[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]