> ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.489583333333333in" height="1.15625in"}

**Legislative
Bulletin...............................................June 3, 2008**

**Contents:**

> **H.Con.Res. 138---**Supporting National Men's Health Week
>
> **H.Res. 923---**Recognizing the State of Minnesota's 150th
> anniversary
>
> **H.Res. 1114---**Supporting the goals and ideals of the Arbor Day
> Foundation
>
> **H.R. 1734---**To designate the facility of the United States Postal
> Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland,
> Oregon, as the "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office"
>
> **H.R. 5477**---To designate the facility of the United States Postal
> Service located at 120 South Del Mar Avenue in San Gabriel,
> California, as the "Chi Mui Post Office Building"
>
> **S. 2420**---Federal Food Donation Act of 2008
>
> **H.R. 3774**---Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act
>
> **H.R. 4106**---Telework Improvements Act of 2008
>
> **H.R. 4791**---Federal Agency Data Protection Act

**H.Con.Res. 138---Supporting National Men's Health Week\
*(Cummings, D-MD)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 138 would express the sense that
Congress:

-   "Supports the annual National Men's Health Week; and

-   "Requests that the President of the United States issue a
    proclamation calling upon the people of the United States and
    interested groups to observe National Men's Health Week with
    appropriate ceremonies and activities."

The resolution lists a number of findings, including:

-   "Despite the advances in medical technology and research, men
    continue to live an average of almost 6 years less than women and
    African-American men have the lowest life expectancy;

-   "All 10 of the 10 leading causes of death, as defined by the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention, affect men at a higher
    percentage than women;

-   "Between ages 45-54, men are 3 times more likely than women to die
    of heart attacks;

-   "Men die of heart disease at almost twice the rate of women;

-   "Men die of cancer at almost one and a half times the rate of women;

-   "Testicular cancer is one of the most common cancers in men aged
    15-34, and when detected early, has a 95 percent survival rate;

-   "Men who are educated about the value that preventive health can
    play in prolonging their lifespan and their role as productive
    family members will be more likely to participate in health
    screenings;

-   "Men and their families are encouraged to increase their awareness
    of the importance of a healthy lifestyle, regular exercise, and
    medical checkups; and

-   "June 11 through 17, 2007, is National Men's Health Week, which has
    the purpose of heightening the awareness of preventable health
    problems and encouraging early detection and treatment of disease
    among men and boys."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 138 was introduced on May
1, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, which held a mark up on May 15, 2008, and reported the
resolution by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution does not authorize
expenditures.\
\
**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.Res. 923---Recognizing the State of Minnesota's 150th anniversary\
(Bachmann, R-MN)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 923 would express the sense that House
of Representatives "congratulates the State of Minnesota on its 150th
anniversary and the contributions it continues to make to America's
economy and heritage."

The resolution lists a number of findings, including:

-   "Minnesota was established as a territory on March 2, 1849, and
    became the 32nd State on May 11, 1858;

-   "Minnesota is also known as the 'Gopher State', the 'North Star
    State', and the 'Land of 10,000 Lakes';

-   "Minnesota's name comes from the Dakota word 'minesota', meaning
    'water that reflects the sky', and Native Americans continue to play
    a defining role in Minnesota's proud heritage;

-   "The cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul were established after the
    completion of nearby Fort Snelling, a frontier outpost and training
    center for Civil War soldiers;

-   "The Mall of America located in Bloomington, Minnesota, is the
    Nation's largest retail and entertainment complex, spanning
    9,500,000 square feet and providing more than 11,000 jobs;

-   "Minnesota has 90,000 miles of lake and river shoreline, which
    includes the coast of Lake Superior, the largest of North America's
    Great Lakes;

-   "The Minneapolis-St. Paul area is nationally recognized for its
    parks, museums, and cultural events; and

-   "The people of Minnesota have a timeless reputation of compassion,
    strength, and determination."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 923 was introduced on January
6, 2008, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, which held a mark up on May 1, 2008, and reported the resolution
by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution does not authorize
expenditures.\
\
**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.Res. 1114---Supporting the goals and ideals of the Arbor Day
Foundation and National Arbor Day (Fortenberry, R-NE)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1114 would express the sense that
House of Representatives:

-   "Supports the goals and ideals of the Arbor Day Foundation; and

-   "Requests that the President issue a proclamation calling upon the
    people of the United States to observe National Arbor Day with
    appropriate activities."

The resolution lists a number of findings, including:

-   "The Arbor Day Foundation was founded in 1972 and now has nearly
    1,000,000 members;

-   'These members and the countless supporters of the Arbor Day
    Foundation continue to further the mission of the Foundation, which
    is to 'inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees';

-   "The Arbor Day Foundation manages the 260-acre Arbor Day Farm to
    serve as a model of environmental stewardship;

-   "The Arbor Day Foundation distributes more than 10,000,000 trees
    annually through its Trees for America program;

-   "The Arbor Day Foundation has worked with the Department of
    Agriculture's Forest Service since 1990, helping to plant nearly
    12,000,000 trees in national forests damaged by fire, insects, or
    other causes;

-   "J. Sterling Morton recognized the need for trees in Nebraska and
    proposed a tree-planting holiday called 'Arbor Day' in 1872;

-   "The observation of Arbor Day soon spread to other States and is now
    observed nationally and in many other countries; and

-   "National Arbor Day, the last Friday in April, will be celebrated on
    April 25, 2008."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1114 was introduced on April
16, 2008 and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, which held a mark up on May 1, 2008, and reported the resolution
by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution does not authorize
expenditures.\
\
**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 1734---To designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland,
Oregon, as the "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office" *(Blumenauer,
D-OR) ***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.R. 1734 is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1734 would designate the facility of the
United States Postal Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth
Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post
Office."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1734 was introduced on March
28, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, which held a mark-up and reported the bill by voice vote on
April 9, 2008.

[**Cost to Taxpayers**:]{.underline} A CBO score for H.R. 1734 is
unavailable, but the only costs associated with a U.S. post office
renaming are those for sign and map changes, none of which significantly
affect the federal budget.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** A Committee Report
citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits was not available. Such a report is not
required because the bill is being considered under a suspension of the
rules.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Although no committee report
citing constitutional authority is available, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 7 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish
Post Offices and post roads.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 5477---To designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 120 South Del Mar Avenue in San Gabriel, California,
as the "Chi Mui Post Office Building" *(Schiff, D-CA) ***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.R. 5477 is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5477 would designate the facility of the
United States Postal Service located at 120 South Del Mar Avenue in San
Gabriel, California, as the "Chi Mui Post Office Building."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the City of San
Gabriel, California, Chi Mui immigrated to the United States with his
family from China in 1963. Mui first moved to New York City, where he
and his family lived in China Town, and where he first learned to speak
English. In 1980 he graduated from New York's Polytechnic University
with a degree in civil engineering. As an adult, Mui worked to integrate
Chinese immigrants into American culture by teaching them English and
helping them gain their citizenship. Mui served as the President of the
Los Angeles Chinese American Citizens Alliance and was eventually
elected as the first Asian mayor of the city of San Gabriel. Chi Mui
died after a long battle with cancer in 2006.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5477 was introduced on February
21, 2008, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, which held a mark-up and reported the bill by voice vote on
April 16, 2008.

[**Cost to Taxpayers**:]{.underline} A CBO score for H.R. 5477 is
unavailable, but the only costs associated with a U.S. post office
renaming are those for sign and map changes, none of which significantly
affect the federal budget.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.\
\
**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** A Committee Report
citing compliance with rules regarding earmarks, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits was not available. Such a report is not
required because the bill is being considered under a suspension of the
rules.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Although no committee report
citing constitutional authority is available, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 7 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish
Post Offices and post roads.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**S. 2420---Federal Food Donation Act of 2008**

***(Schumer, D-NY)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 2420 would revise the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) to encourage federal agencies and their contractors to
donate excess, wholesome food to non-profit organizations that provide
food assistance to needy people in the U.S. The bill would apply to any
contract above \$25,000.

S. 2420 would stipulate that the head of the agency would not be
responsible for the cost or logistics of transporting the food and that
the agency or contractor of the agency could not be held criminally or
civilly liable for food donations under the Good Samaritan Food Donation
Act.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) are a series of
[regulations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation) issued by the
[federal
government](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States)
that concern the requirements of
[contractors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_contractor) for
selling to the government, the terms under which the government obtains
ownership, title and control of the goods or services purchased, and
rules on specifications, payments and conduct and actions regarding
solicitation of proposals or [bids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid)
and payment of invoices. Most government agencies are required to use
FAR, however, some agencies are exempt from its use (i.e. the [United
States Postal
Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service)).

According to [Senate Report
110-338](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(sr338)),
the USDA reports that more than 25% of all food produced in the U.S. for
human consumption is wasted. Further, there are numerous charity
organizations devoted to retrieving excess food from places like
restaurants and wholesalers and distributing food that would otherwise
be discarded to needy people. This bill would amend the FAR to encourage
agencies and agency contractors to make excess foods available to such
organizations. The House passed a similar measure, H.R. 4220, on
December 17, 2007, by voice vote.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: S. 2420 was passed in the Senate on
May 22, 2008, by unanimous consent. The following day, the bill was
received in the House, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, "S. 2420 would
have no significant impact on the federal budget, and would not affect
direct spending or revenues."

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** [Senate Report
110-338](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(sr338))
does not cite compliance with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: [Senate Report
110-338](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(sr338))
does not cite constitutional authority.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 3774---Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act**

***(Davis, D-IL)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3774 would make several changes to the
Senior Executive Service (SES), a department of the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) that oversees executive level employees in federal
agencies. H.R. 3774 would establish new offices within the SES and
establish new standards for diverse hiring practices.

The bill would establish the SES Resource Office to make recommendations
regarding the structure, management, and diverse composition of the SES.
The goal of the Resource Office would be to improve efficiency within
the SES through policy formulation and oversight. The SES Resource
Office would also be required to "ensure that, in seeking to achieve a
Senior Executive Service reflective of the Nation's diversity,
recruitment is from qualified individuals from appropriate sources."

H.R. 3774 would also require that the agency evaluation panels that
review and oversee career appointment processes be as diverse as
possible. The bill stipulates that, when making career appointments,
consideration should be given to "improving diversity by including
members of racial and ethnic minority groups, women, and individuals
with disabilities on qualifications review boards."

Finally, H.R. 3774 would require each agency to submit a plan to OPM to
"enhance and maximize opportunities for the advancement and appointment
of minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities in the agency to
the Senior Executive Service." The plans would have to be issued within
one year of the enactment of H.R. 3774.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The SES was created by the
Civil Service Reform act of 1978 as a means for the OPM to provide
special managerial and oversight supervision to the federal government's
most highly trained, skilled, and paid employees. The SES includes
nearly 7,000 federal employees that are above the general schedule (GS),
of which approximately 6,000 are career appointees. These career
appointees are selected on a basis of qualification and are chosen by
each individual agency, usually through a process that involves an
agency review panel which judges each candidate.

According to [House Report
110-672](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr672)),

> Minorities made up 22.5% of the individuals serving at the GS-15 and
> GS-14 levels and 15.8% of the career SES in 2007; women made up 34.3%
> of the individuals at the GS-15 and GS-14 levels and 29.1% of the
> career SES in 2007; and despite an increase in the number of SES
> members from 6,110 in 2000 to 6,555 in 2007, the representation of
> African-American men in the career SES declined from 5.5% to 5%.
> According to OPM, in 2007: black employees represented 6.1% of
> employees at senior pay levels and 17.8% of the federal workforce
> compared to 10.1% in the civilian workforce; Hispanic employees
> represented 4% of employees at the senior pay levels and 7.8% of the
> permanent federal workforce compared to 13.3% of the civilian labor
> force; and women represented 28.2% of employees at the senior pay
> levels and 43.9% of the permanent federal workforce compared to 45.7%
> of the civilian labor force.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
be concerned that H.R. 3774 would require the Senior Executive Service
(SES) to promulgate regulations that could potentially base federal
hiring practices on ethnicity, gender, or race rather than performance.
Some conservatives may be concerned that terms such as "appropriate
sources" may be construed as a reference ethnic or racial background and
result in federal hiring practices that are not based on merit.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 3774 was introduced on October
9, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District
of Columbia. On April 15, 2008, the subcommittee forwarded the bill to
the full committee by voice vote. On May 1, 2008, the full committee
held a mark-up and reported the bill, as amended, by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 3774 would
cost \$2 million in FY 2009 and \$22 million over the FY 2009---FY 2013
period for the SES to establish the SES Resource Office and for other
executive agencies to formulate plans with respect to diversity in
hiring practices.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** Yes, H.R. 3774 would create the Senior
Executive Service Resource Office, a new federal department within the
Office of Personnel Management.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** According to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in [House Report
110-672](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr672)),
"H.R. 3774 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) or
9(f) of rule XXI."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, in [House Report
110-672](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr672)),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (the
"necessary and proper" clause).

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 4106---Telework Improvements Act of 2008**

***(Davis, D-IL)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4106 would require each executive level
federal agency to establish a policy to allow employees to engage in
"teleworking." Teleworking is defined in the bill as "a work arrangement
under which an employee regularly performs the duties and
responsibilities of such employee's position, and other authorized
activities, from home or another worksite removed from the employee's
regular place of employment." The bill also establishes guidelines for
implementing and reporting the teleworking requirement as follows.

***Requirement***

-   Requires each agency, within 180 days to establish and implement a
    teleworking policy that allows employees to engage in remote working
    to the maximum extent possible without diminishing performance. This
    section gives the head of an agency authority to restrict
    teleworking for certain employees and stipulates that no employee
    will be forced to telework without their consent.

***Implementation***

-   Requires that the head of each agency must ensure that appropriate
    training is provided to supervisors and managers who oversee workers
    authorized to telework. The bill would stipulate that no distinction
    can be made between teleworkers and non-teleworkers with regard to
    performance evaluations. The bill would also require relevant
    agencies to prescribe regulations to protect information and other
    systems used outside the office by authorized teleworkers within 120
    of the enactment of H.R. 4106.

***Telework Managing Officer***

-   Establishes the position of "Telework Managing Officer" within every
    agency. The Telework Managing Officer would be appointed by the
    chief of human resources or the head of the agency and be
    compensated as no less than a GS-15 on the general schedule. The
    Telework Managing Officer would serve as the agency's head of
    teleworking and be the agency's primary point of contact on
    teleworking matters.

***Annual Telework Agency Rating***

-   Requires the Comptroller General to annually evaluate and report on
    each agency's teleworking policies and a participation rates.

***Chief Human Capital Officers Council***

-   Establishes the Chief Human Capital Officers Council consisting of
    the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Deputy
    Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget, the
    Administrator of General Services, and the Chief Human Capital
    Officers of Executive departments. The council would meet
    periodically to advise and coordinate agency activities regarding
    modernized human resources systems. The bill would also require that
    the Chief Human Capital Officers Council ensured that
    representatives of Federal employee labor organizations are present
    at a minimum of one meeting of the Council each year.

***Reporting***

-   Requires the General Services Administration to issue a report
    within one year of enactment of H.R. 4106 regarding the extent to
    which teleworking has been incorporated by federal agencies.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, teleworking's benefits include "reduced
energy consumption and traffic congestion, competitive hiring and
retention, cost savings, and emergency preparedness." Under current law,
executive level agencies are required to promote and facilitate telework
to "the maximum extent possible without diminishing employee
performance."

According to [House Report
110-663](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr663)),
6% of all federal employees participated in some form of telework in
2006. On May 7, 2007, Representatives Danny Davis, Marchant, Waxman, and
Tom Davis sent a letter to 25 federal agencies inquiring as to the
current status of each agency's telework program. The House Report
states that the information that was collected demonstrated that
agencies are without a consistent definition of "telework" and often
vary in how they track employees that participate in telework. H.R. 4106
is an attempt to produce an agency wide standard for telework and
require additional participation.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
be concerned that H.R. 4106 would require all federal agencies to
establish policies and procedures to allow employees to "telework." Some
conservatives may be concerned that teleworking---working from home or a
remote locating---may disincentivize efficiency among federal employees
and reduce the productivity of the federal government. Further, some
conservatives may believe that it is unnecessary to abandon the current
standard, which allows teleworking to "the maximum extent possible
without diminishing employee performance," by requiring agencies to
enhance participation in the program.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4106 was introduced on November
7, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District
of Columbia. On February 28, 2008, the subcommittee held a mark-up and
forwarded the bill to the full committee by voice vote. On March 13,
2008, the full committee held a mark-up and reported the bill, as
amended, by voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 4106 would
cost \$5 million in FY 2009 and smaller amount each additional year.
Those costs would be subject to appropriation. However, CBO estimates
that the bill could slightly increase direct spending by requiring
agencies that are not funded through appropriations to participate in
updated telework activities.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** According to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in [House Report
110-663](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr663)),
"H.R. 4106 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) or
9(f) of rule XXI."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, in [House Report
110-663](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr663)),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (the
"necessary and proper" clause).

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.R. 4791---Federal Agency Data Protection Act**

***(Clay, D-MO)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4791 would amend the Federal Information
Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) by codifying current agency data
security practices and requiring agencies to follow additional
procedures. In addition, the bill would require the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to establish minimum data security standards and system
requirements.

H.R. 4791 broadens the definition of "personally identifiable
information" with regards to agency data protection standards. Under the
bill, the term would mean any information regarding a person's
education, finances, medical, criminal, employment history or any
information that can be used to trace an individual's identity,
including name, social security number, or date and place of birth. Any
information within this category would be subject to agency data
protection.

The bill requires the OMB to establish minimum agency-wide requirements
with respect to the personally identifiable data that is transmitted via
mobile device. The OMB would be required to establish technology
standards for agencies and agency contractors that transmit personally
identifiable information. The OMB would also be required to keep all
information regarding information security breaches and establish
standard procedures for agencies to follow in the event of a breach.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: In December of 2002, the
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) became law. The
purpose of the bill was to secure sensitive personal information held by
the government from security breaches, including identity theft or
fraud. The bill set groundwork for agencies to implement updated
practices to provide data security in keeping with technological
advances. According to [House Report
110-664](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr664)),
however, weaknesses in FISMA have raised concerns over security
vulnerabilities regarding personal information maintained by the federal
government. The report states that, "These weaknesses put federal
operations and assets at risk of fraud, misuse, and destruction. In
addition, they place financial data at risk of unauthorized modification
or destruction, sensitive information at risk of inappropriate
disclosure, and critical operations at risk of disruption."

Not all parties concerned agree with the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform's assessment of FISMA. According to Karen S. Evans,
the Administrator for E-Government and Information Technology at the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the current laws under FISMA give
the OMB and other federal agencies the flexibility to update their
security more rapidly than could be done under H.R. 4791. In a letter to
Rep. Clay regarding H.R. 4791, Ms. Evans wrote, "While we support the
intent of H.R. 4791, we do not support the bill because we believe that
certain provisions would not achieve our shared goal of enhancing
Federal information security and could disrupt the progress agencies are
making within the current framework of FISMA." Specifically, the letter
cites potential problems with statutorily defining terms like
"personally identifiable information" and "mobile digital device"
arguing that they may make it difficult to update security practices in
a timely manner in the future. The letter also notes that the "updated"
version of the definition is nearly identical to the definition that is
already used by agency guidance standards.

Indeed, in the CBO score of H.R. 4791, CBO states that "Under the
provisions of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA),
the Privacy Act, and OMB memoranda, federal agencies are already
required to protect information about individuals, maintain standards
for notifications of security breaches, and perform annual reviews to
evaluate the security of their information systems." Yet, according to
CBO, the bill would raise the cost of data protection that already
occurs by an average of \$20 million annually. Further, in his
additional remarks on H.R. 4791, Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform Ranking Member Tom Davis suggests that many of the new provisions
may be unnecessary and arduous, stating "Most of the provisions
contained in this bill are a grab bag of vague requirements, additional
mandates, and misplaced priorities. It casts dynamic concepts in stone.
And it gives agency personnel more boxes to check."

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives
maybe concerned that H.R. 4791 may actually hamper the ability of
federal agencies to protect personally identifiable information by
making ever-changing, technology-based protection guidelines permanent
statutes. Some conservatives may also be concerned that H.R. 4791 would
cost \$102 million over five years to impose additional requirements on
federal agencies that the OMB has stated are unnecessary and could
disrupt progress that has been made in protecting personal information.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4791 was introduced on December
18, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National
Archives. On April 16, 2008, the subcommittee held a mark-up and
forwarded the bill, as amended, by voice vote. On May 21, 2008, the full
committee held a mark-up and reported the bill, as amended, by voice
vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 4106 would
cost \$20 million in FY 2009 and \$102 million over the FY 2009---FY
2013 period.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** No.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}** According to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in [House Report
110-664](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr664)),
"H.R. 4791 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) or
9(f) of rule XXI."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, in [House Report
110-664](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr664)),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8,Clause 18 (the
"necessary and proper" clause).

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.