Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act

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

I rise today to shine a light on what has happened in the development of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. I rise today to talk about the fact that the chairman of our committee, of the Financial Services Committee, did not want, at one point, to reauthorize terrorism risk insurance at all, so he strung out the possibility of negotiations for months.

He had decided that he was not going to reauthorize terrorism insurance, and he will tell you that he offered to negotiate with me. The only thing that I ever remember about a conversation that we had was that my chairman said: I will only negotiate this once--starting out in bad faith.

Time went on, and at some point in time, somebody convinced him that to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program was an honorable thing to do, that it was an American thing to do, that it was an important thing to do. This program had been passed and signed on by the President of the United States after 9/11.

The insurance companies, which insure risk, basically said they cannot model terrorism acts. After 9/11, it was decided that we would mandate that they insure but that we would provide a backstop, that we would provide a backstop to ensure that we could rebuild our communities, that we could rebuild these huge venues--these important places in our lives--in the case of a terrorism attack.

When Mr. Hensarling finally decided that he would negotiate, he ended up in negotiations with Mr. Schumer. Mr. Schumer and the Democrats basically conceded and gave in on a lot of things. We supported, originally, the Senate bill. We thought the Senate bill was a fine bill that reauthorized terrorism risk for 7 years; and, of course, it had in it the backstop after $100 million was spent by the industry, and it basically did everything that we wanted it to have done just as it had started out to do.

Mr. Hensarling came along, and he decided that he wanted to reduce the time of the reauthorization. I don't know what he started out with, but we ended up with 6 years instead of 7 years. We gave in.

I remember that he wanted bifurcation in the bill. He wanted to distinguish between what kind of terrorist attack, how much it was worth, and whether some of it was worse than others. He talked about bifurcating in ways that you would distinguish between radiological, biological, chemical, and others. We negotiated and negotiated, and, finally, we got that out of Mr. Hensarling's mind about bifurcation.

Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) said that we needed to reduce our backstop. And instead of backstopping after $100 million, first he talked about $500 million, secondly he talked about $250 million, and finally we got him down to $200 million. And it is over a 5-year period of time. So we said, okay. We negotiated in good faith. We will go along with the changes. We are willing to concede that you have some different thoughts, and that is okay. Let's come together in a bipartisan way and support the reauthorization of terrorism risk insurance.

I was informed later on that my chairman came back to the table with any number of things that had nothing to do with terrorism risk insurance but had more to do with Dodd-Frank because, unfortunately, my chairman and too many Members on the opposite side of the aisle are intent on dismantling Dodd-Frank in any and every way that they possibly can.

And finally, in those negotiations--the way it has been explained to me--they agreed that they would allow him to add just one aspect of the Dodd-Frank bill that had passed this House, to talk about how agriculture and some other industries could lock in some prices so that they could look forward to what a price would be on those commodities, et cetera, that they would have to purchase.

This had nothing to do with terrorism insurance. So I am not saying to the Members that you shouldn't vote for this bill. What I am pointing out is that this is just another attempt

for the chairman to indicate in every way that he possibly can and take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself to get a little something in about Dodd-Frank.

What I worry about is not so much what he has put into TRIA; I worry about what is going into the omnibus bill. I worry about the fact that, in addition to this, there is an attempt--if it has not already been done--to place into the omnibus bill a repeal of part of Dodd-Frank that would prevent the biggest banks in America from taking advantage of our consumers by using their hard-earned money to do risky derivatives trading, which should be pushed out into their subsidiaries and not have the FDIC in any way protect them in doing this.

So what I say is this. We should know and we should understand exactly how the process works. We should know and understand what is being done and why it is being done. If, in fact, there is so much care and concern about TRIA reauthorization, we should have a clean bill with nothing else in it. If we want to debate Dodd-Frank--what we don't like about it, what we like about it--let's do it straight up. Let's not slip it in at the eleventh hour at a time when our backs are up against the wall, at a time when we are closing down this session. And that is what I am opposed to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to correct the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) who is inviting us to come on over.

We have been inviting them, from day one, to come up with a terrorism risk insurance bill reauthorization. So we have been inviting them to come on over. We have had Members on the opposite side of the aisle who have been pleading with them to come over. We have always had 100 percent support on the Democratic side for the reauthorization of terrorism risk insurance, and the Republicans have basically held us up and only negotiated at the last minute. Don't invite us to come over. They can come on over with us.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

(Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman and Members, a special appreciation to Mr. King who has worked very, very hard on both sides of the aisle to try and make sure that we did not abandon our citizens in this country and leave them at risk in case of a terrorist attack.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, my chairman held us up for a long time and would not negotiate. He finally came around, but this is typical. He mentioned the flood insurance bill. We never could get him to negotiate on that, and so we had to bypass him to make sure that we didn't put our homeowners at risk. As he mentioned the Ex-Im bill, he has only supported extension of that for a short period of time.

When it comes to helping our citizens and the least of them, it seems as if my chairmen have problems with providing for the average citizen on Main Street, but no problems when we talk about how we can enhance the ability of the biggest banks in America and others to get richer and richer. I thought it would be worthwhile to shed some light on those comments that he made about Ex-Im and about flood and now about

Mr. Chairman, as I said to you when I first got up, I said to you I wanted to shine light on the bill.

And I have done that.

Before I finish my remarks on this bill, I will tell you what my position is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am pleased that I had an opportunity to be on the floor today managing this legislation on behalf of my caucus. I am pleased that I was able to shine some light and create some transparency on what has transpired over a long period of time. I am sorry that it had to take this long. I am sorry that my chairman at first refused to support reauthorization. He finally came around and that is good. The negotiations took place and there was a compromise. That compromise is not everything certainly that we would have wanted, but at least it is a compromise that will allow terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization. That is extremely important for all of the reasons that you have heard on the floor here today.

I want to say to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle--some of whom I talked with when it was unclear what the chairman was going to do--I am so pleased that we have been able to relieve your anxiety about what was going to happen. I know that many of you early on were in support of the reauthorization of the terrorism risk insurance program just as it had been framed in the Senate.

So now we are at the point where we have flushed out the fact that this terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization is needed, that businesses and our citizens deserve it, and they should have it. We have also flushed out that adding to this legislation a Dodd-Frank concern was not necessary. It is this kind of interference with the process that oftentimes causes confusion. We would hope that this kind of legislating would not continue.

Let's take up these issues in a way that they are clear, that they can be debated, that we can hear from both sides of the aisle, we can hear the pros and cons, without having to drag it out until the last moment when we feel that you have the opposition up against a wall and they have no choice but to accept whatever you have done because you have a legitimate issue that is before us, even when that issue is attached to something that has nothing to do with that main issue.

Having said that, I am going to move on because we still have work to do as we move toward trying to make sure that we do not shut down this government, that we have the omnibus bill to fund the government and to keep it operating. I am going to move on to deal with the fact that just as this was inserted, the end user provision was inserted in this bill.

In the omnibus bill, we have an even more difficult situation to try and resolve. As a matter of fact, we know that our citizens are at great risk because there is an attempt to repeal an important part of the Dodd-Frank legislation. There is an attempt to make sure that somehow the biggest banks in America have an opportunity to use the taxpayers' dollars to do risky trading and put the taxpayers at risk one more time of having to bail out these institutions that have used the taxpayers' money that was protected by FDIC, have used their money to do this risky trading.

We simply ask in Dodd-Frank for some of these trades, for some of these derivatives trading ideas, not to be placed in such a fashion that they would cause us to have to say to our consumers and our taxpayers, once again, we are going to have to bail out some big bank because they have failed. We need to protect our consumers, we need to protect our taxpayers. All they have to do is push out, push out these derivatives into their subsidies where they don't have the taxpayers' protection.

So I am going to be working on that. I am going to stand here today and say to my chairman, I am going to ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, and I am going to vote for it. Will you work with me to pay attention to the omnibus bill and help me to negotiate tonight to get out of that bill the risky trading that is now being put back in the bill, the same bill that came through our committee, that was written by Citicorp, that would allow this to happen? Will you work with me to try and prevent this from happening and prevent another bailout of the biggest banks in America with taxpayers' dollars? I am going to support TRIA. Will the gentleman support me getting rid of that in the omnibus bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas for the answer.

The gentleman knows that he was involved in the negotiation for placing that in the omnibus bill. I have raised a question with you, even though you are saying you had nothing to do with----

Reclaiming my time, I simply asked the gentleman if he would join me in helping, whether he was part of the negotiations or not, as the chair of the Financial Services Committee, where this is one of the biggest issues that we have been confronted with. I know that you care enough about the consumers that you would not want them to have to bail out another AIG, another big bank. I know that you don't want that. I am simply saying that I am going to support the reauthorization of terrorism risk insurance. Will the gentleman support helping to get rid of that risky derivative trading opportunity that has been placed into the omnibus bill by your side of the aisle?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 775, I call up the bill (S. 2244) to extend the termination date of the Terrorism Insurance Program established under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 in the Record on S. 2244, currently under consideration.

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

We have an incredible opportunity before us in the House today, and that is to move significant bipartisan legislation that can accomplish a number of purposes and that will bring greater stability and certainty to the construction markets, to our insurance companies in dealing with the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. We can also bring greater certainty and stability to our small factories, to our farmers, and to our ranchers--those who are still suffering in this economy. We can bring them certainty and stability by taking care of an unintended consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act, something called the ``end user exception'' in the derivative title, which may just be, as interpreted, one of the most damaging regulations that many in this body, perhaps, have not heard of.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that has been worked on in a bipartisan manner, sometimes a little contentiously, but we have ended up in a place where, I believe, both Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate should be able to come together.

I think it is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that, particularly as we go into the holiday season--as we go into Christmas--how many working men and women are still lying awake at night, wondering how they are going to be able to fund Christmas for their children at this time. Although we have seen some modest improvements in this economy, there are still over 9 million of our fellow countrymen who are unemployed. Of the number of underemployed--those who wish to have full-time work but who cannot find it--it is almost twice the number, at 18 million. We have 46 million of our fellow countrymen still on food stamps and 45 million at the poverty rate.

One of the most important things we can do here, Mr. Speaker, is to be able to make a positive contribution for financial stability on our household

economies, to give greater economic opportunity, particularly at this time, and that is one of the aspects of S. 2244.

We have had a debate about the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in this body. I was authorized on behalf of the House to negotiate this particular part of this bill, along with Senator Schumer, the gentleman from New York, on the Senate side. Over the course of several weeks and several meetings, we have negotiated language on this. Certainly, it doesn't give everything the House wants, and it doesn't give everything the Senate wants. Such is the nature of negotiations in a free society with divided government. For those who care passionately about the reauthorization, this is a long-term reauthorization bill, which most Members have asked for. It is a 6-year reauthorization.

For those who care about taxpayer protections, as I do, there were improvements for taxpayer protection. The trigger level has been doubled before TRIA kicks in, meaning there is greater coverage by the insurance companies, a little less for the taxpayers. As for an artificial ceiling on what the industry will contribute, that artificial ceiling now ceases to be in S. 2244. For the first time, taxpayers will actually get some modest rate of return should they be called upon under TRIA to backstop. These are important improvements, and I think conservative and liberal and Republican and Democrat, hopefully, will see something worthy here.

I will point out it is disconcerting--it is disturbing--that those who have backed so many other provisions in this bill now want to say ``no'' to being able to have a long-term TRIA reauthorization passed. This bill before us includes this end user exemption, which is so important. This isn't for Wall Street. This is for Main Street. It is for a cattle producer in Kansas, named Tracy Brunner, who said:

This mistaken language in Dodd-Frank may very well force me

out of the market, subjecting me to even greater risk. My

operation is family run. We are not responsible for the

failures that led to the passage of Dodd-Frank.

Yet his family-owned farm in Kansas--1,500 miles away from Wall Street--suffers.

Even the ranking member has acknowledged that there have been some unintended consequences to Dodd-Frank. Recently, she was one of 412 Members of this House to vote in favor of the end user exception, which she, herself, called a ``clarification''--not an amendment, not a change, but a clarification.

Mr. Speaker, even Mr. Dodd and Mr. Frank of Dodd-Frank, over 4 years ago in colloquy on the House floor and on the Senate floor, said that these provisions were never meant to harm Main Street America; never meant to apply to end users; never meant to apply to the farmers, the ranchers, and the small factory workers.

We have an opportunity to do something very positive. Now, all of a sudden, some across the aisle have said: We can't do this. We believe this is unrelated to TRIA.

Why did the United States Senate, Mr. Speaker, put in a provision that makes a radical change in the requirements to serve on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve? What did that have to do with TRIA? The Senate put that in. NARAB, the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers--the Senate put that in. Two-thirds of this bill is about NARAB. The Senate put it in.

Mr. Speaker, I am not debating the underlying policy issues, but it is, at best, a little bit disconcerting, if not disingenuous, to say, my Lord, the House shouldn't put in an unrelated provision when the Senate just did it twice.

Then we heard the Senate will not open up Dodd-Frank. What is the Collins amendment? The Collins amendment was sent over by the Senate, not as part of this legislation. They opened up Dodd-Frank. Then again, to quote the ranking member, this is a ``clarification.''

We have an opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill not only to bring some stability and certainty to our insurance markets and to our builders, but to farmers and ranchers and small businesses and hurting families at this holiday season. Without any further delay, we should enact S. 2244, as amended.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to thank the ranking member for her fascinating, elongated narrative that proves just how reasonable House Republicans were in this negotiation.

I have to correct her yet again, though, and say that I have never said publicly or privately that we should allow the Federal backstop of terrorism to lapse. She is entitled to her own opinions. She is not entitled to her own facts.

I yield myself an additional 10 seconds.

And previously she has said that she has been in favor of this provision. She has been in favor of the end user exemption and has said the bill would clarify the intent of the Wall Street Reform Act. I urge the committee to adopt the bill.

So she was for it before she was against it. But whether it be Biggert-Waters, whether it be Export-Import, whether it be end user, she has changed her mind frequently.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chief deputy majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, the ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, for her support.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the chairman of the Financial Services Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, the champion and author of the House TRIA bill, and the author of the amendment here. I thank him for his work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say I heard so many kind words from my friend from Georgia that maybe I need to go back and reexamine the bill; but, indeed, compromise is not a vice, as long as you are advancing your principles, and both sides can advance their principles in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), a valued member of the Financial Services Committee, a tireless advocate--and occasionally tiring advocate--for TRIA reauthorization.

I yield myself 10 seconds for, Mr. Speaker, those who may be listening could be confused, as are those in the Chamber. I am very curious whether the ranking member is opposed or supporting this bill as amended. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Does the gentlewoman oppose or support?

It is obvious the gentlelady refuses to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a distinguished member of the House Financial Services Committee as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared a yield a small amount of time to any Democrat Member on the floor who intends to vote ``no'' on S. 2244, as amended, because I have not heard one say that yet.

Mr. Speaker, I have no takers.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is the incoming chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the incoming chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), who for months has played a leading role in bringing both the TRIA title and the end user exemption title to S. 2244.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I would point out to the gentlewoman, as I think she knows, it was the Democrat Senate who I believe is putting this in the bill, so perhaps she could negotiate that with Senator Schumer.

Will the gentlewoman yield on that one point?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I am glad that the ranking member has had yet another change of heart from her opposition to S. 2244, as amended, that she articulated last evening. It is fascinating to me that as she characterizes other Members of Congress as unpredictable, I guess it is somewhat predictable now that she will change her opinion. I am glad she did.

Rarely have I seen in my congressional career a Member of the House come to the floor quite so vociferous and quite so grumpy about a bill that they have previously supported and now ultimately choose to support. Regrettably, frequently when the ranking member comes to the floor, we enter into a fact-free zone.

I have not been involved in any of the negotiations on the omnibus. If I were involved, we would have far more Dodd-Frank relief in there, since it is a bill that was aimed at Wall Street, hits Main Street, and working men and women across our country are collateral damage. Our economy has slowed down, families can't find work, they have no financial security because of what Dodd-Frank is doing--the sheer weight, volume, complexity load of the regulatory burden. As unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats try to run this economy, they have run it into the ground.

Be that as it may, I look forward to working with the ranking member so that we can get more Dodd-Frank relief to Americans and get this country back to work.

Finally, I once again wish to thank and offer my gratitude to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Neugebauer, whose leadership in bringing this bill to the floor was indispensable. He has been a rock throughout these proceedings. Every Member who supports the end user exemption, who supports the TRIA compromise, owes an incredible debt of gratitude to Chairman Neugebauer of Lubbock, Texas. I am proud to serve with him on the House Financial Services Committee.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for all Members of Congress on S. 2244, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4228) to require the Department of Homeland Security to improve discipline, accountability, and transparency in acquisition program management, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation to improve the Department of Homeland Security's, DHS, acquisition management. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, DHS was created to ensure such an attack would never occur again; yet for much of its existence, proper management has taken a back seat.

DHS is now the third largest Federal department with a budget authority of almost $60 billion. A significant amount of the budget is used to buy systems and programs used to secure our borders, protect our shores, and scan people and cargo coming into the United States, among other missions. Unfortunately, many of these major acquisition programs cost more, are late, and do less than is expected.

For 9 years, the Government Accountability Office has been telling the DHS in its high-risk list that its acquisition programs are highly susceptible to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.

In addition, the DHS inspector general has identified acquisition management as a major management challenge for DHS, and it audits have found serious mismanagement in TSA body scanners and canine teams, failures to improve radio systems, and waste in CBP and Coast Guard helicopters.

Although DHS has taken steps to implement an acquisition policy with elements of commercial best practices and put mechanisms in place to review programs, it has routinely failed to hold programs accountable. This must change. DHS cannot afford its major acquisition programs. In a time of reduced budgets, DHS must make every dollar count.

Today's legislation, H.R. 4228, the DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act, follows consistent subcommittee oversight of DHS acquisition issues. In the 112th Congress, the subcommittee published an August 2012 report providing recommendations for DHS to correct weaknesses in its acquisition and contracting practices. This report went unheeded, and the weaknesses remain to this day.

In the 113th Congress, we have sent numerous letters to DHS and the GAO requiring greater scrutiny on various acquisition programs, and in September 2013, we held a hearing on ways that the DHS could use best practices from the Defense Department and private sector to save taxpayer dollars in acquisition management.

In view of these efforts, I am pleased that the bipartisan cooperation that the ranking member and I have had in drafting H.R. 4228, and I am grateful for the strong support this bill has received.

I would also like to note letters of support from the Project Management Institute, Security Industry Association, Professional Services Council, TechAmerica, IT Alliance for Public Sector, and the American Conservative Union. Business Executives for National Security has also stated its support publicly.

This bill addresses DHS' acquisition problems in several ways. First, it requires leadership accountability from the chief acquisition officer and components in following Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and DHS acquisition management directives.

Second, it requires discipline. Every major acquisition program must have an approved acquisition program baseline, an APB, which is a vital document that DHS programs need to measure performance, manage cost growth, and schedule slips; and the acquisition review board must validate acquisition documents of programs.

Third, it provides clarity for American businesses by authorizing the chief procurement officer to serve as the main liaison to industry and oversee a certification and training program for DHS' acquisition workforce; by requiring a multiyear acquisition strategy to guide the direction of DHS acquisitions and help industry better understand, plan, and align resources to meet future acquisition needs of DHS; and by compelling DHS to address issues regarding bid protests.

Fourth, this bill increases transparency by requiring DHS to report to Congress on programs that failed to meet cost, schedule, or performance parameters specified in the APB and by instructing DHS to eliminate unnecessary duplication and inefficiency.

I believe we have a precedent for such efforts under President Ronald Reagan's leadership. In the 1980s, he worked with Congress to address these types of issues in troubled defense programs, and I believe that DHS needs similar leadership from today's President and Congress.

H.R. 4228 will not solve every acquisition problem that DHS has, but it is a first step in forcing DHS to hold its acquisition programs accountable. This bill will help find cost savings through better management policies and strategies.

This is essential if our government is ever going to climb out of the $17.5 trillion worth of debt. It starts one good decision at a time, and DHS can make a difference by improving its acquisition management and by thinking more strategically about its acquisition choices. The American people deserve nothing less. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I will insert in the Record the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 21, 2014.

Hon. Michael McCaul,

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4228, the DHS

Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark

Grabowicz.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Elmendorf.

Enclosure.

H.R. 4228--DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4228 would cost $1

million in 2015 and less than $500,000 in each year

thereafter, subject to the availability of appropriated

funds. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct

spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do

not apply.

H.R. 4228 would direct the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) to improve the accountability, transparency, and

efficiency of its major acquisition programs. The bill would

specify procedures for the department to follow if it fails

to meet timelines, cost estimates, or other performance

parameters for these programs. In addition, H.R. 4228 would

require DHS to prepare a comprehensive report each year on

the status of its acquisition program and would direct the

Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the DHS Inspector

General to review and report on certain issues related to

departmental acquisition policies.

Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that

the new DHS administrative procedures as well as additional

reviews and reports by GAO and DHS required by H.R. 4228

would cost $1 million in 2015 and less than $500,000 annually

thereafter, assuming availability of appropriated funds. CBO

expects that DHS will continue to seek to improve its

efficiency in acquiring goods and services under current law;

we have no basis for estimating any savings in procurement

costs that might occur as a result of the bill's directives

to the department.

H.R. 4228 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and

would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz.

The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant

Director for Budget Analysis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for all of his efforts to help get this bill passed out of committee. It was a truly bipartisan effort. I know he was rushed to get here from a flight from Arizona, but I am glad he was able to participate today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any further speakers. I want to urge the adoption of this bipartisan bill to provide the necessary reforms to DHS' acquisition process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 4228, the DHS Acquisition Accountability and Efficiency Act, and I urge the House to pass the bill. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I was very pleased to work with my colleague, Congressman Jeff Duncan, who chairs our Oversight Subcommittee, and I fully support the legislation as yet another product of collaboration between Republicans and Democrats on our committee to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security succeeds in streamlining its acquisitions management process.

As the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, I am absolutely committed to saving taxpayer money and working to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse. We must be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, and we must require the departments to be the same.

As a Representative whose district covers 83 miles of Arizona border with Mexico, I have seen firsthand the failures of the Department of Homeland Security's acquisition processes, and the need for an effective and efficient process that gets resources to the agents and other DHS employees on the ground.

They need them to secure our borders, our ports of entry, and our Nation. In my district, we have witnessed for far too long many acquisitions that did not stand up to scrutiny, cost overruns, and money spent in excessive ways that did not meet the end goal.

If enacted, H.R. 4228 will give the Department the tools to bring greater transparency, accountability, and consistency to the Department's acquisition process.

The Department expends almost one-quarter of its overall budget to purchase goods and services, with a total of $12.2 billion spent in fiscal year 2013 on 85,000 acquisitions. Thus far, in fiscal year 2014, the Department has allocated upwards of $4 billion on 27,000 transactions, with more expenditures to come.

Since January 2003, the Government Accountability Office has included the Department on its high-risk list due to its task of integrating 22 legacy agencies into one entity. It is still, obviously, a work in progress. In its 2013 high-risk update, the GAO cited the Department for its failure to adequately overhaul its management challenges, including its acquisition process.

Inefficient management practices and procedures hurt the Department's ability to effectively and efficiently achieve its mission and keep America safe. In spite of the Department's agreement with the Government Accountability Office's findings, the Department has yet to fully improve its management functions, and as a result, the Department remains on the high-risk list.

According to the GAO, the Department's acquisitions costs increased from $19.7 billion in 2008 to $52.2 billion in 2011, representing an increase of 166 percent in 16 major acquisitions programs.

In response, H.R. 4228 will assist the Department in better managing its acquisitions management process by directing individual component agencies to follow the Department's rules for acquisitions and assure that resources are spent as intended.

This legislation also will address the Department's ongoing management challenges by implementing a process to alert Congress should programs begin to veer over budget and off schedule.

H.R. 4228 will make sure that, for the first time, the Department as a whole takes part in the acquisition review board process, a process that brings officials from across the entire Department together to monitor Department acquisitions.

It will help DHS in achieving another needed reform, the need for a stable, well-trained acquisitions workforce across all component agencies.

Furthermore, H.R. 4228 will ensure that small businesses are able to fairly compete for contracting opportunities. Making the Department of Homeland Security's acquisitions process more efficient and effective will absolutely save taxpayers money and allow the Department to more effectively accomplish its mission of protecting the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

A lot is said over and over again about how Congress cannot find common ground. With this piece of legislation, we truly have shown that is possible. In fact, I would go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that our committee works in a very bipartisan manner. I am proud to be a member of a collaborative group who are interested in securing the homeland.

I was very pleased to work with Chairman Duncan, who chairs the House Oversight and Management Subcommittee, on this very important piece of legislation. In order for the Department of Homeland Security to better achieve its mission of securing our Nation, it must have efficient and effective management practices in place, and this legislation gives the Department the tools needed to bring greater transparency, accountability, and consistency to its acquisition process and to make sure that it reports accurately and timely to Congress on its progress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2719) to require the Transportation Security Administration to implement best practices and improve transparency with regard to technology acquisition programs, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2719, the Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act, a bill that I introduced in July of last year, which passed the House unanimously 1 year ago.

This commonsense, bipartisan legislation is the culmination of 2 years of collaborative efforts by my colleagues in the House and Senate and 4 years of strong oversight by the Transportation Security Subcommittee.

H.R. 2719 will save significant tax dollars by forcing TSA to make thoughtful, informed decisions about what kinds of technology to deploy in our Nation's airports. We simply cannot afford to see TSA repeat the mistakes of the past which have resulted in technologies such as ``puffer machines'' and body scanners being pulled out of airports prematurely and others sitting idle in warehouses, never to see the light of day.

H.R. 2719 requires TSA to develop and share with industry and the public a detailed 5-year technology investment plan. The bill gives Congress early warning about any cost overruns, delays, or technical failures encountered by TSA.

It ensures that TSA is implementing acquisition best practices as identified by the Government Accountability Office and other experts. It also mandates a better process for managing security equipment in TSA's inventory. Finally, the Senate strengthened the bill by, among other things, requiring more consultation with experts in the public and private sectors during the acquisition process.

I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Mr. McCaul, for his assistance in moving this bill through the committee and the House, as well as the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, for his work alongside myself and our chairman. I really appreciate the work and cooperation of Mr. Thompson and the ranking member for our subcommittee, Mr. Richmond. Again, their work made this a better bill.

I would also like to thank Senator Ayotte for introducing a companion bill in the Senate and leading the effort to see it through the Senate Commerce Committee and the full Senate. I would also like to thank Senators Rockefeller, Thune, and Tester and their staffs for their strong support and their important efforts to move this bill.

Finally, I would like to thank the 18 industry groups that have endorsed this bill, including the Security Manufacturers Coalition, Airlines for America, Airports Council International--North America, the American Association of Airport Executives, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the Security Industry Association, the U.S. Travel Association, and many others who provided valuable feedback and worked with us throughout this process.

I will insert into the Record a letter from these groups and others.

November 12, 2014.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol Building, Washington,

This no-cost, bipartisan legislation will go a long way toward improving transparency and accountability for TSA. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers. If the gentleman from Mississippi has no further speakers, I am prepared to close once the gentleman does.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the former chairman for his kind remarks and for the collaborative nature in which we have worked throughout this Congress. I appreciate his leadership and advice. I believe we have done good work, and we have done it because we have listened to each other and we have worked well together. I appreciate your leadership, as well as that of Cedric Richmond, the ranking member on this committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that this would not be possible had they not worked so closely with us. I would also like to thank the chairman for mentioning our staffs. Our staffs have worked very hard, they have worked in a bipartisan manner, and I attach myself to his compliments for our staff there and thank him for that kindness.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the accomplishments we have made on this subcommittee. In particular I am proud of this piece of legislation, H.R. 2719. It was developed with input from stakeholders in an exhaustive process with subject matter experts across government and industry to address different deficiencies we had identified throughout the TSA's acquisition process.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Senator Ayotte's amendment to H.R. 2719, and let's send this bill to the President for his signature.

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

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