Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Issa

Amendment No. 144: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 4002. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to implement the Home Affordable Modification Program

under the Making Home Affordable initiative of the Secretary

of the Treasury, authorized under the Emergency Economic

Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this week is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, and I think it is altogether fitting that we quote Ronald Reagan at a time in which, 30 years from when he said it, we're dealing with the burdens of increasing regulation creating a noncompetitive situation for American workers. It was 30 years ago that America was in a malaise. It was 30 years ago that Americans found themselves without jobs and without hope. It was 30 years ago that they elected Ronald Reagan, a man of hope and conviction to tear down anything that impeded freedom and liberty, including the growth of government, who said:

``Now let there be no misunderstanding. It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work; work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.''

When our committee put up AmericanJobCreators.com, we thought we might get a few hits. Today, the letters we have received from small and large businesses around the country, giving us with specificity regulations and regulatory excesses that are stifling their ability to create jobs, now is more pages than ObamaCare, more pages than any bill I've ever seen come from here are stacking up with specific problems that America is dealing with here today, whether it's EPA, OSHA, or just regulators who won't give an honest answer to a fair question based on laws in which we require them to provide answers.

America is falling behind and American jobs are suffering. So, Madam Speaker, our committee is dedicated to ensuring that regulatory reform occurs and occurs on our watch.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as I introduce each of the members of my committee who sat through yesterday's hearing with witnesses on one side giving, in specificity, the problems, the regulations, what were the impediments to farming, to manufacturing and to mining, it is amazing that the gentleman quoted them, the gentleman from the other side of the aisle quoted them, but ignored his own witness who disputed any cost-benefit analysis being appropriate for looking at regulatory reform or even regulatory creation, preferring to simply say that all regulations should be judged on whether they do something, not what they cost.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

Will the gentleman yield?

I was only quoting what the gentleman had said and reiterated that he still supported: Cost-benefit analysis is neither sound in theory nor useful in practice. We asked him. He said he still stands behind that. That's much broader than the gentleman said, I believe.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Under the rules of the House, isn't it true that the limitation on taking down somebody's words based on casting aspersions or specific actions against an individual, for example, not caring about Americans or wanting children to die for lack of regulation-- isn't it true that we can only do that if they cite a person, not the Republican Party as a whole?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Would it be in order for me to bring a motion to take down the words based on that accusation that was just made against my entire party, alleging that we want to roll back so that children are not protected and the like?

Would it be in order for me to make such a demand?

Madam Speaker, I think we're bigger than those accusations, regardless of it being likely to have been inappropriate by any standard.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the minority whip's statement that both sides over the years have not done enough. The 30-year buildup of regulatory excess is something that both sides need to take down.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Madam Speaker, in section 2, article 1, asking for regulations that impede private sector job creation, I'm just sorry the other side doesn't understand. That's not cost; that's jobs.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).

(Mr. SOUTHERLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire, do I have the right to close?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Carter.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Dr. Gosar from Arizona.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, Madam Speaker, the American people do not yet really know the CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but they probably know better the FCC, the SEC, the FTC, and the Consumer Product Safety Council--and to be honest, I got really tied up in the rest of the letters they put here. None of them, I repeat, none of them, are covered by the President's Executive order. For whatever reason, the President limited his Executive order to the non-independent

agencies, not even calling on the independent agencies to begin a review.

Madam Speaker, over the last half hour, we've heard again and again my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying this is frivolous, it's not necessary. Yesterday, they called the whole hearing with American job creators, many of whom had responded to Americanjobcreators.com, they called it sort of anecdotal, or frivolous, or hyperbole.

Madam Speaker, it's time that we take seriously the loss of American jobs. Today's resolution does have specificity, does deal with the fact that Americans are suffering, and regulations are part of our competitive challenge.

Madam Speaker, I take Steny Hoyer at his word that he supports this and wants to work together. I take the President at his word that it is time to do this review. I don't take the bureaucrats at their word that, like foxes guarding the henhouse, if you go back and tell them to guard again more carefully, that you are any more likely to have anything other than less chickens in the morning.

Madam Speaker, we cannot assume here in the House that over the last 2 years when Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House and did nothing to reduce regulations--just the opposite, increased them--and that the President, currently who is increasing regulation without one piece of legislation, trying to get card check through the back door and hundreds of other programs far beyond our demand, that if given the mandate to re-regulate what they've regulated, that they won't in fact use it as a chance to expand a liberal agenda in a way that will further hurt the American jobs.

We must be there hand-in-hand with this administration to make sure that every change in regulations is followed up with binding law that will, in fact, help the American people get back to work.

So, Madam Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that this resolution is necessary as a first step to make it clear that the House of Representatives is fully committed to getting Americans working again and Americanjob creators.com and other sites that are trying to collect this data from people who create jobs in America and the private sector, we are going to continue to gather and disperse those areas that American job creators are finding are impediments to their creating the jobs in America.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, you will hear in the days and weeks to come about corporate profits in America, and you will hear about the great profit growths of some of our best-known corporations. After yesterday's hearing, I went back and checked. Almost to a corporation, the growth in their profits has been disproportionate from overseas earnings, on overseas labor, and overseas development. Meaning, Madam Speaker, do not look to corporate profits as the bellwether. Do not look to the stock market as a bellwether.

American jobs are created when American companies are incentivized and given an opportunity to create jobs in America. That's what this resolution is about today. That's what the hearings and the markups will be in the days and weeks to come. That's the reason why we cannot leave it to bureaucrats behind doors that created these problems. Allow them to, in fact, reevaluate their own sins.

So, Madam Speaker, I am delighted today to support House Resolution 72 and to urge its consideration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the majority if they would provide us with that letter so we could review when it was written and be more educated.

I thank you.

Madam Speaker, Feliz Navidad, Merry Christmas, but today is Ground Hog Day. I know it is because we're getting the same bill we got last week. It looks the same. Matter of fact, it's so much the same that I recognized it from an earlier document, the President's budget. In his package on performance and management, the President had already determined to do pretty much what we're putting here.

Matter of fact, we're codifying in statute, plus throwing in $75 million of additional cost, what the President already was doing. We're not giving him anything that he doesn't already have authority for and is doing. Really what we're doing is simply allowing the President to say it's okay for me to spend $75 million more on what I already wanted to do; it's okay because I'm under this mandate of Congress. It's okay for this Congress to go sine die really talking about things they were accomplishing when this doesn't accomplish anything.

I will be voting against this because I don't want to spend $75 million doing what the President already put in his own document.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that this excerpt from the President's performance and management review to be placed in the Record.

7. DELIVERING HIGH-PERFORMANCE GOVERNMENT

For too long, Washington has not responsibly managed the

tax dollars entrusted it by the American people. Decision-

makers opened their doors and ears to those able to afford

lobbyists while it became harder and harder for everyone else

to learn what Government was doing, what it was

accomplishing, and for whom. Programs and practices were

allowed to persist out of inertia and not because they were

delivering the results expected of them, while others that

seemed to work were rarely assessed to confirm their impact

and find ways to enhance their value. Over the last two

decades, as the private sector was utilizing new management

techniques and information technologies to boost

productivity, cut costs, and deliver previously unheard of

levels of customer service, the public sector lagged

conspicuously behind.

The American people deserve better. They deserve a Federal

Government that respects their tax dollars, and uses them

effectively and efficiently. They deserve a Federal

Government that is transparent, fair, and responsive. And

they deserve a Government that is constantly looking to

streamline what works and to eliminate what does not. The

Administration is committed to revolutionizing how the

Federal Government runs on behalf of the American people. The

President appointed the Nation's first Chief Performance

Officer, and the Administration has taken steps to bring more

transparency to, for instance, how Federal information

technology (IT) dollars are spent to improve customer service

for those using citizenship services. At the same time, the

Administration has combed the Budget to find programs that

are duplicative, outdated, or just not working.

To improve the performance of the Federal Government in the

coming fiscal year and in years to come, the Administration

will pursue three mutually reinforcing performance management

strategies:

1. Use Performance Information to Lead, Learn, and Improve

Outcomes. Agency leaders set a few high-priority goals and

use constructive data-based reviews to keep their

organizations on track to deliver on these objectives.

2. Communicate Performance Coherently and Concisely for

Better Results and Transparency. The Federal Government will

candidly communicate to the public the priorities, problems,

and progress of Government programs, explaining the reasons

behind past trends, the impact of past actions, and future

plans. In addition, agencies will strengthen their capacity

to learn from experience and experiments.

3. Strengthen Problem-Solving Networks. The Federal

Government will tap into and encourage practitioner

communities, inside and outside Government, to work together

to improve outcomes and performance management practices.

Use Performance Information to Lead, Learn, and Improve Outcomes

Government operates more effectively when it focuses on

outcomes, when leaders set clear and measurable goals, and

when agencies use measurement to reinforce priorities,

motivate action, and illuminate a path to improvement. This

outcome-focused performance management approach has proved a

powerful way to achieve large performance gains in other

countries, several States, an increasing number of local

governments, and a growing number of Federal programs. For

instance, the State of Washington pushed down the re-

victimization rate of children harmed in their homes from

13.3 percent to 6.5 percent over the last seven years by

monitoring how changes in agency action affected children

previously harmed and by adjusting policies accordingly to

make improvements for the children.

New York City and, subsequently, the City of Los Angeles

saw crime rates plummet

after each adopted CompStat meetings. These are frequently

scheduled, goal-focused, data-driven meetings at which

precinct captains are expected to discuss statistics about

outcomes (e.g., crime), cost drivers (e.g., overtime),

unwanted side effects (e.g., police abuse complaints),

patterns of problems in the precinct, probable causes,

apparent effects of prior actions, and future actions

planned. Similarly, the U.S. Coast Guard's Marine and Marine

Environmental Protection programs work to reduce maritime

deaths and injuries, large oil spills, and chemical discharge

incidents by regularly analyzing their data to identify

contributory causes and by testing different prevention

options to identify and then implement those that work best.

Outcome-focused performance management can transform the

way government works, but its success is by no means assured.

The ultimate test of an effective performance management

system is whether it is used, not the number of goals and

measures produced. Federal performance management efforts

have not fared well on this test. The Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the Performance Assessment

Rating Tool (PART) reviews increased the production of

measurements in many agencies, resulting in the availability

of better measures than previously existed; however, these

initial successes have not lead to increased use. With a few

exceptions, Congress does not use the performance goals and

measures agencies produce to conduct oversight, agencies do

not use them to evaluate effectiveness or drive

improvements, and they have not provided meaningful

information for the public.

Studies of past Federal performance management efforts have

identified several problematic practices. For example, senior

leaders at Federal agencies have historically focused far

more attention on new policy development than on managing to

improve outcomes. Mechanisms used to motivate change created

serious unwanted side effects or linked to the wrong

objectives. Central office reviews mandated measurements

inappropriate to the situation, and performance reports

seldom answered the questions of key audiences. Moreover, the

annual reporting requirement of GPRA and the five-year

program PART review cycle did not provide agencies the fast

feedback needed to assess if delivery efforts were on track

or to diagnose why they were or were not. Neither GPRA nor

PART precluded more frequent measurement to inform agency

action, but only a few agencies opted to supplement their

annual measurement cycle with the kinds of data and analysis

that fueled the private sector performance revolution.

The Administration is initiating several new performance

management actions and is tasking a new generation of

performance leaders to implement successful performance

management practices.

To encourage senior leaders to deliver results against the

most important priorities, the Administration launched the

High-Priority Performance Goal initiative in June 2009,

asking agency heads to identify and commit to a limited

number of priority goals, generally three to eight, with high

value to the public. The goals must have ambitious, but

realistic, targets to achieve within 18 to 24 months without

need for new resources or legislation, and well-defined,

outcomes-based measures of progress. These goals are included

in this Budget. Some notable examples are:

Assist 3 million homeowners who are at risk of losing their

homes due to foreclosure (Secretaries Donovan and Geithner);

Reduce the population of homeless veterans to 59,000 in

June, 2012 (Secretaries Donovan and Shinseki); and

Double renewable energy generating capacity (excluding

conventional hydropower) by 2012 (Secretary Chu).

In the coming year, the Administration will ask agency

leaders to carry out a similar priority-setting exercise with

top managers of their bureaus to set bureau-level goals and

align those goals, as appropriate, with agency-wide priority

goals. These efforts are not distinct from the goal-setting

and measurement expectations set forth in the GPRA, but

rather reflect an intention to translate GPRA from a

reporting exercise to a performance-improving practice across

the Federal Government. By making agencies' top leaders

responsible for specific goals that they themselves have

named as most important, the Administration is dramatically

improving accountability and the chances that Government will

deliver results on what matters most.

Agency leaders will put in place rigorous, constructive

quarterly feedback and review sessions to help agencies reach

their targets, building on lessons from successful public

sector performance management models in other governments and

in some Federal agencies. In addition, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) will initiate quarterly

performance updates to help senior Federal Government leaders

stay focused on driving to results.

OMB will support the agencies with tools and assistance to

help them succeed. In addition, OMB will help coordinate

inter-agency efforts in select situations where collaboration

is critical to success.

Communicate Performance Coherently and Concisely for Better Results and

Transparency

Transparent, coherent performance information contributes

to more effective, efficient, fair, and responsive

government. Transparency not only promotes public

understanding about the actions that government is working to

accomplish, but also supports learning across government

agencies, stimulates idea flow, enlists assistance, and

motivates performance gain. In addition, transparency can

strengthen public confidence in government, especially when

government does more than simply herald its successes but

also provides candid assessments of problems encountered,

their likely causes, and actions being taken to address

problems.

The Administration is initiating several new performance

communication actions. First, the Administration will

identify and eliminate performance measurements and documents

that are not useful. Second, what remains will be used. Goals

contained in plans and budgets will communicate concisely and

coherently what government is trying to accomplish. Agency,

cross-agency, and program measures, including those developed

under GPRA and PART that proved useful to agencies, the

public, and OMB, will candidly convey how well the Government

is accomplishing the goals. Combined performance plans and

reports will explain why goals were chosen, the size and

characteristics of problems Government is tackling, factors

affecting outcomes that Government hopes to influence,

lessons learned from experience, and future actions planned.

Going forward, agencies will take greater ownership in

communicating performance plans and results to key audiences

to inform their decisions. Making performance data useful to

all audiences--congressional, public, and agency leaders--

improves both program performance and reporting accuracy.

To that end, the Administration will redesign public access

to Federal performance information.

The Administration will create a Federal performance portal

that provides a clear, concise picture of Federal goals and

measures by theme, by agency, by program, and by program

type. It will be designed to increase transparency and

coherence for the public, motivate improvements, support

collaboration, and enhance the ability of the Federal

Government and its service delivery partners to learn from

others' experiences and from research experiments. The

performance portal will also provide easy links to

mission-support management dashboards, such as the IT

dashboard (http://it.usaspending.gov/) launched in the

summer of 2009, and similar dashboards planned for other

common Government functions including procurement,

improper payments, and hiring.

While performance information is critical to improving

Government effectiveness and efficiency, it can answer only

so many questions. More sophisticated evaluation methods are

required to answer fundamental questions about the social,

economic, or environmental impact of programs and practices,

isolating the effect of Government action from other possible

influencing factors. OMB recently launched an Evaluation

Initiative to promote rigorous impact evaluations, build

agency evaluation capacity, and improve transparency of

evaluation findings. These evaluations are a powerful

complement to agency performance improvement efforts and

often benefit from the availability of performance data. OMB

will make information about all Federal evaluations focused

on the impacts of programs and program practices available

online through the performance portal. The Evaluation

Initiative is explained in more detail in Chapter 8,

``Program Evaluation,'' in this volume.

Strengthen Problem-Solving Networks

The third strategy the Administration will pursue to

improve performance management involves the extensive use of

existing and new practitioner networks. Federal agencies do

not work in isolation to improve outcomes. Every Federal

agency and employee depends on and is supported by others--

other Federal offices, other levels of government, for-profit

and not-for-profit organizations, and individuals with

expertise or a passion about specific problems. New

information technologies are transforming our ability to tap

vast reservoirs of capacity beyond the office. At the same

time, low-technology networks such as professional

associations and communities of practice are also able to

solve problems, spur innovation, and diffuse knowledge. The

Administration will create cross-agency teams to tackle

shared problems and reach out to existing networks, both

inside and outside Government, to find and develop smarter

performance management methods and to assist others in their

application. It will tap their intelligence, ingenuity, and

commitment, as well as their dissemination and delivery

capacity.

The Performance Improvement Council (PIC), made up of

Performance Improvement Officers from every Federal agency,

will function as the hub of the performance management

network. OMB will work with the PIC to create and advance a

new set of Federal performance management principles, refine

a Government-wide performance management implementation plan,

and identify and tackle specific problems as they arise. The

PIC will also serve as a home for Federal communities of

practice, some new and some old. Some communities of practice

will be organized by problems, some by program type such as

regulatory programs, and some by methods such as quality

management. These communities will develop tools and provide

expert advice and assistance to their Federal colleagues. In

addition, the PIC will address the governance challenge of

advancing progress on high-priority problems that

require action by multiple agencies. The Administration will

also turn to existing external networks--including State and

local government associations, schools of public policy and

management, think tanks, and professional associations--to

enlist their assistance on specific problems and in spreading

effective performance management practices.

Mr. Cuellar did a good job last week in the first of these two appearances on the same bill. He said it was something he really wanted to pass. He said it was his bill. I don't think the fact that it is amended would make it less his bill, but it isn't his bill really. It's written by the administration, codified by the Senate, and sent over to us in the 11th hour when, in fact, it could, in the next Congress, actually go through a review process to see if we could actually mandate something more than what the President's doing, if we should mandate what the President is already doing, or, quite frankly, if we should tie the hands of the next President by simply codifying the elective actions of this President.

Now, there was a letter that came purportedly, and I am sure it did, from somebody in the Bush administration. And I will be interested to see when it was written because this President has systematically chosen to make changes in how the last President did performance. I am not going to say that President Bush was the best or that what President Obama is doing is different; but there are differences, and these differences are the elective right of the President to try to do these.

So with all due respect, Madam Speaker, I will still be voting ``no'' on this second Groundhog Day on this bill. I will still believe that if we had had a chance in the next Congress we could have done better and would have done better.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we now suspend these and go to the bill that has been received from the Senate. Obviously, the American people are desperately waiting to see us fund a government that is going without money as of midnight tonight and respectfully say that it is appropriate to take up the business of the funding of this government at this time.

Will the gentleman from Texas yield for the important work of the American people?

I hereby make the motion that we do suspend the proceedings and go to----

Madam Speaker, point of order.

I believe that the gentleman from Texas yielded time upon your request that you would only consider my request to move to the business of appropriating for this current fiscal year. That motion is still there. He yielded. I would like that motion to be heard that we suspend this and move to the business of appropriations for this fiscal year.

I hereby move--not unanimous consent--that we do so. I make a motion that we suspend and that we move to the business of the American people's funding for this fiscal year.

I thank the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, when Robert Johnson Shea recommended this bill before us, it wasn't this bill before us. This is a completely different bill, dramatically changed. So I believe that when people who will come and vote on this consider this, they should discount completely a recommendation from a Bush administration official that speaks to a bill that Mr. Cuellar authored which bears very little resemblance to this one.

As I said earlier, this bill today simply puts into statute what the President is already on an elective basis doing, ties the hands of a future President without providing any new authority for the President to do a better job.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think all was said that needed to be said in the 15 minutes a side last week. The only thing that can yet be said in my closing is we are better than this, Madam Speaker. We should not accept something on a closed rule without any possibility of amendment when in fact the Senate took what we had passed, completely amended it, and sent it back completely different.

Madam Speaker, I know that process is not something that is often talked about on this floor as though it is important. But, Madam Speaker, in the next Congress it is clear that process is important, that debate and deliberation is important, that we not simply take what the Senate takes, allow them to change it completely, send it back to us bearing no resemblance, and not have a conference.

If this bill is so important, as Mr. Cuellar says, that it be passed in a lame duck session, then Madam Speaker, isn't it so important that it should have gone through a conference process or at least that the Senate or House leaders would have come to the committee of jurisdiction and at least asked us what needed to be changed in order to get our support? They didn't have that support.

Like any bill, you will pick off a few Texans for a Texan's bill, or you will pick off a few Members, that doesn't make it bipartisan. It certainly wasn't

bicameral when, in fact, Mr. Cuellar's bill was rewritten in the Senate; written by the White House, as far as I can tell, to look more like his budget process procedures that he printed back in February; sent back to us so that we could make in statute what the President chooses to do.

Madam Speaker, we are better than that. In the next Congress, I certainly believe that if the House and the Senate have differences of opinions, it is appropriate that it be worked out through a process of conference and not simply take what the Senate sends in a closed rule without anything but meaningless debate. And, Madam Speaker, debate without the opportunity to change one line is simply talking about a foregone conclusion that last Friday the votes were counted.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time hopefully for this lame duck session.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

Mr. Cuellar, you have been a good Member. You have worked hard on this. We worked together on this.

When this number left the House, it was a different bill. In the first hour of the new Congress, I intend on working hard to bring up a bill that looks more like your original bill, has some additional learning experiences, and try to bring it back as quickly as possible.

I cannot support your bill today. This is not the bill that left the House. It is also a bill that still has $75 million not paid for.

But it's not the $75 million. As much as we talked about paid-for and PAYGO and offset and how do we do things, our real problem here today is that, as it came back from the Senate, it looks an awful lot like somebody just picked up your number and redid your bill.

Now, I know you want this, and you deserve it for the hard work you did. But this bill is simply a series of mandates that codifies a management style that needs no legislation. This legislation does not create something that the President cannot and is not already doing.

We, in Congress, want goal-setting. Historically, we look to OMB, and that goal-setting is intended to be objective, to hold agencies to standards determined not just by their own agency. As the bill is written today, basically, an agency sets its own goals, announces its own goals, and OMB has a secondary role. This does not create a real requirement for performance-based program analysis. The bill that left with an amendment that you very much helped carve, and we did it together, would have done that.

I don't like the idea that, in the day after the day after the day after we probably should have long gone home but we are waiting for the CR, that they bring something on suspension. Given a few days of regular order, given one round-trip to the committee, we could change this. But if we changed it, of course we would be back with the Senate, which UC'd a completely different bill than the one you worked so hard on.

It might pass today, but it won't have my vote, my support, and I will urge and am urging all the Members on both sides of the aisle to defeat the bill, not because you don't deserve a bill with your name on it on this subject. You have worked hard. But because this isn't the bill that you deserve to have become law.

I know you are leaving Congress. You are a good Member who has worked hard on our committee, and I thank you for that. And I promise you, starting January 5, we will work together with you, if you will donate the time, to do the bill you wanted to do. And that, I guarantee you, will be my first priority, if it is not passed today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think we've both said what comes from our heart. We're losing a good Member who worked hard on our committee. This is not a good bill. This is not the bill he would have done. So I respectfully ask all Members to vote ``no'' on this. I will vote ``no'' not because of the author and not because of his effort, but because it simply isn't good enough.

If we are going to spend even $75 million on new mandates, we have a standard that has to be a standard of excellence, a standard that truly makes improvements, and a standard that in fact does not simply allow the President to do what he already has the power to do. We can do this in the next Congress. We will do this.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I express my interest in working with members of the committee now and members of the committee in the future to fashion a bill with this same name, and, if I'm allowed, even the same number, so that we can pass it in its original form or in an improved form in the next Congress. I reluctantly say we must oppose this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1621 does what we should do in recognizing really great organizations for the work they do. Catholic Charities for 100 years has represented the best in charity, not as the name might suggest as Catholics or for Catholics, but Catholic Charities are people helping people regardless of their religion around this country. So I join with the majority in urging support for H. Res. 1621.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, time is short. I believe this will be unanimously passed. And whether it is Father Joe Carroll in San Diego or countless heads of various charities headed by clergymen or lay people around the country, Catholic Charities today, after 100 years, is being honored on behalf of the kind of outreach of people helping people that America does best.

With that, I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to our attention. I am glad we were able to do this in the 11th hour. I urge its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I join with the gentleman, of course, in supporting this bill. I too look forward to working with the gentleman as he returns in the next Congress. But my notes indicated he was leaving the committee. If that is not true, then I truly look forward to working with him on the committee. If he is on another committee, I look forward to working with him in his new role, but on his legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it's been 8 years since this bill began being kicked around as a pilot. Some people would be less happy to announce it than I, but I would like to find them. Eight years ago when I began the dialogue with my colleagues, then the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Berman, said, Tell me more about this problem. And I told him from life experience of the problem of these very talented judges, magistrates, and Federal judges who wanted to do a good job on patents, but it was almost always their first patent, and they lacked a support system to make it happen in both large and small districts. I told them how the southern district of San Diego had found ways to try to improve the system, gleaning some additional expertise from one or two judges who preferred these cases over some others and who actually sought them out. I also told some of my fellow colleagues about the horror stories of a magistrate ascending to the bench, finding that what he got from each of the other members were all their patent cases, and suddenly he had a backlog of these, had to find out what a Markman hearing was, had to start getting into technical issues, one on electronics, another on biotech, another one on telecommunications.

So over the years, we have all been educated well beyond that initial anecdotal example. Then Orrin Hatch, Chairman Hatch, was supportive. Now Chairman Leahy is supportive. All along the way, my classmate Adam Schiff has been supportive, along with both chairman, and ranking member at times, Howard Berman. Chairman Conyers has continued to be supportive and has helped me, along with Ranking Member Lamar Smith, vote this out early on in this Congress.

But I have a special thanks for Chairman Leahy who made sure this bill was pulled out of the comprehensive patent reform bill because its time truly had come to begin saying to judges throughout the country that, in fact, we were going to help them help themselves be better at this. Although it's called patent pilot, over the years it has been expanded to the number of jurisdictions that it could be used in to where it's become quite clear that this will be a challenge to be expanded countrywide in whatever format the study shows is best.

I find that this Congress, in its lame duck session, has done a few good things. No surprise that this is one that I think is particularly good, particularly good because, as Congressman Schiff just said, we are, in fact, dealing in the lame duck session with a problem that has been pervasive since before Congressman Schiff and I became Members of this body 10 full years ago.

So as I thank each of you for your passage of this bill, and with full confidence that this will become a broader consensus throughout the Federal system, I also join with my friend and colleague Adam Schiff in saying that the next Congress, in the early days, we must truly dedicate ourselves to comprehensive patent reform, to take each of the major issues that have been difficult and have, Congress after Congress, failed to become law, and find ways to resolve some or all of them for the good of the American people who find themselves spending 2, 3 or 8 or $10 million on what can often be a frivolous suit.

Again, Mr. Poe, I thank you for yielding me the time. I ask all my colleagues to vote for this small but important change in patent law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 628, a bill to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges. Congressman Adam Schiff and I have worked together on this legislation since the last Congress, and I am grateful for the chance to move this legislation forward today.

The high cost of patent litigation is widely publicized, and it is not unusual for a patent suit to cost each party over $10,000,000. Appeals from district courts to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are frequent. This is caused, in part, by the general perception within the patent community that most district court judges are not sufficiently prepared to hear patent cases. I drafted this legislation in an attempt to decrease the cost of litigation by increasing the success of district court judges.

H.R. 628 establishes a pilot project within at least six district courts. Under the pilot, judges decide whether or not to opt into hearing patent cases. If a judge opts in, and a patent case is randomly assigned to that judge, that judge keeps the case. If a case is randomly assigned to a judge who has not opted into hearing patent cases, that judge has the choice of keeping that case or sending it to the group of judges who have opted in. To be a designated court, the court must have at least 10 authorized judges with at least 3 opting in, or certify that they have adopted local rules for patent and plant variety protection cases.

The core intent of this pilot is to steer patent cases to judges that have the desire and aptitude to hear patent cases, while preserving random assignment as much as possible. The pilot will last no longer than 10 years, and periodic studies will occur to determine the pilot project's success.

I am happy to say that H.R. 628 is supported by software, hardware, tech and electronics companies, pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, district court judges, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association among others.

This legislation is a good first step toward improving the legal environment for the patent community in the United States. H.R. 628 should not, however, be taken as a replacement for broader patent reform. We still need to address substantive issues within patent law, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that broader effort as well.

I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, as well Senators Hatch and Leahy. I also thank my staff and the committee staff who worked so hard to make this possible.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 628.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the exemplary service of Mission Viejo City Councilman John Paul Ledesma, who has faithfully kept the public trust since he joined the Mission Viejo Council in 1998.

During his 12 year tenure, John Paul distinguished himself as a proponent of fiscal restraint and responsible public budgeting, a fierce advocate for personal property rights and a vocal opponent of excessive taxation.

His efforts on behalf of the people of Mission Viejo have contributed significantly to the public safety and their quality of life. John Paul spearheaded the effort to make Mission Viejo the first city in Orange County to adopt an ordinance requiring its employees and contractors to participate in the federal E-verify system to insure that documents presented to establish employment eligibility are valid.

He fought to protect the rights of citizens to religious expression and to protect children using computers in the City library from the dangers of the Internet. As Mission Viejo's representative on the Orange County Vector Control District he worked cooperatively with representatives of surrounding communities to protect public health.

John Paul also served terms as Mayor in 2003 and Mayor Pro Tem in 2007. City ordinance limits council service to 12 years, and John Paul completes that term having maintained the trust of its citizens and leaving the community better off for his service.

It is with gratitude and appreciation for work well done, that we commend John Paul Ledesma for his public service and wish him well in future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the honorable civil service of Cathy Glaser and commend her tremendous career of thirty six years with the San Diego County Registrar of Voters Office.

Joining the team at San Diego County in 1976 with the District Attorney's office, Family Support Division, Ms. Glaser began her historic tenure with the County that has made an impression on countless San Diegans.

Transferring to the Registrar of Voters Office as a Senior Clerk in 1977, Ms. Glaser was soon promoted to Candidate Filing. She filled an invaluable role by assisting candidates in all their filing aspects.

Starting with San Diego County at the age of 22, and now ending at the helm of Campaign Services, Ms. Glaser has worked for 8 Registrars' of Voters. She has seen 9 election cycles of Presidents, Governors, U.S. Senators, State Senators, State Assembly, County Supervisors, Mayors, City Councilmembers, Community College Boards and School Boards to name a few. She has supervised the ballot preparation for all of the candidates for these offices as well as state, county and local propositions and measures.

Ms. Glaser has seen the transformation from the time of less than 5,000 Absentee Voters, voting on ``paper''; and when results were delivered on election night. She has since been at the forefront of change with now more than 700,000 Vote by Mail Voters.

Under Ms. Glaser's guidance and expertise, San Diego County has won several awards for streamlining the election process. She also created the prominent ``Candidate's Guide'' which has become the ``go to'' guide for candidates, consultants, treasurers and campaign managers. Her work is often used as a model for other counties across the nation.

It is an honor to recognize her three and a half decades of dedicated, professional public service. I offer Ms. Glaser my congratulations on her achievements.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to please join me in paying tribute to Ms. Glaser's loyal service to the San Diego County Registrar of Voters on the occasion of her retirement.

Madam Speaker, in the interest of fairness to one of our Members who has been very engaged in this issue, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), one of the early innovators that really brought telework to the Federal workforce.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana

(Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the full committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the First District of Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Madam Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

Could I further inquire as to how many additional speakers the majority has?

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

Madam Speaker, this is a bill, an underlying bill, an underlying concept that not only do I endorse and appreciate, but I knew and worked with extensively in the private sector. There's no question in the private sector telecommuting continues to grow. But there are a couple of things I would like to straighten up out here today in consideration of this bill.

First of all, Madam Speaker, every Member of Congress has a Blackberry. So do most major members of the Federal workforce. Many of us have portable devices like this iPad. The fact is there is no shortage of telecommuting tools presently at use in the Federal workforce. We are not talking about the ability to telecommute. We are talking about a new bureaucratic mandate within the Federal regime that requires each agency have a specific entity for that purpose, and we are doing so without the safeguards that my motion to recommit offered and overwhelmingly was accepted before the election.

When I say before the election, I think it's also important to note, this will be the first vote after the American people said ``no'' to government waste, fraud, and abuse; government growth, government spending. And yet the Senate, before the election, stripped out of this bill something as innocuous as each agency having to show that telecommuting additions were going to be net cost savings. In other words, with all the bravado about how this wasn't going to cost but it was going to save, what was stripped out of this was any kind of assertion, not an assertion that required an audit, but just an assertion by the agency head that their efforts were going to save money.

I was here for the snowstorm of last year, and I just want the American people who may not have been able to

be here in Washington, D.C., to understand that it was quite a snowstorm. And I appreciate the estimate of $30 million a day of savings. But I might also remind the American people that every restaurant was open and doing great business and the parks were filled with people having snowball fights. In fact, what really happened was the Federal workforce got a paid holiday while people who had to figure out how to make a buck found a way to get their people to work so they could still sell to those Federal workers who were having a holiday.

It is, in fact, more common for the Federal workforce to say, go ahead, stay at home. That probably begs the question of telecommuting. But then the question is where in this bill do we require people who are telecommuting not to get a day off because it snows since they are in their home where the snow shouldn't be affecting them?

We have a lot of safeguards not in the bill. I'm convinced today with the current majority that this bill will probably pass as it is. I intend to bring back in the next Congress additional reforms and hold oversight as appropriate to make sure that we improve that which is not being dealt with today. I expect I will have the same bipartisan support that we had throughout this process in the House. I am mostly disappointed that with an overwhelming, over 303 votes here in the House for the bill as it was, that it came back to us without things that we thought should be in it.

Madam Speaker, I don't want to be a partisan. But I do believe it's important that we consider that one of the items that was in this bill when it left the House was a prohibition on basically union work outside of the cover of office. We have collective bargaining agreements almost universally within the Federal Government. We also have regulations about these people whether they have to do other work or not. This bill lacks the safeguard so that somebody can basically take a Blackberry and a notebook, disappear forever and be almost unaccountable as to whether they ever did any of their core work while doing their union organizing and running activity. That's not in the best interest of the taxpayers. It's not what the last election was about. It's not what I had hoped to see.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have said most of what has to be said, and I'm not going to use all of the time that the minority has. This bill, as I said, will probably pass, and it will be a shame. I would hope that all Republicans and Democrats who know this could be better and voted for it when it was better would also vote against it, not because the outcome is certain, but because we have an opportunity to say we're not going to produce a new bureaucracy without some reservation when we know it could have been better.

This is not a bill that creates the opportunity for telework. Every agency that sees this bill will look and say, darn, I've got to create a special entity that is a telework czar entity. They will know that for what it is. What it doesn't do is it doesn't give them the kind of additional new guidelines that really would keep this from being, in some cases, just a mandate for a perk, and in other cases a mandate for an agency creation within an agency.

I think that's the most dangerous part of what we do. We should never, never give the Federal Government a requirement to do something and not give them the guidance, authority, and statute necessary to make sure they do it right. We have that responsibility. The executive branch is, in fact, the administrative branch. For them to administer, we either need to give them the rules or require that they create rules that are sensible and then create oversight for it.

That's not what this bill does today. As I said, in no case will this create one new telework job. It simply will create a new bureaucracy, and it does so without any of the protections the motion to recommit, widely accepted by the House, brought before the elections.

Additionally, creating efficiency in government is now essential. When we reconvene in January, our problem will be $1.4 trillion worth of spending--spending greater than what the American people are willing to pay or are able to pay to fund our government. That means to us that we're going to have to find a way to have less Federal workers, Federal workers that cost less, Federal workers that need less facilities. So I will continue to support telework if it means that we're not building new Federal buildings, we're not causing the infrastructure to grow; in other words, Madam Speaker, that we're saving money.

I'm sad to say that this bill, when it is signed by the President, will do none of that. But the President knows, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget knows, the Vice President knows, the House knows, and certainly the Senate knows that we have a long way to go when we talk about private sector telecommuting to be as efficient as the private sector. We are not. What we do is in fact we use the word ``telecommute'' often to say, Well, look, we're using the gadgets. We must be doing better.

Madam Speaker, we can do better. We should do better. I understand this is an important vote to many people who feel that the Federal workforce needs a perk, a symbol that we're going to do something for them. Madam Speaker, this is not doing something for the Federal workforce unless the American people have confidence that the Federal workforce is becoming leaner, more efficient, more effective in doing what the people want done for them. In that case, Madam Speaker, I will recommend that all of my side and as many of those that will listen on the other side of the aisle vote ``no'' today as a symbol that in fact we can do better.

The guidance from the Congress should be to increase efficiency and to describe that in a way in which the Federal workforce can have confidence that we're on the same team, we're on the same side. We want them to avoid excessive commuting. We want this to be more efficient and effective. But we also want to be a Congress that provides such guidelines as necessary rather than simply a mandate for a new bureaucracy in every agency that is now going to be the telecommuting agency.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because we did work long and hard to try to get a better bill. We sent the Senate a better bill. We now, today, can only consider what has been brought before us.

I recommend a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

At the end of debate, isn't it appropriate to call for the vote prior to postponing for the yeas and nays? I heard no request for it. Are we postponing further debate, even though debate has concluded, rather than a House vote and then postponing a recorded vote?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the public service of Councilman Bob Campbell on the occasion of his retirement from the City of Vista. I commend Councilman Campbell's distinguished career and offer my thanks for his more than 20 years of dedicated public service to the City of Vista.

As a native Californian, Mr. Campbell received an undergraduate degree from Stanford University and a graduate degree from the Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Washington. He also served eight distinguished years in the U.S. Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve.

Prior to joining the City of Vista, Mr. Campbell worked with newspaper publishers for sixteen years before starting his own computer systems consulting firm, Buena Vista Services, Inc., in 1980. It was in 1985 that Mr. Campbell began serving as Chairman of a city panel. Under Councilman Campbell's leadership, the panel's redevelopment plan was successfully approved by voters in 1987.

As Vista's Economic Development Director for nearly 10 years, Councilman Campbell's leadership resulted in the attraction of more than 500 firms and commercial and retail

projects to the City. In 1998, Councilman Campbell also formed and spearheaded the San Diego North Economic Development Council (EDC) where he served for three years.

In 2002 Mr. Campbell became a Vista City Councilmember. In this position Councilman Campbell fought for the construction of the new Vista Civic Center and two new fire stations. Councilman Campbell also worked tirelessly with Mayor Morris Vance and the City Council to lead the initiative in converting Vista into a Charter City to gain maximum local authority.

Councilman Campbell has remained an active community leader having participated on the Board of Directors for the Vista Chamber of Commerce, the Vista Boys' Club, the Vista Rotary Club, the Economic Development Association, the Boy Scouts of America and the Vista YMCA.

I offer Councilman Campbell my congratulations and may he enjoy a rewarding retirement with his family.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to please join me in honoring Councilman Bob Campbell and his 20 years of admirable public service to the City of Vista.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the public service of Mayor Morris Vance on the occasion of his retirement from the City of Vista. I commend Mayor Vance on his 29 years of public service.

Starting with a Bachelor of Science in Political Science from Brigham Young University and a Master of Public Administration from the University of Southern California, Mr. Vance began his career by serving in various local government positions throughout the Los Angeles area. He joined the City of Vista as City Manager in 1981, a post which he served for 17 years.

In the role as City Manager, Mr. Vance led the establishment of the Vista Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Project area, establishment of the Vista Economic Development Association (VEDA) and Downtown Commercial Revitalization Program, as well as the development of a Business Park, Industrial Park and a multi-tier Capital Improvement Program and Budgeting System.

Mr. Vance was then elected Mayor of Vista in November of 2002. At the city helm, he worked with officials to put the city on a course for success. Critical programs include the Ask, Share, Know meeting program which provides a forum for residents to meet face-to-face with city officials and council members to have their questions answered about current and pending city projects. Mayor Vance was also instrumental in establishing Operation H.O.P.E., a temporary winter shelter for homeless families and women by providing them an opportunity to get back on their feet and lead them toward self-sufficiency.

To improve community spirit and safety, Mayor Vance led an effort to construct the new Vista Civic Center and two new fire stations. Along with the City Council, Mayor Vance worked to convert Vista into a Charter City to gain the maximum amount of local authority.

Wearing many hats, Mayor Vance also serves on the board of directors for the Regional Transportation Planning Authority, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the Encina Wastewater Authority and is a longtime member of the Rotary Club of Shadowridge Vista along with other regional organizations. In 2009 he was honored by the Boy Scouts of America with the Distinguished Citizen Good Scout of the Year title.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to please join me in honoring Mayor Morris Vance and his 29 years of admirable public service to the City of Vista.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the honorable civil service of Claire Harrison for her twenty-nine years of service with the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) of California.

Joining the water district team in 1981, Ms. Harrison has been instrumental in working on critical projects for EMWD. She spent the last twelve years of her career in Legislative Affairs where she successfully managed that department and the federal legislative program. As a result, her leadership and direction secured federal support for desalination and recycled water infrastructure that dramatically improved the water supply reliability for southwestern Riverside County.

Ms. Harrison embodies EMWD's mission and values of providing superior services to the community in an effective, proficient manner. As a leader in water management, she has made a remarkable impression on the community EMWD serves.

Having worked with Ms. Harrison on water needs for the 49th District of California, she is a true professional that deserved recognition for her nearly three decades of invaluable contributions to the water industry.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to please join me paying tribute to Ms. Harrison's dedicated and loyal service to the Eastern Municipal Water District.

I thank my friend and fellow ranking member.

Chairman Frank, I am perfectly happy to work with you on this. I'm perfectly happy to be associated with you. When people who are considered at least in their own districts as smart come together and realize that we reached the wrong conclusion, we allowed a bill that we worked on hard, in which each of us had victories and failures, each of us would say something was flawed, to have a flaw that was not picked up by any of us or by countless staff. That is what Senate bill 3717 at least partially undoes.

The Dodd-Frank Act was not envisioned to cause the problem that it clearly caused. We can find no evidence of anybody deciding that we would simply shut down the ability for FOIA, and yet that was the effect it had. When this was brought to congressional awareness, multiple bills, including one that myself dropped and also one that Chairman Towns put, plus Senate bills, all were feverishly put in in order to unring the bell. I would say today that we are considering an A version of the unring-the-bell type bill; but I am particularly pleased that on numerous occasions, working with Ranking Member Bachus and with Chairman Frank, we have agreed that this is only a first step. It's the one you can do in the latest days of a Congress, knowing that in fact follow-on legislation is required.

This is in addition to the promise that Chairman Frank made me in open session when we were unable to get some of the provisions that Chairman

Towns and I had offered, had been accepted, that were rejected by the Senate. So I am pleased today that when we look and realize that we have, as Ranking Member Bachus said, we have the chairwoman of the SEC on our side, we have the chairman of both the committee that I serve on, the Government Oversight Committee and the Financial Services Committee, plus both of us as ranking members saying that sometimes you just have to take ``yes'' for an answer. The Senate has moved and moved quickly. This is a step in the right direction. For all those entities who have historically filed and believed in good faith they were entitled to freedom of information delivery, we're taking a step back to where we were.

I might note that only a fraction of those applications are ever granted and the SEC is but once ever reversed when they deny FOIA. So we believe this does not open Pandora's box, that section 929I will in fact still be intact for purposes of privacy, something that we think is important.

We do note, and I think we're noting in every single statement, that we need to ensure that additional work is done to make certain that no one uses FOIA as a backdoor way to receive information in litigation or other matters that they would otherwise not receive. We certainly do not want to have the SEC be a place that you withhold by any means possible information even when you have nothing to hide because, of course, as we know, voluntary compliance is what allows the SEC to do what they should do which is look for those who are not following the rules.

So in my support of Senate 3717, I certainly would say it's a big step in the right direction. It's one in which I believe all four of us, as chairmen and ranking members, are here today to say we support it. We are glad that it will be in front of the President in a matter of days.

In the next Congress, we will put together, with all four of our staffs, the kind of additional follow-on legislation that the American people expect after any large piece of legislation. I, for one, would like to thank Chairman Frank. I do want to be associated with his intellect and hard work and immediate grasp that this and other matters need to be followed on.

I don't know about the gentleman from Alabama, but I am happy to believe that smart people don't always reach the same conclusion. But if they are smart, they work on common solutions whenever possible.