[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



118th Congress } 
 2nd Session   }            COMMITTEE PRINT
_______________________________________________________________________

                                    
                                                                    
                                   
                             FULL COMMITTEE

                           BUSINESS MEETING:

                        MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS

                           AND POSTAL-NAMING

                                MEASURES


=======================================================================

                                for the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                              MAY 15, 2024
                               __________

                          Serial No. CP:118-11
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
  
  
  
      
               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
               
               

                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov 
                             
                             
                                 ------ 
                                 
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

55-711 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024 














               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking Minority 
Mike Turner, Ohio                      Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina          Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida



                                 ------                                

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                        Ryan Giachetti, Counsel
                   Christian Hoehner, Policy Director
                Lauren Lombardo, Deputy Policy Director
      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 May 15, 2024.....................................     1

                            BILLS CONSIDERED

                              ----------                              

  * H.R. 8333, THE BIOSECURE ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................     1

  * H.R. 5255, THE FEDERAL CYBERSECURITY VULNERABILITY REDUCTION 
  ACT OF 2023
Bill Discussed...................................................     5

  * H.R. 8276, THE REUSE EXCESS PROPERTY ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................     8

  * H.R. 8335, THE BILLION DOLLAR BOONDOGGLE ACT OF 2024
Bill Discussed...................................................    10

  * H.R. 8334, THE GRANT INTEGRITY AND BORDER SECURITY ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................    11

  * H.R. 6462, THE RESILIENT EMPLOYMENT AND AUTHORIZATION 
  DETERMINATION TO INCREASE THE NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT OF SERVING 
  SPOUSES (READINESS) ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................    17

  * SEVERAL POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES
Measures Discussed...............................................    36

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Article, ``Nonprofits Are Making Billions Off the Border 
  Crisis - The Free Press''; submitted by Rep. Foxx.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                    FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:  
                      MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS AND  
                         POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES   

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, May 15, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability,

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Grothman, 
Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner, 
Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, Boebert, 
Fry, Luna, Langworthy, Burlison, Waltz, Raskin, Norton, Lynch, 
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, Porter, 
Bush, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett, 
Goldman, Moskowitz, Tlaib, and Pressley.
    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(g) 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 on which a recorded vote on the yeas and nays are 
ordered.
    The Committee will continue to use the electronic system 
for recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills 
before the committee. Of course, should any technical issues 
arise, which I do not anticipate, we will immediately 
transition to traditional roll call votes. Any procedural or 
motion related votes during today's markup will be dispensed 
with by a traditional roll call vote.
    Our first item for consideration is H.R. 8333, the 
BIOSECURE Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 8333, the BIOSECURE Act, a bill to prohibit 
contracting with certain biotechnology providers, and for other 
purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered to H.R. 8333, 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.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    I am happy to support H.R. 8333, the BIOSECURE Act. This 
bipartisan bicameral bill prevents U.S. taxpayer dollars from 
flowing to biotechnology companies that are owned, operated, or 
controlled by China or other foreign adversaries. Specifically, 
this bill names five genomic companies with direct ties to the 
Chinese Communist Party as biotechnology companies of concern. 
The bill prohibits a Federal agency from procuring any 
biotechnology equipment or service from such companies. The 
bill also prohibits Federal loan or grant dollars from being 
used to procure, obtain, or use biotechnology equipment or 
services from such companies.
    The companies named in this legislation create significant 
risks to U.S. national security. BGI, one of the named 
entities, is a CCP biotechnology company and is the world's 
largest collector of genetic data. BGI, alongside its 
subsidiaries, which are also named in the bill, have been found 
to conduct research alongside the Chinese military. WuXi, 
through its two subsidiaries named in the bill, operates 
genetic testing centers, established in coordination with the 
CCP; helps carry out research to promote the Chinese military; 
and has reportedly stolen U.S. firms' intellectual property. 
This bill addresses these national security risks without 
disrupting medical supply chains.
    Existing contracts are exempt from prohibitions in the bill 
until January 2032, and the bill includes a targeted waiver and 
exception process. The bill also exempts biotechnology 
equipment and services from the bill's prohibitions that were, 
but are no longer, produced or provided by a company of 
concern. This bill is a necessary step toward protecting 
America's sensitive healthcare data from the CCP before these 
companies become more embedded in the U.S. economy, university 
systems, and Federal contracting base.
    I want to thank the Select Committee on the Chinese 
Communist Party Chairman, John Moolenaar; and Ranking Member 
Raja Krishnamoorthi; Senate Homeland Security Chairman, Gary 
Peters; and the bill's new House sponsor, Representative Brad 
Wenstrup, Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the 
Coronavirus Pandemic; and their staffs for the continued work 
on this important national security bill. I urge all my House 
Oversight colleagues to support this necessary legislation.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Raskin for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bipartisan 
legislation, introduced by Representatives Wenstrup and 
Krishnamoorthi, is a response to concerns about certain biotech 
companies' relationships with the People's Republic of China, 
and how these relationships might compromise Americans' 
sensitive health data. The intent is to prevent the PRC from 
acquiring Americans' sensitive health information, including 
our personal genomic data and DNA, through its relationship 
with certain companies that collect, test, and stored genomic 
data.
    According to a February 2021 fact sheet, available on the 
DNI website, the PRC is investing heavily in biotech, and has 
prioritized policies that facilitate the collection of large 
genomic data sets. The DNI reports that Chinese companies have 
gained greater access to sensitive U.S. healthcare data by 
developing strategic partnerships with U.S. researchers, 
hospitals, universities, and firms in providing them extremely 
low-cost services, like genomic sequencing, subsidized by the 
PRC. Collecting vast amounts of genetic data from a large pool 
of diverse patients could allow Chinese companies to develop 
and control new medical products and services and also poses 
significant privacy and national security risks for Americans. 
According to the intelligence community, the PRC's mass 
collection of DNA in China has helped to carry out human rights 
abuses against domestic minority groups like the Uyghurs and 
other Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang. This legislation 
would prohibit the Federal Government from purchasing biotech 
equipment and services from five companies of concern and 
establishes an interagency process for identifying additional 
companies in the future if it is ever needed. The bill would 
bar Federal agencies from contracting with or making loans to 
the companies of concern.
    I understand that the Select Committee on Strategic 
Competition Between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party 
drafted this bill in a bipartisan manner and worked closely 
with our Committee staffs and our Senate colleagues to 
carefully craft it. The bill before us includes several 
provisions that were designed to address concerns raised in the 
drafting process, particularly about potential supply chain 
disruptions and drug shortages. The bill includes an extended 
phase-in period for existing contracts with these companies, 
which could be extended until 2032. It also provides a process 
for obtaining a waiver and contains limited exceptions for 
national security activities and for the provision of necessary 
healthcare services to Americans overseas.
    The bill is an effort to strike a balance between 
recognizing the very real national security threat posed by 
efforts to embed the PRC in the U.S. healthcare system while 
also ensuring the stability and continuity of our healthcare 
supply chain. The bill seeks to address a truly complex problem 
in a complex industry. I certainly am in favor of the intent of 
this legislation, and I am inclined to support the bill today 
in our Committee. I would like to respectfully ask the Chairman 
and the bill sponsors to commit to continuing to work in good 
faith together to resolve any potential technical issues and 
address any unintended consequences of the bill that might 
affect the American people or our Nation's drug supply before 
it goes to the Floor. I thank Chairman Comer and the sponsors 
of the legislation. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any Members seek 
recognition on the bill? The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Krishnamoorthi.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Mr. 
Ranking Member for the opportunity to mark up the BIOSECURE Act 
today, H.R. 8333.
    Simply put, the BIOSECURE Act prohibits U.S. taxpayer 
dollars from flowing to foreign adversary-controlled biotech 
companies engaging in nefarious activities. Mr. Brad Wenstrup 
and I are proud to have reintroduced this bill last Friday. As 
the Ranking Member of the Select Committee on the Strategic 
Competition with the Chinese Communist Party, I cannot 
overstate the importance of this particular bill. U.S. taxpayer 
dollars should not be funding PRC biotech companies that are 
actively working with the CCP and the People's Liberation Army 
to potentially collect Americans' genomic data and intellectual 
property, and use that data to further their authoritarian 
objectives.
    Our bill requires the executive branch to develop a list of 
foreign adversary-controlled biotech companies. It also names 
five entities of concern. All are part of either the BGI group 
or the WuXi group. Many of you may be wondering, why are we 
specifically naming these companies? First, BGI and WuXi had 
been found by the U.S. Government and others to be involved in 
the perpetration of human rights abuses, specifically the 
Uyghur genocide. The Select Committee has found evidence of BGI 
and WuXi operating the PRC's 27 pregnancy genetic testing 
centers with the PLA, which allows the CCP to help identify and 
separate Uyghurs from other residents, a key pillar of the 
CCP's genocide. Second, BGI not only worked with the PLA to 
develop its technology, but they also now collect data and send 
it back to China that is used for continued research with the 
PLA. In 2021, a Reuters investigation uncovered that BGI took 
DNA using pregnancy tests from 8 million women from 52 
different countries and sent that data back to China to be used 
in research studies with the PLA. Third, WuXi not only engages 
in human rights abuses, but there are reports that WuXi AppTec 
has stolen intellectual property from American companies and 
sent it back to China to be replicated.
    For these reasons and others, these companies and their 
affiliates should not be receiving U.S. taxpayer dollars, 
period. We should not be working with these companies as a U.S. 
Government. This is a bipartisan and a bicameral issue. Our 
constituents demand that we not continue with these practices. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle 
and in the Senate to protect Americans' health and their data. 
I urge all my colleagues here today to vote yes on this 
critical bill. Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back, and I just want 
to publicly thank you for your leadership on this bill and this 
issue, Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
    [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.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [No response.]
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8333, as 
amended.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, may we have a recorded vote?
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered by the 
lady from South Carolina. As previously announced, further 
proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item 
for consideration is H.R. 5255, the Federal Cybersecurity 
Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2023. The clerk will please 
designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 5255, the Federal Cybersecurity 
Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2023, a bill to require covered 
contractors implement a vulnerability disclosure policy 
consistent with NIST guidelines, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    The clerk will please designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 5255 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.
    Now I recognize myself to speak on the bill.
    I am happy to support H.R. 5255, the Federal Cybersecurity 
Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2023. The bill will require 
Federal contractors to have a vulnerability disclosure policy, 
or a VDP. This would help contractors more quickly alert 
Federal agencies about vulnerabilities, which could avoid a 
future cybersecurity breach. Federal agencies must act quickly 
when dealing with a cyberattack. The sooner a Federal agency 
knows it may have a problem, the sooner it can take steps to 
protect systems and data, including the personal data of 
millions of Americans. It is reasonable to require Federal 
contractors to play a proactive role in addressing information 
system vulnerabilities. The bill complements the Committee's 
ongoing work aimed at helping Federal agencies protect their 
data and information systems. I thank Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Mace for introducing this important legislation. I encourage my 
colleagues to support it.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate today's 
consideration of the Federal Contractors Cybersecurity 
Vulnerability Reduction Act, as well as the work of our 
colleague, Ms. Mace, in leading on this legislation. The bill 
would ensure that covered Federal contractors implement 
vulnerability disclosure policies, consistent with the 
guidelines of NIST, industry best practices, and international 
standards.
    Each year, software developers, security researchers, and 
others discover tens of thousands of security vulnerabilities 
in computer software and systems. For example, in 2023, more 
than 29,000 common vulnerabilities and exposures were logged 
into NIST's widely used National Vulnerability Data base. If 
companies establish a process for accepting, assessing, and 
managing reports of these vulnerabilities, otherwise known as a 
vulnerability disclosure policy, they can make use of such 
discoveries to fix problems before they are ever exploited by 
nefarious actors. Vulnerability disclosure policies are an 
effective tool for improving cybersecurity. Most agencies 
already have such policies, as do Federal contractors and subs 
that provide information systems, and the internet of things, 
and devices to Federal agencies. By requiring all Federal 
contractors to follow suit, the bill shores up another front in 
the never-ending battle to protect the government's information 
systems and our data. Happy to support the bill today, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition? The 
Chair recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Chairwoman Mace.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2020, the Office of 
Management and Budget directed Federal agencies to implement 
cybersecurity vulnerability disclosure policies. White hat 
hackers and researchers work with the Federal Government to 
identify and address vulnerabilities. Ethical hackers are 
crucial to improving the Nation's cybersecurity posture. These 
vulnerability policies require these third parties to stop 
testing and properly notify the Federal Agency of any sensitive 
data they encounter, like personally identifiable information, 
financial information, or proprietary information or trade 
secrets. This allows the vulnerability to be patched and the 
information to be secured before they are exploited by 
malicious actors, including our adversaries. This was an 
important step in Federal cybersecurity. But as we have talked 
about in this Committee many times, just a fraction of the 
Federal workforce are Federal employees. The Federal Government 
awards over 11 million contracts annually, with many of these 
contractors having access to sensitive information, including 
personal information of U.S. citizens.
    This bill, the Federal Cybersecurity Vulnerability 
Reduction Act, will require Federal contractors who work with 
government data or have access to government networks to adopt 
these vulnerability disclosure policies. This bill specifically 
requires the Department of Defense to supplement the Federal 
acquisition regulations to require the same strong 
cybersecurity vulnerability reduction policies also, 
safeguarding the personal information of our service members 
and information vital to our national security. Contractors 
with access to government data and systems should, at the very 
least, have the same safeguards and lines of defense in place 
as our government. Adoption of vulnerability disclosure 
policies by government and defense contractors will help 
protect the sensitive data of American citizens and our 
national security. Until these vulnerability disclosure 
policies are adopted across the entire Federal digital 
ecosystem, our Nation is at risk. This bill would close a 
crucial vulnerability and protect our Nation from malicious 
actors who seek to steal our data and do us harm.
    I would like to thank the Chairman for his support in 
bringing this critical bill to markup today and look forward to 
its passage on a bipartisan basis, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. I thank the Chairwoman for this bill. The 
Chair now recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Ms. Mace 
for bringing this bill. My question, though, is with regard to 
the importance of this report. In multiple places, we allow the 
VDP to be actually waived by the CIO, Chief Information 
Officer. I guess my question--what I think might make this a 
little better bill is, is the CIO would never be required to 
justify the waiver because this thing in here says that they 
are going to find that there is necessarily the interest of 
national security or research purposes to go ahead and waive 
the report. And my question would be, who is reviewing what 
they are doing? And maybe we as the Oversight Committee or some 
other committee should receive that as a portion of the report 
when they choose to waive the report.
    I would just suggest that because I do not see anything, 
accountability to the CIO in here, and maybe there is and I am 
just missing it, but I would suggest maybe we want the CIO to 
be accountable rather than to just subjectively make the 
determination. That is my suggestion. And, Ms. Mace, I do not 
know if you want to respond or Mr. Comer, or anyone.
    Chairman Comer. You do not have to. I can comment on it 
while Mace is looking at it, but we will certainly take that 
into consideration as the bill moves forward.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Mace. We are happy to work on it.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition on 
the bill? You want to talk on the bill?
    [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.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed by saying no.
    [No response.]
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 5255, as 
amended.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair----
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Mace.
    Ms. Mace. I would like to request a recorded vote, please.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by Ms. Mace from 
South Carolina. As previously announced, further proceedings on 
the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8276, the Reuse 
Excess Property Act.
    The clerk will please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 8276, the Reuse Excess Property Act, a bill 
to make data and internal guidance on excess personal property 
publicly available, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 8276 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.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and amendment.
    As the largest single purchaser of goods and services in 
the world, Federal agencies require billions of dollars of 
personal property ranging from office supplies to automobiles 
each year. Unfortunately, agencies routinely and wastefully 
dispose of excess personal property that could otherwise be 
repurposed for continued Federal Agency use. Agencies are 
already required to consider the availability of excess 
personal property before buying new products. This excess 
personal property is available to agencies at no cost apart 
from any necessary transportation expenses. In June 2022, the 
GAO found that agencies are continuing to acquire new property 
while not using available excess personal property. GAO's 
findings indicate that the guidance in the existing Federal 
Management Regulation alone may not be sufficient. With better 
direction from Congress, agencies can be more efficient in 
leveraging excess personal property to meet their needs, saving 
taxpayer dollars.
    The Reuse Excess Property Act would hold agencies more 
accountable toward efficiently using and reusing personal 
property by introducing transparency and accountability 
mechanisms. This bill would reform existing statutory reporting 
requirements to the General Services Administration on excess 
personal property and require GSA to make this information 
publicly available. This will help decisionmakers and taxpayers 
better understand the extent to which agencies are working to 
cut wasteful spending through the use of excess property, 
informing future policy. Because GAO found that agencies have 
varied guidance on the use of excess personal property that 
often neglects essential FMR components, H.R. 8276 would 
require agencies to publicly report their guidance. Such 
guidance must include essential FMR components outlined by GAO. 
Agencies must also designate employees responsible for 
searching through available excess personal property for items 
that meet agency needs.
    In response to GAO's report, in February 2023, GSO convened 
the first meeting of an interagency working group to assess how 
agencies acquire personal property, uncover obstacles, and 
recommend improvements to policies for acquisition 
professionals. The bill would require GSA to make the findings 
of the working group, including a general summary, publicly 
available to provide full transparency into efforts to promote 
the maximum use of excess personal property. This bill shines a 
light on agency practices and could incentivize more efficient 
use of excess personal property, saving untold taxpayer dollars 
in the future.
    I want to thank Representative McClain for her leadership 
on this issue, and I think most people have heard that 
Representative McClain has had to have emergency appendix 
surgery and she will be out for a few days. I want to urge my 
colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. I recognize 
the Ranking Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support the 
Reuse Excess Property Act, which would increase transparency 
across the government by strengthening reporting requirements 
around excess personal property. I commend Chairwoman McClain, 
and I wish her well, and Ranking Member Porter for introducing 
the House version of the act, which has already passed in the 
Senate unanimously.
    As of 2022, the government amassed roughly $2 trillion in 
personal property, including furniture, like chairs and desks; 
vehicles; office supplies; even medical equipment. The agencies 
are required to survey and index their inventories of personal 
property on an annual basis and identify items that they no 
longer need so that agencies can better account for their 
assets and get a better understanding of excess items that 
could be considered for use in other agencies. The GAO 
identified $3.9 billion in excess personal property between 
fiscal years 2016 and 2020, and found an additional $28.9 
billion in excess personal property items that were reported 
but not obtained by the agencies. These excess items could be 
transferred to another agency, distributed to state or local 
governments that need it, or even sold to the public.
    This act would increase Federal reporting requirements and 
provide greater transparency to the public of acquisition, 
monitoring, reuse, and disposal of personal property across the 
terrain of Federal Government. It directs the GSA and agencies 
to annually report data it collects related to excess personal 
property and would also make the data available to the whole 
public. With greater transparency in Federal uses of personal 
property, agencies can better optimize the use of these items, 
reducing the need for Federal expenditures in the future. I 
support this commonsense, good government legislation. I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [No response.]
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8276, as 
amended.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair----
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Mace.
    Ms. Mace. I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by the 
gentlelady from South Carolina. As previously announced, 
further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8335, the Billion 
Dollar Boondoggle Act. The clerk will please designate the 
bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 8335, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act, a 
bill to require the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget to submit to Congress an annual report on projects that 
are over budget and behind schedule, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of substitute. The clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 8335 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.
    Congress must ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent 
efficiently. Every year, the Government Accountability Office 
reports government projects that are above cost projections or 
behind schedule, from Federal IT programs to projects at the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. However, there are 
likely additional government projects that fly under the radar, 
falling years behind schedule or are billions of dollars over 
budget. The Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act would address this by 
informing policymakers of government-funded projects that are 
behind schedule or above initial cost projection. The bill 
directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance 
requiring Federal agencies to report annually to Congress 
regarding certain federally funded projects. Under the bill, 
agencies must report on projects that are more than 5 years 
behind schedule or have expenditures that are at least $1 
billion more than the original cost estimate for the project. 
Agencies must provide an explanation if there is a delay in 
completion or an increase of cost for the project.
    Congress has a duty to oversee the Federal Government for 
inefficiency and waste. This bill informs policymakers and 
allows Congress to address failing government projects before 
further taxpayer dollars are misused. The identical S. 1258 
passed the Senate on March 23, 2024, sponsored by Senator Joni 
Ernst and Senator Hassan. I want to thank Representative 
Miller-Meeks for introducing the House companion bill. I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
    I recognize the Ranking Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The legislation would 
require additional reporting on certain Federal projects over 
budget by a billion dollars or 5 years behind schedule. 
Congress has a duty to make sure that the taxpayers' dollars 
are well spent, and additional oversight of projects that are 
vastly over budget or behind schedule makes perfect sense. I 
support this bill. I appreciate the fact that this version 
takes into consideration some technical comments that were 
offered by OMB, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Members wish to speak? The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This is a good bill, but 
good grief. We are not going to report until you are 5 years 
behind schedule? I mean, that seems to me----
    Chairman Comer. We got projects in Kentucky on the 
Mississippi and Ohio River with the Corps of Engineers that are 
10 years behind.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. I mean, I think we should have known. Yes, 
if they are 10 years behind, we should have known when they 
were 6 months behind so we could get a handle on it and 
encourage them to get caught up or something. That is my only 
problem with this. It seems a little loosey-goosey, and I think 
we should be having a little bit more oomph in our oversight, 
Mr. Chairman. But with that, I am going to support this bill, 
obviously, but I am hoping that maybe we can tighten this up as 
we go forward.
    Chairman Comer. Well said.
    Mr. Biggs. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
    [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.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [No response.]
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8335, as 
amended.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed say no.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair--the Chair 
recognizes Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered by Mr. 
Biggs of Arizona. As previously announced, further proceedings 
on the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8334, the Grant 
Integrity and Border Security Act. The clerk will please 
designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 8334, the Grant Integrity and Border 
Security Act, a bill to require any applicant for a Federal 
grant to submit a certification that such applicant is not in 
violation of Section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    The clerk will please designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 8334 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.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment. congressional Republicans are committed 
to securing our Southern border. It has been brought to this 
Committee's attention that some nongovernmental organizations, 
also known as NGO's, are using taxpayer dollars to subvert 
immigration law. NGO's receive hundreds of billions of dollars 
in Federal financial assistance to reimburse travel, shelter, 
and food provided to illegal aliens after they are released 
from the Department of Homeland Security custody. While these 
grant funds are lawfully provided for such purposes, some grant 
recipients may be engaging in inappropriate and potentially 
criminal conduct.
    The DHS Inspector General found last year that NGO's had 
received reimbursements through FEMA's Emergency Food and 
Shelter Program for services provided to illegal aliens who had 
evaded detection and apprehension by DHS personnel. This means 
that DHS had no record that these individuals had been released 
from custody and were, therefore, ineligible to receive 
services under the law. This is unacceptable. Groups that 
criminally aid illegal aliens should not be eligible to receive 
Federal grants.
    The bill requires applicants for Federal grants to certify 
that they will not violate Section 274(a) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, which prohibits alien smuggling, domestic 
transportation of unauthorized aliens, encouraging unauthorized 
aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy 
to take any of these actions. Applicants must certify that they 
and their employees have not violated in the last 10 years, are 
not in violation of, and will not violate the Act. Under the 
bill, the Office of Management and Budget is then authorized to 
withhold funds from any grantee in violation of this 
requirement. Additionally, if a grant recipient agrees not to 
violate the requirement and is later found to have criminally 
aided illegal immigrants, they can be held accountable to a 
civil suit. Such civil suits can be filed under the False 
Claims Act, which provides any person who knowingly submits or 
causes to submit false claims to the government is liable for 
three times the government damages.
    Congress expects NGO's to abide by Federal law, including 
immigration law, when providing charitable assistance to 
immigrants. Congress must ensure that NGO's that break 
immigration law by criminally aiding illegal immigrants are not 
funding their activities with taxpayer dollars.
    I want to thank Representative Foxx for introducing this 
very necessary bill. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Alas, time and again, 
Republicans have walked away from meaningful bipartisan efforts 
to improve our immigration system and strengthen border 
security. A few months ago, at the behest of Donald Trump, 
Republicans rejected a bipartisan Senate border bill that Mitch 
McConnell called the most substantial border security policy in 
30 years. In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted 
against the Bipartisan Infrastructure deal, which provided 
additional funding to combat smuggling of people and drugs into 
our country, and all but two of them voted against robust 
funding for border security operations in the Fiscal Year 2023 
appropriations package.
    Now, instead of engaging in meaningful robust bipartisan 
action, our colleagues have brought forth the H.R. 8334, a bill 
that would ask Federal grant applicants to certify that they 
are not in violation of one provision of one Federal 
immigration law that they are already legally obligated to 
follow. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of any real or serious 
policy solution that would actually repair the country's 
decades-long broken immigration system, H.R. 8334 is just one 
more frivolous attempt by Republicans to further demonize 
immigrants and stoke fears about migrants without actually 
doing anything.
    The bill would require applicants for Federal grants to 
certify that they are not in violation of Section 274(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, which imposes criminal 
penalties for knowingly taking a number of actions related to 
an immigrant, who is in the United States in violation of law. 
In targeting one specific section of one specific Federal law 
for an additional bureaucratic check-the-box step, this bill 
suggests it would somehow be less troubling for Federal 
grantees to violate any other Federal law. To be clear, Federal 
grantees are already expected and obligated to follow all 
Federal laws, and they are subject to penalties and 
consequences when they do not follow Federal laws. This bill is 
not necessary, and it is a painfully obvious attempt to score 
political points in the ceaseless crusade to demonize 
immigrants and try to claim that the Biden Administration is 
not already upholding the Nation's existing immigration laws.
    H.R. 8334 is further evidence that when it comes to 
immigration and border security, our colleagues are offering no 
solutions, but rather gimmicks. They would rather stoke fear 
and cause chaos for political gain rather than work with us to 
pass bipartisan solutions. I oppose H.R. 8334. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this 
commonsense bill, introduced by Chairwoman Foxx. So, let us 
think about this. My colleagues across the aisle always say, oh 
man, the Republicans do not want to solve the border crisis. 
Over a year ago, we passed out the best border security bill 
that has come out in a generation, but the Senate refuses to 
take it up. The Democrats refused to take it up because it 
actually would secure the border. But let us consider the plan 
that they put forward that they always tout and say, oh man, 
this is a great plan.
    It guaranteed 1,500 people could illegally enter the 
country every day. Even if the 7,500 limit mandatory-close-the-
border was actually triggered, 1,500 a day. Well, you could do 
the math yourself. It is over 500,000 people a year, which, by 
the way, until the Biden Administration, that would have been a 
record number of illegal aliens coming across. They were cool 
with that, but you did not even trigger an option to actually 
secure the border until you hit the number of 5,000 illegal 
aliens coming across the border in a day, 5,000 a day. Do the 
math. That is about 1.8 million.
    It did not become mandatory for the executive to actually 
close the border for security purposes, in that legislation 
that the Democrats support, until when? Seventy-five hundred a 
day came in. That is about 2.5 million people. And here is the 
other kicker. They could not get that bill out of the Senate. 
So, it is not a demonization. Because we have over a million 
legal immigrants every year. We support that. What we do not 
support is mass illegal migration.
    So, I will give you an example of NGO's. In Yuma, there is 
only one NGO. I served in the state legislature with the lady 
who runs it, Amanda Aguirre. She is great, does a great job, 
but she herself is overwhelmed because Yuma, which actually 
averaged fewer than 25 per day illegal aliens apprehended, in 
this Administration, they are happy to be down to 350 day 
because there have been times that they have had 2,000 a day. 
So, this is a good bill.
    Let me tell you about the Tucson Sector. You know, it 
cracks me up, folks who live far from the border say there is 
no border crisis. Well, so, I was down in the Tucson Sector 
again last week. We actually had a hearing down there. You need 
to understand, and I just want to put this in a big picture 
perspective for you: 2018, 2019, and 2020, average was 60,000 
apprehensions or encounters per year in the Tucson Sector. When 
President Biden came in and he emasculated it within 24 hours, 
something like 70-plus executive orders dealing with border 
security, the number rose to more than 3 times that in the 
first year, 2021. And then it was over 250,000 in 2022. In 
2023, last year, it was about 360,000. And this year, they are 
on pace already to exceed 700,000 encounters in the Tucson 
Sector, which also is the corridor for something like 50 
percent of all fentanyl and drug trafficking and human 
trafficking.
    So, this is a bill that is actually necessary because one 
thing that we have found is that NGO's are actually 
facilitating illegal immigration, both south of the border and 
on our side of the border. So, let us have them declare that 
they are in compliance specifically with this immigration law. 
That will help, I think. I hope it does. And so, with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I support Ms. Foxx's bill, and I yield back.
    Ms. Foxx. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, I will.
    Chairman Comer. Make sure your mic is on.
    Ms. Foxx. I am not sure if the gentleman has seen this, but 
I was just given to me yesterday, it came out. It is today's 
paper, the Free Press, has put out an article called, 
``Nonprofits are Making Billions Off the Border Crisis.'' And, 
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this into the record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the sponsor of the 
bill, Dr. Foxx.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I make my 
prepared remarks, I would like to say to the Ranking Member, he 
knows I do not do frivolous things. I do not spend my time 
doing frivolous things. And he said that we are implying that 
the Biden Administration is not upholding the law. No, Mr. 
Chairman. We know the Biden Administration is not upholding the 
law. My bill, H.R. 8334, the Grant Integrity and Border 
Security Act, would prohibit Federal grant recipients from 
engaging in unlawful acts related to the smuggling and 
transportation of illegal aliens into the United States. We 
just hold lawbreakers accountable to secure our border and stop 
the abuse of taxpayer funds.
    President Biden and Department of Homeland Security, DHS, 
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, have overseen the most chaotic, 
lawless, and open border in recent memory. Taxpayers have been 
bearing the brunt of the massive wave of illegal aliens that 
have entered the United States, and the Biden Administration 
has seemingly declared hardworking taxpayers collateral damage 
in their pursuit to subvert the meaning of ``citizenship.''
    Agents of Customs and Border Patrol have been outspoken in 
their opposition to both Biden Administration policies and the 
assistance illegal immigrants receive from nongovernmental 
organizations, NGO's, that work to aid in subversion of law and 
order. When asked if NGO's are working at cross purposes to the 
mission of border control agents, Chief of the National Border 
Control Council said, ``Most definitely, and they should not be 
allowed, but our government allows it.''
    NGO's receiving taxpayer funding through grants pay for 
everything from food, shelter, and transportation, to legal 
services that help the migrants traverse Mexico. According to 
the Office of Management and Budget, each year, the taxpayers 
provide more than $1.2 trillion in funding for thousands of 
programs through grants and other forms of financial 
assistance. $1.2 trillion dollars was 4.8 percent of our 
country's GDP in 2022. For such a large sum, taxpayers need 
assurance that their money is not being spent to undermine law 
and order. However, today, taxpayers have no such assurance.
    In 2023, DHS Office of Inspector General published a report 
on the failure of the Administration to provide adequate 
oversight of Federal grant funding. Organizations that receive 
funding are required to maintain documents related to cost, 
migrants served each day, expenses incurred, and proof of 
payment for purchases. In one sample of NGO books, the 
Inspector General report states that 58 percent of the reviewed 
amount was missing documentation. Additionally, the report 
determined a shocking number of migrants who received 
assistance from these NGO's were missing documentation and did 
not have a DHS encounter record. Of the 824 names that were 
tested as a sample, 197 were ineligible to receive humanitarian 
services, and 154 did not have an encounter record. Despite 
this, President Biden and DHS have made no effort to hold NGO's 
who received millions in taxpayer dollars accountable.
    H.R. 8334 will finally do so. My bill requires that all 
applicants certify when filling out their applications that 
they have not violated, will not violate, and are not currently 
in violation of Section 274(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. This section of Federal law imposes criminal 
penalties on any person who assist aliens in illegally crossing 
in the United States. Accountability is ultimately guaranteed 
by requiring Federal agencies to withhold any funds from a 
grantee determined by the head of an agency to be in violation 
of their application certification.
    It is time to rein in lax enforcement of our immigration 
laws, implement integrity in the Federal grant process, and 
finally secure the southern border. And with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Do any other 
Members seek recognition? The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett.
    Ms. Crockett. I would yield to the Ranking Leader.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Ms. Crockett, and I wanted 
to apologize to Ms. Foxx, if she thought that I was calling her 
frivolous and that nothing could be less frivolous than you. I 
know how seriously you undertake your responsibilities. I find 
it frivolous that our colleagues across the aisle rejected the 
best bipartisan package we ever had, at least since I have been 
in Congress, on immigration. It was backed by Senator Lankford, 
by Senator McConnell. It was flying through the Senate, 
hundreds of new Border Patrol agents, hundreds of new border 
judges, new fentanyl detection, technology, all of it. And as I 
understand it, at least as the press reported it, Donald Trump 
did not want a border solution. He wanted a border crisis to 
run on. And so, you know, whatever the merits of this 
legislation is, it pales by comparison to what might actually 
have been done with that multibillion dollar investment in 
strengthening the border.
    Just on this question, if my friend from North Carolina 
would yield for a second, but I am curious about the structure 
of this legislation. It seems like what it says is that there 
is a criminal law that already applies to everybody. And this 
then says we want people to sign something saying they are not 
violating the criminal law. And I am not familiar with that 
structure of legislation before, and I wonder are there any 
other examples of that existing in Federal grant compliance. I 
mean, I want Federal grantees to be complying with every 
Federal criminal and civil law there is. And this almost seems 
to imply you have got to comply with this particular law, but 
we do not care if you are violating the other ones. If you 
could just explain that to me.
    Ms. Foxx. I am not familiar, obviously, with every granting 
agency and how they are structured. But I think it is important 
that we have received reports on what these NGO's are doing and 
that it appears they are not abiding by the law, and this is a 
sort of a backstop or a double-check to make sure that they 
will be doing that. And as I said earlier, we know that these 
NGO's are making billions off of the border crisis in terms of 
how they are handling this.
    Mr. Raskin. And I guess I would just say I am afraid that 
this sends a message of weak enforcement of our laws. If I 
knew, for example, that we had Federal grantees that were 
assaulting people, sexually abusing people, committing surgery 
against them against their will, I would not ask for a 
certification that they are not committing crimes. I would call 
the police, or I would try to have the law enforced against 
them rather than, you know, picking out one provision in law 
and say please give me an annual certification that you are not 
in violation of the criminal law. But I can see there have been 
honest difference of opinion about doing this, and I want to 
thank the gentlelady for yielding. I yield back to Ms. 
Crockett.
    Ms. Crockett. With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield.
    Chairman Comer. All right. Any further Members seek 
recognition?
    [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.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8334, as 
amended.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered by Mr. 
Biggs from Arizona. As previously announced, further 
proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 6462, the Resilient 
Employment and Authorization Determination to Increase the 
National Employment of Serving Spouses Act, or the READINESS 
Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 6462, the Resilient Employment and 
Authorization Determination to Increase the National Employment 
of Serving Spouses Act, a bill to retain Federal employees who 
are spouses of a member of the armed forces or the foreign 
service when relocating due to an involuntary transfer, and for 
other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 6462 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.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    The commitment demonstrated by American military and 
Foreign Service members who volunteer to serve our country is 
often accompanied by challenges for their own spouses 
maintaining gainful employment. Some of the burdens are 
shouldered by the service members' families who must relocate 
along with their family member when duty calls for 
redeployment. That is why it is important for Congress to 
accommodate these families who sacrificed so much supporting 
their loved ones and help ease these transitions.
    The READINESS Act presents an opportunity for this 
Committee to provide reasonable accommodations for service 
members' spouses who are current Federal employees to continue 
their Federal employment during these redeployments. The bill 
directs employing agencies to provide service members' spouses 
with remote work accommodations, transfer them into another 
position near the new duty location, or into another remote 
work position altogether. For instance, if it is determined 
that none of these options are feasible, agencies can place the 
spouse into leave without pay status, specially designated as 
separate due to covered relocation. Additionally, the bill 
provides for annual reports to OPM and Congress detailing 
agencies' use of these authorities.
    I want to thank Ms. Crockett and Mr. Bacon for their 
bipartisan work on this bill and urge my colleagues to support 
this important measure to better support the families of those 
who sacrificed so much in service to our country. I now 
recognize the Ranking Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Resilient 
Employment and Authorization Determination to Increase the 
National Employment of Serving Spouses, or READINESS Act, 
sponsored by my colleague from Texas, Representative Crockett, 
would require Federal agencies to offer, when possible, 
employment flexibilities like telework, remote work, or leave-
without-pay status to Federal employees were the spouses of a 
military or Foreign Service member who undergo a permanent 
change of duty station. I am a proud co-sponsor.
    Military-connected families face unique demands. For 
example, active-duty military families face permanent change-
of-station moves every 2 to 3 years on average, often with 
little or no control over their assignments. Each move may 
require the spouse to leave their job, which limits their own 
professional growth and development and makes it difficult to 
maintain steady work. The military spouse population, 90 
percent of which are women, has a 21 percent unemployment rate, 
which is nearly 6 times the national average. As a result, 
nearly 1 in 5 military families point to spousal employment as 
a reason for leaving military service and for struggling to 
make ends meet.
    The READINESS Act, a bipartisan bill, would ensure that all 
Federal employees who are married to a service member or a 
Foreign Service employee who relocates because of a permanent 
change of station, has access to certain workforce 
flexibilities that allow them to continue their Federal 
careers. The following groups have endorsed the Act: the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Officers Association of 
America, With Honor Action, Military Family Advisory Network, 
National Military Family Association, American Federation of 
Government Employees, American Foreign Service Association, 
Blue Star Families, and American Legion.
    Congress must prioritize the needs of our military 
families, and this bill will do that. I commend Ms. Crockett 
and her staff for their great hard work in getting this bill to 
markup today, as well as our Majority counterparts who worked 
tirelessly with Ms. Crockett and her staff to get feedback from 
the Office of Personnel Management and OMB to ensure that this 
legislation works to actually help our military and foreign 
service families in our districts. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Do any Members wish to speak on the bill?
    Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud.
    Mr. Cloud. I have some concerns about this particular bill.
    Chairman Comer. OK. You are going to offer an amendment 
or----
    Mr. Cloud. I will, but right now I am speaking to the bill.
    Chairman Comer. You are what?
    Mr. Cloud. Speaking to the bill.
    Chairman Comer. OK.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Proceed.
    Mr. Cloud. I have learned in my time here that anytime 
there is a bill that basically is apple pie and puppy dogs and 
everything that we should really look into what is going on 
into this bill. Now, we all want our service members paid well. 
They should be paid more. We honor our military. We want them 
taken care of while they are in their service. When we send 
them overseas, they should go only with a clear mission. They 
should go with everything and every tool they need for clear 
and quick victory, and then we should bring them home, and then 
we should take care of them following their service. That is 
something I think we all agree with.
    When I began to look at this bill, I noticed a couple 
things began to bother me right off the bat, and that is that 
it begins to make this false equivalency. And indeed, the 
Chairman and Ranking Members comments focused on our military, 
but this bill gives the same benefits to our Foreign Service, 
our State Department, as our military. I think that is a false 
equivalency that we should not assume. And indeed, when you 
begin to look at the numbers of who would actually be affected 
by this bill, it is less than one percent of our military 
people serving in military that have a spouse serving in the 
Federal bureaucracy.
    On the other hand, when you look at our State Department, 
it is estimated, best numbers available, that 15 percent of our 
State Department has a spouse serving in the State Department. 
That does not account for the other agencies, so we could guess 
maybe it is 20 percent or more. So, this is really--when we 
talk about it being about the military, this is really more 
about our State Department having guaranteed work wherever they 
go.
    I think it is important that in everything that we are 
doing, we remember that every public service job exists to 
serve the American people. And I think we are going down a 
dangerous precedent when we begin to say that Federal 
bureaucrats' jobs are guaranteed for life, and it kind of flips 
the coin to where the American people then exist to serve and 
create jobs for the bureaucrats. I do not think that is where 
we want to go. We do want to make sure, and I am going to 
reiterate, if this is really about our military, which this 
claims to be, this is called the READINESS Act. And so, we are 
talking about having military ready, having an equipped force. 
We all know that there are major recruiting problems that are 
going on right now, but again, this addresses less than 1 
percent of our military. It is 0.8 percent of our military. If 
this is really about readiness, we have major recruiting 
problems that we can deal with and that we should address, but 
I do not believe--this is a very roundabout way of addressing 
those issues. One of the biggest issues that has led to our 
recruitment goals not being met is the woke turn our military 
has taken, the DEI initiatives that we have put in, all the 
things that we are trying to do in our military to make it a 
social engineering experiment instead of the world's elite, 
premier fighting force that is ready to go blow things up when 
necessary.
    This is a well-intended act, but it does not accomplish the 
goals it seeks out to accomplishes, and for that, I have some 
serious concerns about it. And I would recommend that we 
withhold this bill and bring it up at a later date when we have 
had a chance to really address these issues.
    Mr. Raskin. But will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Cloud. Sure.
    Mr. Raskin. I just was not familiar with the statistics you 
were citing. You said that 15 percent of State Department 
spouses work in the Federal Government?
    Mr. Cloud. That is not available. The State Department does 
not track it. The best numbers available we could find since 
this came----
    Mr. Raskin. OK. And then you said 1 percent of military 
spouses working in the Federal----
    Mr. Cloud. It is 0.8 percent of military spouses.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. And can you just share that information?
    Mr. Cloud. Sixteen thousand of 2 million.
    Mr. Raskin. So, 16,000 spouses are working in the Federal 
Government?
    Mr. Cloud. Of the 2 million.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. And so, even though----
    Mr. Cloud. And by the way, it is not usually your 
infantryman whose spouse is working somewhere in the State 
Department or somewhere else in another agency. It is usually a 
higher level. And I am not saying that we should not give 
attention to that, but the greatest benefactors in this bill, 
that we are calling a READINESS Act for our military, are State 
Department employees, and I have a concern with us placing that 
on equal footing.
    Mr. Raskin. If I can just pursue the question for 1 second 
since I have not seen the statistics. In hard numbers, are 
there more military spouses or more State Department spouses 
who are affected? There are obviously a lot more people in the 
military.
    Mr. Cloud. Well, I have an amendment to remove the State 
Department aspects of it and----
    Mr. Raskin. Right. I was just interested in the statistics. 
You said there were 16,000 spouses of people in the Army or the 
Marines or the Navy, you know, but do you know how many spouses 
are in the State Department who would be affected by it?
    Mr. Cloud. It is a lesser number.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. So, it is a smaller number, but a bigger 
percentage. OK. All right. So, we are talking about thousands 
of people.
    Mr. Cloud. Which is why I am not saying can the bill, I am 
saying I think we should readdress it.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    Mr. Cloud. And then bring it back.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for yielding.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Crockett, the 
sponsor of the bill.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. While we are calling 
this the READINESS Act, I do want to remind my colleagues that 
what this essentially does is it keeps families connected. And 
thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for your support of this 
bipartisan bill to support the retention of some of the most 
patriotic Federal employees, spouses of our armed forces 
members and the Foreign Service personnel. These dedicated men 
and women are not only an asset to our workforce, but to our 
country as well. Given all they do, Congress should be doing 
everything in our power to retain these military and foreign 
service spouses in our Federal workforce.
    Unfortunately, as I have stated before in this Committee, 
too often these outstanding Federal employees are not retained 
when their spouses get a change of duty station order. As a 
result, a military spouse is facing unemployment rate several 
times higher than the national average. Not only does this hurt 
their career development, but it needlessly deprives the 
government of well-qualified workers. It is also a threat to 
our national security and military readiness. We all have seen 
various military branches have struggled to meet their target 
recruitment goals. That is why retaining the current members of 
our armed forces is more important than ever. Unfortunately, 
over 20 percent of military families who leave active duty cite 
issues finding spousal employment as a factor for their 
separation. That is why Congressman Don Bacon and I built this 
bipartisan consensus on the need to use every tool available to 
support these Federal employees through the READINESS Act.
    This bill gives due process assurance to military and 
Foreign Service spouses, no matter what agency they are in. If 
their spouse is serving in the military and Foreign Service 
gets a permanent change of station order, the spouse working in 
Federal Government will also get an individual determination 
about the agency's ability to retain them, either through 
remote work, reassignment, or a combination of the two. Right 
now, while there is significant positive movement from the 
executive branch on retaining military spouses overseas, thanks 
to First Lady Jill Biden's Joining Forces Initiative, more 
still needs to be done to ensure every federally employed 
military and Foreign Service spouse, regardless of agency, 
knows that the Federal Government values their contribution and 
wants to continue to retain them. In the event that retention 
is not a viable option, based on the family's permanent change 
of station, my bill will provide spouses time to find a new job 
within the government by providing up to 6 months of leave 
without pay.
    We also know that moving across the country and around the 
world in service to our country is not an easy task. That is 
why my READINESS Act gives military and Foreign Service spouses 
additional tools to help them reenter the Federal Government. 
Once we pass this bill, spouses will no longer have to worry 
about their security clearances expiring for the duration of 
the permanent change of station. This bill also ensures that 
these spouses do not lose reinstatement eligibility just 
because they were on a long series of permanent change of 
station.
    Now, we know in this Committee, we have had our fair share 
of fireworks, and that is putting it gently. But, I must say 
that I genuinely want to say thank you to Chairman Comer for 
putting my bill on the agenda today and for working with my 
staff on this ANS. I want to thank Ranking Member Raskin, not 
just for co-sponsoring the bill, but all the work that his 
amazing team has done with ours on this ANS. Thank you, 
Congressman Bacon, who has not only co-led this bill with me, 
but is also currently working with me and another co-sponsor, 
Congresswoman Houlahan, to address issues for military and 
Foreign Service spouses in the upcoming NDAA as well. And 
finally, I want to extend a special thanks to the individual 
military and Foreign Service spouses who reached out to my team 
to raise these issues over a year ago, and who have worked 
tirelessly to come up with commonsense solutions.
    As a freshman, I will be honest that, from what I have 
seen, it often takes big names and deep pockets to make things 
move around here, but this is a story of individuals seeking 
redress from their government and Congress actually taking 
action. I am proud to have authored the READINESS Act and look 
forward to working with everyone in this building and getting 
this to the President's desk. With that, I will yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, like the 
gentleman from Texas, have some concerns about this piece of 
legislation, and so I am going to be looking very keenly at the 
amendments. But in a general sense, I think there are ways, and 
I appreciate the gentlelady's effort to try to address the 
concerns that military and State Department spouses may have 
when PCS moves occur regarding their security clearances or 
regarding further employment during that dwell time.
    But I also am concerned about this. We just recently had 
what we call Academy Night in the district that I am proud and 
privileged to represent where we have aspiring young people, 
young citizens that want to attend a military academy. They 
come in and receive information about the process and about the 
force they think that they might be interested in joining. And 
as a person who was honored to wear the military uniform of the 
United States for over 3 decades, I have a conversation with 
them where I tell them, you are agreeing to serve, you are 
asking to serve. There is no draft, and no one is requiring you 
to do this. You are doing this because you want to, and so you 
have to decide if you want to serve. And you might want to be 
an F-35 pilot, or you might want to be a submarine commander, 
or fly F-18s off of an aircraft carrier. And it is great when 
your requirements, when your wishes, when your demands, when 
your hopes meet with the Federal Government's requirements, 
with the needs of the U.S. military, in this case, or in the 
case of this bill, the State Department. When the needs of the 
individual marry up perfectly with the needs of the United 
States of America, that is a great circumstance, but sometimes 
and oftentimes, they do not, but you wanted to serve. That is 
why you are here. You want to serve.
    And so, the question is, are you going to serve or not? And 
if you are going to serve, service is about sacrifice. That is 
what service is, and the sacrifice that comes along with that 
is probably a PCS move. It is likely. You are going to have to 
move, and you might not get what we call an MOS, the skillset 
that you desire. You might not be the infantry person that is 
out there, the infantryman that is out there, you know, low 
crawling through the jungle and eating snakes. Maybe that is 
what you want to do, but maybe the U.S. Army thinks that you 
need to be a chemical officer because that is what we need at 
the time. Well, you said you wanted to serve, so you are going 
to serve.
    And so, my point is this. There are people that I 
represent, and I imagine the sponsor of the bill represents, 
that have to make decisions every day. They work in the private 
sector, and they get a job opportunity. I just happened to know 
one of my constituents is leaving the area that I represent to 
go to Atlanta. He has got a job opportunity. He is going to 
take his family and leave, and his wife is employed, and she is 
going to have to get a job, or if she wants to continue work, I 
guess she is either going to have to decide to stay in 
Pennsylvania or she is going to have to decide to go to 
Atlanta. I guess the point is, is that we all make decisions. 
And I am concerned when there is a circumstance where the 
Federal Government is saying we are going to guarantee, the 
taxpayer and the United States is going to guarantee, you a job 
if you work for the Federal Government. That is not the way it 
works in the rest of the marketplace anywhere.
    We all make decisions. If you want to have a family, and 
being in the military or in the State Department no longer 
works for you as a person who wants to start a family or have a 
family, you have a family and your PCS move does not work for 
you, I get it.
    Ms. Crockett. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Perry. We all get it. Hold on, ma'am. I want to 
complete my thought here. We all get it, but that is a decision 
that you have to make. Life changes. Things change. It is not 
the job or the role, nor should it be, of the Federal 
Government to make sure that decisions it needs to make on 
behalf of the American people, on behalf of national security, 
on behalf of international or foreign affairs, to make sure 
that it works for you. That is a decision that we cannot be 
making. We need to make the decision that is best for America, 
whether it is in uniform or whether it is at the State 
Department, and if that works out for you, that is awesome. But 
if it does not work out for you, then you have got a decision 
that you have got to make.
    We cannot fashion our decisions on national security based 
on the individual needs of people that signed up of their own 
volition for a job that they wanted to pursue, and God bless 
them. We are happy they want to do it. We are happy that they 
want to serve. We are happy that they want to sacrifice, but 
that is what comes with the territory. If that is not for you, 
we need insurance salesmen and we need people to clean pools, 
and we need all kinds of things in America. That is OK. With 
that my time has expired.
    Mr. Biggs. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired. 
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 
Porter.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. My brother was in the Navy 
and went to the Naval Academy, and one of the reasons that he 
left after his years of service was his concern about being 
able to have a family and for his spouse to be able to have a 
career. And the military spent lots of money trying to entice 
him to stay, and so it is not a choice between doing nothing 
and doing something. The question is, what do we want to do. 
That said, I take Mr. Cloud's point about needing to do more to 
help the spouses and partners of younger and newer 
servicemembers who maybe are not qualified yet to work for the 
Federal Government, and how can we educate and train them so 
that they are able to get Federal jobs, and I would be happy to 
partner with you on that.
    I want to speak briefly about my bill that was considered 
earlier. We have all seen kids do big school projects, you 
know, the ones that require every possible kind of glue, tape, 
paper, scissors to even get close to meeting the class 
requirements. And every parent who has helped their kid with 
one of these projects knows the feeling of rummaging through 
closets and drawers to try to see how many of the required 
supplies can you find before deciding whether you really have 
to go to Target at 8 p.m. I mean, how many sets of colored 
pencils, markers, and crayons ended up flying around? Like 
sure, it is easier to find the red crayon in a new box, but it 
would also be easy to find if you organize your existing 
crayons by color because sure enough, there will be three red 
ones there. Whether it is to save money or to save a trip out 
of the house, I cannot think of any parent who would not at 
least see what their kid can make of the supplies they have 
before agreeing to buy more.
    We need to know what the Federal Government has, that they 
are taking the same commonsense approach as parents to their 
own projects. What do we already have before we go and buy 
more? After all, the government is the biggest purchaser of 
goods in the world. And it is almost inconceivable that there 
is not a closet, drawer, warehouse, room full of supplies 
somewhere in the Federal Government that meets at least some of 
the needs of any project that any agency could want to do. Just 
like a parent, the Federal Government should have to assess how 
it can use the supplies it has, look for that red crayon, 
before it goes to the store to get more. And that is exactly 
what the bipartisan bill I introduced with my friend 
Congresswoman McClain would accomplish.
    Our Reuse Access Property Act would require agencies to 
issue public reports about their excess property, like 
supplies, furniture, or machinery and report how they tell 
their employees to use that excess property. The bill would 
then task an agency employee with searching through existing 
property for supplies that meet Agency needs before we buy 
more. By making agencies better use their existing supplies and 
tell the public how they are doing it, we can save taxpayers' 
money, and we can use our resources more efficiently.
    As a mom, I know kids always want new colored pencils 
rather than sharpening the ones that they have. I will tell the 
same thing to Federal agencies that I will tell my kids. I am 
not saying you cannot buy new supplies, but you better be sure, 
first, that you do not have those supplies lying around. I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
    I also just want to speak briefly on the Billion Dollar 
Boondoggle Act. I have been replacing a few appliances in my 
house, and whenever I get a new appliance, I have a basic 
expectation--the installation will be done as promised and I 
will not have to pay more than the quote--and I have been lucky 
so far, that is the case. But the installers have been lucky, 
too, because if they did not meet those basic conditions, I 
demand a full accounting of what went wrong. Nobody would want 
a boondoggle for their home repair project, paying extra and 
waiting longer. And homeowners certainly would not keep writing 
checks and keep paying bills on a boondoggle unless they were 
getting answers and improvements. We should not tolerate 
boondoggles as consumers, but we also should not tolerate them 
as taxpayers. Like an appliance in the home, government-funded 
projects are designed to serve the real needs of the people. If 
those projects run behind schedule and over budget, taxpayers 
deserve an accounting of why we are not getting what we paid 
for as promised.
    I introduced the bipartisan Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act 
with Congresswoman Miller-Meeks to make that happen. Our bill 
would require Federal agencies to disclose to Congress the 
reasons for delays and excess costs when a government-funded 
project runs more than 5 years behind schedule or costs more 
than $1 billion than its budget. It would also identify the 
contractors responsible for that boondoggle. That is the 
information we can use to conduct oversight and determine how 
to get projects back on track or when it might be necessary to 
pull the plug. By shining an example on some of the worst 
examples of waste in government funded projects, this bill 
would give taxpayers that chance.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Biggs. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
    Mr. Higgins. To speak on Ms. Crockett's bill.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a unique 
moment in Congress when there is a joining of the minds that 
are this far apart, and so let us embrace them all.
    I support the bill from a conservative perspective. Let me 
say that I believe, and most conservatives across the country 
believe, that the disintegration of the very fabric of our 
Nation began as we stepped away from the traditional American 
family. And the core principles that served our country so well 
for 200 years has been gradually eroded over the last 5 
decades, as we have lost that traditional American family 
structure. So, I see this as a family unity bill. Yes, there 
are not that that many military members that would fall in this 
category, but it is thousands and thousands of military 
members, and I think that those thousands and thousands of 
American families are important.
    And if there is an involuntary, you know, transfer, then 
yes, that is part of service. I am an Army veteran. You know, 
you swear your oath. You follow the orders: ``yes, sir, ``yes, 
ma'am.'' However, the family impact is real, and if we can 
mitigate against it without spending a bunch of money, I think 
that the bill should be considered across the spectrum 
politically, as to whether or not it is a benefit to our 
republic. And maintaining families, I would argue from a 
conservative perspective is most certainly a benefit to our 
republic. The expense of hiring and training up a replacement 
employee is far greater than maintaining an experienced 
employee.
    And let me say that I would oppose this bill had it been 
written in a manner that guaranteed pay for a spouse that was 
maintained,--and you are maintaining their position so that 
this family has a solid choice, man, to say, OK, we are going 
to accept this transfer and I am not going to be able to work 
remotely. However, I have a window where I can maintain my 
security clearance and maintain my status, and I can seek other 
employ on a lateral level. So, I just think it is a family 
friendly bill. And it is a moment where--you know, I consider 
myself one of the most conservative Members of Congress, and I 
join some of the most liberal Members of Congress in support of 
this bill.
    Ms. Crockett. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Higgins. I did. I yield to the young lady and briefly, 
ma'am, so that I can recognize----
    Ms. Crockett. Absolutely.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Mr. Cloud as well.
    Ms. Crockett. I just want to say that that was the response 
that I expected. I expected that the one thing that we could 
agree on in this particular Committee, or in this Congress, was 
the idea of supporting families, especially military families. 
And it is absolutely right, we are not at a 100-percent 
capacity for any Federal agency right now. We are down 30 
percent when it comes to air traffic control and so many 
others. We do not have the workforce that we need, and this 
solves two issues. No. 1, we are lacking in recruitment when it 
comes to military service, and No. 2, this makes sure that we 
do not have to go out and get somebody else to come back in to 
replace these spouses, and hopefully, this will allow us to 
maintain our armed forces. So, thank you so much, and I will 
yield back.
    Mr. Higgins. Reclaiming my time right now to Mr. Cloud.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, gentleman, and you know my fondness 
for you, and you are certainly a conservative stalwart on the 
Hill. I would ask, and one of the concerns I had, was that it 
creates a disparity between, what about the service members 
whose spouses are in the private sector? What about those who 
are, you know, a law enforcement officer in their community, or 
a teacher, or those kind of things----
    Mr. Higgins. We do not have jurisdictional authority.
    Mr. Cloud. No, I understand that, but it troubles me. And 
then the idea that our Federal workforce is down 30 percent is 
largely because of the massive expanse of our Federal 
Government over the last 3 years.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Higgins. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Cloud. I am sorry. I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. Are you going to offer your amendment, Mr. 
Cloud?
    Mr. Cloud. Are we done debating this?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. Well, I do not think there is anybody else 
that wants to be recognized. I think everybody has----
    Mr. Cloud. Yes, I have an amendment.
    Mr. Biggs. Looks like almost everybody in the room has 
spoken, doggone it.
    Mr. Cloud. Burchett.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Burchett? Oh yes, sure. You seek 
recognition, Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I do not.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. So, Mr. Cloud?
    Mr. Cloud. Most popular speech in Congress.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. But, Mr. Cloud, what purpose do you seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Cloud. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Biggs. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all 
Members, and the clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 6462 as offered by Mr. Cloud of Texas.
    Mr. Biggs. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
as read.
    I reserve a point of order? You reserve a point? Mr. Cloud 
reserves a point of order. I do? OK. I am reserving a point of 
order. OK. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain 
his amendment.
    Mr. Cloud. My amendment is pretty simple. This would exempt 
from the bill any employees in a DEI office capacity, I think 
over the G-5. And so, you know, we talked about a workforce 
that is understaffed, and this is an area where DEI 
implementation into our military has hurt recruiting 
dramatically. And I do not think we need to be transporting 
these jobs certainly across different agencies, and so it would 
exempt DEI from this bill. And I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. Do any other Members wish to speak on this 
amendment? The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, but we would 
oppose, respectfully, the gentleman's amendment. The people 
working in DEI, and obviously it is a tiny fraction of people 
in the Federal workforce, are conducting a legitimate and 
essential function. The military actually has really led the 
way in American history in terms of overcoming segregation, and 
Jim Crow, and the barriers to integration and diversity. And 
so, I understand that this amendment seems to be mostly 
symbolic, but to the extent that it would actually affect 
anybody, I just do not see the logic of it. And it undercuts 
the general principle that the gentlelady from Texas is trying 
to advance, and I do not know if she has got any thoughts on 
it, but I will yield back at this point.
    Mr. Biggs. Who seeks recognition? The gentlelady from 
Texas.
    Ms. Crockett. Yes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, briefly. 
So long as a position exists in our government and until the 
law changes, if it changes, then I think that then we are 
starting to impart disparities and say you can have your job so 
long as your job does not do this, even though you have that 
job and that job was authorized, and it still means that that 
job will still have to be filled. Not to mention, I honestly do 
not do things to message and go home. I will be clear that I 
have essentially won my reelection. Anything that I am doing 
has nothing to do with politicking. I actually want to get 
something done for the American people.
    And I was at a signing ceremony at the White House, and I 
did speak to women who have been communicating with our office 
for months. And the reality is that we know that we have had 
poison pills that have come through this Congress, and every 
time there is a poison pill, it literally kills the bill. And I 
just do not think that is worth it to kill the bill when there 
is so many people that are absolutely seeking to stay. All they 
want to do is stay with their families or allow their spouses 
to stay in their military service. And this is one of those 
things that takes it from being a bipartisan bill and takes it 
down to partisan messaging. And I honestly just want to make 
sure that of the few things that we do get accomplish this 
cycle, that we make sure that we do something that will address 
our military readiness as we have seen unrest throughout this 
world. And I am so concerned about what may happen if what is 
going on overseas continues to escalate. It may mean that we 
are going to call servicemembers up.
    Right now, this may not be affecting too many folks, but I 
am telling you right now, if things continue to explode in this 
world, we are going to have a problem, and we are looked at as 
the model of the world. We need to do everything that we can 
for the best military that we have, and that means supporting 
them in whatever capacity we can, and it starts with this bill. 
With that, I will yield.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields back. Who seeks 
recognition?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Biggs. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Opposed, no.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    Mr. Raskin. I would like to request a recorded vote.
    Mr. Biggs. A recorded vote is recorded, excuse me, is 
ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the 
question will be postponed.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud.
    Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Biggs. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all 
Members, and the clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. The second amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 6462 as offered by Mr. Cloud of 
Texas.
    Mr. Biggs. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
as read.
    I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman. I do not know that I will 
need 5 minutes. We have covered a lot of this. But we keep 
referring to this as a military readiness bill, and as has 
already been discussed, this affects less than 1 percent of our 
military. There are a whole lot of things we can do that would 
better help our military and certainly our recruiting. For 
example, I have been trying to get barracks built at the Naval 
Air Station in Corpus Christi so that we can have our incoming 
pilots have a place to stay. Their barracks have been 
condemned, but I cannot, because of HASC rules, get that done 
because of our House Armed Services Committee.
    So, you know, there are a lot of ways that we can address 
recruiting. This affects 1 percent, and certainly not those who 
are entering the military as much as those who have been in for 
quite some time. And so, furthermore, while this affects 1 
percent of our military, it is estimated 15 to 20 percent of 
our State Department is the true beneficiary of this bill. And 
so, I am concerned with the sense that we need to put on parity 
our State Department with those serving in harm's way in our 
military. And so, my amendment would simply exclude the Foreign 
Services from this bill, and I will yield back to the Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. Do 
you want to speak?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, please.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make 
a couple of points in opposition to the distinguished 
gentleman's amendment. The first is, this legislation would 
actually affect a hundred percent of the people in the military 
and a hundred percent of people in Foreign Service. Just 
because you are not using a particular benefit at a particular 
time does not mean that the benefit is not available to you, 
right? So, most of the people in this room are not on Social 
Security, but Social Security affects all of us because at some 
point, presumably, it would be activated for us, and that is 
true in general for any program that works like this.
    So, I have not seen those exact statistics yet, and the 
fact that it may apply to a small number of people in the 
military and an even smaller number of people by the 
gentleman's representation in the Foreign Service, to me is an 
argument for it. It is not really going to be affecting that 
many people, but it is an important statement of principle that 
we want to make military service and Foreign Service function 
for our people in this time of labor shortages. And in general, 
I will just say, everybody knows from at least the memory of 
the Iran hostage crisis, if you were around then--I think I was 
in 4th or 5th grade--but the Foreign Service officers are 
putting their lives and bodies on the line when they go into 
dangerous countries, dangerous stations, and deployments. I 
just pulled up an article saying that the State Department 
added recently 71 historical names to a plaque honoring people 
who lost their lives in Foreign Service.
    But of course, this is not just about physical risk. We are 
talking about people who engage in a lot of family and personal 
life disruption in order to serve the government. And, you 
know, I will let Ms. Crockett defend the inclusion of people in 
the Foreign Service who are deployed all over the world, but it 
seems to me that the logic of the legislation is airtight. It 
is for people who are being suddenly and often involuntarily 
deployed or redeployed around the world who, you know, make the 
decision to serve the country in this way, to allow their 
spouses to continue to pursue their employment, their 
livelihood, and support their families. And with that, I will 
yield back to Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
    Ms. Crockett. I was just going to echo the sentiments.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. The sentiments 
raised by the Ranking Member, this is about people that are 
serving our government and the fact that we are debating 
whether or not we will support people that are supporting and 
serving the United States and told that they need to go 
overseas. It is kind of bewildering to me right now. I just do 
not know why.
    I see why we have recruitment issues. If this is what you 
get when you sign up to serve the greatest Nation in this 
world, we should be respecting and supporting people that are 
in service to us. Not everybody gets the ability to sit at home 
and serve the Federal Government. Sometimes they have to leave. 
In fact, if I could expand it more, I would actually talk about 
our Border Patrol agents because unfortunately, they have 
complained to me as well about having to go to the border and 
leave their families. But at least when they are going--I am 
just being real, like literally. See, I know you want to talk 
about it.
    But I am being real when I tell you that I am not doing 
this to be partisan. I am doing this because it really needs to 
be done, and I am hoping that you can understand that this is 
something that we need to get done in service to all people 
that are serving. And the only reason I did not include them, 
since you hit your button, is because we are talking about 
people that are sent overseas because they are not necessarily 
leaving their home and going a hundred miles. They are going so 
much further for a longer amount of time, and with that, I will 
yield.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. I was not going to say anything, but you know, 
the gentlelady from Texas has imputed political motives in her 
last two speeches. I get it. We work in an environment where 
politics is always on the line, and so you might view people 
with dubious intent and motive. You are trying to demean Mr. 
Cloud's motives, which I think is really unfortunate. If you 
want to know what drives partisanship, that is what drives 
partisanship. He has made two motions in good faith, and yet 
you have imputed bad faith. That is what you did. When you 
started talking about partisanship, that is what you did.
    Because the reality is, I am not going to talk 
partisanship. I am going to talk about the logic of the 
argument you just made. The logic of the argument you just made 
was, OK, we are going to go to military because they provide a 
service to the country. We are going to go to State Department 
because they provide service to the country. I would do it for 
the Border Patrol because they provide service to the country. 
Capitol Police, they provide service to the country. Virtually, 
every bureaucrat, they provide service to the country. We 
ostensibly assume we would make that argument, right? So, what 
Federal Government employee then would be excluded from the 
benefits that you are posting here? That is what I would 
suggest.
    And I am not saying that this is not necessarily a good 
bill. I am just saying I have a real trouble with people taking 
the self-imposed high road saying I am above politics. I am 
above it. Doggone it, I wish you were. Your amendment is not 
pure. My bill is pure. Your amendment is not. That is what 
drives the approach of politics here, which makes it 
unworkable, and that leads to the disputes.
    By the way, I sit on Judiciary, and Mr. Raskin has sat on 
Judiciary with us before. I happen to sit on the two most 
probably contentious committees in Congress, so I see it. But I 
am just suggesting that sometimes people are actually trying to 
get to certain place where they can support a bill, and their 
motives are just as pure as anybody else's motives. They think 
they can make the bill better. They have an objection, and we 
start talking past each other by imputing motives. That is how 
we have so much difficulty. That is my own opinion on that.
    And that is why I said, logically, you could make a 
slippery slope argument here. That is all I am saying. And I am 
not saying that the bill is not good, the underlying bill is 
not good. I am just saying maybe some people have legitimate 
questions and they want to resolve it, but when motives are 
impugned, it stultifies debate. It really does.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for those thoughtful comments, and I 
think your point demonstrates why partisanship is such a 
difficult issue because I listened carefully to our colleague 
from Texas, and I did not hear the impugning of motives. I 
heard her disclaiming partisan motives, which may have been an 
implicit confession that sometimes she has partisan motives in 
legislation as I assume we all do.
    Mr. Biggs. I reclaim just for a second, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. I did not take it that that she was saying that. 
I took it the other way, so.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, in any event, as to the substantive 
point you make, which I think is an excellent one, the point 
about the slippery slope, the gentlelady could be offering a 
far more sweeping proposition here, which is that anytime 
anyone in the Federal Government is relocated for service out 
of the country or in the country, then they would get the 
benefits of this. And obviously, she has made the judgment, 
which seems commonsensical to me, that the two forms of service 
where people are most often and most extremely deployed to 
places where maybe their family was not expecting to go, are in 
the military service and in the State Department in the foreign 
service. And we could see how this looks out. I do not know how 
I feel about extending it to lots of other----
    Mr. Biggs. If I can just reclaim, because I just----
    Mr. Raskin. Please.
    Mr. Biggs [continuing]. I am almost out of time, I just 
want to make sure I can address that. I look at a place like 
CIA--a lot of transfers out of CIA. ATF, DEA, foreign transfers 
implicit with what they do. So, I am suggesting that there are 
so many other things, and that is where I say the logic lead to 
a slippery slope and let you pass this year. Somebody said, 
well, gee, you know, CIA next year, that is the point, and 
sometimes these things take a little bit of time to get to the 
bottom of the slippery slope. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, 
thanks for the time. Thanks, Mr. Raskin. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the 
amendment offered by Mr. Cloud.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. I would like to request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested by Mr. 
Raskin. 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. We plan 
to reconvene 10 minutes after Floor votes.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will reconvene.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 8333, The 
BIOSECURE Act. Members will record their votes using the 
electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on 
favorably reporting H.R. 8333.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members----
    Mr. Goldman. One more.
    Chairman Comer. Yes. Go ahead.
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    OK, we have one in route.
    I think we are ready to go now. OK. The clerk will close 
the vote and report the vote total.
    Chairman Comer. OK. I will make the exception. Let Ms. 
Pressley get recorded.
    OK. I apologize, Ms. Pressley. We have already closed the 
vote. I apologize. I am sorry, we cannot. I apologize.
    Mr. Raskin. We can make a statement publicly.
    Chairman Comer. If you want to publicly say your vote, and 
we will get----
    Ms. Pressley. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Let the record note she voted ``yes.''
    Will the clerk now report the vote total? I am sorry. What 
now?
    I am sorry. I know. Look, I want the vote. Sorry. We cannot 
reopen it.
    We had a Member miss the first vote, too. We had a Member 
miss the first vote, and we are not trying to do anything to 
you.
    Mr. Raskin. Can we do a one-time deal where she can 
manually record it for Burchett and Pressley?
    Chairman Comer. OK. We are going to make an exception here 
and manually add a couple of votes. So, Ms. Pressley, you wish 
to be recorded?
    Ms. Pressley. As a ``yes.''
    Chairman Comer. Ms. Pressley is ``yes.'' Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    Chairman Comer. He says, ``yes.'' Glenn?
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Glenn says ``yes.'' Does any other Member 
wish to be recorded?
    Who?
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush would like to change her vote from ``no'' to 
``yes.''
    This is it. We are not going to do this again, if everybody 
is OK with that. I am trying to be fair here. Everybody good?
    Mr. Raskin. Everybody is good.
    Chairman Comer. OK. All right. Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. LaTurner votes yes. Is everybody happy?
    This is the Oversight Committee. Everybody is supposed to 
be happy in here. Are you happy, Mr. Perry? All right.
    Mr. Raskin. What about Mr. Burchett? Did he show up?
    Chairman Comer. All right. That is it. Now, will the clerk 
please tally the vote?
    OK. All right. Wait a minute. We got Connolly and Burchett. 
We are going to get two more. How you want to vote? Mr. 
Connolly, do you wish to be recorded, despite your excessive 
tardiness?
    Mr. Connolly. I vote yes.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Burchett, would you like to be 
recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Burchett and Mr. Connolly, both vote 
yes. And guys, we are not doing this again. I do not care who 
else walks in.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, can the record reflect that I 
held it open for Mr. Burchett because I want to make sure we 
got his votes?
    Mrs. Luna. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Since we are all green, 
can we do something on Boeing now?
    Chairman Comer. I am sorry?
    Mrs. Luna. On Boeing.
    Chairman Comer. Boeing?
    Mrs. Luna. Yes, you know, Boeing.
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mrs. Luna. Can we do a hearing on Boeing since we are all 
green?
    Chairman Comer. We will talk about that after this. Will 
the clerk please report the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 40. The 
nays are 1.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is reported 
favorably.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    All right. Everybody set and ready to go now?
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5255, the 
Federal Cybersecurity Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2023. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 5255.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 42. 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 is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8334, the 
Grant Integrity and Border Security Act. Members will record 
their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will 
now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 8334.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    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.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8276, the 
Reuse Excess Property Act. Members will record the vote using 
the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote 
on favorably reporting H.R. 8276.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 44. 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 is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8335, the 
Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act. Members will record the vote 
using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the 
vote on favorably reporting H.R. 8335.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 44. 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 Committee will now resume consideration of H.R. 6462, 
the READINESS Act. The question is now on the previously 
postponed amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to 
the amendment of H.R. 6462. This is the Cloud Amendment Number 
1.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 23. The 
nays are 21.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the amendment is 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud. Members will record the vote 
using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the 
vote on the Cloud Amendment Number 2 to the amendment of H.R. 
6462.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members voted who wish to vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will now close the vote and 
report the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 20. The 
nays are 24.
    Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 6462, as amended.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [No response.]
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6462, is agreed 
to.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6462, as 
amended. Members will record their vote using the electronic 
voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably 
reporting H.R. 6462.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 30, the 
nays are 13.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up the following en bloc 
postal naming bills, which were distributed in advance on this 
markup: H.R.s 5985, 6810, and 7893.
    Without objection, the bills are considered read.
    If any Member would like to speak on any of the measures, 
they may do so now. Any Member wish to speak?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on 
favorably reporting the en bloc package.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [No response.]
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The en bloc 
measures are favorably reported. The motion to reconsider is 
laid on the table.
    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.
    [Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]