GSA Act of 2012

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that federal agencies need to be wise and judicious in their use of travel funds, and that past abuses, while very much the exception, were a wake-up call for us to exercise stricter oversight of taxpayer dollars. The Administration itself, through the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, has also sought to curb these abuses by instituting new travel caps and new reporting requirements on all agency travel and I applaud them for taking this seriously.

On the face of it, OMB's directives seem reasonable to most of us, although there is room for debate even here. The scientific community, which includes tens of thousands of federal scientists at agencies such as the Department of Energy and NASA, depend on face-to-face interaction through conferences and workshops to foster innovation and launch new scientific directions. The community, therefore, is rightfully concerned about the unintended consequences of these restrictions stifling innovation and stunting economic growth by preventing federal scientists from participating fully in scientific exchanges with their fellow scientists and engineers from across the country and the world. So I hope OMB follows closely the impact of their own rules as they are implemented.

Today, however, I speak to the shockingly onerous requirements in H.R. 4631. While OMB's new directives have a $100,000 trigger for reporting on any given conference, in this bill, there is no trigger for the excessive laundry list of reporting requirements. And to be sure we understand each other, a conference is defined in this bill as ``a meeting, retreat, seminar, symposium, or event to which an employee travels 25 miles or more to attend, that is held for consultation, education, discussion, or training; and is not held entirely at a Government facility.'' Imagine, then, the very real and very common situation in which a USGS scientist in Reston travels by personal vehicle to a meeting about earthquakes with other agency and non- federal scientists at a non-governmental site such as the American Geophysical Union headquarters in DC. That USGS scientist is entitled to reimbursement for fuel mileage for that trip. Are we really going to pay that scientist and other agency staff to do a complete cost-benefit analysis and meet all of the other reporting requirements in this bill over a $30 expense? It seems to me that the additional bureaucratic resources necessary to meet this requirement will require far more than a $30 reimbursement for gas.

Colleagues, I cannot imagine a more inefficient, bureaucratic, wasteful system than the one set up in this bill. If the goal is to make it so hard for any agency scientist to travel anywhere, anytime, for any purpose, then mission accomplished. But let us not underestimate the consequences this will have on the free and open exchange of scientific and technical knowledge and understanding between federal and non-federal scientists and for the innovation and economic benefits that follow. Nor let us underestimate the consequences this has for the ability of science agencies such as the National Science Foundation to conduct proper oversight of the several billion dollars in grants it awards to university scientists and engineers, because this bill also applies to program managers.

I urge my colleagues on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to address these concerns as the bill moves forward.

I thank my friend from Missouri.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4631. I oppose this bill because it would make significant changes to Federal employees' ability to travel to conferences and meetings.

Although I appreciate the sponsors' efforts to ensure oversight on travel expenditures, I'm not sure they realize the impact that this legislation would have on science and technology, which is the engine of American innovation.

This bill institutes prohibitions and impediments that would hinder American scientists' ability to collaborate and communicate with scientists at other institutions and laboratories. Now, to be sure, they can probably get around these prohibitions and impediments, but we should not be putting these in place in the first matter.

As a scientist, I know firsthand how important scientific conferences and

meetings are. The informal conversations, as well as the formal presentations and poster sessions and everything else that goes into it between scientists from different institutions, lead to new collaborations that have the promise of new discoveries. These are not fancy junkets.

Now, people often ask students, well, what is science. What's so special about science? Why does it work? Well, it works because one of its fundamental tenets is communication.

To be sure, there are various ways to have communication, but scientific conferences are critically important. In a recent op-ed by the presidents of the American Chemical Society and the president of the American Physical Society, they discuss, for example, an anticancer drug that was the result of collaboration between a team of scientists from three laboratories that took place at conferences.

This bill would hinder that kind of collaboration. Just about any scientific society in this country can give you examples where large numbers of federally sponsored researchers go off to conferences. It happens in plasma physics. It happens in microbiology. It happens in AIDS policy and AIDS research.

In a time when the Federal Government should be making science a priority, passing a bill that would make scientists jump through hurdles and get around impediments would, in fact, weaken American scientists, weaken American science, and impede the ability of American scientists to innovate.

That is not wise. This is not the way to build our economy. We should be investing more in research and development, which means, of course, investing in scientists, but also investing in their ability to pursue science.

We should be spending more on international conferences. We should be spending more on national conferences. We should be spending more on national laboratories. We should be spending more on public and private research and development for the sake of jobs, for the sake of our economic vitality, for the sake of the quality of life of Americans. This is not the way to build our economy and to foster innovation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Will the gentleman yield?

Do you think that the Congress of the United States might do better if we don't meet in person, if we stay home and get on conference calls every once in a while and phone in?

I don't think so. I think the gains that are made in good legislation that come from conferences, as we gather here for votes, on the side between votes, is invaluable. The same can be said many times over for microbiology, for plasma physics, for--let's go through a long list.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4631) to amend title 5, United States Code, to institute spending limits and transparency requirements for Federal conference and travel expenditures, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam 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.

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

The Government Spending Accountability Act, or GSA Act, will end the days of unnecessary boondoggles and lavish trips for Federal bureaucrats.

I think we're all aware of GSA's recent escapades in Las Vegas where the agency paid more than $44 a head for breakfast, $7,000 in sushi at a networking reception, and $75,000 to build bicycles.

I think we can all agree that all of this spending is outrageous and unacceptable. We can't continue to ask hardworking taxpayers to tighten their belts and make tough decisions when for years the GSA and other Federal agencies have thrown away those taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences like this.

The days of wasting taxpayer dollars on fancy junkets for government bureaucrats should soon be over. I introduced the GSA Act because, as stewards of taxpayer dollars, it is our responsibility to ensure that they are not wasted on lavish conferences and posh junkets.

The GSA Act requires that every quarter Federal agencies publish an open report that details every conference for which the agency paid travel and expenses. The bill also limits the amount that an agency can spend on any one conference to $500,000 and on travel annually to 70 percent of the amount the agency spent on travel in 2010.

I would like to thank Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and my friends across the aisle for joining me in this effort. The bipartisanship displayed here shows what Congress can accomplish when both parties come together to tackle reckless spending.

We need to come together to fix Washington and start cultivating some respect for hard-earned taxpayer dollars. The GSA Act will help change the culture of waste in Washington and put us on a path to a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.

Please join me in standing up for taxpayers. I support this measure and urge its adoption.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the concerns of my colleague, and I would only note that new technology, I think, has made it easier to teleconference and communicate remotely. This not only would save money, which is important, but it has already and will continue to increase the amount of collaboration.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, again, I would say Congress, in today's day and age, where we hit $16 trillion in debt last week, Congress, like all institutions in this country, needs to figure out how to work more efficiently and save hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4631, the Government Spending Accountability Act, as amended.

This legislation will improve congressional oversight of Federal Government spending on meetings and conferences. It is modeled on similar reporting requirements contained in the DATA Act, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this year with bipartisan support.

This legislation will help rein in the type of wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars that we have witnessed over the past several months. In April, the committee held a hearing to examine the GSA's expenditure of $800,000 on a single conference in Las Vegas in 2010.

The gross abuse of Federal funds must not be repeated, and one way to avoid that is to monitor more closely how Federal agencies use their funds on such activities.

We are all aware that conferences are an important part of staff development and can help improve the quality of Federal Government work; however, we must make sure that they do not turn into resort vacations funded by taxpayers, many of whom are continuing to struggle to make ends meet.

Madam Speaker, the GSA incident tarnished the reputation of government workers who dedicate their lives to public service, which I believe is unfair. This legislation, as amended, would prevent a few reckless and selfish individuals from engaging in activities that discredit the entire Federal workforce.

Madam Speaker, I urge support for this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4631, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3641) to establish Pinnacles National Park in the State of California as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 materials on the bill under consideration.

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

H.R. 4631 renames Pinnacles National Monument as Pinnacles National Park. Pinnacles was originally designated in 1908 by President Roosevelt under the authority of the Antiquities Act. However, under this legislation, it is not anticipated that management would change dramatically as the area is already considered a unit of the National Park Service.

The Natural Resources Committee made important changes to H.R. 3641, allowing us to bring this to the floor today. For example, the committee removed a nearly 3,000-acre wilderness expansion and struck unnecessary land acquisition authority. With these changes, the goal of elevating recognition of the area as a national park is achieved without limiting access.

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

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

I would like to inquire if the gentleman from the Northern Marianas has any other speakers?

Likewise, I yield back the balance of my time.