Taxpayer Transparency Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3308) to require a Federal agency to include language in certain educational and advertising materials indicating that such materials are produced and disseminated at taxpayer expense, 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 material on the bill under consideration.

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

I am here today to speak on H.R. 3308, which requires the Federal Government to disclose that advertisements and information on government programs and services are paid for by the taxpayer.

Advertisements provide information, but in many instances, they are designed to induce people to buy or use a product or service. While we can debate whether individual Federal advertising campaigns are overly promotional, surely we can agree that the public should know that they, themselves, are sponsoring a government marketing piece.

Americans deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and H.R. 3308 adds needed transparency to the business of government by requiring disclosures when taxpayer dollars are spent on advertising and educational materials.

This bill is designed to help people know what is going on. It is not intended to be a burden on local broadcasters, their advertisers, or any of the work that they do in local communities.

As a former broadcaster, I understand the important role that advertising plays, but it is also important that the people know what is an advertisement being paid for with government money, what is a public service announcement, and what is being paid for by private individuals.

This bill adds a disclaimer to ads in printed material very similar to what all of us in this Chamber are familiar with. There are advertising rules for Members' campaigns, where you have to indicate, This was paid for by so-and-so.

This would just require government agencies who purchase advertising or produce written material to add a disclaimer saying something to the effect of, Produced and aired at taxpayer expense.

I will reserve the balance of my time at this point, Mr. Speaker.

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

I would like to take a moment to address the concerns raised by the gentleman from Virginia before yielding to the author of the bill, Mr. Long.

During the markup, Representative Duckworth was concerned about certain agencies like the VA and the Department of Defense; and during the markup, we did add a provision, at the minority's request, that allowed the Office of Management and Budget to implement regulations in exactly how this is going to be done. It certainly does not prohibit ``paid for by the Army'' or ``paid for by the Veterans Administration.'' It would simply add, ``paid for by the Army at taxpayer expense,'' which would clearly be compliant with this law, the idea being to determine what the taxpayers are paying for and what is being donated for time, for instance, by a broadcast facility for public service announcements or to differentiate ads that are not paid for by the government. There is no disclaimer. We know it is not paid for with taxpayer dollars.

What we are after here is to let the taxpayer know when they see something on the television, hear something on the radio, or see a printed material that their tax dollars funded it and it is something they can either be proud of or they can pick up the phone and call us up here in Washington, D.C. and say, What the heck are you doing wasting our money on these types of ads?

It empowers the public to know. We are not trying to limit Federal agencies. We are not trying to detract from the fine work that the VA does or to detract from the recruiting efforts that our Armed Forces are in.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, we have got an alphabet soup of government agencies. As I review documents for the budget, I sometimes have to Google what some of the agencies in the Federal Government do. Obviously, almost everybody knows what the Army is, but if you are not in the financial services, do you know what the CFPB is? Or do you know what some of the smaller subagencies are? And I think that is what we are getting at.

At this point, I will, however, yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Billy Long, the author of this bill, my good friend and a fellow broadcaster, I might add.

I don't have any further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

Without getting into the pros and cons of the various investigations that this body does, I will say that it is our constitutional obligation to provide oversight to the various Federal agencies. One of the ways we do that is through the investigation that our committee does bring up.

I do want to say we did visit with Representative Duckworth, and we do feel as if her concerns have been addressed. We could not agree on specific language with Ms. Duckworth, but we were able to come up with these provisions that the minority requested at the markup that allowed the OMB to come up with the implementing regulations. It also includes a provision suggested by the minority to make clear that communications funded entirely by user fees or by sources other than that that do not include Federal funds may indicate how it is funded through the United States Government.

But this is a bill all designed to provide transparency, let taxpayers see the fruits of the spending of taxpayer dollars on advertisements, and to make a judgment about that on their own and know what is going on and know how their money is being spent.

As my colleague from Missouri pointed out, sunshine is the best disinfectant. It is what we are about in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It is what this bill does, again, designed as a regulation on government agencies, not as an attempt to go after broadcasters, print shops, or anything like that. This is just to get the government agencies to tell the taxpayers what they bought with the disclaimer on there.

It is commonsense legislation. I urge all my colleagues to stand behind it. It is something that I think will be a huge step forward towards transparency, and I look forward to this bill's passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Under this legislation, Mr. Speaker, any communication an agency makes that is an advertisement or that provides information about a Federal Government program, benefit, or service would have to say that it is printed or published at taxpayer expense. Emails, radio, and television ads would have to say that they are produced and disseminated at taxpayer expense.

Some agencies already identify the agencies that print them. For example, the Army prints, ``Paid for by the United States Army'' on its recruiting posters. This bill would require the Army to change its wording and say, ``Printed at taxpayer expense.'' I have not heard any explanation, either at the committee or here on the floor, for why such a change is so necessary.

The gentlewoman from Illinois, Congresswoman Duckworth, the former Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs, raised an important point during our committee's consideration of this bill. She pointed out that some materials printed by the Department of Veterans Affairs state that the VA produced the materials. This is important because veterans need to be able to trust the source of the information, and seeing ``Department of Veterans Affairs'' engenders just that trust.

Four years ago, this body passed a law, cosponsored by Chairman Issa, the chairman of our committee, that prohibited nongovernment parties from sending mailings marked ``census'' without a clear disclaimer with the name of the party sending the mailing.

That law was passed after the Republican National Committee sent a mailing that led recipients to think it was an official census document when it was not.

We passed that law because we wanted to protect consumers from being misled into believing a communication from a nongovernmental source was, in fact, an official government document. We should use that same logic and caution with this bill. I think it is important that this bill is interpreted to allow agencies to continue to say that a communication is paid for by that agency rather than being required to say that the document is printed or published at taxpayer expense.

During the committee's consideration of this legislation, Chairman Issa and my friend, Chairman Farenthold, made commitments to Representative Duckworth to work with her in finding mutually agreeable language. Representative Duckworth suggested language that would address the issues we

raised with the military and the Veterans Administration. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that language is not--not--included in this bill, and no changes were made at all since the committee considered it, despite the assurances given to Representative Duckworth.

I will not vote against the bill, but I certainly hope that, if this bill or a similar bill moves through the Senate, the majority in the House will keep the commitments made to Representative Duckworth and the Democrats on our committee to find a satisfactory resolution to the legitimate concerns that were raised.

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

Will my friend yield?

I thank my friend.

Is there any doubt, do you think, in a taxpayer's mind that if the current situation that identifies something as paid for by the U.S. Army, then certainly we all understand that it is also paid for by the U.S. taxpayer?

Could I inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers on this side. Does the gentleman have others on his side?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I certainly laud the intent of the bill. I sometimes wish, however, that we applied this same rubric to ourselves here in Congress. Wouldn't it be interesting for the taxpayers to know, for example, that a dead-end kind of inquiry on the IRS being pursued by the majority in this body just in our committee alone has already cost the taxpayers of the United States $14 million producing virtually nothing? And it would be very interesting to know how much it has cost the taxpayers of this country when we had 46 or 47 repeal of the Affordable Care Act amendments in bills in this Congress and in the previous Congress.

Having said that, I certainly am not going to vote against the bill, but I am concerned that some of the concerns raised by my colleagues, particularly Congresswoman Duckworth, were not, in fact, addressed in the final bill brought before this floor. It is my hope we could continue to work together to try to resolve that with some compromise language as we work with our colleagues in the other body.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

For the last three years, House Republicans have repeatedly attacked critical public health, safety, and environmental protections.

This package of anti-regulatory bills is just another such attack on agency rulemakings--one that is falsely advertised as an effort to improve transparency.

Title one of this bill, which was reported by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, would prevent a rule from taking effect until certain information is posted online for at least six months.

The only exception to this requirement would be for the agency to forgo a notice and comment period or for the President to issue an Executive Order.

This delay is completely unnecessary and is effectively a six-month moratorium on rules. It also could give agencies a perverse incentive to avoid a public comment period altogether if a statutory or court- ordered deadline could be missed.

Just one example of a rule that could be affected by this bill is the Food and Drug Administration's proposed rule on electronic prescribing information, which would ensure that doctors have the most current safety information on prescription drugs.

Under this bill, this drug safety rule could not be finalized until OMB posts information about the rule on its web site for six months.

FDA, like other agencies, already details the status of its rulemakings on its website, and extensive information about proposed rules is also available on the website Regulations.gov.

Yet under this bill, if OMB failed to post a required piece of information, FDA could not finalize the rule unless the President stepped in and issued an Executive Order. It should not be that hard for doctors to have the most up-to-date safety information about prescription drugs.

That is just title one of this Frankenstein bill. The other three titles of this bill are even worse. One title would add 60 additional requirements to the rulemaking process.

We should be making the regulatory process more efficient and effective. Adding 60 new requirements will do exactly the opposite and make it needlessly complex.

Madam Chairman, this is a package of bad bills that would do nothing to improve our rulemaking process. I urge every Member to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding to me.

Every day, Federal agencies spend money advertising various programs without mentioning where the funding for these programs or their ads are coming from. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said that sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. The Taxpayer Transparency Act is about shining a light on how taxpayer dollars are spent by requiring executive branch agencies to disclose that these advertisements are paid for at taxpayer expense. Simply, this bill extends similar requirements already imposed on the House and the Senate to the executive branch.

It is time for government to start working for the people again. By providing more transparency in their spending, executive branch agencies will have to answer to the people. Americans have every right to know exactly how their tax dollars are being spent. As Members of Congress, we should all support an open and honest government, and this legislation does that by requiring executive branch agencies to be transparent with spending taxpayer dollars which promote Federal programs.

I urge the House to support this bill and look forward to further action by our colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, last fall we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services spent nearly $12 million dollars of taxpayer money for airtime campaigns to promote Obamacare. While this was

a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars allocated to specifically target states that have opted out of Medicaid expansion, it was not an isolated event.

For this reason, I joined my colleague from Missouri as the original cosponsor of H.R. 3308, the Taxpayer Transparency Act.

This bill does just what it says--provides transparency when spending tax dollars earned by hard working Americans.

My colleague's bill would require agencies in the executive branch to disclose any and all advertisements funded by taxpayers. This includes all mailers, brochures, tv and radio ads, emails, billboards, and posters.

Both the House and Senate are required to disclose this information in franked mailing--so why are executive branch agencies not held to the same standard of transparency? Our constituents deserve better.

To my colleagues, I urge you to pass this bill to hold the federal government accountable for waste and abuse of taxpayer money.