Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I very gladly rise in strong support of this resolution, and, more importantly, in the bipartisan spirit in which it has been shaped.

The basic idea behind this resolution, as my friend has said, is to ensure that committees are fulfilling their oversight duties and fully addressing the

need to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse from our Federal budget. While we always have a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely, as we all know, this obligation has never, ever been more critical than it is today because of our economic environment. We cannot afford to waste a penny of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

But the best of intentions must be implemented wisely or the effort will be wasted. Republicans had a number of suggestions for strengthening this resolution and to make it more effective. While we would have preferred to have this resolution go through regular order, we were very pleased, nonetheless, to find the process to be both consultative and collaborative. Ultimately, our modifications were incorporated into the final product.

Our primary concern was one of transparency. Requiring committees to hold hearings on egregious reports of waste, fraud and abuse is important. But without transparency, there can be no accountability. We simply asked that hearings on the reports of inspectors general or the Comptroller General be included in each committee's survey of activity. These surveys are a matter of public record.

By including this information, the taxpayers will be able to directly follow the oversight activities of committees. They will have the opportunity to judge for themselves the level of scrutiny that is given to serious allegations of wasted taxpayer dollars. Our request for greater transparency is reflected in the resolution that is before us today.

We also asked for further clarification on the protections put in place to safeguard classified material. Again, the majority was receptive to our request and provided the necessary clarifications.

We have one final area of concern which I would pose as a question to the majority manager: As we work to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, it is essential that we do not neglect to turn the microscope inward and examine our own operations right here in this institution. The legislative branch must also be fully accountable to the taxpayer.

I would hope that legislative branch inspectors general, such as those in the Offices of the Architect of the Capitol, the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, be subjected to the same scrutiny as other inspectors general are imposing on their parts of government.

I would ask the gentleman for a clarification in this matter. Do these legislative inspectors general fall under the definition of the Federal Office of the Inspector General pursuant to the proposed subparagraph (n)(2)?

I yield to the gentleman for his response.

Good.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his response, and I would also like to thank the majority staff, particularly majority council Sampak Garg, for their consultative approach to this resolution. I believe that this measure puts forth a workable and effective means of improving committee oversight and I believe that the quality of the end product is a direct result of the bipartisan collaboration that took place throughout the process.

It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that future efforts of the Rules Committee can be similarly driven by consultation and collaboration.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to our hardworking new ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, my friend from San Diego (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to respond to some of the remarks made by my friend from Wisconsin. I have to say that this notion of our working together to put in place what I believe should be a bipartisan, bicameral effort to deal with this overall question of budget process reform is something that I've been privileged to champion for a long period of time. And I think that it is now way, way, way, overdue.

I personally am a strong proponent of our moving towards a biennial budget process. I think that if you look at the potential benefits to having the Federal Government contract on a 2-year basis for something like energy, think of what the savings for the U.S. taxpayer would be.

And if you look at a wide range of other areas, as many States have done, the notion of having a 2-year cycle would enhance our ability to do exactly what this resolution is encouraging, and that is, greater oversight. So I think that that is something that is important, and I hope that we will be able to put that into place.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to our hardworking second-term Member, the gentleman from Urbana, Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the bipartisan nature of this resolution that we're considering here on the floor, I would like to inquire of my friend if he would want me to yield him any additional time that he might need on his side.

Just in case you need any additional time, please don't hesitate. I would be happy to yield it to you.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to simply say that I hope very much that this spirit of bipartisanship that has been exhibited here today in our quest to ensure that we responsibly ferret out waste, fraud and abuse and empower those inspector generals across the spectrum, including right here in this institution, will be an example and a model for the days, weeks, months, and years ahead.

We have all been inspired by the words of President-elect Obama in

which he has said that he wants to work in a bipartisan way. As I've said here on several occasions in the past week, I was pleased to receive a call from him, as I know many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have received telephone calls from him, saying that he wants to work with us and that he wants our input.

I will say, up until this moment, Mr. Speaker, I have been somewhat troubled over the issues that we have addressed that have completely shut out any opportunity for the minority to participate. The evidence of that took place on the last vote that we just went through on the very important State children's health insurance plan.

At this moment, we have the Rules Committee hearing the amendment process for the troubled asset rescue package. TARP 2, it's called. Unfortunately, there has been no opportunity for minority input on this issue. If you look at the votes that we held last week, we had two closed rules that came right out of the chute, and they prevented the minority from having any opportunity to participate. Then if we go to a week ago yesterday, unfortunately, the opening day rules package, from my perspective, did shred this Obama vision that has been put forward of trying to work in a bipartisan way.

At this moment, we are dealing with an issue, that being our quest to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse and to talk about how we can responsibly deal with ensuring that we do not waste taxpayer dollars.

I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have joined in that effort. This measure is being considered under suspension of the rules. We know that everyone is going to be voting in favor of it.

While the Framers of our Constitution wanted there to be a clash of ideas, at the end of the day, it is imperative that we come to a resolution in a bipartisan way, I believe, if we're going to responsibly govern. Let's hope that this resolution designed to deal with responsibly ensuring that we do not waste taxpayer dollars is, in fact, a model for the future.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 40) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require each standing committee to hold periodic hearings on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government programs which that committee may authorize, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 40.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, these are tough times for our country. The United States is facing an economic disaster unlike anything we have seen since the Great Depression.

In the coming weeks, there will surely be differences of opinion as to how to best address the ailments of our Nation. But one thing is certain: Now, more than ever, it is time to ensure that government spends the taxpayers' money wisely.

For the first 6 years of the Bush administration, there was virtually no oversight by the Republican-led Congress. This led to rampant fraud and abuse, and billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars that were squandered by the administration, particularly regarding Iraq reconstruction and the response to Katrina.

Beginning in January of 2007, the Democratic Congress turned a new page and took numerous steps to begin changing the way we do business by restoring accountability and oversight. House Resolution 40, introduced by my very good friend and fellow Blue Dog colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and myself, simply adds another layer to the rigorous oversight measures that we have already established.

This resolution amends the House rules to require each standing committee to hold at least three hearings per year on waste, fraud and abuse under each respective committee's jurisdiction. It requires a hearing in the event that an agency's auditor issues a disclaimer that the agency's financial statements are not in order. It also requires a hearing if an agency under that respective committee's jurisdiction has a program deemed by the GAO to be at high risk for waste, fraud and abuse.

Mr. Speaker, at the request of my friends on the other side of the aisle, there are two other stipulations. First, that the resolution shall be considered in light of existing House rules governing the conduct of committee hearings, including hearings held in executive session and the treatment of executive session materials; and, second, to require that committee activities reports identify the hearings held under the resolution.

Friends, plain and simple, it is now time to audit America's books. This resolution will add another level of accountability by shining light on the most egregious cases of government waste.

I would add, Mr. Speaker, that I am very encouraged by President- elect Obama's statements regarding his intent to pore through the budget line-by-line to eliminate wasteful spending. However, while I take the President-elect at his word, this resolution demonstrates that this Democratic Congress will not turn a blind eye to government waste simply because there is now a Democratic administration. Free passes are over, and we must build upon increased oversight and accountability efforts.

We have an opportunity to reinvent government and adhere to the fiscal accountability measures that Blue Dogs have long advocated. This will require tough decisions. But given these challenging economic times, cutting out waste, fraud and abuse must be among our top priorities in this Congress. All this requires is some bureaucratic soul-searching.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join the Blue Dogs in this quest.

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

I thank my colleague and friend for yielding and for his thoughtful suggestions.

In fact, yes, the Committee on House Administration is covered under this resolution, and the other measures, as you have indicated, have already been incorporated as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the author of the measure.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Tanner to insert an item into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my very good friend, Mr. Kind.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the thoughtful words of both our previous two speakers. I think their suggestions are very well-taken.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New

York, the chairman of the Government Oversight Committee, Mr. Towns.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, a leader in the effort to bring fiscal responsibility back to this institution, Ms. Bean.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Childers).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I very much appreciate the gentleman's request. I think we have enough time for the concluding speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Speaker, I am also prepared to close, so I will allow the gentleman to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to conclude my remarks by simply saying this:

As we know all too well, despite the Blue Dog Coalition's best efforts and the efforts of many other efforts on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, cutting spending is never easy, but ladies and gentlemen, enough is enough. It is high time that we audit America's books. It is a moral imperative that we stop spending taxpayer dollars with reckless abandon and start making tough decisions, because the choices we make today will impact what we will be able to do to provide for our children and for our grandchildren tomorrow.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and Mr. Dreier, I appreciate your comments. What we are attempting to do is to reestablish congressional oversight.

Congress authorizes and appropriates money, but we don't actually spend it. So when we are asking the administration, whoever it may be, Democrat, Republican, whoever, to come up here and explain some of the things that we have seen in the paper by this instrument we are talking about here, I think all of us benefit.

What basically H.R. 40 does is it puts in place a systematic mechanism for regular oversight, not only just waste, fraud and abuse, but, as Mr. Cardoza said in his opening remarks, whenever there is an auditor's disclaimer, that will trigger a hearing to hopefully ask them why they had to file a disclaimer; what is the information they didn't receive, why didn't they receive it, who is withholding it, so we can actually fix something around here for a change.

And then, of course, the third thing, those two look backwards sort of at what already may have happened. The third provision looks ahead.

Every year, as you know, the GAO identifies, or every Congress, high risk programs. That basically is government talk for programs that don't work as they were intended when they were passed by Congress. And so, when that happens, there is a hearing to identify those high risk programs into the future so that we can either fix them or abolish them.

Without getting into it, there were some 13,000 IG recommendations, Inspector General recommendations that went unattended in recent years. That is not only our fault, but it is, in my view, a dereliction of the duty of the Congress as a separate and independent branch from this or any other administration. And so what we are attempting to do, again, is to put in place a systematic, structural oversight mechanism where the House will look at not only what we are going to do, but what we've already done.

And so, again, I appreciate your comments.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Project On Government Oversight,

Washington, DC, January 13, 2009.

Representative John Tanner,

1226 Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Tanner: Thank you for the opportunity

to present the views of the Project On Government Oversight

(POGO) regarding H.Res. 40, which requires each standing

committee of the House of Representatives to hold periodic

hearings on the topics of waste, fraud, abuse, and

mismanagement. We believe that having such a systematic

approach to oversight enshrined in the Rules of the House

would greatly enhance Congressional oversight of executive

agencies' programs and functions.

As you may know, POGO is a non-partisan nonprofit that for

more than 27 years has investigated and exposed corruption

and other misconduct in an effort to make federal agencies

more effective, accountable, open, and honest.

For the past 18 months we have been engaged in an in-depth

study of the Inspector General system, examining both the law

and how the system works. We issued one report last February

on issues affecting IGs' independence (www.pogo.org/pogo- files/reports/government-oversight/inspectors-general-many- lack-essential-tools-for-independence/go-ig-20080226.html),

and are pleased to note that several of our suggestions were

incorporated into last year's Inspector General Reform Act

(H.R. 928, P.L. 110-409). We are planning to issue a second

report in the coming months regarding IGs' performance and

accountability.

One of our conclusions is that Congress needs to pay much

more attention to the work of both IGs and the GAO. Too often

reports on important issues are left languishing, unread, on

the desks and shelves of Congressional staffers. It has been

30 years since Congress created the IG system, and we believe

it was a brilliant and unique concept--to place internal

watchdogs in most federal agencies where they would both

prevent and root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and encourage

federal programs to be more effective and efficient.

However, this wonderful system can only work if Congress

pays attention to the resulting reports. Inspectors General

have no enforcement powers. They cannot force an agency to do

anything. If an agency will not fix a broken program, then it

is up to Congress to force them to do so.

Frankly, there are two problems with Congress's ignoring IG

reports--one is the more common, when the IG has done good

work and makes important recommendations that need to be but

are not implemented. The other problem is the flip side to

this--some IGs produce only mediocre work and do not

challenge their agencies aggressively enough. Congress needs

to pay attention in both cases.

For all of these reasons, we support the passage of H. Res.

40 to require each House committee to conduct at least one

hearing during each 120-day period regarding waste, fraud,

abuse, and mismanagement of the agencies under its

jurisdiction; at least one additional hearing if there are

disclaimers in any agency's financial report; and at least

one additional hearing if a program is listed as ``high

risk.''

Again, we appreciate your asking us for our views and look

forward to working with you to make Congressional oversight

more aggressive and effective.

Sincerely,

Danielle Brian,

Executive Director.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce H.R. 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. This 111th Congress marks the 20th anniversary of this bill's introduction. Since 1989, I have believed it to be in the best interest of our Nation to formally address one of our greatest historical injustices.

As evidenced by recent events, the sin of slavery is one that continues to weigh heavily upon us. Following the lead of other churches, the Episcopal Church formally apologized for its role in slavery on October 4, 2008. Florida became the sixth state to apologize for slavery on March 26, 2008, following Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Alabama and New Jersey. During the internationally renowned Sundance Film Festival, Traces of the Trade, a documentary in which descendants of the largest U.S. slave trading family confront this painful history, screened in January of 2008.

Just last Congress, the House passed a slavery apology bill on July 29, 2008, in which the House issued a formal apology for slavery. In recognition of the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade on January 1, 1808, the House and Senate passed legislation creating a commemoration commission, which was signed into law on February 5, 2008, and is currently awaiting funding. Such Federal efforts are significant steps towards proper acknowledgment and understanding of slavery and its implications, but our responsibilities on this matter are even greater.

Establishing a commission to study the institution of slavery in the United States, as well as its consequences that reach into modern day society, is our responsibility. This concept of a commission to address historical wrongs is not unprecedented. In fact, in recent Congresses, commission bills have been put forward.

In 1983, a Presidential Commission determined that the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was racist and inhumane, and as a result, the 1988 Civil Liberties Act provided redress for those injured by the internment. However, the interment of Japanese Latin Americans in the United States during World War II was not examined by the Commission, resulting in legislation calling for a commission to examine this oversight. Legislation establishing a commission to review the injustices suffered by European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II has also been proposed.

H.R. 40 is no different than these other commission bills. H.R. 40 establishes a commission to examine the institution of slavery and its legacy, like racial disparities in education, housing, and healthcare. Following this examination, the commission would make recommend appropriate remedies to Congress, and as I have indicated before, remedies does not equate to monetary compensation.

In the 110th Congress, I convened the first Congressional hearing on H.R. 40. With witnesses that included Professor Charles Ogletree, Episcopal Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, and Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, we began a formal dialogue on the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade. This Congress, I look forward to continuing this conversation so that our Nation can better understand this part of our history.

Attempts to eradicate today's racial discrimination and disparities will be successful when we understand the past's racial injustices and inequities. A commission can take us into this dark past and bring us into a brighter future. As in years past, I welcome open and constructive discourse on H.R. 40 and this commission in the 111th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Res. 40, ``Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require each standing committee to hold periodic hearings on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement in Government programs.'' This resolution was introduced in the 111th Congress by Congressman John Tanner of Tennessee. This resolution provides for greater oversight concerning taxpayers' money. It allows for the Congressional standing committees to evaluate Government program spending. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Support of this resolution would signal a definite and progressive change in the new Congress and would be an important building block for President-elect Barack Obama's administration.

This legislation is important because under the Bush administration there has been much waste, fraud, abuse and certainly mismanagement, such as Iraqi contract abuses with Halliburton, the mismanagement of Katrina, and the overuse of ``cost-plus'' contracting.

It is of the utmost importance to keep our Government running as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. This resolution would require each standing committee, or subcommittee thereof, to hold at least one hearing during each 120-day period following the establishment of the committee on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government programs. Inclusion of a systematic approach to oversight in the rules of the House, through this resolution, is a key step forward in ensuring that tax dollars are spent wisely.

The 111th Congress will continue to focus on restoring accountability and strengthening oversight and has the duty to stop Government waste and to become resourceful. During this present time of economic and environmental distress, it is imperative that we evaluate our current practices and improve upon them.

As the former governor of Wisconsin Mr. Gaylord Nelson once said, ``The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.'' Let us take the first step in eliminating waste and do our part for future generations.

Our constituents have faith in us as members of Congress to use their tax dollars prudently and for programs which are practical and relevant. We have a duty to oversee those programs which our committees authorize and make sure that all funds and resources distributed are used in a wise and frugal manner.

Unfortunately, over the last several years, we have seen massive cases of waste, fraud and abuse. A report prepared by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reportedly labels the Iraq reconstruction effort ``a $100 billion failure''--marked by poor planning, waste, and deception.

Congress can no longer turn a blind eye while taxpayer money is abused and wasted. We must support H. Res. 40 and continue to implement measures which increase oversight if we are to be accountable to the people. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this much needed and thoughtful legislation. By our support, let us signal to the American people that we are a new Congress that has a renewed spirit and interest in increasing accountability. Indeed, we are accountable to our constituents and to the American people.