[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS AND
POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 12, 2023
__________
Serial No. CP:118-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-367PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Vacancy
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Christian Hoehner, Policy Director
Lauren Lombardo, Senior Policy Analyst
Lauren Hassett, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Meeting held on July 12, 2023.................................... 1
BILLS CONSIDERED
----------
* H.R. 4502, Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity
Experts Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 3
* H.R. 4503, AI Training Expansion Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 7
* H.R. 1695, Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of
Software Assets (SAMOSA) Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 10
* H.R. 1209, Fair and Open Competition Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 14
* H.R. 192, To Prohibit Individuals Who Are Not Citizens of the
United States from Voting in Elections in the District Of
Columbia
Bill Discussed................................................... 28
* H.R. 3358, Mission Not Emissions Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 35
* H.R. 890, Guidance Out of Darkness (GOOD) Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 38
* H.R. 4435, Unauthorized Spending Accountability (USA) Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 40
* H.R. 3230, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency
Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 56
* Several Postal-Naming Measures
Bill Discussed................................................... 98
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Letter, July 10, 2023, from Associated Builders and
Contractors; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Letter, July 10, 2023, from Associated General Contractors of
America; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Letter, July 10, 2023, from diverse construction and business
associations; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Letter, July 12, 2023, from Heritage Action; submitted by
Chairman Comer.
* Letter, July 11, 2023, from Independent Electrical
Contractors; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Letter, July 7, 2023, from NFIB; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Letter, July 11, 2023, from Competitive Enterprise Institute;
submitted by Chairman Comer and Rep. Foxx.
* Letter, July 11, 2023, from National Taxpayers Union;
submitted by Chairman Comer and Rep. Foxx.
* Letter, July 10, 2023, from Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning
Contractors' National Association (SMACNA); submitted by Rep.
Connolly.
* Report, from Independent Project Analysis (IPA) on Union
Labor; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Letter, July 11, 2023, from various industry groups;
submitted by Rep. Mace.
* Letter, from North America's Building Trades Union (NABTU) in
opposition to H.R. 1209; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS AND
POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES
----------
Wednesday, July 12, 2023
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Turner, Gosar, Foxx,
Grothman, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner,
Fallon, Armstrong, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, McClain,
Boebert, Fry, Luna, Edwards, Langworthy, Burlison, Raskin,
Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-
Cortez, Porter, Bush, Gomez, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost,
Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, and Moskowitz.
Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A
quorum is present.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(b) and House Rule XI, Clause
2, the Chair may postpone further proceedings today on the
question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an
amendment of which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are
ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to make an opening statement.
Today, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
will consider a range of bills that go to the core of this
Committee's mission to root out waste, fraud, abuse in the
Federal Government and improve efficiency and effectiveness.
First, we will address the Federal Government's spending
problem head on with the Unauthorized Spending Accountability
Act, or USA Act, which would decrease and eventually eliminate
funding for Federal programs that Congress fails to authorize.
We will address the Biden Administration's regulatory overreach
through two bills, the Fair and Open Competition Act and the
Mission Not Emissions Act. Three bills, the Unfunded Mandates
Accountability and Transparency Act, the Guidance Out Of
Darkness Act, and the Guidance Clarity Act, propose necessary
regulatory reforms. Committee Members will also have the
opportunity to weigh in on non-citizen voting, which was
recently authorized by the D.C. City Council.
Last, we will consider three bipartisan bills to improve
Federal Government cybersecurity readiness and artificial
intelligence education, as well as agency software management:
the Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts Act,
the AI Training Expansion Act, and the Strengthening Agency
Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act. Out of these
10 bills, half have bipartisan co-sponsors. I am encouraged to
see my colleagues coming together to improve our Federal
Government. Congressional Republicans are committed to ensuring
the accountability and effectiveness of the Federal Government.
The Oversight Committee will continue to reform government
spending, address regulatory burdens, and improve
cybersecurity.
I now recognize Ranking Member Raskin for an opening
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's agenda
contains 10 substantive bills. The Majority employed a
transparent and inclusive process with Democratic input and
collaboration, but alas, on only a few of the 10. After close
analysis of each bill, I plan to support four of them because
they genuinely advance the transparency, efficiency, and
accountability that the American people deserve from our
government. But the remaining six are clear attempts to
undermine the effectiveness of government, the will of
Congress, and the will and the interests of the American
people. They are part of a long, dismal process that began when
Steve Bannon said he wanted to destroy the administrative
state. I invite the public to closely examine these bills for
themselves, so they do not start following this bunch of wolves
in sheep's clothing deep into the forest.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
remind you that following the catastrophic train derailment in
East Palestine, Ohio, Committee Democrats sent a letter to
Norfolk Southern requesting critical information about the
company's safety measures and practices. However, over the last
4 months, Norfolk Southern has only produced a small set of
already mostly public documents to our Committee. Bottom line
is that Norfolk Southern has failed to provide nearly all of
the information and documents we have requested, obstructing
our investigation into an accident that has had devastating
consequences for the people of that community.
After Norfolk Southern produced an initial set of
documents, their counsel falsely claimed the company cannot
provide information to Congress, in part, because of the
National Transportation Safety Board's investigation. In fact,
NTSB told our staff that nothing in its regulations prevents
Norfolk Southern from responding to our requests. I know that
you will agree with me that agency regulations cannot bar the
provision of documents to Congress, even if they try to. As you
well know, Mr. Chairman, our Committee often conducts
independent investigations even when other investigations are
ongoing and that there is no real conflict here.
Since the East Palestine derailment, Norfolk Southern
trains have derailed several more times, including less than a
week ago on July 6, near Elliston, Virginia. It is imperative
that we get the answers and the information from Norfolk
Southern that we need before another catastrophic incident
occurs.
At a hearing that you convened on March 9, Vice Ranking
Member Ocasio-Cortez asked for a bipartisan hearing on the East
Palestine derailment, stating, ``The public needs answers,''
and you responded stating, ``I agree. Absolutely. I look
forward to working with you on that.'' Mr. Chairman, I hope we
can pursue that precise bipartisan agreement on rail safety,
even though many weeks have passed since that terrible event
occurred. In that spirit, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
respectfully ask you to work with us to get those answers that
the public, particularly the people of East Palestine, Ohio
deserve. Will you schedule a public hearing with Norfolk
Southern in the month of September?
Chairman Comer. We will certainly look at that. I was told
that the Energy and Commerce Committee was going to be doing
hearings on that, and I was even told they were going to have a
field hearing in East Palestine. And I do not know what the
status of that is or not, but I will certainly find out, and
that is something that I think we are interested in that we
could maybe work together on----
Mr. Raskin. Well, great. And if they are doing----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. With Norfolk Southern and
Transportation officials, too. I think that would be good.
Maybe Buttigieg and Norfolk Southern----
Mr. Raskin. Terrific. Well, if they are doing it, we could
join them. If not, would you agree to schedule one ourselves
for September?
Chairman Comer. We will try to see what we can come up with
on that.
Mr. Raskin. OK. I think September 20 would be a great date
for us to move on that. So, I thank you for your indulgence,
Mr. Chairman, and I hope we can move forward on that in
September.
Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member yields back. Without
objection, the opening statements of all other Members will be
included in the record.
Chairman Comer. So, our first item for consideration is
H.R. 4502, Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity Act.
The Clerk will please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4502, Modernizing the Acquisition of
Cybersecurity Act, to allow Federal agencies to establish
educational requirements for certain cybersecurity positions in
the competitive service, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered to H.R. 4502, offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
The Federal Government relies on cybersecurity
professionals to protect personally identifiable information to
defend against cyber threats and build secure government
technology. To ensure this work is done effectively, the
Federal Government desperately needs to hire more cybersecurity
experts. For many cybersecurity jobs, however, the Office of
Personnel Management requires applicants to have achieved a
certain level of education to even be considered for the role.
This prevents the government from hiring some of the best and
brightest cybersecurity professionals, many experts that have
the right technical skills and experience, but Federal hiring
managers are not allowed to consider them because they lack a
formal college degree. Representative Nancy Mace's simple bill
ensures that the Federal Government can hire any qualified
cybersecurity professional as long as they have the right
knowledge and skills, even if they do not have a fancy degree.
I urge my colleagues to support this timely, necessary, and
bipartisan bill, and I thank Nancy Mace, Chairwoman of the
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and
Government Innovation, for bringing this important reform bill
to the full Committee's consideration. I now recognize the
bill's sponsor for her remarks.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank you for bringing this bill forward today, and
Ranking Member Raskin as well. I also want to thank my
colleague across the aisle, Congresswoman Porter from
California, for her partnership on H.R. 4502, the Modernizing
Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts Act. This bill solves a
simple problem. You cannot deem one applicant more qualified
for a Federal cybersecurity job just because he or she has a
degree in underwater basket weaving. And I actually have some
experiences.
I have a family member who just turned 22. He started his
career in computer engineering and programming at the age of 16
when he took a coding camp one summer, and because of dual
enrollment, he was actually able to work full time starting at
the age of 16 as a programmer. He just turned 22. He owns his
own home, has a car, and is getting ready to buy another one.
He knows more about technology and programming than any other
Member of Congress, and he makes as much or more money than I
do at 22. And so, we have some remarkable young people coming
through this generation that have great talent because they
have been around technology their entire life and should not be
prevented from using those talents in the Federal IT workforce,
and so this is an opportunity for us to work together.
There is a shortage of over 700,000 cybersecurity
professionals in the public and private sector. People who do
not attend or finish college are often barred from
consideration for jobs in this field. Really, they should not
be. Today, a brilliant computer whiz who drops out of Harvard
for a year or two, like Bill Gates and other billionaires,
would stand little chance of securing a Federal job in IT and
cybersecurity, and we should be welcoming that kind of talent
in any way, shape, or form we can.
While the cyber workforce is crucial to our national
security is growing rapidly, according to a report issued last
year, there are five times as many cybersecurity workers over
the age of 55 as there are under the age of 30. Only 1 in 16
Federal cybersecurity workers are actually under the age of 30.
So, this bill prohibits mandatory degree requirements for
Federal cybersecurity jobs unless those credentials are legally
required to perform the duties of the position, which is rarely
the case. Even entry-level positions require a 4-year degree in
many cases with regards to these positions. Some of these young
people literally have the skills to hack into critical Federal
IT systems, but they cannot get their foot in the door for
employment at Federal agencies or at the same agency. So, there
are many unnecessary degree barriers that we are lifting today
with this piece of legislation.
Over the past few years, we have seen leaders from both
parties at all levels of government rolling back degree
requirements, resulting in greater economic opportunity for all
Americans. Even many large companies today have done away with
degree requirements. States are doing the same thing. And I
have said many times, if only we can run the government like a
business is run, we would save the taxpayers so much money and
be so much more efficient, and this is an opportunity to do
that today.
There is nothing more bipartisan than a bill that codifies
a Trump-era executive order that has been maintained by the
Biden Administration, and we have colleagues on both sides of
the aisle supporting the bill today. I especially, again, want
to thank Representative Katie Porter of California for her
support as an original co-sponsor of H.R. 4502. The bill is
also endorsed by the Alliance for Digital Innovation, whose
member companies include Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and
others engaged in Federal and private sector cybersecurity. And
we look forward to the Committee's careful consideration of
this very important legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. I urge all my
colleagues to support this bill. I now yield to the Ranking
Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to commend
our distinguished colleague, Nancy Mace, and Katie Porter from
California for introducing the Modernizing Acquisition of
Cybersecurity Experts Act, which will indeed eliminate the
requirement that a Bachelor of Arts or Sciences degree must be
a prerequisite to Federal hiring in qualifying cybersecurity-
related positions. The bill addresses the big shortage of
cybersecurity workers for a growing number of relevant jobs.
According to one recent study, the number of unfilled
cybersecurity positions in U.S. rose to over 410,000, up 9
percent over last year. This gap in the cybersecurity workforce
continues to grow, and this bill is a smart and timely attempt
to meet this rising demand. It is similar to an executive order
that was issued by the previous administration and has been
maintained by the Biden Administration, and I support it
wholeheartedly. And I would like to recognize the democratic
co-sponsor, Ms. Porter.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. I want to start by
thanking Representative Mace for her leadership, for her
advocacy, and for her partnership. Look, government employees
should be the best in the business. Taxpayers deserve nothing
less from the people that they employ, but how do we get the
best in our Federal jobs? Just like in any market, it all comes
down to one thing: fostering competition.
When I hire staffers to represent California's 47th
congressional District, I write job descriptions that describe
exactly what work that person will need to accomplish, then I
let candidates compete on who best demonstrates those skills.
The beauty of that competition is that there is not just one
credential or one requirement that guarantees someone will get
the job. Sometimes I have had great staffers who have law
degrees. They were successful in writing and analyzing policy
because their education prepared them for it. Other times, I
have had great policy staff who had no particular degree or
education. They were successful because they spent years
working on Capitol Hill or had other deep policy experience
gained from being in the workforce. If I thought excelling in a
government job always came down to one credential or one life
experience, I would have missed out on some great employees,
and, more importantly, taxpayers would have missed out.
No part of the Federal Government should disqualify an
individual from competing for a Federal job based on whether
they have one type of educational credential. We are only going
to find out who is best to fill a role if we let all qualified
candidates show us all their qualifications. Today, I am happy
to partner with Congresswoman Mace on legislation to allow just
this kind of competition when it comes to our Federal
cybersecurity jobs. Just like I have employed great policy
professionals with and without law degrees, there is not one
type of educational experience that is always going to make a
cybersecurity professional the best of the best. I am a former
professor, and I know that a lot of people will learn skills in
college programs that prepare them to be a Federal
cybersecurity professional. At the same time, I also know that
college is not always affordable and accessible for everybody.
And the reality is that many people gain the skills necessary
to flourish and succeed at Federal cybersecurity jobs as part
of other experiences, including military service, or training
and apprenticeship programs. The door needs to be open to both
kinds of qualified candidates, those with or without a degree,
and the Federal Government should be able to pick who is most
prepared to do the job based on a holistic view of the
candidates.
The Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts
Act stops the Federal Government from ruling out people without
a specific educational credential. Instead, it lets all
qualified applicants compete, and it gives the Federal
Government more choices. We should be able to agree to advance
this bill regardless of party. As my colleague, Congresswoman
Mace, said, there is very little as bipartisan as an executive
order issued under President Trump that President Biden has
chosen to keep in place, to keep on the books. This is a policy
that is working under Administrations of both parties to make
our government more successful. And now we need, in Congress,
to do our job to make it permanent as a law.
I urge all Democrats and Republicans on the Committee to
support this bill. We can only hire the best Federal
cybersecurity professionals when we have had the chance to
consider all the qualified options, and the Modernizing the
Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts will give us this chance.
I am proud to support Representative Mace's bill, and I thank
her for the opportunity to co-lead. And I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Do any other
Members wish to be heard?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now in favorably reporting H.R. 4502, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill
is ordered----
Ms. Porter. Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. OK. A recorded vote is ordered. Pursuant to
House rules, further proceedings on this measure are postponed.
All recorded votes will be rolled to the end at a time to be
announced.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 4503, the AI
Training Expansion Act.
The Clerk will please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4503, AI Training Expansion Act, a bill to
amend the Artificial Intelligence Training for the Acquisition
Workforce Act to expand AI training within the executive branch
of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered to H.R. 4503, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
We use AI-enabled products and services each and every day
to simplify our lives and empower our work, and recently
powerful advances in AI have raised serious questions about how
such technologies will continue to impact our lives and work.
Over the past several months, the Subcommittee on
Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government
Innovation, chaired by Nancy Mace, has held several hearings on
new AI advancements. The hearings have raised questions about
the government's readiness to adopt this new technology to
improve service delivery and agency operations. This makes it
the perfect time to ensure that Federal employees are properly
trained on AI, can be responsibly used in agency operations.
That is why I supported the AI Training for the Acquisition
Workforce Act which this Committee helped pass into law last
year.
This law's newly established government-wide training
program for AI was a great first step, but other Federal
employees beyond the acquisition workforce should also be
prepared for the changes AI is bringing. The AI Training
Expansion Act expands the law to provide training access to
more Federal employees and updates the training topics. I urge
my colleagues to support this timely and forward-thinking bill,
and I thank Subcommittee Chairwoman, Nancy Mace, and Ranking
Member, Gerry Connolly, for their work addressing this
important issue. I now recognize the bill's sponsor for her
remarks.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank Ranking
Member, as well, Jamie Raskin. I also want to thank my
colleague from Virginia, Congressman Connolly, for supporting
and being an original co-sponsor on this bill.
The AI Training Expansion Act is a substantial bipartisan
bill to help our Federal workforce win the race for AI.
America, we all know, must be at the forefront of AI
integration to counter our enemies abroad, but also use it for
good, making our Federal systems more efficient as well. We all
know that our Federal agencies are at risk of being hacked all
the time. AI will only advance this technology bigger, faster,
and more in the future.
In recent years, we have seen dozens of Federal agencies
hacked by agents of China and Russia, and we have got to be
prepared for the future, and AI is the future. AI is changing
the way we live, and we work. And at our very first hearing on
the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and
Government Innovation, our first hearing was on the advances
and new applications of AI. And we even had Eric Schmidt here
to testify who talked about the advances in AI, the great
benefits to it in our lives and work, but also the existential
risks, to quote him, as well. And the AI Training Act, which
passed last Congress, established AI training requirements for
some Federal employees, and this bill simply expands the
availability of that training to even more Federal employees.
AI is even further integrated. As AI further integrates
into our daily lives, this is important more today than ever
before. AI language models, like ChatGPT, have achieved better
marks on the SAT, MCAT, and bar exams than most of our
colleagues. While Hollywood writers are currently on strike
over the very real possibility of being replaced by AI,
yesterday there was the launch by Anthropic Claude 2, which is
going to compete with ChatGPT. It was launched by Dario Amodei
of Anthropic. The technology is expanding rapidly. In just the
first few weeks of ChatGPT, for example, over 100 million
people signed up for it.
As the Federal Government continues to invest in these
tools and more, decision-makers, supervisors, and data and tech
specialists within the Federal bureaucracy must have a
comprehensive understanding of the benefits, and uses, and
risks of this technology and how we can implement it within our
Federal agencies to make everyone more efficient. While the
American private sector is dominant in this space, a
competition for government integration of AI will be won by the
side with the very best talent, and we want to make sure that
our Federal employees are the best talent that is available in
the world. While our workforce works from home and in their
pajamas on legacy tech systems, China is preparing to use AI to
further the regime's aggressive policy, so we, too, must be
aggressive in AI. We must beat any of our adversaries, whether
it is China, Russia, or other countries around the world, in
the race for AI dominance, and the Federal Government must be
ready to keep up with AI.
This bill is bipartisan, bicameral, and just a simple
commonsense step forward in this existential push for AI
leadership. As a lead sponsor of the bill in Congress, I again
want to thank Ranking Member Gerry Connolly, Senators Peters
and Braun for their leadership on this legislation. Thank you,
and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. I urge all my
colleagues to support this bill. I now yield to the Ranking
Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support
this bipartisan bill which takes a positive step to ensure that
the workforce in the Federal Government is equipped with both
the educational training and the professional skills that are
actually necessary to responsibly manage the risks and benefits
and opportunities posed by artificial intelligence. I want to
salute Ms. Mace for her great leadership on this matter.
Advances in AI are changing society and the marketplace in
fundamental ways, including the important work of the Federal
Government to serve the people of the country. The advances
pose evolving challenges to oversight and accountability
efforts, requiring strong proficiencies in the highest
transparency and governance standards to protect governmental
efficiency, privacy, civil liberties, and the public interest
itself. The AI Training Expansion Act will ensure that
investments of taxpayer dollars in AI are leveraged ethically
and responsibly with privacy and civil liberties protections
right at the heart of our decisionmaking.
I thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Mace, and our Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee, Connolly, for their leadership on
this bill in the House. I am happy to support it, and I yield
back. Oh, actually, I will recognize Mr. Connolly, the bill co-
sponsor, for his remarks.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Ranking Member, and let me also
thank Chairwoman Mace for her leadership on this and other
cutting-edge technology issues we face. And I echo what she
said that we got to have a Federal workforce that is conversant
with AI and is trained both in the positive applications of AI
and in the risks AI might pose in terms of public privacy
especially, and the manipulation of AI to the detriment of the
people we serve, and so making sure that basic training in the
Federal workforce is really important.
The Chairwoman also cited people in pajamas working legacy
systems at home, and that is a continuing concern I have, and I
hope the Subcommittee and full Committee has, that our work is
not done in modernizing IT in the Federal Government. AI is one
set of subjects we have to address, but we are not anywhere
near close to making sure that the Federal Government has the
IT platforms it needs to be cyber secure and to make sure that
it is serving the American public as efficiently as possible.
And that is why I continue to advocate for a rigorous and
vigorous implementation of FITARA, the Federal Information
Technology Acquisition Reform Act, which includes the
retirement of legacy systems, some of which are 50-years-plus
old, and to make sure that all of the IT platforms we have can
be cyber secure.
We also need to address the aging Federal workforce, and
this bill helps us in guaranteeing that training, but we got to
make sure that the next generation of Federal employees has
this kind of training so that they can interact with the
private sector in a knowledgeable and equal basis, and that
they can protect the American public. So, I am glad to be an
original co-sponsor. I thank Ms. Mace for her leadership, and I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members wish to be heard?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Ms. Mace. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. OK. A recorded vote is ordered. As
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed. You do not want a recorded vote on----
Ms. Mace Yes.
Chairman Comer. Right, right.
Ms. Mace Yes.
Chairman Comer. You want to withdraw that. That was on
the----
Ms. Mace. Withdrawn.
Chairman Comer. Yes. All right. The lady from South
Carolina withdraws her request for a recorded vote on the last
motion.
Now the question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 4503,
as amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair--the lady from South Carolina.
Ms. Mace. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. All right. A recorded vote is ordered. As
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 1695, the
Strengthening Agency Management and Oversight of Software
Assets Act.
The Clerk will please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 1695, Strengthening Agency Management and
Oversight of Software Assets, SAMOSA Act, a bill to improve the
visibility, accountability, and oversight of Agency Software
Asset Management Practices, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment in any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered to H.R. 1695, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. All right. Without objection, the amendment
is considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for
statement on the bill and the amendment.
Federal agencies spend billions of dollars a year on
software licenses without a full understanding of what they are
purchasing and how it compares to what they are already paying
for. The result is wasteful spending on duplicative or
unnecessary software licenses. As amended by my bipartisan and
bicameral amendment in the nature of a substitute, this
legislation will provide Congress better insight into how our
Federal Agencies purchase and use software. The text we are
considering today improves the introduced text of H.R. 1695 to
improve government software purchasing without unduly limiting
the procurement options of Federal Agencies. These changes
reflect multiple rounds of feedback from industry groups and
the Office of Management and Budget, as well as conversations
between the bill sponsor and House and Senate committee staff.
As amended, 1695 requires an agency to better manage its
software and develop a plan for addressing any costly
unnecessary licenses. This will reduce wasteful spending and
improve government efficiency. I thank Mr. Cartwright, Ranking
Member Raskin, and my colleagues in the Senate for working with
the Committee staff to ensure that this legislation
appropriately achieves its goals. I also thank Mr. Fallon and
Ms. Mace for their early support of this bill. I urge my
colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. I now yield
to the Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including on
today's agenda this bipartisan good government bill that will
achieve important cost savings for the public. I want to
support H.R. 1695, the SAMOSA Act, which was introduced by our
colleague, Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania. The government will
need to spend tens of billions of dollars this year on software
purchases and on maintenance. This makes up a big chunk of the
estimated $100 billion that we will spend on information
technology overall.
Previous efforts to increase oversight and transparency of
Federal expenditures on software, including the MEGABYTE Act of
2016, have saved Federal agencies an estimated $450 million
over just a 3-year period, but serious challenges remain. For
example, a recent audit by GAO found that software license data
reported by Federal agencies was inconsistent to wide variation
in exactly how agencies track and maintain their inventories.
Current software contract and asset management practices also
fall short of achieving enough transparency to allow agencies
to purchase software products and services that actually meet
their specific needs and priorities.
H.R. 1695 would require Federal agency CIOs to complete
comprehensive assessments of the software paid for by, in use
at, or deployed throughout the government. These assessments
would update and expand the software inventories required by
the MEGABYTE Act. The bill would require agencies to submit
comprehensive assessments to GSA, OMB, GAO, and Congress to
facilitate stronger oversight of software contracts and Federal
spending. It would also require agencies to use these
assessments to develop a plan to better manage agency software,
procurement, and management, which would be required to include
remediation of deficiencies, automation of management
processes, and workforce training.
One industry analysis estimates the cost savings of this
Act at $500 to $750 million a year. The Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs estimates that the
bill could save taxpayers up to $5 billion annually. I
appreciate Chairman Gary Peters' leadership in developing and
driving this legislation and his Republican co-lead, Senator
Cassidy, of Louisiana. I also want to thank Representative Matt
Cartwright for championing the bill over here in the House
along with our Subcommittee Chairs, Mr. Fallon and Ms. Mace.
This is a good bipartisan bill that will allow the
government to operate more transparently and efficiently and
cost-effectively, and I am very happy to support its passage
today. And I yield back to you.
Mr. Connolly. Would the Ranking Member yield?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Ranking Member. I just want to
underscore, going back to FITARA, and the scorecard that this
Committee created, and the 15 hearings we have had on its
implementation, that software licensing management was one of
the categories on the scorecard, and I think we were able to
make progress. We need to continue to monitor that. But I think
it just underscores the fact that vigorous oversight of FITARA
and the use of that scorecard has, in fact, made a difference.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you. Now, just to echo your point,
since its inception in December 2014, FITARA has empowered the
CIOs in Federal agencies. It has improved how the government
acquires and manages IT, and it saved nearly $30 billion of
taxpayer money. So, this is a tool that Congress, CIOs, agency
heads, and outside stakeholders use to understand how the
agencies manage and secure their IT assets. And the scorecard
also helps Congress hold the Federal agencies accountable for
implementing fundamental and evolving best IT practice.
Mr. Connolly. If my friend would yield one more time.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
Mr. Connolly. I thank him so much for pointing that out.
GAO has pointed out that we have almost saved $30 billion. I
cannot think of another Federal piece of legislation that can
claim to have saved, according to GAO, $30 billion since it was
passed into law 7 or 8 years ago. So, I think our keeping our
foot to the pedal with respect to implementation of that law
continues to have a return on it. I thank my friend for
pointing it out.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, and I will just close by saluting you, Mr.
Connolly, for your leadership on FITARA and for making sure
that we have had these biannual reviews, these hearings that
have been so important in the FITARA context. And I am happy to
yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Mace for 5
minutes.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Ranking
Member Raskin as well as the lead co-sponsor of this bipartisan
measure. I also want to thank my colleague across the aisle,
Representative Cartwright, for his leadership on the issue of
government waste and software licenses, and I also want to
thank Committee staff for their wise revisions.
Sometimes small parts make a huge difference in the Federal
Government. And imagine that today, as the media talks about
how divisive we are up here on the Hill, and oftentimes we are,
but in this room, one of the most divisive committees on the
Hill, we are actually working together, working across the
aisle to make government work better, run better, be more
efficient and save taxpayer dollars. So, I want to thank the
leadership today on that.
Despite over $100 billion in spending on Federal software
licenses, most agencies have no comprehensive record of what
they are actually buying and what they have already paid for.
It is shocking and blows my mind that most Federal agencies do
not carry a record of what licenses they have purchased or what
licenses they have, how many they have. The duplicity that is
happening because they do not have a comprehensive record is a
place where we can be more efficient, which is the entire
purpose of this legislation. Our bureaucracy is likely wasting
substantial sums of unused, duplicative, and unnecessary
software licenses, wasting millions, maybe billions of taxpayer
dollars. No American household would have three Netflix
subscriptions or two cable bills, so why should a Federal
agency, right? We should work smarter, not harder, here.
The negotiated version before the Committee reflects
extensive dialogs with agencies on how to best implement the
goals of this legislation and slash wasteful spending. By
requiring agencies to develop a plan to consolidate licenses,
we give them the tools to identify and eliminate waste and
improve efficiency within their operations. So, agencies
spending money on software licenses without a comprehensive
understanding of what they are buying and what they already
have is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.
Agencies simply do not know how many employees are using
which software or where, how many seats they have in those
licenses, or what restrictions are associated with those
licenses. Agencies sometimes unwittingly waste money on
duplicative, unused, restrictive, and unnecessary licenses. So,
this is inefficient, wasteful, and impedes important IT
monetization work for the government that we need to focus on.
H.R. 1695 will save money by cutting down these duplicative
licenses and underused software licenses as well. It will
require agencies to update and expand their software inventory
so that they have a detailed insight into their software
licenses, costs, usage rates, seats, et cetera. The amended
bill addresses bloated, underutilized, and costly Federal
agency software licenses by requiring agencies to develop a
plan to consolidate them or to update them. This legislation
removes unduly prescriptive provisions present in the version
introduced last year and again earlier this year. Those
provisions had pre-supposed the merits of certain software
licensing solutions.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and
his staff for working to improve this particular legislation. I
also want to thank Senate staff and Committee staff. I want to
thank my colleagues across the aisle as well for working
together.
I have found, Mr. Chairman, that the Oversight Committee,
although we have some of the most progressive and most far-
right Members, and some in the middle, that cybersecurity has
been a place where we have been able to work together. And I
would encourage us to show leadership on the Federal level and
the national level how we all can join hands and do something
for the good of every single taxpayer in this country, and I
want to thank my colleagues for their leadership on this.
And I would also Mr. Chairman, like to ask for unanimous
consent to enter into the record the following documents. I
have a coalition letter to this Committee in support of the
SAMOSA Act from the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing, the
Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Alliance
for Digital Innovation, and NetChoice.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. Do any other Members
wish to be heard?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 1695, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair----
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. A recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 1209, Fair and Open
Competition Act.
The Clerk will please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 1209, Fair and Open Competition, FOCA Act,
a bill to preserve open competition and Federal Government
neutrality toward the labor relations of Federal Government
contractors on Federal and federally funded construction
projects, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without
objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered to H.R. 1209, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for
statement on the bill and the amendment.
I am pleased to call up my bill, H.R. 1209, the Fair and
Open Competition Act. As our Nation continues to recover from
the COVID-19 pandemic and as tax dollars are used to fund
infrastructure projects across the land, one thing should be
clear. Every construction worker in every state should have a
fair chance to work on any construction project funded by
American tax dollars. That, however, is not what President
Biden wants.
On February 4, 2022, President Biden issued Executive Order
14063, entitled, ``Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal
Construction Projects.'' That executive order required Federal
contracting agencies to mandate project labor agreements, also
known as PLAs, on Federal construction projects worth $35
million or more. Project labor agreements are, in laypersons
terms, requirements to use only union workers for a project.
President Biden further instructed the Federal Acquisition
Regulation Council to implement his order in the Code of
Federal Regulations. That new regulation is currently in its
final stages of review. If it goes into effect, it will be
harder for a future President to reverse President Biden's
policy.
But that policy, put simply, is not a fair deal for the
American construction workforce. Biden's regulation will raise
taxpayer costs and prevent non-union workers from working on
Federal projects. It will even force right-to-work states to
freeze local workers out of cooperative Federal projects. In
fact, over 80 percent of the U.S. construction workforce would
be frozen out of Federal projects because over 80 percent of
construction workers do not belong to a union.
Congress kept these requirements out of the American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act. Congress should act again to overturn President Biden's
order and prevent the Federal Government from discriminating
against contractors based on labor affiliation. That is why I
introduced the Fair and Open Competition Act. Unlike President
Biden's order, my bill maintains Federal neutrality on project
labor agreements. It neither mandates nor prevents them. It
simply allows individual agencies, contractors, and
subcontractors to decide project-by-project what is best for
each given circumstance. This approach is fair, and it respects
the diverse needs of a vast and diverse Nation.
H.R. 1209 is an even-handed position all Committee Members
should be willing to support. The bill is supported by a host
of business groups, representing millions of workers. It is
also supported by a broad range of taxpayer advocate groups,
all of whom have the interests of Federal taxpayers in mind. I
urge my colleagues to support this bill. I now recognize the
Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Alas, I have to
strongly oppose this bill, which would prevent the Federal
Government from using one of the very best tools we have got to
ensure that large construction projects are completed
effectively, efficiently, and safely.
People are attempting to paint H.R. 1209 as a bill about
instilling fairness and neutrality, but the process is already
fair and neutral. Federal construction projects are, of course,
highly complex, and if they are not managed properly, they can
produce expensive delays, unsafe work sites, lengthy disputes,
and unethical business practices, and that is why President
Biden issued Executive Order 14063 earlier this year. The order
requires the use of project labor agreements on Federal
construction projects above $35 million in value to address
these challenges and to ensure that taxpayers are getting the
best mileage for their money.
President Biden's executive order is estimated to improve
the return on investment of $262 billion taxpayer dollars and
the working conditions of nearly 200,000 workers on Federal
construction projects. H.R. 1209 would reverse this progress
and prohibit agencies from even considering the use of PLAs in
funding construction contracts, even when the PLA would save
the taxpayers money.
PLAs are an essential tool to promote transparency and
accountability in Federal construction. These pre-hire
collective bargaining agreements, negotiated between unions and
employers, lay out the terms and conditions of employment for
construction projects. They guard against risk and ensure
stability by promoting fairness and transparency in the
project, including through compliance with different laws and
rules. PLAs help resolve disputes ahead of time, they ensure
safer work sites, and they avoid work disruptions that can
cause protracted and expensive delays. A wide range of research
demonstrates that PLAs are effective tools to ensure the
stewardship of taxpayer dollars by controlling costs, enhancing
efficiency, ensuring safe and equitable working conditions, and
benefiting the local community. They increase budget accuracy,
ensure that skilled workers are available for the whole
duration of the project, and they protect against disruption
and delay.
Contrary to my colleagues' repeated claims, non-union
contractors are perfectly free to bid on projects that require
PLAs. Workers covered under a PLA are not required to join the
union to work on the project, and PLAs are legal even in right-
to-work states. All that they do is to lift the floor up to
increase the fairness and the efficiency of the worksite,
generally.
The markup of this anti-transparency legislation follows a
series of letters from Committee Republicans to leaders at the
OMB, which make outlandish and inaccurate claims about project
labor agreements, including that they reduce competition and
value for taxpayers and limit opportunities for communities. In
fact, PLAs protect taxpayers from the inevitable race to the
bottom that incentivizes contractors to underpay and undertrain
their workers, cut corners that threaten project integrity, and
bring in cheaper outside labor instead of providing high-
quality jobs locally to the community.
PLAs are public documents that anyone can review for their
fairness and their soundness. If my Republican colleagues have
identified specific concerns with any of them, I invite them to
identify those concerns publicly. But absent any specific
unbiased evidence, we are left to conclude that H.R. 1209 and
other attacks on PLAs are simply another example of the
determination to erode transparency and accountability
protections for the public, to undermine labor movements, and
to put special interest profits before the well-being of
workers.
I urge my colleagues all to oppose this unnecessary bill,
and I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record the following documents: a
letter to this Committee in support of FOCA from the Associated
General Contractors of America; a letter to this Committee in
support of the bill from the Associated Builders and
Contractors; a coalition letter to this Committee in support of
the bill from a diverse group of 25 construction and business
associations; a letter to this Committee in support of the bill
from the Independent Electrical Contractors; and a letter to
this Committee in support of the bill from the National
Taxpayers Union.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. I thank the Chairman and the Committee for
marking up this legislation. And unlike so much legislation in
Congress, the name of this bill actually accurately describes
what it does, which is ensures that merit shop contractors, who
employ 88 percent--so that is 12 percent otherwise--88 percent
of the construction workforce which can fairly compete for
Federal and federally funded construction projects. Government
mandated, so the government requires it. That is freedom in
America. Government-mandated project labor agreements simply
drive up the cost of Federal projects.
And look, the amount that is driving it up is a matter of
conjecture. I know for certain in Pennsylvania, where contracts
were bid without the agreement and then bid with the agreement,
the cost was anywhere from 6 to 15 percent, but some estimate
up to 20 percent, an increase through the prevention of
competition combined with inefficient work rules required under
the PLA.
Now, let me be clear. I got no beef with private unions and
private contractors that are unionized. I got no beef
whatsoever. This is an issue of fairness across the board.
Whatever standard we set should be set for everyone, not one
standard for some and another standard for others. This is
America. We should have one standard, and all should adhere to
that standard. We should not be doing things as a Federal
Government that inherently increase the cost to the people
paying the bill, which are the taxpayers, and that is what PLAs
do.
PLAs are there to ensure a certain sector of the
workforce--the 12-percent sector--have a carve out, a set
aside, have a leg up, have a different standard than the 88
percent who do not. That is why they are there. This is a
special interest. This is exactly what this is, It is a special
interest, and this bill seeks to end that special interest so
that the taxpayers who we support, who we work for, who are our
bosses, they are our special interest, they should be our
special interest, we should be supporting them, and that is
what this bill seeks to do.
I marvel at my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, and the
claims made that this actually saves money. I do not know other
Members of the body that have been contractors, but I have been
one, and a contract is pretty simple. I agree to do this work
by this amount of time, to this standard, and you agree to pay.
That is it. We do not need a special contract that says I am
not going to strike, but that is what this is. That is the
safety net that is included in PLAs. Well, I will not strike as
long as we have this signed, and I get to do this work under a
special agreement that no one else gets to participate in.
Ladies and gentlemen, we expect people not to strike as
long as they are being paid for doing the job correctly. That
is the contractual relationship. I sign a contract, I say I am
going to do the work at this time to this standard, and you are
going to pay me for it. Well, I do not expect you to strike if
you are being paid and you are doing the work appropriately. I
do not expect you to strike if you do not get your way on some
kind of negotiation. The Federal Government is contracting you
to do the work, you agreed to it, here are the specifications,
here are the plans, you understood what you are getting into,
and that is why you bid on the project.
Ladies and gentlemen, 88 percent of the construction force
is in the merit shop business. That is who is doing 88 percent
of the work. This bill seeks to make it fair across the board
for not only 88 percent, but the 12 percent. Again, I have no
beef at all with private sector unions in the contracting
business, and there are contractors, there are bosses that
would abuse their employees and have abused their employees.
There is a thing called the National Labor Relations Board that
can deal with people that violate, but what we should not do is
have one rule that punishes everybody for the sake of a few bad
actors. The few bad actors should be punished and punished
resoundingly and appropriately. But what we should not do is
punish every single American who gets up every morning, early,
maybe misses their kids getting off to school, packs their
lunchbox, and goes to work to pay their taxes so a few folks
can have a special deal. This bill would solve that.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield the
balance, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members wish to be heard? The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to
associate myself with the remarks of the Ranking Member. I will
start off by saying I was an ironworker for about 20 years, a
union iron worker, so I have worked on the PLAs in the past.
There have been instances where non-union contractors have been
successful in getting work on PLA projects, but I would say
that a great majority of the contracts are won by union firms.
And I have worked all over the country, worked on projects in
Louisiana, New Mexico, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Illinois, Ohio, and so I have seen how this has worked across
the country.
One of the great benefits of PLAs is the predictability
that it offers on a major construction project, and that
predictability is rare in an industry where every project is
new and different. So, the challenges of, you know, building a
major construction project in an area of the country that is in
an environment that is exposed to the weather, is quite
unpredictable. Oftentimes construction firms do not have a
fixed workforce capable of handling these large projects, so
they rely on apprenticeship programs that are run jointly by
Taft-Hartley entities involving both contractor and union.
So, under this PLA, they are guaranteed there is a steady
flow of skilled workers, men and women who reflect the
demographic of that area, and reflect the diversity of the
cities in which many of these projects are going on in order to
complete that project on time and on budget. Those are very
valuable factors in terms of trying to meet the obligations
that we have to taxpayers and also the entities that are the
end user of these facilities.
I just want to just comment on the previous gentleman's
comments. Much of the disputes on these projects are between
contractors. It is not between the union and the contractor. It
is between the general contractor and the subcontractor. And
because many of the complexities of these projects are
unforeseen and they are not addressed in the original contract,
it ends up in endless disputes that end up in court, and one of
the things that the PLA does is it requires everybody to
perform. It requires all the workers to show up every single
day, no work stoppages, as the gentleman mentioned, but it also
requires the contractor, the subcontractor to perform. You
cannot stop this project from going forward. It needs to meet
its deadline. And so, regardless of the differences you may
have in how the wording of the language in the contract is, you
must continue to work on the project, and you can arbitrate
your disputes, but the project must go on, and the workers
benefit by having, you know, a predictable pay level, although
it is fixed.
I have seen PLAs that the owner, in one case, Harvard
University, that had a multi-billion building project. They
said we want a discount because we are giving all this work for
several buildings over several years. We want a discount on
what the prevailing wage is out there in the area, and they got
it in return for the steady work that was available. So, there
are many benefits that flow from this. Dignity of work and
respect for workers is paramount. I see that----
Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lynch. I will. I will.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Yield for a question. Because of
your expertise in labor law, Mr. Lynch, I wanted to ask you
what you make of the suggestion that rather than have a project
labor agreement where there would be presumably a no-strike
clause, there are fair wages paid to everybody whether they are
union or non-union workers who participate, why not instead
just say, well, let us let the National Labor Relations Act
figure it out--how effective has that been for workers? I know
that the remedy under the NLRA if somebody gets fired for, say,
organizing the union, is you spend a year, 2 years, 3 years
before the NLRB, which is a famously cumbersome and
dysfunctional body, and then at the very best, you get
reinstated. That is not much of a punishment. How well does
that work?
Mr. Lynch. With 4 seconds, my contractor community and
labor community would both be horrified by that prospect. That
would take years and years and years and would not satisfy
either the contractors or the people working out of them. Thank
you. My time has expired.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Connolly for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair. And I listened with great
interest to a friend from Pennsylvania who says, well, he had
experience as a contractor and he has nothing against unions,
but we ought not to be giving them special favors. By the way,
I have experienced, as somebody who contracted with a multi-
billion dollar project, the Silver Line here in Northern
Virginia, a line that otherwise took 62 years to complete from
the idea being proffered in 1962 when we built Dulles Airport,
the premier international airport of the Nation's Capital,
until we finally cut the ribbon this year for phase two. Phase
one was on time and largely on budget, you know why, because it
was a PLA. I insisted on it as Chairman of Fairfax County, and
that PLA worked. It was efficient. It guaranteed timelines, and
both contractors and workers, as well as the client, were more
than satisfied with the product.
Phase two, under a Republican Governor and a Republican
Secretary of Labor in the state of Virginia, who are hostile to
labor, which seems to infuse a lot that is behind this, was not
a PLA. In fact, they insisted it could not be a PLA or threaten
the funding of phase two, and phase two was 3 years delayed:
tens of millions of additional costs, substandard work product,
and even material that required retrofitting brand new stations
that have been constructed because of inferior material from
the contractor.
So, my experience is the opposite of Mr. Perry's. PLAs
work, and legalizing their non-use, mandating their non-use is
fraught with problems. Let us remember the genesis of PLAs.
PLAs were a wartime product to guarantee labor peace during the
largest industrial production buildup in human history in World
War II, here in the United States. It worked. In less than 4
years, the United States of America, using PLAs liberally in
every industry, built more ships, more airplanes, more
munitions, more aircraft than had ever been produced in human
history and turned the tide of battle and defeated Nazi Germany
and Imperialist Japan. That is one heck of a track record. So,
PLAs are not some narrow special-interest provision. They are,
in fact, a very nimble, and efficient, and proven tool to
proceed with large projects on schedule, on budget with
qualified labor working with management.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this point to
enter into the record a statement opposing this bill by the
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National
Association and an evaluation Quantifying the Value of Union
Labor in Construction Projects prepared for the Mechanical
Industry Advancement Fund.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair, and I yield back. I am
sorry. I would yield to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted
to request unanimous consent to introduce a letter from our
friends at the North America's Building Trades Union, the
NABTU, in opposition to H.R. 1209.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard? The
Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was Mayor of
Long Beach, California, I was really proud to establish the
first city-wide project labor agreement in the state. So, it
was not just project specific, but any public project in our
city actually went through a project labor agreement process,
and other cities since then have adopted that in California.
And we know that project labor agreements, not just in my
state, but in places across the country, have been very
successful. They have been around for decades and critical to a
good workforce.
We know they have been used from everything, not just in
major construction projects, but also in our schools or
universities, transportation, green energy, and they have been
a key component to both public-and private-sector jobs as well.
This has been a huge boon for the economy back in California
and certainly back home in my city. We know that this policy
has been good for working families and also makes financial
sense.
It is really, really important to note also there has been
a lot of discussion about supply chain over the last couple of
years and around strengthening ports, which bring in cargo in
and out, of course, across the United States. Most of the port
construction that is happening on the West Coast and much on
the East Coast are under these project labor agreements
specifically so that these important large infrastructure
projects actually do not stop, that there is a clean process,
and that they move forward to not interrupt the supply chain.
So, the impact to the economy and to America's ports around
project labor agreements is critically important.
When Republicans attack project labor agreements, it is not
just an attack on working people. It is an attack on the right
to organize, it is an attack on historic investments, and it is
a direct attack on our Nation's infrastructure. And this bill,
of course, does not just stop at overturning President Biden's
executive order. It would be essentially a blanket ban on all
project labor agreements where any Federal funding is used. And
so any project, whether it is Federal Government project, a
state or local jurisdiction, or even in the private sector,
could see these protections rolled back. It is really, again,
an attack on working people.
And we also now know that this bill is not just limited to
new construction, but any facilities that receive Federal
funding that are maintained under a project labor agreement,
and we have many of these back home in the city of Long Beach
and across the state of California. These will also be
targeted, threatening even more American jobs. And so, even if
you do not agree with PLAs or think they are not the best for
any certain situation, a vote for this legislation completely
eliminates their use for any project that uses Federal funding,
and that is absolutely outrageous and shameful. It jeopardizes
the livelihoods of constituents in every congressional
district, opens essential projects up to the possibility of
additional costs and delays, and harms your ability to maintain
and improve infrastructure that we all depend on.
We know that there has been study after study across the
country that concluded that PLAs attract, by the way, a similar
number of bidders and have been associated with equivalent or
lower costs oftentimes than projects without them. So,
eliminating PLAs across the board for projects with Federal
funding is really an open attack on working people, on the
American middle class. And Republicans on this Committee and
across Congress are pushing for it at a moment when we should
literally be doing the opposite. We should be increasing the
workforce, we should be creating more local hiring jobs across
the country.
I find it also interesting that Republicans who voted and
who have voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and
who are now, by the way, praising these projects and going
across the country and celebrating these projects back in their
district, many of these projects were built with project labor
agreements. So, we can go on and on talking about projects
across the country that Republicans are now praising, that they
voted against, that were actually project labor agreement
projects. And so, I want to actually thank President Biden and
his leadership for the Inflation Reduction Act, for his work on
the bipartisan infrastructure agreement because communities are
finally getting the resources that they need.
I also want to just add that most project labor agreements
have a local hiring component, and what that essentially means
is that we are able to not just hire from the region or
anywhere in the state, but actually from that community. So in
California, in my city, we have a percentage where the actual
workers need to come directly from the city and the region, so
you are ensuring that your local folks actually get these jobs.
And so, this is ensuring local residents and it is ensuring
that projects get built on time across the state and back home.
So, for us back home, project labor agreements have been a game
changer. Above all, this bill, and this really attack, abandons
a promise we have made to hardworking men and women across the
country, and so I absolutely oppose any efforts to rollback
project labor agreements. And with that, I yield back the
remainder of my time.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognized Mr. Palmer from
Alabama for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the Chairman, and thank the Chairman
for introducing this bill. I am not sure what bill some of my
colleagues are reading because this is not an attack on project
labor agreements. It just maintains a neutral status and a
level playing field for all contractors. And I would just like
to point out that more than 87 percent of U.S. construction
workforce chooses not to belong to the union, so you are
arguing something, an issue that does not exist.
I would also like to point out that the construction
industry is facing what has been described as a historic
shortage of skilled workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
projects that we need another 650,000 skilled workers. The
Biden Administration version of the project labor agreement,
again, is going to make that problem even worse. It is going to
exacerbate the problem by trying to force these people who are
in merit shops into union shops, further delaying major
infrastructure projects that we desperately need to get
underway. I just want to point out that a lot of the issues
that we are dealing with with this are problems imposed on us
by the Federal Government. And I think what you are trying to
do with this bill, which I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to reconsider and support, is to put us in a position
where we can get the workforce that we need rather than create
one impediment after another to getting these people in the
workforce to get these jobs done.
I do want to emphasize again that this is neutral toward
project labor agreements, and it allows competition for union
job companies. It allows non-union companies. But the key thing
that we cannot lose sight of, Mr. Chairman, is the need for
getting infrastructure projects done. Our infrastructure is in
decline, particularly on the transportation side, and we do not
need another administration-imposed impediment to getting the
workforce that we need to get these jobs done. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members wish to be heard? Mr. Casar for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in your
opening remarks you mentioned that project labor agreements
could discriminate against union versus non-union workers. But
my understanding is that Federal law guarantees workers the
right to choose whether they want to be in a union or not,
regardless of a project labor agreement. Mr. Chairman, is that
your understanding as well?
Chairman Comer. Are you asking me a question?
Mr. Casar. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just think that it is
important in this bill to make it clear that, in fact, all
workers in this country can choose whether to be a member of a
union or not. And in your laying out of the bill, you said that
project labor agreements would discriminate against non-union
workers, but my understanding is any worker on any project, PLA
or not, has a Federal right to choose whether to be a part of a
union or not.
Chairman Comer. You have the right to be a part of union,
but the mandate says you have to be a union worker to get the
job.
Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman, it would be good for us to check
up on that because I am pretty sure that project labor
agreements do not require you to be a union member to be a part
of the job because if it did, then that would be violating your
Federal rights, whether to join a union or not. Again, project
labor agreements, for everybody, to lay out, is a pre-
negotiated set of wages and benefits in order to make sure that
we get good workers, train people locally, and then workers can
decide whether they want to be a part of a union or not. And so
Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can----
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Casar. Yes, please.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. I thank you for the point. What the
project labor agreement does is to agree upon a prevailing wage
that union members may have bargained for, but then everybody
has got to be paid, so--but nobody is compelled to join the
union. That would indeed, as you are saying, Mr. Casar, violate
the National Labor Relations Act, which gives the workers the
right to decide whether or not they want to join a union. I
yield back.
Mr. Casar. Thank you, Ranking Member. That is right. For
example, when it is the weekend, and whether you are a union
worker or not, you still get the weekend, and so many workers
can benefit on project labor agreements while choosing whether
or not they want to be a union member.
Mr. Chairman, also as you laid the bill out, you said, and
I think I am quoting this correctly, that there are a host of
business groups representing thousands of workers supporting
this bill. There were letters submitted for the bill and
against the bill. Of course those business associations you
listed, in fact, represent construction companies,
corporations, but you said that they represent thousands of
workers. Mr. Chairman, did we submit any letters from
organizations supporting the bill that, in fact, are composed
of construction workers instead of construction companies?
Chairman Comer. These letters represent tens of thousands
of construction workers that I think are pretty happy with
where they were.
Mr. Casar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding----
Chairman Comer. And I do not believe you are correct in
your statement, but proceed.
Mr. Palmer. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Casar. I will in one moment because I do want to agree
with one of your points, Mr. Palmer, and ask you a question if
I have the time. My understanding is companies or associations,
like the Builders and Contractors or General Contractors,
represent corporations and not their workers. And organizations
like SMART and NABTU represent workers and have elections where
workers choose their leadership and choose the agenda.
My next question, that could go to Mr. Palmer, for example,
is, these PLAs, we have not talked that much about the fact
that they get us local hiring at the local level and
apprenticeship training for workers, and that is a key part of
addressing the worker shortages we see. My question for anybody
either in the Majority or Minority is whether folks know
whether the Shawnee Power Plant, the Paradise Power Plant, and
the Kentucky Dam, that I understand are in Mr. Comer's
district, or the Department of Energy uranium cleanup in Oak
Ridge in Mr. Burchett's district, or the DOE's Savannah River
Site in Ms. Mace's district, or the Ascend Elements project
battery recycling plant being built in Mr. Comer's district, or
the Black Hills Airport in Ms. Boebert's district, or the Intel
chip plant in Mr. Turner's district, or Resolution Copper Mine
in Mr. Bigg and Mr. Gosar's districts, or the Alabama Power
projects in Mr. Palmer's district, or the upcoming Honda LG
battery plant in Mr. Jordan's district, or Lambeau Field just
outside Mr. Grothman's district, or the Toyota power plant
being built or that was built in my district, whether those
were built successfully under project labor agreements or not.
Mr. Palmer. If I may respond to that. Again, it is not an
issue of project labor agreements. It is this project labor
agreement as determined by the Biden Administration. And there
is an issue with training workforce, and I will give you an
example of that is a federally assisted project here in D.C.,
the South Capitol Street Corridor P, a phase one project, has
the following language in this agreement. Now Article 13, for
instance: ``The parties recognize the need to maintain
continuing support of programs designed to develop adequate
numbers of competent workers in the construction industry.''
Now, just remember that. ``Parties further recognize that
apprenticeship and training shall be offered consistent with
the applicable union's collective bargaining agreement,
consistent with the apprenticeship and training programs
currently maintained by the joint apprenticeship and training
committee sponsored by the unions and their signatory
contractors.'' In other words, if your company, a contractor
that is doing the work is not union and they need to train
workers, it has to come from the union shop.
So again, I just want to make clear that what Mr. Comer is
trying to do is not eliminate project labor agreements. It is
to remain neutral on this, and, again, I want to emphasize the
shortage of workers. I worked for two international engineering
construction companies, and we had union workers on certain job
sites, but most of our workforce was non-union. We were able to
get things done. And what we do not want to do is create more
impediments to developing the skilled labor force that we
desperately need and getting the infrastructure projects done
that we desperately need to get done.
So, do not take this necessarily as anti-union. This is
just trying to maintain a neutral status. And in my opinion,
Mr. Chairman, the issue really here is the dire situation that
we face with infrastructure and the need to get more skilled
workers on the job, whether union or non-union, and get these
projects completed. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. And if I may add, I just quote this from
the U.S. Department of Labor. ``Non-union workers covered under
PLAs may have to pay agency fees to cover costs associated with
the duty of unions to fairly represent all workers union and
non-union in the administration of collective bargaining
agreements.'' So----
Mr. Casar. So Mr. Chairman, that sounds like I am correct,
that non-union workers work on project labor agreements all the
time. They may, just like we have to all over the country, chip
in for representation because we do not want free riders and
freeloading. And I actually associate myself entirely with Mr.
Palmer's remarks that we need good apprenticeship programs, and
these are oftentimes managed both by contractors and unions
alike.
And the freeloading problem that we have started to find in
the construction industry is that oftentimes those workers get
trained up by unions. There may not be enough union work. Those
trained workers then go work elsewhere, and there is not the
economic incentive. There is a market failure for that kind of
apprenticeship program, and that is part of where I believe the
Federal Government can step in is when there is a market
failure. That is why the Federal Government and local and state
governments pay for schools because you cannot count on any one
business to educate everybody in the country.
In the same way, we need to make sure that when we are
using our Federal purchasing power, that we are training the
next generation to go into these jobs that are so, so critical
to our economy, and that is exactly what the Biden
Administration is doing. And the answer to my earlier question
is that all of those projects in Republican districts, and then
in mine as well, are all project labor agreement projects, are
training the workforce of the future for the infrastructure
projects of the future. We should be encouraging project labor
agreements because on projects like Naval Base Kitsap in 2015,
a multi-billion dollar project, it did not go over budget. It
went $250 million under budget. Most of our home construction
projects go over budget, so that is why I will be opposing this
bill.
Mr. Palmer. Well, again, I just wanted to make this point
that 87 percent of your workforce is non-union in the
construction trades, and they do an excellent job in those
companies in training the workforce. Having worked in
engineering and been involved in some major construction
projects, I have seen that firsthand. So, I just want to
emphasize again that, in my opinion, you are arguing against a
position that harms our ability to train our workforce, to get
more people into that workforce and to get these jobs done, but
I understand your position on the issue and the position you
are going to take on the bill. But I encourage my colleagues to
reconsider this and to support this bill because it makes
sense.
Mr. Casar. I understand it, and I appreciate the
conversation back and forth. Mr. Chairman, to clear up that
this does not discriminate between union and non-union workers,
and Mr. Palmer's reading of the project labor agreement
language that, while we may disagree, I think what you read out
actually solves the problem you are describing. I still do not
understand how a project labor agreement having people jointly
chip in for a state-of-the-art training program hurts workforce
development. What you read, I think, actually shows exactly why
project labor agreements are what we need to address the
construction worker shortages in the future. So, I think we
need that kind of article and many more construction contracts,
if we want to solve that problem.
Mr. Palmer. It actually forces the contractors to let the
union apprentice shops do the training rather than their own
shops, which they have invested heavily in, and again----
Mr. Casar. Yes. My understanding is, overwhelmingly--and if
you go talk to the Samsungs of the world, the Toyotas of the
world, the Hondas of the world, they are showing up and saying
let us set up joint union and contractor training programs
where we both chip in. ``Forced'' is another word for a
contract where we all agree and say let us jointly chip in, not
just one side or the other, so that we all have skin in the
game, and that is what actually gets people trained, so I do
not think it is forcing. It is saying, hey, we all agree to do
the best thing possible.
Mr. Palmer. We are having an----
Chairman Comer. I will let Gary Palmer conclude, then we
will move on to the next.
Mr. Palmer. And I will end with this, is that if this is
the right thing to do, it will happen. You do not need the
government to force it. And again, having worked in that
industry, what we try to do is develop best practices, and if
this is a best practice, it will happen. I yield back.
Mr. Casar. One second. You have a construction worker die
every 2-and-a-half days on the job, so not everything happens
right on its own.
Chairman Comer. The time has expired. Any other Member wish
to be recognized?
Mr. Goldman of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard?
Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman of New York. I would just like to re-emphasize
the point that my colleagues from Texas and Maryland have made
that I think is really the important issue here, which is
prevailing wage. That is what these project labor agreements
are guaranteeing. And if you do not have a prevailing wage,
what you find is the opportunity to abuse the workers, and it
becomes a race to the bottom to find the lowest-cost worker to
do the job. That means that you get worse quality of work, you
have fewer protections for the workers, and, of course, it also
means that the corporations make a disproportionate amount of
the money available but to be split between the corporations
and the workers.
Unions and prevailing wage has been principally responsible
for expanding the middle class in this country. That is what
many strive for in order to be able to support their family, to
have a homeownership, and to be able to live their American
dream. And by eliminating of prevailing wage, what you are
essentially doing is eliminating the opportunity for many to
achieve their goal of becoming a productive middle class
citizen in this country. And so, we can debate whether it is a
union or non-union, but the point here and the point of these
project labor agreements is to guarantee a certain standard of
work and a certain wage for those who are working in order to
ensure that there is quality of work, some worker protections,
and an expansion of the middle class.
And I do not know, Mr. Casar, if you would like me to yield
any more time? Apparently he does not, so I will yield back to
the Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any other
Members wish to be heard?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 1209, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair--the Chair recognizes Mr.
Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I call for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 192, to prohibit
individuals who are not citizens of the United States from
voting in elections in the District of Columbia.
The Clerk will please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 192, a bill to prohibit an individual who
is not a U.S. citizen from voting in any election in the
District of Columbia.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for an amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 192, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for
statement on the bill and the amendment.
Since the voters entrusted Republicans with control of the
House, this Committee has conducted long overdue oversight of
our Nation's capital city by convening three hearings on the
District of Columbia. Our most recent D.C. hearing, held
jointly with the Committee on House Administration, examined
the topic of election integrity in the District. On November
21, 2022, the District Government enacted the Local Resident
Voting Rights Amendment Act, allowing non-citizen residents to
vote in D.C. local elections. This includes illegal immigrants
and even foreign diplomats whose interests may be opposed to
the interests of Americans. This radical change to our election
laws upset lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. D.C. Mayor
Bowser withheld her signature on the Act, something she has
done only a handful times.
On February 9, 2023, 260 Members of the House voted to
overturn the D.C. Act through a resolution of disapproval,
which I sponsored. In that vote, I was happy to see Committee
colleague, Representative Jared Moskowitz, join 41 other House
Democrats in voting to block this D.C. law. However, this
bipartisan resolution of disapproval was not considered in the
Senate, so D.C.'s non-citizen voting law has gone into effect.
This is unacceptable.
The only factor that differentiates American citizens from
non-citizens is the right to vote. D.C. residents should be
confident that their local government is not being diluted by
lawful non-citizen residents or illegal immigrants. Article I
of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over
the Nation's Capital, and the House Rules charge the Oversight
Committee with a duty to oversee the municipal affairs of the
District of Columbia.
I urge my colleagues to support Representative Pfluger's
commonsense bill to ensure that only U.S. citizens have the
right to vote in local D.C. elections, and repeal D.C.'s
radical law. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would retitle this
bill ``The Insult to Injury Bill.'' The injury begins with the
massive and globally unique disenfranchisement of the residents
of the Federal capital city. The United States is the only
democratic Nation on earth which disenfranchises the people who
live in the capital city, which means that there are 700,000
taxpaying draftable American citizens who have participated in
every war that America has ever fought, beginning with the
American Revolution, and yet are denied voting representation,
both in the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate.
But it is not enough for Mr. Pflueger and our friends in
the GOP to deny 700,000 fellow citizens equal voting rights and
representation in Congress. Now they have to deny D.C. even the
right to decide who is going to vote in their local elections
because that is all we are talking about, who is going to vote
for school board and Advisory Neighborhood Commission and who
is going to vote for City Council and Mayor. There is one
Federal representative from the District of Columbia, Ms.
Norton, the distinguished non-voting delegate from the District
of Columbia. And under the legislation that H.R. 192 would
repeal in D.C., the local population does not vote, even for
the non-voting delegate, as I understand it. In any event, the
non-voting delegate, by definition, does not get to vote in
Congress, and so this is just really pretty much a symbolic
effort to add insult to injury.
It so happens, if you actually do any research on this,
that the vast majority of states permitted non-citizens to vote
for most of American history. Most of the states represented in
this Committee allowed non-citizens to vote at the local level.
Many of them allowed it even at the state and Federal level.
But when the republic began, the relevant suffrage restrictions
were based on wealth, property, race, and gender. And if you
were a propertied white man, you could vote, regardless of what
your citizenship was. Your citizenship was considered
completely irrelevant to it. And this primarily became an issue
there during the Civil War, where it was the Republican Party
which championed non-citizen voting, which is why a number of
newspapers in the South attacked Abraham Lincoln as an alien
President, saying that he was carried to victory on the
strength of the immigrant vote in New York, in Illinois, and in
other states. The southern states opposed immigrant suffrage
because they felt that immigrants were coming over to America
with radical ideas against slavery as Lincoln defended the
practice of non-citizen voting.
In any event, nothing remotely so controversial as what the
Republican Party of the 19th century endorsed is going on in
D.C. They are just talking about allowing people to vote in
school board elections. Now, our friends have made a big deal
out of diplomatic personnel from China and Russia. And perhaps
Chinese spies, like the one who apparently was going to be the
star witness for the Majority in their continuing efforts to
find something on Joe Biden, these people theoretically would
be allowed to vote. If you want to go after those people, well,
then say that diplomatic personnel and Chinese spies should not
be allowed to vote. But if they are talking about, I do not
know, 80,000 or 70,000 people, I do not know how many people
exactly are affected by voting in their local school board
elections, it is a very different matter than allowing
diplomatic personnel from Russia or China, where conceivably
there is some kind of Federal interest, although it has not
been identified or elucidated, at least to my satisfaction,
what that might be.
So, what is this really about? It is just about kicking
around the people of Washington, DC. I do not think we have had
any hearings about how we can actually assist the people of
Washington in any of their efforts to deal with the problems
there. Including the problem of gun violence as guns continue
to pour into Washington, DC, like other big cities across the
country. If we want to actually help people in Washington, why
don't we start by adopting the proposal which is advanced and
endorsed by more than 90 percent American people, a universal
violent criminal background check? Why don't we close the
internet loophole? Why don't we close the private gun show
loophole? There are things that we can do to help Washington
along with other big cities that exist in all of our states,
but this is not one of them. This is obviously a cheap shot
against the people of Washington who have decided to use their
very limited democratic rights to extend rights to people who
live in the city.
With that I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard? Ms.
Norton is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose this
undemocratic, paternalistic bill. This Congress, House
Republicans have become obsessed with overturning the District
of Columbia's election laws. They have already introduced 17
bills that would do so. Yet, they refuse to do the one and only
thing D.C. residents have asked them to do about elections in
D.C., which is to give D.C. residents voting representation in
the House and Senate, as well as full control over their local
affairs by passing the D.C. Statehood bill.
It is true that Congress has the constitutional authority
to legislate on local D.C. matters, but it is false that
Congress has a constitutional duty to do so. Instead,
legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice. D.C. residents,
a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy
of governing themselves. I remind my Republican colleagues, who
claim to revere the founders, what James Madison said in
Federalist 43, about the residents of the Federal District: ``A
municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their
own suffrages, will, of course, be allowed them.''
The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate full
legislative power--their words--full legislative power to D.C.
on local D.C. matters. Last year, the D.C. Council passed the
Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, which
allows non-citizens to vote but only in local D.C. elections.
This year, the House passed a disapproval resolution that would
have nullified this legislation, but the Senate never took it
up. The Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 is
now law and it should remain law. The Local Resident Voting
Rights Amendment Act of 2022 only applies to local, and I
stress, local D.C. elections.
But there is a long history in the United States of
allowing non-citizens to vote in local, state, territorial and
Federal elections. At various points, 40 states have permitted
non-citizens to vote. For example, Texas, the home state of the
sponsor of H.R. 192, and Kentucky, the home state of the Chair
of this Committee, used to allow non-citizens to vote. Today,
more than a dozen municipalities allow non-citizens to vote in
local, and I stress, local elections.
The D.C. Council has 13 members. The members are elected by
D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how members vote,
they can vote them out of office. Congress has 535 voting
Members. The Members are elected by residents of their states.
None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not
like how the Members vote, they cannot vote them out of office.
The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the
governed and taxation without representation. Yet D.C.
residents cannot consent to any actions taken by Congress,
including H.R. 192, and pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C.
residents pay more Federal taxes per capita than residents of
any state and more total Federal taxes than 19 states while
being denied voting representation in Congress.
I urge Members to vote no on this bill, and I urge this
Committee to keep its hands off D.C. and pass the D.C.
Statehood bill instead. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to note that so far in this Congress, in this Committee, we
have had 12 hearings of this full body total. Of those, three
of them in its entirety have been devoted to the District of
Columbia, so one-fourth of all of the hearings that we have had
in this body have been about Washington, DC, the District of
Columbia. Now, that is more attention that we have spent on any
other single issue in this full Oversight Committee, and it is
not even close, not government operations, not national
security, not the Federal workforce, not healthcare, all topics
that are the jurisdiction of this Committee in parts.
So, we have spent more time instead on the District of
Columbia, and I think that tells you everything what the
priorities are here in this Republican Majority. We have real
serious challenges that are facing our country, pressing issues
that deserve the attention of this body. But instead of doing
that work our constituents sent us here to accomplish, we have
devoted 25 percent of our time to essentially have Washington,
DC. be the political punching bag of this Committee. It is
transparent, and, quite frankly, it should be embarrassing to
this Committee.
This bill is just another opportunity for far-right House
Republicans to trample on the fundamental rights of 700,000
people, create fear, and pander to an extremist base. They do
not care about election integrity any more than they pretend to
care about crime in our hearings earlier this year. And if they
did, we would have been reviewing bills to strengthen campaign
finance laws or invest in preventing foreign interference in
our elections, but this is not about solutions. Obviously, this
Committee is about just attacking Washington, DC. over and over
and over again.
And I have said it before, and I will say it again, the
House Majority Members of this Committee, if they are really
that interested in Washington, DC, they should run for the
Washington, DC. City Council or even Mayor. It is a great job.
I have done it before, and that is really the forum for these
discussions about Washington, DC. And I am just curious, also
you know, we have already held one-fourth of our hearings about
Washington. And I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, should we expect
more hearings about Washington, DC. as part of this Committee?
Chairman Comer. Well, let me correct you. We have had,
counting our Subcommittees which we said was going to be a very
substantive part of this Committee process, we have had around
60 Committee hearings total. And we have discussed a lot of
things, from cybersecurity to pharmacy benefit managers. So, I
think we have had a pretty substantive Committee schedule, and
I would welcome you to compare our first 6 months to the first
6 months of my predecessor's Oversight Committee schedule and
the topics that have been discussed.
Mr. Garcia. Well, sir, I appreciate that, but the truth is,
we have had 12 full hearings of the Oversight Committee, where
all Members----
Chairman Comer. We do work in Subcommittees as well.
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely, sir. And I just think it is
interesting though of the 12 full hearings we have had of this
Committee, 25 percent of them, more than any other single
topic, have been about the District of Columbia, a majority
Black and Brown city, of which people are disenfranchised by
not having the fundamental rights of vote for representations.
So to me, that is something that is transparent, and it is
outrageous, quite frankly, and so I am hoping that that 25
percent number gets reduced.
And in closing, the name of this Committee, quite frankly,
should be the House Oversight Committee on the District of
Columbia, and with that, I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Comer. Let me just reiterate the point that our
conference is serious about not letting non-citizens vote. We
do not want this to be a trend across America. We want to
respect our election integrity. And this is an important issue,
as is crime, and the crime rate in Washington, DC. is out of
control, and when we have to step in, we will do that. That is
granted in the Constitution. We will continue to do that. I
wish we did not have to do that, but we are opposed to letting
non-citizens vote. That is a very important part of our
platform.
Mr. Raskin. Gentleman?
Mr. Garcia. I yield to Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you for yielding. The first point I would
like to make is that gun violence is crime. Some people talk
about crime and hope that it evokes images that do not relate
to the massacres that are taking place across the country in
churches, synagogues, Walmarts, grocery stores, everywhere you
turn. But the second thing is if we are really concerned about
the influence of non-citizens, a much bigger problem would be
non-citizen ownership of private stock in U.S. corporations,
and I wonder how our colleagues feel about that. Would you be
interested in a ban on non-citizens owning stock in large
corporations that have power in our country? That is a much
bigger threat than some non-citizens in Washington, DC, a vote-
less colony, essentially, being able to vote for an advisory
neighborhood commissioner.
Chairman Comer. I would like to see if the Ranking Member
would yield the question with respect to gun violence. What
good does it do to pass more gun laws when white privileged
children of high-ranking elected officials can simply get their
gun violations waived and others have to serve prison time? I
mean, I do not think it is equal justice here with respect to
the gun laws that are on the books. I think we need to focus on
the gun laws that are on the books first before we look at
other gun laws.
Mr. Raskin. Well, Hunter Biden is being prosecuted for his
gun offenses, and I am all for that. Are you opposed to him
being prosecuted?
Chairman Comer. Hunter Biden is not going to pay any price
for his violation of the gun laws, which you all have written.
But yet, you go to the prison system in Kentucky and it is full
of people who have been imprisoned for violation of gun laws,
for possession of illegal drugs, and I do not think that that
is fair. That is why there are certain conservatives, like me,
that were open to the criminal justice reform because we
believe that it has been racial in nature when you look at the
prison system in America, and the number of people who have
been incarcerated that are minorities for simple things like
possession of illegal drugs and possession of illegal firearm,
but then you see the President's son get by without anything.
And I am not even going to get into the tax evasion and the
being an unregistered foreign agent, and the list goes on and
on, money laundering, racketeering.
Mr. Raskin. Well, would you join me in supporting
decriminalization of marijuana then?
Chairman Comer. I have always been that way.
Mr. Raskin. Nationwide because that is something we could
do.
Chairman Comer. I have been that way forever.
Mr. Raskin. Well, let us work on that. That is something
concrete and bipartisan we could do that will end a war on many
communities in America, and I think we could get the support
for that certainly in my side of the aisle. I hope we could get
it on your side, and I would pledge to work with you on that.
But I think that we need much more aggressive enforcement of
the gun laws we have got. I am glad that Hunter Biden was
indicted for his gun offenses. And then some people think there
should be no gun laws at all, and I take it you are agreeing
with me that there should be gun laws in order to put the----
Chairman Comer. But you all wrote the gun laws, but then--
--
Mr. Raskin. Well, no. Actually, the NRA----
Chairman Comer. [continuing] People like Hunter Biden do
not have to pay the price but minorities do. I just wonder if
Hunter Biden's last name were not Biden and if he were a
Caucasian, where he would be right now with just that gun law,
just the gun law.
Mr. Raskin. Let me just say one thing about the gun law.
The National Rifle Association used to be in favor of
commonsense gun safety laws until it was turned into a
political instrument to try to divide and polarize America. And
it has succeeded, unfortunately, in doing so but 90 percent of
American people think that we should close all of these
loopholes and that everybody who purchases a gun should have a
background check. I hope you would agree with me on that.
Chairman Comer. I believe that you all are being very
hypocritical on the gun laws that are already on the books. And
the topic of this debate was whether or not illegals should
vote in elections, and that is something that our side of the
aisle is firm in being against. And quite frankly, a pretty
good percentage of your side of the aisle will vote for this
bill on the Floor as well.
Mr. Raskin. And then there is a strong argument that people
who are here on an undocumented basis should not be able to
purchase guns and should not be able to vote.
Chairman Comer. We believe that people who are here
illegally should not be here, period.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. And we should stop them from purchasing
arms, right?
Chairman Comer. We believe in securing the border, but
anyway, I am going to get back to the topic. I think the
gentleman's time has expired. Any other Members wish to speak?
Ms. Norton, did you finish? Are you good?
Ms. Norton. I am fine, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. All right. Good deal.
Mr. Casar. I just had one last question, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Casar. I think your time has expired,
but I will grant you----
Mr. Casar. My time for the whole hearing expired. Got it.
Thank you for granting it. You were correcting Mr. Garcia that
we have not spent 25 percent of our full Committee hearings on
D.C., but you said you were correcting that, but is it the case
that it is a different number? Is it 25 percent, or is a
different percentage of our full Committee hearings have been
dedicated to D.C.?
Chairman Comer. And I just have to say since you keep
bringing up the D.C., but we invited the D.C. Mayor to come
here. We were not critical. We were looking for opportunities
to work together, and I think that there are opportunities
where we can work together. I think we were very cordial to the
D.C. Mayor, and that has always been a practice of this
Committee to have the D.C. Mayor come and be treated with
cabinet secretary status.
Mr. Casar. No, I thought it was a good hearing. You had
mentioned you were correcting Mr. Garcia about the percentage
of hearings of this full body that have been dedicated to D.C.
I have not kept track. He said it was 25 percent of our full
Committee hearings. Has it been 25 percent of our full
Committee hearings are dedicated to D.C.?
Chairman Comer. Do any other Member wish to be heard?
Mr. Casar. So, I suppose that number is correct then.
Chairman Comer. Did you yield back?
Mr. Casar. I yield back to the Ranking Member----
Chairman Comer. OK. All right. Good deal. The question is
now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on it.
Chairman Comer. OK. You mean on the next one? We got one
that was on the amendment. We will do the full bill then. OK.
All right.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 192, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair--a recorded vote was requested
by Ms. Norton. So, as previously announced, further proceedings
on the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 3358, Mission Not
Emissions Act.
The Clerk will please report to bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 3358, Mission Not Emissions, a bill to
prohibit any requirement for recipients of Federal contracts to
disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial
risk, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 3358, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
I support H.R. 3358, the Mission Not Emissions Act. Since
assuming office after campaigning to be the unity president,
President Biden has launched a slew of whole-of-government
efforts to impose a radical progressive vision upon America.
Nowhere has this been more the case than in President Biden's
crusade to impose a progressive climate agenda on our entire
economy. And one of the worst features of President's climate
campaign is the President's attempt to impose burdensome new
requirements on the entire Federal contracting community,
including critical defense contracting.
On May 20, 2021, in service to the progressive's climate
ideology, President Biden signed Executive Order 14030 on
climate-related financial risk. Among other things, this
executive order directed the Federal Acquisition Regulation
Council to consider an amendment to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation framework that imposes requirements to disclose and
minimize Federal contractor greenhouse gas emissions. On
November 14, 2022, the FAR Council issued a proposed rule that,
if finalized, would mandate Federal contractors make extensive
disclosures of greenhouse gas emissions related to the business
operations.
The rule requires that contractors submit new emissions
reduction targets to a progressive nongovernmental
organization, the Science Based Targets Initiative, for
validation and subsequent compliance monitoring. This is a
matter for alarm. Science Based Targets Initiative is an
international third-party organization with unclear funding
sources and a clear bias against the fossil fuel industry. The
proposed rule's outsourcing of emissions target setting and
compliance monitoring to this NGO raises great concerns that
Federal contracting, including critical defense contracting,
will become subject to the whims of radical NGO funded by
foreign actors.
Commenters on the proposed rule have raised clear warnings
that if the rule is implemented without change, it may become
impossible for fossil fuel contractors to deliver mission-
critical fuels to our armed forces and the Federal vehicle
fleet. Put simply, the proposed rule places radical
environmental activist goals over U.S. national security
interests. It should be stopped, and this bill, the Mission Not
Emissions Act, will stop it.
The bill prohibits any requirement that recipients of
Federal contracts disclose greenhouse gas emissions and
climate-related financial risk as described in the proposed
rulemaking or any substantially similar future rule. It
similarly prohibits any requirement that recipients of Federal
contracts provide any greenhouse gas inventory or any other
report of greenhouse gas emissions to the Federal Government.
Finally, the bill prohibits requirements that recipients of
Federal contracts develop greenhouse gas emissions reduction
targets and submit them for validation to any non-governmental
organization. As the title of the bill puts it, this bill puts
the mission, not emissions, first.
I thank Budget Committee Chairman, Jodey Arrington, for
introducing this unfortunately necessary bill, and I urge my
colleagues' full support. I now recognize the Ranking Member
for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do not know what
progressive climate ideology is, but I do know that the
scientific consensus is 99 percent or a 100 percent that the
Earth has warmed considerably over the last 100 years and that
there are man-made industrial causes behind the radical climate
change that the whole Earth is experiencing. Look, the Federal
Government has got to be an instrument for the common good of
all of the people. And today, the week after the Earth suffered
its 3 hottest days in at least 125,000 years, the common good
requires us to confront the reality of this climate emergency
and to intensify our actions to address it.
I strongly oppose H.R. 3358 because it does the exact
opposite of what we need. It attempts to keep emissions and
other critical public data about climate secret, as if the best
response to the out-of-control forest fires in California, or
crippling heat waves through the South and Texas, or the
unbreathable air we suffered in the Midwest and the mid-
Atlantic from Canada, or the brutal floods experienced over the
weekend in Vermont and upstate New York, is just to sweep
climate change under the rug and describe the opinion of
science and the common sense of the people as radical
environmentalist ideology. That is just a deranged way to go.
June and July's scorching temperatures devastated states
across America. In Texas, the power grid again teetered on the
brink of catastrophic failure that appears to have been staved
off, so far, thanks only to renewable wind and solar energy.
Oil and gas companies released hundreds of tons of toxic
climate warming carcinogenic gas into the air to avoid
explosions as the heat caused the gas to expand inside the
pipeline systems. And on a single day in June--June 20th, to be
exact--at least 350 residents of Texas wound up in emergency
departments due to heat illnesses, and hundreds of people have
died in Europe from the heat waves there.
Eugene Gates, a postal worker in Congresswoman Crockett's
district in Texas, lost his life to the heat. And we wrote you
a letter about this, Mr. Chairman. June and July's devastating
heatwaves swept across the country alongside the toxic smoke
from Canada's record-breaking wildfires. Climate change is
increasing the intensity of wildfires so rapidly that
researchers are grappling with cost estimates, but some recent
estimates put the cost of adverse health effects in Ontario
alone at $1.28 billion for just 5 days in early June. If you
extrapolate that estimate for all of Canada and the United
States and across the full timeframe of that smoke disaster,
which blanketed these areas, it makes the full toll of this one
climate crisis incident beyond staggering: hundreds of billions
of dollars or even over a trillion dollars from one episode.
Now, my GOP colleagues have observed these disasters,
runaway floods, runaway wildfires, storms of unprecedented
severity, dangerous air quality, deadly heat, and they have
decided the best way to deal with it all, the best way to
address the climate crisis is by using the magical thinking of
a 2-year-old and pretending that it does not exist. H.R. 3358,
the so-called Mission Not Emissions Act, would prohibit anyone
from requiring a Federal contractor to disclose greenhouse gas
emissions and climate-related financial risks, or to provide a
greenhouse gas inventory or any other report on greenhouse gas
emissions, or to develop and validate emission reduction
targets.
The Federal Government is the world's single largest
purchaser of goods and services, and the American people depend
on it in Congress to ensure that the more than $650 billion
spent annually on Federal contracts is done in the most
effective and productive way. And if one of the critical
contractors in our supply chain is vulnerable to climate risk
that could shut down its operations at any time, we need to
know that. Not knowing it poses a grave threat to the missions
of each Agency of the Federal Government and the American
people that we serve. Public disclosure is essential to
reducing risk and fully understanding the scope of the threats
we face. We cannot afford to not know.
James Madison said that those who mean to be their own
Governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge
gives. And why would we pass a law that specifically suppresses
the knowledge that we need in order to address the climate
emergency that is bearing down on us? So, I strongly oppose
this bill and I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back to you.
Chairman Comer. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record the following document: a letter to this Committee in
support of the Mission Not Emissions Act from the Competitive
Enterprise Institute.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 3358, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion--Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Request a recorded vote.
A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced,
further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 890, Guidance Out
of Darkness Act.
The Clerk will please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 890, Guidance Out of Darkness (GOOD) Act, a
bill to increase access to Agency guidance documents.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 890, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
I am pleased to call up for consideration today my bill,
H.R. 890, the Guidance out of Darkness Act, or the GOOD Act.
Regulatory guidance includes Agency statements that while not
intended to have the force and effect of law, establish Agency
policies on statutory, regulatory, or technical issues. Because
it communicates how an Agency will administer the law and its
programs, regulatory guidance has a significant effect on the
public and the behavior of regulated entities. Regulated
entities and the public should be able to know what an Agency
has said in Agency guidance about the laws and programs that
affect them. And here is the problem: agency guidance documents
are not easy to find. The problem is so bad that Agency
guidance documents are known as ``regulatory dark matter.''
Prior to the Trump Administration, guidance documents were
not consistently posted on Agency websites. This inconsistency
burdened regulated entities, and small businesses who often
lack the resources to hire compliance experts are especially
negatively impacted. For a brief time, the Trump Administration
brought needed sunshine to this situation. Following the GOOD
Act's passage by the House during the 115th Congress, President
Trump voluntarily adopted the bill's reforms through an October
2019 executive order after the Senate failed to act.
Under the executive order, guidance was required to become
fully transparent online. Across the government, each Agency
was directed to make available on its website a single
searchable index data base with links to all guidance documents
in effect. As a result, and for the first time, members of the
public could easily find whatever Agency guidance they needed
online and in a central location. However, the Biden
Administration rescinded Executive Order 13891. Ever since,
agencies have been pulling down their guidance web pages and
guidance has once again fallen into the darkness, increasing
the potential for Agency abuse.
It is time the GOOD Act becomes law and agencies are
required to publish their regulatory guidance in a single,
easily accessible location. This will restore agency guidance
document transparency. The American public deserves nothing
less from their government. I urge my colleagues to support
this simple and necessary bill. I now recognize the Ranking
Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that eloquent
statement on behalf of the bill. I support H.R. 890. I
appreciate the changes you have made to it since the Committee
last took it up. The bill would require agencies to publish
guidance documents on a dedicated website, and for the Director
of OMB to designate a single website where all guidance could
be found. In many cases, these documents are already public
information, and making them more accessible and more
centralized in a public way is a good and transparent idea. So,
I thank you for that.
I am still moved by your statement that we could perhaps
work together on reforming marijuana policy in the country. Mr.
Chairman, I have got a bill that I want to show to you right
away, which would keep our people--Republicans, Democrats,
Independents--safe from being denied security clearances
because they admit to having used marijuana even lawfully under
a medical marijuana program or in a state which permits it to
be used, and this is a serious problem for my constituents. I
imagine it is a serious problem for your constituents, too.
But I have gotten bunches of letters from people who have
made it all the way through the Federal Government hiring
process and then get cutoff at the end when they tell the truth
that they have used marijuana for a medical condition or they
have used it in some other way. So, I would love to show that
to you, and I would love to invite your participation in that
with me. I have got a copy of it for you, and I yield back to
you. Thank you very much.
Chairman Comer. I thank the Ranking Member. I ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record the following documents: a
letter to this Committee in support of the GOOD Act from the
Competitive Enterprise Institute; a letter to this Committee in
support of the GOOD Act from the National Taxpayers Union; a
letter to this Committee in support of the GOOD Act from the
National Federation of Independent Business.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 890, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Burlison.
Mr. Burlison. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested and
ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the
question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 4435, the
Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act or USA Act.
The Clerk will please report the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 4435, a bill to establish a budgetary level
reduction schedule, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 4435, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as an
original text for the purpose of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for
statement on the bill and the amendment. congressional
Republicans are committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are
spent wisely on Federal Government programs. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government spent $510
billion on programs with expired operations in Fiscal Year
2023. About half of these programs expired more than a decade
ago. This is unacceptable. Congress needs to pay closer
attention to the many Federal programs left on autopilot. These
programs are operating without diligent congressional oversight
and timely legislative authorizations to keep these programs
relevant to the challenges of today.
The Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act, or USA Act,
addresses this problem by requiring Congress to review
unauthorized programs on a recurring basis. It also creates a
clear process for terminating programs that are no longer
needed or which do not have the legislative support within
Congress for their reauthorization. The bill would implement a
gradual reduction in the overall appropriated funding levels
over a 3-year period for the total amount of unauthorized
programs. This gives Congress time to consider each program and
pass necessary reauthorization legislation. It is not too much
to ask that Congress provide the appropriate level of scrutiny
over the Federal programs it has established and find the time
every 3 years to ensure that Federal funds are being used
responsibly and effectively. The timeframe under the USA Act
forces that to happen. This bill will increase government
efficiency, improve the effectiveness of Federal Agency
programs and missions, and help reduce government spending.
I want to thank my House colleague, Energy and Commerce
Committee Chairwoman, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, for working with
me on this important legislation. I call upon my colleagues to
support this necessary legislation. I now recognize the Ranking
Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You know,
the Constitution has an appropriations clause, Article I,
Section 9, Clause 7, but it does not have an authorization
clause. In other words, Congress must appropriate money for it
to be spent, but it does not have to authorize money to be
spent. It can just appropriate it. The distinction between
authorization and appropriation is a parliamentary expedient
which Congress has used in order to clarify and elucidate the
process.
The H.R. 4435, the Unauthorized Spending Accountability
Act, should perhaps be renamed the ``Dysfunction Proliferation
Act,'' because it would mire congressional proceedings down in
a new and overwhelmingly untenable workload and threaten
important Federal programs. It would ultimately terminate all
discretionary Federal programs without permanent authorizations
that are not expressly reauthorized by Congress at least every
3 years, a radical departure from current congressional
practice and one that has no basis in the Constitution.
Congress routinely appropriates funding for important programs
and activities whose authorizations have lapsed, including an
estimated $510 billion in 2023. This bill would wreak havoc on
important government programs and services that our
constituents rely on every single day, programs like hospital
care and medical services for veterans, Section 8 housing
assistance, Pell Grants for America's college students, and
essential Head Start programs for children.
The GAO's definitive guide on the Principles of
Appropriations Law states that the very existence of a statute
that requires funding in order to perform substantive functions
``is itself sufficient legal authorization for the necessary
appropriations.'' In other words, whether or not a Federal
program's authorization is expired is of virtually no
consequence to Federal agencies, the rule of law, the courts,
or our constituents who depend on them. This GOP bill benefits
absolutely no one but extremist mega lawmakers who want to
defund programs and entire agencies and offices that they just
do not like.
According to the CBO, in Fiscal Year 2023, Congress saw fit
to appropriate funding toward 428 expired authorizations
associated with extensively deliberated and well-supported
public laws, including the Veterans Health Care Eligibility
Reform Act, the 21st Century Cures Act, the Violence Against
Women Act, and many more. An additional 355 authorizations
expire this year. If this bill were to become law, Mr. Comer's
fellow committee chairs would need to immediately set aside
their agendas for the rest of the term to deal with the self-
inflicted catastrophe of these reauthorization needs, which
would consume up vast amounts of time and resources and likely
still fail given the dysfunctional nature of the House
Republican caucus, which we have seen on display recently.
If my colleagues are sincere in their interest to address
some of the incoherence of the authorization and appropriations
practices in Congress, I would embrace a serious analysis and
transparent process to examine viable alternatives. This should
include the solicitation of views from Democratic and
Republican committee leadership, a consideration of
recommendations arising from rigorous academic studies of
Congress, and technical assistance from both Federal Agencies
and community groups to understand the full implications of
proposed changes. Such scrutiny would clearly show that this
Dysfunction Expansion Act is a thinly veiled attempt just to
kneecap vital Federal programs, taking Congress's internal
problems, and then making them all of the problems of America.
I urge my colleagues to do the obvious thing and join me in
opposing this ill-conceived legislation that will defund
veterans' healthcare, housing assistance, programs helping
college students afford their tuition, and programs that
support early education for infants and children across the
country. If we want to do this, let us do it seriously with
some hearings. And I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record the following documents: a letter to this Committee in
support of the USA from the National Taxpayer Union.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
Mr. Raskin. I have an amendment at the desk now, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment Number 1 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 4435, offered by Mr. Raskin of
Maryland.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
Chairman Comer. I reserve a point of order. The Ranking
Member is recognized for 5 minutes to explain the amendment.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. My amendment
prohibits budgetary reductions in program terminations that
would otherwise be required by the bill unless they have been
determined to have no adverse effect on the entities or
populations they are designed to serve. It also changes the
terms used throughout the bill from ``unauthorized programs,''
which misleadingly suggests that the programs were never
authorized or are operating without legal authority in some
way, to instead refer to ``legally authorized programs.'' This
aligns with the determination made by the Government
Accountability Office, as I mentioned previously in my
statement.
I have here a list of the 428 programs or activities the
CBO has identified as having been funded in 2023, even though
they are associated with expired authorizations for
appropriation. They include the Agricultural Improvement Act,
the Agricultural Credit Act, the National Defense Authorization
Act, the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act, Every
Student Succeeds Act, Improving Head Start for School Readiness
Act, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, Workforce
Innovation Opportunity Act, Every Student Succeeds Act, Higher
Education Opportunity Act. That is just the first page on what
looks to be about 28 or 30 pages of programs. More than half of
these authorizations expired more than 10 years ago,
demonstrating that both Republican and Democratic majorities
understand the value and importance of the current practice we
have in place, which, again, is perfectly consistent with the
Constitution.
To provide just a few more examples of what would be
threatened if this bill were to become law without my
amendment, the authorization for veterans' medical care
appropriations. Over 9 million veterans are currently enrolled
in the VA healthcare program. Do we really just want to
essentially cut the lifeline for 9 million veterans because
there has not been an authorization when Congress is voting
constitutionally to appropriate money for that exact purpose,
which had been authorized before?
The authorization for the National Institute for Health
expired in 2020. This is a matter of some moment in my district
because I represent the NIH and a lot of people who work there.
Life without the NIH would mean severely reduced hope for
better treatments and cures for devastating diseases, like
cystic fibrosis, and multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's
disease, and lung disease, and colon cancer, heart disease,
ALS, substance use disorders, stroke, and Parkinson's. Do we
really just want to terminate all of that? The authorization
for the Child Care and Development Block Grant expired 3 years
ago. As of Fiscal Year 2020, the program served almost 1.5
million children and their families in the country. Head Start
expired in 2012. That provides 1 million children in need with
early education and support services.
So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, I think everybody should
agree, belongs in this bill. If we really think that we need
the shock to the system administered by this bill, all right,
you guys go ahead and vote for it. But please do not send all
of these dependent populations on particular programs, from
veterans to children to NIH patients, often to the wilderness
on their own. And I move the amendment, and I yield back to
you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
myself for 5 minutes. I unfortunately must oppose this
amendment because it undermines the purpose of the bill. This
legislation is intended to force Congress to give the
appropriate oversight and legislative attention to individual
agencies and programs within their appropriate authorizing
committee.
I agree with the Ranking Member on one point: we should
indeed determine the impact of programs on affected
populations. That is the entire point of the authorization
process. The USA Act will force long-overdue deliberations to
take place. We should not let ourselves off the hook by
granting exemptions to various programs. Additionally, I am not
sure who would be conducting the valuation of impacted
population under this amendment, the agencies themselves? I
think I know what agencies are likely to say about how
impactful all their programs are. Authorizations and
determinations of a program's impact on impacted populations
requires Congress. The USA Act does not impact an individual
program for the first few years. This is by design to give the
appropriate legislative authorization committees time to do
their oversight and authorization work. For these reasons, I
oppose Ranking Member Raskin's amendment.
Do any other Members wish to speak on this amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment
offered by Mr. Raskin.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is not agreed to.
The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
also.
Chairman Comer. All right. Will the Clerk please report?
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, could we have a recorded vote on
the amendment?
Chairman Comer. Yes. That is what I was thinking. The
question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
So, a recorded vote has been requested. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
OK. The Clerk will report the Garcia amendment.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Amendment
Number----
Chairman Comer. Wait, wait, wait. The Clerk needs to report
it first.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 4435, offered by Mr. Garcia of California.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
Chairman Comer. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman
is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to the
Committee. I just want to be also clear. The act that is being
discussed is really nothing more than a scheme to cripple
Congress and to give right-wing extremists more and more
opportunities to sabotage our government and eliminate,
essentially, programs that help people. So, eliminating
agencies and programs which are funded each year through
Congress, even though committees have not consistently
reauthorized them, sounds like a good idea, I know, to some,
until you realize it is really just a tool to cripple agencies
and programs that House Republicans might deem unworthy. So,
this is despite Americans' overwhelming support for these
programs.
Now, let us actually consider if this bill, the so-called
USA Act, were into effect today. The bill would cut 10 percent
of funding for the National Institutes of Health, essentially
destroying our public health research and leaving us wide open
to the threat of future pandemics, then another 15 percent cut
the next year and another 15 percent cut the year after that,
so essentially eliminating the National Institutes of Health in
our government. It would slash, to be clear, veterans' medical
care. It would slash, and defund, and gut NASA, and in 3 years,
it would end all funding for Section 8 housing and throw
families out onto the street when we have a homelessness crisis
happening across the country and in many of our states.
It would also slash programs that fight lead poisoning,
asthma, or epilepsy in children, and it essentially would
defund and end the FBI as we know it. And now I know that many
of my colleagues in this Committee would probably welcome that
in their blind defense of indebted criminal, Donald Trump, and
certainly, there have been Members of this Committee that have
actually called to actually defund the FBI and law enforcement,
but we know that the American people overwhelmingly recognize
that this is a ridiculous proposal. Now, the party that claims
to support law enforcement would also eventually abolish the
U.S. Marshals Service with this act, and also important
programs for Federal, and local, and state law enforcement
officers that are critical would all be damaged because of
these cuts that would happen year after year after year.
I want to remind my friends in the Majority on this
Committee that they actually control the agenda, and if they
would like to write authorizations for these programs, they
should go right ahead and do those. But we know that House
Republicans will not do any of the work of actually governing
the country, but they are really here to cripple our
government. And that is why I am offering this amendment, which
is to save some of the most critical programs, which are funded
at over $10 billion a year, and each of which would face
massive cuts under this extreme proposal.
So, let us be clear. If you vote against this amendment and
for this bill, you are voting to cut veterans' healthcare,
slash the National Institutes of Health, throw families out of
housing through Section 8, gut NASA, and defund the FBI. So,
please support my amendment and vote no on the underlying bill.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I oppose this
amendment because it undermines the purpose of the bill. This
legislation is intended to force Congress to give the
appropriate oversight and legislative attention to every Agency
and program within their appropriate authorizing committee. The
USA Act will force long-overdue deliberations to take place.
This amendment would exempt programs under $10 billion in
funding from the requirements of the Act. That would exempt the
majority of Federal programs and make the bill moot. Congress
should be conducting regular oversight of all programs at all
funding levels to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are
spent responsibly. This is by design to give the appropriate
legislative authorization committees time to do their oversight
and authorization work. For these reasons, I oppose the Garcia
amendment.
Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chair, can I also have a recorded vote,
please?
Chairman Comer. OK.
Mr. Garcia. Well, actually, Mr. Raskin, I will yield my
time.
Chairman Comer. All right. The Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of
Mr. Garcia's amendment, and I thank him for his care in
developing it. You know, I guess what troubles me about the
whole exercise is that there is a kind of devil-may-care
cavalierness about the whole thing, as if the sponsors know it
is not really going to happen so they can just make a statement
with the bill. If there is a serious problem with us voting for
appropriations for programs where the underlying authorization
has lapsed, then we should have hearings about that, and we
should analyze how to move forward in a serious and
constructive way.
But I do not think anybody believes that this is productive
unless the idea really is to throw veterans off of their
healthcare and to end our funding for Head Start and so on
because, as we said before, we know that there will be enough
opposition within the GOP Majority caucus that there will not
be the ability to actually get those programs authorized,
especially with such a tiny, slender margin, and such tumult
and turbulence within the GOP caucus right now, and the
dependence on the votes of Members like George Santos. So, I
would much prefer if we would spend our time actually examining
the problem rather than going through the motions of this
pretend legislation.
But in any event, if we are going to move forward with this
rather hollow exercise, we certainly need to adopt Mr. Garcia's
amendment because if we do not, we could end up doing some
serious damage. And I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to speak on the
amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment offered by Mr. Garcia.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Recorded vote please, if I could request that?
Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. As
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed.
Do any other Members wish to be recognized for the purpose
of offering an amendment? Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Yes, Mr. Chairman. May I proceed?
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the Crockett
amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 4435, as offered by Ms. Crockett of Texas.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
Chairman Comer. I reserve a point of order. The gentlewoman
is recognized for 5 minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask consent to
offer an amendment to Bill H.R. 4435, the Unauthorized Spending
Accountability Act. Under this bill, there will be a
reoccurring 3-year budgetary level reduction cycle with respect
to any unauthorized program beginning in Fiscal Year 2024,
consistent with the requirements of this act. My amendment
would exempt the administration and operation of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, from this bill.
As we all know, FEMA's primary mission is to help those
within the country before, during, and after disasters.
Disasters can come in many forms. FEMA responds to all declared
domestic disasters and emergencies, whether natural or manmade,
whether it is responding to a severe storm, like those in
Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma or Texas, wildfires, or severe
flooding, or even horrific events like those from 911.
FEMA has never faltered from assisting those who have
experienced horrific events that have altered the lives and
livelihoods of U.S. citizens. However, with extreme weather
events happening, like hurricanes and tornadoes, becoming more
and more prevalent, I have grave concerns of the impact of this
bill on FEMA's ability to help our constituents. FEMA has
assisted in shelter, food, clothing, health, and housing during
moments when our constituents are facing some of the most
challenging that they have ever faced in their lives. For
example, over the last year, FEMA has spent more than $9
billion in assisting our constituents impacted by Hurricane
Ian, but FEMA relief also is being provided across the country
to areas hit by wildfires, floods, mudslides, and more.
As one of my colleagues recently stated, emergency
management cannot be politicized and should always be
prioritized. Accordingly, while I believe all of us want a
government that is fiscally responsible, I believe we also want
a government that is accountable and reliable to its people in
times of disaster and tragedy. That is why I believe this
amendment is vital and should be adopted.
And let me just add to this. When we start talking about
FEMA and the work that FEMA does, FEMA does not just do work in
red states, blue states, or help out just independents. FEMA
helps everyone out, and we recently here in D.C. were actually
under air quality warning simply because of the wildfires that
were spreading from Canada. So, we know that these events are
occurring, and so the last thing that I like to do is pretend
that any of us have a magic globe that will allow us to tell us
how many disasters are coming and how much money is going to be
necessary to adequately take care of our shared constituencies.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield for a question?
Ms. Crockett. Absolutely.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Crockett, thank you for your leadership in
bringing forward this amendment. As you were talking, it made
me wonder why the Majority, since it is in the Majority, if
they care about the authorization of FEMA or any other Agency,
why do not they just move to authorize it and put that on the
agenda rather than moving to de-fund all of these agencies
unless they are authorized. In other words, why do not they
take the positive step of moving forward to authorize? And I
wonder if you have any insight into that.
Ms. Crockett. I actually do not. I have no insight as to
why we would not move to authorize agencies such as this one
considering the important work that is done. I come technically
from a red state, but let me tell you that we have had historic
flooding down in Houston that so many people still have not
recovered from. We have had historic flooding in Dallas as
well, and not to mention, as someone who also serves on the Ag
Committee, just listening to my farmers, and them talking about
the historic droughts and the burning that is happening as well
as the flooding. This is affecting their livelihoods, and so
their shared stories of what is happening in Texas, especially
for our farmers, is happening throughout the entire country, in
rural America.
So, this is really important, no matter, really, what state
you come from, that we do not strap them down because the one
thing that we do know is that there is an emergency coming. The
one thing that we do not know is how much it is going to cost
us.
Chairman Comer. Does the gentlelady yield back?
Ms. Crockett. I yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. This amendment,
unfortunately, goes directly against the problem the USA Act is
trying to solve. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or
FEMA, is a primary agency designed by Congress to ensure safety
and readiness should disaster strike our great country. I hope
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree that
FEMA's programs, which aim to provide a safety net in the case
of emergencies, are important enough for Congress to examine on
a regular basis. Are we the authorization committee with
relevant expertise of FEMA? No. So, I would defer to my
colleagues, Chairman Mark Green, and Ranking Member Bennie
Thompson, and their Members, as to the legal authority and
authorized appropriations FEMA needs to deliver on its mission.
But I do know this. The Homeland Security Committee should
be conducting regular oversight of FEMA and not letting this
critical executive branch agency run on autopilot. Because of
this, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Crockett amendment,
and I yield back.
Do any other Members wish to be recognized?
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of
this amendment, and I thank Ms. Crockett for laying out in
important detail and with a lot of evidence why it is so
important. FEMA is our emergency management and emergency
response Agency, and it is charged with responding to
unforeseen emergencies. That is, therefore, in and of itself
very difficult to identify and predict. And if we are going to
reduce the amount of money available to FEMA simply because
they cannot designate or specifically authorize their money, we
are undermining the purpose of FEMA and the essential work that
it does.
And I think Ms. Crockett's point that this is not a red
state or blue state issue is very well taken. This is an
American issue. And I would note that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle can rail against government spending,
can oppose government spending, but when there is an emergency
in their district, they are the first to reach out to FEMA and
the Federal Government for assistance. And so, the fact that
that this bill would potentially and almost automatically limit
FEMA's resources undermines the important work it does and will
have a detrimental effect to Americans all around the country,
and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member wish to speak on the
Crockett amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
Crockett amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
And Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. I would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested and
ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the
question will be postponed.
All right. Do any other Members wish to be recognized for
the purpose of offering an amendment?
Mr. Raskin. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the Raskin
Number 2 amendment?
The Clerk. Raskin Amendment Number 2 to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4435, as offered by Mr.
Raskin of Maryland.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
Chairman Comer. I reserve a point of order. The Ranking
Member is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. My
amendment would exempt programs and associated budgetary levels
that pertain to the defense of Ukraine against the imperialist
invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin and the Russian military.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is a war that has divided the
world as the autocratic, authoritarian, dictatorial nations of
the world have supported Russia's bloody, imperialist,
atrocity-fueled invasion of Ukraine. The free and democratic
nations of the world have rallied to the side of Ukraine, which
is defending its sovereignty in a just war of self-defense
against Putin's forces.
So, this is about wartime, and we would not want anything
in this legislation, which obviously I have already expressed
my misgivings over, but we would not want anything to endanger
our support for the people of Ukraine and the forces in Ukraine
that are resisting this autocratic aggression against the
people they are, and in defense of their own sovereignty, and
in defense of their democracy.
We know that Putin decided to go to war precisely because
it was such a threat to his form of autocratic and kleptocratic
rule to have an example of a free democratic society that is
based on the values of pluralism and tolerance and the
education and the nurturance of all the people of the society.
That was just too much of a threat to him. So, America has been
a critical and indispensable ally, as it always has been in
struggles for democracy and human rights against authoritarian
and totalitarian aggression. And I do not know if this was an
oversight on the part of the drafters, but certainly, we would
not want anything in this legislation to endanger American
support for the ongoing struggle of the Ukrainian people to
defend their country.
So with that, I urge approval of this amendment on a
unanimous and bipartisan basis to demonstrate continuing
congressional support for the people of Ukraine. I know that
there are a handful of Members who have expressed support for
Vladimir Putin and are questioning support for Ukraine. I know
that there are people who have been attacking President
Zelensky, but I do not know that any of them are on this
Committee. They are certainly not in the room right now, and I
hope that all of us could agree to adopt this amendment
together. And I yield back to you.
Chairman Comer. I recognize myself now for 5 minutes.
Again, I must, unfortunately, oppose this amendment for the
same reason I opposed the Ranking Member's first amendment. It
would undermine the purpose of the bill, which is intended to
force Congress to do oversight of the programs it creates and
funds and reauthorize them regularly. If there is any place the
Congress should be conducting regular oversight within the
appropriation authorization committees, it is with the
financial assistance the American taxpayer is providing for the
Ukrainian conflict. Times of international conflict should
require more, not less, congressional oversight.
Second, today, the House is considering the Annual Defense
Authorization Act, one of the few authorization bills Congress
considers every year. The invasion of Ukraine prompted an
urgent response and significant financial investment to the
part of our Defense Department. But this was never intended to
turn into a blank check on spending and put spending on
autopilot. The House Foreign Affairs Committee as well as the
Armed Services Committee should carefully weigh the future of
unauthorized programs and do a full assessment of our
priorities from year to year as circumstances change. While the
U.S. continues to prioritize foreign assistance to our allies,
we cannot use this as an excuse for runaway spending without
sufficient analysis or oversight. For these reasons, I oppose
the Raskin's Number 2 amendment.
Do any other Members wish to be recognized?
Mr. Goldman. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I do not
understand how this is an oversight issue. This is an automatic
reduction by 10 percent of any program that has been authorized
and then that authorization expires, so at some point, it was
authorized. And you rail and my colleagues on the other side
frequently rail against wanton and excessive spending, but what
this bill is targeting is the Administration, the executive
branch, actually being quite judicious in its spending because
if there remains money from previously authorized programs,
then that necessarily means that the executive branch has not
been wantonly spending. And so, the notion that you oppose this
amendment simply because it provides an exemption from this
bill makes no sense. It especially makes no sense when we
cannot foresee what exactly will happen in the brutal attack,
violating all sorts of international law, by the dictatorial
regime under Vladimir Putin against a democracy next door to
it.
And Mr. Raskin made a comment that this is about
international warfare. That is true, but it is also
fundamentally about democracy. And for this Committee and this
body to try to limit the ability of the Department of Defense
or other executive branch agencies to defend democracy around
the country, which, I might add, has a very significant impact
on our own national security, notwithstanding many comments
from colleagues on the other side, you are handcuffing our
ability to support Ukraine against a brutal, dangerous,
unwarranted, unprovoked, and wholly improper attack by a
dictatorial regime.
And so, the Republicans can couch objection to this
amendment in a vague concern that it is contrary to the purpose
of the bill, which does not really explain why a bill cannot
have an amendment, and because of your designation or your
determination that it can be dealt with in the NDAA, but we are
dealing with it right now in this bill in addition to the NDAA.
And I think it is shameful that the Republicans on the other
side of the aisle are effectively taking the side of Vladimir
Putin against the democracy in Ukraine by refusing to exempt
any funding to support Ukraine, our democratic ally in its
fight for its own freedom, its own democracy, against
authoritarianism, which is a fight that the United States must
never ever cease to participate in. And I yield back.
Chairman Comer. All I will respond by saying that just
because the Republicans do not want to provide a blank check to
Ukraine does not mean that Republicans support Vladimir Putin.
Does any other Member----
Mr. Goldman. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Comer. You time has expired. No. Your time has
expired. Any other Member who wishes to add to that?
Mr. Goldman. So, you can respond, but I cannot respond to
you?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. I would like to yield time to my colleague.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. We are not talking about
a blank check. We are talking about money that has already been
authorized for this purpose but has not been used by the
expiration of that authorization. So, it is not an open
checkbook to Ukraine or any other authorized program. There is
a specific amount that was authorized, that was not used by the
time of that expiration of authorization, and what you are
saying here is false. It is not a blank check. It is a check
that has already been authorized by Congress that the
Administration has the discretion to use as it sees fit. And
so, I wholly object to the characterization that it is a blank
check to Ukraine. It is not. And I yield back to Mr. Lynch.
Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Lynch. I am reclaiming my time, and I yield additional
time to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. And I want to thank the very distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts. But just a quick postscript to
what our colleague from New York just pointed out. It is not
just that the money has already been authorized or the program
has been authorized. It is that the money has been
appropriated. We are talking about money that has already been
voted on in a bicameral fashion presented to the President
under the Constitution and that has gone out the door. But the
claim here is that if the underlying authorization had
technically expired, even though the expenditure of the money
was appropriated and voted on in proper constitutional fashion,
that should be revoked, that that should not be possible.
And that is obviously an attempt to throw a monkey wrench
into the way that Congress has acted for decades under both
Republicans and Democrats controlling the gavel. And to me, it
smacks of this continuing effort that began with Steve Bannon
to, you know, demolish what he called the administrative state,
or the Deep State, or, essentially, democracy, and that is
really what is at stake here, both in America and in Ukraine
because democracy needs to have procedures and rules and
traditions for operation. And they want to take a wrecking ball
to all of them so that the government shuts down the way that
the Republican caucus itself seems to be in a completely
dysfunctional in broken-down mode. I do not want the government
United States to operate with the extremism, fanaticism, and
dysfunctionality that we have seen on display within the GOP
caucus, and that is precisely what this bill would accomplish
at this point.
So, we are talking about the defense of democracy here as
well as the allies of the United States. In Ukraine, we do not
want to endanger our ability to support the people of Ukraine
with appropriations that have already been made by Congress to
support that just war of self-defense against Putin's invasion.
President Biden has said numerous times that the autocrats of
the world have told him, like President Xi, that they do not
think democracy can work in this century. It is subject to too
much division and polarization. It is subject to too much
extremism and fanaticism. You need tough guy dictatorship to
make it work, and there are those who want to fulfill the
predictions of the autocrats and see democracy break down, and
we cannot allow that to happen.
If we think there is a real problem with the way the
interaction between authorizations and appropriations works in
Congress, let us have some hearings. Let us analyze it. There
are people who study these things. Let us not just, you know,
come down on the whole thing with a sledgehammer. Let us
analyze it and let us proceed in a thoughtful and deliberate
way. But in the meantime, let us not endanger our support for
people who are fighting for their democratic sovereignty
against an autocrat's invasion. And I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts yielding. I would be very curious to know what
his thoughts are on this, too.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. Look,
I have had a fair opportunity on many times, many occasions, to
travel to Ukraine, and I honestly feel that our funding, as it
stands, to that sovereign nation is highly consistent with the
ideals of our own democracy here at home. And I fully support
every last dollar that we have committed to the Ukrainian
people to maintain their freedom and their democracy, and there
is nothing better that we could be doing than fighting the
gangsterism that is going on in Eastern Europe right now. So
with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comment is going to
be very, very brief. I have heard my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, and I am not getting involved in the
discussion about Ukraine, but I am very frustrated when I hear
Members of Congress talk about a democracy. We live in a
republic, and I think it is really important that we remember
that we live in a republic, the fact that we are here as
representatives of the people we represent. And when we pledge
allegiance to the flag, we pledge allegiance to the republic
for which the flag stands. So, we do not live in a democracy.
We live in a republic, and I think it is important that that be
pointed out occasionally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Goldman. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Foxx. Yes, sir.
Mr. Goldman. Down here. So, is it your belief that the
United States is not a democracy?
Ms. Foxx. I just call your attention to the fact that we
pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it
stands.
Mr. Goldman. But you just said that we are a republic, not
a democracy. So, do you believe----
Ms. Foxx. I said, we are a republic. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members wish to speak?
Mr. Frost. I do.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Thank you. I yield my time to the Ranking
Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Frost. I appreciate the
distinguished gentleman from Texas. I just wanted to weigh in
on the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina's last
remark because it seems as if when we talk about the defense of
democracy around the world or the defense of democratic
institutions in America, we now often hear this refrain ``we
are not a democracy, we are a republic,'' and of course, in the
strict sense, that is true. A republic of course, is just a
representative democracy. It is where the people elect their
own representatives because we do not have a Capitol Building
that will hold 400 million. The country does not operate like a
New England town hall meeting, but rather, we elect
representatives under Article I of the Constitution to the
House and also to the U.S. Senate. In that sense, that is true.
We are a republic, but we are a democratic republic.
And although we began as a slave republic of white male
property owners over the age of 21, in fact, we have evolved to
become a far more democratic republic with the addition of the
Fifteenth Amendment, which banned race discrimination in voting
after the Civil War; the Seventeenth Amendment, which gave us
direct election of U.S. Senators instead of state legislatures
doing it in 1913; the Nineteenth Amendment which gave women the
right to vote and to run for office, which women did not have
before. The Twenty-Third Amendment gave our friends in D.C. the
right to participate in Presidential elections. The Twenty-
Fourth Amendment banned poll taxes. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment
lowered the voting age to 18.
So, the whole trajectory of American constitutional
development has been toward making the republic a more
democratic republican and more perfect union. And we have stood
up for democracy and human rights all over the world, fellow
democratic republics. And again, not New England town hall
meetings although, you know, some of those things exist in
certain parts of America at the local level, but governance by
the people, what the great founder of your party, Abraham
Lincoln described in his visionary terms as, government of the
people, by the people, and for the people. Like that is been
the tantalizing dream of America. So, the idea that we would
somehow set a republic at odds with a democracy makes no sense.
We have struggled to become an ever more democratic republic,
and when we say we are a republic, that does not mean we do not
recognize the civil rights and civil liberties of the people.
Now, in Eastern Europe, as Mr. Lynch was saying, there is a
kind of authoritarian gangsterism at large. And a lot of it
revolves around Hungary, where they are in the process of
building something they call illiberal democracy, which means
democracy mob rule without rights, without liberties for the
people, an attack on minorities, whether it is religious
minorities, or racial minorities, or LGBTQ minorities, or
whatever. But it is time for us to bring back together the idea
of popular democracy with Republican institutions because when
we elect people, we send them to go and to fight for a more
perfect union for everybody.
So, I appreciate the gentlelady's points that we have
republican institutions. And I appreciate Mr. Goldman's point
that we are very much a political democracy striving to become
ever better and for a more perfect union, which is built into
our mission statement, the preamble of the Constitution. And I
thank you for yielding, and I would welcome your thoughts to on
this, Mr. Frost, since I know you have been so involved in
trying to deepen the meaning of democracy in America.
Mr. Frost. No. Thank you so much, Mr. Ranking Member, and I
agree with everything that was just said. I think it is
important that we continue to fight for democratic values
around the entire world, especially here at home. There are
folks within this Committee, I would argue, and within this
chamber in the House of Representatives that it seems to me
like they are fighting against democracy here at home, when we
talk about our voting systems, when we talk about the ability
for people be able to cast their ballot, similar conversation
we were just having around local laws here in D.C. So, to say
that being a republican is at odds with being a democracy is
just not true. And I yield back.
Chairman Comer. All right. Any other Members seek
recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment--I do not remember who offered the amendment. Raskin
Number 2.
All those in favor of the Raskin Number 2 amendment, say
aye.
All those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Raskin. Could we have recorded vote, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. A
recorded vote will be ordered. As previously announced, further
proceedings on the question will be postponed.
Does any other Member seek recognition for the purpose of
offering an amendment? Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Comer. Would the Clerk please report?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 4435, as offered by Mr. Lynch of
Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
Chairman Comer. I will reserve a point of order. The
gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes to
explain his amendment.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of what
I know is our shared commitment to ensure that Americans'
veterans receive healthcare services that are reflective of
their service to our Nation. This amendment would exempt
veterans' medical care from the drastic cuts in Federal funding
and program termination that would be required under the so-
called, Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act.
Under the guise of fiscal responsibility, the underlying
legislation targets Federal programs that have continued to
receive annual Federal funding from Congress, but whose
statutory authorization has technically expired. The bill
specifies that programs and activities listed by the
Congressional Budget Office in its annual report on expired
authorizations are deemed ``Unauthorized programs'' and
therefore, eligible for extreme budget cuts and even
termination, absent congressional action.
To the great detriment of America's estimated 18 million
veterans and particularly the more than 9 million veterans
currently enrolled in the VA Health Care System, this misguided
legislation places the quality and continuation of veteran's
healthcare at risk. Considering that the Congressional Budget
Office recently cited the Veterans Health Care Eligibility
Reform Act of 1996, as a public law whose statutory
authorization has expired, Veteran's Health Care falls squarely
within the scope of the bill and as stated goal of budgetary
reduction.
As underscored by the nonpartisan congressional Research
Service, the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of
1996 is the enabling statute for the vast network of veterans
healthcare and medical service programs, from those providing
treatment from post-traumatic stress, mental health conditions,
substance abuse, to those specializing in prosthetic services,
care for the homeless veterans, women's healthcare, and disease
prevention.
Over the last 2 years, Congress has appropriated more than
$220 billion toward these programs and services precisely
because they remain a critical lifeline for veterans with
service related disabilities and other health challenges. In my
home state of Massachusetts, I have worked closely with the
Home Base program, a nonprofit organization founded by
Massachusetts General Hospital and the Boston Red Sox, that
operates in close cooperation with the Department of Veterans
Affairs and Department of Defense to provide world class
clinical care, not only to veterans, but we take warfighters
right from the battlefield when necessary for rehabilitation
within that facility.
I am quite sure that the dedicated administrators and
healthcare professionals at home base would attest to the
severe challenges that drastic funding cuts that the VA would
impose on their fundamental mission to treat veterans with
post-traumatic stress, depression, and brain injury, and other
invisible wounds of war.
In further support of my amendment, to exempt veterans'
medical care from the Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act,
I would note that the bill requires a program to receive
express and regular reauthorizations from Congress in order to
avoid funding reductions and termination. While I firmly
believe that Members of this Committee are united in our
respect and support for American veterans, that is beyond
doubt, we need only look at the recent debt ceiling crisis to
demonstrate that funding for veterans' medical care should not
be susceptible to political brinksmanship and the constant
threat of disruption.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
myself for 5 minutes. Again, I must unfortunately oppose this
amendment for the same reason I opposed previous amendments. It
would undermine the purpose of the bill, which is intended to
force Congress to conduct oversight of the programs it creates
and funds and reauthorize them regularly. If there is any place
that Congress should be conducting regular oversight, it is on
programs addressing our veterans medical care. A full
assessment of those priorities and the effectiveness of these
programs should be conducted from year to year.
While I understand this amendment is trying to safeguard
veterans' medical care, I believe this amendment may actually
harm the very people it is trying to help. Our veterans put
their lives on the line in service to our great Nation,
providing the American people safety and security. Congress has
a duty to ensure our veterans are taken care of and their
wellbeing is secure.
So, I would defer to my colleagues, Chairman Mike Bost and
Ranking Member Mark Takano and their Members, as to the legal
authority and authorized appropriations that the Veterans
Affairs Department needs to deliver on its mission. The House
Veterans Affairs Committee should carefully weigh the future of
the Veterans Affairs Department, Veterans Health
Administration, and any related authorized programs. For these
reasons, I respectfully oppose the amendment offered by my
colleague, Mr. Lynch.
Does any Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment offered by Mr. Lynch.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I like to request a roll call.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman requests a recorded vote. A
recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further
proceedings on the question will be postponed.
Seeing that there are no further amendments on the bill, we
will now take up for consideration, H.R. 3230, Unfunded
Mandates Accountability and Transparency. The Clerk will please
report to bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 3230, Unfunded Mandates Accountability and
Transparency Bill, to amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 to provide for regulatory impact analysis for certain
rules and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Clerk will please
report the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 3230, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
I support H.R. 3230, the Unfunded Mandates Accountability
and Transparency Act. First introduced several congresses ago
and still very much needed. This bill strengthens the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. UMRA formed part of the original
contract with America. It attempted to bring the flood of
unfunded mandates issued to states, localities, and tribal
governments by the Federal bureaucracy under control. It was
later amended to help stem the flow of unreasonably costly
mandates imposed upon the private sector. But unfortunately,
Federal Regulatory Agencies have typically treated this
compliance as a box checking exercise and not a true constraint
on their activities.
Thus, the flood of unfunded mandates has continued. This
has been particularly true under the Biden Administration. Just
last month, this Committee received testimony that costs
imposed by the new Biden Administration regulations in 2021 and
2022 equal $10,000 per household. And it gets worse. Witnesses
before this Committee estimated that if President Biden gets a
full two terms in office, which is doubtful, the ultimate
burden imposed by his Administration regulations could approach
a mind boggling $60,000 per household. That is nearly the
annual U.S. median household income. Thankfully, there are
solutions.
One of the most important is to enact the Unfunded Mandates
Accountability and Transparency Act. This bill strengthens UMRA
in numerous ways. The bill will help bring down the cost of
unfunded mandates imposed by regulation upon states,
localities, tribal governments, and the private sector. It
increases earlier stakeholder engagement on rules that may
impose costly mandates, better positioning stakeholders to help
agencies identify ways to achieve goals at lower costs. It
extends UMRA to independent agencies. It requires agencies to
prepare Regulatory Impact Analysis, including analysis of cost
benefits, alternative disproportionate impacts, and effects on
jobs.
For major rules that mandate economic impacts of $100
million or more, present major increases in costs for prices,
or had significant adverse effects on competition employment or
markets, it requires agencies to publish additional assessments
in the Federal register and receive public comment in response
to notices of proposed rulemaking. And it requires final Agency
regulatory impact analyses to accompany notices on final
rulemaking.
These and other provisions in the bill ensure agencies will
better analyze the potential costs of newly proposed mandates.
H.R. 3230 ensures agencies will collect better information and
inform the public about those costs and alternative ways to
achieve Agency goals. Therefore, agencies will have stronger
incentives to bring the cost of unfunded mandates down. And I
thank Dr. Foxx for her unwavering efforts over several
Congresses to enact this bill into law.
I urge my colleagues to support this critical bipartisan
reform bill, and I now recognize the Ranking Member for his
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the
legislation. As we discussed at length in our June hearing on
regulations, most Americans support government regulation
across a whole range of industries because they enable us to
feel confident that the food we eat and the water we drink and
the air we breathe will be safe for human consumption. That is
why we have regulations. Regulations help curb the worst abuses
of the alcohol and tobacco industries. The few meager
regulations we have over firearms, including the Brady
background check, have saved lots of lives although, we need to
be going a lot further there. But I think Americans understand
that regulations are an essential component of the American
Governmental system and indeed governance, democratic
governance all over the world. Regulations translate the
legislative purposes and enactments of government into actual
rules for the road and deliver concrete benefits to all of our
people.
The H.R. 3230, as far as I can understand it, and I must
confess, I had a very difficult time understanding what this
will do. And maybe somebody could explain it in more detail.
But as far as I get it, 3230 will make an already complex
regulatory process even more complicated and burdensome, and
give the most powerful private actors and corporations even
more power over the regulatory process.
In contrast, in April, President Biden issued an executive
order to modernize the regulatory process, strengthening
democracy by advancing the values of transparency, inclusivity,
and effectiveness of regulations. So, the Biden's regulatory
modernization plans, which I understand, promote both
efficiency and fairness. Well-funded and well-connected
corporations should no longer have outsized influence over the
Federal rulemaking process simply because they have got the
time and the resources and then layers to bombard Federal
officials with their points of view in their meeting requests.
The Biden changes require Federal officials to proactively
seek out the voices of those people who otherwise would be
under-represented in even if still critically affected by the
rulemaking process, including people living in rural areas,
people in minority groups and people with disabilities. This
bill would undermine that effort by only allowing the
consideration of alternatives to implementing regulations that
take into account only the strict financial costs and benefits
within the scope of the statutory provision that authorize the
rulemaking procedure.
This is not the best way to increase public participation
or welcome public views, or to reduce opaqueness in the
regulatory process. It is a thinly veiled effort to expand the
power of private actors over the regulatory process and to
hamstring Federal Agencies. This is part of the assault on the
ability of Federal Agencies to implement congressional will and
to impose more red tape on them. The aim of this effort is to
elevate the interests of private concerns over Agency expertise
in service of the public good.
The bill will be the first amendment to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act in almost 20 years. The changes are
sweeping, and the Committee at the very least must examine them
more thoroughly so we even understand what we are voting on. I
have read it several times and could not really make heads or
tails of it. But at the very least, we should first have a
hearing on legislation and its far-reaching consequences, so at
least the Members of the Committee can explain what is in
there. Regulations are a tool in our democracy that necessarily
will serve the public good. Despite claims to the contrary,
this bill will hinder, not improve, the regulatory process. We
want to make sure that the rules and regulations that are
coming out of the regulatory process really serve the public
interest and not the interests of private actors.
For that reason, I oppose this legislation. And I thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Dr. Foxx for 5
minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I
begin, let me ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
the following documents: a letter to this Committee in support
of the Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act
from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a letter to the
Committee in support of the Unfunded Mandates Accountability
and Transparency Act from the National Taxpayers Union.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this bill
in almost the same forum has passed the House three or four
times already sometimes as a standalone, sometimes with other
pieces of legislation designed to improve our regulatory
process. The cost of existing Federal regulations are
staggering and estimated to exceed $2 trillion. This figure
does not even account for the Biden Administration's new
regulatory burdens, which this Committee recently learned add
up to over $10,000 per household. I believe you mentioned that,
Mr. Chairman.
We need to stop adding to the regulatory burden that
threatens to choke off innovation and economic growth in this
country. That is why I introduced H.R. 3230, The Unfunded
Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act or UMATA. This
bill will strengthen Congress' ability to stop Federal
regulators from loading up the private sector, the state, and
local governments with costly new unfunded mandates. UMATA
requires Federal Agencies to consider, accurately, the cost of
their regulations, consult the stakeholders, publish their
assessments, and ensure that any new regulations produce the
most benefits for the least cost.
It also closes key loopholes in the 1995 Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act or UMRA. This is a bipartisan bill that will prevent
the Federal Government from crushing Americans under an ever-
growing mountain of costly regulations and unfunded mandates. I
want to point out, again, that these unfunded mandates and
regulations come not from the Congress, those of us elected to
serve the people, but from unelected bureaucrats who write
regulations based on legislation.
So, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member wish to speak on the
amendment or on the bill?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now in favorably reporting H.R. 3230, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
bill----
Ms. Foxx. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested and
ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the
question will be postponed.
Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair declares the
Committee in recess subject to the call of the Chair. The
Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come back to
order. A quorum is present.
The Committee will now resume consideration of H.R. 4435,
the Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by
Ranking Member Raskin from Maryland. This will be the Raskin
Number 1.
Will the Clerk please call the roll?
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
Mr. LaTurner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
Ms. Greene?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
Mr. Langworthy?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes yes.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
Ms. Bush?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
Ms. Brown?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
Mr. Goldman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. I vote no.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Turner recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Turner is not previously recorded.
Mr. Turner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
Chairman Comer. And how is Ms. Greene recorded?
The Clerk. Ms. Greene is not previously recorded.
Ms. Greene. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. How is Krishnamoorthi recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi is not recorded.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I vote aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
Chairman Comer. And how is Mr. Armstrong recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong is not recorded.
Mr. Armstrong. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members wish to be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. If not, the Clerk will----
Mr. Raskin. I believe Ms. Lee--how is Ms. Lee recorded?
Ms. Lee. I voted.
Chairman Comer. Yes. I think she voted.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee is recorded as voting aye.
Mr. Raskin. Great. OK. Thanks.
Chairman Comer. No other person seeks recognition. Will the
Clerk please report the total?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the nays are 21. The
ayes are 13.
Chairman Comer. The amendment fails. The question is now on
the amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute
offered by Mr. Garcia.
The Clerk will please report.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
Mr. Khanna?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
Ms. Bush?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
Ms. Brown?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Casar?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
Mr. Goldman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
Chairman Comer. Has any Member not yet recorded their vote?
Mr. Khanna. How am I recorded?
Chairman Comer. Who is that?
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Khanna.
Chairman Comer. Oh. Has Mr. Khanna been recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna is not recorded.
Mr. Khanna. I vote aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
Chairman Comer. And, Mr. Casar, did you vote?
Mr. Casar. No. I vote aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
Chairman Comer. I think that is everything. Would the Clerk
please record the vote?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the nays are 23. The
ayes are 16.
Chairman Comer. The Garcia amendment fails.
The question is now on the Crockett amendment in the nature
of a substitute, offered by Ms. Crockett.
The Clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
Mr. Mfume?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
Ms. Bush?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
Chairman Comer. Has any Member not yet been recorded on the
Crockett amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the nays are 23. The
ayes are 18.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the Crockett
amendment is not agreed to.
The question is now on the Raskin Number 2, amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
Mr. LaTurner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
Ms. Bush?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
Chairman Comer. Has anyone yet to be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally? Has Mr.
LaTurner been recorded?
Mr. LaTurner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner is not recorded. Mr. LaTurner votes
no.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the nays are 23. The ayes are
17.
Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the Raskin Number 2
amendment is not agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of substitute, offered by Mr.
Lynch.
The Clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
Ms. Bush?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
Chairman Comer. Has anyone not been recorded on the Lynch
amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the nays are 23. The
ayes are 19.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the Lynch amendment
is not agreed to.
The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 4435.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment in the nature of substitute to H.R. 4435 is agreed
to.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4435, as
amended.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner? Sorry. Excuse me.
Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. No. Aye. Sorry.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes nay.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes nay.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes no.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
Ms. Bush?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes nay.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes nay.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes nay.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes nay.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Chairman Comer. Has Ms. Bush been recorded?
The Clerk. Ms. Bush has not been recorded.
Ms. Bush. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes no.
Chairman Comer. Did anyone else fail to be recorded yet?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 23. The
nays are 20.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably, as reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 1209, as
amended.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes yes.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes nay.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes nay.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes nay.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes nay.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes nay.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes nay.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
Mr. Moskowitz?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Biggs recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs is not recorded.
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Chairman Comer. And how is Mr. Turner recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Turner is not yet recorded.
Mr. Turner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Moskowitz recorded? Has he been
recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz is not recorded.
Mr. Moskowitz. No, please.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes nay.
Chairman Comer. Anyone else fail to vote yet?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 22. The
nays are 20.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Now the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 192.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Edwards?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes nay.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes nay.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes nay.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
Mr. Moskowitz?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Chairman Comer. Has any Member failed to vote on this bill
yet?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Edwards recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards is not yet recorded.
Mr. Edwards. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes yes.
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the tally? How
about Mr. Langworthy? Has he been recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy is not recorded.
Mr. Langworthy. No.
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Voices. Yes.
Chairman Comer. Did you vote yes? No? OK.
Mr. Langworthy. Oh. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes yes.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 23. The nays are
19.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Now the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 3230.
The Clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes aye.
Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. LaTurner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes nay.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes nay.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
Mr. Moskowitz?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Chairman Comer. Has Mr. LaTurner been recorded?
Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner was not previously recorded. Mr.
LaTurner votes aye.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. Any other Members wish to be
recorded? Mr. Moskowitz?
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz was not previously recorded.
Mr. Moskowitz. I vote no.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no.
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 23. The
nays are 20.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Now the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 3358.
The Clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes nay.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes nay.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
Ms. Stansbury?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes nay.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, may I----
Chairman Comer. Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes. May I ask how I am recorded?
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury is not yet recorded.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like to vote----
Chairman Comer. Oh, I thought--yes, please.
Ms. Stansbury. OK. Nay.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes nay.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member wish to vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report to tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 22. The
nays are 20.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 890.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes aye.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
Chairman Comer. I vote aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
Chairman Comer. Would the Clerk please report the tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 41. The
nays are zero.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Now the question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4502.
The Clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. LaTurner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
Mrs. Boebert?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes aye.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes yes.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. I vote yes, and is Mr. LaTurner recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner is not recorded.
Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 40. The
nays are zero.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question now is on favorably reporting H.R. 4503.
The Clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
Mr. Timmons?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes yes.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes aye.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Chairman Comer. Has Mr. Timmons been recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons has not been recorded.
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report to tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 39. The
nays are 2.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 1695.
The Clerk will now call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes aye.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes aye.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes aye.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. LaTurner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
Mrs. McClain. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
Mrs. Boebert?
Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
Mr. Fry?
Mr. Fry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Ms. Porter?
Ms. Porter. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes aye.
Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
Mr. Goldman?
Mr. Goldman. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mr. Moskowitz?
Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 39. The
nays are zero.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The last item. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the
following postal-naming bills which were distributed in advance
on this markup: House Resolutions 292, 996, 1060, 1098, 1687,
2379, 2754, 3728, and 3944.
Without objection, the bills are considered read.
Before we consider today's package of bipartisan postal
naming bills, I want to thank the Ranking Member for agreeing
to make some small, but important changes to the Committee's
procedures for considering postal-naming bills prior to
advancing them to the consideration of the full house.
I respect the fact that the entire state delegation must
come together in support of a postal-naming measure prior to
the Oversight Committee's consideration of a bill. I also
respect the expressed wishes of my colleagues to ensure that
the honor of naming Federal property is reserved for honorees
who are U.S. citizens or risked their lives in service to our
great Nation. I hope these small modifications will make it
easier for the Committee and the entire House to consider
postal-naming bills that honor local public servants and heroes
of our great Nation.
If any Member would like to speak on any of the measures,
they may do so now. Yes?
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Chairman, can I address the new rule,
regarding the new rules, regarding the citizenship requirement?
Chairman Comer. I am sorry. I did not hear. Could you
repeat that?
Mr. Gomez. May I address----
Chairman Comer. Yes, yes, absolutely.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Chairman, I think that, first, so I have a
situation in my district, which I explained to you.
Chairman Comer. Right.
Mr. Gomez. I reintroduced a bill to name a post office in
my district where one had closed, and it was named after Dosan
Ahn Chang Ho, who was a Korean American, first came to this
country a long time ago. He died in 1938. He could never become
a citizen because there was the Chinese Exclusion Act that
prohibited him, because of his Chinese citizenship, from
becoming a citizen. This is a bill that is bipartisan. I was
the first one to introduce a post-office-naming bill in this
Congress. Actually, all Republicans and Democrats in California
co-sponsored it, and we were the first one to submit it in the
entire 118th Congress, so it was before this acknowledgement.
So, I want full due consideration of this bill under the
old rules because I do not agree with the rules as they stand.
And this was Republicans and Democrats in California, the
largest delegation, so it is not an easy feat to get everybody
to sign on to a bill. So with that, I will ask for due
consideration that the bill move forward.
Chairman Comer. And I will give you my commitment, like I
said yesterday, to work with you on that. I respect the fact
that the whole California delegation, in a bipartisan way,
signed on to that. If you are good with this, we will work and
you and I will go meet with leadership and see what we can come
to terms with on this. Is that good enough?
Mr. Gomez. Yes. It is just a very unique situation.
Chairman Comer. I understand, and the fact that the entire
California delegation signed on to it, I think that is a great
selling point there. It is with me, and I pledge to work with
you on that.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Hearing no more discussion, I request
unanimous consent for these bills' immediate consideration en
bloc.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The en bloc
measures are agreed to and shall be reported favorably to the
House.
Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2, I ask that Committee
Members have the right to file with the Clerk of the Committee
supplemental additional Minority and dissenting views.
Without objection.
Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary
technical and conforming changes to the bills ordered reported
today, subject to the approval of the Minority.
Without objection, so ordered.
If there is no further business before the Committee,
without objection the Committee stands adjourned. Thank you,
everyone, for being here.
[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]