Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4192) to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to regulate the height of buildings in the District of Columbia'' to clarify the rules of the District of Columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses above the top story of the building upon which the penthouse is placed, as amended.

Madam 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 hereto under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, in 1910, the Height of Buildings Act was signed into Federal law. That bill, in fact, envisioned a prevention of New York- style skyscrapers from being erected here in the Nation's Capital. That bill is every bit as important today as it was in 1910.

The District of Columbia has a unique visual requirement. We should not, cannot, and will not obstruct the Mall and the major parts of this historic city.

It is important that we maintain the skyline and the access, and we do so in every single consideration in this city. The memorials and monuments and public safety must be considered.

However, over the last two Congresses, the committee has been working on several small modifications that, really, time has said its time has come. After 100 years, the current legislation makes a small but meaningful change. Let me put it in words the American people can easily understand.

One hundred years ago, they put a limit on the height of these buildings, and then they put 20 feet beyond that limit of occupancy for water towers, coal stacks for the chimneys, and, of course, the tops of elevators. Those water towers, elevator shafts, chimneys, they were certainly pretty hideous, but they were necessary.

It is now 100 years later, and, in fact, the absence of other uses for these buildings often means that these tops of these buildings are not considered to be an aesthetically important part, and there is no funding and no source of revenue to make them better.

Under this modification to the Height Act, we allow for what have been called penthouses but, in fact, are simply industrial rooftop air conditioners and the like to be covered, wrapped, if you will, by architecturally pleasing structures.

These structures may be occupied. They may be offices, cafeterias, or, in the case of a residential apartment complex, it could be a top apartment.

Under the legislation, they have to have a setback. The setback is roughly 1 foot per foot of height, or 20 feet of setback if they go to the full 20 feet. So these are not a monolithic increase and, in fact, a setback consistent with that 100-year-old law.

Last Congress, the committee held numerous hearings on the Height Act and listened to countless witnesses. I subsequently wrote to the National Capital Planning Commission, often called the NCPC, and the mayor's office, asking them to jointly study modifications to the Height Act and recommend any changes they saw appropriate. For those who are unaware, NCPC is the regional planning commission that includes representatives of both the Federal interests and local interests.

The Height Act study is impressive. Aside from the research work, a series of meetings were held featuring considerable input from experts and the general public alike. Afterward, the mayor's office and NCPC provided separate recommendations.

The mayor's specific recommendation: increase the height limits in downtown. The mayor also recommended that the city and NCPC work together to be able to use the city comprehensive plan as a tool to adjust height limits outside the L'Enfant city region.

This is not in today's proposal. Ultimately, only after considering these broader changes, NCPC's only recommendation from the overall plan submitted by the mayor is, in fact, the modest proposal before you today.

Let's understand: the height of buildings in this city will not change by 1 foot under this act, but the beauty of the tops of buildings and the usability will.

The revenue to the city can increase because of the value of these top floors, and, yet, we will cover up mechanical penthouses that, today, are simply elevator shafts, rooftop air conditioners, water towers and the like.

So long as that ratio of setback and the other provisions of the 100- year-old act are maintained, the city will have the ability to approve structures.

But let's understand: those structures will still go through a rigorous program before they can be approved, and they will continue to be consistent with the 1910 Height Act.

NCPC itself recommended that human occupancy be allowed in such rooftop penthouses, so long as the setback ratio was maintained and that the penthouse does not exceed one story and that no more than 20 feet of height be maintained.

Our bill does everything in the NCPC recommendation. So this bill simply gives the city a little more latitude in

allowing human occupancy in penthouses where ugly mechanical penthouses already exist and are allowed.

I would like to have gone a little further on this bill, and I am very candid. There are areas well outside the city, as most people interpret it, far up in Northeast, where there are railroad tracks and industrial buildings, and down in Southeast, an area that Eleanor Holmes Norton has worked tirelessly to improve, that could have been given additional options for higher buildings because they are outside of the area of concern for the Mall and monuments.

The city is not prepared to take that authority yet, and Congress is not prepared to give authority that, in fact, its city council is not prepared to handle. That is the consensus that came from the city council in their own resolution, and we respect that if the city does not want an authority, we are not going to thrust an authority on them.

So, with respect to the Height Act, let me close by saying there will always be somebody who doesn't want a law changed, who, in fact, wants the buildings shorter. There are people who want their private home to be able to see all the way to the Mall. I would love to own one of those homes, quite frankly.

A few feet away from here I would like to be able to walk out onto the Speaker's deck, his balcony. I would like to be able to see the White House, but I can't because the Treasury building was built in front of it and others.

This legislation will not cause any of those shortcomings that have occurred in the past; just the opposite. It will beautify the tops of buildings if the city approves those specific projects, while maintaining the absolute limit that has been on these buildings since 1910.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

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

In closing, I want to urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 4192, and I want to close by reminding people that this is, in fact, the best vetted piece of legislation for Congress to pass in cooperation with the city in my tenure.

Thirteen D.C. city councilmen signed on to a sense of council- introduced resolution in November that stated: The Height Act should not be amended at this time.

All 13 now support this modest recommendation, and I understand the additional member also would. I am glad that the city council is seeing this modest reform as in their favor--their benefit to enhancing the beauty of those buildings, those few buildings that reach the maximum of the Height Act.

In closing, I think it is important that we echo what Delegate Norton just said. The vast majority of homes and buildings in the District of Columbia are far lower than the Height Act. In fact, it is a relatively small part of what some people sometimes call K Street and some other corridors, where the infrastructure of the city has pressed to occupy more densely.

My hope is, by maintaining the height, the total occupancy, these penthouses will enhance that property, in many cases, with cafeteria or public access areas while still continuing to induce people to make reasonable changes in outlying areas if, in fact, additional capacity is needed either for residents of this city or, in fact, the thriving businesses of this city.

Madam Speaker, we seldom come to you with a 100-year-old bill that hasn't been dusted off. We come to you today with a 104-year-old bill, which has not been dusted off and not for a lack of a reason.

The water towers of 1910 are gone. It is time for us to use this space to maintain a view that is unmarred by highrises, but is, in fact, enhanced by the architectural creation, invention, and ingenuity of the architects who work and strive to make the buildings of Washington, D.C., pleasant and functional.

With that, I urge passage and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4194) to provide for the elimination or modification of Federal reporting requirements, 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 materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4194, the Government Reports Elimination Act of 2014. The Government Reports Elimination Act is part of the committee's efforts to reduce waste and duplication in the Federal Government.

It eliminates 69 unnecessary agency reports to Congress and eliminates or streamlines 10 required GAO, Government Accountability Office, mandates.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 4194 will save several million dollars. That doesn't sound like a lot in the Federal budget, but think of the key people who have to prepare those reports. The people that are most knowledgeable of what is going on are often the people taken away for these reports.

These reports were vetted by sending out a questionnaire to every chairman and every ranking member in the House, asking them do they still need these reports. After going through multiple rounds, we determined that these were the reports that no Member of Congress or no committee any longer needed.

This is a modest reform. I would have liked to have done a few more. In fact, I would like to make sure that, in every Congress, every 2 years, a similar bill be brought, asking are those reports still needed and eliminating the ones that are not.

I am assured that if we do so, as we create 69 new reports every year, we can eliminate 69 old reports, saving millions of dollars, but more importantly, freeing up the most valuable people often in the executive branch that must participate in the preparation of these.

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 directs agencies and the OMB to work together to identify duplicative and outdated reports to Congress. In January of 2013, the Office of Management and Budget posted that list on their Web site, www.performance.gov, and these reports come from that list.

Madam Speaker, I think enough has been said. The American people want us not to waste their money. Congress is determined that we should eliminate unnecessary reports. The Office of Management and Budget has produced a list. We have culled through that list, worked with all the chairmen, and today give you this list of savings.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 4194, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Metropolitan Philip Saliba. His Eminence Metropolitan Philip was the Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of all North America since 1966.

Born in Lebanon, Metropolitan Philip led the American Antiochian Orthodox church through the latter half of the twentieth century and ushered the church into the new millennium before passing away this past March. Throughout his life, he continually ministered to the

faithful and was a prominent voice for peace and compassion in the Middle East. Where others doubted he projected hope and met each challenge with determination and courage.

Metropolitan Philip's deep faith led him to always serve and place others before himself, whether it was the President of the United States or a member of the church. His legacy of stewardship includes helping the Arab Christian community adapt to life in America while still retaining and sharing their deep, rich roots with their new communities. His leadership also allowed the church to expand and saw the number of parishes quadruple. In an age of declining church attendance his spirit nurtured growth.

Metropolitan Philip will be remembered foremost as a man of God as well as a uniter, theologian, author, humanitarian and a warm friend. Over the years Metropolitan Philip has been very good to me along with countless others. I am deeply saddened by his death and my thoughts and prayers go out to his family and all of those who have been blessed to have him as part of their lives.

Both the church and the country have lost an individual who possessed a deep and enduring faith, who passionately advocated for those in need and stood up for what he believed in.

Mr. Speaker, I close with the sentiment that the greatest way to honor Metropolitan Philip's legacy would be to emulate the manner in which he lived his life, which stands as a testament to a calling devoted to others.

Mr. Speaker, today, April 1st, marks the 30th anniversary of the effective date of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR replaced the Armed Services Procurement Regulation and the Federal Procurement Regulations. The principles of the FAR system have remained constant, providing a consistent government-wide approach to the rules and processes of contracting with the U.S. Government. The FAR has helped facilitate our ability to tap into the vast resources of the private sector in those instances when the work of the government can best be performed by outside entities.

The United States Federal government is one of the world's largest consumers of goods and services, with total procurement spending of approximately a half trillion dollars each year. We need to ensure that the government acquires goods and services in an efficient and streamlined fashion, while getting the best value for the American taxpayer.

Many have criticized the fashion in which the government acquires goods and services, particularly information technology, as cumbersome and inefficient. The FAR has evolved to provide broad flexibility to the government, while balancing the need to conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness. Under the FAR, small businesses have grown into a critical business partner for the Federal government.

The FAR is the Federal regulation that most reflects a collaborative process. Unlike other Federal regulations, the FAR is not signed by one agency, but by three agencies--the General Services Administration, the Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--under the overall direction of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (in the Office of Management and Budget). They are supported by seventeen other civilian agencies and the small agency council. Together they continuously improve Federal acquisition, incorporating best practices from private industry while protecting taxpayer dollars from waste and abuse.

The FAR has its own authority for rulemaking which streamlines the process but provides the opportunity for participation in the rulemaking process by both government users and the public. There have been notable collaborative rulemakings in the past, such as the implementation of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, and I support the continued use of the FAR rulemaking process to provide robust exchanges between government and the public.

From the shortest FAR clause which reads ``United States law will apply to resolve any claim of breach of this contract'' to the longest one, the Government Property clause, which is over 5000 words long, the FAR is a flexible instrument designed to do the job.

More than 30 percent of the government's discretionary budget is dedicated to procurement--the grunt work of the government. It may not be glamorous, but it is what makes the government work. We acknowledge and support the FAR on its anniversary, but remain committed to streamlining and improving its operation and ensuring that acquisition professionals across the government have the tools, training, and support they need to properly use this critical tool.

While the FAR is by no means a perfect document, most countries in the world, whether developed or developing, study the FAR and borrow from it for their procurement system. More importantly, the hard working men and women of the acquisition workforce play a vital role in the policy that is developed for the FAR, and in making that policy work on a daily basis they strive to ensure that the taxpayers, in the end, get best value.

On behalf of those taxpayers, I direct my thanks to the acquisition workforce community for all you do to make our federal acquisition system work. Our system, while not perfect, is better than any alternative out there and something for you to be proud of--you make it work.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2391) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri as the ``Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office''.

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, it is my privilege to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment just briefly, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge is among the very first postal

namings of the year. No other postal namings have occurred this entire Congress except these we are considering today for our fallen heroes. It has become clear that the public understands the importance of honoring those who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so we do so today on behalf of the several fallen heroes.

This particular lance corporal, in addition to being from Missouri, deployed from Camp Pendleton in my district with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, a unit that has seen as a percentage the greatest amount of losses of any unit in the theater of Afghanistan or Iraq. The sacrifice of our marines in this conflict in Afghanistan with not a single body of water anywhere around it says a great deal about the new marines.

When Lance Corporal Vinnedge enlisted, he knew he was joining a force that wasn't waiting for a war in amphibious landing craft, but that in fact had already been and had fought with great distinction in Afghanistan, in addition to Iraq. He went there to serve his country, and he paid the highest cost. That is far too often what is happening around the world.

On behalf of the marines of Camp Pendleton, we have great pride in his service, his commitment, and I am pleased to urge all Members to vote for the passage of the naming of this post office after one of our heroes of this decade. With that, I urge support of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me start off on a positive note. The positive note is the regular order in which we bring this important legislation. We have held 11 full committee hearings, 30 subcommittee hearings, produced three full staff reports.

Between the work of Chairman Jordan, Chairman Lankford and Congresswoman Foxx on this legislation, there have been countless thousands of hours of hard work to figure the right way to say it to make sure it is narrow and consistent with multiple Presidents' policies of both parties.

This legislation is filled with bipartisan support on each of the bills. This is, in fact, not a Republican or a Democratic idea.

Mr. Chairman, that ends the positive part. I just listened to my ranking member in opposition, and I was shocked--shocked--that he would talk in terms of rulemaking shouldn't have the interference of the private sector. Customers should not look at their supplier being involved in the production of the regulation. Locking out people who have to manufacture the goods, produce the labels, comply with the law in the process is exactly what is wrong in government today.

Mr. Chairman, the American people know full well that a regulation is a law; a rule is a law. The idea that laws are produced in private with often special interest groups on one side only at the table and then put out as a take it or leave it, fight it if you can, is the absurdity of the regulatory state.

Mr. Chairman, this commonsense reform is perhaps too little, rather than too much, because, Mr. Chairman, the lawmaking that is going on in the executive branch, including those so-called independent agencies, is independent of our responsibility, as Members of Congress.

We are supposed to make the laws, and we are supposed to make them in the clear light of day, with all sides having an opportunity to be heard.

Rulemaking for too long has been, in fact, done in secret, shown up without any input, and then those very manufacturers and producers and growers--the regulated--have the option of trying to come here and asking us to strike down or slow down the speed of some ill-conceived regulation.

So this important legislation--something that President Obama supported, something President Clinton supported, something that people in the executive branch understand needs to happen--needs to pass here today. I strongly urge the passage of this bill, this bipartisan legislation.

I thank Chairman Lankford, and I thank Congresswoman Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1211) to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act), to provide for greater public access to information, 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.

H.R. 1211, the FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act, or FOIA Act, is a bipartisan bill approved unanimously by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last March. I cosponsored the legislation, which Ranking Member Elijah Cummings authored.

The bill is a product of the joint effort by our staffs. The legislation has been endorsed by 29 nonpartisan transparency groups, including the Project On Government Oversight, known as POGO, Government in the Sunshine, the Sunlight Foundation, and the American Society of News Editors.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical at this time that the American people believe and actually receive the information that lets them understand what their government is doing.

A key provision of this bill is to codify requirements in a FOIA memorandum issued by President Obama and Attorney General Holder. This includes making the presumption of openness standard the law of the land. That means that an agency can only withhold information if the disclosure of such records would cause foreseeable harm. This shifts the burden of proof from the public requester seeking information about a government agency, with which he must now demonstrate that he has the need to the government being open and transparent, unless it has a good reason to withhold.

The FOIA Act of 2014 also requires an unprecedented level of proactive disclosure. That means that more information will be made available to the public without each individual interested in the information needing to file separate FOIA requests to get it.

Mr. Speaker, in plain English, if one person and then another person or one entity and another entity seem to want to have the same information, rather than the agencies possibly posting it publicly, they will be required to post it publicly, so that which a few agencies want to know or a few private organizations want to know, the entire public would have easy access. Another way of putting it is, if you are going to tell one person that it is reasonable to have public access, then all the public should have easy access to that information.

These proactive disclosure requirements are intended to make the information-sharing a routine part of government. Like the DATA Act passed earlier this year, which the House approved, the FOIA Act requires all information be posted in an electronic, publicly accessible format.

Raw data will be available as the original format so that it can be machine-searched and give the widest ability for the public to have not just access to the letters, but access to the meaning and the cross- meaning of this information.

Under this bill, more agencies will be using technology to increase transparency by processing FOIA requests through a centralized Web portal. Users will submit requests in one location, where agencies can automatically post their response. This kind of one-point access is something the public has long waited for from the Federal Government.

The legislation before the House today modestly amends the committee- reported bill by establishing an Open Government Advisory Committee, housed within the National Archives' Office of Government Information Services. The Open Government Advisory Committee will ensure that reform efforts continue after this bill is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the FOIA law is one of the most important additional accesses to the American people; and I might note with thanks that this is an initiative begun by this administration, by President Obama, that we believe should be there for all times.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We don't often find in this body the kind of consensus behind something that, as the ranking member said, has gone both ways under different Presidents.

I am a proud Republican, but I believe that the order given by President Obama was the right order. The order given by President Bush, perhaps in light of 9/11, perhaps in light of other considerations, might have seemed right at the time.

But let me make something clear today: on our committee, there is unanimity. The American people must have access to all the information, unless there is a specific reason to withhold it.

This requirement under FOIA today will drive the DATA Act and other reforms that will cause information to be likely stored in formats that are easier for agencies to determine that which they must withhold. We think it is important.

Today, legions of people often spend countless hours redacting nothing more than one name or one Social Security number that cannot be found, except by a set of eyes scanning over it.

So, in addition to the American people getting what they are entitled to under this act, we believe that it will drive the kind of innovation automation that actually will save the American people money and cause more information to be available.

Just as census data is critical to our economy, so is access to what your government is doing, planning to do, or thought about, talked about, or did in the process of making laws, regulations, and rules.

So I join with my colleague in believing that this is a time in which we say this President acted properly in how he ordered something, we believe codifying it, so that no follow-on President could modify it or fail to deliver what this legislation envisions.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I close, I want to thank my partner in this legislation, Mr. Cummings.

In order to get this kind of legislation, you do need to make sure that you have dotted the i's, and I believe we have done so. The minor modification that was made between the time it left the committee and the floor is one that was done on a bipartisan basis. Were this to go back to our committee, of course it would pass unanimously. Therefore, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1211--to support the bill, to support freedom, to support the opportunity for the American people to know.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1232) to amend titles 40, 41, and 44, United States Code, to eliminate duplication and waste in information technology acquisition and management, 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.

This bill, the Federal IT Acquisition Reform Act, or FITARA, is a slightly modified version of the one that left committee. It was changed only with my cosponsor's concurrence in order to make it more likely to easily pass both bodies. This is, in fact, substantially the same bill, as amended, as the full House voted last year to incorporate in the House version of the defense authorization bill.

H.R. 1232 reforms governmentwide the process by which the government annually acquires and employs, roughly, $81 billion of Federal information technology. To quote President Obama on November 14, 2013: ``One of the things the Federal Government does not do well is information technology procurement.''

Now, that was profound because, in the fifth year of his Presidency, it is very clear that the President has realized that this is a monumental task, one inherited by him, not one created by him.

There are systematic problems in the way that we procure IT, including the nature of the history of individuals at all levels thinking they can buy something, and often they can, but too often our committee sees and reviews billion-dollar writeoffs of IT programs in which you cannot find out who was in charge, in which you cannot find out how they went on so long, and the hardest thing to find out is why they don't work at the end of $1 billion worth of ``in and out'' of House production. Indeed, industry experts estimate that as much as 25 percent of the over $80 billion annual expenditure is mismanaged or is attributable to duplicative investments or simply doesn't come to be used.

We need to enhance the best value to the taxpayer. More importantly, good software saves billions of dollars and countless lives and countless hours if it works. Bad or poorly done software can frustrate the American public and can often deprive them of the very product or service that they expect to receive.

When this bill was originally envisioned, written, and passed out of our committee, no one had heard of the healthcare.gov Web site. Our committee, in fact, had looked at countless other failures within the IT procurement community, including ones at the

Department of Defense and others, including ones that occurred under previous Presidents. We had determined, along with Mr. Connolly, that there were a number of areas in which we needed to make fundamental change. So, although the American people can certainly see the launch of healthcare.gov as a poster child for not done on time, not, perhaps, done on a budget that we would be proud of and certainly something for which you could not find the responsible parties, even when you called them before your committee, let us make this clear: this bill is not about one failure. It is about a governmentwide, longstanding failure that predates this administration.

Among the things that FITARA will do is to create a clear line of responsibility, authority, and accountability over IT investment and management decisions by empowering agency CIOs; creating an operational framework to dramatically enhance the government's ability to procure commonly used IT faster, cheaper, and smarter; and strengthening the IT acquisition workforce. I want to reiterate this, that this is the Federal IT acquisition force. There can be no better investment than to make sure the people whom you trust the most for procuring IT, both from a standpoint of functionality and security, be a well-trained workforce, which is part of what we want to make sure we have.

FITARA accelerates and consolidates and optimizes the organization of government's proliferating data centers, something that my colleague from Virginia has worked on tirelessly. It increases the transparency of IT investment scorecards by requiring 80 percent of governmentwide IT spending to be covered by public Web sites called ``IT dashboards,'' and it ensures procurement decisions give due consideration to all technologies, including open source. I might note that for the $677 million that initially was spent on healthcare.gov, some of the areas in which the code worked was proven open source technology that was made available.

The discussion draft of this bill was first posted by our committee on its Web site 18 months ago. We held two full committee hearings on the bill, and the language that has evolved through the course of several rewrites and extensive feedback by the contracting and technology communities and experts inside and outside of the government has given us the legislation you see before you today. This is a significant and timely reform that enhances both defense and nondefense procurement, and I urge all Members to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), a man who has worked diligently on the subcommittee to ensure that national security includes Internet security.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

My partners in this are sitting on the other side of the aisle. But this committee has come together to look at a problem as simple as chief information officer doesn't mean ``chief.'' It is simply a hollow title.

This bill, more than anything else to the American people, means that for every piece of major IT procurement, there will be a chief information officer; and that CIO will have budget authority and be held accountable, but also be given the ability to make those decisions, including pulling the ``stop'' button on a bad piece of legislation.

So the title of CIO and CTO and some of the other titles need to mean something. Our committee unanimously believes that if you are to be a chief, you have to be able to tell the Indians what to do. You can't be a chief in name only, and when something doesn't work, find yourself without the ability to call ``halt,'' to go directly to the agency head or do the other things we would expect the title ``chief'' to mean.

So, for that reason, I believe it has united a committee behind something that must pass today, go to the Senate and be taken up and become law, if we are going to begin regaining the American people's confidence in our ability to procure large information systems.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In closing, first, I urge all Members to vote on this important legislation to send a strong message that this is a do-something Congress when it comes to problems that have been around for a very long time.

Secondly, I would like to take a moment, in a bit of personal privilege, to say to the American workforce that work for the Federal Government that, in every investigation by our committee, we have found in every failed project there were legions of good Federal employees who recognized the problem, sent letters, and who tried to have a program that was not going right to go right or go better.

It is not for lack of many, many in the Federal workforce who are doing their job as best they can. It is for lack of a consolidated and predictable chain of command. It is for lack of the ability to have somebody know they are in charge, bear the full weight, and be qualified.

I have no doubt that, upon enactment of this law, the Federal workforce will begin to breathe a breath of fresh air to know that they are being empowered to do the work they so desperately want to do, and that the tools are going to be added for them and the titles will become a title earned and then used wisely.

Seldom do we spend a lot of time on the House floor talking about how great the Federal workforce is. We are talking about monumental failures. Let's understand that it is not for lack of good programmers, it is not for lack of good contractors, and it is not for lack of well- meaning and dedicated Federal workers that we come today. It is for the need to organize them in a way in which we believe they can be successful. And that is the other part of our committee. We are the Committee on Government and Oversight Reform, and today is a structural reform in how we purchase information technology.

For that, I want to thank my partners on the other side of the aisle because we have been right next to each other on this all the way. I particularly thank Mr. Connolly, who has put his staff and his own personal time into every aspect of this, and who also added his earlier legislation that allows us to bring about the necessary consolidation of duplicative centers spread around the country. They are simply a waste of energy and a waste of software power.

So I see this as a win-win, one in which Republicans and Democrats have come together in a Congress that does not have a great reputation but, on occasion, does great things.

I urge support for this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

When our committee works together in the way they have, particularly under the leadership of Chairman Lankford, we can do some amazing reforms. This is, in fact, more amazing than people might at first gather.

For example, this requires something as simple as to have the Office of Management and Budget report what is called the all-in cost of Federal programs. For too long, the American people have heard about what a program costs, only to find out that if you go through all the various budgets that a particular action is spread about, it might cost five or six times as much.

That kind of single point accountability is just one of the many reasons that this well-thought-out, bipartisan legislation, led by Mr. Lankford, really needs to be passed today as part of this package of reforms to get a government accountability to the American people.

I thank the chairman. I thank the ranking member.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, when I was alerted as to this change, like Mr. Polis, I asked, What will be the impact? And, at first glance, I was concerned that it could be a poison pill, that it could limit the ability, for example, for somebody to take trade-ins of thousands of phones and unlock them, but I found no such case because they are buying from an individual.

At that moment, they choose to unlock it as part of the arrangement, and you now have an unlocked phone. There is no prohibition on buying 500 unlocked phones and selling 500 unlocked phones.

As a matter of fact, when I went through the language of bulk sales, I could find essentially no possible business plan that would require the unlocking of bulk phones, except as to buying from a wholesaler who did not intend them to be unlocked, intended them to be sold individually, unlocking them, and then selling them off to another party.

Any transaction in which the product gets to an individual or in which unlocking occurs at the time of the individual is fully covered by this bill.

So although I did share the concern of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) that there was a scenario in which somebody would not be able to unlock a phone, I discovered that there was nothing that the consumer would be affected by that could possibly affect this.

For example, let me say that, hypothetically, I am that individual, that company, and Mr. Polis and I have something in common, which is we both ran companies. If I am an individual and I want to buy 1,000 locked phones, there is going to be an easy unlock capability. Third parties are going to be able to provide the unlock capability.

I can buy 1,000 locked phones or 100,000 locked phones. I can sell them to somebody else, who sells them to somebody else. Anytime that company or individual is down to the end user who wants to unlock a phone, that capability is there.

Mr. Polis is one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable and trained people in this area of anyone in Congress, but if we go through each of the workarounds that we, in business, would do, I can find no scenario whatsoever in which this would stop the consumer from receiving an unlocked phone, if they chose to, even if, in the interim basis, there were many transactions of 10 or 100,000 phones of bulk sale.

It does not prevent the sale of unlocked bulk phones being sold and resold. It does not prevent the bulk sale of locked phones. So you only have to ensure, as I understand the law--and I have checked it against the language--that the unlocking occurs in support of the consumer.

So though I share the opposition's concern, I believe--I have looked through, vetted it, and like Mr. Polis, as a businessman, I have found that it stops no business plan and hurts no consumer.

I thank the chairman for bringing this legislation. I urge its support.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, famously, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, We have nothing to fear but fear itself. That is not true here and, sadly, the last speaker is entitled to his opinion, but the facts do not bear out his conclusions.

The truth is that actual interviews and depositions taken of the highest-ranking people that helped develop this Web site, both public and private, show there was no end-to-end testing. It did not meet the spirit of any definition of a secure Web site.

In fact, the highest-ranking person, Teresa Fryer, on September 20, was unwilling to recommend this site go active, and said under oath that if it had been within her authority to stop it, she would have.

It is very clear, even from the White House's statements in the last few days, that they claim to have mitigated or have a plan to mitigate significant security risks. The American people need to understand a plan to mitigate means they have not mitigated security risks.

This is the situation we are in, in which no private sector company, including Target, would go live with a system that has known failures and unknown failures because of a failure to do end-to-end.

All we are asking for is, since Secretary Sebelius, under oath, has been wrong on multiple occasions, I have called for her to make clear that she made false statements. The fact is what we need is a law that makes it clear that they should do the right thing, not say they have always done the right thing and they will do the right thing, because in the case of healthcare.gov, they launched a site that was neither functionally ready, nor had it been security tested, and it had known failures that were not mitigated prior to the launch.

Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for support of this bill.

Madam Chairman, my colleague from California a few moments ago spoke eloquently on behalf of the small inventor, but he didn't speak for me, and I am a small inventor.

When I patented my first product, all I had were a couple of employees and an idea. I presented a product that I really wanted to make to a company that I thought would buy it, and then I raced down to protect my rights and succeeded. Ultimately, I was paid.

I know very well what you do if you assert patent infringement if you want to prevail. You look at the competitor's product; you take some due diligence. All this legislation is trying to do, and do well, is to put some teeth into what my colleague from California disparaged: the trolls who will simply surf the Internet and send out litigation alleging patent infringement with products they have never looked at, understood, nor do they know if they fall under their patent.

I have received damages under the rule 11 sanction. I know what it takes to share a completely frivolous case. I have prosecuted my own patents against infringers. I know what you should do before you assert to somebody ``patent infringement.''

This bill does one thing very well. It puts a little bit of teeth finally back into what the trolls use as a tool: file a lawsuit and collect an amount of money because people don't want to spend it on litigation.

Just for once I would like us to understand this is not sponsored by the big guys. In fact, the little guy starting a company, who gets a letter or a suit from a troll, is the person that this will protect. I know this firsthand from more than three decades of being an inventor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this issue.

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3343) to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the rules regarding the determination of the compensation of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia.

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, a capable chief financial officer is paramount to the physical health and integrity and defensiveness of any organization that he or she oversees. The District of Columbia is no exception. Just the opposite. The Federal city is perhaps the most important place for people to look at a microcosm of whether or not the Federal Government can be fiscally responsible.

In the 1990s, when the District of Columbia was bankrupt, Congress, at its discretion and the direction of this committee, stepped in with sweeping legislation to help the city's sinking financial ship. Included in these reforms was the establishment of an independent chief financial officer to oversee the city's finances. Since the creation of this position, Congress has come to rely upon the D.C. CFO to give an objective, unvarnished picture of the city's finances. The D.C. CFO is our best window into the financial status of the Federal city.

The bill before us today spends no Federal dollars. It simply allows the District to use its own locally generated funds to pay its CFO as much as a member of the Federal Government's Senior Executive Service can receive in total compensation. Now, I know that the men and women here on the floor understand the Senior Executive Service. But for those who may not, we have, throughout the government, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positions that are very senior that make, in fact, at times more than Members of Congress. These are specialists. These are highly trained career professionals that, in fact, make up to but not more than the Vice President.

Back in the 1990s when we created this position, we established an amount that seemed reasonable at the time. Today, establishing a more flexible amount, one that can change over time as the Senior Executive Service changes, makes more sense. Ultimately, there are CFOs throughout government--some of them controlling less responsibility and smaller amounts of funds and certainly, in many cases, less significant and complex relationships than that of a city of over 500,000 with countless different departments, including, obviously, the

education of children, the security of the Federal city, and the like. For that reason, it seems only fitting that we link it to a salary that can be at least as great as a senior Federal service.

Now, ultimately, we are not mandating a salary. We are only allowing the city to recruit someone who is created by an act of Congress to serve this body as a window into our oversight of the Federal city. This legislation was supported unanimously by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee last month, and I urge all Members to support this important technical change to the charter for the city of the District of Columbia.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, to my colleague from the District of Columbia, Eleanor, thank you. Thank you for the work you do for the District. It is our committee's jurisdiction to oversee the Federal city, and it is an honor; but it wouldn't be possible if not for the engagement of Delegate Norton, if it wasn't for the cooperation we have had with the Mayor and members of the council and with the outgoing CFO.

So we don't often get an opportunity on the House floor to talk about, candidly, the fact that we are hosted by a city here. We have jurisdiction over it; but, ultimately, the day-to-day operation is not a burden to Congress but, rather, a benefit to Congress that we have by having this unique relationship.

So as I urge all Members to vote for this important change, I want to thank the majority leader and all those who have brought this bill in a timely fashion to the floor so that we could make a decision and go to hiring a new CFO so we would never be without a person to oversee the finances and to report to Congress in a timely fashion so that we can have confidence that the people who so kindly host us, in fact, will remain fiscally responsible and solvent throughout anything that may come their way.

So, again, to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), I thank her. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an American who has shown enormous commitment to our country and veterans during this stalemate in Washington. In response to the partial government shutdown, Chris Cox, a resident of South Carolina, travelled to Washington to assemble the Monument Militia--a one-man mission to maintain the National Mall.

As some of our leaders in Washington, D.C. are unwilling to negotiate with members of the opposite political party to devise a solution to re-open the federal government--something the American people want and deserve--our national monuments and museums remain closed and National Park Service employees normally tasked with keeping the Mall clean remain furloughed.

Therefore, Mr. Cox took it upon himself to ensure the lawn of the iconic Lincoln Memorial was mowed and kept tidy for the thousands of veterans who will descend on our nation's capital this weekend for the Million Vet March.

When Mr. Cox was asked why he travelled from South Carolina, armed with just a chainsaw and lawn mower, to clean up our National Mall, he responded, ``These are our memorials. If they shut down our memorials, we're still going to take the trash out, we're going to clean the windows, we're going to cut the grass, we're going to pull the weeds, we're going to do the tree work.''

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Cox just this weekend when riding my bike around the monuments--surveying how the shutdown has impacted our National Mall. Mr. Cox, carrying his state flag of South Carolina, expressed his sincerest hope that he would be able to clean the area around the Lincoln Memorial to the World War II Memorial because our veterans dedicated their lives and fought for us so we should fight and honor them, even if the government is shut down.

This is the American spirit. This is the attitude and perseverance our Founding Fathers demonstrated in the face of adversity. Patriotic acts, like the ones recently displayed by Mr. Cox, serve as a great reminder of how Washington should conduct itself in this frustrating time.

I again offer Mr. Cox my sincerest and humble gratitude for his service and commitment to our nation and its veterans, as well as the passion and conviction that led him to Washington to make sure our National Mall looks its best for our heroes.