Dennis Ross

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 1293, to amend title 5 of the United States Code to require the Office of Personnel Management to submit an annual report to Congress relating to the use of official time by Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about a bill that would provide taxpayers with greater transparency of official time. ``Official time'' is that term that describes when Federal employees do union work on the taxpayers' dime. The only standard provided by the statute authorizing official time is that the employees perform union work on official time in a manner that is ``reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest.'' Currently, Federal law does not require agencies to report, annually, on the amount of official time their employees perform. Until March of this year, the Office of Personnel Management had not reported on official time since fiscal year 2012. When the report was released in March, the data was out of date, containing information from fiscal year 2014. While the Office of Personnel Management may request that agencies provide data related to official time, OPM does not have any set of standards or procedures prescribing the collection of official time data. Considering the burden that official time puts on the taxpayer, more stringent reporting is necessary. The latest data provided by OPM shows that taxpayers paid $162 million for salary and benefits related to work done in official time in fiscal year 2014, up from $157 million 2 years earlier in fiscal year 2012. Agencies reported that bargaining unit employees spent a total of 3.5 million hours performing representational activities on official time. The current lack of stringent reporting requirements, as well as the broad interpretation of the statute's sole requirement that official time be carried out in a way that is reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest, have clearly opened the door to abuse. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform identified several cases where employees on official time engaged in all sorts of inappropriate activities while on taxpayer-funded time, including everything from leisure to criminal activities. With greater transparency, employees will be less likely to abuse the system, which will result in less waste of taxpayer dollars. It is by far time we require agencies to provide this information to Congress and to the public. Taxpayers deserve clear, reliable data on how many employees are performing union work on official time in lieu of their regularly assigned government duties. To accomplish this, H.R. 1293 requires agencies to provide more detailed information to OPM regarding what their employees are doing related to official time. Specifically, the bill requires agencies to report the total amount of official time granted to employees, the average amount of time each employee spends on official time, the specific types of activities for which official time was granted, and the impact official time had on agency operations. H.R. 1293 requires agencies to report the amount of compensation employees received in connection with the time they spent on activities in connection with official time. Finally, the bill requires agencies to report a description of rooms and spaces agencies use to conduct official time. H.R. 1293 will provide taxpayers with the transparency they deserve when it comes to official time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I might just suggest to my good friend from Virginia that this is a reporting bill, that this is the same bill, as amended by their amendment, that was passed out of committee overwhelmingly, that I believe the gentleman from Virginia voted for. So there has not been any change. It is still a transparency reporting bill to make sure that we account for all the time spent in official time on the taxpayer dime. That is it. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to be clear here, because I want to make sure that we are talking about the same bill. This bill doesn't do anything about union dues. This bill doesn't do anything other than require the transparency of reporting official time. And I would be delighted to engage my good friend from Virginia, whom I have a great deal of respect for, and I have worked very diligently on this committee with for some time, and inquire as to what transpired since this bill left committee until today that would cause him and others who were supportive of it in committee to now say that it is not? I don't mean to misrepresent anything. While I might have opinions of what I believe, I can tell you factually that this bill is merely, and solely, and exclusively a reporting bill. If I were managing a company and I wanted to know where my resources were, I would want to make sure I managed those resources--including my human resources--so I would like to know where the time of my employees is spent. There is no prohibition of time being spent. There is no restriction of time being spent. It is merely a reporting bill. It is requiring reporting. It is something the OPM has done before. It was started under President Carter's administration. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my good friend if there is anything that has changed to make his opposition now come to the floor?

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

Mr. ROSS. And I appreciate that.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, while I understand where my colleague from Virginia is taking my comments from, I must submit that at no time did I allege that the Federal employees, all Federal employees, are committing crimes on official time. I think just the opposite. A vast majority of our Federal employees are probably some of the best workforce that we have out there. I think that, in any workforce, you are going to have some people that don't live up to the standards of their employment. So what I merely do in my opening statement is to say that there has been a need for transparency that includes the abuse of time by some, not by all. Again, the vast majority of Federal employees are exceptional employees, hardworking, and absolutely necessary to run this great country. Mr. Speaker, I ask my good friend from Virginia to please reconsider, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I might just, again, clarify for the record, this is a reporting bill. It is a transparency bill. The standard that my good friend from Massachusetts discusses, and that I agreed with, is not affected at all by this bill. I would have no doubt whatsoever that in similar circumstances that happened after 9/11 in those post offices, that those same employees, regardless of the risk, would do exactly what they did, because that is how valuable they are to the system. That is how valuable they are to this country. What I can't understand is what has transpired between voting this out of committee to today that has changed the opinion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the comments from my friend from Virginia, and I will reiterate my comments made earlier here on this floor that we are very grateful for the Federal workforce that we do have and that they are, by far, one of the best human resources in employment in the world. We are grateful for their service. As in any case, there might be some bad ones, but, more importantly, all this bill requests is that we just report the transparency of their services and official time. It is neither an indictment nor restriction on Federal time whatsoever, and, in fact, can be used as a tool for Federal employees to justify some of the official time they are doing for the benefit of not only their colleagues, but also this great country. Mr. Speaker, I would again request that Members of this House support my bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 624) to restrict the inclusion of social security account numbers on documents sent by mail by the Federal Government, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 624, the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, introduced by my good friend from California, Representative David Valadao. I want to start by thanking Chairman Brady and Subcommittee Chairman Johnson from the Ways and Means Committee for their assistance in getting this bill to the floor. Their work on addressing the unnecessary use of Social Security numbers is well appreciated by all Americans across the country and especially Members in this body. Mr. Speaker, we live in an interconnected world. Personal identifiers, such as Social Security numbers, are used for much more than just Social Security benefits. Social Security numbers are widely used to receive government services and to apply for services in the private sector, like opening bank accounts, credit cards, and even applying for college. The extent to which Social Security numbers are a de facto national identifier has heightened concerns about identity theft. In the wrong hands, a stolen Social Security number can be used for devastating effects. This bill helps move the government closer to the goal of minimizing unnecessary use of Social Security numbers. All entities in the Federal Government will be prohibited from sending a Social Security account number by mail, unless the head of the entity deems it necessary. The 24 major CFO Act agencies will also have to issue regulations specifying the circumstances under which inclusion of a Social Security number is deemed necessary. They will have to ensure numbers are redacted partially, where feasible, and to ensure no numbers are visible from the outside of a mail piece. Finally, agencies will be required to report to Congress on their progress in implementing the requirements of the law. Mr. Speaker, this bill is very important. The Social Security Administration alone sends 223 million notices containing a full Social Security number every year. We must take care to properly safeguard the personally identifiable information of American citizens. The consequences of failure can be dire. In 2015, the Office of Personnel Management experienced a major data breach where the personally identifiable information for 22 million Americans was compromised. The Oversight Committee majority staff report recommended Federal agencies reduce the collection of Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable information. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), who is the author of this bill.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we here have an obligation to provide for the common defense, and I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that includes that we provide to defend our citizenry from such crimes as identity theft. This bill is a step in the right direction. I want to thank my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for his efforts. I want to thank Mr. Valadao from California for sponsoring this bill. This is a bipartisan measure that will allow us to address the concerns of modern-day crimes of identity and of modern-day crimes of privacy. It is a bill that moves in the right direction. While it is not the panacea, it is a good first step to protecting our citizenry. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption by my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1694.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, as you can see, this is a bill that I think has broad bipartisan support. It is something that we need to do for the taxpayers who have invested so much into Fannie and Freddie over the years. Let's make them subject to FOIA. I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1694, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017. Mr. Chairman, transparency is critical. It is critical to oversight and accountability of the Federal Government and how it spends taxpayer dollars. The American public has a right to know how their tax dollars are spent. The Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, is a key tool for citizens to access information about their government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not subject to the requirements of FOIA, despite taxpayers' substantial investment into both entities and the government's implicit guaranteed backing of these entities. Taxpayers have spent $187 billion to bail out Fannie and Freddie, the most sweeping government intervention into private financial markets in decades. Taxpayers are on the hook for $400 billion in lost investments and $5 trillion in mortgage liabilities. At the same time, the American public is unable to seek accountability from these entities under FOIA. It is far past time we apply FOIA to Fannie and Freddie. There is precedent for applying FOIA to non-traditional quasi-governmental entities. Congress subjected Amtrak to FOIA in recognition of sizeable taxpayer funding. To stabilize the housing market in the aftershock of the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Housing Finance Agency placed Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship to return them to financial viability and stockholder control. FHFA is a government entity subject to FOIA. Under the terms of its conservatorship over Fannie and Freddie, FHFA exercises the titles to their books and records, as well as the powers and privileges of Fannie and Freddie. Despite this government intervention and explicit guarantee, taxpayers, however, are unable to obtain any information from Fannie and Freddie. H.R. 1694, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017, sponsored by Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, will allow the American public to submit FOIA requests to Fannie and Freddie as long as the entities remain under FHFA's conservatorship. H.R. 1694 reflects FOIA's presumptions of openness, granting taxpayers information unless an exemption applies. This bill is a commonsense measure to allow the American public access to basic information regarding entities that they fund with their tax dollars. The American public should not be in the dark when it comes to what Fannie and Freddie are doing. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, as the designee of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment that I am offering on behalf of Chairman Chaffetz makes technical and conforming changes to the bill. Applying FOIA to Fannie and Freddie while the entities remain in conservatorship will better ensure that the American people know what their government does with their taxpayer dollars. But, if and when Fannie and Freddie come out of conservatorship, the entities need to be able to operate as commercially competitive businesses. This amendment clarifies that Fannie and Freddie may use exemption 4, which protects sensitive commercial information from disclosure, regardless of whether information was obtained from a person outside of Fannie or Freddie, to protect their financially sensitive materials from public disclosure. Mr. Chairman, recognizing the administrative labors involved in setting up FOIA shops, the amendment also addresses the implementation date. Fannie and Freddie will likely need to hire staff, update their websites, and identify records to be made publicly available as a matter of course. The manager's amendment, therefore, provides Fannie and Freddie 6 months after the bill's enactment to establish their respective staffs and protocols to administer FOIA. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.