[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2284-2290]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PRESIDENTIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1999

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 44 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 44

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 437) to provide for a Chief Financial Officer 
     in the Executive Office of the President. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Government Reform. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1400

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) is recognized for one hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 44 is an open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 437, the Presidential and Executive Office 
Financial Accountability Act of 1999, a bill that will build on the 
success of the CFO, Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, by providing 
a CFO in the Executive Office of the President of the United States.
  H. Res. 44 is an open rule, providing one hour of general debate, 
divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Government Reform. The rule provides that the bill will be 
for consideration as read. Members who have preprinted their amendments 
in the record prior to their consideration will be given priority in 
recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with 
House rules.
  The rule allows for the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to 
5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15 minute vote. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation builds on the legislation the House 
passed just this week, the Mandates Information Act, by making the 
Federal Government more accountable. Additionally, it is one more 
example of a common theme in this Republican Congress, making the 
Federal Government accountable to the American people.
  As an original cosponsor and advocate of the identical legislation, 
H.R. 1962, that passed the House 413 to 3 in the 105th Congress, I am 
pleased that the Presidential and Executive Financial Accountability 
Act is before us today. The other body was unable to take up this 
important legislation in the last Congress.
  This legislation brings the agencies of the Executive Office of the 
President under the requirements of the Chief Financial Officers, or 
CFO, Act. The CFO Act was inspired by the realization that billions of 
dollars was lost through waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal 
Government each year.
  As chairman of the Results Caucus, a bipartisan team of Members 
focused on ridding our Federal Government of its major management 
problems, I have seen report after report which has focused on 
insufficient and inefficient financial management systems that fail to 
produce consistent and reliable data.
  In fact, the General Accounting Office in a report issued in January 
of this year gave details about the Department of Defense's accounting 
system. It reported that ``over $9 billion in known military operating 
materials and supplies were not reported.'' That same Defense 
Department did not have reliable information on important items of 
inventory, including ``the number and location of military equipment 
items, such as F-4 engines and service craft.''
  The CFO Act was designed to improve financial management and to 
coordinate internal controls and financial accounting. Chief Financial 
Officers oversee all financial management activities in their agencies 
and report directly to the head of an agency on financial matters. It 
certainly is clear that such practices are needed in the White House.
  This legislation fixes an oversight in the original CFO Act. 
Unfortunately, the original act never applied to the Executive Office 
of the President. H.R. 437, the Presidential and Executive Office 
Accountability Act of 1999, will do

[[Page 2285]]

so in a way that recognizes that unique circumstances of that office 
exist. It will establish a chief financial officer in the executive 
offices of the President, and will review and audit the White House's 
financial systems and its records. The CFO duties are to comply with 
those requirements set forth in the CFO Act, but is limited by 
discretion of the President.
  When the annual fiscal report on the Federal Government was recently 
released, the government accounting office told us that ``significant 
financial system weaknesses, problems with fundamental record keeping, 
incomplete documentation and weak internal controls, including computer 
reports, prevent the government from accurately reporting a large 
portion of its assets, liabilities and costs.''
  In other words, this administration cannot tell you how much money it 
receives, how much money it spends and what it spends its money on, 
what property it owns, where that property goes, or how much that 
property is worth. There is no evidence that the executive offices at 
the White House are any different from those reports that have been 
issued already.
  Passage of this bill is another signal to the taxpayers that we will 
ferret out waste, fraud and abuse wherever it is found. Once again, the 
White House is not immune to this, and, thus, is no different than any 
other agency.
  Mismanagement is found throughout the Executive Branch also. 
Investigation after investigation has turned over evidence of waste, 
fraud and abuse. The White House Travel Office, the White House 
Communications Agency, the FBI files matter, are all evidence that the 
White House needs its own watchdog. This legislation puts us on the 
right track.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this fair, open rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 437, the Presidential and Executive Office 
Financial Accountability Act of 1999, is identical to a bill passed by 
the House in the 105th Congress under suspension of the rules by a roll 
call vote of 413 to 3. The Senate failed to act on this legislation in 
the last Congress, and so the House is again considering this proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 437 will be considered under an open rule, but, 
because there was no opposition to the bill when the Committee on Rules 
held its hearing Tuesday, it is unlikely there will be any substantive 
amendments offered to it.
  The bill requires the President to appoint or designate a chief 
financial officer in the Executive Office of the President in order 
that financial management practices in the Office of the President 
might be brought into conformity with the practices in the 24 cabinet 
departments or major agencies that have been in place since the passage 
of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government 
Management Reform Act of 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, I know of no opposition to this legislation or to this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 
437, the Presidential and Executive Office Financial Accountability 
Act. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), on this fair and open rule. I am 
pleased that Members have the opportunity to amend the bill at any 
point, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  As the Vice Chair of the Committee on Government Technology, I am 
committed to the sound management of our Nation's government. This year 
the subcommittee has an ambitious agenda of hearings and legislation 
designed to make government more efficient. As an original cosponsor of 
the Executive Office Financial Accountability Act, I am pleased that 
the House has affirmed the importance of the subcommittee's work and 
that it will consider this act as one of its first orders of business.
  Mr. Speaker, every CEO in corporate America, every director of a 
large not-for profit institution, even the leaders of our Nation's 
churches and synagogues, rely on one key individual within their 
organization, the chief financial officer.
  Why do all of these leaders rely upon the CFO? It is to protect the 
resources of their shareholders, their donors, their congregations. It 
is to guard against mismanagement and inefficiencies, waste, fraud and 
abuse. It is to ensure that there is in place the sound fiscal 
management and strict internal controls that allow their organizations 
to run smoothly and achieve their goals.
  Nine years ago this body voted to give the CEOs of our major 
Executive Branch agencies the same important resource that America's 
CEOs have enjoyed and relied upon for decades, the chief financial 
officer. In the nine years since our agencies created these offices, 
billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars have been saved through more 
efficient management practices and the ferreting out of waste, fraud 
and abuse.
  Yet, today, some of our Nation's most important government business 
is handled in offices that lack this key resource, the office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative, the Office of Drug Control Policy, OMB, the 
White House Office, National Security Council and seven others.
  Mr. Speaker, the nature of the work of these executive offices is no 
less deserving of these important financial safeguards and efficiencies 
than our other Executive Branch agencies. In fact, with a budget of 
more than $246 million this year, the Executive Office of the President 
would rank among the top 200 companies in the Chicago area.
  Let us give to the CEO of our Nation's highest office, the President, 
the same important resource enjoyed by all the other CEOs in America. 
Let us ensure that taxpayer dollars are guarded from waste, 
mismanagement and inefficiencies in all areas, in all offices of 
government.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill sponsored by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn), which will extend the CFO act to the Office 
of the President. In addition, I hope all Members will support this 
open rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend congratulations to my friend from 
Dallas for the very, very hard work he has put into the product that we 
are seeing here. I say that not because of his work on the Committee on 
Rules, but because he formerly served as a member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight and has been very, very involved in 
many of these key issues which were designed to increase accountability 
and ensure that we streamline operations so that we can deal with the 
taxpayer dollar in the most effective way.
  The prospect of establishing a chief financial officer to look at the 
litany of questions that are there is the right thing to do.
  When I think of the beginning that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) has launched here as a member of the Committee on Rules in 
managing his first rule on the floor, I know it is an indication of the 
fine work to come, because it has been evidenced in the work he has 
done on so many other committees in the past.

                              {time}  1415

  So I appreciate his fine leadership here, and I strongly support the 
rule, and I urge my colleagues to join in a bipartisan way in 
supporting both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.

[[Page 2286]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Pursuant to House Resolution 
44 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 437.

                              {time}  1418


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 437) to provide for a Chief Financial Officer in the Executive 
Office of the President, with Mr. Calvert in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I will be yielding 
myself and others particular time to speak on this issue, and at this 
time I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, during a speech in Ashland, Kentucky in March of 1829, 
the distinguished former Speaker of this House, Henry Clay said, 
``Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are 
trustees, and both the trust and the trustees are created for the 
benefit of the people.'' If the government is created for the benefit 
of the people, as Clay so eloquently argued, the government must be 
accountable to the people.
  The Constitution of the United States recognizes the need for 
accountability in its Federal Government. It is in the spirit of this 
concept that the framers of the Constitution formulated a three-branch, 
separation of powers form of government, instilled with a system of 
checks and balances. The nature of oversight, which is to monitor, 
review, supervise, or investigate executive activities, was implied in 
the Constitution rather than explicitly enumerated. In ``Congress 
Investigates: 1792-1794,'' historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., noted, 
``expressed authority to conduct investigations and compel testimony 
was not considered necessary to make an explicit grant of authority, 
because the power to make the laws implied the power to see whether 
they were faithfully executed.''
  Congress oversees the executive branch by reviewing, monitoring and 
supervising the implementation of public policy. Early Congresses 
developed their oversight by using techniques such as special 
investigations, reporting requirements, and resolutions of inquiry. 
Public laws and congressional rules have enhanced Congress' implied 
power under the Constitution to conduct such an oversight.
  It was not until the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the so-
called La Follette-Monroney Act, that oversight was given explicit 
recognition by statute. That Act required Senate and House committees 
to exercise ``continuous watchfulness'' over programs and agencies 
within their jurisdiction. The House Committee on Government 
Operations, which grew out of that act, the predecessor of the present 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, was given an explicit 
oversight mandate in connection with its broad jurisdiction.
  The creation of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
stemmed from the concept that the Federal Government must be 
financially accountable to the taxpayer by verifying the way in which 
government spends taxpayers' monies. The Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight has existed in many forms since the earliest days of the 
Republic.
  We have had dozens of committees on executive expenditures, and under 
the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, it was made very clear that the 
President at last would have a unified budget to send to the Congress, 
and an office then known as the Bureau of the Budget to help him design 
that budget. That office is now the Office of Management and Budget, 
OMB.
  But another interesting thing happened in 1921, and that was the 
development of the General Accounting Office in the legislative branch, 
headed by a Comptroller General of the United States with a 15-year 
term, the emphasis being on the fiscal accounting primarily of the 
executive branch.
  With the 1946 act, the La Follette-Monroney bill, program review also 
came under the purview of the General Accounting Office. So chief 
financial officers, in essence the idea has gone back 200 years, that 
the legislative branch wants to make sure that the leadership of the 
executive branch have the tools that will help them administer the laws 
and faithfully see that they are carried out.
  It has been stated that the bipartisan Chief Financial Officer Act of 
1990 was one of the most important legislative efforts in the last half 
century, and has gone very far in improving the government's fiduciary 
accountability. After several years of oversight and legislative 
hearings, Congress passed and the President signed the bill into law on 
November 15, 1990. This act sought to improve financial management 
practices by creating a new leadership structure for Federal financial 
management.
  The Act created, among other things, two new positions within the 
Office of Management and Budget: a chief financial officer and a deputy 
chief financial officer of the Federal Government, the executive 
branch. It also instituted chief financial officers in each of the 
major cabinet departments and independent agencies. The Act was 
intended to improve agency accounting and financial management, to 
assure reliable financial information, and to deter waste, fraud and 
abuse of government resources.
  Since passage of the Chief Financial Officer Act, other congressional 
initiatives have attempted to bring the major Federal departments and 
agencies into compliance with existing Federal financial management 
laws. The Government Management Reform Act of 1994 established a 
requirement for department and agency heads to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget audited financial statements. In addition, the 
Act established a mandate for the department and agency heads to submit 
to the President and Congress an audited financial statement covering 
all Federal executive branch agencies for the preceding year.
  That bipartisan legislation gave the executive branch five years in 
order to give us a balance sheet, and progress is slowly being made. 
But once we get the systems there, we can use the comptrollership and 
the financial officer function to assure that deterrence is made to any 
that would abuse the fiscal resources of the taxpayer as budgeted by 
Congress to the executive branch.
  The Chief Financial Officer Act and those initiatives have 
incorporated concepts developed over 50 years to improve the Federal 
Government's financial management. The Federal Government must perform 
its financial management practices in a more businesslike manner, we 
all know that, using financial practices that have proved successful in 
the private sector, in the nonprofit sector, in universities, in any 
organized human entity. Obtaining better control of government spending 
will restore public confidence. It will also serve to eliminate the 
unacceptable costs associated with waste, fraud, abuse and 
mismanagement that are prevalent in many types of government spending, 
and with money that would be better used in helping people in programs 
that have been created by the President and by the Congress.
  Those who administer Federal departments and agencies must be 
accountable to the citizens and taxpayers of the Nation for their 
financial management. This right and proper notion should be no less 
true for the executive office of the President. In that spirit today, 
we are proposing to extend application of the Chief Financial Officer 
Act of 1990 to the Executive Office of the President.
  The Executive Office of the President is a collection of various 
agencies, most of which seek to advise the President and help him in 
the management

[[Page 2287]]

role that he has as the chief executive of the United States in charge 
of the executive branch of government. Under President Franklin 
Roosevelt's Executive Order 8248 of September 8, 1939, divisions within 
the executive office and functions were designed and defined and 
established by that order. A variety of agencies were transferred to 
the Executive Office of the President by President Roosevelt's 
Reorganization Plans I and II of 1939. After that, often by statute or 
other Presidents.
  The executive office currently now consists of the Executive 
Residence, the White House; the Council of Economic Advisors, which was 
authorized under President Truman; the Council on Environmental 
Quality; the National Security Council, another major agency authorized 
during the Truman administration; as well as the Offices of the Vice 
President; Office of Administration, to try to bring some order out of 
the functions within the Executive Office of the President; and of 
course the very powerful Office of Management and Budget, OMB, the 
descendent of the Bureau of the Budget that started out in the Treasury 
in 1921, until President Roosevelt reorganized it and put it in this 
executive office. Also, the National Drug Control Policy. Then there is 
the Office of Policy Development, the Science and Technology Policy 
that goes back to President Eisenhower; and the United States Trade 
Representative, a key position to coordinate other cabinet officials in 
terms of America's global economy and trade.
  Over the years, in both Democratic and Republican administrations, 
there have been some egregious examples of financial waste and abuse in 
the Executive Office of the President due to poor accounting controls. 
For example, a chief financial officer might have uncovered and 
corrected the unorthodox accounting practices that prevailed in the 
White House Travel Office. That was not a partisan situation; that was 
a bipartisan Travel Office that did not have the kinds of financial 
safeguards they should have had in many areas. A chief financial 
officer would have provided the Travel Office managers with the 
guidance and the expertise that they sorely needed, but they never 
received.
  Similar to the chief financial officers in 24 Federal departments and 
agencies, a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the 
President would enhance accountability and ensure fiscal responsibility 
throughout the Executive Office of the President. H.R. 347, the 
Presidential and Executive Office Financial Accountability Act of 1999, 
will accomplish this goal. Specifically, the bill would ensure that the 
Executive Office of the President complies with The Chief Financial 
Officers Act.
  H.R. 437 stems from the Presidential and Executive Office 
Accountability Act of 1996, which passed the House by an overwhelming 
margin of 410 to 5 in the 104th Congress. The purpose of that act was 
to apply Federal workplace laws to the Executive Office of the 
President. Unfortunately, with little time remaining in the 104th 
Congress, several provisions of the House-approved bill, including the 
provision to apply the Chief Financial Officer Act to the Executive 
Office of the President, were removed prior to passage in the Senate.
  In the 105th Congress, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight's Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and 
Technology held a hearing on the proposal before us on May 1, 1997. The 
witnesses featured the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the author of 
the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act of 1996, 
Edward J. Mazur, and Cornelius E. Tierney. Mr. Mazur was Vice President 
of Administration and Finance at Virginia State University, former 
Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management, part of OMB.

                              {time}  1430

  He was the first controller to be appointed pursuant to the Chief 
Financial Officers Act, and oversaw its implementation in executive 
branch agencies. Mr. Tierney was director, Center for the Public 
Financial Management, George Washington University School of Business 
and Public Management. Mr. Tierney was instrumental in drafting the 
Chief Financial Officers Act and in guiding its subsequent 
implementation.
  The bill before the House today, H.R. 437, is identical to the 
legislation passed by this House in the 105th Congress, then known as 
H.R. 1962. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight completed 
its consideration of H.R. 1962 on September 30, 1997. The House of 
Representatives passed the measure by a vote of 413 to 3.
  On February 2, 1999, 1\1/2\ weeks ago, I introduced the identical 
legislation, now known as H.R. 437, the Presidential and Executive 
Office Financial Accountability Act of 1999. The bill was considered by 
the Committee on Government Reform on February 3, 1999, and 
subsequently passed unanimously by voice vote.
  This measure places the agencies of the Executive Office of the 
President, to the fullest extent practicable, within the framework of 
the Chief Financial Officers Act. But in deference to the President, it 
is designed not simply to establish a position of chief financial 
officer within the Executive Office of the President, but it also gives 
the President the power to appoint or designate a chief financial 
officer who must meet the qualifications stipulated in the act of 1990.
  For example, the individual must possess a demonstrated ability and 
knowledge of general financial management and extensive practical 
experience in financial management practices at large governmental or 
business entities.
  The bill also provides that the chief financial officer in the 
Executive Office of the President shall have the same authority and 
functions that are required of chief financial officers under that act. 
The President shall grant this authority to the extent the President 
determines it is appropriate in the interests of the United States.
  In recognition of the decentralized structure of the Executive Office 
of the President and the separation of powers, and the respect for the 
presidency, since the unique functions that are performed in agencies 
by CFOs would not necessarily be performed in the Executive Office of 
the President, H.R. 437 anticipates that some exemptions may be 
necessary, and the President would have a right to make those 
exemptions.
  In fact, the bill provides considerable discretion for the President 
to exempt the new chief financial officer from a number of the 
responsibilities stipulated in the Chief Financial Officers Act.
  Notwithstanding such possible exemptions, the bill requires that the 
chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the President shall 
perform, to the extent practicable, the general functions and duties 
established under the CFO Act.
  The chief financial officer would oversee financial personnel, would 
report directly to the head of the agency regarding financial matters, 
and in extending the CFO Act to the Executive Office of the President 
the bill provides that the President, at his discretion, may designate 
an employee as the ``head of the agency'' for purposes of complying 
with the reporting provision of the CFO Act.
  The chief financial officer would be required to develop and maintain 
an integrated agency accounting and financial management system, which 
would include financial reports and strengthened internal controls. The 
chief financial officer would direct and manage the preparation of 
audited financial statements and the development of all executive 
office budgets.
  Other responsibilities would include monitoring the financial 
execution of the budget in relation to the actual expenditures and the 
submission of timely performance reports. In addition, the chief 
financial officer must review on a biennial basis fees, royalties, 
rents, and other charges that might be imposed by an agency for 
services it provides. When necessary, the chief financial officer is 
required to make recommendations on revising those charges to reflect 
the actual costs incurred.
  H.R. 437 requires the President to notify Congress of any provision 
of the

[[Page 2288]]

CFO Act that the President deems inapplicable to the chief financial 
officer in the Executive Office of the President. Within 90 days of 
enactment, the President is required to communicate to the chairman of 
the House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs a plan for the implementation of H.R. 437.
  Within 180 days of enactment, the President is required to appoint or 
to designate a chief financial officer under the provisions of the 
bill. The bill provides that the President may transfer offices, 
functions, powers, and duties, while promulgating the proposal.
  The intent of this legislation is to foster improved systems of 
accounting and financial management throughout the components of the 
Executive Office of the President. This should facilitate prevention, 
or at least early detection, of waste and abuse within the Executive 
Office of the President. Implementation of these provisions will 
promote better accountability and proper fiscal management, which will 
provide greater efficiency and cost reductions.
  H.R. 437, the Presidential Executive Office Financial Accountability 
Act of 1999, is an important step forward toward ensuring confidence in 
the ability of the Executive Office of the President to conduct its 
financial affairs in a responsible manner.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the important reform that was 
adopted last year, as I noted earlier, with only three opposing it. I 
would hope, if a rollcall is sought, that we would have the same 
outcome this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) for his hard work on this legislation. As he 
mentioned, this bill passed this Congress overwhelmingly in a 
bipartisan fashion last session. I want to say, as the new ranking 
Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, that it has been a pleasure to work with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). He conducts his committee in 
a bipartisan way, and we have come up here with a piece of legislation 
that will have overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. I 
thank him for that.
  H.R. 437 was reported out of our committee just last week, as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) mentioned. The White House has 
been consulted regarding this legislation, and I appreciate the efforts 
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) in that regard.
  This bill is called the Presidential and Executive Office Financial 
Accountability Act. Its major component is that it requires the 
appointment of a chief financial officer in the White House. It would 
mandate that this chief financial officer in the White House comply 
with all the provisions of the Chief Financial Officers Act that was 
passed in 1990. But it does give the President significant discretion 
in implementing the act to meet the unique needs of the executive 
office.
  This bill, as I said, is an expansion of an existing law which was 
noted to be landmark legislation when it was passed in 1990. I am proud 
to say it was sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), 
then the chairman of the Committee on Government Operations. This bill 
was passed in a bipartisan way in 1990, and it brought about needed 
improvements to the executive branch by requiring for the first time 
financial audits and sound management practices in all of our executive 
agencies. This legislation is widely credited with changing the way the 
Federal Government keeps track of all of its finances.
  In addition to this landmark legislation passed in 1990, this 
Congress passed in 1994 the Government Management and Reform Act, 
another bipartisan piece of legislation which mandated that major 
Federal agencies conduct independent annual audits of their financial 
statements. The Government Management and Reform Act of 1994 grew out 
of Vice-President Al Gore's National Performance Review initiatives.
  I was very pleased to see the Clinton administration and Vice 
President Gore initiate the National Performance Review because, as a 
former member of the Texas legislature, our State during that time 
provided the initial leadership for the idea of reinventing government, 
making it more accountable to the taxpayers.
  In 1993 Vice President Gore was appointed to lead the National 
Performance Review. That effort has resulted in saving over $137 
billion in taxpayer monies. It has reduced the Federal civilian work 
force by 351,000, creating for us the smallest Federal civilian work 
force as a percentage of the national work force since 1931. The 
National Performance Review has placed in our Federal agencies over 350 
reinvention labs, where management and labor are working together to 
try to make government work more efficiently.
  In the process of implementing the recommendations of the National 
Performance Review, we have eliminated over 16,000 pages of Federal 
regulations and we have rewritten and recodified an additional 31,000. 
In our Federal agencies we have created organizations, over 500 of 
them, that are attempting to make the Federal Government and its 
agencies more customer-friendly.
  I am pleased that this legislation to create chief financial officers 
in all of our Federal Government was part of Vice President Gore's 
National Performance Review. Again, I commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) for his leadership in expanding that act to cover 
the office of the President.
  When we look at this legislation, what we see is that the Federal 
Government, in a bipartisan way, is attempting to make the Federal 
Government and its financial practices accountable to the taxpayers. 
The presence of a chief financial officer in our Federal agencies and 
the requirements of that act have dramatically improved the financial 
management practices throughout government.
  We believe that a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of 
the President will continue that positive trend which has been 
established in our Federal Government. For this reason, we are pleased 
to join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) in bipartisan 
support of H.R. 437.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner) and two of his predecessors have done an outstanding job on the 
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology. I 
have been fortunate to have the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and now the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner). We are all working together to try to bring 
order out of a very complicated executive branch that numerous 
presidents, regardless of party, regardless of ideology, have had 
difficulty managing.
  What we try to work on and have done historically out of this 
committee is to get the type of functions and systems that would then 
provide leadership by whatever administration is in power so that the 
taxpayers could get the most for their money.
  It is much like the creation of the city manager movement back in the 
1920s. The question was not was it Democratic garbage or Republican 
garbage on the sidewalks, it was a matter of cleaning it up and getting 
the garbage out of the city and getting an efficient type of 
governance. That is exactly what we are about here, is a results-
oriented type of government. The chief financial officers are 
absolutely integral parts of such a responsible government.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn), whose committee I do not serve on, who is 
promoting this legislation. But we have the pleasure, I hope, of 
serving on

[[Page 2289]]

the Committee on Science, and I want to commend him for his 
overwhelming interest and efficiency, and particularly his interest in 
technology.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his 
leadership as the ranking member, and rise to support this legislation 
and offer a few thoughts, if I might, to suggest that Congress does in 
fact have good ideas. It is very helpful when Congress can work in a 
bipartisan manner for efficient government, and to provide the 
government with the right kinds of tools in order for government to be 
both effective and efficient.
  I am glad that the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) 
emphasized that the CFO that might find its way into this 
Administration's White House is not an indictment or comment on the 
present administration, but in fact this legislation will provide for a 
chief financial officer for all of the executives to come, and that it 
is in fact a bipartisan approach, as was the Office of Management and 
Budget and as is the Congressional Budget Office. It is to make all of 
us more efficient.
  I am reminded of Vice President Gore's leadership on reinventing 
government. In fact, I can say how proud I was to be part of the first 
effort to reward government agencies for their efficiency in that the 
U.S. General Store, located in my district, in the Eighteenth 
Congressional District, was one of the first to receive the hammer 
award, hammering out waste, fraud, and abuse.
  So we must acknowledge when we are able to present legislation that 
can hammer out waste, fraud and abuse, and I hope that the chief 
financial officer, as it did pass overwhelmingly in the House the last 
time, will be rewarded with such a vote, but that it will be taken as a 
signal, again not of indictment, but of recognition as an asset and a 
tool to be more effective.

                              {time}  1445

  I cannot go to my seat, then, without acknowledging these waning 
moments of the impeachment process, and hopefully that this vote will 
signal that we in Congress, and as the administration has already been 
doing, are ready to roll up our sleeves and get back to work. So many 
in America have acknowledged that this very tragic period, delaying 
period in our history, has taken us away from the real business of 
efficient and effective government. We have been bogged down with 
accusations and charges and personal accusations. But now we are able 
to signal the call for coming together and work in a bipartisan manner.
  I think this particular committee that deals with the oversight and 
technology, offering this legislation on efficiency is a fine signal to 
suggest to us that we must end this terrible process in our history, 
and we must cease and desist and move forward to heal this Nation and 
begin to work on issues dealing with Social Security and education and 
other vital issues.
  For that let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and 
the ranking member for the time allotted to me. I certainly will be 
supportive of this efficient tool. I do think it is important that 
Americans realize that Congress does have good ideas and we can work in 
a bipartisan way with the hand of friendship extended across the aisle.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) said that he 
had no further speakers, so I will close by simply saying that I 
appreciate again the gentleman's leadership on this legislation and his 
efforts to work in a bipartisan way; and I also want to thank the 
minority members of the committee who worked on this bill, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their efforts. I urge an 
``aye'' vote for this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 437 is as follows:

                                H.R. 437

       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 ``Presidential and Executive 
     Office Financial Accountability Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER IN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF 
                   THE PRESIDENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 901 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c)(1) There shall be within the Executive Office of the 
     President a Chief Financial Officer, who shall be designated 
     or appointed by the President from among individuals meeting 
     the standards described in subsection (a)(3). The position of 
     Chief Financial Officer established under this paragraph may 
     be so established in any Office (including the Office of 
     Administration) of the Executive Office of the President.
       ``(2) The Chief Financial Officer designated or appointed 
     under this subsection shall, to the extent that the President 
     determines appropriate and in the interest of the United 
     States, have the same authority and perform the same 
     functions as apply in the case of a Chief Financial Officer 
     of an agency described in subsection (b).
       ``(3) The President shall submit to Congress notification 
     with respect to any provision of section 902 that the 
     President determines shall not apply to a Chief Financial 
     Officer designated or appointed under this subsection.
       ``(4) The President may designate an employee of the 
     Executive Office of the President (other than the Chief 
     Financial Officer), who shall be deemed `the head of the 
     agency' for purposes of carrying out section 902, with 
     respect to the Executive Office of the President.''.
       (b) Plan for Implementation.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     communicate in writing to the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate a plan for implementation of the provisions of, 
     including the amendments made by, this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Appointment.--The Chief Financial Officer 
     designated or appointed under section 901(c) of title 31, 
     United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall be so 
     designated or appointed not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Pay.--The Chief Financial Officer designated or 
     appointed under such section shall receive basic pay at the 
     rate payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Transfer of Functions.--(1) The President may transfer 
     such offices, functions, powers, or duties thereof, as the 
     President determines are properly related to the functions of 
     the Chief Financial Officer under section 901(c) of title 31, 
     United States Code (as added by subsection (a)).
       (2) The personnel, assets, liabilities, contracts, 
     property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, 
     authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, 
     used, arising from, available or to be made available, of any 
     office the functions, powers, or duties of which are 
     transferred under paragraph (1) shall also be so transferred.
       (f) Separate Budget Request.--Section 1105(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph 
     (30) the following new paragraph:
       ``(31) a separate statement of the amount of appropriations 
     requested to carry out the provisions of the Presidential and 
     Executive Office Financial Accountability Act of 1999.''.
       (g) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 503(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7) by striking ``respectively.'' and 
     inserting ``respectively (excluding any officer designated or 
     appointed under section 901(c)).''; and
       (2) in paragraph (8) by striking ``Officers.'' and 
     inserting ``Officers (excluding any officer designated or 
     appointed under section 901(c)).''.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?

[[Page 2290]]

  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Sessions) having assumed the Chair, Mr. Calvert, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 437) to 
provide for a Chief Financial Officer in the Executive Office of the 
President, pursuant to House Resolution 44, he reported the bill back 
to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413, 
nays 2, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 21]

                               YEAS--413

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--2

     Paul
     Royce
       

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ackerman
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Buyer
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Everett
     Graham
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Rush
     Sanders
     Taylor (MS)

                              {time}  1508

  Mr. EDWARDS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. Bono.
  Mr. Ehrlich.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 21, because of my 
participation in a Florida Anti Drug Summit and meetings with Florida 
Governor Bush in Tallahassee I was not present. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________