GSA Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2061) to expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in Federal spending, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, substantially the same bill was passed in the previous Congress. The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, or the DATA Act, is an important piece of legislation in that it will create the opportunity for government to be more efficient, more effective, and more transparent.

The American people deserve real accountability in how the taxpayer dollars are spent, now more than ever. It is unacceptable for Federal spending on data currently to be so inaccurate, unpredictable, inconsistent, and, quite frankly, expensive.

Nobody can follow the money at the Federal level these days, in spite of the fact that we spend over $82 billion on IT. Political gain is often had or lost every time a major program funding proves to lead to a dead end. Whether it is a billion-dollar program for the Department of Defense or, now, the

most current challenge, the one faced in healthcare.gov, it is often easy to point fingers.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to handle large data in a way in which we get predictable success rather than inevitable failure, we have to start by demanding that data be structured from the day it is created and formatted in a way that makes it capable of search, aggregating, downloading in bulk, and manipulating, both for the benefit of insiders trying to find accountability and outsiders legitimately exercising their right to know how government is spending their money.

The DATA Act will contain a pilot to examine ways to consolidate and streamline reporting requirements. This will decrease the burden of Federal financial reporting for agencies and for States, school systems, and other recipients of Federal dollars.

We found, during the Recovery Act, that the Recovery Board, using DATA Act-type transparency, was able to find huge amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse and do it in a transparent way in real-time because they required recipient reporting.

Recipient reporting, in a perfect world, would already have taken place; but we recognize that consolidating and improving the way in which data is compiled needs to come first. Therefore, between the pilot in this bill and, in fact, the requirement that we begin structuring data the way the SEC and other agencies have will, in fact, make this legislation a money saver for the Federal Government.

The DATA Act is bipartisan and bicameral and widely supported. A companion legislation was introduced in the Senate by Senator Warner and Senator Portman. Their legislation is substantially similar and will be easily made into a consolidated bill, one the American people can have confidence in, was thought of over multiple Congresses, well vetted, and, in fact, assure the American people that we will not make, in the next Congress and in Congresses beyond, some of the mistakes that have been made in the past.

With that, I ask for early consideration of this version of the act and would note that we passed out of our committee unanimously, and by voice, not just in our committee, but in the last Congress, a bill substantially similar.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the leader of the House, and a supporter of big data reform.

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

I want to thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, and particularly note that this has been one of those shining, shining examples of bipartisan behavior by the committee and, I suspect, the entire Congress.

I might note that earlier this month the Senate Homeland Security and

Government Affairs Committee voted unanimously to pass the Senate version of this act, so upon our passage, we will very shortly be in an opportunity to begin making these kinds of changes, and I look forward to that. I look forward to this kind of legislation in the future.

I urge all Members to vote positively on this fundamental reform, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings for working with the university community to address a number of their concerns with specific provisions of H.R. 2061. I understand that the universities are still seeking some improvements to the legislation in order to ensure a transparent, fair, and effective process for improving the collection of data on federal funding, including of research grants to universities. I hope that the Chairman and Ranking Member will continue to work with the universities as this bill moves forward.

What concerns me most about this legislation is the sudden inclusion of major portions of H.R. 313 in this otherwise unrelated bill. I expressed my concerns about H.R. 313 when it was under consideration earlier this year, and these concerns remain in place today. I think we can all agree that federal agencies need to be wise and judicious in their use of travel funds, and that highly publicized 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.

However, the scientific community, which includes tens of thousands of federal scientists and engineers 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 scientific community, therefore, is rightfully concerned about the unintended consequences of travel 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.

Once again, I want to thank Chairman Issa for taking into consideration some of the concerns expressed by the agencies and the scientific community regarding the travel restrictions in H.R. 313 that have now been incorporated into H.R. 2061. However, this legislation still requires significant improvement. While OMB requires all agencies to publicly report on conference expenses in excess of $100,000, H.R. 2061 would require even more detailed reporting for an agency sending even a single employee to a conference for which the conference's total cost--which may or may not be borne by taxpayer dollars--exceeds $10,000. In other words, while the intent may have been otherwise, the language as written would not create any reasonable threshold for agency reporting. Are we really going to pay agency staff to post an explanation of how the participation of an employee advanced the mission of the agency for every $30 roundtrip train ticket to a large meeting or workshop? It seems to me that in any given fiscal year, the cost of the additional bureaucratic resources necessary to meet this requirement will exceed the actual expenses incurred.

I also remain concerned about what I see as arbitrary limits on the number of agency employees who may participate in large, international, scientific conferences and on the total amount an agency may spend not just next year, but through fiscal year 2018. I hope that, if this bill should continue to move forward, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will work with our colleagues in the other body to continue to perfect this bill. As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I stand by to assist in whatever way I can to ensure that we do not implement new regulations with unintended negative consequences for the progress of U.S. health, science, and innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I want to thank him, as well as the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, for their work on the DATA Act.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. The American people deserve a functioning government that is both open and accountable. The DATA Act is an important step to achieving this goal because it will publish Federal spending data and transform it from disconnected documents into open, searchable data for people to see and read through online.

This easily accessible data will create an abundant amount of resources and opportunities for innovation to occur. It will bring about new start-ups and innovators, all of which will be aimed toward turning this data into actionable information.

This information can then be used to help solve some of our Nation's most pressing problems and help all of us better determine where we can better eliminate waste.

Over the last year, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of visiting a civic start-up called Code for America in California. It is an organization that is committed to helping solve problems, primarily at the local level.

It has a long list of programmers and developers who are ready to take action across the country. They want to use their skills and apply those skills to help government and its citizens be more efficient. But they, first, need to know, when they go into a locality, whether the kind of information they need is going to be accessible.

We can begin to do that today here at the Federal level. With the passage of the DATA Act, we will be one step closer to the American people being able to hold government bureaucracies accountable. Plain and simple, Federal spending data will be easier to access under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the rollout of ObamaCare over the last month. And beyond the core problem of the law's causing the cancelation of individuals' insurance, beyond the core problem of the law's causing the increase in costs to millions of Americans for their health care, one of the more frustrating issues is a lack of transparency on the part of government bureaucracy.

We just cannot tell what the information is right now. How many people have really signed up for ObamaCare?

We don't know whether it is people who have purchased plans on the healthcare.gov site, or whether it is people who have just put them into their shopping carts. Again, very, very frustrating, not only for folks around the country, but for those of us who want to try and help the situation so that government is not cramming down on anyone its prescribed method of health care coverage.

So the DATA Act is an opportunity for both parties to come together and to demonstrate that we are serious about creating a more open and effective government and about holding government accountable. Let's pass this bill so we can begin to restore trust with the American people.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Darrell Issa, as well as the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, for their work on this bill, the other members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for their hard work; and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 313) 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.

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

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

Last year, the public became aware of the now-infamous GSA Las Vegas conference that cost taxpayers some $820,000.

In the wake of that public outcry, the Office of Management and Budget issued a May 2012 memo outlining new policies and procedures for Federal travel and conferences. In the memo, OMB told agency heads to reduce travel spending for fiscal year 2013 to 70 percent of the fiscal 2010 levels. Senior-level review was instituted for all events, with senior-level approval and public reporting for events costing some $100,000 or more, and a general prohibition on events costing half a million or more, unless the agency signed a waiver.

The Oversight Committee learned that in fiscal year 2012 alone, nearly 900 Federal conferences costing in excess of $100,000 were held. The total cost of these events exceeded $340 million.

H.R. 313 codifies OMB's travel and conference guidelines with some important changes. While exempting military travel, the bill eliminates loopholes in the OMB guidance in order to ensure that agencies actually achieve a 70 percent reduction in nonmilitary-related travel.

The bill also mandates transparency by requiring agencies to post online, on a quarterly basis, detailed, itemized reports of all conference spending. And it requires that materials presented at the conference by a Federal employee be made available online.

Last year, the House approved unanimously substantially similar legislation that was also reported from the Oversight Committee. I would like to thank Mr. Farenthold for his leadership on this bill, and Mr. Pocan for

working with us at the committee markup to help make important improvements to this bill.

I urge all Members to support this good government and commonsense legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Florida (Mr. Ross).

I want to thank the ranking member for his support of this legislation, and I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 313, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for making small changes to this legislation to address concerns that I raised about this bill last year. However, the premise of the bill remains the same and for that reason, I oppose H.R. 313, the so-called ``Government Spending Accountability Act''. H.R. 313 is fundamentally flawed because it would make significant changes to federal employees' ability to travel to conferences and meetings.

This bill institutes prohibitions and impediments that would hinder American scientists' ability to collaborate and communicate with scientists at other institutions and laboratories.

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

Scientific conferences are critically important. For example, the American Chemical Society and, the American Physical Society have stated that the development of an anticancer drug was the result of collaboration between a team of scientists from three laboratories that took place at one of these conferences. This bill would hinder that kind of collaboration. 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 and to foster advancements in innovation. 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.

Would Congress do better if we did not meet in person, if we stayed home and got on conference calls every once in a while? I don't think so. I think the gains that are made in good legislation that come from conferences, from working together as colleagues as we gather for votes, or in committees, are invaluable. The same can be said for scientific conferences--better innovation can occur when scientists meet together, face-to-face.