[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1947-H1950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAXPAYER TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2014
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3308) to require a Federal agency to include language in
certain educational and advertising materials indicating that such
materials are produced and disseminated at taxpayer expense, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3308
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Transparency Act of
2014''.
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR PRINTED MATERIALS AND ADVERTISEMENTS
BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) Requirement to Identify Funding Source for
Communication Funded by Federal Agency.--Each communication
funded by a Federal agency that is an advertisement, or that
provides information about any Federal Government program,
benefit, or service, shall clearly state--
(1) in the case of a printed communication, including mass
mailings, signs, and billboards, that the communication is
printed or published at taxpayer expense; and
(2) in the case of a communication transmitted through
radio, television, the Internet, or any means other than the
means referred to in paragraph (1), that the communication is
produced or disseminated at taxpayer expense.
[[Page H1948]]
(b) Additional Requirements.--
(1) Printed communication.--Any printed communication
described in subsection (a)(1) shall--
(A) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by
the recipient of the communication;
(B) to the extent feasible, be contained in a printed box
set apart from the other contents of the communication; and
(C) to the extent feasible, be printed with a reasonable
degree of color contrast between the background and the
printed statement.
(2) Radio, television, and internet communication.--
(A) Audio communication.--Any audio communication described
in subsection (a)(2) shall include an audio statement that
communicates the information required under that subsection
in a clearly spoken manner.
(B) Video communication.--Any video communication described
in subsection (a)(2) shall include a statement with the
information referred to under that subsection--
(i) that is conveyed in a clearly spoken manner;
(ii) that is conveyed by a voice-over or screen view of the
person making the statement; and
(iii) to the extent feasible, that also appears in writing
at the end of the communication in a clearly readable manner
with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the
background and the printed statement, for a period of at
least 4 seconds.
(C) E-mail communication.--Any e-mail communication
described in subsection (a)(2) shall include the information
required under that subsection, displayed in a manner that--
(i) is of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by
the recipient of the communication;
(ii) is set apart from the other contents of the
communication; and
(iii) includes a reasonable degree of color contrast
between the background and the printed statement.
(c) Identification of Other Funding Source for Certain
Communications.--In the case of a communication funded
entirely by user fees, by any other source that does not
include Federal funds, or by a combination of such fees or
other source, a Federal agency may apply the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b) by substituting ``by the United
States Government'' for ``at taxpayer expense''.
(d) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' has the
meaning given the term ``Executive agency'' in section 133 of
title 41, United States Code.
(2) Mass mailing.--The term ``mass mailing'' means any
mailing or distribution of 499 or more newsletters,
pamphlets, or other printed matter with substantially
identical content, whether such matter is deposited singly or
in bulk, or at the same time or different times, except that
such term does not include any mailing--
(A) in direct response to a communication from a person to
whom the matter is mailed; or
(B) of a news release to the communications media.
(e) Source of Funds.--The funds used by a Federal agency to
carry out this Act shall be derived from amounts made
available to the agency for advertising, or for providing
information about any Federal Government program, benefit, or
service.
(f) Effective Date.--This section shall apply only to
communications printed or otherwise produced after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall develop and issue guidance on implementing the
requirements of this Act.
SEC. 4. JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEABILITY.
(a) Judicial Review.--There shall be no judicial review of
compliance or noncompliance with any provision of this Act.
(b) Enforceability.--No provision of this Act shall be
construed to create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any administrative or judicial
action.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Farenthold) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am here today to speak on H.R. 3308, which requires the Federal
Government to disclose that advertisements and information on
government programs and services are paid for by the taxpayer.
Advertisements provide information, but in many instances, they are
designed to induce people to buy or use a product or service. While we
can debate whether individual Federal advertising campaigns are overly
promotional, surely we can agree that the public should know that they,
themselves, are sponsoring a government marketing piece.
Americans deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and
H.R. 3308 adds needed transparency to the business of government by
requiring disclosures when taxpayer dollars are spent on advertising
and educational materials.
This bill is designed to help people know what is going on. It is not
intended to be a burden on local broadcasters, their advertisers, or
any of the work that they do in local communities.
As a former broadcaster, I understand the important role that
advertising plays, but it is also important that the people know what
is an advertisement being paid for with government money, what is a
public service announcement, and what is being paid for by private
individuals.
This bill adds a disclaimer to ads in printed material very similar
to what all of us in this Chamber are familiar with. There are
advertising rules for Members' campaigns, where you have to indicate,
This was paid for by so-and-so.
This would just require government agencies who purchase advertising
or produce written material to add a disclaimer saying something to the
effect of, Produced and aired at taxpayer expense.
I will reserve the balance of my time at this point, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Under this legislation, Mr. Speaker, any communication an agency
makes that is an advertisement or that provides information about a
Federal Government program, benefit, or service would have to say that
it is printed or published at taxpayer expense. Emails, radio, and
television ads would have to say that they are produced and
disseminated at taxpayer expense.
Some agencies already identify the agencies that print them. For
example, the Army prints, ``Paid for by the United States Army'' on its
recruiting posters. This bill would require the Army to change its
wording and say, ``Printed at taxpayer expense.'' I have not heard any
explanation, either at the committee or here on the floor, for why such
a change is so necessary.
The gentlewoman from Illinois, Congresswoman Duckworth, the former
Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs, raised an important point
during our committee's consideration of this bill. She pointed out that
some materials printed by the Department of Veterans Affairs state that
the VA produced the materials. This is important because veterans need
to be able to trust the source of the information, and seeing
``Department of Veterans Affairs'' engenders just that trust.
Four years ago, this body passed a law, cosponsored by Chairman Issa,
the chairman of our committee, that prohibited nongovernment parties
from sending mailings marked ``census'' without a clear disclaimer with
the name of the party sending the mailing.
That law was passed after the Republican National Committee sent a
mailing that led recipients to think it was an official census document
when it was not.
{time} 1230
We passed that law because we wanted to protect consumers from being
misled into believing a communication from a nongovernmental source
was, in fact, an official government document. We should use that same
logic and caution with this bill. I think it is important that this
bill is interpreted to allow agencies to continue to say that a
communication is paid for by that agency rather than being required to
say that the document is printed or published at taxpayer expense.
During the committee's consideration of this legislation, Chairman
Issa and my friend, Chairman Farenthold, made commitments to
Representative Duckworth to work with her in finding mutually agreeable
language. Representative Duckworth suggested language that would
address the issues we
[[Page H1949]]
raised with the military and the Veterans Administration.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that language is not--not--included in this
bill, and no changes were made at all since the committee considered
it, despite the assurances given to Representative Duckworth.
I will not vote against the bill, but I certainly hope that, if this
bill or a similar bill moves through the Senate, the majority in the
House will keep the commitments made to Representative Duckworth and
the Democrats on our committee to find a satisfactory resolution to the
legitimate concerns that were raised.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to take a moment to address the concerns raised by the
gentleman from Virginia before yielding to the author of the bill, Mr.
Long.
During the markup, Representative Duckworth was concerned about
certain agencies like the VA and the Department of Defense; and during
the markup, we did add a provision, at the minority's request, that
allowed the Office of Management and Budget to implement regulations in
exactly how this is going to be done. It certainly does not prohibit
``paid for by the Army'' or ``paid for by the Veterans
Administration.'' It would simply add, ``paid for by the Army at
taxpayer expense,'' which would clearly be compliant with this law, the
idea being to determine what the taxpayers are paying for and what is
being donated for time, for instance, by a broadcast facility for
public service announcements or to differentiate ads that are not paid
for by the government. There is no disclaimer. We know it is not paid
for with taxpayer dollars.
What we are after here is to let the taxpayer know when they see
something on the television, hear something on the radio, or see a
printed material that their tax dollars funded it and it is something
they can either be proud of or they can pick up the phone and call us
up here in Washington, D.C. and say, What the heck are you doing
wasting our money on these types of ads?
It empowers the public to know. We are not trying to limit Federal
agencies. We are not trying to detract from the fine work that the VA
does or to detract from the recruiting efforts that our Armed Forces
are in.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Will my friend yield?
Mr. FARENTHOLD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend.
Is there any doubt, do you think, in a taxpayer's mind that if the
current situation that identifies something as paid for by the U.S.
Army, then certainly we all understand that it is also paid for by the
U.S. taxpayer?
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Reclaiming my time, we have got an alphabet soup of
government agencies. As I review documents for the budget, I sometimes
have to Google what some of the agencies in the Federal Government do.
Obviously, almost everybody knows what the Army is, but if you are not
in the financial services, do you know what the CFPB is? Or do you know
what some of the smaller subagencies are? And I think that is what we
are getting at.
At this point, I will, however, yield as much time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Billy Long, the author of this
bill, my good friend and a fellow broadcaster, I might add.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding
to me.
Every day, Federal agencies spend money advertising various programs
without mentioning where the funding for these programs or their ads
are coming from. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said
that sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. The Taxpayer
Transparency Act is about shining a light on how taxpayer dollars are
spent by requiring executive branch agencies to disclose that these
advertisements are paid for at taxpayer expense. Simply, this bill
extends similar requirements already imposed on the House and the
Senate to the executive branch.
It is time for government to start working for the people again. By
providing more transparency in their spending, executive branch
agencies will have to answer to the people. Americans have every right
to know exactly how their tax dollars are being spent. As Members of
Congress, we should all support an open and honest government, and this
legislation does that by requiring executive branch agencies to be
transparent with spending taxpayer dollars which promote Federal
programs.
I urge the House to support this bill and look forward to further
action by our colleagues in the Senate.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Could I inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 17\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 14\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers on this side.
Does the gentleman have others on his side?
Mr. FARENTHOLD. I don't have any further speakers, and I am prepared
to close.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I certainly laud the intent of the bill. I
sometimes wish, however, that we applied this same rubric to ourselves
here in Congress. Wouldn't it be interesting for the taxpayers to know,
for example, that a dead-end kind of inquiry on the IRS being pursued
by the majority in this body just in our committee alone has already
cost the taxpayers of the United States $14 million producing virtually
nothing? And it would be very interesting to know how much it has cost
the taxpayers of this country when we had 46 or 47 repeal of the
Affordable Care Act amendments in bills in this Congress and in the
previous Congress.
Having said that, I certainly am not going to vote against the bill,
but I am concerned that some of the concerns raised by my colleagues,
particularly Congresswoman Duckworth, were not, in fact, addressed in
the final bill brought before this floor. It is my hope we could
continue to work together to try to resolve that with some compromise
language as we work with our colleagues in the other body.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Without getting into the pros and cons of the various investigations
that this body does, I will say that it is our constitutional
obligation to provide oversight to the various Federal agencies. One of
the ways we do that is through the investigation that our committee
does bring up.
I do want to say we did visit with Representative Duckworth, and we
do feel as if her concerns have been addressed. We could not agree on
specific language with Ms. Duckworth, but we were able to come up with
these provisions that the minority requested at the markup that allowed
the OMB to come up with the implementing regulations. It also includes
a provision suggested by the minority to make clear that communications
funded entirely by user fees or by sources other than that that do not
include Federal funds may indicate how it is funded through the United
States Government.
But this is a bill all designed to provide transparency, let
taxpayers see the fruits of the spending of taxpayer dollars on
advertisements, and to make a judgment about that on their own and know
what is going on and know how their money is being spent.
As my colleague from Missouri pointed out, sunshine is the best
disinfectant. It is what we are about in the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee. It is what this bill does, again, designed as a
regulation on government agencies, not as an attempt to go after
broadcasters, print shops, or anything like that. This is just to get
the government agencies to tell the taxpayers what they bought with the
disclaimer on there.
It is commonsense legislation. I urge all my colleagues to stand
behind it. It is something that I think will be a huge step forward
towards transparency, and I look forward to this bill's passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, last fall we learned that the
Department of Health and Human Services spent nearly $12 million
dollars of taxpayer money for airtime campaigns to promote Obamacare.
While this was
[[Page H1950]]
a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars allocated to specifically target
states that have opted out of Medicaid expansion, it was not an
isolated event.
For this reason, I joined my colleague from Missouri as the original
cosponsor of H.R. 3308, the Taxpayer Transparency Act.
This bill does just what it says--provides transparency when spending
tax dollars earned by hard working Americans.
My colleague's bill would require agencies in the executive branch to
disclose any and all advertisements funded by taxpayers. This includes
all mailers, brochures, tv and radio ads, emails, billboards, and
posters.
Both the House and Senate are required to disclose this information
in franked mailing--so why are executive branch agencies not held to
the same standard of transparency? Our constituents deserve better.
To my colleagues, I urge you to pass this bill to hold the federal
government accountable for waste and abuse of taxpayer money.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
legislation.
For the last three years, House Republicans have repeatedly attacked
critical public health, safety, and environmental protections.
This package of anti-regulatory bills is just another such attack on
agency rulemakings--one that is falsely advertised as an effort to
improve transparency.
Title one of this bill, which was reported by the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, would prevent a rule from taking effect
until certain information is posted online for at least six months.
The only exception to this requirement would be for the agency to
forgo a notice and comment period or for the President to issue an
Executive Order.
This delay is completely unnecessary and is effectively a six-month
moratorium on rules. It also could give agencies a perverse incentive
to avoid a public comment period altogether if a statutory or court-
ordered deadline could be missed.
Just one example of a rule that could be affected by this bill is the
Food and Drug Administration's proposed rule on electronic prescribing
information, which would ensure that doctors have the most current
safety information on prescription drugs.
Under this bill, this drug safety rule could not be finalized until
OMB posts information about the rule on its web site for six months.
FDA, like other agencies, already details the status of its
rulemakings on its website, and extensive information about proposed
rules is also available on the website Regulations.gov.
Yet under this bill, if OMB failed to post a required piece of
information, FDA could not finalize the rule unless the President
stepped in and issued an Executive Order. It should not be that hard
for doctors to have the most up-to-date safety information about
prescription drugs.
That is just title one of this Frankenstein bill. The other three
titles of this bill are even worse. One title would add 60 additional
requirements to the rulemaking process.
We should be making the regulatory process more efficient and
effective. Adding 60 new requirements will do exactly the opposite and
make it needlessly complex.
Madam Chairman, this is a package of bad bills that would do nothing
to improve our rulemaking process. I urge every Member to oppose it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3308, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________