[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27887-27891]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 468) to improve the effectiveness and performance of 
Federal financial assistance programs, simplify Federal financial 
assistance application and reporting requirements, and improve the 
delivery of services to the public, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 S. 468

       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 ``Federal Financial Assistance 
     Management Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there are over 600 different Federal financial 
     assistance programs to implement domestic policy;
       (2) while the assistance described in paragraph (1) has 
     been directed at critical problems, some Federal 
     administrative requirements may be duplicative, burdensome or 
     conflicting, thus impeding cost-effective delivery of 
     services at the local level;
       (3) the Nation's State, local, and tribal governments and 
     private, nonprofit organizations are dealing with 
     increasingly complex problems which require the delivery and 
     coordination of many kinds of services; and
       (4) streamlining and simplification of Federal financial 
     assistance administrative procedures and reporting 
     requirements will improve the delivery of services to the 
     public.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal 
     financial assistance programs;
       (2) simplify Federal financial assistance application and 
     reporting requirements;
       (3) improve the delivery of services to the public; and
       (4) facilitate greater coordination among those responsible 
     for delivering such services.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (2) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any 
     agency as defined under section 551(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Federal financial assistance.--The term ``Federal 
     financial assistance'' has the same meaning as defined in 
     section 7501(a)(5) of title 31, United States Code, under 
     which Federal financial assistance is provided, directly or 
     indirectly, to a non-Federal entity.
       (4) Local government.--The term ``local government'' means 
     a political subdivision of a State that is a unit of general 
     local government (as defined under section 7501(a)(11) of 
     title 31, United States Code).
       (5) Non-federal entity.--The term ``non-Federal entity'' 
     means a State, local government, or nonprofit organization.
       (6) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit 
     organization'' means any corporation, trust, association, 
     cooperative, or other organization that--
       (A) is operated primarily for scientific, educational, 
     service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public 
     interest;
       (B) is not organized primarily for profit; and
       (C) uses net proceeds to maintain, improve, or expand the 
     operations of the organization.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust 
     Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any instrumentality 
     thereof, any multi-State, regional, or interstate entity 
     which has governmental functions, and any Indian Tribal 
     Government.
       (8) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal government'' 
     means an Indian tribe, as that term is defined in section 
     7501(a)(9) of title 31, United States Code.
       (9) Uniform administrative rule.--The term ``uniform 
     administrative rule'' means a Government-wide uniform rule 
     for any generally applicable requirement established to 
     achieve national policy objectives that applies to multiple 
     Federal financial assistance programs across Federal 
     agencies.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b), 
     not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, each Federal agency shall develop and implement a plan 
     that--
       (1) streamlines and simplifies the application, 
     administrative, and reporting procedures for Federal 
     financial assistance programs administered by the agency;
       (2) demonstrates active participation in the interagency 
     process under section 6(a)(2);
       (3) demonstrates appropriate agency use, or plans for use, 
     of the common application and reporting system developed 
     under section 6(a)(1);
       (4) designates a lead agency official for carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the agency under this Act;
       (5) allows applicants to electronically apply for, and 
     report on the use of, funds from the Federal financial 
     assistance program administered by the agency;
       (6) ensures recipients of Federal financial assistance 
     provide timely, complete, and high quality information in 
     response to Federal reporting requirements; and
       (7) in cooperation with recipients of Federal financial 
     assistance, establishes specific annual goals and objectives 
     to further the purposes of this Act and measure annual 
     performance in achieving those goals and objectives, which 
     may be done as part of the agency's annual planning 
     responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results 
     Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285).
       (b) Extension.--If a Federal agency is unable to comply 
     with subsection (a), the Director may extend for up to 12 
     months the period for the agency to develop and implement a 
     plan in accordance with subsection (a).
       (c) Comment and Consultation on Agency Plans.--
       (1) Comment.--Each agency shall publish the plan developed 
     under subsection (a) in the Federal Register and shall 
     receive public comment of the plan through the Federal 
     Register and other means (including electronic means). To the 
     maximum extent practicable, each Federal agency shall hold 
     public forums on the plan.
       (2) Consultation.--The lead official designated under 
     subsection (a)(4) shall consult with representatives of non-
     Federal entities during development and implementation of the 
     plan. Consultation with representatives of State, local, and 
     tribal governments shall be in accordance with section 204 of 
     the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1534).
       (d) Submission of Plan.--Each Federal agency shall submit 
     the plan developed under subsection (a) to the Director and 
     Congress and report annually thereafter on the implementation 
     of the plan and performance of the agency in meeting the 
     goals and objectives specified under subsection (a)(7). Such 
     report may be included as part of any of the general 
     management reports required under law.

     SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR.

       (a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with agency 
     heads and representatives of non-Federal entities, shall 
     direct, coordinate, and assist Federal agencies in 
     establishing--

[[Page 27888]]

       (1) a common application and reporting system, including--
       (A) a common application or set of common applications, 
     wherein a non-Federal entity can apply for Federal financial 
     assistance from multiple Federal financial assistance 
     programs that serve similar purposes and are administered by 
     different Federal agencies;
       (B) a common system, including electronic processes, 
     wherein a non-Federal entity can apply for, manage, and 
     report on the use of funding from multiple Federal financial 
     assistance programs that serve similar purposes and are 
     administered by different Federal agencies; and
       (C) uniform administrative rules for Federal financial 
     assistance programs across different Federal agencies; and
       (2) an interagency process for addressing--
       (A) ways to streamline and simplify Federal financial 
     assistance administrative procedures and reporting 
     requirements for non-Federal entities;
       (B) improved interagency and intergovernmental coordination 
     of information collection and sharing of data pertaining to 
     Federal financial assistance programs, including appropriate 
     information sharing consistent with section 552a of title 5, 
     United States Code; and
       (C) improvements in the timeliness, completeness, and 
     quality of information received by Federal agencies from 
     recipients of Federal financial assistance.
       (b) Lead Agency and Working Groups.--The Director may 
     designate a lead agency to assist the Director in carrying 
     out the responsibilities under this section. The Director may 
     use interagency working groups to assist in carrying out such 
     responsibilities.
       (c) Review of Plans and Reports.--Upon the request of the 
     Director, agencies shall submit to the Director, for the 
     Director's review, information and other reporting regarding 
     agency implementation of this Act.
       (d) Exemptions.--The Director may exempt any Federal agency 
     or Federal financial assistance program from the requirements 
     of this Act if the Director determines that the Federal 
     agency does not have a significant number of Federal 
     financial assistance programs. The Director shall maintain a 
     list of exempted agencies which shall be available to the 
     public through the Office of Management and Budget's Internet 
     site.
       (e) Report on Recommended Changes in Law.--Not later than 
     18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Director shall submit to Congress a report containing 
     recommendations for changes in law to improve the 
     effectiveness, performance, and coordination of Federal 
     financial assistance programs.
       (f) Deadline.--All actions required under this section 
     shall be carried out not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. EVALUATION.

       (a) In General.--The General Accounting Office shall 
     evaluate the effectiveness of this Act. Not later than 6 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act, the evaluation 
     shall be submitted to the lead agency, the Director, and 
     Congress. The evaluation shall be performed with input from 
     State, local, and tribal governments, and nonprofit 
     organizations.
       (b) Contents.--The evaluation under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) assess the effectiveness of this Act in meeting the 
     purposes of this Act and make specific recommendations to 
     further the implementation of this Act;
       (2) evaluate actual performance of each agency in achieving 
     the goals and objectives stated in agency plans; and
       (3) assess the level of coordination among the Director, 
     Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, and 
     nonprofit organizations in implementing this Act.

     SEC. 8. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the 
     Director or any Federal agency from gathering, or to exempt 
     any recipient of Federal financial assistance from providing, 
     information that is required for review of the financial 
     integrity or quality of services of an activity assisted by a 
     Federal financial assistance program.

     SEC. 9. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       There shall be no judicial review of compliance or 
     noncompliance with any of the provisions of this Act. No 
     provision of this Act shall be construed to create any right 
     or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any 
     administrative or judicial action.

     SEC. 10. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as a means to 
     deviate from the statutory requirements relating to 
     applicable Federal financial assistance programs.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUNSET.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act and shall cease to be effective 8 years after such date 
     of enactment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), to explain this legislation, I 
simply wanted my colleagues in the House to know that this bill is 
nearly identical to H.R. 409, which was unanimously approved by the 
House on February 24, 1999.
  In essence, this legislation requires Federal agencies to coordinate 
and streamline the process by which applicants apply for grants and 
other assistance programs, particularly where similar programs are 
administered by the different Federal agencies.
  I believe the Office of Management and Budget currently has the 
authority to streamline the grant application process, and it should do 
so. Since it has failed to act, however, I believe this mandate is 
necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the author of this legislation, for a full 
explanation of the bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the legislation before 
us, the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 
1999. I was pleased to be the lead House sponsor of this legislation, 
along with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  I would like to especially thank the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), for helping us get to this point. 
Even sometimes the best legislation gets tied up in maneuvers between 
the House and Senate and in committee, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) has been very helpful to getting us to this 
point.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) 
and others on the subcommittee for their strong support of this 
legislation. I would also like to recognize my friend and colleague 
from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, the new Senator from Ohio, who offered the 
Senate version of this legislation and who has worked closely with us 
to get this good government legislation to the floor of the House and 
Senate and to get it done this year.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, while the Senate has made some minor amendments, as the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) has said, this bill is 
essentially the same legislation that passed the House overwhelmingly 
earlier this year, H.R. 409. The original Senate bill that we looked at 
had a 36-month implementation timetable. I am pleased to say in the 
last few weeks we have been successful at preserving the House language 
that requires implementation within a short period of time, 18 months.
  Every Member of Congress I believe has heard, as I have, from our 
nonprofit community, from our State and local governments, about the 
frustration of the process of applying for Federal grants and keeping 
up with the reporting requirements that follow. That is what this 
legislation is intended to address.
  Right now there are over 600 separate Federal programs that provide 
financial assistance to State and local governments, tribal 
governments, and nonprofits. Of those 600 programs, many serve similar 
purposes but are administered by different agencies.
  For example, taxpayers spend about $20 billion a year on 163 job 
training programs in 15 different Federal agencies. Eleven agencies 
administer over 90 early childhood programs. Each of these programs has 
its own unique set of applications, reporting requirements, and other 
red tape. Too often the grant application process is unnecessarily 
time-consuming and costly.
  As a result, what do organizations do? Many pay professional 
grantwriters to do the work for them, which reduces, of course, the 
resources available to address critical problems being targeted. Others 
who do not have the resources to hire a professional grantwriter take 
the time and energy to do it themselves, taking time away, of course, 
from their intended mission.
  Small but successful nonprofits in greater Cincinnati, the area I 
represent, for example, that are struggling

[[Page 27889]]

to help welfare families make the transition to work or helping to keep 
kids off drugs should not be having their time, efforts, and resources 
diverted away from the hard work of their mission toward bureaucratic 
requirements and the applications that are really unnecessary.
  I have talked to a lot of groups that are successful in obtaining a 
Federal grant. I think other Members have the same experience. Those 
same groups wonder whether it was worth the effort because of the 
reporting and administrative burdens that are laid on them.
  Recently I have fielded concerns from around the country about 
implementation of the Drug-Free Communities Act, legislation I 
cosponsored, I sponsored here and was enacted in the last Congress. We 
felt in Congress we gave pretty simple and clear criteria to the 
agencies. Yet, the initial application process was neither simple nor 
clear. It was lengthy, complicated, burdensome, costly. As a result, 
resources were wasted, and this important program was not as successful 
as it could have been to the very coalitions, the small coalitions that 
needed it most.
  Congress is not above criticism for the way in which we write 
legislation and report language, but when we give discretion to the 
agencies, too often that discretion is used to create unnecessary 
bureaucratic hurdles.
  The bill before us this afternoon addresses this problem by requiring 
Federal agencies with oversight from the Office of Management and 
Budget to develop plans within 18 months that streamline application, 
administrative, and reporting requirements; have a uniform application 
for related programs, ending duplications; demonstrate interagency 
coordination to simplify reporting requirements for overlapping 
programs, and finally, a requirement that the electronic funding and 
filing be used by the agencies.
  The electronic filing and electronic funding is a very important part 
of this bill that is often overlooked but will allow organizations to 
apply for and report on the use of funds electronically. Using the 
Internet as a substitute for cumbersome paperwork is a very welcome 
innovation in the way the Federal government works. We need to bring 
technology into the Federal government and allow people to do the same 
with the Federal government that can now be done with the private 
sector.
  The bill also requires OMB to set annual goals to further the 
purposes of the Act and to expand electronic filings. Agencies are 
required under this legislation to work closely with State and local 
governments and the nonprofit community in setting new performance 
measures that are in the legislation to achieve the bill's goals.
  The bill sunsets in 5 years following a review by the National 
Academy of Public Administration. It is important to point out that by 
simplifying this grants process, we are not just helping grant 
applicants, they will be able to access the Federal government using 
fewer resources, but we are also reducing the workload for the Federal 
agencies, which in the end will lead to fewer costs to the taxpayer.
  This effort we believe is totally consistent with and in fact builds 
on other efforts that the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn), 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and others of us have been 
about, such as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, as well as efforts to 
improve Federal performance overall, such as the Government Performance 
and Results Act, or GPRA.
  The bill is a priority and has been endorsed by all the major State 
and local organizations, such as the National Governors Association, 
the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association 
of Counties, and the National League of Cities. It is also supported by 
nonprofit organizations out there, OMB Watch and others. It is a good 
government measure. It will make it easier for Americans to interact 
with their Federal Government. Importantly, once it is implemented, it 
will result in efficiencies and cost savings for both grant applicants 
and the Federal agencies.
  The bottom line is we need to let State and local government, 
charities, nonprofits around the country, focus on their mission. Too 
often they are forced to spend time navigating the maze of the Federal 
bureaucracy, rather than doing what they were intended to do, feed the 
homeless, find jobs for displaced workers, get people off drugs.
  Thanks in part to modern technology, we now have the capacity to free 
people from those burdens. We should take advantage of that 
opportunity. That is what this legislation is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and, 
again, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
who is now here, for his work on this, helping me in a bipartisan way 
to get this to the floor.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this strong effort to make the 
government work better for all of our constituents.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and urge its 
adoption. I want to recognize the hard work and vision and leadership 
provided by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). These two Members, working together, were 
the driving force behind the adoption of this bipartisan piece of 
legislation.
  It is no secret that State, Federal, local, and tribal governments, 
as well as nonprofit organizations, are very frustrated with the miles 
of red tape and regulations that they encounter when they have to apply 
for a Federal grant. The current system clearly is not user-friendly.
  In fact, the Federal government has spawned a cottage industry of 
people known as Federal grantsmen or Federal grants specialists who 
hire out to our local governments and our State governments just to 
fill out the paperwork to apply for a Federal grant.
  This legislation, which is similar to House Resolution 409, which was 
unanimously approval by this House on February 24, is designed to 
streamline and consolidate the grant application process.
  There are more than 600 Federal programs that provide financial 
assistance to State, local, and tribal governments and nonprofits. 
These funds and the organizations that use them provide vital services 
to the American public. Countless Americans rely on the Federal 
assistance that comes from Federal loans for education, job training 
funds, childhood programs, welfare benefits, medical care, and I could 
go on.
  As we all know, unwieldy administrative barriers can reduce the 
effectiveness of Federal financial assistance and the services it 
provides. Similar programs can be administered by numerous different 
agencies, and administrative requirements can be complicated and 
repetitive. As a result, federally-funded programs are often forced to 
use time, effort, and money on paperwork, rather than applying those 
funds to providing the vital services that the public needs.
  As a former mayor of my hometown and as a former member of my State 
legislature, and as a former executive assistant to a former Governor 
of Texas, I sympathize with the frustration that people at the local 
and State level are experiencing when they are forced to handle 
burdensome Federal regulations for Federal loan applications and 
Federal grant applications.
  This bill would help solve that problem. It would streamline the 
application process, streamline the reporting process, promote the 
establishment of consistent procedures for financial assistance 
programs, and encourage the use of electronic application and reporting 
processes. It also will assure that the Federal government will receive 
timely and accurate reporting from the grantee.
  With the increasing use of block grants to the States, we should 
require greater accountability from grant recipients.
  It is my understanding that the Senate has agreed to the changes that 
we have made in this bill, and will quickly move to pass the 
legislation. I think we can all agree that this is a significant piece 
of legislation, and again, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.

[[Page 27890]]

Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their efforts 
on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank the minority for its help at both 
the subcommittee level and the full committee level, and I am delighted 
to see one of the major Democratic leaders come and help support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who, as I mentioned a moment ago, 
is cosponsor of this bill and has worked tirelessly with the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to ensure its passage.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, 
for yielding time to me, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn) for his comments. I thank both of them for their leadership in 
facilitating the movement of this bill to the floor today.
  At the outset, I want to say what a privilege and pleasure it is to 
work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who is one of our 
finest Members, and who is one of our Members most focused on 
legislative accomplishments.
  Too often we spend time trying to make political points, and I am 
involved in that and others are involved in that as well. But the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has been throughout his career 
focused on substantive accomplishment, and it is a real privilege and 
pleasure to work with the gentleman. I thank him for his leadership on 
this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, over the years Congress, as has been pointed out, has 
created hundreds of programs, 600-plus, of categorical programs to help 
communities and families deal with various different issues. We did so 
because we wanted to make sure that the quality of life of our 
constituents was as good as it possibly could be.
  Each of the programs was created, however, with its own nuanced rules 
and regulations. In some areas local needs do not fit specifically into 
the designations that are included in the programs. In other areas, 
there is overlapping and the programs duplicate each other.
  For many years as a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education, I have talked to the secretaries of 
those three departments about coordinating their programs so that, 
whether it is a child or a worker or family, that that family could 
more easily access the services available across departmental lines.
  This bill deals specifically with making sure that grant applicants 
have an easier time and a more efficient time and a less expensive time 
in accessing dollars that we want to get as simply and directly as 
possible to the recipients that are intended to be the beneficiaries of 
the programs we adopt.
  Right now caseworkers spend far too much time dealing with red tape 
and paperwork. The Federal government has created hundreds of different 
taps through which assistance flows. Communities, programs, and 
families must run from tap to tap in many instances with a bucket to 
help the people that we want to help so well.
  One of the analogies I have made is that it is a shame at the Federal 
level we do not say we want to help child A or family B, and we have a 
lot of different programs to do that from a lot of different 
departments, whether it is housing, whether it is nutritional programs 
out of agriculture, whether it is job programs out of the Department of 
Labor, education programs out of the Department of Education, Head 
Start out of HHS, a myriad number of programs, it is a shame that we do 
not really have a big funnel up here with a spout, and child Mary or 
family A or B would get the programs coordinated for them by us, that 
we created. This bill goes some way towards doing that.
  I want to again congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) 
for his leadership on this. It requires the Office of Management and 
Budget to work with other Federal agencies to establish a uniform 
application for financial assistance for multiple programs across 
multiple Federal agencies.
  That seems to make a lot of sense, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner) has said, but it really has not happened too often. Each agency 
has had its own perspective on one little question that it had to have 
answered so that it would approve the application, where the other 
agency did not need the answer to that question, it needed an answer to 
another question.
  Mr. Speaker, it is all the same tax dollars appropriated by and 
authorized by the same Congress, and what this legislation says is, 
come on, fellows, let us get our act together and let us have the 
locals tell us what we need to know in a uniform way, rely on that, and 
get that grant money out to them without them wasting dollars on 
administrative procedures.
  Some people denigrate bureaucrats. I do not do that, I represent a 
lot of them. But that does not mean I want to see a proliferation of 
bureaucracy that money for children and families goes to, simply trying 
to get through the system. It is critically important not to have to 
deal with all kinds of different forms when basically the information 
we are seeking is the same.
  Secondly, this bill will simplify reporting requirements and 
administrative procedures, and again facilitate, not impede, dollars 
getting to people that we at the Federal level, our State colleagues 
and local colleagues, all want to assist.
  Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, it will develop electronic methods. My friend, 
the gentleman from Ohio, spoke about that. This is a critically 
important aspect of this legislation. I was pleased to ensure that we 
got this online, so to speak, as quickly as possible. It will help 
develop electronic methods for applying for and reporting of Federal 
financial assistance funds. I think, as I have said, that this is 
critically important. In my opinion, the Federal Government's 
responsibility will be facilitated by this act.
  I agree with the gentleman from Texas, and I know the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) does as well, we are not saying that we do not want 
full accountability. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers when we 
authorize and appropriate this money that the money will be spent in a 
manner that is effective and accomplishes the result for which it is 
planned.
  On the other hand, we want to facilitate, not impede, the application 
of those dollars, while at the same time requiring accountability.

                              {time}  1315

  I believe that S. 468 and the House bill that we are now considering 
will add a much-needed focus on the coordination of program 
requirements, both within and across Federal departments.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to mention what I mention a lot of 
times on this floor, unfortunately, the American public that watches C-
SPAN sees too often us fighting with one another, and they do so 
because really what gets on this floor most of the time is the 
disagreements that we have, because the agreements that we have are 
done in a much briefer time frame and do not get the focus that the 
disagreements get.
  Here is a perfect example of a bipartisan piece of legislation worked 
on by the majority party and its leadership and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), the minority party and our leadership, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), resulting in a bill put together by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), with my help, but he has been 
the leader on this, he really took up where Senator Glenn left off when 
Senator Glenn left. That is, I think, going to make a very significant, 
perhaps not front page news but nevertheless significant step forward 
for facilitating the application of Federal funds in an efficient and 
effective manner to make the lives of our constituents better.
  I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his leadership and 
work on this issue. As I said, it has been a pleasure working with him, 
and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner).

[[Page 27891]]


  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been very eloquently pursued by the 
minority and the majority and I would ask that S. 468 be adopted by 
this body. We did it before. Let us do it again. It is the right thing 
to do.
                                       Committee on Transportation


                                           and Infrastructure,

                                 Washington, DC, October 26, 1999.
     Hon. Dan Burton,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee in H.R. 2513, a bill to direct the 
     Administrator of General Services to acquire a building in 
     Terre Haute, Indiana.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 2513 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     certain provisions of the bill, I do not intend to request a 
     sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my 
     decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or 
     otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee.
       With warm personal regards, I remain.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bud Shuster,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 1999.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of October 26, 
     1999 regarding H.R. 2513 a bill directing the Administrator 
     of General Services to acquire a building located in Terre 
     Haute, Indiana.
       I agree that the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this legislation, and I am most appreciative of 
     your decision not to request such a referral in the interest 
     of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its 
     jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of 
     letters will be included in the record during floor 
     consideration of this bill.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Burton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: In the interest of expediting floor 
     consideration of H.R. 2513, a bill to direct the 
     Administrator of the General Services to acquire a building 
     located in Terre Haute, Indiana, and for other purposes, the 
     Committee on Government Reform does not intend to exercise 
     its jurisdiction over this bill.
       Originally, the bill was scheduled to be marked up by the 
     committee on September 30th. Congressman Horn and Congressman 
     Waxman, however, agreed to give GSA another thirty days 
     before passing H.R. 2513. After thirty days, both resolved 
     that the bill could be considered on the House floor.
       As you know, House Rule X, Establishment and Jurisdiction 
     of Standing Committees, grants the Government Reform 
     Committee with jurisdiction over ``government management and 
     accounting measures, generally.'' Our decision not to 
     exercise the Committee's jurisdiction over this measure is 
     not intended or designed to waive or limit our jurisdiction 
     over any future consideration of related matters.
       Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to 
     working with you throughout the 106th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Burton,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I too would urge adoption of this very good 
bipartisan piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 468, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was 
passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________