Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I'm the gentleman, the colleague, that walked up to Mr. Dingell and asked him if he'd ever seen it this bad before. And I'm sorry to hear that he did. Because in his 57 years, he covered 57 of my 59 years of life. So I hope I'm not the petulant child when I say that, quite frankly, the disregard over the District of Columbia is on his side of the aisle.

It's not an appropriations bill. It's not really part of the CR.

The truth is the District of Columbia pulls quarters out of meters every day, and they're not going to be allowed to spend that. They receive revenues from building permits, but they're not going to be able to use that money to keep the people that look at those building permits employed.

They receive money from the various services they do, including, obviously, making sure that the property in the District of Columbia is protected. And that creates the property value on which we who own property in the District of Columbia--and I am among them--pay our taxes.

Now, the Democrats love to talk about taxation without representation. Well, I'm here today to say, Where is Eleanor Holmes Norton's representation? Give her her due.

They're being taxed locally. Those moneys will build up locally. And you're saying they can't spend it?

There's no question in your mind that the right thing to do is to pass a CR on everything cleanly. That's good. But until we pass a CR which would include some funds for the District of Columbia, allowing them to have what every single Member on both sides of the aisle has going on in every single city in their districts, it's just fairness.

Do not treat the District of Columbia greater than what it is--it is the Federal city--but for goodness sake, it's a city. It should have the right to spend its own money.

Yesterday, I was pleased to see some 34 Democrats cross former Speaker Pelosi's orders and edicts to vote ``no'' on everything and vote with Eleanor Holmes Norton. I just hope today that people will search their souls and ask the question, Don't you really want to vote ``yes''?

Isn't this a time in which you show your independence and do the right thing for the District of Columbia and let them spend their own money? Or will you go home to the city you live in tonight or this weekend, knowing that they're spending the money that they collect locally and you're denying the District of Columbia the ability to spend the money it collects locally?

Our committee passed unanimously a bill to make that permanent. It wasn't an appropriations bill. It was a statutory change to the Home Rule Act. I only ask that you realize that we were on a trajectory toward providing an enhancement in home rule that would cover this. I want that bill brought up as soon as possible, but this is the equivalent for this crisis period.

I saw my friend Eleanor Holmes Norton almost in tears yesterday because she couldn't believe her own party wouldn't support her. Don't do that today.

Support the Delegate from the District of Columbia and support the people of the District of Columbia in their ability to spend their own money, or you will be damning them to taxation without representation.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, point of order. At what point does this become dilatory activity inconsistent with the decorum of the House?

Mr. Speaker, if I could yield my time to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, she would probably say these words better than I can. But Eleanor, thank you; thank you for your impassioned speech.

Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia is different. Every Member, who in just a few minutes will vote on this piece of legislation, has the right to vote because we are from States. And every State in the Union is continuing to collect revenue and spend it as we fiddle.

Here in the District of Columbia, it is different. The District of Columbia is the only place here in the United States in which full citizens--undeniably citizens of the United States, with every right and privilege, including voting in every Presidential election--find themselves shut down if we don't pass a budget, if we don't pass appropriations.

Now, I heard the gentleman from New York, regrettably, lump in this bill with his opinion as though all three were the same. First of all, this is not a Tea Party bill. This is a bill inspired by both the majority and minority, under Ms. Norton's leadership, to come up with a solution similar to what we came up with 17 years ago for the District. This is also inspired by a similar bill that is sitting in the Senate that wants to accomplish the same thing.

This is not Tea Party. As a matter of fact, the easiest thing to do, if you want to be strident, would be in fact to shut down the District. But every one of us who knows that, back home, our States and our cities continue to operate with their own funds knows that we have an obligation to allow the District of Columbia to spend their own funds.

I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Crenshaw, and the chairman of the full committee for bringing this quickly to the floor.

Some months ago, we passed H.R. 2793, which would address this on a permanent basis, finding a way for--anytime this happens--the District of Columbia to continue spending its own money, and to plan their budget around the possibility that they would be offering jobs to teachers and so on during a time different than our budget year. I hope to have that bill on the floor in the reasonably near future.

But today, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairman Darrell Issa, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, and all of us on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have already voted for this and more. And the Senate has supported this and more.

So you're not looking at the same as the other bills. Not one penny of appropriated funds actually is being determined today. We're talking about the money from the parking meters. We're talking about the money from property taxes. We're talking about the work that Mayor Gray and the city council do every day like the mayors of our city.

I talked to the mayor today, and he said: I don't know what you're going to do, but please do something. Mayor Gray deserves to have his funds overseen--because it's a Federal city? Yes. But kidnapped? No.

This is a narrow bill; it is not what I want to achieve for the District of Columbia. But it is in fact what gets us from now to December.

So I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle--and I will work my side of the aisle, and Eleanor, I know you're not leaving the floor on this one--we have to pass this overwhelmingly because we're talking about the same right to spend their own money as every city in America has, every country in America, and every State in America. And as Americans, we can do no less for the people of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I know I've already spoken, but as I talked to my friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the delegate made an impassioned plea to me, and it needs to be said.

We need to pass this. We need to pass this to show that we can in fact--maybe not agree on everything, maybe not agree on appropriations, but we need to pass this because the District deserves not to be held hostage in our fight. I will whip every Republican to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

I can't say that I'm going to intervene in everything that we do, but this one is important. I would ask all of us to really search our soul and say: Is the District of Columbia and their own funds the place we should be having an argument, or can we at least admit that if we get above the fray here today--the Senate has already gotten above it.

A similar bill has already been hot-lined. This is not where the House and the Senate disagree and, as a result, it should not be where we fail to come together.

I ask all my friends to join with Eleanor Holmes Norton and me and pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud Californian, I join Ms. Pelosi in congratulating Oracle Team USA. Ever since Dennis Conner brought the Cup to California, we, as Californians, are very proud of it.

I didn't spend the weekend in San Francisco, though. I spent it in Libya and in Cairo, because, as we speak here today, the good things that are going on in America are often overshadowed by our poor foreign policy, our inattention to historic allies and obligations.

Today, war is going on in the Sinai, and the Egyptian Army is fighting it while we debate whether or not to support their effort. We debate whether or not a coup that overthrew a dictator who was elected--a man who no sooner got his office then he began moving Egypt toward shari'a law, abolishing its form of balance, including its judiciary and its parliament. We continue to debate.

The fact is we need allies in the region. Israel needs allies in the region. Egypt needs to protect borders from insurgency and terrorism to its south, in the Sinai, and along the Libyan border.

More than ever, the Libyan border is a concern for all of us. It is a lawless area. The term ``Benghazi'' often is taken for the sad loss of four brave Americans at our consulate, but the truth is Benghazi is the next Afghanistan if we cannot engage and stop the terrorism that is going on there. It is a training ground for insurgents--one of many.

So when many talk in foreign policy today about the Arab Spring, I'd like all Americans to understand, Mr. Speaker, the Arab Spring is, in fact, sulfur water spewing from mosques, from terrorist strongholds, from ideological extremists in the region. It is taking on a life of its own under this administration, and that life will end the secular life, the freedom of religion that many moderate Arab states have enjoyed for generations.

Under President Morsi, we saw more than 50 Coptic churches burned; and in the days coming afterwards, even more by the Muslim Brotherhood, who somehow felt that one election based on one man, one vote, and one time would allow them to rule the largest Arab country forever as an Islamic state.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of my colleagues need to begin to look at the wrong direction we have taken. Stop celebrating an Arab Spring that really is about overthrowing allies who we have questions about whether or not they're heading toward a democratic state. But we have no doubt we have pushed them toward the rule of law, toward institutions, and toward being part of a world that denounces and renounces various bad activities.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress strongly enough that if we continue to have a policy of leading from behind, of indecision, of asking this body to spank somebody slightly for using chemical weapons while not taking an affirmative action toward a government that would respect its people, and particularly minorities and Christians in the region, then we have no policy and we have no allies.

Mr. Speaker, I take no pride in saying that when President Obama attempted to go into Syria, he did not get support from his own party nor my party nor virtually any of our historic allies for a reason. His plan was ill-conceived and led to no real positive change in Syria.

For our allies in the region--for Jordan, for Lebanon, for Egypt, and for Israel--we must develop a consistent policy where our enemies fear us and our allies respect and count on us always. We don't have that today. I would call on all my colleagues to become more familiar with the Arab Spring and see the sulfur that comes up and is often mixed and misunderstood for drinking water.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters.

July 30, 2013.

Hon. Darrell Issa,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman Issa: I am writing concerning H.R. 2711,

the ``Citizen Empowerment Act,'' which your Committee ordered

reported on July 24, 2013.

As you know, H.R. 2711 contains provisions within the

Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result

of your having consulted with the Committee and in order to

expedite the House's consideration of H.R. 2711, the

Committee on the Judiciary will not assert is jurisdictional

claim over this bill by seeking a sequential referral.

However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding and

agreement that doing so will in no way diminish or alter the

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect

to the appointment of conferees or to any future

jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in

the bill or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming

this understanding, and would request that you include a copy

of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and

in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of

this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 322, I call up the bill (H.R. 2879) to provide limitations on bonuses for Federal employees during sequestration, to provide for investigative leave requirements for members of the Senior Executive Service, to establish certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions by Executive branch employees with individuals, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2879 and include extraneous materials thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2879, the Stop Government Abuse Act, combines three bills that were each voice voted out of my committee. They are H.R. 1541, the Common Sense in Compensation Act; H.R. 2579, the Government Employee Accountability Act; and H.R. 2711, the Citizen Empowerment Act.

The Common Sense in Compensation title of this bill brings common sense to the policies of governing employee bonuses while still providing agencies flexibility to recognize outstanding performance.

Madam Speaker, 75 percent of senior executives will receive bonuses of at least $6,000 while more than 650,000 defense employees are in the midst of 11 furlough days. This sends the wrong message to our Federal workforce. The men and women of the Federal workforce work hard--all of them.

Some of them do exceptional work, and bonuses are not only an incentive but a recognition. But these bonuses come on top of annual salaries ranging from $119,554 to over $179,000. Going in the range of $30,000 or more sends a message to many of our Federal workforce--in fact, Madam Speaker, most of our Federal workforce--that people at the top get even more.

Following the President's decision to impose a 2-year pay freeze, the administration issued a memo limiting the amount available to pay bonuses for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Moreover, this past February, the administration issued a memo limiting bonuses to those legally required. In June, the administration suspended rank awards for senior leaders. H.R. 1541 builds on the President's initiatives.

The Government Employee Accountability title of the bill helps ensure Senior Executive Service employees are held accountable for their actions while maintaining due process rights. From Jeff Neely at GSA to Lois Lerner at the IRS, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has uncovered numerous examples of high-ranking government officials engaging in behavior that certainly seems to be contrary to the principles of public service.

When people come before Congress and cannot even answer questions as to what they have done in their official capacity by ``taking the Fifth'' and find themselves fully paid for not working, it sends the wrong message to the vast majority of Federal workers. In some cases, these employees could face civil or criminal penalties.

In the private sector, these behaviors would be grounds for serious disciplinary action and, likely, termination. But in the Federal bureaucracy, that isn't what happened. Only in Washington could these employees be not terminated but, instead, placed on administrative leave with full pay, full benefits, and accruing additional retirement.

This bill provides agencies with additional tools to use when senior managers behave badly. It does not require these tools be used, but it makes them available. A similar version of this bill was passed by the House by a vote of 402-2 in the last Congress.

The final title of the bill before us today consists of the text of House Resolution 2711, the Citizen Empowerment Act, as reported from my committee. This legislation protects individual citizens from harassment, intimidation, and inappropriate behavior by a few Federal officials representing agencies such as the IRS, EPA, and the SEC.

Unfortunately, these few bad actors at agencies have, from time to time, threatened, intimidated, coerced, lied, or violated the public trust. And yet, in 12 out of our 50 States, citizens are not empowered to unilaterally record these conversations for their own protection. In 38 States, they may. We simply seek, in this bill, to harmonize across the government a predictability. When intimidation and wrong behavior happens, we need to make sure that there is a simple solution that every American can avail themselves of.

This bill ensures individuals have a right to record in-person meetings and telephone calls with Federal employees, including regulatory officials engaged in enforcement activities that can lead to the imposition of fines and penalties. In essence, what this bill does is provide consistency on behalf of the Federal employees acting in their official capacity. I want to make that very clear, Madam Speaker.

Federal employees today don't have an easy answer. In some States--38 of them--they can be recorded; in one State, they may be recorded; and in 11 States, they are likely not to be recorded because, in fact, it requires their advance permission. Uniformity across the Federal workforce is a good thing. We believe that it also will tell every member to treat people the same, whether they live in a State where they may be recorded or not.

I encourage all Members to support these three bills and remind all that these passed on a voice vote out of our committee and were not considered controversial in the previous Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

This is probably Groundhog Day, because these were the same statements made yesterday by the ranking member from Maryland, who implied that somehow what happens in 38 States would be draconian if it happened in 12 more.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but not his facts.

In the bill itself, which I read yesterday, it says:

An employee removed under this section shall be notified of

the reasons for such removal within 30 days.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman from Virginia would have kept this person on for how long--weeks, months, more than a year? This individual received a bonus after more than a year.

When this bill came through our committee, the amendment to say ``in all cases 30 days'' could have been offered; it wasn't. This came through in regular order of the committee. The language was published. There was every opportunity.

When the gentleman from Virginia said ``redrafted,'' with all due respect, not a word was changed in any of these three bills from the time it left our committee until today when it's being considered.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished minority whip presumes to tell me about the private sector and how much people make. The problem is that I came from the private sector. I know the difference between management and labor, and I know the difference between people who elect to be the top-paid management of entities and who typically serve at will in the private sector. Those of the Senior Executive Service are, in fact, people who choose to get additional pay for these special responsibilities, and they know what they're doing when they get into it. We are proud of most of them, the vast majority of them.

The fact is that Mr. Hoyer has people who serve at will. He fires them without notice if he chooses to. Yet he cannot understand the fact by that picture I held up--I won't hold it up again; it's reprehensible even though it has been well seen--that that man continued to work and get a bonus during the 10 months in which the GSA Administrator knew wrongdoing had occurred on his watch. It wasn't until he decided to retire--to be honest, my understanding is with criminal allegations-- that he even left and stopped getting his pay, and, today, he enjoys a very comfortable retirement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Then I will close at this time and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, controversy comes in all forms. Sometimes it's legitimate; sometimes there are differences that are unresolved; sometimes, though, you find yourself befuddled.

These three bills passed on a voice vote. It didn't mean that they would have been authored by any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or that they loved them. It meant that they were given a full opportunity to evaluate these, to offer amendments, to have up-or-down votes on them. Many of the suggestions they made were taken into account on many of the bills marked up during that long day. Many of the things being brought up here today simply were not brought up, and it's not because they didn't know about this.

When you have a version of this bill that's almost identical to that passed on December 19 of last year by a vote of 402-2, that means that you have people that today are vehemently opposed to provisions that they already voted for. I repeat, they're vehemently opposed to provisions they already voted for. I don't have the names of the two people that voted ``no.'' They certainly have a right to express why they voted ``no'' last December.

I can tell you that when you have to only terminate 4/100 of 1 percent of the workforce, if you do it at all, the head of the agency has to determine that the employee has done something seriously wrong in regards to negligence of duty or misappropriation of funds or malfeasance. They have to determine that the employee did it knowingly, and they have to consider it necessary and advisable to protect this enterprise.

On top of that, the employee does have to be told why they're being terminated. I think that's important, because the ranking member and I heard from a woman in a hearing who left me feeling absolutely shocked. She's been on leave without pay, and to this day, an investigation that is ongoing, months into it, she's never been told why she's on leave without pay. To be honest, she's a member of the Senior Executive Service.

Maybe she would fall under this bill. But in order to fall under this bill, some things would have to happen. First of all, the head of the agency would have to make a decision of wrongdoing, and it would be held by that decision being reasonable after the fact. They'd have to have told her why she's being removed, and she would already have had an opportunity in front of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the U.S. Court of Appeals, known as the Fed circuit. She already would have had all this due process, except months go by and she doesn't know and she's on administrative leave.

The fact is this is a tool. They don't have to use it. If they use it, they have to make sure that it's only for serious violations: neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds, or malfeasance. These are very serious. An extremely small part, highly compensated, respected people, and a few bad actors for neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds, or malfeasance can be removed. They still have their rights. We knew this was constitutional. To be honest, the complaint we seemed to have in committee for hours was something that I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker.

Members of my committee, when talking about the idea that only one- third without special exception of employees in any agency could receive bonuses rather than the 75 or 80 percent you heard about here today, they said, But this is their right. They've negotiated that. You're interfering with their contracts.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government does not allow negotiation in collective bargaining or otherwise for wages. We have a standard scale. Bonuses were created for only one purpose, and that was, in fact, to reward good behavior as an incentive.

These bills are well thought out and are only controversial today because the minority wants to make them controversial to create a controversy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2711) to amend title 5, United States Code, to establish certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions by Executive branch employees with individuals, 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, we have the author of this legislation before us, a principled Member of Congress who saw a problem and sought to fix it, and we brought it before you today. We brought it before you today because we hear, and hear rightfully, horror stories of harassment that includes Federal officials at the IRS, the EPA, the SEC, the FEC, and a list of other ABCs.

The truth is that in 39 out of 50 States, every Member on a phone, every American has a right to record that conversation without asking permission of that Federal officer on the other end. But in 11 States, States that most people don't know which is which, that is muddied. When a conversation occurs between two States, it is muddied.

The gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), as the author of this bill, sought, in principle, to fix that, and I'd like to yield 2 minutes to her to explain her bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask what day it is, what day of the month it is.

Mr. Speaker, is it the 31st day of July? Can you verify that for me? Because on the 24th of July, we amended this bill to send it to the House, and the ranking member knows full well, as I'm sure the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association know full well; and I'm shocked that they would write and that, in fact, the ranking member would write in a Dear Colleague, citing them, things that just aren't so in this bill.

Before us today we do not preempt States. As the ranking member rightfully so said, we make a statement on behalf of the Federal Government for our employees that we hereby consent that you may record us.

In 39 out of 50 States--there's a little ambiguity in that Montana allows these recordings; it just doesn't broadly allow them, but does recording for a law enforcement officer. But having said that, whether it's 11 or 12, the gentleman cited a portion of that letter from the National Association of U.S. Attorneys, but let me give you a portion that I want to make sure gets on the record.

It says, H.R. 2711 requires any employee of an executive agency, before or at a personal interview or telephonic interchange with an individual, to allow the individual to make an audio recording of the in-person or telephonic interaction.

We'll let that one slide. We'll go to the next sentence.

In addition, the legislation requires the executive branch employee to first provide notice to the individual of their right to make such a recording.

Mr. Speaker, that's just not true. We went through a long markup and, in that markup, in a manager's amendment, we made it very clear that the only notice the Federal Government would give would be a notice in its publications, Web sites, and so on letting Americans know that they no longer had to ask, if they were in Idaho, if, in fact, somebody calling them from Maryland did or didn't need to know that they were recording.

This interstate situation is one in which the American people deserve to know that they have a right to document when someone calls them, and if they trip up in that answer, they could go to jail or get a fine or lose their business.

Thirty-nine out of 50 States recognize it, and all we're saying, very clearly, is the Federal Government gives its approval.

These documents, sadly, were accurate, if you looked at the bill on the 23rd of July. The ranking member knows full well these documents are somewhat inaccurate. And his own letter implies that law enforcement will somehow be crippled by having to give notice. It's just not true.

In 39 out of 50 States, law enforcement would already know that somebody could be recording and not telling them. That's the law of those States.

But, more importantly, we're not affecting the ranking member's Maryland law enforcement. We're affecting Federal officers, such as the EPA, OSHA, and the IRS, when they call and ask you questions. And those questions could lead to real harm to you. And you would be able to document it. And if you're harassed, you'll be able to document it. That's what we're doing here today. We're empowering Americans to know that their Federal Government will never answer the question of, ``May I record this to protect myself? No.''

And in no way, shape, or form are these personal calls. This only affects when a member of our Federal employment is doing their official duty and calling a private citizen. Of course, the private citizen should have the rights since this isn't a personal call and one in which you should expect to be able to say whatever you want. These are not private. These are public conversations. These are public investigations. And the public should have a right to protect itself.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a longtime businessman and someone who knows firsthand about abusive governments.

I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say, you know, if two people take the Fifth when asked about their official conduct and there isn't a scandal, I'd be surprised to find that the gentleman from Maryland would find a scandal no matter what we find there.

My 10 seconds has expired.

Pardon me?

I yield myself an additional 10 seconds and yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the minority whip knows the Constitution. All of us have taken time to understand it. But when we investigate real wrongdoing-- wrongdoing like the IRS, wrongdoing that the American people understand, it was just wrong. Even the President started off agreeing with that. Then somehow, whether it's IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, or just somebody at the IRS putting a half-billion-dollar contract out to their buddy and then claiming that, as they got them to contract, that they didn't really know them well, somehow these become phony scandals.

There's only one scandal in Washington, and that's when we find things that are wrong and we don't fix them. We don't have to worry about who at the top is in charge, but we have an obligation to fix them. When people take the Fifth when you're asking simply questions about their official conduct, yes, that's the beginning of a scandal here in Washington--and if not here in Washington, around the rest of America.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) to speak on the bill before us.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, there was only one amendment offered by the minority, and this bill passed unanimously on a voice vote. The gentleman on the other side could have asked for a recorded vote if he objected to it; he did not.

We are trying to give the 2 million men and women who are Federal workers the right to record when they're called. This is a right every American gets, including the Federal worker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will read from the actual language, as amended, the bill before us today that says, ``Notice of rights when Federal employees engage in certain actions.'' It says:

A notice of an individual's right to record conversations

with employees shall be included in any written material

provided by an executive agency.

Mr. Speaker, that's the only notice that's required in this bill. And that's simply, quite frankly, to let people know that it's a 50-State right, where today it's a 39-State right.

I appreciate the fact that unions and associations representing Federal employees have made statements. I just don't appreciate the fact that they've gotten the details of the actual bill wrong--and knowingly wrong, based on the dates of their letter.

More importantly, let's understand, this bill does not require verbal notice of a right to record given by a Federal official. It does not compromise that. More importantly, in 39 States, the public has this right; and in the other States, in most cases, the worst that would happen would be, if a person pulled it out, they might not be able to use it when trying to defend themselves.

But most important, this bill does not override existing Federal wiretap laws. Of course, if somebody's talking classified on an open telephone, yes, I'd like it recorded because I'd like them to be able to make the case that classified information is being inappropriately talked for. But it does not override the right to go into a classified session. But that better not be with the public generally. If you're discussing classified information, please understand that's a secure location.

So I won't accept these canards, these false statements as to what could happen, because it simply isn't in the four squares of the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, classified information said by a Federal employee has an obligation to be said in a secure location. Of course, under the law, they can say no recording devices can be here in this secure location. But of course you go into a classified briefing, one, because you're cleared, and two, you go there knowingly. So let's not accept these kinds of things.

And let's understand, in 39 States, law enforcement is recording without the permission of the public--and more importantly, so is the IRS, the EPA, OSHA, Fish and Wildlife in many cases, or they're simply taking notes and holding you accountable. Remember, in America, if you answer the IRS wrong over the phone, you might very well get a bill; and your only ability to appeal that bill is to the IRS, and you must pay that bill before you can then go to the courts.

Let's understand, we're dealing in all kinds of agencies, and there are good people, lots of good people there. But on behalf of the 2 million Americans who work for the Federal Government, I want them to have the right to protect themselves by being able to have a right to record in all 50 States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we hold these truths to be self- evident: one of them clearly is our right of free speech; another, free association. But protecting from our government is what our Constitution is all about.

My Democratic friends want to talk about the good workers; but the ranking member knows well there are good workers, and there are some that aren't good. There are workers who would never call and harass somebody, and there are people who have threatened Americans repeatedly. We have whistleblowers, and we have proof of that. We have wrongdoing.

When you get harassed by the government or you simply want to make sure that you know what you said, you have the right to do it in 39 States. You have the right to do it in your State, but you may or may not have the right to do it in the other State which the Federal agency is calling you from. If you are a rancher--Fish and Wildlife, EPA, OSHA--these are not just names on a board; these are people who really affect your life and your liberty and your very commerce, your very ability to feed your family.

The minority whip talked about the Federal workforce not having a choice except to keep working because they need the money and they can't strike. We are not going to that issue. In the vast majority of States, this is already the law. They don't need the Federal Government's approval to record.

When we look at harmonizing how people in every State in the Union look to their government and expect their government to look to them, that is a solemn responsibility. We don't preempt States in any way, shape, or form. We simply make it clear that Americans have a relationship with their government that they can count on. One of them is if they get a harassing call from somebody, somebody who is out of line, or they're asked inappropriate questions, it won't be a ``he said, he said, she said, he said.'' They'll have the ability to record it if they choose.

Around here, we know that fact-based documentation and recordings have made a huge difference in finding out the truth about things that have happened. We also know that what people say is often discounted here, even when they're talking about horrific things that happened to them.

If we didn't have documents, not coming very quickly and usually blacked out, about the IRS's abuse of Americans simply trying to teach the Constitution or in some other way assert their rights of free speech, if we didn't have any documentation, it would just be a ``he said, she said.'' It shouldn't be a ``he said, he said.'' It should be absolutely something where you have that right.

I want all 2 million American Federal workers, I want State workers, I want everyone to know that they have this ability. And, yes, I want Federal workers to have an understanding that when they send an email out on the government email system, they, in fact, are sending out a public document, and it is going to be discovered potentially and used and they should be careful what they say or do, because they represent us, they represent the American people.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that didn't need a long set of hearings. I suspect that the same groups would object to it no matter how many hearings we had about Americans' right to life and liberty, their ability to assert what people would consider to be unalienable rights. We are not talking about a complex issue. We are talking about the vast majority of States have one rule, a few have a different rule, and as to Federal workers we are making the statement that we, their government, have decided that the answer if you're asked if you can record is, yes, and you don't even have to be asked.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your consideration, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My amendment is not controversial, but it's critical. At a time when over $80 billion is spent and over 10 percent of it goes completely wasted on information technology purchases by the government, there has never been a more important time to update the legendary, historic Clinger-Cohen Act. That Act in 1996 was attached to the NDAA, exactly as this one is, and it created the positions of Chief Information Officers to oversee IT management.

1996 was a time in which you could still have an IBM AT 286 computer on your desk. The idea of cloud servers didn't exist, and the size and scope and dependency on the cyber environment was never even anticipated.

So as we modernize this act, I would ask to both have it considered as important, but also have it recognized as critically necessary.

One of the most important things and something that makes common sense to the people who may hear this today or read it in the transcript is that we have more chief information officers today than we have departments, and all but one have no budget authority.

This legislation, when enacted, will eliminate that. It will eliminate duplicative IT purchases that give us overruns of as much as 20 percent in our purchasing of licenses, but it also will put real meaning behind the term ``chief information officer.'' Never again will someone have that title and have no budget authority or responsibility. When a program goes right, the chief information officer is responsible; when a program goes awry, it's his or her job to make it right.

Once again, I urge support for a bill that was considered, numerous hearings were held, and it was passed unanimously out of my committee.

Mr. Speaker, the House just recently released a five- separate committee report requested by the Speaker of the House on the aftermath of Benghazi. It tells the American people a story that needs to be told and has not yet been completed. The story is that we did not protect our people in Benghazi.

The Embassy asked for more security. Secretary Clinton cabled back, ``No,'' in April of 2012. On the very day, September 11, that the Ambassador was killed along with three of his colleagues, he said:

It is not a question of if, but when this attack will come.

Today, Congress has not yet seen a plan that ensures this will never happen again. The safety of our men and women all over the world in the State Department and other agencies needs to be assured.

Mr. Speaker, the House needs to address this in a way that we can have confidence that people who serve us abroad will be properly protected.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1163) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, to revise requirements relating to Federal information security, and for other purposes.

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.

Cybersecurity threats represent one of the most serious national security and economic challenges we face in our Nation. Whether it's criminal hackers, organized crime, terrorist networks, or nation- states, our Nation is under siege from dangerous cybersecurity threats that grow daily in frequency and sophistication.

It is critical that the Federal Government address cybersecurity threats in a manner that keeps pace with our Nation's growing dependence on technology, but current Federal law does not adequately address the nature of today's cybersecurity threats.

Since the enactment in 2002 of the Federal Information Security Management Act, or FISMA, it has become a ``check the box'' compliance activity that all too often has little to do with minimizing cyber threats. And yet the Government Accountability Office recently found that security incidents among 24 key agencies increased by 650 percent, or more than six-fold, in the last 5 years.

To address the rising challenge posed by cyber threats, Ranking Member Cummings and I introduced last Congress a bill to reauthorize FISMA. That

bill was adopted by the House unanimously.

Recently, Mr. Cummings and I reintroduced that legislation as H.R. 1163, the Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2013. The bill was voted out of our committee by unanimous vote on March 20. This bill aims to harness the last decade of technological innovation in securing Federal information systems.

To enhance the current framework of securing Federal information technology systems, our bill calls for automated and continuous monitoring of government information systems--and I'm going to repeat-- automated and continuous monitoring of government information systems. And it ensures that continuous monitoring finally incorporates regular threat assessments, not just ``check the box.''

The bill also reaffirms the role of the Office of Management and Budget with respect to FISMA, recognizing that the budgetary leverage of the Executive Office of the President is necessary to ensure agencies are focused on effective security IT systems. Mr. Speaker, that's particularly significant because IT is the backbone of every single large and small agency of the government; and only with the power of the President through the Office of Management and Budget can you, in fact, ensure that the President has transparency and his authority is respected throughout all these agencies.

We can no longer afford the ``check the box'' that came out of the first piece of legislation. It wasn't its intent, and the six-fold increase in the last 5 years says it has failed us.

While our bill does not include new requirements, restrictions, or mandates on private, non-Federal computer systems, H.R. 1163 does highlight the need for stronger public-private partnership. Again, as we interface over the public Internet, it is critical that the weakest link be prevented. To that extent, this bill has received strong support from cybersecurity experts and industry, including TechAmerica, the Information Technology Industry Council, and the Business Software Alliance.

I'd like to personally thank Ranking Member Cummings for partnering, both personally and through his staff, to create a bill that is necessary, timely, and accurate to meet the growing threat of cybersecurity.

I encourage all Members to support this timely legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I want to associate myself with the ranking member's statements.

Mr. Cummings does make the great point that Homeland Security is, in fact, doing a great deal. And if there is an active activity through NSA and other agencies, we applaud that.

A great deal of what this bill reauthorization is intended to do, in working with the subcommittee ranking member Mr. Connolly, is to recognize that there needs to be a public-private partnership. We need our private entities to be as strong as they can be so they don't become conduits for espionage and for attacks. But also that, in fact, it's the smallest entity of government, the one that you don't think much of, the one that may not be high priority that, in fact, also has to be protected: commerce at our public parks; commerce occurring throughout the Federal Government; and, in fact, just the records that are so often collected and maintained in places like the Veterans Administration and so on.

Although they may not represent an immediate threat to national security, as a veteran, I must tell you the fact that those records sit there tells all of us, millions of veterans, that we want to have a robust maintenance of cybersecurity, something that under the current statute we believe the box is being checked, but not all that needs to be done is being done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1163 has many authors: Mr. Cummings and myself, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Tierney. It also has every committee chairman and every ranking member here in the House. And I would like to take a moment to thank all the committee chairmen of Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, and House Administration, because staffs from all of those committees, particularly with the acquiescence of the chairmen and ranking members, have contributed to our fact-finding to try to produce a good bill here today.

I think often our committee is viewed as, what is your authority and so on. This is an odd situation in which, in order for us to bring the bill here today, we really needed all the agencies and all the personnel here to be brought to bear so that we could try to fashion a piece of legislation that would allow the Federal Government to work better, that would allow the executive branch to execute better on behalf of the American people.

Lastly, I would like to thank the outside groups, many of which I mentioned in my opening statement, but even more who responded when this bill was posted for comment. They responded with constructive suggestions.

I know there is a lot of trepidation any time the government is, in fact, looking at data passing through the system, but this and other legislation is a balancing act. We cannot have the economy that we enjoy today if these systems are shut down by attacks. At the same time, I know I join with the ranking member and all of the authors of this legislation in that we are committed to making sure we maintain the personal freedom and the privacy that goes with what we are entrusted to here in the government.

So, in closing, Mr. Speaker, this is an update. It is not the last time we will have to update cybersecurity. It is not the last time we will be here concerned about America's economy so dependent on the Internet, but it is a good bill. It is ready.

I urge its approval, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Committee on Homeland Security,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 11, 2013.

Hon. Darrell E. Issa,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Issa: On March 20, 2013, the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform ordered H.R. 1163, the

``Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2013'',

reported favorably to the House with certain provisions in

the legislation that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of

the Committee on Homeland Security. Specifically, this

legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security

to share cyber threat information with an information

security center, delegate the authority and primary

responsibility of information security to a Chief Information

Security Officer responsible for overseeing a Department-wide

information security program, and recognize the existence of

a Federal information security incident center, which in

practice, is currently the National Cybersecurity and

Communications Integration Center at the Department of

Homeland Security.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum

M-10-28 on July 6, 2010, transferring many of OMB's Federal

information security and responsibilities to the Department

of Homeland Security. Since Memorandum M-10-28 was issued,

the Department of Homeland Security has conducted the

operational aspects of Federal information security through

the functions of the National Cybersecurity and

Communications Integration Center and the United States

Computer Emergency Readiness Team. This legislation, through

its accompanied report, preserves the operational

capabilities of DHS pertaining to Federal information

security while reaffirming OMB's supervisory role with

respect to FISMA.

I understand the importance of advancing this legislation

to the House floor in an expeditious manner. Therefore, the

Committee on Homeland Security will not seek a sequential

referral over provisions within our jurisdiction. This action

is conditional on our mutual understanding and agreement that

doing so will in no way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Homeland Security over the subject matter

included in this or similar legislation. In addition, I would

like to thank you for working

with me on modifying the report that accompanies H.R. 1163 to

ensure the operational role the Department of Homeland

Security plays in the protection of the Nation's Federal

information systems is in no way diminished. I request that

you urge the Speaker to appoint Members of this Committee to

any conference committee for consideration of any provisions

that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Homeland Security in the House-Senate conference on this or

similar legislation.

I also request that this letter and your response be

included in the committee report on H.R. 1163 and into the

Congressional Record during consideration of this measure on

the House floor. Thank you for your consideration of this

matter.

Sincerely,

Michael T. McCaul,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1162) to amend title 31, United States Code, to make improvements in the Government Accountability Office, as amended.

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.

As you know, the Government Accountability Office is a legislative branch agency that investigates how the Federal Government spends taxpayer dollars. Often called the ``congressional watchdog,'' the GAO investigates instances of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. My committee has direct jurisdiction over the GAO.

Congress must have current information on how Federal programs are performing in order to both legislate and effectively conduct meaningful oversight.

H.R. 1162, the GAO Improvement Act, will enhance the GAO's ability to serve Congress primarily by ensuring the agency has access to key data warehoused in the executive branch.

This bill ensures that the GAO has access to the National Directory of New Hires, which is used to verify eligibility for Federal programs, to detect or prevent fraud, and to identify improper payments.

H.R. 1162 will ensure the GAO has the ability to obtain agency records and to administer oaths to witnesses when auditing accounts and investigating fraud.

It will allow the Comptroller General to seek judicial remedy to enforce GAO's right to information under the law.

GAO has an exemplary record of protecting sensitive government information, including national security documents. The committee is confident that GAO, a nonpartisan portion of the legislative branch, will continue to vigorously maintain confidentiality regarding information it obtains.

I want to note that the language in this bill was included in previous

versions of the DATA Act that was approved unanimously by the House in the last Congress.

I want to additionally thank the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, for his partnership in this issue. No matter which of us holds the gavel, we together know that the information we base our decisions on, the information critical to the American people, has a balance of time that we must realize must be sooner and not later.

The ranking member and I absolutely support this bill in its current form because we know that fresh information is critically important if we're to make our decisions well timely.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now will place in the record a letter from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee supporting the bill, but recognizing that the primary jurisdiction over this database belongs to the Ways and Means Committee, and we are responding in the affirmative for that.

Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 15, 2013.

Hon. Darrell Issa,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Issa, On March 20, 2013, the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform reported H.R. 1162, the

Government Accountability Office Improvement Act, favorably

to the House. Section 2, dealing with authority to access the

National Directory of New Hires in Section 453 of the Social

Security Act, touches the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Ways and Means. As a result of your having consulted with the

Committee concerning the provision of the bill that falls

within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree not to seek a

sequential referral so that the bill may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor.

The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action with the

mutual understanding that, by forgoing consideration of H.R.

1162 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over the

subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and

the Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as

the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may

address any remaining issues that fall within our Rule X

jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves the right to seek

appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any

House-Senate conference involving this or similar

legislation, and requests your support for such request.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding, and would ask that a copy of

our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Before I recognize the next speaker, I would ask that the House take a moment to recognize the loss of life in Boston as this tragedy continues to unfold.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close unless there are further speakers on the other side.

Then I think we both ask for favorable consideration, 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. 1246) to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to provide that the District of Columbia Treasurer or one of the Deputy Chief Financial Officers of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia may perform the functions and duties of the Office in an acting capacity if there is a vacancy in the 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As chairman of the committee with oversight and responsibility over the District of Columbia, from time to time it comes to our attention that the Home Rule Act and other legislation that has governed the Federal City needs to be updated. In this case, because of the work of Delegate Holmes Norton, we became aware of a potentially dangerous flaw within existing law.

On February 1, Dr. Gandhi, the longstanding District of Columbia chief financial officer, announced that he will retire on June 1. Subsequently, Ms. Norton and the Mayor both began to realize that, if they did not have a full-time and confirmed replacement by June 1, they would be without the authority to write checks; they would be without a requirement that makes the city physically work. This has been a flaw for a very long time. No city, no State, no government should have a single individual critical to the disbursement and consideration of their just debts; but that is, in fact, the way the law was written.

This bill very narrowly but essentially--and, if I may say, it's long overdue--recognizes that there has to be a succession plan, a capability to fill vacancies. H.R. 1246 parallels the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and simply reaffirms a logical sequence of who may be considered to fill this vacancy for whatever period of time would be reasonable. Under our legislation, we recognize that we also mirror the Federal statute for what is, in fact, a temporary filling.

I want to just close by thanking Delegate Holmes Norton. She brought this to us, realizing how critical it could be, and was the first to realize that, if Dr. Gandhi had simply had a car accident and had become infirmed, the same exact situation could have happened and could have been a crisis during an August recess or some other period of time in which Congress would have found itself unable to resolve it in a timely fashion. So I want to thank her for recognizing the potential before all others, and perhaps that's the best justification for having a Delegate represent the District of Columbia as she has so well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to join with my colleague, Ms. Norton, in her comments just a moment ago.

The President recognizes that now is the time to work on a bipartisan basis on budget autonomy for the District, recognizing that every year contracts have to be let for teachers who will go to work in late August and early September, but in fact they often do not know what their budget is going to be on October 1. So this is another area where I think Ms. Norton and I find ourselves prepared to bring legislation in a timely fashion that deals with the need to make sure that the taxes raised within the District of Columbia by the people of the District of Columbia can in fact be put toward those essential, important services that are paid for by the taxes of the people of the District.

So although that isn't directly related to today's legislation, I think it's critical that we as the ultimate stewards of the Federal city recognize that we cannot run the Federal city, we cannot budget the Federal city, we cannot in fact do what mayors and city councils do as well as they do. So although I share with my colleagues that it is a responsibility the Constitution gives us, I join with my colleague, Ms. Norton, in saying that we will live up to the President's request in the budget; we will offer legislation from our committee in the next month or so, so that long before the passage of appropriations we once again have a piece of

legislation before this committee that deals with a long overdue reform to the Home Rule Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join with me in support of H.R. 1246. This bill under consideration is critical and timely.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 882) to prohibit the awarding of a contract or grant in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee has no seriously delinquent tax debts, 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.

H.R. 882, the Contracting and Tax Accountability Act of 2013, is, in fact, a broadly bipartisan bill introduced by Mr. Chaffetz of Utah and Ms. Speier of California. They recognize that, in fact, contractors and, in a companion bill, individual Federal employees have a high standard, a high responsibility, and one of the least of those responsibilities is to pay their taxes in a timely fashion.

Sadly, we discover that, on occasions, we find ourselves with contractors who have not met that responsibility. Most often, those contractors, by not meeting that responsibility, may have, in fact, not deposited the withholding of the very workers who are working on our behalf.

This kind of irresponsible behavior, although not always found, is found often enough that GSA contractors are estimated to owe over $3 billion in taxes that are in arrears, and nearly $1.4 billion seriously in arrears.

The bill makes tax compliance both a prerequisite for receiving a contract or being an agent and, in fact, recognizes that those who do not make good on their taxes may, in fact, be seen as eligible for potential suspension or debarment.

Federal contractors, for the most part, do comply and they do comply very well. But I believe that what Ms. Speier and Chairman Chaffetz have done is recognize that we must have zero tolerance for people who, even after being recognized, and who are seriously behind and delinquent, continue to resist paying their just taxes.

Again, often these taxes have nothing to do with a debate about income tax but, rather, withholding that simply wasn't done. These kinds of contractors are, by definition, the ones also likely to not live up to the high standard that the taxpayers expect by our contractors.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's now my honor to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the author of this bill, a champion for accountability of the Federal workforce and Federal contractors.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I made a decision to bring these two bills separately, rather than combine them, for a reason. This is not controversial, but failed to get through the Senate. The other bill has some controversy. But I'd like to say that in fact I believe that both bills would tell the American people--both the one related to contractors and the next one we'll be considering related to Federal employees--that we hold ourselves to the standard that the American people, the American taxpayer, expects us to.

So although I know that Ms. Norton does not support the next bill, but with the kind of vigor and optimism and positive discussion that we've heard on the previous two bills and on this, I would say that the important thing for all of us to understand is the money here is significant; but the principle of holding our contractors, and in the next bill ourselves, responsible to a high level of integrity and not having those continue without us taking note of it, I think offers the same statement to the American people at a time of sequestration, at a time in which we're questioning how much we can afford from our government.

For that reason, I want these bills to be considered separately. I intend to vote for both of them. I believe both of them have merit for the same reason; but I do thank my colleagues on the other side because this bill, I believe, is truly without controversy and would be without controversy. I ask all of those here to note that we, on a unanimous basis, support H.R. 882. I ask its support, 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. 249) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that persons having seriously delinquent tax debts shall be ineligible for Federal employment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within 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.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend Mr. Chaffetz. Like the last piece of legislation, Mr. Chaffetz reintroduces a bill that passed overwhelmingly in the last Congress but was not taken up by the Senate. As Mr. Chaffetz said, it is in fact time for the Senate to at least give us an up-or-down vote on this legislation. By bringing it early in the Congress and, I believe, all these bills on a bipartisan basis, we make it clear that we want to hold ourselves to the standard that the taxpayers believe we should.

All Federal employees are currently held for paying their taxes by the code of ethics of the executive branch. So how can someone who, by the code of ethics, in fact not have satisfied in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all financial obligations, especially those to the Federal, State, and local taxes that are imposed by law, how can somebody who in fact hasn't done it and has reached a point of garnishment, reached a point at which they are unwilling to pay their just taxes, have no appeals or any pending, how can they in fact continue to expect to be Federal employees? The truth is these employees have given up any question about their ethics by avoiding it.

Before going further, I would like to have the Speaker take note that in fact for us, as Federal employees, our withholding is already taken out of our taxes. So to become seriously in arrears in our taxes, for the most part, has to do with activities outside our role. We're well insured for health care. Our taxes have already been withheld. So although there are occasions in which a taxpayer may find themselves seriously in arrears for some reason otherwise, this bill intends and has carefully crafted every possible exception so they could continue to work if, in fact, reasonable measures have been taken by the employee. In fact, if an employee simply agrees to be garnished for past taxes, pursuant to the law, they in fact can continue to work.

So I'd like to preface by saying this bill has passed before and has been well thought out. We in fact sent a letter to IRS asking them for a timely response. And to my dismay, they were not interested enough to respond to us by the deadline. Of course, the deadline for responding really was in the last Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. And I would take note that this afternoon the IRS did offer to speak to us over the phone but had no answers in writing, which continues to befuddle me a little bit that we can't get answers. I will continue to work with the ranking member to get those answers.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

I join with the gentlelady from the District of Columbia in applauding what the IRS has done. The IRS effectively gave itself the rules that Mr. Chaffetz would like to have all Federal civilian workers living under.

The IRS has a delinquency rate now of 1 percent. So if you take a fraction of that 1 percent that could possibly be out of compliance for a short period of time, and that's what happens. You've lowered the overall rate from, for example, the Government Printing Office, 7.6 percent; the 316,000 people at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 13,000 of them, or 4.3 percent, are seriously in arrears.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady is absolutely right: the IRS did the right thing, and it worked. You've got a compliance rate down to 1 percent failure, or 99 percent positive compliance rate.

For all the Federal workers who are listening carefully because this could affect them, they're looking to their left and their right endlessly wondering who these deadbeats are because, in all cases, it's below 10 percent, and at the IRS at 1 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the case for this legislation is made by the IRS's success, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to do too much responding to something that asks why something was brought on April 15, except to say that the minority was very happy to have us bring on April 15 something to hold contractors responsible on tax day for taxes, and we thought appropriate that both should be about this tax day in which 99 percent of Americans have paid all their taxes, whether they like to or not, and a small percentage have not.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman from California is new, and I'm sure he did not mean to disparage our intention.

Our intention was, in fact, to bring accountability and, in fact, a sense of pride to the Federal workforce, one in which 96-point-some percent do pay their taxes, and of the remaining ones who do not, the vast majority has made arrangements to deal with taxes in arrears.

But, Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, I had my house robbed. I live in a low-crime neighborhood. Less than 2 percent of the homes get robbed in a given year, but the police still responded and still said, I'll do something about your home being burglarized.

All we're saying here is: let's stop talking about the 97 percent who do the right thing, and let's deal with those who do not in a way that encourages them, like the IRS has, to start doing the right thing and lower that failure rate to 1 percent or less.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady is entitled to her opinion, but I don't believe her facts.

Our information shows that, in fact, first of all, this bill only pertains to civilian personnel. It does not affect uniformed military personnel. Uniformed military personnel can be court-martialed for not living up to their financial obligations. That is certainly more than we are considering here.

The fact is the numbers we presented, the numbers quoted here, represent civilian workers. Some of those civilian workers do also serve in the Reserves, and some of them are also retired individuals, but let's understand this is not about the men and women deployed in uniform. This is, in fact, about civilian workers who may have supplemental incomes from retirement, who may, in fact, also be Reserves. This is all about people who receive often more than $100,000 a year and have not made arrangements to catch up on taxes that are seriously in arrears by up to $10,000 or more.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close on a little bit quieter note than the debate. The debate was, rightfully so, heated, and it was heated because, in fact, we are making an important symbolic statement in this legislation.

$1 billion is a lot of money to the taxpayers listening, but the principle here is extremely important. It's a principle that shows that, when the IRS changed their rules, they didn't fire very many people. I'm sure, in fact, what they got was compliance, far greater compliance, but let's go through a few things because the gentlelady, my colleague and friend from California (Ms. Speier), used a larger number, and the larger numbers, in fact, are worth using in closing.

We've been talking, up until now, about $3 billion, $2.976 billion, that in fact is about the civilian employees of the Federal Government. They have a delinquency rate of approximately 3.62 percent. She mentioned other individuals, and I want to mention in closing their delinquency rate:

Civilian retired: understand, these are not individuals you can fire. They're retired, but their delinquency is 2.5 percent.

Military active duty: these are the men and women who have a different set of rules. They can be court-martialed if they don't live up to their obligations, 2 percent. Remember, that 2 percent includes all those who may eventually comply.

Military Reserve and Guard: these are the men and women who give up their day jobs, often taking a huge pay cut in doing so, often unanticipated, 2.4 percent.

Military retired, 4.3 percent. Mr. Speaker, I can't account for why, when military people retire, they find themselves seriously in arrears in taxes. But what I can say is when we look at 1 percent at the IRS, and 2 percent for those men and women getting a private's pay or a corporal's pay, they manage to keep their taxes straight.

The Federal workforce has a high compliance rate, as has been said repeatedly by my colleagues. Their compliance rate is nearly twice the rate of the public as a whole. Of course, the public as a whole includes over 7 percent unemployed, and it includes all kinds of other characteristics that lead to people being in default.

What we're saying here today is the IRS made a decision to have a compliance standard that has dramatically reduced failure to comply, and has put us in a situation where people of the IRS can say proudly: We pay our taxes. We pay our taxes at a 99 percent rate, and we deal with those who do not live up to promising to pay the rest.

We just want the same for the Federal workforce, and I believe Federal workers listening here today would agree that in fact since most of them do exactly what's right, all of them should be held to do what is exactly right. I urge passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Mr. Glen Doherty, who was tragically killed on September 11, 2012 at the age of 42 in the armed assault against the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. I commend Mr. Doherty's career and offer my sincerest thanks for his dedicated service in protecting our nation.

A desire to push himself and to use his talents to make genuine change in the world led Glen to join the Navy SEALs in 1995, where he served as a paramedic and sniper in the Middle East. Among other missions, his team responded to the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Following knee reconstruction in 2001, Glen had planned on leaving the military but when our nation was attacked on September 11th, Glen decided to remain with the SEALs.

Mr. Doherty twice deployed in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. On his first tour, he joined the earliest Marine contingents on their march to Baghdad. He was taken from his unit for sniper duty for several days, but returned to them before they took Baghdad and continued with them to take Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit as well. Glen believed that the possibility of liberating a troubled country from a tyrant and making democracy possible for the Iraqi people was something worth risking his life.

In 2005, Glen left the SEALs, but remained focused on the Middle East as a private security contractor. He worked for peace and security in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon, and other high threat areas in the region.

I again offer Mr. Doherty my sincerest thanks and hope that his family and those who knew him best can find comfort in the outstanding service he gave his nation, as well as the passion and conviction that drove him into a career and life of defending others.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues please join me in recognizing the distinguished career of Glen Doherty and his selfless sacrifice to a grateful nation.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Office of Management and Budget submitted a list of proposed anomalies for the pending continuing resolution. Is that correct, and can you tell me the date that the Office of Management and Budget transmitted that list?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Can you also tell me if that proposed list of anomalies included any changes to the provisions in current law regarding what is commonly called 6-day delivery and requires a level of service by the Postal Service at the 1983 level?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, the Postal Service announced a plan to move to a modified 6-day delivery schedule beginning in August. Under this plan, the Postal Service will continue high-quality delivery 6 days a week using its express and priority mail system. This will include packages and mail under that system, and will include vital medicine for our seniors. This change will enable the Postal Service to save $2 billion a year or more.

As the chairman of the authorizing committee, I want to clarify that the authorizing language is consistent with a 6-day delivery provision in the CR under this system announced by the Postmaster on February 6.

Specifically, this provision would not prohibit the Postal Service from implementing this plan of modified 6-day delivery service.

I want to confirm further that the President, himself, had previously called for 5-day delivery. The Postmaster is maintaining 6-day delivery, but using priority and express mail to do so. This is fiscally responsible and consistent with the administration not putting an anomaly into the CR.