[House Prints 118-CP]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress }
COMMITTEE PRINT
2nd Session }
_______________________________________________________________________
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
__________
FEBRUARY 6, 2024
__________
Serial No. CP:118-8
__________
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
54-770 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Ryan Giachetti, Counsel
Christian Hoehner, 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 February 6, 2024................................. 1
BILLS CONSIDERED
----------
* H.R. 6283, The Delinking Revenue From Unfair Gouging (Drug)
Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 2
* H.R. 7219, The Information Quality Assurance Act Of 2024
Bill Discussed................................................... 16
* H.R. 262, The All Economic Regulations Are Transparent
(Alert) Act of 2023
Bill Discussed................................................... 20
* H.R. 5798, The Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act
of 2023
Bill Discussed................................................... 24
* H.R. 7184, The Congressional Budget Office Data Access Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 37
* H.R. 6972, The Securing Chain Of Command Continuity Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 39
* H.R. 5658, The Vote By Mail Tracking Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 42
* H.R. 5887, The Government Service Delivery Improvement Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 46
* Several Postal-Naming Measures
Bill Discussed................................................... 52
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 262, Heritage Action;
submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, ACLU; submitted by Rep.
Raskin.
* Statement for the Record, AffirmedRx; submitted by Chairman
Comer.
* Statement for the Record, ALERT Act, NFIB; submitted by
Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, DRUG Act, CommOncology; submitted
by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, DRUG Act, NAM; submitted by
Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, DRUG Act, OneOncology; submitted by
Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, DRUG Act, TransparencyRX, Feb.
2024; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, DRUG Act - TransparencyRX, Jan.
2024; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, D.C. Police Union;
submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, Fullerton POA Support
Letter (CA); submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, Las Vegas Police
Protective Association (NV); submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, National FOP; submitted
by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, Pomona POA (CA);
submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, Public Safety Alliance
of Nevada (NV); submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, San Jose POA; submitted
by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, Sergeants Benevolent
Association; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, UCOPS Support Letter
(Nationwide); submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 6283, APCI; submitted by
Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 6283, BioSimilars Council;
submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 6283, NARFE; submitted by
Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, PBM Accountability Project;
submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, PhRMA; submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, D.C. City Council;
submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Article, Politico, ``Judge rejects QAnon shaman's bid to
throw out Jan. 6''; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Statement for the Record, ALERT Act, Coalition for Sensible
Safeguards; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Statement for the Record, H.R. 5798, D.C. City Council;
submitted by Rep. Raskin.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS AND
POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES
----------
Tuesday, February 6, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Turner, Gosar,
Foxx, Grothman, Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace,
LaTurner, Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene,
McClain, Boebert, Luna, Burlison, Waltz, Raskin, Norton, Lynch,
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Porter, Bush, Gomez,
Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman,
Moskowitz, and Tlaib.
Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A
quorum is present.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(b) and House Rule VI, 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 or the yeas and nays are
ordered.
Today, we will use an electronic system for recorded votes
on amendments and passage of the bills before the Committee. I
will discuss this process prior to any recorded votes, but for
awareness, my intention is to hold the first vote open for a
bit longer than the following votes just to allow Members to
arrive and get familiar with the new system. When using the
electronic voting, Members must be in their seat in the hearing
room to cast a vote. Members are not allowed to remove their
voting remote from the room. Once voting begins, Members will
be able to select ``yes'' or ``no'' or ``present'' for each
vote. A Member may change their vote at any time prior to the
closing of the vote by the clerk, but once a vote is recorded
by a Member, they may not un-record their vote from the record.
Of course, should any technical issues arise, which I do
not anticipate as I have tested the system, we will immediately
transition to a traditional roll call. This new system will
allow the Committee to dispense with votes quickly, so it is
important that Members arrive on time to vote and do not leave
the room during the vote series. Any procedural or motion-
related votes during today's markup will be dispensed with by a
traditional roll call vote.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chair, a question on that?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. If somebody is, you know, going back and
forth to another Committee and so forth, and they come in the
door to try to make the vote, will they be recognized verbally,
or are they going to now be required----
Chairman Comer. I think we have to vote by this, right? We
have to vote because it will pop up on the screen.
Mr. Connolly. Got it. Got it.
Chairman Comer. Everybody has to vote.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Is that OK? All right.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 6283, the Delinking
Revenue from Unfair Gouging Act. The clerk will please
designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 6283, the Delinking Revenue from Unfair
Gouging Act, a bill to improve services provided by pharmacy
benefit managers.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without
objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please
designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered to H.R. 6283, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and amendment.
Rarely a day goes by that I do not hear from constituents
concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. I am
pleased that today we have an opportunity to both address and
lead this issue which is so important to many Americans. H.R.
6283, the Delinking Revenue from Unfair Gouging or Drug Act
will make much-needed changes to the pharmacy benefit market.
Consolidating PBMs are supposed to help negotiations and reduce
the cost of prescription drugs for patients. I might add, the
consolidation of pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, that the
industry has left us with just three PBMs controlling 80
percent of the market.
Instead of reducing the cost of prescription drugs for
patients, some PBMs have leveraged their control of the
prescription drug market to control drug prices, rebates,
pharmacy reimbursements, insurers, pharmacy networks, and
formularies for financial gain. PBMs currently operate as
middlemen between health insurers, drug manufacturers, and
pharmacies in an unnecessarily complex prescription drug supply
chain. In doing so, some PBMs have increased the overall cost
of prescription drugs and hurt consumer choice. Furthermore, by
skimming discounts meant for local pharmacies, certain PBM
practices drive up prescription drug prices for patients. Some
PBMs have been found civilly liable for these practices.
That is why we are here today, to consider part of the DRUG
Act to help curb these practices. We are specifically
considering Subsection (d), which would ensure that PBMs
contracting with carriers that provide Federal health benefit
plans are prevented from engaging in many of these harmful
practices. This legislation would ensure that covered PBM
revenues are limited to fair market value service fees and
would prohibit PBMs from charging health plans more than what
they ultimately pay to pharmacies. The bill also prevents a PBM
from steering beneficiaries toward pharmacies owned by the PBM,
ensuring a consumer can go to the pharmacy of their choice.
Finally, Subsection (d) of this legislation provides
enforcement authorities for the subsection of the Office of
Personnel Management, including the ability to collect $10,000
daily civil penalty for noncompliance.
My amendment in the nature of a substitute offers necessary
technical edits and expands on the legislation by allowing OPM
to deposit any collected monetary penalties into the FEHB fund.
I am pleased the Committee is considering such important
legislation to rein in these PBMs and curb these abusive
practices. This legislation is supported by several
organizations, including the National Federation of Federal
Employees, the Association of National Active and Retired
Federal Employees, the National Association of Manufacturers,
the Community Oncology Alliance, Transparency-Rx, the PBM
Accountability Project, the Association of Accessible
Medicines, AffirmedRx, Patients Rising Now, and the
Biotechnology Innovation Organization. I urge my colleagues to
support this very important and bipartisan bill. I now yield to
the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend
you and the Oversight Republicans for joining with us, the
Oversight Democrats, this Congress in exploring ways to
increase Americans' access to affordable medication. We held
two bipartisan hearings last year to evaluate how certain
pharmacy benefit managers', or PBMs', practices may harm
patients' timely and affordable access to medicine, hurt
independent pharmacies, and restrict provider care. The bill we
are discussing today is intended to buildupon these efforts and
solve some of the problems we identified, but it is difficult
to fully solve a problem before we completely understand it.
Our hearings last year made clear that, above all else,
PBMs are operating in a black box. Both Congress and the public
need a lot more clarity into how PBMs operate and how their
practices might operate in conjunction with other actors in the
prescription drug market, including Big Pharma, to make it
harder for patients to get the care that they needed at an
affordable cost. Last Congress, Oversight Democrats published
our findings from a 3-year investigation into drug
manufacturers that revealed how Big Pharma engaged in
anticompetitive behavior to keep drug prices artificially high
and specifically targeted the U.S. prescription drug market for
price increases. The findings from this report allowed
congressional Democrats and President Biden to address these
concerns in the historic Inflation Reduction Act, including by
allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for some of the most
expensive drugs in the country directly with manufacturers so
Big Pharma can no longer exploit American taxpayers and
patients.
This has allowed us to dramatically reduce prescription
drug prices for certain drugs. For example, for insulin, I had
constituents who were spending $1,000 a month on their insulin
shots as diabetics, and now that is capped at $35 a month in
the Medicare program. And at the same time, we saved the
taxpayers billions of dollars by letting the market work in
allowing the government to negotiate with Big Pharma for lower
prices. Unfortunately, there is not a similarly comprehensive
report on PBM behavior or an approach to the problem. Without a
thorough understanding of how PBMs operate, I worry we cannot
know to what extent this bill will actually address the
problems it tries to solve.
That is why I plan to introduce a few amendments designed
to help health plans and the Federal Government better
understand the industry and PBMs' potentially misaligned
incentives by establishing effective reporting and disclosure
mechanisms for PBMs. Bringing sunshine in the system will
enable Congress to craft and implement effective solutions. I
believe these amendments are necessary to effectively address
what we have come to learn about PBMs' role in the healthcare
system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Before I
recognize Dr. Foxx, I ask unanimous consent to enter the
following letters of support into the record: a letter from
OneOncology, a letter from Pharma, a letter from the National
Association of Manufacturers, a letter from the Association for
Accessible Medicines and Biosimilars Council, two letters from
Transparency-Rx, a letter from the PBM Accountability Project,
a letter from AffirmedRx, and a letter from Community Oncology
Alliance.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Foxx from
North Carolina for 5 minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
Comer, we share an interest in effective management of the
Federal Employees Health Benefits, FEHB Program, and in
delivering the best low-cost healthcare possible to Americans.
I chair the Committee on Education and the Workforce, of which
you are a member, and we have spent this Congress focused
intently on improving transparency in healthcare and addressing
the practices of pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs, in order to
deliver lower healthcare costs to patients and plans. That is
why I am proud of the House's broad bipartisan support for the
Lower Costs, More Transparency Act--legislation that will give
employers the information they need to make informed healthcare
purchasing decisions on behalf of their employees, and I look
forward to continuing to work with our Senate colleagues to
enact it this year.
As a conservative, I am always hesitant to invoke the
powers of the Federal Government, particularly to intervene in
private businesses' ability to design their own contracts and
determine fair compensation for their services. Overreach is
all too easy, and I am particularly concerned with such
interventions in the commercial healthcare market. Congress
does have a unique responsibility to ensure the FEHB Program
delivers the highest quality and lowest costs for Federal
workers. Tweaks to that program can reveal the consequences of
proposals that some may desire to expand more widely. That is
precisely what is before us today, the application of H.R.
6283, the Delinking Revenue from Unfair Gouging Act, or the
DRUG Act, to the FEHB Program.
The bill applies three significant changes to contracting
for prescription drugs by FEHB plans: delinking, a spread
pricing ban, and an anti-steering provision. Delinking is
intended to ensure that there is no incentive for a PBM to
select a higher list price drug in lieu of a lower net price
drug. We want to ensure that PBMs share the same incentives to
deliver the lowest net cost to the plans they serve. We also
must ensure bureaucrats do not have too much authority to
dictate how PBMs can be compensated. It is particularly
important to tread carefully on spread pricing and on anti-
steering provisions that may take away plan sponsors' ability
to lower cost. Employers who act as fiduciaries and benefit
providers for their employees deserve to have a full array of
tools available to design their plans to benefit patients and
keep premiums low.
All of these changes are motivated by good intentions, but
it is extremely important to move cautiously and avoid
unintended consequences. While I am aware that the Office of
Personnel Management has stated that these reforms may reduce
drug spending and premiums in the FEHB Program, I believe it is
important that the Congressional Budget Office share its
analysis of the full financial impact of the legislation in
short order. It is also very important that as this language
applicable to FEHB is considered, there are additional efforts
to ensure the text is perfected to address potential areas of
improvement.
I am aware that there is too little free about the
healthcare market in America. My North Star is restoring free
market incentives and ensuring that the employer-sponsored
healthcare so many Americans value is on a stable foundation
for the future. Out of a willingness to work with Chairman
Comer on giving a trial to these policies in the unique FEHB
market, I am voting today to support H.R. 6283. I am open to
additional good faith discussions with all stakeholders on each
of the three pillars of this legislation but believe
significant more study is necessary before any consideration of
similar reforms in the commercial market.
It is vital that Congress enact PBM transparency
legislation, the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act, into law
now so that we can see the benefits of that data flow to
patients and employers while revealing what additional action
is needed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time, and I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. Do any other Members wish to
speak on the bill? Yes, Mr.----
Mr. Raskin. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. OK. We have still got some discussion on
the bill first. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burlison from Missouri
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank you for holding this markup today, and we have a lot of
issues that are facing American people, and the high cost of
prescription drugs is certainly something that is worth
tackling. However, I respectfully disagree on this bill that
targeting PBM practices is the way to drive down costs and
expand consumer choice.
We all want to lower prescription drug prices, but the
devil is in the details. First, in the delinking--Subsection
(d) of this bill adds to the Federal Employee Health Benefits
Act a new section that would implement delinking policies.
Delinking is essentially the government stepping in and
delinking what PBMs are allowed to charge from the list price
to the net price, and while this sounds good on paper and may
feel good in the short term, it only serves to increase
premiums and raise costs for the patient.
Senator Rand Paul recently commented on a Senate drug
pricing bill that included delinking provisions, explaining,
``Like so many misguided policies in Washington, this bill may
actually raise drug prices. If that happens, just imagine the
outcry for a single-payer healthcare system with government
price controls. Maybe that is exactly what the left is betting
on, that if drug companies have free rein, the American people
will get fed up fast and demand a socialist paradise. Let us
hope that they do not get their wish,'' and I certainly hope
they do not get their wish either.
Regarding the process and the cost, I have some concerns
with the process as well as the potential cost of the bill. We
have had two PBM hearings in this Committee already this year,
and at no point did we hear from many of the groups that are
going to be involved, many of the stakeholders. Why are we
marking up a policy about which we have not had actual public
discussion with the stakeholders involved and the Federal
agencies that might be impacted? Regarding the CBO, we have not
seen, as was mentioned, a CBO score of this language. It has
not scored this, and what is complicating the matter is that
there are 800,000 postal retirees who will be shifting to
Medicare Part D this year, and the question is, has CBO scored
how this language will impact the cost for those retirees?
Additionally, the bill targeting PBMs' involvement in the
public sector is counterproductive, in my opinion. For example,
the Department of Labor's Inspector General found that the
Agency spent an extra $321 million over a 5-year period on
prescription drugs because they did not use a PBM. Free markets
simply work better. PBMs use their economies of scale to drive
down costs. In the same way that Walmart, as we all know, does
a great job of selling bulk things, but they do so at the
benefit of the consumer by driving down costs. PBMs are paid
based on performance. If they effectively secure savings from
drug companies, they are paid more. And that is a good thing.
The buying power of a PBM is one of the only remaining checks
on drug companies' unlimited pricing power. It is why you are
seeing all of the ads that are being paid for by pharma
targeting PBMs and supporting this bill. I would suggest that
if we are looking for solutions to combat skyrocketing drug
costs that we take a look at what our drug manufacturers are
doing.
And at the end of the day, I had the exact same opinion as
probably most of the Members are going to vote today. I
originally used to think that PBMs were part of the problem,
and after serving on the very board for an entire state, the
state of Missouri, who had to purchase the insurance for the
lives of over 100,000 people, my attitude changed. And I look
at this, and I think if I had been handcuffed in this way of
negotiating with what I had to negotiate with, with the
different insurance carriers and the pharmacy benefit managers,
the only result would be an increase in premium prices for the
lives of the insured people that I was purchasing insurance
for. And so respectfully, I will be voting against the bill.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Seeing that no
other Members want to speak on the underlying bill, I now
recognize our Ranking Member for an amendment.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the gentleman from Missouri for his thoughtful comments on
that. This proposed amendment to the bill would help ensure
that PBM reforms are working as intended by increasing
transparency----
Chairman Comer. We need to call for the amendment.
Mr. Raskin. Oh. I am sorry.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk distribute the amendment to
all Members?
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. And will the clerk designate the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 6283, as offered by Mr. Raskin of Maryland.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The purpose of the
amendment is to make sure that the PBM reforms work as intended
by increasing transparency around their business models. The
amendment would require PBMs and health plans to disclose
relevant information to Federal Employee Health Benefits
Program carriers, FEHB Program carriers, as determined by OPM.
OPM would determine which information would help the carriers
negotiate the best healthcare coverage and prescription drug
costs for Federal employees and promulgate reporting
requirements through the Federal rulemaking process.
Chairman Comer, I think you and I agree that if PBMs are
working as intended, they serve an important role in
negotiating lower drug costs and ensuring patients can get the
medications they need. And I think we also agree that we have a
drug affordability and accessibility crisis in the country, and
the current way PBMs operate is playing a role in exacerbating
it. But despite this Committee's efforts to engage on the
subject and hold substantive hearings, Congress and Americans
still do not have a complete understanding of how PBM practices
operate and how they may be contributing to high prescription
drug costs and reduced accessibility to medication.
I have in my possession a fact sheet from the sponsoring
office, Representative Miller-Meeks, of the DRUG Act. And while
I commend the legislative motivations behind the bill, it is
unclear how much evidence there is to support claims that the
bill will ``increase coverage of lower cost alternatives,
including generics and biosimilars, and generate savings for
employers and plan sponsors.'' I share those goals, and I want
to be sure that the bill will actually achieve them, but it is
hard to be sure that the changes proposed will accomplish those
objectives if the features of PBM operations remain shrouded in
secrecy and darkness.
Although we have heard that practices, like rebate
negotiation and spread pricing, may increase costs for patients
while enriching PBMs, without an understanding of the
remuneration PBMs may obtain from rebates, fees, and other
discounts and from practices like spread pricing, we do not
have complete insight into the ways in which PBM practices may
be a contributing factor of our drug affordability crisis. It
is clear we need increased transparency within the PBM market
to make sure Congress and the people understand the role they
play in our very needlessly complex healthcare system.
With this understanding, Congress can enact more effective
policy solutions. In fact, in a memo requested by the sponsor
of this bill, Ellis Health Policy, specifically said combining
delinking, as this bill would do, along with greater
transparency, which is the purpose of my amendment, we would be
generating additional savings and reducing premiums, and this
should be a bipartisan commitment. In fact, the Lower Costs,
More Transparency Act that was passed by the House in December
with bipartisan support included significant reporting
requirements for health plans and PBMs meant to shed light on
the inner workings of the PBMs, but that bill did not apply to
the Federal Health Benefits Program.
My amendment to this bill models the House-passed language
in the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act and would require
PBMs to report similar information to carriers that participate
in the Federal Health Benefits Program as determined by OPM.
For example, the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act requires
PBMs to report information related to PBM spending on drugs
dispensed to patients, the amount reimbursed by PBMs to
pharmacies for dispensing those drugs, and the remuneration
received by the PBM from drug manufacturers. By having a better
understanding of PBMs within the healthcare supply chain, FEHB
carriers will be better informed to ensure that patients will
end up coming out on top. I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Would the
Ranking Member engage in a friendly colloquy?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
Chairman Comer. I appreciate the Ranking Member's proposal
to bring greater PBM transparency to the Federal Employees
Health Benefit market. I have long been a supporter of PBM
transparency and believe it is one of the best ways we can
reduce the cost of prescription drugs for all of our
constituents. Transparency was a central proposed solution
during the hearings this Committee has held on the impact of
PBMs on prescription drug prices. State attorneys general in
Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Texas, and others have filed lawsuits and
opened investigations into the anticompetitive practices of
PBMs. State legislatures across the country have passed
legislation preventing some of their anticompetitive practices
and requiring transparency in pricing and contracts, and I know
that Kentucky did that.
Finally, the dam is breaking here in the Nation's Capital.
While I have some concerns that the Ranking Member's amendment
would cause confusion rather than transparency, I appreciate
his proposal and agree with the goals. So, I would commit to
working with the Ranking Member to draft comprehensive PBM
transparency within the FEHB, if he were willing to withdraw
the amendment and engage with my staff on drafting a separate
standalone bill to address that.
Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is
acceptable to me. I withdraw the amendment, and I look forward
to working with you on that comprehensive transparency
legislation.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. We will begin talks at the
conclusion of this hearing. Thank you. Does any other Member
wish to be recognized for the purpose of an amendment? Ms.
Crockett? Oh, for what purpose does Mr. Lynch seek recognition?
Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 6283, as offered by Mr. Lynch of
Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Comer. Representative Lynch is recognized for 5
minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Ranking
Member. It is good to be working on something where I think
there is general agreement between Republicans and Democrats.
It is refreshing.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the Inspector
General of the Office of Personnel Management to have full
access to information relating to contracts entered into by
pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs. The data would include
company-wide rebate receipt agent reports, information and
methodology used to calculate and allocate rebates, information
on average wholesale price, dispensing fees paid, and any
methodologies used to calculate additional administrative and
service fees. Including data from all contracts entered into by
PBMs will highlight any discrepancies or unfair practices
between the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan--FEHBP--and
other contracts. If the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan
has a contract that is higher than others, this amendment will
give the IG the ability to review that data. To this,
transparency is essential to ensuring proper oversight of these
PBMs.
I formerly chaired the Subcommittee on the Federal
Workforce, where we conducted an extensive investigation into
the role of these pharmacy benefit managers in prescription
drug pricing under the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program. The FEHBP--again, I hate to use these acronyms because
people do not understand what they mean--the Federal Employee
Health Benefit Plan is the largest employer-sponsored group
health insurance program in the world. It covers about 8
million Federal employees, retirees, former employees, and
their family members. It is widely considered the gold standard
when it comes to affordable health insurance.
For example, in our investigation, we learned that pharmacy
benefit managers and drug store combinations that manage 80
percent of the benefits within the FEHBP was offering its own
generic discount program. And under that generic discount
program, any person walking in off the street could sign up for
only $9.99 and gain access to hundreds of generic drugs. In
contrast, we found that a Federal employee enrollee and the
Federal Government, because we are helping contribute to this,
were paying much, much more for most of the drugs on that
general discount list, in some cases, $200 more for the exact
same drug.
So, get this. A Federal employee with insurance paid for by
themselves and the Federal Government on the copay would be
better off taking their insurance card, sticking it in their
shoe, and walking in off the street and saying I would like to
purchase a $9.99 discount program. As a stranger without
insurance, they would be charged less than they would be
charged if they walked in with full insurance coverage under
FEHBP. It was astounding. So, additional oversight and
transparency in PBMs' contracting is one area where we can find
bipartisan agreement. I look forward to adopting this amendment
and continuing to work together as Democrats and Republicans to
help Federal employees, and the American public, who are also
being ripped off by these PBMs. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Mfume. Would the sponsor yield for just a moment?
Mr. Lynch. I would.
Mr. Mfume. I am trying to get some sense as to why you
might think that this variance exists. I mean, is this a
subjective opinion? Clearly, it is not objective if people who
are Federal employees are paying that much more.
Mr. Lynch. Right. So, what we actually did, we actually
went to court. You know, the Federal Government and FEHBP went
to court against the PBM because we wanted to see the discount
arrangements that they had. They fought us tooth and nail, and
the court in that case agreed. They agreed that it was a
proprietary item--their discount process. So, we were blocked
by PBMs from getting information that would allow us to protect
not only Federal employees, but also just the American public
that might be dealing with a PBM as part of their insurance
program.
So, the PBMs are boosting the price of prescription drugs
and putting the difference in their pocket. They are making
tremendous amounts of money by this scam. And when we passed
the Affordable Care Act, it automatically made a lot of people
eligible for programs that were not eligible before, but they
are being ripped off as well, so it was a windfall for these
PBMs, right?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Would the sponsor take another
question?
Mr. Lynch. Sure.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, do you believe, Congressman Lynch,
that for those without insurance or who do not have the ability
to pay, that PBMs decided they would give them something that
was perhaps more akin to their own costs, but for Federal
employees, they decided to rip us off?
Mr. Lynch. Let me put it this way. They ripped off the
Federal employees big time, and they ripped off people who had
less ability, they ripped them off a little bit less.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. Well, they ripped everybody off.
Mr. Mfume. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. It is
so much in line with the testimony that this Committee has
heard over and over again about PBMs. I yield back.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you for your
courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
myself. First, let me say I appreciate Representative Lynch's
sincere effort to support the overall objective of the purpose
of the bill, and it is refreshing that this Committee can have
a substantive piece of bipartisan legislation that I believe
addresses waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government,
which is what our Committee is supposed to be focused on.
Transparency in the PBM market is vital to ensuring the
cost of prescription drugs to go down. However, the proposed
amendment far exceeds the scope of the Federal Employees Health
Benefit Program--our jurisdiction within this bill--and would
likely cause significant contracting issues for OPM. Whereas
the underlying bill is intended to stop certain PBM practices
within the FEHB program, the proposed amendment will require
any PBM contracting with the OPM to provide data and
information for every contract that PBM has with any company,
even if that information has nothing to do with the Federal
Employees Health Benefit Program. This requirement would
unnecessarily burden OPM with data it does not need to fulfill
the requirements of this particular bill. And given the
differences between healthcare programs across the Nation, this
data could create more confusion within the market. For these
reasons, I respectfully oppose the amendment offered by my
colleague, Mr. Lynch.
Do any other Members wish to speak on the Lynch amendment?
The chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts for this
excellent effort to ensure that PBMs negotiate the best costs
and real coverage for patients and his unwavering commitment to
increasing Federal workers' affordable access to healthcare.
I strongly support the amendment, which would require PBMs
to report key data points to the Office of Inspector General of
OPM. It would provide OPM OIG with increased resources to
improve audits of FEHB carrier contracts and ensure that the
PBMs engage in reasonable conduct that puts the healthcare of
Federal employees over the reckless pursuit of profits or rip-
offs, as the gentleman so eloquently put it. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back--oh, and I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Ranking Member. So,
here is the thing. As I mentioned, not only are Federal
employees being ripped off, but the general public is being
ripped off. And the way we drafted this is, it would give the
ability to work on behalf of both groups, right? If we just
restrict it to FEHBP, which is what the Chairman is saying the
bill requires, then we do address that narrower issue, and it
is 8 million people, so it is not insignificant. I recognize
that. But we got 330 million people in this country, and we
could be helping everyone, and so my inclination would be to
stand firm on protecting everyone.
However, if you tell me I sort of have a lifeboat problem,
where if we let too many people in and the boat sinks, then I
have got another thing to think about, but in first instance, I
would like to protect everybody. I think PBMs are ripping off
everybody, and we ought to stop them from ripping off
everybody. I guess it is the parliamentarian saying that this
is outside the scope of the--OK. OK. OK. Mr. Chairman, well, I
would yield back to the Ranking Member, and he can redeploy
his----
Mr. Raskin. Yes, I am happy to yield to my friend, Mr.
Mfume, from Baltimore.
Mr. Mfume. Yes. I just have a parliamentary inquiry. If the
gentleman wanted to amend his amendment to be in line with what
the Chairman of the Committee spoke about, is that admissible
today? I mean, can we do that?
Chairman Comer. We can get back with staff and resubmit it
in that manner.
Mr. Mfume. And I am not trying to get in front of the
sponsor, but I am just saying I hear him loud and clear, and I
heard you, Mr. Chairman. So, if there----
Chairman Comer. Yes. We agree with what he is saying. It is
just about the jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction just applies to
the Federal----
Mr. Mfume. Right.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Employees Health Benefit Plan.
Mr. Raskin. And I would like to yield back to Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman for the clarification. I
do have a further amendment that pulls it back. I have the
language here. I could offer that as a substitute amendment,
but it would now work just to protect the 8 million Federal
employees and their families.
Chairman Comer. That is great. You would have to withdraw
the current amendment, and then we would have to have the clerk
report this next one.
Mr. Lynch. OK. If that is allowable, I would do that. I
move to withdraw that and to resubmit this revised amendment.
Chairman Comer. OK. The clerk will distribute the second
Lynch amendment to all Members. OK.
Mr. Mfume. Is it a unanimous consent request? That way we
could move quickly.
Chairman Comer. Yes. We are going to have to distribute
this so everyone can look at it, so we will briefly suspend
while the proposed amendment is being distributed.
Mr. Mfume. And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that it is
distributed over here also. I did not get the last two.
Chairman Comer. Very well. My friend from Maryland will
have plenty of time this weekend to read lots of bills since we
will not be watching our quarterback play in the Super Bowl.
Mr. Mfume. No, the Ravens will be at home.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee is back in order. Mr. Lynch,
would you like to formally withdraw your amendment?
Mr. Lynch. I would. I would like to withdraw the amendment
and just note that we have, in progress, an amended----
Chairman Comer. Absolutely.
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. Version of that amendment that will
be offered a little later in the hearing.
Chairman Comer. Absolutely.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Lynch Amendment Number 1 has been
withdrawn.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Krishnamoorthi, seek recognition?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 6283.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 6283, as offered by Mr. Krishnamoorthi of
Illinois.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman from Illinoi is recognized
for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank Chairman Comer as well as Ranking Member Raskin and their
staffs for assistance with this amendment. I am so pleased that
we could do this on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strengthen pharmacy
benefit manager, or PBM, transparency by requiring the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management to report on services
provided by a health benefits plan or a PBM by posting on a
public website annually. Information would include aggregate
dollar amounts of rebates, administrative fees, and post-claim
adjudication payments collected. Information would also include
aggregate retained rebate percentages across all contractual
relationships for each PBM managing prescription drug coverage
for a plan under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. I
thank my Republican colleagues as well as my Democratic ones
for working to require PBM transparency in a bipartisan
fashion. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
myself to speak in support of this amendment. The rapidly
rising cost of prescription drugs have forced patients to
choose between lifesaving medications and putting food on the
table. H.R. 6283 is designed to decrease the cost of
prescription drugs by removing complicated incentives for PBMs
which push higher drug costs onto patients. This amendment
strengthens the transparency requirements on PBMs in the
Federal Employees Health Benefit Program by requiring aggregate
reporting of rebates, fees, and retroactive clawbacks.
Furthermore, this amendment will help ensure OPM has the
information needed to keep costs and premiums down. For these
reasons, I support the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr.
Krishnamoorthi from Illinois.
Do any other Members wish to speak on the amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Do any other Members wish to be recognized? The Chair
recognizes Ms. Crockett for 5 minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 6283, as offered by Ms. Crockett of Texas.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for
5 minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Members of the
Oversight Committee, it is our job to examine the issues and
increase transparency and oversight on problems facing the
American people. And once we do, we can develop tools and
legislative solutions to address these problems. I agree we
need to ensure PBMs do not take advantage of their role or
power to force companies, pharmacies, or beneficiaries to pay
higher prices just to benefit themselves. We also need to make
sure that how we change how the PBMs operate will actually
result in price decreases for those needing lifesaving
medications and increase reimbursement rates for our local
independent pharmacies.
I am offering this amendment today because before
restructuring our healthcare system, it is imperative that we
understand the complete role PBMs and others play in the larger
drug market system. My amendment is simple but an essential
step to ensure we have the necessary information and data to
make sure PBMs are doing their job to decrease drug cost, and
what Congress must do with entities, like Big Pharma, that do
the same.
We need to examine what particular barriers to entry exist
in the PBM market to make it more competitive and bring prices
down. We need to examine how frequently PBMs are steering to
pharmacies that are vertically integrated at the expense of
independent pharmacies. We need to examine if PBMs are forcing
nonvertically integrated pharmacies to pay more compared to
those that are vertically integrated, and how pervasive this is
and how damning its effects are on our community pharmacists.
We also need to examine whether forcing flat fees on PBMs will
achieve this goal of bringing down drug costs compared to other
solutions like capping revenue percentages. In short, we need
more answers, and we need to know whether these proposed
changes will actually result in savings.
By requiring a certification by OPM that the changes in
this bill will result in lower premiums, and by directing the
Government Accountability Office to publish a report with this
information, as well as recommend legislative actions for
lowering prescription drug prices for carriers and covered
individuals, improving lower cost and better competition in the
pharmaceutical supply chain, and developing PBM transparency
requirements, we will be extremely well equipped to achieve our
common goal of lowering drug costs and making sure Big Pharma
is not taking advantage of the little guys. And with that, I
will----
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. I now recognize
myself to speak in opposition of this amendment. I have long
supported efforts to examine the PBM industry and its impacts
on patients, premiums, healthcare costs, and pharmacies. I have
also called for improving transparency in PBM practices and
reforms to reduce the price of prescription drugs. However, I
am unable to support this amendment because it would condition
the bill's implementation on a certification unique to Federal
practice, enabling an unelected bureaucrat to determine whether
they want to implement the will of Congress.
The DRUG Act is important because we need Congress to step
up, take action to inspire real change to address the problems
of rising prescription drug costs, not allow an unelected
bureaucrat to dictate policy outcomes. For these reasons, I
respectfully oppose the amendment offered by Ms. Crockett from
Texas.
Do any other Members wish to speak on the Crockett
Amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, all those in favor of the
Crockett Amendment signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it----
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. And the amendment is not
agreed to.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. I would ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed, and we are going to suspend for a moment as we try
to finalize the proposed Lynch Amendment.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Massachusetts seek recognition?
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member
and Mr. Mfume.
Chairman Comer. Do you have an amendment at the desk?
Mr. Lynch. I do have a revised amendment at the desk. Thank
you.
Chairman Comer. I think we have distributed the revised
amendment.
Will the clerk designate the amendment?
The Clerk. Amendment Number 2 to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 6283, as offered by Mr. Lynch of
Massachusetts.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would
allow the Inspector General of the Office of Personnel
Management full access to information relating to contracts
entered into by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan and
PBMs, so this is narrower than the original amendment. The data
would include, as described before, reports and methodology
used to calculate and allocate rebates, information on average
wholesale prices, et cetera. And after making those edits
suggested by the Majority, the amendment includes data from
FEHBP contracts entered into by PBMs. This will highlight any
discrepancies within the FEHBP, and this transparency is
essential, I think, to ensuring the proper oversight of those
PBMs.
I do want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume,
for his assistance in this, and also Mr. Krishnamoorthi, as
well as the Ranking Member and the Chairman and Majority and
Minority staff. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
myself. I support this amendment. I think this is proof of good
faith effort by this Committee in a bipartisan manner to
address one of the biggest challenges that I think both sides
of the aisle agree we have in America, and that is the rising
cost of prescription drugs. So, this is a great example of our
sincere commitment to work together on this issue, to move
forward, for this Committee to lead on this issue, and I will
support the Lynch Amendment.
Do any other Members wish to speak on the amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the Lynch
Amendment.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the Lynch Amendment is agreed to.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7219, Information
Quality Assurance Act of 2023. The clerk will please designate
the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 7219, the Information Quality Assurance
Act----
Chairman Comer. OK. I apologize. We are going to back up.
All right. OK. Let us start all over.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7219, the
Information Quality Assurance Act of 2023. The clerk will
please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 7219, the Information Quality Assurance Act
of 2023, a bill to require agencies to rely on the best,
reasonably available scientific, technical, demographic,
economical, financial, and statistical information to support
new rules and guidance.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please
designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 7219, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
I am pleased to support this bill, the Information Quality
Assurance Act. Each year thousands of regulations are imposed
as an added burden on the American public. The Code of Federal
Regulations in which these rules are housed spans 243 volumes
that contain over 180,000 single-spaced pages. Agency guidance
explaining these regulations to the public likely spans
millions more pages. If we must have rules imposed by Federal
regulatory agencies, we should, at the very least, ensure that
regulatory agencies rely on the best-available information.
Unfortunately, agencies do not rely on the best-available
information to create the regulation. Year after year, the
Federal courts are clogged with litigation brought by regulated
parties, who point out that Federal agencies have acted based
on flawed information. Over the years, Congress has tried to
improve this situation. In 2000, Congress enacted the
Information Quality Act, which charged the Office of Management
and Budget and each Federal agency to adopt guidelines to
assure agencies relied on high-quality information. In 2015,
Congress enacted the Foundations of Evidence-Based Policymaking
Act, expanding on the Information Quality Act to further ensure
agencies use high-quality information. Still, year after year,
disputes arise over whether regulators are basing their
decisions on the best quality information available. Every
year, courts strike down agency rules that do not rely on
adequate information. Every year, agency guidance that does not
rely on the best information forces regulated parties down
pathways that do not make sense.
The Information Quality Assurance Act takes several major
but straightforward steps to solve that problem. For the first
time, it requires that the information on which agencies rest
their rules and guidance be the best, reasonably available
information. It also includes several additional terms to make
sure agencies are finally held to that standard. This
legislation will improve the quality of agency decision-making,
improve the acceptability of new rules and guidance, and avoid
the need for many disputes over agencies use of information to
go to court. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
bill, and I thank Representatives McClain and Porter for their
introduction of this important bipartisan legislation. I now
yield to the Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The
Information Quality Assurance Act is bipartisan legislation
introduced by our colleagues, Representatives Porter and
McClain. It would require the Director of OMB to update
guidance issued under the Information Quality Act. That
guidance is more than 20 years old now, and much work has been
done by Congress and the executive branch on these issues in
the meantime.
The Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, the DATA Act, and Open
Government Act are just a few of a generation of new laws
requiring updated guidance. Updated guidance would help
agencies to better ensure the quality of information and
evidence used in promulgating rules. The new guidance would
ensure that the best, reasonably available scientific,
demographic, economic, financial, or statistical information is
relied on in the regulatory process. The bill continues the
practices of the Information Quality Act that allow for public
input on the information submitted and mechanisms for OMB to
report any complaints to Congress.
I would like to thank the Majority for working closely with
the Minority and the Administration in crafting this bill. It
is a good, solid, bipartisan result, and I fully support it. I
yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Do any Members seek recognition? The chair
recognizes Ms. Porter from California.
Ms. Porter. Having quality information can be the
difference between making a great decision and a terrible
decision, and as a single mom, I spend a lot of time at stores
making decisions about what to buy for my three kids. With two
teenage boys in the house, it often feels like the cupboards
get emptied faster than I can fill them up. When I am shopping
for my family, I rely on the best available information to
decide what to buy. I look at ingredients to see if there are
any irritating chemicals in the shampoo. I check out the price
tags and the price per ounce so I can figure out which brand of
laundry detergent is going to wash all of those loads of dirty
clothes. When I need to pick up more olive oil, I inspect the
bottle to see where it was made and if it has any quality
certifications. Imagine what kinds of decisions I might make if
I had bad information. I might accidentally buy itchy shampoo,
pricy laundry detergent, and rip-off olive oil. I always make
better decisions when I have the best information in front of
me.
As decision-makers, Federal agencies are no different. If
we want the best outcomes, we need Federal agencies to use the
best information. The Information Quality Assurance Act would
require Federal agencies to rely on the best, reasonably
available scientific, technical, demographic, economic, and
statistical information and evidence in their rules and
guidance. Just like Americans want the best information when
they are shoppers and decision-makers, Americans want to have
confidence that Federal agencies are making informed decisions
based on the best data.
This bill helps provide that certainty, but this
legislation does not just expect Americans to take the
government's word that it is relying on the best-available
information. Federal agencies would also be required to publish
their rulemaking guidelines on their websites for all Americans
to be able to read for themselves. Additionally, agencies would
have to disclose the methods and data that they relied on to
produce their guidelines. This level of transparency will allow
the public to understand how Federal agencies develop their
rules and to verify that they relied on the best available
information.
As a former professor, I always had to explain my methods
and my sources for anything that I published to have
credibility. Allowing others to check for errors, review the
quality of data, and highlight any assumptions, made my
research stronger, and the same will be true for our Federal
Government. I am proud to support the Information Quality
Assurance Act, and I thank my Republican colleague and friend,
Congresswoman McClain, for leading this commonsense bipartisan
legislation with me. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. We are going to
suspend for 2 minutes, while Mrs. McClain, the sponsor of the
bill, rushes back.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady
from Michigan, the sponsor of the bill, Mrs. McClain, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to be the
sponsor of H.R. 7219, the Information Quality Assurance Act of
2024. I thank the Chairman, Mr. Comer, for bringing this bill
up for the Committee's consideration today, and I thank Rep.
Porter for partnering with me on this important piece of
legislation. Thank you.
From my time in business, I can tell you the American
employers and workers cannot afford for the Federal Government
to impose new regulations and guidances on them that are
misinformed and backed by bad data regulations that only harm
the American people. They needlessly drain employers'
resources, kills jobs, and cede economic victory to Americans
and all other competitors, such as China. The same can be said
of ill-informed and ill-conceived agency guidance.
When an agency's guidance on how to conform to Federal
statutes and rules rests on flawed information, it risks
sending regulated parties and the resources down the rabbit
holes just to avoid the threat of misguided agency enforcement
actions. One of the most important ways we can make sure the
Federal Government does not use ill-informed regulations and
guidance is also one of the simplest. It requires Federal
regulators to base new regulations and guidance on the best,
reasonably available information.
My act requires three really simple things. First and
foremost, it requires the agencies to use the best data
possible in drafting the regulations. This includes data on the
impacts the regulations would have on the American people.
Second, it requires the agencies to make public in a timely
fashion, any model, methodology, or source of scientific,
technical, demographic, economics, or statistical information
upon which it intends to utilize in its rulemaking. Third, it
makes sure the public has a chance to question whether that
information is the best that is reasonably available. With just
these three simple commonsense reforms, we can make sure the
Federal regulatory system avoids a mountain of mistakes that
would unfairly burden the American people. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the remainder
of my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Do any other
Members wish to be heard on the McClain Amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Before we call for the vote, I might add
that both Chairman McClain and Ranking Member Porter are in
charge of the Economic Growth, Energy Policy and Regulatory
Affairs Subcommittee and this is legislation that has come out
of their work--I am sorry--the Healthcare and Financial
Services Subcommittee, and this is the product of several
Subcommittee hearings.
All those in favor of the McClain Amendment, signify by
saying aye.
The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 7219, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those oppose signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman? I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 262, the All
Economic Regulations are Transparent. The clerk will please
designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 262, the All Economic Regulations are
Transparent, a bill to establish various reporting requirements
with respect to Federal agency rulemaking.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now 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. 262, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
The Federal regulatory system is estimated to impose over
$3 trillion in annual costs on the American economy. To make
matters worse, Federal regulators are constantly adding to this
cost by pumping out thousands of new rules every year. The
weight of these rules falls hard on hardworking Americans. The
least the Federal Government can do is give fair notice of what
new rules are planned, how much they are likely to cost, and
when they are expected to be imposed. The Federal Government is
already required to publish its agenda for all new rulemakings
twice each year. This agenda, known as the unified agenda of
regulatory and deregulatory actions, is intended to provide the
advance notice regulated parties need.
In practice, however, multiple administrations have failed
to publish these agendas in a timely manner. In 2012, for
example, the Obama Administration delayed the publication of
its unified agenda, which was chock full of new major rules
until after the 2012 Presidential election. This allowed
President Obama to hide the ball from voters and denied them
the opportunity to hold him accountable for these new burdens.
The Biden Administration has repeated the Obama playbook,
failing multiple times to publish timely unified agendas,
including by delaying publication until after the 2022 midterm
elections. Moreover, the unified agenda has never been required
to inform regulated parties in meaningful detail about how much
new rules truly are expected to cost. That cost information is
necessary for employers and households to plan their affairs
and investments.
This legislation, the ALERT Act, fixes these problems. H.R.
262 requires the Federal Government to publish online the
information traditionally required to be included in the
unified agenda, plus new specific information about how much
each new rule will cost. To keep members of the public informed
in real time, the bill requires this information to be updated
online on a rolling monthly basis. And to fix the problem of
administrations hiding the ball by failing to publish their
agendas on time, it requires each new rule to have appeared in
the online unified agenda for 6 consecutive months before it
can take effect. In the digital age, this is all feasible, it
is all fair, and it is, in fact, all overdue.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and the amendment
that I will offer in the nature of a substitute, which conforms
the text of this legislation to the text which last passed
during the House during the 115th Congress. This legislation is
supported by the National Federation of Independent Business. I
thank Representative Good for reintroducing this important
legislation. I now yield to the Ranking Member for his
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 262, the ALERT
Act, is yet another attack on the regulatory protections that
safeguard the health and the security of the American people
and the strength of our economy. In the name of increasing
transparency, ironically, the bill imposes duplicative and
burdensome new reporting requirements on Federal agencies that
actually undermine transparency by showcasing the costs of
Federal regulations, while hiding the corresponding benefits.
This is transparently one-sided and pernicious. If, for
example, we focus only on the cost of compliance with Clean Air
Act rules, which is somewhere around $523 billion over a 20-
year period, we miss the corresponding and obvious benefits
realized for the American people, which are estimated at around
$50 trillion.
Committee Democrats recognize the game that is being played
here. If you were to decide on whether to buy a house based
only on the costs of the house and not looking at what the
benefits of the house are to you, the whole world would be
homeless. Committee Democrats strongly support real
transparency and real clarity in the rulemaking process and
must, therefore, oppose H.R. 262 because it would force
agencies to completely distort the real meaning and the
complete impact of regulations adopted by agencies. Indeed, the
whole reason the agencies are authorized to promulgate
regulations is because of the underlying benefits, which would
be suppressed and hidden by this legislation.
H.R. 262 would also prevent many important regulations from
taking effect until OIRA has posted a slew of largely redundant
information on the internet, for an at least 6-month period.
The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, an alliance of more than
180 scientific research, labor, good government, faith,
community, health, environmental, and public interest groups,
sent us a letter, Mr. Chairman, raising this concern. They
wrote, ``As a result of this requirement, the benefits of
critically needed regulations, whether measured in lives saved,
environmental damage averted, or money saved, would be put on
hold unnecessarily for 6 months or longer.'' I ask unanimous
consent, Mr. Chairman, to submit their letter to the record.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Raskin. Another basic flaw of H.R. 262 is the fact that
it does not provide the public with any significantly new or
useful information. The reporting it requires would be
generally duplicative of information made available by
Executive Order 12866, which directs Federal rulemaking
agencies to prepare agendas of all rules under development or
review. Federal agencies already meet this requirement through
the semi-annual production of the unified agenda of regulatory
and deregulatory actions.
OMB also provides annual reports to Congress on the costs
and benefits of Federal regulations pursuant to the regulatory
Right to Know Act. The bill would also force Federal agencies
to replicate much of the information already publicly available
on Regulations.gov. And with a narrow, unworkable
implementation deadlines that would require agencies to shift
limited resources away from existing workflows, we hardly do a
favor for governmental efficiency and clarity by simply
duplicating and multiplying the number of times that the same
information has to be produced.
Republicans have made no effort to address concerns that
the bill threatens to curtail the ability of agencies to
execute their statutory responsibilities. If they are
interested in real solutions to advance the transparency and
effectiveness of Federal regulations, I encourage them to
engage with the Biden Administration's ongoing work to
modernize the regulatory process. As it is, they appear more
concerned with regulating Americans' individual rights and
freedoms, inserting themselves into the private lives of women
and their healthcare and their pregnancies, making it harder
for Americans to exercise the right to vote, and banning books
and fact-based curricula from schools and libraries. I urge my
colleagues to oppose these efforts to curtail the freedoms of
Americans and to oppose this bill, and I yield back to you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Before I
recognize Mr. Gosar for 5 minutes, I ask unanimous consent to
enter this letter of support for the ALERT Act from the
National Small Business Association into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gosar from
Arizona for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Agencies already list
the rule's potential benefits in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, or the NPRM. Under the ALERT Act, industries,
employers, employees, manufacturers, and stakeholders affected
by a proposed rule would have a clearer idea of the potential
cost of a rule compliance with the necessary lead time to
address it. If agencies are promulgating standards that require
billions of dollars in compliance cost, it is only fair that
those who have to foot the bill for these costs are given time
to adjust for these new requirements.
Agencies also should be granting the public ample notice to
respond to rules that could cause the economy billions of
dollars. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 12866, agencies are required to post the regulatory plans
in April and October in what is commonly referred to as the
unified agenda. However, there are no effective means to
enforce timely publication. For example, President Obama posted
the unified agenda for 2012 in December, conveniently after the
November elections. The Biden Administration has failed to meet
its own deadlines multiple times. The ALERT Act provides a
solution for these demonstrated administrative failures by
tying Federal regulatory action to transparency.
We have put so many onerous regulations on small business
or businesses across this country, and the Federal Government
has no idea what it does to comply. And they do not comply, and
so we have got to have some lead time in order to see how these
affect our economy, see how they affect businesses. We ought to
be rewarding businesses, not hamper them. With that I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members wish to speak on the bill?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
All those in favor of the Good bill, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 262, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 5798, the
Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act of 2023. The
clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5798, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital
Emergency Act of 2023, a bill to restore the right to negotiate
matters pertaining to the discipline of law enforcement
officers of the District of Columbia through collective
bargaining; to restore the statute of limitations for bringing
disciplinary cases against members or civilian employees of the
Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please
designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 5798, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
The men and women of the Metropolitan Police Department
serve their community every day to keep the District safe and
secure. In doing so, the department routinely places themselves
in dangerous situations to protect others, and yet progressive
policies from the Washington, D.C. Council continue to
hamstring district police officers and needlessly place them in
unsafe situations.
On January 4, 2023, the D.C. Council passed the
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Act of 2022. The act
targeted D.C. police officers, taking away employee protections
and making their jobs more difficult, despite rising crime in
the District. When the D.C. Council passed this law, Congress
acted swiftly and in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to
overturn it. The House and Senate passed H.J. Resolution 42,
which would have overturned the entire D.C. law. President
Biden, however, vetoed Congress' legislation, allowing the
harmful policies of the D.C. Council to remain in effect today.
This bill, Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act,
repeals certain provisions of the D.C. law, restoring D.C.
police officers' right to collectively bargain over
disciplinary matters and restoring clear timelines for
disciplinary investigations. H.R. 5798 also repeals the D.C.
Council's requirement that the time and place of some adverse
action hearings be posted to a public website. This public
posting requirement would allow activists to harass officers
attempting to pursue their due process in the workplace. This
legislation is necessary to ensure the Metropolitan Police
Department's recruitment and retention.
The D.C. police force has lost over 1,200 members since
2020, and staffing levels remain the lowest they have been in
the last 50 years. Meanwhile, violent crime is rising in
Washington D.C. From 2022 to 2023, all crime increased by 30
percent. Homicides increased by 35 percent. Violent crime
increased by 39 percent. Robberies rose by 67 percent. Motor
vehicle thefts increased by a staggering 82 percent, and the
statistics from January of this year provide little hope that
this trend will change. D.C. cannot lose another police officer
during this crisis.
My Republican colleagues recognize the importance of
supporting the law enforcement officers who risk their lives to
protect our communities by restoring basic employee
protections. This legislation shows Metropolitan Police
Department officers the respect they deserve. Everyone should
feel safe in the capital city. I am proud to support this bill,
and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I now yield to the
Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the dangerous
and unsafe situations that Metropolitan Police Department
officers had been thrust into was defending the Congress of the
United States and the Vice President against a rampaging mob of
insurrectionists on January 6, 2021, chanting, ``Hang Mike
Pence,'' and wounding or hospitalizing more than 140 officers,
both from the Capitol force and from the MPD. I remember one of
the MPD officers who came to help out that day, Michael Fanone,
was not even on duty, but just heard about what was going on
and came down to join the forces defending our democracy.
Now we are here on the Protecting our Nation's Capital Act,
and I do want to start by thanking our colleagues for at least
spelling capital in the title with an ``A'' and not an ``O;'' a
decision which saves us from completely destroying the laugh
meter this week. But there is another irony in the contents of
this bill. Of everything we could be doing to reduce criminal
violence and protect citizens in our Nation's Capital, the GOP
wants to make it harder for the chief of the D.C. police to
fire or discipline police officers who themselves commit
serious crimes or engage in official misconduct. You heard me
right. Their big anti-crime initiative for the city where we
work is to make it easier for lawbreakers to remain on the D.C.
police force. Apparently, nothing screams public safety louder
to our colleagues than pinning badges on the chests of crooked
cops.
Look, we could be having a hearing today on passing a
nationwide universal background check on violent criminals for
gun purchases, a measure that would save hundreds or thousands
of American lives and is favored by more than 90 percent of
Americans of every political persuasion and is supported by the
Major Cities Chiefs Association, but the NRA-operated GOP will
not allow that. We could be having a hearing on a Federal ban
on military-style assault weapons, including the mass shooters'
weapon of choice, the AR-15, last used at massacres at a Texas
mall, a Tennessee school, and a Kentucky bank. This ban, too,
is favored by the vast majority of Americans, including
Washingtonians, but the NRA will not allow us to have a hearing
on that.
Instead, we are studying an obscure bill to allow union-
busting Republicans, who oppose collective bargaining in
general, to suddenly strike the pose of defenders of unions as
they seek to override and crush a law passed in someone else's
community. And why are we doing this, you reasonably ask? Well,
the answer is plain. The local police officer's union, which
could not otherwise override the majority will of D.C. voters,
is demanding it. They failed to persuade a majority on the 13-
member council of the District of Columbia of their position.
Their legal challenges were rejected in court. They tried and
failed to have their way through a congressional disapproval
resolution, and thus far, they failed to expand collective
bargaining protections for officers found guilty of misconduct
through the congressional appropriations process. So, this is
take five for this project.
Republicans will not take ``yes'' for an answer on a strong
bipartisan immigration package coming from the Senate, which
would solve the problems at the border they have been bewailing
and bemoaning all year, but they will not take ``no'' for an
answer when it comes to overriding a D.C. law to strip the
power of the local chief of police to regulate discipline on
his own police force, an issue which the vast majority of
Americans have never even heard of.
Now, if I were a member of the D.C. Council, which I am
not, I have no idea how I would vote on this question, but I am
sure I would sit through many hours of witness testimony,
analyzing it, and I would interact with thousands of
constituents about it, which D.C. Council members did. I would
talk to the union, and I certainly would want to talk to the
Chief of the D.C. Police Department. My colleagues will forgive
me if I say we do not know the first thing about the
legislative merits or demerits of this issue in the District of
Columbia.
We have never gone out to the eight wards of Washington
D.C. to hear from the people affected by it. The only thing we
really know is the last four chiefs of police in Washington--
Charles Ramsey, Cathy Lanier, Peter Newsham, Robert Contee--
have all argued strenuously that they need the authority to
discipline officers who commit crimes or engage in corrupt
actions in order to maintain good morale on the police force
and preserve the trust and loyalty of the vast majority of good
cops and the rest of the community as well. We know that 12 of
the 13 Council members in D.C. agree with those police chiefs
because they sent us a letter yesterday, Mr. Chairman, which
you and I received, citing to a D.C. auditor report, which
catalog numerous cases where officers in the Metropolitan
Police Department were convicted of activities like sexual
assault, domestic violence against their wives or partners,
officers who were arrested for assorted criminal activity, who
gave false statements on the stand, who misused their issued
firearms, who slept on the job, and so on. Every MPD chief for
the last 15 years has supported the law as it stands because it
empowers police leadership, not a third party, to determine the
appropriate standards of conduct and discipline for their
officers.
So, H.R. 5798 is a shocking assault on local democracy,
which has made itself clear where it stands on this question.
It marks a new low in the appalling efforts to override local
government in Washington and micromanage the affairs of the
people of D.C. This bill would do one thing and one thing only.
It would overthrow the internal disciplinary procedures for
police misconduct. If anything, it will make criminal matters
worse in Washington, D.C. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge
us to reject this misguided legislation, and I will yield back
to you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Before I
recognize Ms. Greene from Georgia, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to add to the record letters of support for
H.R. 5798 from the following organizations: the D.C. Police
Union, Fullerton Police Officers Association, Las Vegas Police
Protective Association, Pomona Police Officers Association,
Public Safety Alliance of Nevada, San Jose Police Officers
Association, Sergeants Benevolent Association, the United
Coalition of Public Safety, and the Fraternal Order of Police.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to your
introducing that, but is there written testimony or analysis by
the Las Vegas and Pomona and these other jurisdictions which
have suddenly taken an interest in Washington D.C.?
Chairman Comer. These are letters of support for H.R. 5798.
Mr. Raskin. Written by those individual unions? Is that it?
Chairman Comer. We will be happy to give you a copy, right.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you. Then I have no objection. OK.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, these letters will be
entered into the record.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Greene from
Georgia for 5 minutes.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
express in the strongest words possible that I support the
police, and we should be supporting the police here in our
Nation's Capital because it is our Nation's Capital that has
one of the highest murder rates in our country, one of the
worst crime records in our Nation's history, and is an absolute
embarrassment to our country. I would also like to remind
everyone that one of our own colleagues was carjacked months
ago here in Washington, D.C. We also just had a former Trump
Admin official die because he was shot here in our Nation's
Capital, and many Hill staffers themselves have been attacked
just walking the city streets.
This is an ongoing crime epidemic here in our Nation's
Capital, and it is appalling. We should be supporting police
officers, not attacking American's gun rights. While all of us
walk around under the protection of good guys with guns,
Capitol Police carry those AR-15s and guard all of us, but,
yet, Democrats would love to take away the gun rights of
American citizens and blame guns that never get up by
themselves and shoot people.
Murder is already a crime. People kill people. They do not
just kill them with guns. They kill them with knives. They kill
them with fists. They kill them with objects. They strangle
them. But, yet, I just listened to one of my colleagues say
that we need to disarm Americans in order to somehow stop crime
in Washington, D.C. We should be protecting----
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Greene. No, I will not. We should be protecting and
supporting police officers. I also heard President Trump come
under attack once again because Democrats have nothing else to
say to defend their own policies but attack President Trump. I
would like to remind everyone that it was Antifa BLM, by the
way, supported by Democrats, BLM, as an organization, raised
millions and millions of dollars on ActBlue, the Democrat
fundraising site. And then BLM riots across America that were
endorsed heavily by Democrats and apologized and said were
mostly peaceful protests by media who are totally defending
Democrats constantly. These riots caused $2 billion in damage
across America.
I would also like to remind everyone that in 2017, when
President Trump was inaugurated, that rioters nearly burned
down Washington, D.C.--that is right--nearly burned down the
city here, but, oh, we have got to attack President Trump every
single day. You know, it was also Democrats that said things
like, ``I do not know why there are not uprisings everywhere.''
That was our former Speaker of the House. Our current Vice
President, before the election of 2020, said, ``we will not
stop, we will not stop.'' Talking about these BLM riots. Also,
one of our Democrat colleagues is on video--by the way, all of
this is on video, their statements--and she was talking about
Trump supporters and she said, ``when you see them, you make a
crowd, surround them wherever they are.'' These are the
statements that come from our Democrat colleagues, but they
want to attack President Trump every single day and take away
police officers' ability to stop criminals and arrest criminals
and protect our city streets, our community streets, and our
Nation's Capital, and I am sick and tired of it. It is
ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say I support the
amendment that you just spoke on and introduced, and I would
urge my colleagues to pay attention very carefully. The
American people are paying attention, and they are not stupid.
Just because you have a little microphone you can talk in does
not mean that you can sit here and lie to the American people
every single day. They can read the crime statistics. We all
know you cannot walk around the city without being in danger of
being robbed or carjacked or murdered maybe. My goodness. How
horrible is that?
So, let us support our police officers. Let us vote for
good things to help citizens in this city, and, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield for a question?
Ms. Greene. No, I will not yield to one of your stupid
questions that are always attacking me and attacking President
Trump.
Mr. Raskin. How about a mediocre question?
Ms. Greene. No, I do not want your question.
Mr. Raskin. An excellent question?
Ms. Greene. No.
Mr. Raskin. A smart question?
Ms. Greene. No.
Mr. Raskin. An intelligent question?
Ms. Greene. You have no smart or intelligent questions.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. That was a lot. I want to remind the
gentlelady that it was her that actually organized a trip to
the D.C. jail to hug and high-five and sit with the
insurrectionists that actually attacked our Capitol, so if we
are talking about the safety of D.C. and the Capitol, it is
just quite, I think, ironic. This is all facts.
Mr. Higgins. And me.
Mr. Garcia. This is quite ironic that the insurrectionists
that tried to overthrow our government in the Capital City were
actually being coddled by----
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Garcia. It is quite a shame that you call them
political prisoners or hostages, I think maybe you called them.
They actually tried to overthrow our government.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Garcia. Let me continue with my time.
Ms. Porter. Mr. Chairman, she is not recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. So, I think it is quite interesting
that my colleague was trying to talk about the safety of D.C.
when she literally supported an insurrection, an attack on the
Capitol, visited the prisoners--I was there as one of two
Democrats there as part of that visit on behalf of this
Committee--and seeing her high-five folks that want to
overthrow our government, so quite ridiculous. And if she is so
interested in fixing Washington, D.C., maybe she should run for
mayor of D.C. It is what she seems to be interested in. She is
obsessed with everything going on.
I just want to remind folks that D.C. and the District has
a mayor. They have a city council. They are trying to pass
regulations. They are trying to work. There are definitely
challenges. They are working very hard on those. And overall,
let us remember that crime all across the country has actually
decreased over the last couple of years. It has not increased.
It has decreased, and with that, I yield back my time.
Mr. Raskin. Well, Mr. Garcia, would you yield?
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much for your trenchant remarks,
Mr. Garcia. Trying to pierce through the fog of propaganda,
confusion, disinformation, and just lies that we just heard,
the distinguished gentlelady, who I would be very happy to
yield some of my time to answer the question, started off by
complaining about the murder rate in Washington, the carjacking
in Washington, and gun violence. And the question that I wanted
to pose to the gentlelady, which she anticipated as a stupid
question, was simply what she thinks, in this legislation that
we are here to discuss, 5798, will bring down the murder rate
or bring down carjacking or bring down gun violence in
Washington? Because the sole purpose of the legislation, as I
can read it, is simply to say that the Chief of Police no
longer has disciplinary authority over his or her own police
force, but instead, it will be subject to collective
bargaining.
Now, that might be a great policy for the gentlelady's
district in Georgia. I would be interested to know where the
municipalities in her district are on that question, but in any
event, the people of Washington, D.C. have dealt with this
repeatedly. We have got a letter right here, which I submitted
for the record, from 12 out of 13 members of the D.C. City
Council saying please do not change our law. We have the
statements of four different chiefs of police saying please do
not change our law. We have got cops who have been convicted of
sexual violence, sexual assault, domestic violence, and I am
not even certain the gentlelady from Georgia understood what
she was speaking for because she was talking about the murder
rate and carjacking. And unless she is saying that police
officers who may be removed from the force in D.C. for having
committed a sexual assault or domestic violence are more likely
to help bring down the murder rate, then her remarks are
completely nonsensical. It was much ado about nothing. So,
thank you for allowing me to make that point. I yield back to
you, Mr. Garcia.
Chairman Comer. Would the gentleman yield to a question?
Mr. Garcia. Sure.
Chairman Comer. You mentioned that crime was down
nationwide. Then why isn't it down in Washington, D.C.? Any
idea?
Mr. Garcia. Well, I mean, let me just say, I served as
mayor of a city of half a million people for 8 years. Crime
trends go up and down. You look at overall crime rates, you
look at violent crime, crime overall across the country has
gone down. Not everywhere. There are areas of Kentucky and
other places in the country that crime has gone up, but why?
But if we are so focused on just D.C., then we should focus on
places like Kentucky and Arkansas and Texas and other cities
where crime is also slightly going up.
Mr. Raskin. Well, and if the gentleman would yield on that
point. There have been increases in different categories in
crime in the gentlelady's own state that she represents,
Georgia. If collective bargaining is the solution to that,
would she support collective bargaining for public workers in
Georgia because it is not allowed there, and she does not seem
to understand that she just became a champion of collective
bargaining and the right to organize a union. And I would
invite her to come back to proclaim her new pro-union
sympathies publicly for her own state as well.
Mr. Garcia. We would support her on the PRO Act, actually,
if you would like to vote for the PRO Act.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. Do any
other Members wish to be recognized?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my
remarks, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a
letter from the D.C. Council opposing this bill.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this
undemocratic and paternalistic bill. This is the seventh bill
this Congress House Republicans have marked up or brought
directly to the floor to repeal laws enacted by the duly
elected District of Columbia government. Congress has
constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters,
but it does not have a constitutional duty to do so. Instead,
legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice. House
Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that they believe D.C.
residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are
unworthy or incapable of governing themselves.
The D.C. Council has 13 members. The members are elected by
D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the members
vote, they can vote them out of office. That is called
democracy. Congress has 535 full voting Members. The Members
are elected by residents of the states. None are elected by
D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote
on local D.C. matters, they cannot vote them out of office.
This is the antithesis of democracy.
The legislative history and merits of the Comprehensive
Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 should be
irrelevant since there is never a justification for Congress
repealing legislation enacted by D.C. Nevertheless, I would
like to set the record straight. The D.C. Council unanimously
passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
Act of 2022. While the legislation was enacted without the D.C.
Mayor's signature, the Mayor urged Congress to oppose the
disapproval resolution on the legislation. The D.C. Police
Department supported removing discipline from collective
bargaining, eliminating the 90-day statute of limitations for
discipline and allowing the police chief to increase proposed
disciplinary penalties to make it easier to fire officers for
serious misconduct. Moreover, disciplinary hearings have long
been open to the public. Now the public finally can learn when
and where they are occurring.
The Revolutionary War was forged to give consent to the
governed and to end taxation without representation. Yet, D.C.
residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress,
whether on national or local matters, and pay full Federal
income taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita
than any state and more Federal taxes in total than 19 states.
If Republicans cared about our democratic principles or D.C.
residents, they would bring my D.C. Statehood bill, which will
give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full
self-government, to the floor. Congress has the constitutional
authority to admit the state of Washington, D.C. It simply
lacks the will.
I am deeply concerned about the violent crime spike in
D.C., and the D.C. Council is voting on legislation today that
it believes will reduce crime. To suggest that Congress knows
or cares more about public policy in D.C. than D.C. is
patronizing. I urge Members to vote no on this bill.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Norton. Glad to yield.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton. Thank you for
that powerful statement. You know, it is your constituents, it
is D.C. taxpayers, who pay the price for the officers who
engage in misconduct that this legislation has set out to
rescue. Between 2010 and 2020, the Washington Post found that
Washington, D.C. paid out $91 million to resolve claims
alleging police misconduct. Sixty-five different officers were
named in these multiple claims. It is just baffling to me how
you get someone like the representative from Georgia, from a
state which does not allow public employees to engage in any
collective bargaining at all, come to speak for this one very
narrow category of dirty cops who have gotten in trouble, who
the police chiefs want to have the power to remove from the
force.
Chairman Comer. The time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes the law enforcement expert on the Committee, the
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my
colleague and friend, Mr. Raskin, stating that he is baffled
because that is a rare moment when Jamie Raskin will be
baffled. But if you were going to be baffled about something,
my friend, it would be in the realm of, could we agree,
something that you have never personally experienced. And let
me say that when a police officer faces accusation because this
is every day, ladies and gentlemen. Respectfully, some of you
guys do not have any idea what you are talking about here, and
the injury you are bringing into the rank and file of your law
enforcement professional is significant when you take away that
insulation of support that individual officers have when they
face accusations, which is every day.
Let me say that whenever there has been an effort to
enhance the ability of the street to impact individual officers
that are working patrol, that are on the street, the street
immediately picks that up, and the street wants the muscle
officers off of the street so that they can run their crime. It
is called the game. They are in the game on that side, I am in
the game on this side. So, when they see that they can push
buttons on particular police officers that are working
effective patrol--I am talking about cops that will actually
get out of their car and have interaction with citizenry that
they are observing.
And if you get out of your car in a high drug, a high crime
area, you know what you can expect. Ladies and gentlemen, you
can expect a foot pursuit, and at the end of that foot pursuit,
you can expect resistance, and then we are going to affect that
arrest, and we are going to find drugs. We are going to take
another drug dealer, another criminal, off of the street. In
some way, we are going to try. This is every day, man. Maybe
for some of America, this might sound like a bizarre concept,
but for a patrol officer and working in cities of America
today, this is every day, 12-hour shifts.
So, when you know that if you are squared away, if you are
protecting people's civil rights, if you are operating within
the parameters of your department's training and policy, if you
are handling your business properly on the street, then you
will be protected. You will be protected because you are going
to be accused. But the moment the street figures out that an
officer is on his own, of course the street is going after that
guy. Don't you understand? They want that cop off the street.
So, if they find out they can sue him or pursue him or publicly
have his name listed on a website for what he is accused of, of
course you are going to lose officers, and of course crime is
going to increase.
So, you got to just be humble enough to step back from this
reform that was forced through and say, man, that is not
working. It does not work. We have to protect righteous
officers, and because I love and respect my colleague, Mr.
Raskin, and because I named him in my opening, I am going to
yield to him to respond to my----
Mr. Raskin. Well, I just have a question for my dear
friend, Mr. Higgins from Louisiana, and thank you for a
typically insightful and eloquent statement. Do you believe
that chiefs of police are aware of the dynamic you are talking
about?
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. OK. And would you trust the chiefs of police to
be able to make determinations about when someone's coming--you
do not?
Mr. Higgins. No, sir. You have to trust your organization,
your civil service rep, and the infrastructure there, the
attorneys and the staff there. You have to trust them because
they have power that the chief will respect. As an individual
officer, you do not.
Mr. Raskin. So, if I could follow up, my question is, do
you think that this is a decision that we should make
nationally for every state and city in the country, or do you
think it should be decided locally by particular----
Mr. Higgins. Good question, but as a constitutionalist, I
think it should be determined according to constitutional
jurisdictional authority. So, for this Congress, we only have
authority over D.C., and, therefore, in the sovereign states, I
think the sovereign states should determine their course there.
And I appreciate the gentleman's dialog here, and I yield, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. Do any
other Members seek recognition? The Chair recognizes Mr. Gosar
from Arizona.
Mr. Gosar. Yes, and I yield my time to the Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, gentleman from Arizona. I just
want to add that the Mayor of Washington, D.C. and the police
chief told us all about their struggles to recruit and retain
police officers when we had our closed door Mayor and Police
Chief briefing right there at that table. There were Members
from both parties there, because I think we all agree that the
crime spree in Washington, D.C. is a huge problem. It is a huge
problem nationwide in the big cities, in the blue cities, but
it is especially a problem here in our Nation's Capital. And I
believe this bill will help because right now nobody wants to
work for the Washington D.C. police force because they are
treated like the enemy by the D.C. Council, and this bill will
take steps to change that. And in closing, I want to add that
approximately 70 percent of Metro Police Department's sworn
members are Black, Hispanic, or Asian, meaning that the
department closely mirrors the makeup of the resident
population it serves. Do any other Members wish to be
recognized?
The Chair recognizes Mr. Frost from Florida.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield my time to the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Frost, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for that statement. I am happy to yield to you if you
have any information that contradicts me. I do not believe that
the Mayor of the District of Columbia is supporting this
legislation, and I am not quite sure how it relates to the
problem that you invoke of recruitment shortages on the force.
Of course, that is a nationwide problem. I just, as you were
talking, flipped online and I found the headlines, ``Kentucky
Law Enforcement Recruiters Face Tough Challenge Amid Officer
Shortage,'' ``How one Northern Kentucky Police Department plans
to deal with officer shortage,'' and so on. I mean, it is a
national problem that is taking place. It is not limited to
Washington, D.C.
And in any event, I do not see the logic of saying that we
are not going to trust the local government, the 13-member D.C.
City Council and the Mayor, to make this decision for
themselves. I do not know exactly what the tally is across the
country. I know that in some states, they allow collective
bargaining over personnel decisions, and other states have made
the same decision that the people of Washington, D.C., have
made. In any event, I know that this Committee and the Congress
of the United States have not done any hearings to replicate
the work of the District of Columbia Council and the Mayor to
decide this. I know that legal challenges were brought to the
law that they have that were rejected in the Federal courts.
And so, I think that there would be something kind of flippant
and superficial about us just saying that regardless of what is
taking place in our own states, in Kentucky or Georgia or
Maryland or Texas or Florida, that we will just decide on the
spur of the moment to overturn the studied will of the people
of the District of Columbia, who have decided this matter and
have spent a lot of time working on it.
We have not had any hearings in the eight wards of
Washington, D.C. We have not gone out to hear from the people
in Washington, and I certainly have not heard from any of my
constituents. I wonder how many of us have heard from
constituents who think that the most important thing we need to
do to reduce the murder rate and carjacking, as the gentlelady
from Georgia suggested, was to overthrow the law of the
District of Columbia, allowing the Chief of Police to control
who is hired and who is fired and who is promoted and who is
not. I mean, that just seems to me to be a complete non-
sequitur and an exercise in absurdity.
During some of her heckling of our colleagues, the
gentlelady from Georgia described the January 6th
insurrectionists, who I know are close to her heart, as
political prisoners and as hostages. I am sorry. The Proud Boys
are not political prisoners like Nelson Mandela or Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn. The Oath Keepers are not hostages like the
Israelis and Americans being held by Hamas. A hostage is
someone who has been illegally abducted by a criminal
organization and held for a financial or a political ransom.
And the thought that they would compare people, the majority of
whom have pled guilty for assaulting Federal officers,
destroying Federal property, or engaging in seditious
conspiracy, which means conspiracy to overthrow the government,
to hostages or to political prisoners demonstrates the complete
collapse of critical thinking skills on that side of the aisle.
I would hope some of Ms. Greene's colleagues, not just on
the Democratic side, but on the Republican side, would at least
disassociate themselves from the claim that convicted January
6th insurrectionists are political prisoners or hostages. I
know that Donald Trump has trafficked in such foul abuse, I
know that Elise Stefanik has repeated his claims for her own
reasons, but I would hope that others would maintain the
essential semantic, logical, rational, and moral distinction
between people who have been convicted of assaulting our
officers and people who have been abducted by terrorist
organizations. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members wish to speak? The Chair
recognizes Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. I am going to yield a little time to
Congressman Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman for yielding. To the
Ranking Member, I hope that all those January 6th folks got
their due diligence and due process. I really hope so, because
if they did not, that is a total violation, and the gentleman
should know that, and hopefully you will get a chance to see
and ask that very same question of those individuals.
Mr. Raskin. But, by all means, and if you would yield for a
question, are you aware of a single January 6th defendant who
did not receive due process?
Mr. Gosar. Well, I can tell you one thing, the exculpatory
evidence was restricted.
Mr. Raskin. I am sorry?
Mr. Gosar. The exculpatory. I think it is called the
exculpatory.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. The Brady evidence.
Mr. Gosar. It was restricted, and that was the access to
the videos, the active videos, so if that had something to do
with it----
Mr. Raskin. The videos are public. Have you found a single
snippet on any of the videos that contradicts any findings
either in court or----
Mr. Gosar. Yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Raskin. Which one is that?
Mr. Gosar. The Shaman.
Mr. Raskin. I am sorry?
Mr. Gosar. The Shaman guy, the guy with the horns.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. He did not go ransack the offices. They showed
him peacefully going in with officers and coming back out.
Mr. Raskin. I completely disagree with that.
Mr. Gosar. Because here is what happened. He was in prison,
and they immediately let him out. So, I have also heard from
the other side of the aisle that there were officers killed.
There was not a single officer killed in that aspect, so let us
get the issues right.
Mr. Raskin. I think that the family of Officer Gary
Sicknick would beg to differ with you, sir. The defense counsel
had access to all of the video.
Mr. Gosar. No, no, no. My time. I took my time.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Gosar's time.
Mr. Gosar. My time. So no, no, we have evidence that the
timeline that was given on Mr. Sicknick's death did not
correspond because they had timelines in which he is in the
crypt when he is supposed to be dead, so there are things that
do not match up. Yes, go back to the record. I got to tell you,
when I hear inaccurate comments from both sides, it bothers me.
You have inaccurate comments.
Mr. Raskin. You are saying that Gary, if I could, are you
saying that Officer Gary Sicknick did not die after the violent
events of January 6th took place?
Mr. Gosar. No, no, no, no, no. The time in which he was
reported dead is not right because he is shown in the crypt
actually taking some posters from some of the folks that were
partitioning. You got be careful with these things.
Mr. Raskin. OK. You know, I do not want us to tread into a
territory where we are deeply offending the family. In any
event, every criminal defendant, January 6th criminal
defendant, has the right to appeal his or her case. There is
not a single case that has been overthrown by an appeals court
because their due process rights were violated, unless I am not
aware of one.
Mr. Gosar. I just showed you one. The Shaman.
Mr. Raskin. That was overturned.
Mr. Gosar. What is that?
Mr. Raskin. That was overturned by an appeals court.
Mr. Gosar. Well, it was overturned because they showed
evidence that he was never given during his trial.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Then I will stand corrected if his
conviction was overturned, but I was not aware of that.
Mr. Gosar. Well, it was.
Mr. Raskin. But for the many hundreds of other people
convicted of violently assaulting our officers, there have been
no due process reversals, and I am going to check about the
Shaman.
Mr. Gosar. I am going to tell you, it will be something,
hopefully, you will get a chance to ask directly because I
think it is that important to democracy.
Mr. Raskin. Right. I agree with you that the criminal
defendants' rights should be respected. I am not quite sure
what that has to do with the legislative matter before us.
Mr. Gosar. I was just answering you.
Mr. Raskin. Right. And I was responding to just the shouted
claims about hostages and political prisoners, which somehow
entered into the conversation when Ms. Greene was heckling one
of our colleagues, but let us put it this way. If you believe
that there have been due process violations of a whole class of
prisoners, which is what I have been hearing from the
gentlelady from Georgia and others, let us have a hearing about
that, and let us determine if you really believe that. I also
heard her say at the beginning that it was really Antifa. I
heard her invoke Antifa in sort of her drive-by remarks, and I
think that was something that the former President said. It was
really Antifa. Sometimes they blame it on the FBI, but then the
rest of the time, they are down in the D.C. courthouse
demanding that these people be released from jail. So, I do not
know why they are protesting for Antifa, if it was really
Antifa fighters that they want to blame it on.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I would tell the gentleman--he sounds like
he has got a lot of questions, like I do--and would like to
have an answer. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no
further request to speak, the question is now on the Garbarino
Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 5798, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the bill is ordered favorably.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Gosar. As
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7184, the
Congressional Budget Office Data Access Act. The clerk will
please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 7184, the Congressional Budget Office Data
Access Act, a bill to provide the Congressional Budget Office
with necessary authorities to expedite the sharing of data from
executive branch agencies.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk will please
designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 7184, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and amendment.
The Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, is the legislative
branch agency responsible for helping Congress accurately
analyze the budgetary impact of proposed legislation. The
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 authorized CBO to collect
information and data directly from agencies. Timely access to
agency data is necessary for CBO to produce accurate cost
estimates for legislation and to prepare for other
congressional reports. However, agencies often delay or
restrict CBO's access to data. One of the most common reasons
agencies restrict CBO's access to Federal agency data is
because of perceived Privacy Act obstacles.
This bill, the Congressional Budget Office Data Access Act,
solves this problem by granting CBO the same Privacy Act
exemption afforded to the Government Accountability Office and
Congress. Under existing law, CBO must meet the confidentiality
standards required by the agency that is providing the data,
and this bill maintains that standard of confidentiality while
expanding CBO's data access authority, such access that GAO and
Congress already possess. CBO access to agency data is critical
for the legislative branch agency's ability to fulfill its
mission.
I thank my colleagues, Representative Grothman and
Representative Mfume, for their work on this much-needed
legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this
bicameral, bipartisan bill. I now yield to Ranking Member
Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
commend Chairman Grothman and Ranking Member Mfume for
introducing this good government commonsense measure. It would
accelerate the speed and improve the accuracy with which the
CBO analyzes the budgetary impact of proposed legislation by
providing CBO with an exemption to the Privacy Act.
Despite an existing mandate for agencies to provide
information to CBO, obstacles remain, particularly around
Privacy Act restrictions on sharing data. The bill wisely
leaves in place existing law that requires CBO to treat any
information it receives with the same level of confidentiality
as the agency from which it is received. I urge colleagues to
support the legislation. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grothman, the
sponsor of the bill, from Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. I will tell you what, you guys did such a
great job of explaining that bill, I will just pass.
Chairman Comer. All right. Very good.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mfume, the other
sponsor of the bill, from Maryland.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The American
people deserve clear-cut communication on how taxpayer funds
obviously are utilized to best serve the public. The bill that
Congressman Grothman and I are putting forward today does
exactly that. Under current law, CBO can only access certain
nonpublic restricted data under a memorandum of understanding
or a data sharing agreement. According to CBO, some of these
agreements can take up to 5 years to negotiate. So, that
translates into a 5-year delay, actually, in understanding the
financial impact of proposed legislation here in the Congress.
This bill would remove a barrier that is too often a
hindrance to the Congressional Budget Office from carrying out
its mission by providing timely cost estimates and will ensure,
as well, the fiscal responsibility of our Federal Government.
Simultaneously, privacy protections will remain in place when
CBO receives the necessary agency information that is pertinent
to their work, safeguarding personal information utilized by
CBO to improve transparency in government operation. So, in a
nutshell, this bill is to support enhancing the efficiency and
accuracy of CBO's work, which will benefit all Americans.
I thank Mr. Grothman for his insight and leadership on
this, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
legislation, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Gosar from Arizona for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gosar. Yes, I thank the two gentlemen. It is high time
this thing was done because we have always said garbage in,
garbage out. You know, how does CBO come up with a response to
this year that they are over a trillion dollars in the wrong,
they are wrong by a trillion dollars? So, it is about time that
we as decision-makers and policy-makers find out that accurate
information and be able to make those pertinent decisions, so
thank you. It is high time. I wish I would have done it myself,
so thank you. I appreciate you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no
further Members requesting to speak, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those who favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 7184, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by the gentleman
from Arizona. As previously announced, further proceedings on
the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 6972, the Securing
Chain of Command Continuity Act. The clerk will please
designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 6972, the Securing Chain of Command
Continuity Act, a bill to require an executive agency, whose
head is a member of the National Security Council, to notify
the Executive Office of the President, the Comptroller General
of the United States, and congressional leadership of such head
becoming medically incapacitated within 24 hours and for other
purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please
designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered to H.R. 6972, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
Like many of you, I was shocked when Congress learned that
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was medically incapacitated for
days before the President or congressional leaders were made
aware. The lack of transparency set off alarm bells on both
sides of the aisle and across the national security community.
During Secretary Austin's medical incapacitation, an incident
for global repercussions could have occurred, and those
responsible for responding would not have known Secretary
Austin was not in charge. These events have made it clear that
we must address medical incapacitation notification
requirements for certain key members of our national security.
This bill, the Securing Chain of Command Continuity Act,
would require the prompt notification of Federal leaders in the
future. This legislation requires congressional and
Presidential notification when someone who is a member of the
National Security Council and the head of an executive agency
becomes medically incapacitated. The person filling in for the
incapacitated official must send the proper notifications
within 24 hours of the official's medical incapacitation. If
the proper notifications are not provided, a report detailing
why the notification rules were not followed must be sent to
Congress, the President, and the Comptroller General within 72
hours. This is a measured and balanced solution to this
national security issue.
I thank my colleagues, Representative Kiggans of Virginia
and Representative Davis of North Carolina, for their
bipartisan work on this important and timely legislation. I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
bill. I now recognize Ranking Member Raskin for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I
give my statement, I just wanted to introduce for the record
and ask unanimous consent for acceptance of an article
entitled, ``Judge Rejects QAnon Shaman's Bid To Throw Out His
January 6th Sentence,'' and this explains the history that Mr.
Gosar and I were describing.
Mr. Raskin. It does confirm that there was no appellate
reversal of his conviction. He actually pled guilty. When all
of the video was released to Tucker Carlson by the Speaker of
the House, he introduced some video of himself meandering
along, but he did not show the video of him entering the
building nor a video of the time that was the basis of the
criminal charges against him. And, in fact, Judge Lamberth
said--and I will share this with you, Mr. Gosar--that, in fact,
had he known that Mr. Chansley was now going to not take
responsibility for his criminal actions, he would have given
him a higher sentence, and the video did nothing to change his
mind. So, there was no appellate reversal. Every criminal
conviction, and there have been hundreds of them, have been
upheld in the courts.
Mr. Gosar. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. So let me get this straight. So once the
video was released to Tucker Carlson, it showed opposite of
what was----
Mr. Raskin. No, it did not. That is what the judge said. It
did not show the opposite. It was completely distorted. It
showed some additional stuff of Mr. Chansley, who was kind of
disoriented, wandering around at one point, but----
Mr. Gosar. He was escorted by the Capitol Police.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. He was escorted in there, and he was very
peaceful.
Mr. Raskin. But then the judge cited the video evidence of
him entering violently and unlawfully by the mob, and then
engaging in illegal action that he was ordered not to do by the
police officers present.
Mr. Gosar. You know, that will be something, I hope that
you will agree, that you will get and I will to get a chance to
ask those questions.
Mr. Raskin. Well, yes, and Judge Royce Lamberth can explain
the whole thing to you, you know, if you got questions. But his
opinion is authoritative on it, and there have been no
reversals of criminal convictions, so we want to be extremely
clear about that.
Look, the Securing Chain of Command Continuity Act would
amend the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to require any agency
head who is a member of the NSC to notify the Executive Office
of the President, GAO, and congressional leadership within a
day in the event of medical incapacitation. And the bill would
require that if notification is not provided to Congress, the
acting head or first assistant must submit a report to the EOP,
GAO, and leadership of Congress within 72 hours, including
information about the medical incapacity, including the reason
for and dates of it.
I want to address the recent episode involving Secretary
Defense Lloyd Austin, which clearly inspired the bill. In
remarks from the Pentagon last Thursday, Secretary Austin took
full responsibility for the lack of notification to the
President during his hospitalization for cancer. Moreover,
Secretary Austin assured the American public that during his
period of absence, ``There were no gaps in authorities and no
risks to the Department's command and control.''
I want to commend the Biden Administration for the swift
action they took by conducting a thorough review of the current
protocols and notifying agencies to ensure that the Office of
the President is informed any time a cabinet head is unable to
carry out his or her duties. Consistent with the spirit of the
transparency of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which
requires congressional leadership to be notified if the
President is unable to successfully discharge the powers and
duties of office, I agree that Congress should be notified if
an agency head as well, who is a member of the NSC, is
incapacitated.
I support the transparency that this bill imparts. I would
ask the Chairman to continue working with us as the bill moves
forward in the legislative process. We have not yet gotten
agency input on whether implementation of the bill as written
would present any unintended consequences that we have not
dealt with yet, and we want to ensure it aligns appropriately
with the strong steps the Administration has already taken to
close gaps in the chain of notification. In any event, I thank
you for bringing it forward, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any other
Members who wish to speak?
[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]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 6972, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by the gentleman
from Arizona. As previously announced, further proceedings on
the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 5658, the Vote by
Mail Tracking Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5658, Vote by Mail Tracking Act, a bill to
require mail-in ballots to use the Postal Service barcode
service.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Will the clerk please designate the amendment?
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 5658, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
Every American citizen who votes deserves to know that
their vote has been counted and their voice has been heard.
This bill, the Vote by Mail Tracking Act, would ensure this is
the case. H.R. 5658 requires that all ballots for a Federal
election, mailed within the United States to or from a voter,
contain a Postal Service barcode. This barcode would allow
voters to track the status of their ballot in the U.S. Postal
Service system, allowing voters to know in real time when their
ballot is received by the Postal Service, when it is in
transit, and when it has arrived at their election authority.
Beyond a Postal Service barcode, under this bill, for a ballot
to be mailable, it must meet other requirements, including
utilizing Postal Services' envelope design standards, and the
ballot must include the official election mail logo or any
future logo the Postal Service establishes for ballots. If a
ballot does not meet these requirements, it cannot be mailed.
Do not get me wrong. While I encourage every citizen who
wishes to vote in person on Election Day to do so, many states
have adopted vote by mail policies. Five states currently
conduct their elections entirely by mail. Twenty-nine states
and D.C. allow no-excuse absentee voting. Thirteen of those
automatically send out a ballot before every election. The U.S.
Postal Service has delivered nearly all election mail on time
in recent years. Over 97 percent of election mail was delivered
on time for the 2022 midterm election, but without safeguards,
bad actors could attempt to influence our election. We must
take our election security seriously and account for the fact
that a significant number of Americans choose to cast their
ballot by mail. This bill is a commonsense, bipartisan response
to rising levels of mail-in voting nationwide.
I thank my colleagues, Representative Katie Porter,
Representative Byron Donalds, and Representative Nancy Mace,
for their work on this important legislation, and now I yield
to Ranking Member Raskin for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Post Office mailed
and delivered more than 105 million mail-in ballots in the 2022
elections. As we embark on 2024, millions of Americans across
the country will decide to cast their ballots by mail. The
bipartisan Vote by Mail Tracking Act would strengthen vote by
mail processes and develop more efficient mechanisms to deliver
and process all these mail-in ballots. The bill would require
every mail-in ballot to contain a unique barcode and an
official mail logo, which would enable voters and election
officials to more readily track the status of these mail-in
ballots. The bill would also require mail-in ballots to meet
specific Postal guidelines, making it easier for the Postal
Service and election officials to sort, track, and verify the
authenticity of the ballots.
Voting by mail is a highly secure and safe way to vote, and
despite the misinformation circulating online about it in some
places, I will note that the Director of the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, Jen Easterly, confirmed in a
statement on November 9, 2022 that the Agency had ``seen no
evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed
votes, or was in any way compromised in any race in the
country.'' This bill would not overrule any state's decision to
establish or expand the use of vote by mail. The Constitution
leaves it to the states the determination of its own election
administration rules unless Congress acts under its Article 4
authority, and this bill would not conflict with that.
The Vote by Mail Tracking Act was favorably reported out of
this Committee last Congress with robust bipartisan support.
This commonsense legislation would inspire confidence in the
electorate in the performance and efficiency of our election
systems, giving voters comfort that their ballot has arrived
and been counted on time, and giving postal managers and state
election officials the tools they need to ensure every vote has
been counted by the voting deadline. I urge everybody to
support this bill, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
Ms. Porter. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Porter, the
sponsor of the bill.
Ms. Porter. Some of us here voted in-person, and some of us
here vote by mail. This Committee is not here to tell voters
how to vote, but however they choose to cast their ballot,
whoever they choose to vote for, whatever their political party
affiliation is, every voter deserves to feel confident that
their vote gets counted. There is a really easy way to give
those who choose to vote by mail that confidence: Postal
Service tracking barcodes. We already use them for so many
other things. We use them to track shipments of medication,
food, clothing.
Republicans and Democrats alike want to know when something
important is mailed and is it going to end up in the right
place. Our ballots are no exception. The United States Postal
Service recommends that every mail-in ballot envelope contain a
USPS tracking barcode, includes an official election mail logo,
and meets USPS letter standards for size, weight, and shape.
Unfortunately, not everyone gets to use ballot envelopes that
follow these standards. This bill fixes that problem. That is
why I am leading the Vote by Mail Tracking Act with the support
of Representatives Mace, Mfume, Donalds, Connolly, Fitzpatrick,
Norton, Ciscomani, Williams, and Burchett.
Under our bill, every ballot envelope will meet Postal
Service standards and get a tracking barcode. All voters can
then verify for themselves that their ballot reached its final
destination. That transparency is a necessary step to make
Republicans and Democrats alike confident in our elections, and
that is exactly why this bill is led by five Republicans and
five Democrats. It is not partisan. It is just good policy.
This bill does not just make things more streamlined for the
American people. It also makes processing easier and faster for
the Postal Service, reducing its burden and making efficient
use of tax dollars.
I want to be very clear about what this bill does not do.
It does not expand voting by mail. It does not authorize new
Federal spending. It simply makes sure that where voting by
mail happens, where voters choose to vote by mail, that those
voters can verify that their ballots were received by the
election office.
Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Raskin, I thank you both
for making this commonsense legislation a priority. Once we
mark this bill up today, I look forward to working with you to
quickly pass this bipartisan bill on the House floor. And to my
fellow Committee members, you will be in great company joining
10 bipartisan Members and both Chairman and Ranking Member in
supporting this bill. I urge every Committee Member to vote for
this bill, and I would be glad to add anyone as a co-sponsor. I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Mace from South Carolina.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this legislation. And
ironically, as much as we debate--I will not say ``fight,'' we
will say ``debate'' in here--the Oversight Committee is one of
the few committees where we actually can get a lot of
bipartisan work done, so I appreciate my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle. And whether you are Republican or Democrat,
I think we can all agree our republic cannot ensure if
Americans of all political stripes do not have confidence in
the integrity and results of our elections.
Over the last 4 years, we have seen a rapid expansion in
mail in voting, and it has made a lot of Americans uneasy. And
I remember in the 2020 cycle getting calls from at least a half
dozen people that received a ballot from multiple states
through the mail and listening to their concerns about that and
how uneasy they felt about it. So, this comprehensive
legislation requires ballots for all Federal elections to be
trackable while in the mail by having unique Postal Service
barcode, ensuring it can be tracked from the mailbox to the
ballot box, and there is nothing more American or more
supportive of a republic and a democracy than this piece of
legislation.
It is 2024, and if I can buy a dress online and order it
online and know when it is going to be delivered to the house,
then our ballot should be the same way. There is no reason why
we cannot track them and let us know if they have been
delivered. So, it is time to bring our election system into the
21st century. I have co-led on this bipartisan legislation,
election integrity legislation, ensuring we have transparency
and accountability for all those who vote by mail regardless of
your political affiliation.
Election integrity should not be a partisan issue. Every
legal vote should be counted, and our bipartisan bill will go a
long way to making that a reality. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Gosar from Arizona for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I applaud those folks
that put this together. It is high time. Arizona has been doing
mail-in ballots for over 25 years, but it is only one piece of
the pie. We can already do this, except we do not do it with
the post office, so I love the fact that we are using the post
office to use that barcode. However, that is only one piece of
the pie because in our state, you have to affidavit the
signatures. They have to match up, so it is one piece of the
pie, and that is really all it is, but it gives an easier tool
for people to follow through with. The last thing I would ask
is--I did not finish reading it--but what are the remedies in
case you cannot find that barcode? What would you expect the
post office to do? I will yield to----
Ms. Porter. Will the gentleman yield? In the bill, it is
written there is no individual remedy, although I think the
goal would be that as you track your ballot, if it is not
received, you would have the ability to--mail-in voting, as you
know, often occurs over a period of time----
Mr. Gosar. So, you will be able to do a provisional----
Ms. Porter. You would be able to do a provisional. You can
contact and request a new ballot. And I think this also will
enable county election officials and state officials to see if
the Postal Service is actually delivering these ballots on time
and in full. And if there were problems or gaps, we would be
able to hold, as a Committee, the Postal Service accountable
for those kinds of problems. That we currently do not have.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. I would tell you, I applaud the folks who
put this together because it is like one piece of another
complex puzzle, so thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no other
Members requesting time to speak, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 5658, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it and the bill is ordered favorably----
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, can I ask for a recorded vote? I
want to wear out these little machines today.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by the gentleman
from Arizona. As previously announced, further proceedings on
the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 5887, the
Government Service Delivery Improvement Act. The clerk will
please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5887, the Government Service Delivery
Improvement Act, a bill to improve government service delivery
and build related capacity for the Federal Government.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Will the clerk please designate the amendment?
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 5887, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a
statement on the bill and the amendment.
Outdated bureaucratic government processes make it
challenging and costly to deliver government services. This
wastes taxpayer dollars and creates opportunities for fraud and
abuse. These processes do not change because Federal agencies
lack a single designated official that Congress can hold
accountable for program service delivery, including agency-wide
backlogs, unprocessed applications, or improperly delivered
benefits. Many agency officials, program managers, policy-
makers, human resource managers are responsible for parts of
the problem, but developing solutions to poor government
service delivery will require someone to be responsible for
cross-agency coordination.
This legislation, the Government Service Delivery
Improvement Act, addresses this problem by requiring the Office
of Management and Budget and Federal agencies to designate a
senior official accountable for improving government service
delivery. This bill requires OMB to designate a senior official
as the Federal Government service delivery lead or hold them
responsible for facilitating and coordinating agency government
processes reforms. This OMB official will develop standards,
policies, and performance metrics to ensure agency progress.
This bill also requires each agency to designate a senior
official responsible for improving government service delivery.
This official must work with other relevant agency officials,
such as the chief information officer, chief procurement
officer, and program managers, to improve agency operations and
implement reform policies.
This bill further requires OMB to report to Congress within
a year on the status of implementing these requirements, with
GAO providing a similar report to Congress within 2 years. With
this expansion of the bipartisan 21st Century Integrated
Digital Experience Act of 2018, this bill will improve
congressional oversight over the Administration's government
service delivery reform efforts.
I am thankful for the work of my colleagues, Representative
Khanna and Representative Timmons, for their work on this
important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support
this commonsense bill.
The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank Mr. Timmons and Mr. Khanna from California for their
leadership of H.R. 5887, the Government Service Delivery
Improvement Act, and I am proud to support this bipartisan
bill. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Timmons from
South Carolina.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
my colleague, Mr. Khanna, for his leadership on this bill. The
Government Service Delivery Improvement Act aims to overhaul
the public's experience with government services, aligning them
with the expectations set by the digital era. And I could not
think of a better time for this Committee to take up this
legislation on this exciting day when the House Oversight
Committee steps into the 21st century with electronic voting.
I worked alongside my friend from Washington,
Representative Kilmer, for 4 years on the Select Committee on
the Modernization of Congress. We made over 200
recommendations, and we appreciate Chairman Comer adopting
Recommendation Number 55 by implementing electronic voting in
this Committee. It will save everyone here immense amounts of
time and allow us to be more efficient and effective, so thank
you. It really is exciting to see the Modernization Committee's
recommendations come to fruition.
Now, back to the bill at hand. Over the past year, this
Committee has held hearings on the failures of government
service delivery, whether it is passport backlogs, delays for
former service members requesting personnel records, or the
ineffective 1-800 number at the Social Security Administration.
Our interactions with Federal agencies are pivotal moments, yet
under our current system of government, there is not a single
individual the American people can turn to and hold accountable
for agencies' actions and failures. No one person is in charge
of implementing effective solutions or improving government
service delivery across all Federal agencies, and as a result,
individual agencies are not operating in an efficient manner.
Without such direct supervision or accountability, agencies can
continue to fall behind on the delivery of their services, like
the distribution of benefits or the effective handling of
backlogs.
In order to fix this lack of agency accountability and
oversight, this bill tasks OMB with a designated senior
official to facilitate and coordinate agency efforts so they
can work more efficiently and deliver services in a timely and
less wasteful manner. This bill will also require the
designation of a senior official for every Federal agency that
will be responsible for improving the service delivery of that
particular agency. The Government Service Delivery Improvement
Act is a beacon of hope in this landscape of frustration. It
mandates the appointment of a senior official at the OMB to
spearhead the improvement of government delivery service.
Additionally, it will hold agency heads accountable for
enhancing services, fostering greater trust with the public,
and appointing senior officials to drive these necessary
changes.
The Government Service Delivery Improvement Act is not just
about streamlining processes. It is about rebuilding trust
between the government and its people. It is about ensuring
that when Americans turn to their government for assistance,
they are met with efficiency, reliability, and above all,
respect. With that, I would like to thank Chairman Comer for
holding this markup and thank Representative Khanna for
carrying this bill. I urge all Members of this Committee to
support, and thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina.
The Chair now recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Khanna
from California.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Chair Comer, and thank you for your
leadership in helping this bill go forward. I want to thank
Representative Timmons for his partnership in this bill and
also acknowledge the leadership of our Ranking Member, Ranking
Member Raskin, and the Committee Chair, Mace, and Ranking
Member Connolly, as well as the many co-sponsors, bipartisan,
Representatives Donalds and Loudermilk, who all helped make
this possible.
And I think the reason we have, Mr. Chairman, such
bipartisan support is that this bill is common sense. We want
to make sure that government services are provided to people
with the latest technology. We know that digital technology
saves extraordinary amount of money for taxpayers. An average
IRS transaction that is not online is $53 per transaction. A
digital transaction is 22 cents. But more than saving taxpayers
money, this bill and the creation of the lead position at OMB
will ensure that the latest technology that we have in this
country is being used to make government better and to make
government perform better for citizens who need it. So, I
appreciate your leadership in helping this bipartisan bill go
forward and look forward to hopefully a vote in the House and
having the President sign this.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no
further Members wishing to speak, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 5887, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a recorded
vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. Gosar
from Arizona. As previously announced, further proceedings on
the question will be postponed.
I now ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
letter of support from the American Pharmacy Cooperative, Inc.
and a letter of support from the National Active and Retired
Federal Employees Association supporting our PBM legislation.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. We will now recess until 2:30. At that
time, we will vote on any recorded votes. I ask Members to
arrive promptly at 2:30 because we will be using electronic
voting for the first time, and votes will hopefully go quickly.
So again, we will recess until 2:30, which should be at the
conclusion of the first vote series.
The House stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The meeting will come back to order. We
have a quorum.
Before the first of our recorded votes, I would like to
remind Members of the rules and process for using the brand-new
electronic voting system.
[Applause.]
Chairman Comer. All right. My intention is to hold the
first vote open for a bit longer than the following votes, just
to allow Members to get familiar with the new system. When
using the electronic voting system, Members must be in their
seat in the hearing room to cast a vote. Members are not
allowed to remove their voting remote from the room. Once
voting begins, Members will be able to select ``yes,'' ``no,''
or ``present'' for each vote. A Member may change their vote
any time prior to the closing of the vote by the clerk, but
once a vote is recorded, the Member may not un-recorded their
vote from the record. Finally, this new system will allow the
Committee to dispense with votes quickly, so it is important
that Members do not leave the room during the vote series.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 7219, the
Information Quality Assurance Act of 2023. Members will record
their votes using the electronic system.
The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting the
bill, and the Chairman is going to vote aye.
Mr. Raskin. And the Ranking Member votes aye.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Ready to go, and the results are on the
screen.
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 41. The
nays are 0.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
[Applause.]
Chairman Comer. The question is on favorably reporting H.R.
5798. Members will record their vote using the electronic
voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorable
reporting H.R. 5798.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members recorded their--who wish
to be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change the 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 22. The
nays are 19.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 7184.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 7184.
[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 41. The
nays are 0.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R 6972. Members
will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The
clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 6972.
[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 41, the
nays are 0.
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. 5658.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 5658.
[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 41. The
nays are 0.
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. 5887.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 5887.
[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 41. The
nays are 0.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question now is on favorably reporting H.R. 262.
Members will record their vote using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 262.
[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 21. The
nays are 19.
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. 6283,
the Delinking Revenue from Unfair Gouging Act.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms.
Crockett from Texas.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to
the amendment on H.R. 6283.
[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 20. The
nays are 22.
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. 6283.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6283 is
agreed to.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6283. Members
will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The
clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 6283.
[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 29, the
nays are 11, with one Member voting present.
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 postal
naming bills, which were distributed in advance on this markup:
H.R. 3608, 5476, 5640, 5712, 6073, 6162, 6188, 6651, 6750,
6983, and 7192.
Without objection, the bills are considered read.
Chairman Comer. If any Member would like to speak on any of
the measures, they may do so now.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Hearing no request to speak, I request
unanimous consent for these bills' immediate consideration and
to favorably report the en bloc package.
Hearing no objection, the en bloc package is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Pursuant to Rule 11, 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, 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 2:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]