire hydrants anymore? Why is it that Americans can't get insurance anymore? Because they are waiting on a government Web site and they are worried about what is going to happen in a month because they are waiting in line for that. Why is it that the education outcomes continue to decline when we increase Federal control year after year after year, and yet our outcomes continue to decline? Even this week, there is another international poll coming out for that. Why is it getting harder and harder to start a company, find a job, pay your gas bill? Why is it tougher to fill up your car with gas or pay the bill for your cell phone? It is because of increasing regulations, increasing fees, increasing control, and Americans continue to get frustrated because they know this is not what we were designed to be. We are doing too many things. We have got to get back to trusting the American people, our State leaders, our local leaders, and we have got to set the standard for what leadership looks like in America by our rhetoric and by our actions. We can honor people and honor each other, even in our differences, but we have got to get back to doing this Nation's business the way that the American people in their hearts know it should be done, where their voices are heard, and where they get to make the decisions.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you to my colleague for hosting this. Mr. Speaker, about 3\1/2\ years ago, Americans started getting more and more frustrated. It is really a product of several years of building, this sense of helplessness as they struggled and watched their Nation--I don't even know how to begin to describe the emotions that really welled up about 4 years ago when Americans watched their health care beginning to slip away. This absolute divide that happened as a Nation between Republicans and Democrats--and they used to try to work together to try to resolve things--went out the window on a pure partisan vote to push through a health care change that not a single Republican voted for. And Democrats, in a skittish way, pushed it with glee while others stepped back and said, I hope this works the way it is being advertised. As we know now, it is not working. It is working exactly as many Republicans said it would work. And the impulse of the Federal Government to take over more and more would actually cause serious problems in the process. At the same time, the United States Government began to overspend more than it ever had in the history of the United States. Mr. Speaker, $1.45 trillion of overspending in a single year led millions of Americans to stop and to gather--many of them for the first time-- gather in small groups and say, Our government is really struggling. This is not going, as a Nation, how we thought it would go. And they gathered together in small groups, which were spontaneously called these Tea Party groups, groups of patriots and individuals, housewives, moms, business leaders, and guys that owned locksmith shops, and all of these different places that were around just started gathering together to say, What can we do? Just normal Americans. As they began to form and to meet in groups of five, 10, 20, 25-- sometimes they would meet with huge rallies of 100 or 200 people. But most of the time, it is at somebody's house. Most of the time it is at a VFW meeting place or some other spot. They determined, Well, we need to get organized, and we need to be able to pass out materials and do some things. And to do that in our governmental system, they have got to try to find some way to be able to organize that money together, which means they need to contact the Internal Revenue Service and be able to access and get a revenue number. Well, they started that. One of those groups was in Oklahoma, a group called Oklahoma City Patriots in Action. This group of individuals are just normal Oklahoma great folks. They got together, submitted their application, and went through the process they needed to do. And then they get a letter back with 21 questions, some of them having up to nine subquestions to it. Sixty-five total requests came back to this group of individuals saying, We will give you your number if you will tell us all of this information. And to accentuate it, the letter begins with first them needing to sign this statement: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this information, including accompanying documents, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information contains all the relevant facts relating to the request for the information, and such facts are true, correct, and complete. And then they go on to make 65 different data requests, many of them incredibly long. There is no question this letter is intended to intimidate people; but I can tell you from knowing these Oklahomans, they tried to intimidate the wrong people with this. So let me just give you an example of some of the things they began to ask for in this long list of questions. They asked things like: Do you directly or indirectly communicate with members of legislative bodies? If so, provide copies of the written communications and contents of other forms of communications. In other words, if you redress grievances to your elected officials, as our Constitution allows you to do, please provide us a copy of everything you said when you went to your government for a redress of grievances. How about this: Give detailed examples on how you will educate the public concerning key legislation and the positions of political candidates and elected officials on that legislation. Please explain how you obtain the current legislative information, both State and Federal, and the turnaround time to post on your Web site. Why in the world does it matter what their turnaround time is-- whether they post it in a day or 10 days--for your IRS application? How about this: Please provide copies of your current Web pages from your Web site. Wouldn't it be easier just to ask for the Web site name and then go search it themselves? They wouldn't have to print out copies of every page. And here are two sets of my favorites, of this long list. I could go on and on with it. This asks: Have you conducted or will you conduct rallies or exhibitions for or against any public policies, legislation, public officers, political candidates, or like kinds? If yes, please explain and provide the following: State the time, location, and content schedule of each rally or exhibition. Provide copies of handouts you provided or will provide to the public. The names of persons from your organization and the amount of time they have spent or will spend on the event. One last piece--and again, I could go on and on with this. This is the one that, when I read through this, it continued just to make my blood boil: Have any candidates running for public office spoken or will they speak at a function of your organization? If so, provide the names of the candidates, the functions at which they spoke, any materials distributed or published with regard to their appearance and the event, any video or audio recordings of the event, and a transcript of any speeches given by the candidates. Now, these are a gatherings of 20 people sitting around in someone's house. They are not transcribing every part of everything that is said. These are normal Americans getting together to discuss what is going on in their government. And the IRS said, If you want to continue to do this and be organized, we need to get a transcript of every speech that was done around your kitchen table. And to add insult to injury, remember what I said at the beginning, Under penalties of perjury, if you don't provide completely everything in this, you are not eligible. What is this intended to do? This is intended to silence. This is intended to tell good, hardworking Americans, Be quiet, sit around your dining room table, don't organize, don't keep moving. Now when our committee asked about this, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which I serve on, when we asked about this initially and began pushing forward to get more information--because as the folks in Oklahoma City know, this is not an isolated event. Letters like this, with other questions, went to other places all over the country, to everyone who had the name ``Tea Party,'' had the word ``liberty,'' or had the word ``patriot'' in their name. They were assigned to a specific group in Cincinnati, and they dead-ended all in that one group. Now, initially, when we asked individuals about it, we were told this was just a crazy group of folks in Cincinnati that went rogue, as if they all worked for WKRP, and they were out there just being crazy in Cincinnati. When we asked those quote-unquote ``rogue'' agents in Cincinnati to come before our committee and to tell us about it, what we were told was very clear. They were following the instructions they got from Washington, D.C., on what to do with these applications. And a special group was set up that all they did was take in applications that had ``Tea Party,'' ``liberty,'' or ``patriot'' in it. And when they arrived at that location, they were to sit there and wait for instructions from Washington, D.C. So we asked the Cincinnati folks, Who gave you those instructions in Washington, D.C.? Those individuals were then called before our committee. And we asked those individuals, Did you give instructions to the Cincinnati office? Yes. Why did you do that? Here was their statement: Because we were told by the IRS counsel to wait on their instructions. We are now in the process of doing interviews with the IRS counsel to say, Why was the decision made to say, people with certain names, send them letters like this with no intention of ever answering them? That they would get 65 detailed requests like this, each providing a very long response needed? And that then when it was finally collected, they would dead-end in Cincinnati. Why? We are still trying to get that answer. Why does that matter? Because Americans, whether they be liberal, conservative, anything in between should have a government that serves them, rather than intimidates them. It is right that we continue to walk through this process. It is right that good, hardworking Americans are not intimidated by their government. This is something that needs to be resolved and will be resolved, and though the headlines have faded away on it, we have not forgotten these individuals. And we will continue to work through the process to be held to account and to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone again in the days ahead. I thank the gentleman for hosting this time so that these folks in Oklahoma City and around the country are not forgotten.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, the President seems to flippantly just talk about 5 percent of Americans have received a cancelation notice, as if they are just individuals that didn't have a policy that really met his standard for what he was looking for or what the administration is looking for. That 5 percent equals about 5 million people across the country. They are not just a random statistic. They are families and individuals like the Evans family, and it is not just this one family, but everyone that works in their business received this same letter. Why is that? Because as the President continues to speak about these are just individuals or individual policies, that is not actually true either. Here is a letter from Aetna that came to the Evans family and every employee in their business. It says: As you have heard, the Affordable Care Act is bringing many changes to health insurance. One of these changes is that the association groups, which are comprised of small employers, cannot provide coverage as a large group entity. Consequently, Aetna is discontinuing the current plans and has notified your employer. The plans they have and they have been able to find are a 25 percent increase over last year. Their firm cannot hire additional people next year because of the additional cost. This is the United States of America. What are we doing telling people what health insurance they can purchase?

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, the ObamaCare Web site has been a nuisance. People spend hours of wasted time trying to get on it, trying to get information they cannot get information on. This has moved far beyond just a nuisance of trying to get on a Web site. Now people are discovering the new cost increases that are happening, and over a million people have already received a cancelation notice for their insurance. Let me just give you a couple of those from my district: The Evans Law Firm has 17 people involved in their small law firm. That firm received a cancelation notice, not because their insurance was not up to the standards that the President has set, but because it grouped together with other policies, and now that is no longer going to be available to them, so they have to go out on the market. The cheapest they have found so far is a 25 percent increase to them. Another business owner has notified me they are going to pay a 13.5 percent increase in their insurance next year because their current insurance doesn't have pediatric care in it. None of the employees there have children, so of course they haven't had insurance for pediatric care. This would be the equivalent of having a car in your driveway and waking up the next morning and some government official has switched the car to a better car and you get the bill for the more expensive car because they didn't like your car. This does not help the families at home.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, i would like to bring up my support for this bill but also to be able to talk about the limited funds that the Corps of Engineers have. They have very limited funds because the United States of America obviously has limited funds, what we actually receive from the taxpayers. There is a study within this bill itself that is being proposed that looks at the low-priority projects and the things that are not within the core mission of the Corps of Engineers. That study doesn't need to be a study to nowhere. It does need to be a study to look at the low-priority inventory and then just go in a drawer and say, Gosh, we have low- priority inventory that we can't afford to maintain that sits closed and a local municipality can't open it. So we need to be able to establish the next step on that.