National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FALLON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FALLON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to amendment 35, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment would establish an online public directory of political appointees at the Office of Personnel Management.
I want to thank Ranking Member Rogers for his extraordinary leadership throughout this process. I want to echo his words from his opening testimony on Monday before the House Rules Committee where he urged the committee to ``keep out superfluous amendments that are not related to the Department of Defense.''
Unfortunately, this advice fell upon deaf ears with regard to this particular amendment. This politically charged amendment is wholly outside HASC's jurisdiction. It does not belong in the NDAA.
This lies solely within the jurisdiction of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the reasoning as to why we are debating this as a measure in the NDAA is absolutely beyond me.
The Plum Book is already available online, and as of 2012 has already been published in a more searchable and accessible format. Given that the Plum Book is already accessible online in two separate locations, there is no justification whatsoever for the measure's authorization for $7 million in appropriated taxpayer money to build this new online database.
This amendment goes beyond the original intent of the Plum Book by creating a continuously updated website listing thousands of political appointees and senior government officials, which may dissuade good people from serving in future Presidential administrations and risk abuse by enabling political targeting.
A tool that is updated monthly is not a transitional resource between administrations but, rather, a database that can be readily exploited by political activists to track down and target politically appointed leaders.
Political appointees are already accountable to the duly elected President whom they serve, and the President, of course, is accountable to the American people every 4 years and to Congress each day of his or her term.
Even more concerning is requiring the OPM Director to publish a report containing information on any appointee's demographics, including self-identified data on race, ethnicity, Tribal affiliation, gender, disability, sexual orientation, veteran status, and whether the appointee is over the age of 40.
Although the bill language claims to make the information anonymous, the mere fact that OPM would be in possession of this personal information, which is utterly unrelated and immaterial to the position to which the person is being appointed, could have a chilling effect on future political appointees.
Additionally, there appear to be no safeguards in this amendment protecting this personal information from subsequent disclosure, whether through a FOIA request or a cyber breach. We have already seen during this Congress the multiple cyber breaches at various Federal agencies.
If we can't secure the information collected by the Federal Government, then the government shouldn't be in possession of that information to begin with.
This provision in and of itself is egregious.
Transparency and accountability are essential to our constitutional government, but this amendment neglects the necessary safeguards to protect Federal employees.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues, what protections are in the PLUM Act to ensure that the database cannot be abused by activists to target and harass public officials?
What protections exist in this amendment to protect officials who are serving in sensitive, national security positions?
Why is it truly necessary, given that political appointees are already accountable to the public through their service under an elected President?
Don't you agree that this sensitive, private information this amendment seeks is not appropriate for the government to be collecting from our civil servants?
Shouldn't we instead be concerned about the effectiveness of our government leadership?
This amendment is a slippery slope to requiring, collecting, and publishing the same information about our broader Federal workforce.
Until these questions can be answered with sound policy, and our Federal agencies can guarantee the cybersecurity and other security of this information, I urge my colleagues to oppose this nongermane amendment.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I disagree with the gentleman strongly. We need to move into the modern age. Right now all information is on the internet. It is digital and it is available. The bill would merely require the Office of Personnel Management to maintain a current, publicly available, online directory of senior government officials so that anyone could access it at any time.
A comprehensive list is already out there, as you said, but it is printed only once every four years in a book that is called the Plum Book, and it is only a snapshot. It is not up to date.
This bill is about modernizing the Plum Book and aligning it to modern data standards. That is what this is about.
Information on senior leaders in government may already be obtained by outside groups through FOIA, freedom of information requests, or paid subscription services. There are paid subscription services, and you can get it through a freedom of information. So it is available.
OPM civil service regulations stipulate that certain information from personnel records for current and former Federal employees is available to the public, including names, present and past position titles, salaries, position descriptions, and duty stations.
Federal employees generally have no expectation of privacy regarding this information. It is available on all of us. It is available by private means, it is available through other means, through the FOIA, so why not make it available and easily used by the public?
I want to answer the gentleman's claim that identifying appointees publicly puts them at risk of political demonstrations or may make them not want to serve or whatever. He mentioned that this was a negative.
My time is running out, but right now there is an exception for national security positions that is recognized and reporting on demographic information is important to get to the public, too.
I strongly support this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just urge opposition to this nongermane, intrusive, and overreaching amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed. Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source