[House Prints 118-CP]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


           
118th Congress }                                         

  2nd Session  }        COMMITTEE PRINT   	        

======================================================================
                             FULL COMMITTEE

                           BUSINESS MEETING:

                        MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS

                           AND POSTAL-NAMING

                                MEASURES

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

                                FOR THE

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

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 7, 2024

                               __________

                          Serial No. CP:118-9

                               __________

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


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                                __________
 
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-183 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
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                        Ryan Giachetti, Counsel
                   Christian Hoehner, Policy Director
                Lauren Lombardo, Deputy Policy Director
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                                 ------                                
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page

Meeting held on March 7, 2024....................................     1

                            BILLS CONSIDERED

                              ----------                              

  * H.R. 4552, The Federal Information Security Modernization Act 
  Of 2023
Bill Discussed...................................................     2

  * H.R. 7523, The Governmentwide Executive Councils Reform Act
Bill Discussed...................................................     7

  * H.R. 7532, The Federal AI Governance And Transparency Act
Bill Discussed...................................................     9

  * H.R. 7528, The Comment Integrity And Management Act Of 2024
Bill Discussed...................................................    13

  * H.R. 7533, The Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review 
  Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    17

  * H.R. 7525, The Special District Grant Accessibility Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    21

  * H.R. 7530, The D.C. Criminal Reform To Immediately Make 
  Everyone Safer (D.C. Crimes) Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    23

  * H.R. 7526, The D.C. Consumer Vehicle Choice Protection Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    40

  * H.R. 7527, The Mail Traffic Deaths Reporting Act
Bill Discussed...................................................    47

  * H.R. 5301, The Eliminate Useless Reports Act Of 2023
Bill Discussed...................................................    50

  * Several Postal-Naming Measures
Bill Discussed...................................................    58

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Article, Forbes, ``Biden's 2023 Federal Register Page 
  Count''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Guidance Document, Administrative Conference of the U.S.; 
  submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Report, ``Coffey-Cumulative-Cost-Regs''; submitted by Rep. 
  Biggs.

  * Report, Mercatus Center, ``Regulatory Accumulation since 
  1970''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Retrospective Review, whitehouse.gov, ``By the Numbers''; 
  submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Statement for the Record, H.R. 7525 - NSDC; submitted by 
  Chairman Comer.

  * Statement for the Record, H.R. 7532 - NetChoice; submitted by 
  Chairman Comer.

  * Article, Third Way, ``The Two-Decade Red State Murder 
  Problem''; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Report, IG of Postal Service Confirming Aspects of WSJ 
  Article; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Article, Fox, ``Hertz selling 20000 EVs from fleet to 
  reinvest in gas-powered vehicles''; submitted by Rep. Luna.

  * Article, Business Insider, ``Mercedes Benz Ditches Plan to 
  Only Sell EVs by 2030''; submitted by Rep. Luna.

  * Article, Washington Examiner, ``Study makes the case EVs are 
  worse for the environment''; submitted by Rep. Luna.

  * Letter, February 27, 2024, to Administrator Regan of EPA; 
  submitted by Rep. Luna.

  * Letter, from 16 Local Organizations Opposing H.R. 7526; 
  submitted by Rep. Norton.

  * Letter, from 23 National Environmental Organizations Opposing 
  H.R. 7526; submitted by Rep. Norton.

  * Letter, from 47 National and Local Organizations Opposing 
  H.R. 7526; submitted by Rep. Norton.

  * Letter, from Mayor Bowser Chairman Mendelson Opposing H.R. 
  7530 and H.R. 7526; submitted by Rep. Norton.

  * Letter, Opposing H.R. 7526; submitted by Rep. Norton.

  * Statement for the Record, Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, 
  on H.R. 7528 and H.R. 7533, submitted by Rep. Raskin.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

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

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, March 7 , 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability,

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Foxx, Grothman, Cloud, 
Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner, Fallon, 
Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, McClain, Boebert, 
Luna, Langworthy, Burlison, Raskin, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, 
Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, Bush, Brown, 
Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, Tlaib, 
and Pressley.
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A 
quorum is present.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(b) and House Rule XI, Clause 
2, the Chair may postpone further proceedings today on the 
question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an 
amendment on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays 
ordered.
    The Committee will continue to use the electronic system 
for recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills 
before the Committee. Of course, should any technical issues 
arise, which they, unfortunately, do from time to time in this 
Committee room, we will immediately transition to traditional 
roll call votes. Any procedural or motion related votes during 
today's markup will be dispensed with by a traditional roll 
call vote.
    The first order of business is to welcome the return of our 
newest Member and a great former Member, Representative 
Pressley of Massachusetts, to the Committee. Congresswoman 
Pressley has been a Member of the House since 2019, and before 
that, she served 8 years on the Boston City Council. 
Congresswoman Pressley also spent her first two terms on this 
Committee, serving during the 116th and 117th Congresses, and 
we want to welcome you back, Representative Pressley. And I now 
recognize Ranking Member Raskin to issue any comments he may 
have.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I also 
would like to welcome back our friend and colleague, Ms. 
Pressley. We have been far poorer in your absence, and we are 
far richer again in your presence and with your return. I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The next order 
of business is ratifying the new subcommittee roster. The 
clerks have distributed the roster electronically. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Committee approve the appointments 
and assignments as shown on the roster.
    Without objection, the Subcommittee roster is approved.
    Our first item for consideration is H.R. 4552, the Federal 
Information Security Modernization Act of 2023. The Clerk will 
please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 4552, Federal Information Security 
Modernization Act, a bill to improve the cybersecurity of the 
Federal Government, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    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. 4552, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    I am pleased to be considering the bipartisan and bicameral 
H.R. 4552, the Federal Information Modernization Act, or FISMA. 
This is the second time in 4 years the Committee has considered 
sweeping FISMA reform, the primary law governing Federal agency 
cybersecurity. We passed a similar version of this bill out of 
Committee in February 2022 before negotiations with the Senate 
stalled at the end of the last Congress. Since then, the bill 
has undergone substantial revision, with additional updates 
even since its reintroduction last July. My amendment in the 
nature of a substitute reflects the many positive discussions 
we have had with the Senate, the Administration, and industry 
stakeholders.
    The U.S. Government's increasing use of and reliance on 
technology to provide information and services to all Americans 
makes Federal information systems a constant target of hostile 
nations, criminal organizations, and other malicious actors. It 
has been nearly 10 years since Congress last addressed the 
legislative structure and framework in such a comprehensive 
manner. In that time, we have seen all manner of enemies 
unleash a nonstop barrage of cyberattacks against American 
companies and Federal agencies. In addition to the increasing 
amounts of attacks, cyberattacks are becoming more 
sophisticated, and the damage they can inflict puts our 
Nation's security, our national security, the economy, even the 
personal safety of the American people at risk. As these 
threats evolve, our cybersecurity laws, FISMA, must also 
evolve.
    A critical element of this legislation is to avoid box-
checking exercises. The bill provides the executive branch with 
the tools it needs to update cyber policies without putting in 
overly prescriptive and rigid technical mandates into law. With 
the changes in my ANS, the Committee has made every effort to 
reduce agency turf wars and prevent duplicative efforts that 
only waste scarce resources and valuable time. My ANS helps 
further clarify the bill's reforms to the roles, 
responsibilities, and reporting channels of key Federal 
agencies: the Office of Management and Budget, which sets cyber 
policy; the Department of Homeland Security, which provides 
operational assistance; and the National Cyber director, which 
coordinates Agency incident response and congressional 
reporting. This bill also codifies the Federal chief 
information officer within the Office of Management and Budget 
with a direct FISMA policy coordination role under National 
Cyber Director. Overall, the ANS to H.R. 4552 represents a 
prudent and effective response to recent cyberattacks against 
our Nation and intrusions of American information systems. It 
updates authorities to strengthen the Federal Government's 
cyber defense as technology evolves and threats become more 
sophisticated, persistent, and malicious.
    I want to thank Representative Mace and Connolly, the co-
leads of our cybersecurity subcommittee, for their sponsorship, 
as well as Ranking Member Raskin and his staff's hard work and 
bipartisan collaboration to help us bring this bill up today. I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we may 
enact this important reform into law as soon as possible. I now 
recognize Ranking Member Raskin, an original cosponsor of the 
bill, for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud of our 
strong bipartisan record on FISMA, and I am grateful for your 
partnership and hard work, Mr. Chairman, on this vital 
legislation to modernize the cybersecurity framework.
    The world's democratic governments are under the constant 
threat of cyberattack by malign state actors and cybercriminals 
alike, posing grave risks to our institutions and the ability 
of government to serve our citizens. In just a few recent 
examples, last August, the Canadian Government stated that a 
highly sophisticated Chinese state-sponsored actor hacked into 
one of its scientific research agencies. The same month, the 
U.K. announced that Russian hackers had stolen information 
about tens of thousands of British citizens through a hack of 
its electoral commission that had begun 2 years prior. And this 
January, Australia suffered its largest government cyberattack 
to date when Russian hackers stole 2-and-a-half documents from 
65 departments and agencies.
    The U.S. has not been spared from these kinds of 
cyberattacks. In Fiscal Year 2022, Federal agencies reported 
more than 30,000 Federal information security incidents, and 
OMB reported three major cyber incidents, all affecting 
personally identifiable information. In 2023, the U.S. Marshal 
Service suffered a ransomware attack related to sensitive law 
enforcement information. The DOT suffered a data breach, 
threatening the information of hundreds of thousands of current 
and former Federal employees; and multiple agencies, including 
the Department of Energy, reportedly suffered exploitation of 
software data through a technological vulnerability.
    As the problem has been explained to me by Russia policy 
experts, Mr. Putin reasoned that he would never be able to beat 
America militarily, or economically, or in terms of political 
ideas, but he could engage in cyber espionage and cyber 
sabotage to create chaos in our country. President Biden has 
taken essential steps to strengthen our Nation's cybersecurity, 
issuing a 2021 executive order requiring agencies to implement 
a host of cybersecurity measures and issuing a comprehensive 
National Cyber Strategy and Implementation plan last year. Now 
Congress must act by passing FISMA to modernize this act, the 
cybersecurity framework, and requirements that protect our 
Federal information technology, data, and networks.
    This bill is the product of years of cooperative, 
bipartisan work with our Senate counterparts, the 
Administration, experts, and industry. Among its many 
provisions, the bill clarifies the assignment of cybersecurity 
roles and responsibilities, including a National Cyber 
Director, which had not yet been established when the last 
FISMA modernization was signed into law a decade ago. The bill 
codifies the role of the OMB Federal Chief Information Security 
Officer, and strengthens civil liberties protections, including 
by requiring designation of chief privacy officers at Federal 
agencies. It also promotes modernization and next-generation 
cybersecurity principles that will allow agencies to prioritize 
cybersecurity risks with accurate, real-time information.
    Modernizing FISMA is a big step toward the clear, 
coordinated, whole-of-government approach to Federal 
cybersecurity that our government needs to meet the challenges 
of the dangerous and constantly evolving threat landscape. I 
urge all of our colleagues to support this bill so we can get 
it to the President's desk as soon as possible. Thank you very 
much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the outstanding Chairwoman of the Cybersecurity 
Subcommittee on Oversight, Ms. Mace from South Carolina.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, you know, 
regardless of what mainstream media says, we do bipartisan work 
on this Committee, and I appreciate the support of folks on 
both sides of the aisle. And I am going to date myself here, 
but 25 years ago, in 1999, I had just gotten my first job and I 
was a programmer, and the programming language I learned was 
COBOL. I learned 25 years ago that COBOL was legacy system, and 
we should not be using COBOL in our programming or as a basis 
for computer code. And yet here we are today, 25 years later, 
when it was legacy back then, talking about, having hearings on 
programming like COBOL legacy systems, et cetera.
    And we have all these cyber breaches, supply chain risks. 
We have heard from witnesses speak about the promises and 
perils of AI, and we have got to do this modernization bill, 
and it is more important than ever that we move forward. And 
one of the things I want to say is that the importance of this 
bill that we have introduced is designed to help protect our 
Nation and its citizens from cybercrimes. An important role of 
our Subcommittee on the Oversight Committee is ensuring Federal 
information technology is well managed.
    The Federal Government depends on IT systems for 
everything, from national defense to homeland security to 
administration of benefits programs that our citizens need. In 
all, we spend upwards of $100 billion of tax dollars annually 
on Federal IT. The U.S. Government's increasing use of and 
reliance on technology to provide information and services to 
all Americans makes Federal information systems a constant 
target of hostile nations, criminal organizations, and other 
malicious actors that leverage modern advances in technology.
    Attacks on Federal information systems are disruptive to 
agency missions and programs. They also risk exposure of 
sensitive national security and the public's private 
information, as we have seen over the years. In 2015, for 
example, the Office of Personnel Management announced the cyber 
theft of the sensitive information of approximately 25 million 
Americans. And in 2021, nine Federal agencies and a hundred 
private sector organizations were compromised by the 2020 
SolarWinds software supply chain attack. Key aspects of our 
everyday life rely on the safe flow of data and information and 
computerized systems. That includes the delivery of medical 
care, the conduct of law enforcement activity, the operation of 
utilities, critical infrastructure, et cetera.
    Cyberattacks have real consequences. One study estimated 
that malicious cyberactivity costs the U.S. economy more than 
$100 billion annually, and another report estimated the annual 
cost to be $250 billion every single year. Aside from the 
dollar loss, these breaches erode trust in key institutions, 
including the Federal Government. For instance, the Federal 
Government computer systems holding the confidential data of 
millions of Americans have been compromised by malicious actors 
too many times. We must have reliable safeguards against 
criminal and unauthorized use of data to ensure our economic 
security, our homeland security, and our national security.
    The American people and those of us who serve on their 
behalf here in Congress are angry that foreign adversaries, 
such as China, are using cyberwarfare to attack and weaken our 
country. Defending ourselves against such stress and such 
adversaries requires intelligent, coordinated action and 
modernization at the Federal level. In other words, it requires 
FISMA. And so, the product of this bipartisan, bicameral 
coordination with the Senate companion, being led by Senators 
Peters and Hawley, the legislation reflects and incorporates 
positive input from Federal agencies and industry stakeholders. 
This bill underscores the ongoing need to modernize the 
protection of Federal information and information systems with 
a clear, coordinated, whole-of-government approach to Federal 
cybersecurity.
    So, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member 
for supporting this bill and hope we can pass it out of the 
Committee unanimously. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Thank you. Does any other Member seek 
recognition on the bill?
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Texas seek recognition?
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I 
would offer an amendment.
    Chairman Comer. The Clerk will distribute the amendment to 
all Members. OK. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4552, as offered by Mr. 
Sessions of Texas.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I reserve a point of order.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions, is recognized for 5 
minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and let me 
start by saying that the gentlewoman, the young Chairwoman of 
the Subcommittee, Ms. Mace, has done an outstanding job, which 
I do support the bill as well as the bipartisan work that would 
accompany that.
    Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the Federal 
Information Security Modernization Act of 2023 to simplify and 
harmonize private sector reporting requirements for major 
cybersecurity incidents. As our young Chairman has noted, FISMA 
is intended to improve Federal Government effectiveness when it 
comes to cybersecurity coordination across agencies. It also 
makes sure that we all get it right when we deal with Federal 
agencies, and we understand what those reporting processes are. 
My amendment would make one such improvement to provide clarity 
for critical infrastructure providers to report major incidents 
to the Federal Government when facing a cyberattack.
    Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that in dealing with the 
airline industry, I received information as of late that gave 
them, when they reviewed this bill, the confidence that what 
Ms. Mace did and those cosponsors was a fine opportunity, but 
they felt like that they had already been provided such 
instruction by law. This amendment would change reporting 
obligations to refer to those found in the Cyber Incident 
Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act, which passed the 
House in 2022.
    This particular group of airlines, under what might be 
known as Airlines for America, believe that they already have 
been given specific information about the need and 
responsibility for them to report, and they believe that this 
current law regarding critical infrastructure entities has 
already been undertaken. And so, they believe this would create 
uncertainty and perhaps open up to them some questions about 
under which circumstances and under what conditions they would 
need to report to be under this language and new law. I think 
that what Ms. Mace and this legislation does is the right 
thing, but I simply believe that there should be some clarity 
related to this as it allows itself to be compared to this 
previous law, which was passed in 2022.
    With that said, Mr. Chairman, I have talked with you about 
this, and I have talked to the gentlewoman, Ms. Mace. Ms. Mace 
felt very strongly that I should pursue this matter, but I want 
you to know that what I am going to do at this time is I am 
going to withdraw this amendment for consideration and 
recommend that the Committee consider this change to this bill, 
considered to be very deliberate and knowledgeable, and we work 
together. So, I have now made my point. Ms. Mace was great to 
make her point to me, and we will let it move forward for 
consideration in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my 
time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I want to thank 
the Chairman of the Government Operations Subcommittee. I, too, 
Mr. Sessions, am sensitive to the burdens and confusion that 
can accompany overreporting requirements. The Committee worked 
diligently to prevent the sort of duplicative efforts you 
described for Federal agencies and non-Federal entities with 
this bill, but our government also needs to know when a Federal 
system has been compromised. I really appreciate the gentleman 
from Texas offering and withdrawing his amendment and look 
forward to working with him as the bill moves through the 
process.
    Do any other Members wish to seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    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 reporting, H.R. 4552, 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, as amended.
    For what purpose does gentleman from Texas seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chair, may I ask for a recorded vote?
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered. As 
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will 
be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7523, 
Governmentwide Executive Councils Act. The Clerk will please 
designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7523, Governmentwide Executive Councils 
Act, a bill to establish the Office of Executive Councils, and 
for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The Clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 7523, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered its 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    This bill, the Governmentwide Executive Councils Reform 
Act, provides Congress with additional oversight of six 
existing governmentwide executive branch councils. These 
existing councils are important in developing and implementing 
governmentwide policy changes across practice areas, including 
financial management, information technology, data management, 
procurement, human resources management, and performance and 
transparency. The councils represent the leaders of agencies 
who are charged with implementing the type of governmentwide 
policy mandates and reforms that are a unique jurisdiction of 
the House Oversight Committee.
    This bill makes consistent requirements for these six 
councils, ensuring that each council maintains a publicly 
accessible website, publishes a strategic plan, and provides 
technical assistance directly to Congress. This bill also 
provides statutory authorization, imposes transparency 
requirements on the existing Office of Executive Councils and 
the General Services Administration, which was established to 
provide administrative and technical support, meeting space, 
and staffing to these governmentwide councils. Last, this bill 
updates the leadership of each council to ensure that the 
council is led by the appropriate senior officer within the 
Office of Management and Budget. This bill establishes 
important new oversight and policy tools for our Committee.
    I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Timmons and 
Ro Khanna, for their bipartisan work on this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support this good government bill. I now 
recognize Ranking Member Raskin for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I favor this bill 
which would establish the Office of Executive Councils within 
GSA. This office would provide assistance to several 
governmentwide policymaking entities, including the Chief 
Acquisition Officers Council, the Chief Financial Officers 
Council, the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, and the 
Performance Improvement Council. Each of these councils would 
be required to provide legislative policy, project funding, or 
shared services recommendations to OMB related to their own 
area of expertise. They would also serve as a primary advisory 
body to OMB on the development and execution of the Federal 
Government performance plans and priority goals and would be 
required to publish a strategic plan updated every 2 years. GSA 
would be tasked with providing support for the councils.
    Although I support this legislation, I want to note that 
OMB has expressed some reservations about a similar bill that 
was considered last Congress. It is my hope that we can address 
those issues prior to the bill moving to the Floor. I commend 
my colleagues, Representatives Timmons and Khanna, for their 
hard work on this legislation, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the sponsor of the 
bill, Representative Timmons from South Carolina, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my 
colleague, Mr. Khanna, for joining me in introducing this 
legislation that will bring greater transparency and 
accountability on how Federal agencies are using taxpayer 
dollars to meet their performance goals and better serve 
communities in South Carolina and across the Nation.
    The Governmentwide Executive Council's Reform Act is an 
important piece of legislation that provides Congress with 
additional oversight and accountability over executive 
councils, which define and carry out management priorities for 
all Federal agencies and improve the operations and performance 
of the Federal Government. In doing so, our bill codifies the 
Office of Executive Councils, OEC, which resides within the 
General Services Administration and consists of governmentwide 
policymaking entities, such as the Chief Data Officers Council, 
the Chief Financial Officers Council, and the Performance 
Improvement Council.
    The bill defines the duties of the OEC and requires them to 
submit an annual report to Congress of costs, projects, 
services, or programs related to supporting the various 
councils. Importantly, this bill explicitly prohibits GSA from 
providing support resources to councils who have not received 
congressional authorization. In addition, this bill requires 
each of these councils to provide legislative, policy, and 
technical analysis to Congress upon request, and scopes how the 
councils interact with and inform the work of the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    All this bill asks is that these six councils act 
harmoniously and be more transparent. This is commonsense, good 
government legislation that I urge all of my colleagues to 
support. With that, I would like to thank Chairman Comer for 
holding this markup and thank Representative Khanna for help 
carrying this bill. I urge all Members of this Committee to 
support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members seek recognition on the bill?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    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. 7523, 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 reported as amended.
    For what purpose does Representative Cloud seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Cloud. I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    Moving on. Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7532, 
Federal AI Governance and Transparency Act. The Clerk will 
please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7532, Federal AI Governance and 
Transparency Act, a bill to establish Federal AI system 
governance requirements, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The Clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
7532, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and amendment.
    By using artificial intelligence, Federal agencies can 
improve government processes and operations, save taxpayer 
dollars, and increase oversight and accountability. Agencies 
should be encouraged to use AI, when appropriate, to benefit 
everyday Americans. To ensure this is done responsibly, we must 
have the necessary safeguards in place to uphold American 
values and protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.
    In recent years, Congress has passed an assortment of AI-
related legislation. President Trump and President Biden have 
also both issued executive orders on the Federal Government's 
use of artificial intelligence. All of this recent policy has 
produced positive, but disjointed and sometimes contradictory, 
directives regarding how Federal agency AI systems should be 
managed. This has made it difficult for agencies to implement 
these policies and challenging for industries to adapt.
    That is why I am excited to take up my bill, the Federal AI 
Governance and Transparency Act, which I have worked with the 
gentleman from Maryland, Ranking Member Raskin, as well as 
Representatives Mace, Ocasio-Cortez, Higgins, Connolly, 
Langworthy, and Khanna. This bipartisan legislation centrally 
codifies, consolidates, and streamlines existing policies and 
law and Federal agency use, while providing the clarity 
necessary to ensure responsible and transparent use of Federal 
AI systems. For instance, this legislation codifies widely 
recognized principles for the responsible use of AI, which were 
first established in 2020 by President Trump's executive order 
promoting the use of trustworthy artificial intelligence in the 
Federal Government.
    This bill creates this transparency by requiring the public 
notice of Federal AI systems that are either high risk or 
interact with sensitive personal records covered by the Privacy 
Act. These public notices, called AI governance charters, must 
include basic information that the agency and public should 
know about--how these AI systems are used and how they were 
developed. For instance, information on testing and validation 
processes, descriptions of data assets impacted personal 
records, and downstream impacts on agency programs or 
determinations.
    By centrally streamlining and consolidating existing 
Federal AI policy and establishing AI governance charters, this 
legislation provides safeguards for Federal AI systems. By 
implementing these commonsense policies now, this legislation 
establishes a strong baseline for transparency of future AI use 
in the Federal Government.
    Again, I thank Ranking Member Raskin and Representatives 
Mace, Ocasio-Cortez, Higgins, Connolly, Langworthy, and Khanna 
for their work on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to 
support this timely and important piece of legislation, and I 
yield to Ranking Member Raskin for his opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like the telephone, 
the computer, and the internet, artificial intelligence is a 
revolutionary new technology sure to remake our society, our 
commerce, our government, and our lives. In Congress, we have 
to act to make sure that AI works to improve governmental 
services and not to undermine our constitutional rights, civil 
liberties, and values.
    With these imperatives in mind, Chairman Comer and I 
introduced the H.R. 7531, the Federal Artificial Intelligence 
Governance and Transparency Act, along with a remarkable list 
of co-leads: my esteemed colleagues, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who is 
representing Committee Democrats on the new Task Force on 
Artificial Intelligence in the House; Mr. Connolly is the 
Ranking Member of our cybersecurity subcommittee; and Mr. 
Khanna, who has also been a strong voice in the field. On the 
Republican side, the bill has the notable support of our 
distinguished colleagues, Ms. Mace, Mr. Higgins, and Mr. 
Langworthy. Not many bills or Oversight Committee priorities 
are capable of assembling a co-lead roster representing such a 
diverse group of distinguished Members.
    President Biden took relevant action on this matter in his 
sweeping executive order of last October on the safe, secure, 
and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence. 
The Federal AI Governance and Transparency Act would now 
complement and supplement that order. While AI itself is 
complex, the goals of the bill are simple: to ensure that any 
Federal AI use promotes the fair, just, and impartial treatment 
of all and to create an oversight framework that will help 
Congress effectively meet the challenges of this powerful new 
technology over time.
    The bill would make sure that Federal AI use is governed by 
a clear set of standards. Federal AI use should be verifiably 
accurate, ethical, reliable and effective, transparently and 
appropriately disclosed to the public, and consistent with the 
Constitution and all other applicable laws and policies, 
including those protecting freedom of speech, privacy, civil 
rights, civil liberties, and an open and transparent 
government. The Federal use of AI should be purposeful and 
performance driven and should not work to disproportionately 
benefit or harm certain individuals or entities. It should be 
not only safe and secure, but resilient when it comes to 
systematic vulnerabilities, adversarial manipulation, and other 
kinds of manipulation and exploitation. It should be informed 
by an explainable understanding of the purpose, operations 
risks, and outcomes of AI applications. It should be 
responsibly managed and overseen, including through engagement 
with affected communities, and it should be overseen through 
accountable and appropriate safeguards, with compliance, 
monitored, audited, and documented, and with relevant agency 
personnel receiving the training they need for successful 
compliance.
    To implement all these standards, the bill directs OMB to 
issue guidance, policies, and best practices related to AI. It 
also clarifies the responsibility of Federal agencies to assess 
and reduce risks, periodically test and evaluate procedures and 
controls, and conduct regular personnel training programs. The 
bill sets up new accountability mechanisms to provide Congress 
and the public with the information needed to ensure 
transparency and oversight. It would establish a notification 
process for individuals or entities affected by an agency 
determination that has been substantively and meaningfully 
influenced by artificial intelligence, and it requires agencies 
to ensure their existing appeals processes provide the 
opportunity for an alternative review independent of AI.
    It also establishes a requirement for agencies to publish 
AI governance charters for high-risk AI systems in use by 
Federal agencies, applying stronger safeguards and ensuring 
more detailed information is available to both Congress and the 
public. Federal contractors and subcontractors would also be 
required to provide agencies with the information they need in 
order to comply.
    As of September 1, 2023, Federal agencies reported more 
than 700 current and planned artificial intelligence uses, and 
that number will only escalate as AI continues to progress. By 
acting now, we can put in place a framework that responsibly 
addresses the public risks of these uses so we can best achieve 
their public benefits.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your historic partnership on 
this legislation. I urge all our colleagues to support the 
bill. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to speak in 
favor of H.R. 7532. Chairman Comer's Federal AI Governance and 
Transparency Act is before us in markup today. I am an original 
cosponsor of this legislation. There are many helpful aspects 
to this bill to protect Americans and place necessary 
guardrails on AI and government, but I would like to focus my 
comments on provisions that borrow from my bill, the 
Transparent Automated Governance Act.
    I introduced the TAG Act late last year as a first step to 
set limits on government applications of artificial 
intelligence. The bill, as a whole, seeks to ensure Federal 
agencies notify individuals when they are interacting with or 
subject to decisions made using certain AI or other automated 
systems. Furthermore, the legislation directs agencies to 
establish a human review appeals process that will ensure there 
is a human review of AI-generated decisions that may negatively 
affect individuals. The Federal AI Governance and Transparency 
Act incorporates both notification and appeals requirements 
across government to protect Americans from unaccountable 
government actions by AI.
    We cannot trust the government to use these powerful tools 
without increasingly adept accountability and transparency 
measures. This bill is a good start, it is a good beginning to 
address a complex issue, and I commend Chairman Comer and my 
colleagues for leading on this issue. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to be heard?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [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 reporting H.R. 7532, 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 reported, as amended.
    For what purpose does Representative Cloud seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Cloud. I ask for a recorded vote.
    A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, 
further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7528, Comment 
Integrity and Management Act of 2024. The Clerk will please 
designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7528, the Comment Integrity and Management 
Act of 2024, a bill to improve the integrity and management of 
mass comments and computer-generated comments in the regulatory 
review process, 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.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The Clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
7528, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    Every American deserves the opportunity to participate in 
our political system, which includes sharing their views on 
agency rulemaking. Agencies are required to provide an 
opportunity to participate in rulemaking and submitting written 
views or data on draft rules. Recent advances have expanded the 
ability for the public to comment on proposed rules 
electronically. However, agencies may struggle to manage 
computer-generated or mass comments. This bill provides 
additional support to agencies navigating these new challenges 
by allowing them the flexibility necessary to manage electronic 
comments.
    This bill requires agencies to verify that any comment 
submitted electronically has been submitted by an actual human. 
This bill also provides agencies with additional authorities to 
assist with its processing and analyzing of mass comments 
submitted electronically. These new authorities would require 
agencies to identify, to the extent practical, if the comment 
is a mass comment and indicate this identification on any 
publicly available copy of the comment. This bill also requires 
agencies to establish and make public any policies they have 
regarding how they will manage, post, or consider computer-
generated and mass comments during the rulemaking process. 
Further, this legislation requires the Office of Management and 
Budget to issue guidance to agencies and requires the GAO to 
submit a report to Congress on computer-generated comments.
    It is time that our Federal agencies adapt their processes 
to accommodate the latest technologies. H.R. 7528 helps ensure 
every American is heard and not drowned out by an influx of 
computer-generated comments. I want to thank Representative 
Clay Higgins for his ideas and work in developing this 
necessary legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this good government proposal, and I now recognize the Ranking 
Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Technological advances 
have expanded access to the Federal agencies' online rulemaking 
dockets, and they have made it a lot easier for the public to 
comment on proposed rules, and that is a great thing. At the 
same time, in some recent high-profile rulemakings, agencies 
have received a very high volume of duplicative and identical 
comments, which has created some challenges for agencies in 
processing comments and managing their online rulemaking 
dockets.
    This bill is designed to help agencies manage mass comments 
and computer-generated comments submitted in response to 
proposed rules. It is not intended in any way to discourage or 
deter mass comments, which are a vital part of the regulatory 
process, and I would strongly oppose the legislation if that 
were its purpose or its effect. The bill would allow agencies 
to post a representative sample of mass comments, but if they 
choose to do that, they are also required in the legislation to 
post the precise number of identical comments received. The 
bill would also require agencies within 1 year to establish 
policies for handling computer-generated comments consistent 
with this legislation.
    I want to thank Chairman Comer and staff for working with 
me to address some of the concerns that were raised about the 
original introduced version of the bill. I understand both the 
Administration and an outside coalition have raised some 
concerns about the legislation. Our staff has worked with them 
and our Majority counterparts to substantively incorporate 
their feedback into this revised version of the bill, and so, 
at least at this point, I feel satisfied. I hope that before 
the legislation moves any further, there would be a buy-in and 
a signoff from the Administration, and that the concerns of the 
outside coalition have been sufficiently addressed. Otherwise, 
I am pleased to support the bill, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Representative Higgins from 
Louisiana, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. I thank the Chairman, and it is interesting to 
note the means by which this bill has been advanced with 
meaningful conversations between my office and the Committee 
staff, and the Ranking Member's concerns have been addressed. 
And I appreciate Ranking Member Raskin's very legitimate and 
sincere concerns regarding the language of the bill, and I 
stand committed to work through any remaining concerns that the 
Administration may have or outside groups may have.
    This markup today and this bill, in particular, in my 
opinion, is an excellent example of how we may work together 
when we find common ground to address the needs and concerns of 
the people we are sworn to serve. So, I offer the Comment 
Integrity and Management Act, which is both timely and 
essential in the digital age we navigate, an age where our 
constituents engage with us more and more through electronic 
means. The bill I am presenting today seeks to safeguard the 
integrity of this engagement, particularly in the realm of 
agency rulemaking processes.
    In our commitment to democratic principles, we acknowledge 
the right of every American to participate in our political 
system. This participation includes the invaluable process of 
submitting comments on proposed rules and regulations, comments 
that shape the very fabric of our governance. With the advent 
of digital technology, the channels for such participation have 
expanded, providing broader access but also introducing new 
challenges. Unfortunately, digital advancement has been 
accompanied by the rise of computer-generated comments, which 
can actually obscure genuine public input and hinder our 
agencies' ability to effectively gauge public sentiment.
    It is against this backdrop that the Comment Integrity and 
Management Act has been conceived. The cornerstone of the bill 
is its commitment to ensuring that every comment submitted 
electronically comes from a real person, not an automated 
program. By requiring human verification, we are taking a 
significant step toward preserving the authenticity of public 
input. Furthermore, the comment Integrity and Management Act 
equips our agencies with the flexibility and tools necessary to 
efficiently manage the comments they receive. This includes the 
authority to identify and process computer-generated and mass 
comments, ensuring that they are handled transparently and 
effectively.
    Transparency is further bolstered by requiring agencies to 
establish and make public their policies on managing and 
considering electronic comments. This move not only enhances 
accountability, but also ensures our constituents understand 
exactly how their voices are heard. Additionally, the 
legislation directs the Office of Management and Budget to 
issue guidance to agencies on best practices for managing 
electronic comments, and mandates a report from the GAO on the 
prevalence and impact of computer-generated comments.
    In offering the Comment Integrity and Management Act, I 
urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of adopting our 
processes to the realities of the 21st century. It is 
imperative that we ensure every American is heard and that 
genuine public input is not drowned out by the noise of 
automation. This bill represents a good government approach to 
embracing technological advancements while safeguarding the 
principles of public participation and transparency in the 
rulemaking process. I thank my colleagues and urge support of 
this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman just yield for one 
question?
    Mr. Higgins. I will gladly yield to my friend, the Ranking 
Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, my friend, Mr. Higgins. One of the 
reasons that this seems like a reasonable approach to the 
problem that you accurately describe is, I think about when I 
get computerized mail to my office, if 300 people sign the same 
letter or send me the same letter and it is verbatim identical, 
I do not read it 300 times. I would read it once, and then I 
would look to see how many people had signed on to it with 
their names. And I understand that the purpose of this 
legislation is to allow the agencies, if they have not 300, but 
300,000 comments, identical comments, not to reprint each one, 
but to reprint one. If there are variations, reprint the 
several variations, and then have a list of the names and the 
number of people who signed it. Is that right? Am I 
understanding it correctly?
    Mr. Higgins. There is a requirement to report variations on 
the same comment. There may be slight variations, essentially 
delivering the same message as a requirement to document those 
variations and to report the number of those variations that 
have been received, whereby an honest and transparent 
assessment of the full public commentary can be reported as 
part of that government endeavor. I believe it would be mostly 
helpful, quite frankly, on, you know, a more local and state 
level where particular projects are of particular concern to 
communities and densities of population, and government has an 
obligation to measure the support or the opposition of that 
project in a very real and sincere manner.
    So, this is a legitimate effort to accurately document the 
commentary of the citizenry that we serve, but to further that 
accuracy by reporting the numbers of that comment that was 
received by automation or robotic correspondence.
    Mr. Raskin. And if I might, it is further consistent with 
the language and your intent with this legislation to say that 
if I am a citizen and I get a three-paragraph suggested comment 
to, say, send into the Food and Drug Agency or whatever, and I 
wanted to add a couple of paragraphs of my own describing my 
own family's experience or whatever, that one would have to be 
posted separately because at that point, it becomes 
distinctive.
    Mr. Higgins. That is the purpose. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    Mr. Higgins. That would be considered a variant of a common 
message that has been received, so it would be required to be 
reported. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you very kindly, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    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. 7528, 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 reported.
    For what purpose does Representative Cloud seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Cloud. I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    The Committee will suspend for 5 minutes because we are 
waiting for the sponsor, Representative Biggs. He is en route 
and should be here. He may be here in 2 minutes, but we will 
suspend for a few minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will come back to order.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7533, Modernizing 
Retrospective Regulatory Review Act. The Clerk will please 
designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7533, the Modernizing Retrospective 
Regulatory Review Act, a bill to improve retrospective reviews 
of Federal regulations, 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.
    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. 7533, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    As the regulatory state grows, Congress must ensure 
agencies also review existing regulations. Retrospective review 
helps agencies decide if the current regulations impacting the 
lives of Americans need to be revisited. Many agencies are 
already required to conduct such reviews. Technology, such as 
artificial intelligence, has the potential to make these 
reviews more efficient and cost-effective and can improve the 
accuracy of the final assessments.
    The Modernizing Retrospective Regulatory Review Act 
requires the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance 
on how agencies can use technology in their retrospective 
review process. The bill also requires the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs to submit a report to 
Congress assessing whether existing Federal regulations are 
available in a machine-readable format. This would ensure 
agencies are able to use new technology to complete 
retrospective reviews and follow a plan to do so. Under the 
bill, agencies must identify all regulations that require or 
would benefit from retrospective review. The Oversight 
Committee remains committed to reforming the Federal 
Government's regulatory functions.
    I encourage my colleagues to support this targeted bill 
that increases efficiency within our Federal Government's 
regulatory review process. I want to thank Representative Biggs 
from Arizona for his work in developing this commonsense 
legislation. I now recognize Ranking Member Raskin for his 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hate to break our 
string of bipartisan victories today, but I cannot quite 
support this bill in its current form.
    The bill would require the Administrator of OIRA at OMB to 
issue a report within 6 months on the progress of the Federal 
Government in making regulations available in a machine-
readable format. That is a laudable goal. The bill would also 
require the Administrator to issue guidance within 1 year on 
how agencies can use technology to identify, through 
retrospective review of regulation, typographical errors and 
inaccurate cross-references. These are reasonable steps to help 
modernize the regulatory process and stamp out typos, which are 
the bane of my existence, so I like that. But the bill adds 
onerous new requirements for agencies to submit detailed plans 
for which regulations they plan to retrospectively review, and 
to implement those plans beginning 6 months after they are 
submitted. The bill also creates an open-ended authority, 
giving agency heads the discretion to review regulations when 
such review is not required by the appropriate statute. This 
could be a dangerous tool in the wrong hands and allow for more 
resources being used on reviewing rules than writing them, 
which I suspect might please the author of this bill.
    I have a letter from the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards 
that addresses these issues in detail, and I ask unanimous 
consent to include that in the record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Raskin. I might hope that these concerns could be 
resolved before the legislation moves to the Floor, but I do 
want to register these strong objections, and I am happy to 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
the sponsor of the bill, Representative Biggs from Arizona, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Comer, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Raskin, for your input. This bill is intended to 
leverage technology to tackle problems associated with the 
sheer volume of regulatory text in the Code of Federal 
Regulations and the impact of regulatory accumulation.
    According to Competitive Enterprise Institute, in 1960, the 
CFR, which is the home for all U.S. regulation, was comprised 
of nearly 23,000 pages. Yet by 2019, the total page count had 
grown to more than 185,000 pages. You can pick up your own 
print copy of the CFR from the Government Publishing Office. 
The 50 titles of Code span approximately 200 volumes and are 
revised quarterly. I will refrain from submitting the entire 
CFR into the record, but I have plenty of other material to 
include today. The CFR is kept up to date by the Federal 
Register, which tracks the daily flow of regulatory action 
across the Federal Government.
    Mr. Chairman, I submit for the record a December 2023 
Forbes article, entitled, ``Biden's 2023 Federal Register Page 
Count is the Second Highest Ever.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. The article notes that the 2023 Federal Register 
finished with more than 90,000 pages of rules and regulations, 
up from nearly 80,000 pages in 2022, and only outpaced 
President Obama's record of 95,894 pages in 2016. It was only 
outpaced by that. The final year of the Trump Administration 
saw around 86,000 pages, which was up from the previous 3 years 
of his administration. The article goes on to make the 
important point: page and rule counts are not a precise measure 
of the impact of regulation, but the sheer volume of 
regulations on the books presents its own set of challenges. 
And I will say--I am pointing it out--both parties have the 
same problem. It just keeps growing.
    In 2014, the Administrative Conference of the U.S. put out 
a guidance document stating, ``Traditionally, Federal 
regulatory policymaking has been a forward-looking enterprise. 
Congress delegates power to administrative agencies to respond 
to new challenges, and agencies devise rules designed to 
address those challenges. Over time, however, regulations may 
become outdated, and the cumulative burden of decades of 
regulations issued by numerous Federal agencies can both 
complicate agencies' enforcement efforts and impose a 
substantial burden on regulated entities.'' I will also submit 
that article for the record, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Other scholars of the administrative 
state have estimated that regulatory accumulation alone, not 
the impact of any specific major rulemaking, but just the 
accumulation of regulation, has stunted economic growth between 
0.8 and 1.5 percent annually, resulting in a potential loss of 
$4 trillion in GDP from the 1980's through 2012. And other 
studies point out that associated consumer price increases 
disproportionately impact lower-income households. I submit 
both of those studies for the record, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. That is why the Obama Administration touted the 
success of their own retrospective review program. In an August 
2016 blog, Howard Shelanski, President Obama's Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, argued that 
the 5-year program resulted in more than 800 review 
initiatives, removed more than 70 notable regulator provisions 
from the books, and achieved $37 billion in savings, paperwork 
reductions, and other benefits for Americans. And I submit that 
blog, entitled, ``Retrospective Review by the Numbers,'' for 
the record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Providing regulators with new tools 
to strengthen the retrospective review process should be a 
bipartisan effort, and this bill requires the Office of 
Management and Budget to issue guidance to Federal agencies on 
how to leverage technology, like artificial intelligence, in 
the process of conducting retrospective reviews of regulation. 
The bill also requires the OIRA to submit a report to Congress 
assessing whether Federal regulations are available in a 
machine readout format, which is necessary to ensure that 
agencies can leverage technology. It also requires agencies to 
plan for and implement the use of technology to facilitate a 
retrospective review of regulations previously promulgated by 
each agency.
    Specifically, the bill is focused on using AI tools to 
identify regulations that are obsolete, ineffective or 
insufficient, excessively burdensome or should be improved, 
contain typographic errors, contain inaccurate cross references 
or are redundant, contradict, or overlap with any regulations 
or standards of the agency. These areas of focus have tracked 
closely with the Obama Administration Retrospective Review 
Program discussed earlier. Section 6 EO 13563, issued in 
January 2011, required agencies to identify rules that may be 
outmoded, ineffective, inefficient, insufficient, or 
excessively burdensome.
    I wish this was a totally bipartisan effort right now. I 
will try to look at Representative Raskin's suggestions, but 
the reality is, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is appropriate 
as it stands, and, quite frankly, it does nothing more than 
actually reinforce an executive order of the Obama 
Administration that I think is actually long overdue and should 
be codified by us. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge 
everyone's support and yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    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. 7533, 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, as amended.
    Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman Comer. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Texas seek recognition?
    Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter the following statement of 
support into the record: a statement from Net Choice in support 
of H.R. 7532, the Federal AI Governance and Transparency Act.'
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7525, Special 
District Grant Accessibility Act. The Clerk will please 
designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7525, the Special District Grant 
Accessibility Act, a bill to require the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget to issue guidance to agencies 
requiring special districts to be recognized as local 
government for the purpose of Federal financial assistance 
determinations.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The Clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 7525, offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    Today, we have an opportunity to address an issue affecting 
Americans across the country. Many Americans receive essential 
services through special districts, units of local government 
authorized under state law to deliver specific services to 
communities. There are approximately 35,000 special districts 
across the country in every state. Some examples of special 
districts are ambulance service districts, drainage districts, 
emergency service boards, and flood control districts, just to 
name a few. These special districts provide critical services 
to mostly rural communities across the Nation.
    OMB already recognizes special districts as units of local 
government similar to townships or villages, yet special 
districts often struggle to compete for or access Federal 
funding. The Special District Grant Accessibility Act works to 
solve this problem and ensures that special districts are on 
equal footing with other units of local government. This bill 
requires the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance 
to Federal agencies emphasizing how special districts should be 
recognized as a unit of local government. This legislation is 
supported by the National Special Districts Coalition. I want 
to thank Representative Fallon for his work in developing this 
important bipartisan bill.
    Before I yield to the Ranking Member, I want to ask 
unanimous consent to enter the following letter of support into 
the record: a letter from the National Special Districts 
Coalition in support of Representative Fallon's bill.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Now I recognize Ranking Member Raskin for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. H.R. 7525, the Special 
District Grant Accessibility Act, is a bipartisan measure that 
takes a positive step forward toward ensuring that Federal 
policy better reflects the complexities of local government and 
how it works. Congress confronted these complexities when we 
acted to send aid to local governments during the coronavirus 
pandemic. This included Committee Democrats' work with the 
Biden-Harris Administration to provide $350 billion in direct 
financial assistance to more than 30,000 governments across 
America, the vast majority of which were small local 
governments, and many of whom received significant Federal 
assistance for the first time. This bill would provide further 
clarity around special districts, a specific unit of local 
governments. According to the National Special Districts 
Coalition, there are roughly 35,000 of such special districts 
across America that play a big role in delivering essential 
governmental services, like wastewater treatment and fire 
protection, to millions of our people.
    Special districts have reported challenges when trying to 
access Federal funding opportunities, and they have indicated 
that a unified Federal definition of ``special district'' would 
help clarify how entities can best assist local communities 
through Federal assistance programs. To address these concerns, 
H.R. 7525 would codify a definition of the term and direct OMB 
to clarify how Federal agencies can recognize special districts 
as units of local government for the purpose of being eligible 
for Federal grants and other kinds of assistance. Congress and 
the Federal Government must continually work to ensure Federal 
assistance programs are authorized, funded, and implemented to 
best address the needs of local communities. This should 
include careful consideration of the intricacies of local 
government and a rigorous commitment to ensuring Federal 
assistance promotes equal opportunity for everyone.
    This bill was just introduced this week, so I intend to 
continue reviewing it to ensure it fully aligns with these 
priorities. But I appreciate Subcommittee Chairman, Pat Fallon, 
and Representative Brittany Pettersen for their excellent 
bipartisan work, and I plan to support this legislation today. 
I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Representative Pat Fallon 
from Texas, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Chairman Comer, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Raskin, and I do not often say this, but, 
Ranking Member Raskin, you are dead on, spot on, and correct.
    Mr. Chairman, the Special District Grant Accessibility Act 
represents a long-overdue bipartisan effort to ensure that 
special districts have the same access, as you all just 
mentioned, to Federal resources as other units of local 
government by establishing a formal definition of what a 
special district is in Federal law. Nationwide, there are over 
35,000 special districts across the country, and, you know, it 
is something that is, again, long overdue and very timely.
    In Texas, thousands of special districts provide a variety 
of services, including park maintenance, storm drainage 
management, water conservation, toll roads, hospitals, 
libraries, utilities, and fire control. In fact, I served on 
the Special Purpose District Committee when I was in the Texas 
House. The bottom line is special purpose districts provide 
important services to localities across the country. This bill 
would reemphasize that special districts are units of local 
government and are, therefore, eligible for Federal financial 
assistance.
    I would like to thank my colleague from Colorado, 
Representative Pettersen, for working on this bill with me. It 
is a good bipartisan bill. The National Special Districts 
Coalition--they have been very helpful with their staff, and I 
urge all Members of this Committee to support the bill. And 
with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members seek recognition to discuss the bill?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, say 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. 7525, 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. For what purpose does----
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, can I request a recorded vote?
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered by Ms. 
Mace. As previously announced, further proceedings on the 
question will be postponed.
    We will suspend for one moment.
    [Pause.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will reconvene.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7530, D.C. Criminal 
Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safer Act. The Clerk will 
please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7530, the D.C. Criminal Reforms to 
Immediately Make Everyone Safer Act, a bill to make reforms to 
the D.C. Code regarding criminal sentencing, requiring a public 
website for juvenile crime data, 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.
    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. 7530, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    I am very happy to support H.R. 7530, a bill providing 
commonsense reforms to the District of Columbia Criminal Code. 
This Committee has held three hearings with D.C. officials. I 
and others on this Committee have met privately with various 
D.C. officials to discuss the crime crisis in our Nation's 
Capital. Throughout this week, one thing has been made very 
clear to us: the progressive policies of the D.C. Council are 
simply not working.
    Last year, this Congress successfully blocked the D.C. 
Council's Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 by passing the 
bipartisan House Joint Resolution 26, the first law which 
passed the 118th Congress. That was a great first step toward 
addressing rising crime in D.C., but that only kept the problem 
from getting much worse. The bill we are considering today 
expands upon that work. The D.C. CRIMES Act overturns targeted 
portions of the D.C. Council's Youth Rehabilitation Act by 
amending the definition of a ``youth offender'' from a person 
under the age of 25 to under the age of 18.
    Let me emphasize D.C.'s current law. Currently, D.C. Code 
allows a criminal under the age of 25 to be given the same 
leniency as afforded to minors. This bill requires that we 
treat adult criminals as adults like the rest of the country. 
It also removes judicial discretion to sentence youth offenders 
under the minimum sentencing structures in place. Our capital 
cannot continue to let criminals freely roam the streets and 
expect this crime crisis to end. As juvenile crime soars in the 
District, the bill also requires the D.C. attorney general to 
create a publicly available website that tracks juvenile crime 
data. This data will inform Congress, the District's elected 
officials, the Metropolitan Police Department, the public, and 
others on the severity of juvenile crime in the city. Finally, 
the bill prohibits the D.C. Council from amending its 
sentencing and criminal liability laws, locking in place 
current D.C. criminal law and leaving Congress as the sole 
authority to amend such laws in the future.
    The D.C. Council would have succeeded in implementing 
radical soft-on-crime policies if it were not for the 
bipartisan efforts of this Congress and this Committee to 
disapprove the legislation. Even Democratic Mayor Bowser vetoed 
that progressive criminal reform package, only for her veto to 
be overturned by the Council. This Committee is committed to 
its constitutional responsibility to oversee the District of 
Columbia. We cannot allow further pro-crime policies to be put 
in place while this crisis continues. Citizens of D.C. and 
visitors to our Nation's Capital deserve to feel safe. This 
bill is a great step toward ensuring our Capital City is safe.
    I want to thank Representative Byron Donalds of Florida, 
the sponsor of this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this legislation. I now recognize the 
Ranking Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we were having 
such a wonderful bipartisan morning up until now, but this is 
the seventh time now that we have been summoned to address 
Washington, D.C., when our oversight jurisdiction applies to 
the whole country. And I just wonder why, when we finally take 
a brief break from the GOP's impeachment investigation against 
Joe Biden for crimes still unnamed and unspecified, we have 
such an absurdly disproportionate focus on Washington, D.C., 
where less than one-third of 1 percent of Americans live.
    Well, I thought about it. For obvious reasons, the Majority 
cannot talk about what used to be their favorite topic, which 
is how abortion is murder and how life begins at conception in 
all cases, and any contraceptive interference by adults with 
life at conception, like IVF, should be a crime. This is a 
principle that more than 160 Republicans used to champion 
incessantly on this Committee and in the Judiciary Committee, 
and you can check out the Life at Conception Act, whose title 
pretty much tells you the whole thing.
    Although this was always absurd and contrary to the values 
and beliefs of the vast majority of the American people, at 
least it was a principle, but after the Trump-named justices 
destroyed Roe v. Wade, expecting huge MAGA majorities to rise 
up and criminalize women's reproductive healthcare, MAGA and 
their leader, Donald Trump, learned a hard lesson. This is 
still a country that loves freedom and equality for women, and 
it does not want busybody theocrats and bureaucrats taking over 
the doctors' offices and bedrooms of the people of America. 
Voters from Kansas to Missouri to Ohio overwhelmingly rejected 
their sexist, Orwellian laws to control women and substitute 
Republican state legislators for doctors, for nurses, and for 
IVF specialists.
    So, now they have gone silent on their one principle, which 
is making it a crime to use IVF or the morning after pill or 
abortion, even in the cases of rape or incest, the cat has 
suddenly got their tongue. They know America does not want 
reproductive healthcare in our country run by Jerry Falwell, 
Jr. and Ted Cruz.
    Now they could try to get back to immigration----
    Ms. Luna. Representative Raskin, can you yield a minute?
    Mr. Raskin. I would be happy to, as soon as I finish, yes.
    Ms. Luna. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. But Donald Trump just gave the game away on 
that scam. The Democrats and Republicans in the Senate actually 
negotiated a major immigration and border compromise to hire 
thousands of new border agents, to install hundreds of fentanyl 
detectors, and to stop the flow of undocumented immigrants. GOP 
Senator Langford heralded it as an historic compromise, and GOP 
leader Mitch McConnell praised it. We were about to have an 
historic breakthrough instead of just talk, talk, talk, but 
Donald Trump promptly blew it up because he did not want an 
immigration and border solution. He wanted an immigration and 
border crisis. He wants scary-looking pictures and scapegoats 
to fuel his polarizing politics.
    Destroying the bipartisan Senate compromise had the added 
benefit for Trump of pleasing the home office, former chief of 
the KGB, Vladimir Putin, who wanted to sink the $60 billion in 
military aid in the Senate package for the people of Ukraine 
resisting Putin's filthy imperialist war on their democratic 
nation. But now Republicans cannot talk about immigration 
anymore, it exposes Trump's moral bankruptcy, which mirrors his 
approaching financial bankruptcy based on all of the court 
verdicts against him for his various torts. So, we are back to 
Washington, D.C. today, the city they obviously do not know and 
a community they do not participate in, with a government they 
just want to vilify. Do they really care more about the people 
of Washington than Mayor Bowser, and Council Chairman Mendelson 
and the rest of the City Council who sent us a letter 
explaining that the two bills we are going to hear today are 
just monkey wrenches thrown in to block all of the progress the 
District is currently making this week on the very problems 
that they pretend to be interested in. Are our colleagues even 
aware that the Council just this week passed a 100-page-plus 
crime bill?
    The distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, has 
introduced a bill that would, ``immediately make everyone 
safe,'' which is a most impressive and Trumpian title and quite 
a magic trick for Mr. Donalds to perform, and one we all want 
to learn more about. But with his obvious powers of 
omniscience, clairvoyance, and omnipotence, why doesn't he 
start first by immediately making everyone safe in Florida, 
where mass shooters are still free to purchase AR-15s and then 
open fire on innocent grownups and children, as one mass 
murderer did at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas School in 
Parkland, permanently destroying 17 children and grievously 
wounding another 17, or as another mass murderer did at the 
Pulse nightclub massacre, where the murderer obliterated 49 
human beings exercising nothing other than their right to live, 
and wounded 53 other people.
    We know the gentleman from Florida, like his GOP 
colleagues, has strongly opposed creation of a universal, 
violent criminal background check favored by more than 90 
percent of the American people and backed by the Major City 
Police Chiefs Association. We know they are strongly opposed to 
a ban on military-style assault weapons, like the AR-15, which 
is now the weapon of choice for mass murderers hyped up on 
great replacement theory from coast to coast, from Walmarts in 
El Paso, Texas; to synagogues in Pittsburgh; to churches in 
Charleston; to banks in Kentucky; to grocery stores in Buffalo. 
We know they oppose red flag laws to allow police and families 
to petition courts to remove firearms from people who are a 
danger to themselves in their communities. They oppose any 
commonsense, viable plan we have put forward.
    So, what is the plan to immediately make everyone safe in 
Florida? Are they going to transfer the powers of precognition 
and telekinesis to school children who will now use magic to 
save themselves from a killer who decides one morning to go out 
and buy an AR-15 and slaughter a couple of classrooms of 
children? Are they going to arm the children and teachers, as 
they sometimes suggest? Are they going to tell them to pray to 
stop the shooters, a plan that apparently did not work out for 
the parishioners at the Mother Emmanuel Church, or the three 
students and three adults killed at the Covenant School in 
Nashville, Tennessee? What is their plan?
    Well, it looks like their plan is to ignore the brutal 
daily toll of gun violence in their own states and then instead 
lecture to and dictate to the disenfranchised 700,000 citizens 
of Washington, D.C., policies that they want to conjure up for 
them. And they forget the fact that D.C. has just completed its 
own comprehensive criminal law and justice assessment and 
revision. Its main features include increased penalties for 
illegal gun possession, an expanded definition of carjacking, 
expanded pretrial detention, establishment of drug free zones, 
increased penalties for retail theft, and increased collection 
of DNA from defendants.
    I will defer to the infinitely patient delegate from the 
District of Columbia, Congresswoman Norton, to explain the 
absurdity of these substitute measures and how paradoxical it 
is that they advocate measures that are far more severe in 
Washington than they have in their own states. And we will 
pursue this hypocrisy simply because they insist on brandishing 
it before the whole country again. I will yield back to you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Representative Byron 
Donalds from Florida.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no idea what 
the hell Mr. Raskin is even talking about, but that is OK. 
Look, the purpose of this bill is very, very simple, and the 
reason why it is important for Congress to actually speak to 
the conditions of crime in the District of Columbia is because 
a large portion of the District of Columbia's funding actually 
comes from Congress. The reason we do not talk about what is 
happening in the other states is because those other states 
have other jurisdictions that the Federal Government does not 
directly fund. We can go ad nauseam, but it really does not 
matter. I just would state that for the record, and now we can 
move on.
    Look, we cannot ignore the facts that crime is out of 
control in the District of Columbia. We cannot ignore that. And 
if you were to ask any member of D.C. law enforcement, they 
would tell you that crime is out of control in a Nation's 
Capital. But it is not just the members of law enforcement. It 
is Members who serve in this very body. Representative Angie 
Craig, Democrat, Minnesota, she was assaulted in an elevator 
within her apartment building. Rand Paul, Senator, Kentucky, 
one of his staffers was stabbed while walking home from work. 
Henry Cuellar, Democrat, Texas, robbed and carjacked at 
gunpoint with a gun that was pointed to the Congressman's head 
just blocks away from the United States Capitol. The United 
States Capitol, the District of Columbia, Washington D.C., is 
the seat of power in our Nation, and if people coming from all 
across the United States cannot walk the streets of the 
Nation's Capital to visit the Nation's Capital, and the 
citizens of the District of Columbia are being subject to 
massive amounts of crime, robbery, carjacking, et cetera, if 
the D.C. City Council is not going to act, but they want to ask 
us for money all the time because they are the district of the 
capital, then it is the responsibility of Congress to act. It 
is that simple.
    Listen, if you were going to ask me do I want to sit here 
and try to help the District solve its carjacking problems or 
its robbery problems, I would tell you, no, but the problem has 
been ignored for far too long, and, yes, Congress does have a 
responsibility to act. Even the people in the room right now 
who are shaking their head know they have been to a CVS in the 
District of Columbia where everything is under glass, and you 
have to hit the customer service button just to get an eight-
ounce tube of lotion. That is crazy, that is insanity, but that 
is what is happening in the District of Columbia. And you also 
have to acknowledge the fact that, yes, carjackings are up in 
the District of Columbia by juveniles. This is a fact. You 
cannot ignore that because you have your own political agenda. 
Those are the realities, so, yes, if the D.C. Council is not 
going to act, Congress does have a responsibility to act in the 
interests of the District of Columbia. That is what this bill 
does.
    What this bill does, it brings common sense back to the 
criminal code in the District. There is no other jurisdiction 
in the United States where somebody who is the age of 21 is 
viewed as a juvenile. You are not a juvenile for voting, you 
are not a juvenile for buying a gun, you are not a juvenile for 
enlisting in the Army, you are not a juvenile when it comes to 
contracts, but in the District of Columbia, in the criminal 
code, you are viewed as a juvenile. That makes no sense. We 
have a responsibility to hold people accountable to the law, 
and what this bill does, H.R. 7530, it does that.
    Look, I do not want to see anybody taken advantage of by 
the criminal justice system. I do not want to see that, but the 
criminal justice system does have to operate to protect the 
citizens of D.C. and the people who come to the Nation's 
Capital every single day, and so H.R. 7530 does that. The 
diatribe by the Ranking Member, I have no idea what the heck he 
is talking about. I do not because, actually, in Florida, our 
crime statistics are better than the District of Columbia. 
Those are the facts. So, the state of Florida is doing quite 
well. One of the reasons why is because our state attorneys 
actually prosecute, and we follow the law. We do not make 
excuses. We do not make excuses, so let us just call it what it 
is. That being said, Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing up--
--
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield for a couple 
questions?
    Mr. Donalds. No, Mr. Raskin, you have said far too much 
today. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Raskin. I am sure you think so.
    Mr. Donalds. So, I am going to yield back the balance of my 
time. Members, this is a good bill. We should be supporting 
this. We do have a responsibility to make sure that the 
District of Columbia is safe for its residents and for the 
people who come to the Nation's Capital. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. The gentleman yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes the delegate from Washington D.C., 
Congresswoman Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my statement, I 
ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from 
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. Council Chair, Phil 
Mendelson, strongly opposing this bill.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Norton. I also ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
record a letter from 47 national and local organizations 
opposing H.R. 7530.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this 
undemocratic and paternalistic bill. This is the ninth bill 
this Congress that House Republicans have marked up or brought 
directly to the Floor to repeal or amend statues enacted by the 
duly elected Council of the District of Columbia. However, this 
bill is more extreme than the typical such bill because it 
would permanently prohibit the Council from enacting specific 
policies related to crime.
    My Republican colleagues are correct that Congress has the 
constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, 
but their assertion that Congress has a constitutional duty to 
do so is simply wrong. Legislating on local D.C. matters is a 
choice. As the Supreme Court held in 1953, ``There is no 
constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the 
District of Columbia of full legislative power.'' 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 335 voting Members. The Members are elected by 
residents of their states. None are elected by D.C. residents. 
If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote on local 
D.C. matters, they cannot vote them out of office. This is the 
antithesis of democracy.
    The merits of the D.C. CRIMES Act should be irrelevant 
since there is never justification for Congress repealing or 
amending laws enacted by D.C. However, I do want to address one 
provision of this bill. Section 602(a) of the Home Rule act 
prohibits the D.C. Council from legislating on 10 matters, two 
of which are moot. This bill adds an 11th matter, saying the 
Council may not ``enact any act, resolution, or rule to change 
any criminal liability sentence in effect on the date of the 
enactment of the D.C. CRIMES Act of 2024.'' This provision is 
as poorly drafted as it is offensive.
    The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the 
governed and to end taxation without representation, yet D.C. 
residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress and 
yet pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal 
taxes per capita than any state and more total Federal taxes 
than 19 states. If House Republicans cared about democratic 
principles or D.C. residents, they would bring to the Floor my 
D.C. Statehood bill, which would give D.C. residents voting 
representation in Congress and full local self-government. 
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., though violent crime is down this year. On Tuesday, the 
D.C. Council passed legislation that it believes will reduce 
crime. To suggest that a Member of Congress from Florida knows 
or cares more about public safety in D.C. than D.C.'s locally 
elected officials is surely patronizing. I urge Members to vote 
``no'' on this bill and to keep their hands off of D.C.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Norton. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very kindly. Just a couple of points 
in response to my friend from Florida. First of all, he may be 
blissfully unaware that a lower percentage of the District of 
Columbia's funds come from the Federal Government than the 
average amount in a state. In fact, the people of D.C. pay $19 
billion a year in taxes, which is more per capita than all 50 
states and more than 19 states in hard numbers. I do not know 
exactly where it stands with respect to Florida, so we can 
correct some of your errors as we go today.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition? The 
Chair recognizes Ms. Mace, or for what purpose does Ms. Mace 
seek recognition?
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. Will the Clerk please report the amendment?
    The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 7530, as offered by Ms. Mace of South 
Carolina.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I reserve a point of order.
    The gentlelady from South Carolina, Ms. Mace, is recognized 
for 5 minutes to explain her amendment.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to say that 
D.C. crime is completely out of control. This is a bill that I 
like, and I respect my friend representative Byron Donald's 
effort with this legislation and commend him for taking action 
to protect Americans here in our Nation's Capital. One of the 
things that I wanted to bring up, too, is that in working on 
criminal justice reform the last couple of years, that this 
bill, this amendment, I want to look at the discretion for 
judges to sentence youth offenders below statutory mandatory 
minimums. I believe that this bill goes too far.
    And so, my amendment would strike the provision of this 
bill that would remove all judicial discretion in the 
sentencing of youth offenders and, in essence, impose mandatory 
minimums on youth offenders. Mandatory minimums are a one-size-
fits-all solution to a judicial system rife with nuance. 
Circumstances matter, especially when sentencing children. We 
have to remember these are children that we are taking into 
account here. Every case is different, and if it were our 
children, we would all like to know that our child's specific 
case is being examined with all the details surrounding the 
crime and not falling victim to a one-size-fits-all arbitrary 
judgment, and so that is what this amendment addresses.
    And I can tell you from firsthand experience in our own 
family, having seen mandatory minimum sentencing and what it 
does, especially to a first-time offender, it can have 
devastating consequences when those nuances are not included. 
And so, this provision would address that, and I hope we would 
be able to remove this provision in the amendment and allow for 
the circumstances of the crime to be taken into account, while 
also protecting residents and visitors to our Nation's Capital.
    And then the last thing, and I hope my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will support the amendment, but I did want 
to bring up the comments that were made about mass shootings. I 
have worked on this issue for a very long time. Mother Emanuel 
was mentioned. Mother Emanuel used to be in the 1st 
congressional District until 2022, and as a Republican who is 
seen the effects of mass gun violence in South Carolina, in my 
district specifically, that I have worked with both sides of 
the aisle on commonsense measures that, one, respect the 
Constitution and the rights of law-abiding citizens but also 
takes into account when we are doing background checks, that we 
are looking at all the criminal data.
    And one of the things, Mr. Raskin, after Parkland, Florida, 
that I learned was that a lot of state agencies have criminal 
data, but they do not talk to one another. And when you are 
going to look for that background check, trying to find out if 
a bad guy should buy a gun, at the bare minimum, states should 
look at the totality of criminal information. Those systems 
should speak to each other, and, in fact, in 2018, I drafted a 
bill as a state lawmaker looking at the state of South Carolina 
in the aftermath of Dylann Roof and Mother Emanuel and the 
aftermath of Parkland, Florida, understanding how important 
this issue was to address and doing it in a nonpartisan way, 
and I have done the same thing on the Hill up here. I have 
worked with my colleagues across the aisle, for example, more 
recently on an Amber Alert kind of system when there is a mass 
shooting. There is no reason we should not give law enforcement 
the tools that they can use to inform residents, and these are 
all easy, low-hanging fruit that we can all agree on.
    And I will tell you, there was a mass shooting on the 
island where I live with my children last year or the year 
before, and six people were shot. And my kids and I were 
leaving the house, and the shooting was a mile away from our 
house. And we are coming around the corner, leaving the island, 
seeing all the EMS, seeing all the police, seeing people 
fleeing the island, and police officers coming onto the island, 
including multiple ambulances. And the first thing my kids 
turned to me and asked, at the time when we realized there was 
a mass shooting, they said, ``Hey, Mommy, where is the Amber 
Alert to tell us that we are within a mile of a mass 
shooting?''
    And so, violent crime affects people all over the country, 
and it is something that I have been willing to work on with my 
colleagues across the aisle. I commend Byron Donalds for this 
bill, and obviously, I am open to working with Members of both 
parties to address gun violence, all sorts of violence, and how 
we can move our Nation forward and be safer in all of our 
communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Do any Members 
seek recognition? The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
the very distinguished gentlelady from South Carolina for her 
thoughtful amendment and her remarks. I support her amendment 
strongly, which I think makes a dramatic improvement to a very 
flawed bill, and I will be supporting it and advocating for it.
    I want to respond to a couple of things that my friend from 
South Carolina said. One, I am delighted to hear her 
acknowledge that mass shootings are a crime. Far too often, 
from her side of the aisle, I hear people denounce crime, but 
then when there is a massacre, a gun massacre, they say, oh, 
that is a tragedy, and we have to pray about it, as if there is 
nothing we can do about it, and surely there is something we 
can do about it. And it is not just a tragedy. It is also a 
crime. A tragedy is like ``Romeo and Juliet'' or ``Hamlet,'' 
but a mass shooting is a crime, and if you want to be tough on 
crime, you got to be tough on mass shootings as well.
    And that does mean a universal, violent criminal background 
check. I was delighted to hear the gentlelady's remarks. The 
Brady law, named after the late Republican aide to President 
Reagan, who was shot along with President Reagan, the Brady law 
has saved lots of lives in America. And what we are talking 
about with a universal violent criminal background check, 
supported by more than 95 percent of American people, is simply 
closing the loopholes so that you cannot just go online and 
purchase a gun without a background check. And we are talking 
about closing the private gun show loophole so you cannot evade 
the lawful gun dealers and just go to a private gun show and 
get a gun without a background check. So, we need to close 
those loopholes, and that is something that is supported by 
major law enforcement associations and the vast majority of the 
American people. And that is something that would do a lot more 
to help the people of D.C. than any of the micromanagement that 
is being proposed by the now absent gentleman from Florida 
today.
    I would like to say that there are a number of states which 
have the same youth offender law that the District of Columbia 
has, including Florida, and the gentleman is proposing to go to 
age 19 in that youth offender statute. This is for people 
charged as adults but treated specially under the youth 
offender law. He proposes to go to age 19 for the District of 
Columbia, but in Florida the age is 21. And again, I think that 
the gentleman, who, unfortunately is no longer with us right 
now, is unaware that his own state has legislation which he 
essentially just denounced as weak because it does not go all 
the way to age 19, which is what he is venturing for the people 
of Washington, D.C.
    Well, all this got me to wondering what would happen if the 
people, who the gentleman seemed to be chafing at a little bit 
earlier when he was present, from Washington, who are here in 
the crowd to come and watch, got to sit in judgment on 
Florida's laws and he had to sit out there where the spectators 
were, and imagine what the people of Washington would say about 
Florida's laws. They would surely reverse Governor DeSantis' 
draconian ban on abortion after 6 weeks, a time when huge 
numbers of women do not even know they are pregnant in the 
first place, and that is what they have imposed in Florida. 
They would remove, undoubtedly DeSantis' absurd, Don't Say Gay 
law; his right-wing purges of state colleges and universities; 
his revisionist teaching that slavery, essentially, as a mass 
apprenticeship job skill building program; his abolition of the 
field of sociology in Florida; his numerous voter suppression 
laws; and his continuing efforts to disenfranchise former 
prisoners by making them pay a totally unconstitutional poll 
tax.
    So, if we put the microscope on Florida rather than 
Washington, D.C., I am sure that the people of Washington, as 
well as a vast majority of people in America, would reject 
these laws that have imposed a whole regime of censorship and 
authoritarianism in that state. But it is not the 
disenfranchised people of Washington who get to legislate for 
Florida today. No, it is the absent Mr. Donalds, who gets to 
legislate for the people of Washington, which means demagoguing 
about crime issues without even understanding what the local 
government is doing, and without the promise of making any real 
policy progress on them. The irony, of course, is that while 
red states love to lecture blue states and cities about crime, 
the murder rate has long been much higher in red states where 
Republicans are in control than it is in blue states.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a report 
from Third Way, titled, ``The Two-Decade Red State Murder 
Problem,'' and I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Biggs. I object.
    Mr. Raskin. You object to that being entered into the 
record. On what grounds?
    Mr. Biggs. It has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
    Chairman Comer. It is not entered into the record because 
of an objection.
    Do any other Members seek recognition? Ms. Pressley is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. I also just wanted to go on record 
and lend my support to the thoughtful amendment that was 
introduced, but I do believe that this bill needs to just be 
stricken in its entirety. This is nothing more than an attack 
on D.C. Statehood. This is not about true public safety, nor 
about advancing evidence-backed policies that actually help 
communities. Republicans need to keep their hands off of D.C. 
The residents of the District of Columbia elected the members 
of their council to determine what laws will govern their city, 
not the sponsor of this legislation, nor any Republican here 
today. My colleagues want to play games, games with the voting 
representation of hundreds of thousands of people in one of the 
blackest cities in our country. The District of Columbia has 
the right to self-govern under the Home Rule Act. Any changes 
made to the District's local laws, including policies impacting 
its criminal legal system, must be made by those who are 
accountable to D.C.: residents.
    And I will just lift up one other point regarding some of 
the changes that Republicans want to make. They want to prevent 
experts in juvenile justice from having a voice in juvenile 
justice policies. And by silencing those experts, Republicans 
seek to keep using the failed approach that created the school-
to-confinement pathway and, of course, locking up more black 
children. So, let us call this bill what it is. It is 
undemocratic. It is a racist attack that prevents the District 
of Columbia from reforming its criminal legal system. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' and join me in actually advancing 
real policies that affirm public safety and pursue a fair, 
equitable, and just legal system.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the----
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield? Would my friend yield?
    Ms. Pressley. No. Oh, yes. OK.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Pressley. Yes, to you any time, Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much. I thought you were not 
going to yield because my Massachusetts accent has faded over 
the years. I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, and to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you do not have to 
like what somebody wants to put in the record, but if we are 
going to go down the road of objecting to the exercise of free 
speech and free content. I just came from a Weaponization 
hearing where all the Republicans were talking about 
suppression and trying to go after, you know, views we do not 
like, and I come to this Committee, and the first thing I 
experience is the suppression of an article that a Member wants 
to insert in the record. And I just think I would urge my 
friend from Pennsylvania to think long and hard about that.
    I do not think that is a good image for this Committee. I 
do not think any of us need to be afraid of any idea, however 
expressed. That is the whole point of having a Congress, and, 
you know, if we are going to actually start suppressing 
material, you know, in this Committee of all committees, I just 
think it is the road to perdition. I think it is starting a 
precedent that will create a tradition that is unhealthy and 
damaging to the reputation of this Committee and its work. None 
of us have anything to fear from somebody entering something 
into the record, whether we like it or not, and it does not 
connote approval. It simply connotes you got that right to put 
that in the record, and it will be in the record.
    I just wanted to say that, Mr. Chairman, because I think 
this is not about Democrat or Republican. This is about the 
functionality of this Committee and its integrity, and every 
single Member has a stake in the issue of suppression of freely 
written material that a Member may seek. I yield back to my 
friend from Massachusetts and thank her for yielding.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield? I thank you, and I 
thank you, Mr. Connolly, for those very eloquent and incisive 
remarks. In a free society, based on freedom of expression, 
freedom of speech, public discourse, we depend on reading not 
just the views that re-confirm what we believe, and I know that 
some people believe in a closed media propaganda system that 
can train people on big lies and propaganda and disinformation, 
but in a free society, we are willing to hear views that we 
might think we absolutely abhor. Having said that, I might 
disagree a little bit with my friend from Virginia because I 
think that there is a reason that they want to not include this 
particular document in the record.
    What I asked unanimous consent for was Third Way's report 
called, ``The Two-Decade Red State Murder Problem,'' and it is 
all about how the red states have higher crime rates and higher 
murder rates because of their refusal to deal with the problem 
of gun violence and implement real gun safety regulation, the 
kind the vast majority of the American people want, like the 
universal violent criminal background check, like a ban on 
military style assault weapons, which have been used in 
massacres all over America, and like the red flag laws. Thank 
you, and I yield back to the gentlelady.
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired. Do any other Members 
seek recognition? The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry from 
Pennsylvania to speak on the amendment to the bill.
    Mr. Perry. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and like my good 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am not really sure 
I am going to speak on the amendment, but they have set the 
precedent, and so my voice is going to be heard. And as long as 
we are talking about setting precedents, I will remind my good 
friend from Virginia about another Committee that we sit on 
together and have for a long time, where the Chairman, in the 
middle of my discussion, said I was out of order because he did 
not agree with the content of which I was speaking. And the 
Chairman just did that, not that I was submitting something for 
the record, that I was talking about something that was 
important to me in the Committee with the witness in front of 
me. And so, the precedent has already been set, not by me.
    But I want to take the moment to remind everybody that took 
the oath, and that is everybody up here, if you look at your 
Constitution--they are readily available if you are 
unfamiliar--it is right here, Article I, Section 8, and I read: 
``to exercise exclusive legislation''--that is what is 
happening here--``legislation in all''--not some cases, not 
convenient cases--``in all cases whatsoever''--in case you are 
not clear--``over such district''--the one we are talking about 
is the one we are sitting in--``such district, not exceeding 10 
miles square.'' ``In all cases whatsoever.''
    This is not a Republican thing, and it is not a Democrat 
thing. The United States capital belongs to all the citizens of 
the United States of America. And if they cannot come to their 
capital and feel safe--I will tell you, I have no interest in 
leaving these Capitol grounds for fear for my safety. I have no 
interest. I have got a family that I am responsible for, got 
two children that I want to see grow up, and I want them to 
have a father.
    I know you are all smiling. It is awesome. There was a guy 
that was killed a couple of blocks from here getting gas that 
worked for the previous administration. A couple of blocks from 
here, they shot him in the head. It is not funny to his family. 
It is not funny to me. It is not funny to Americans that want 
to come to this city and engage their government, but they are 
afraid to walk down the street from the hotel to get to these 
buildings to do it, and if D.C. will not do something about 
it--Article I, Section 8, ``to exercise exclusive legislation 
in all cases whatsoever''--if you all will not do it, we will. 
I yield the balance.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent 
request.
    Chairman Comer. You asked unanimous consent for what?
    Mr. Connolly. I ask that an article by Kylie Murdock and 
Jim Kessler on the murder rate throughout the country be 
entered into the record.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton. For what 
purpose do you seek recognition?
    Ms. Norton. First, I want to speak to the gentlelady's 
amendment. No amendment can redeem this fatally flawed bill, 
but I support this amendment, which would preserve the 
authority of the court to waive mandatory minimums under the 
Youth Rehabilitation Act.
    Perhaps my Republican colleagues are not familiar with the 
laws of their states, but many of them are about to vote for a 
bill that overturns a law that is like the laws in their 
states. The D.C. CRIMES Act amends D.C. Youth Rehabilitation 
Act, which allows judges to give alternative sentences to young 
adults and to seal their conviction records. My Republican 
colleagues on this Committee from Alabama, Florida, Michigan, 
New York, and South Carolina have laws in their states like 
D.C.'s Youth Rehabilitation Act.
    The sponsor of this bill represents Florida. So, let us 
examine Florida's Youth Offender Act. Florida first enacted 
this law in 1978, 7 years before D.C. first enacted its law. 
Under Florida's law, a person cannot be sentenced to more than 
6 years in prison. Under D.C.'s law, there is no limit on the 
prison term. Under both Florida's and D.C.'s laws, mandatory 
minimum sentences are waived, yet the D.C. CRIMES Act repeals 
the mandatory minimum waiver in D.C. Under existing D.C. law, 
the maximum eligibility age is 24. Under Florida's law, the 
maximum eligible age is 20. Yet the D.C. CRIMES Act lowers the 
maximum eligible age in D.C. to 18. Lest you think D.C.'s 
maximum eligible age is an outlier, I would note that the 
maximum eligible age is higher in Michigan than in D.C. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Norton. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly. I just wanted to take the 
opportunity again to reemphasize my support for the 
gentlelady's amendment, and then also to answer something that 
the very distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania said. He 
read us Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, 
which says that ``Congress shall exercise exclusive legislation 
over the District that is to become the seat of government, not 
larger than 10 miles square in land yielded from various 
states.'' He did not mention the fact that the Congress of the 
United States delegated legislative power over local issues in 
1973 in the D.C. Home Rule Charter to the District of Columbia 
Government, and that grant of power was upheld by the Supreme 
Court and has been repeatedly upheld in the Court, saying that 
it is perfectly constitutional to delegate legislative power to 
a local government, precisely because Congress has exclusive 
and plenary authority over the District.
    Now, if the people of Washington want to get out from under 
potential political tyranny, as they certainly have every right 
and reason to do at this point, then we need to redraw and 
modify the boundaries of the District of Columbia, which has 
happened repeatedly in our history. Before the Civil War, in 
1856, Congress redrew the boundaries of the District of 
Columbia to retrocede to Virginia, Alexandria, Arlington, and 
Fairfax County. That was actually at the behest of slaveholders 
who were properly afraid that Congress was about to abolish the 
slave traffic in the District of Columbia, and they wanted to 
make sure they could maintain both their enslaved human beings 
and their power to engage in the slave traffic.
    In any event, it established the precedent that Congress, 
just exercising its exclusive plenary authority, can redraw the 
boundaries of the District. And so, it can do that today in 
order to redraw the boundaries pursuant to the D.C. Statehood 
Act that Ms. Norton has introduced, and then to admit the 
residential areas as the 51st state to the union. We started 
with 13 states. We have admitted 37 states, which means that 
three-quarters of the states were not part of the original 
union, although I will tell you proudly, Maryland was. But in 
any event, most states have not been, and the District of 
Washington, D.C., as we have said today, is an economically 
prosperous, politically self-governing jurisdiction that does 
not want people in these legislative drive-by hits to be 
micromanaging and finger painting all over their hard-
negotiated local legislation.
    And the irony is that just this week, the D.C. Council 
passed a revamp of its criminal justice policies, and yet we 
come barging in like a bull in a china shop, not even knowing 
that they did that, to try to impose somebody's pet agenda. I 
thank you, kindly, Ms. Norton. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Luna from 
Florida.
    Mrs. Luna. If I can just add in, Representative Raskin had 
cited the ``Two-Decade Red State Murder Problem,'' and so after 
further looking at this document, I just would like to point 
out that I believe it is a little bit misleading with the 
statistics as it focused on blue cities in red states. And it 
even states in the article that they did remove some of the 
blue cities and still saw instances that occurred. But I do 
believe that this, based on the stats here, might not be 
entirely factually accurate and forthcoming, so I just wanted 
to put that on the record.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Will the gentlelady yield for one 
sec?
    Mrs. Luna. I would like to get to my bill, so no.
    Mr. Raskin. By all means.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members? The Chair recognize 
Mr. Connolly to speak for 5 minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I support the 
amendment and certainly its intent. I do want to elaborate on 
comments made by the Ranking Member with respect to the 
constitutionality of the delegation of the authorities of 
Congress with respect to the management of the District of 
Columbia, and I would make a further distinction. Delegation is 
one thing. Circumscribing what we decide to do is another, and 
that is not a legal issue so much as it is a matter of judgment 
and political maturity. And, for example, you know, I ran one 
of the largest local governments in the United States. I did 
everything, right? We ran a bus fleet. We ran health clinics. 
We did all the zoning and planning. We did law enforcement and 
transportation. I would no more welcome this body intruding in 
my ability to manage complex problems where I know the on-the-
ground situation and the rest of us do not, than anyone else in 
any local government, or, for that matter, state government.
    And in this case, I think our friend from Pennsylvania all 
but said there was an unlimited ability by Congress to 
interfere when and where we choose. And even if one were to 
concede that power, exercising it is another matter, the 
prudence of it, and for that matter, the justification of it. 
And I do not want Congress in the business of doing zoning in 
the District of Columbia, and neither does Congress. So, we 
have, in fact, set some limits for when and where we are going 
to intrude, but at some point we have to, it seems to me, 
wrestle with the issue Ms. Pressley talked about in her 
remarks. Are we going to believe in self-government, starting 
in the Nation's Capital, or not?
    And, you know, citing the founders writing the Constitution 
is disingenuous. D.C. did not exist when the Constitution was 
written. In fact, they had not even decided the location of the 
Capitol, and they had no way of knowing or envisioning a 
modern, urban, cosmopolitan center in its own right with its 
own local needs and the need for local governments. But I 
believe, undoubtedly, our founders would have said, had they 
understood what would eventually be planted here on the shores 
of the Potomac, was that, no, they have got to be entitled, 
like anyone else in America, to self-govern. They have the 
right to make the same mistakes, to experience the same human 
behavior--good, bad and ugly--as any other self-governing part 
of this country because they were committed to those basic 
freedoms, and they understood there are risks with those 
freedoms.
    The risk is we get it wrong. We make bad judgments. Well, 
that is called freedom. And when you decide, ``no, I am going 
to interpose myself and prevent you from having, you know, good 
judgment and even the risk of sometimes bad judgment,'' that is 
the lack of freedom. And it seems to me that ought to be a 
principle on which both Democrats and Republicans can agree. 
This ought not to be a partisan issue, but we do need to let 
the District of Columbia free, let loose, and let the District 
of Columbia govern itself for its own internal affairs, as any 
other urban area, or, for that matter, rural area in this great 
country. It is time for that to happen. And as someone who 
spent a lot of time in local government, I fully sympathize 
with where the District of Columbia finds itself, and I believe 
that this body should resist the temptation to interfere. I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. I will recognize myself now to speak on the 
amendment, but first, I feel compelled to address a comment the 
Ranking Member said. He mentioned the fact that D.C. passed a 
revamped criminal code. Let us not pretend ourselves. The 
reason that happened is because of the work of this Committee 
and the fact that our first bill, through the markup, House 
Joint Resolution 26, which rescinded their liberal soft-on-
crime policies in Washington, D.C., actually passed the House 
of Representatives in a bipartisan manner, then it passed the 
Senate overwhelmingly, and then President Biden signed it into 
law.
    Now, when we had the debate on that bill, if you will go 
back in time, the other side of the aisle, led by the Ranking 
Member, adamantly opposed the bill, but yet, the crime problem 
in D.C. was so bad, it was so obvious that their soft-on-crime 
policies were not helping the crime situation any in Washington 
and, moreover, they were making the situation worse because 
there was no accountability, there became overwhelmingly 
bipartisan support for the bill in a Congress that is not noted 
for a whole lot of bipartisan support. So, I wanted to mention 
that.
    With respect to the overlying bill, I strongly support 
Representative Donalds' bill and commend him for that. I want 
to thank the gentlelady from South Carolina for her amendment, 
but I must oppose it. For far too long, we have seen judges in 
the District provide increasingly lenient sentences on 
criminals. This provision addresses this problem, keeping 
criminals off the streets and removing the ability of D.C. 
judges to continue their soft-on-crime sentencing. So, for 
those reasons, I sadly oppose the good lady's amendment, but I 
strongly support the bill.
    Do any other Members seek recognition?
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins from 
Louisiana.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, having listened to my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle discuss these bills for quite some 
time, let me say regarding the amendment, I oppose the 
amendment that has been respectfully and thoughtfully presented 
by my colleague, Ms. Mace. But I oppose it, and in general, let 
me state regarding our compassion for our fellow man and our 
obligation to interact where we have jurisdictional authority 
to attempt to help our fellow man.
    And as it relates to juveniles in the system, what we call 
them, once they have been arrested, there is a tendency to 
think of juveniles that have been arrested as children. You 
know, it is popular for politicians, the state, this is a 
child, should be treated as a child. We all love children. We 
have children. But it is providing no legitimate, 
compassionate, principled service to that young child of God to 
shield them from the responsibility of their own actions in 
life. Commonly, when an 18-year-old, a 19-year-old is arrested 
in America, there is a line that says his first offense, this 
young man, this is his first offense. It is his first offense 
of record, America, but very commonly, in law enforcement, you 
get to know the young men that have lost their way early in 
life because, in Louisiana, 10 years old, you can be arrested. 
So, 10 to 18, you might have arrested this young man 15, 20 
times before he turns 18, and you do your best, man. You do 
your best. You put all your love and all your guidance and your 
focus into that young man when you are interacting with him, 
and you try to help him. He is coming from a difficult 
situation in his life, and to have a positive interaction with 
a solid role model can make a difference in his life.
    And I have touched these lives and made differences, but 
you cannot remove the mechanisms of responsibility for 
juveniles that commit criminal acts in our judicial system and 
think that you are helping that young man. You are not. Listen, 
you have to save these young men before they are adults if they 
are on a criminal path, and you are not going to do it by 
reducing the given accountabilities for that young man if he 
commits a crime and gets arrested. You are going to actually 
injure this young man's life because his only path to freedom, 
real freedom, true freedom, spiritual freedom, freedom to live 
and grow and perform as a human being, to be a positive member 
of his society, to be a role model for his children yet to be 
born, the only path to that freedom, frequently, for a young 
man that has chosen a criminal life, that side of the game, is 
serious accountability in the juvenile criminal court system.
    If you remove that, then you shall reap what you sow, and 
if you seek to actually help your young fellow man, this young 
American, that deserves a right at redemption. These are the 
bands I wear upon my wrist. I give a couple of them away every 
day. They say ``redemption.'' I believe in redemption. I have 
said many times in my life, a man's character should not be 
measured by the way he falls, it should be measured by the way 
he stands back up. But we have a responsibility, my colleagues, 
to help that young man stand back up. And if you remove this 
accountability, crime is going up, guaranteed, and you will 
lose lives at the level of their soul. Mr. Chairman, thank you 
for your indulgence. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes? What purpose do you seek recognition?
    Ms. Norton. I just want to make a correction. The Youth 
Rehabilitation Act applies only to people charged as adults.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlelady from South Carolina, Ms. 
Mace.
    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 noes have 
it.
    For what purpose does----
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, I request 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. 7526, D.C. Consumer 
Vehicle Choice Protection Act. The Clerk will please designate 
the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7526, the D.C. Consumer Vehicle Choice 
Protection Act, a bill to repeal a rulemaking of the D.C. 
Department of Energy and Environment relating to adoption of 
California vehicle emission standards.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    The Clerk, please designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 7526, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill.
    At the end of last year, the D.C. Department of Energy and 
Environment noticed a final rulemaking aligning D.C. local 
regulations with California. This final rule mandates that the 
District auto dealers sell only zero-emission vehicles by 2035. 
This action is foolish for a number of reasons. First, it 
limits consumer choice at a time when vehicle costs are 
soaring, and every dollar counts when deciding on a new vehicle 
purchase. Second, EV charging infrastructure, especially in the 
District, lags behind what is necessary to accommodate this 
scale of EV use, despite massive Federal subsidies. EV owners 
face limited options for public charging compared to the 
fueling options available to internal combustion engine 
vehicles, and long wait times for EV chargers are burdensome to 
consumers.
    Third, supply chain issues have created a massive strain on 
manufacturers. There are difficult and expensive bottlenecks 
for critical EV components and raw materials, for many of which 
China is the main supplier. In fact, automakers have had to 
scale back their commitments to rapidly expand electronic 
vehicle production. In 2021, Mercedes-Benz announced that it 
would shift its manufacturing to produce all EVs by 2030. Last 
month, Mercedes backtracked, claiming that it will now allow 
market conditions and consumer demand to ``set the pace'' for 
what portions of its production will be comprised of electric 
and internal combustion engine vehicles.
    Forcing industry to produce and consumers to purchase 
expensive and unpopular products only further cripples an 
already struggling economy. That is why H.R. 7526 halts the 
District's reckless rulemaking. It reverses this radical 
mandate and restores the previous standard, which is much less 
restrictive and more in line with consumer needs. By mandating 
what type of vehicle residents are able to purchase, the 
District's regulation greatly limits consumer choice and 
reduces affordability for local residents of all backgrounds.
    This Committee is charged with carrying out Congress' 
constitutional responsibility to oversee D.C. Not everyone 
within the Beltway can afford brand new electric vehicles, 
which are 33 percent more expensive than the average non-luxury 
vehicle. I want to thank Representative Luna from Florida for 
her work on this important matter, and I urge my colleagues to 
support her timely legislation.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. So, what do democracy and 
clean air have in common? Both are basic human rights that 
Republicans now want to deny to 700,000 people in Washington, 
D.C. This is literally a pro-air pollution, anti-democracy 
bill. And the way that the Clean Air Act works, as I understand 
it, is that states and jurisdictions in the country can either 
accept, as a default, the Federal standard, or they can adopt 
the California Clean Car Act standard. That is up to the 
locality. It is up to the state. It is up to Nebraska, it is up 
to Rhode Island, it is up to California, it is up to Texas, it 
is up to the state, and it is up to Washington, D.C.
    And D.C. said, in their legislative wisdom, representing 
their people, their values, their priority and the air they 
breathe, that they wanted to adopt the California approach. Now 
we have got a legislation saying that uniquely, selectively, 
the District of Columbia should be revoked and overridden in 
its power to decide which way it wants to go in terms of 
adoption of a Clean Air Act approach. It is not our decision. 
It is their decision.
    I wonder if the very distinguished gentlelady and the 
author of the bill has been to a single meeting of the District 
of Columbia Council, knows who is the council member who 
represents the ward that we sit in in Washington, D.C., has 
been to an advisory neighborhood commission meeting, has 
participated in hearings on this in the D.C. Council. Believe 
me, I have not. I am busy trying to represent my own 
constituents and trying to deal with the problems of the 
country, so I have not gone, but I would never dare to override 
the local decisions made in their local government. And so 
where do we get off with the arrogance, just the royal urge to 
decree that they have made the wrong decision about this or 
anything else?
    I do not know what the right decision is for D.C. about 
this. I mean, I have my suspicions because I believe in climate 
change. I believe that is real. I believe in science. My 
district includes the NIH and NOAA and FDA. I believe in 
science. I know that is a radical idea around here for some 
people, but I believe in science, and apparently the people of 
Washington believe in science, and they believe in making this 
commitment. Whatever arguments you want to make about it, guess 
what? They have heard them before because I am sure there was 
opposition and I am sure there was support, and they argued it 
out, and they came down in this direction. My God, what gives 
us the sense of moral entitlement to make a judgment for 
700,000 fellow taxable, draft-paying American citizens? I mean, 
that is some gall, I have got to say.
    Contrary to the misleading title of this bill, consumers in 
D.C. will continue to have choices under Advanced Clean Cars 
II, even after model year 2035. It does not ban gas vehicles. 
Consumers will still be able to buy gas vehicles for many 
years. If that is what your true commitment is here, if your 
value in your state and your district is to allow people to buy 
gas vehicles, climate change be damned, fine, you can do it for 
your district, but even in D.C., you could do it for many 
years. Advanced Clean Cars II applies only to new vehicles, and 
the overwhelming majority of vehicles sold in the District of 
Columbia, as I am sure all the Members know from having 
attended their hearings, are used cars.
    So, I would say let us not allow our diehard allegiance to 
Big Oil and Big Gas to overcome our respect for the democratic 
rights and self-determination of our fellow Americans. I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the sponsor of this very good bill, Representative 
Luna from Florida.
    Mrs. Luna. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter the 
following documents into record: a bicameral letter to the EPA 
administrator, Michael Reagan, with concerns regarding 
California's waiver request for advanced clean cars; two, 
article from the Washington Examiner, entitled, ``Shocking 
Study Makes the Case the EVs are Worse for the Environment Than 
Gas Cars;'' an article from Fox Business, entitled, ``Hertz 
Selling 20,000 EVs From Fleet to Reinvest Gas-Powered 
Vehicles;'' and then finally, an article from Business Insider, 
entitled, ``Mercedes-Benz Ditches Plan to Sell EVs by 2030.''
    Mr. Raskin. I object until she resubmits it later following 
the precedent set, Mr. Chairman, by your colleagues.
    Chairman Comer. Motion objected. The Chair recognizes Mrs. 
Luna for her statement on her very good bill.
    Mrs. Luna. I would like to specify, you know, there are 
some statements, `where do I get the gall?' Well, although I 
have not been to the meetings, like you, Mr. Raskin, have also 
not been to the meetings, I can read, and I read a report. 
``Consumer Reports'' actually stated that 62 percent of Black 
Americans have no interest in EVs, followed by 57 percent of 
Hispanic Americans do not want EVs, and that is, I remind you, 
the largest voting minority in the country are Hispanic 
Americans of Mexican descent, of which I am. I would also like 
to point out that, you know, what I am seeing is a lot of 
people in Washington who do not really work that hard making 
legislation that is impacting people that are working very, 
very hard to barely make ends meet because of inflation.
    So, reiterating some of the points that Representative 
Comer had stated, Chairman Comer, on December 29, 2023, the 
District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment 
noticed a final rulemaking decision that would implement 
California's electric vehicle mandate regulations in the 
District. This final rule will require all new vehicles 
purchased in D.C. to be electric or plug-in electric hybrids by 
2035. This policy is not only out of touch, but it does little 
to benefit economic well-being of American families and 
national security of our country. I also want to point out the 
reason why I mentioned those demographics earlier is because, 
as stated earlier by my colleague across the aisle, Washington 
D.C. is a predominantly Black community. It is important to 
point out that D.C. lacks the proper infrastructure, as stated 
by Chairman Comer, to support this policy. In fact, D.C., 
Arlington, and Alexandria have a total of 5,069 public charging 
stations with more than 689,000 residents in just the District 
alone.
    D.C. residents will not only be the ones impacted by this 
policy, but anyone who visits or works in the District will 
have to deal with the consequences of this out-of-touch push 
toward electric vehicles. It is clear that D.C. did not 
consider the economic well-being or really what the residents 
wanted before coming up with this policy decision. And I always 
really have an issue when people state that it is people that 
are interested in Big Gas and petroleum that are pushing for 
this, when I find that a lot of the EV subsidies are actually 
going toward large donors for the Democrat Party.
    In 2022 alone, the average medium household income was only 
$74,000. Roughly, in comparison, the average cost of an 
electric vehicle in July 2023 is over $53,000. Given inflation 
and the current cost of living, American families cannot afford 
an electric vehicle when they are simply trying to make ends 
meet, as I stated earlier. Let us not also forget that the push 
for this kind of electric vehicle mandate actually benefits our 
foreign adversaries, particularly China, who makes over 80 
percent of our world's electric batteries. When they are doing 
this manufacturing, it does contribute to air pollution. So, if 
you are going to do it, let us at least not help the place that 
is polluting the world the most.
    And I would also like to note that my work on this topic, 
especially on the human rights issue, for lithium and cobalt 
mining to get those batteries, does not just stop here. I sit 
on Natural Resources, and I have cosponsored many pieces of 
legislation that actually stop that. In fact, we would like to 
take a moment to consider that in the Chinese lithium mines, 
specifically in the Western Quing Hai Province, and cobalt 
mines in the Democrat Republic of Congo, there are also child 
slave labor currently taking place. These mines, which supply 
the minerals needed for electric vehicles, use forced labor of 
children and slaves.
    While this mandate discussed in this bill pertains to D.C., 
there is nothing stopping similar mandates from being 
implemented across the country if we do not put a stop to it, 
so I am doing exactly that. I am listening to people, not just 
here, but people across the country. Might I add that we have a 
very big problem, and I do think sometimes that certain 
technologies are hidden from the American people to promote 
what I would say is crony capitalism. But you guys are not 
going to find me advocating for something that is going to 
force people that are barely making ends meet currently to 
adopt something that is simply just not realistic. Thank you, 
Chairman. I yield my time.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. 
Connolly, you seek recognition?
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I just want to 
say I do not think it is a very good way to begin defending a 
bill you have introduced by smearing people who work in the 
District of Columbia or the National Capital Region as not 
working very hard. I do not know how one knows that. I have 
lived here 52 years, and what has always struck me is the work 
ethic is unhealthy not because we do not work too hard, but 
because people work too hard and do not often have a good 
balance in terms of life/work. That kind of----
    Mrs. Luna. I would like to apologize. That was not 
personally directed----
    Mr. Connolly. All right.
    Mrs. Luna [continuing]. But what I am stating is that a lot 
of people in Washington do not have the same hourly work pay 
that most people do outside. So, I would like to apologize.
    Mr. Connolly. I appreciate the gentlelady. Thank you. Thank 
you. I wanted to talk a little bit about following up on what 
the Ranking Member was talking about. You know, I spent 14 
years of my life helping the region here come into compliance 
with the Clean Air Act, and one of the defects in the Clean Air 
Act amendments enforcement is that you are responsible for end 
pollution, irrespective of where it comes from. So, a lot of 
the air pollution here, I mean, almost all the air pollution we 
generate ourselves is car and diesel exhaust. We do not have a 
lot of manufacturing here, but we do have the migration of 
significant amounts of air pollution coming from the Ohio 
Valley, which we have no control over.
    So, when D.C., when the District of Columbia or, for that 
matter, the Metropolitan Washington Region have to deal with 
the fact that we are declared a non-attainment area because we 
do not meet EPA standards, most of it is outside of our 
control. And so, we are forced to look at other mitigation 
measures that are in our control, right down to how many trees 
can we plant every year. It is that specific and, in a sense, 
desperate, because we do not have a lot of levers of influence 
on things that affect us, even though we are held responsible 
for it. And so, I believe the District of Columbia then looked 
at, well, where are tough standards that could help us get to 
attainment goals, and California is one of those sets of 
standards that gives more control to the District of Columbia, 
and, for that matter, Metropolitan Washington, over air quality 
standards.
    So, I think that is a dynamic that is going on that I hope 
can be appreciated in the course of this conversation. I yield 
the balance of my time to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. I actually just have a 
question for you because, unlike you, I have not run a major 
local government, and your experience and expertise are 
unsurpassed in the field of local government. But my 
understanding of the Clean Air act is that it actually offers 
the municipality, or the local government jurisdiction, a 
choice. You can either go with the Federal system or you can 
peg yourself to what California is doing, so that is an 
invitation that is made to the jurisdictions.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. The District of Columbia, in its wisdom, like 
Maryland, decided to go with the California clean cars 
approach, precisely because we are facing the exact issue that 
you identify: lots of air pollution, a lot of it not generated 
here but coming from other places, but we are not going to cry 
over spilt milk and point the finger. We are going to say, let 
us do what we can to lower the amount of air pollution. Am I 
reading it right?
    Mr. Connolly. I think the gentleman is right, and we got to 
add one more thing. You are required to come up with a plan of 
mitigation. So, if you are in non-attainment, that is to say, 
you do not attain the legal standards set by law through the 
EPA, you have got to come up with a plan to fix that. So, they 
are under pressure to have a plan, and that plan has to be very 
specific. It is not vague. I mean, as I said, it is even down 
to how many trees might we plant that would have this kind of 
offset for CO2. So, they are under a lot of pressure to have a 
plan that is efficacious and that will, you know, pass muster 
with the EPA.
    Mr. Raskin. And if I could ask you one other question. I 
mean, the only real alternative is to join a movement to 
undermine or destroy the Clean Air Act and say, oh well, you 
know, there is too much regulation, but then we are going to 
see much dramatic increases in lung cancer and asthma and 
emphysema.
    Mr. Connolly. There are few acts of Congress that have 
saved as many lives as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Air Act 
amendments.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton.
    Ms. Norton. First, I would like to note that 80 percent of 
electric vehicle charging happens at home. Mr. Chairman, before 
I begin my statement, I ask unanimous consent to insert into 
the record a letter from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. 
Council Chair, Philip Mendelson, strongly opposing this bill.
    Mrs. Luna. I object, unless I can, of course, get mine in, 
of which I would then happily not object.
    Mr. Raskin. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my 
opposition to Mrs. Luna's offer.
    Mrs. Luna. See, guys?
    Mr. Raskin. I just wanted people to understand----
    Mrs. Luna. We just come together on an agreement.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. OK.
    Mrs. Luna. I will withdraw mine----
    Chairman Comer. OK.
    Mrs. Luna [continuing]. If you will allow both to be in the 
record.
    Mr. Raskin. It's a deal.
    Chairman Comer. So, what we are going to do, I am going to 
let Mrs. Luna re-offer. Do you remember the five letters that 
she read?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, I remember them well.
    Chairman Comer. Do you ask unanimous consent?
    Mrs. Luna. And I ask unanimous consent, yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. And on Ms. Norton's motion to ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record, without objection, so 
ordered.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also ask unanimous 
consent to insert into the record a letter from 23 national 
environmental organizations opposing H.R. 7526, as well as a 
letter from 16 local organizations 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 
on local D.C. matters this Committee has marked up or brought 
directly to the House Floor. While the other bills repeal or 
amend D.C. statutes, this bill repeals a D.C. regulation. For 
as much as Republicans meddle in the D.C. official code, it is 
extremely rare for them to meddle in D.C. municipal 
regulations. This bill represents a new low in meddling.
    My Republican colleagues are correct that Congress has the 
constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, 
but their assertion that Congress has a constitutional duty to 
do so is wrong as a matter of constitutional law. The 
legislative history and merits of this bill should be 
irrelevant since there is never justification for Congress 
repealing or amending laws or regulations enacted by the 
District of Columbia. Nevertheless, I want to set the record 
straight.
    After two public hearings, the D.C. Council unanimously 
passed the Clean Cars Act of 2008, and the Mayor signed it. The 
Clean Cars Act requires the Mayor to adopt California's vehicle 
emission standards. The D.C. Department of Energy and 
Environment held a public notice and comment period, including 
a public hearing on the regulation to carry out the Clean Cars 
Act. Upon the effective date of the regulation, D.C. joined 13 
states, including two states represented by Republicans on this 
Committee, in adopting California's vehicle emission standards, 
known as Advanced Clean Cars II.
    There is only one question before this Committee. Does it 
believe in democracy? The D.C. Council has 13 members. The 
members are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not 
like how members vote, they can vote them out of office. This 
is called democracy. Congress has 535 voting Members. The 
members are elected by residents of their states. None are 
elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how 
Members vote on local D.C. matters, they cannot vote them out 
of office. This is the antithesis of democracy. The 
Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed 
and to end taxation without representation, yet D.C. residents 
cannot consent to any action taken by Congress and pay full 
Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita 
than any state and more total Federal taxes than 19 states.
    If House Republicans cared about democratic principles or 
D.C. residents, they would bring to the Floor my D.C. Statehood 
bill, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in 
Congress and full local self-government. Congress has the 
constitutional authority to admit the state of Washington, D.C. 
It simply lacks the will. I strongly urge Members to vote 
``no'' on this bill and to keep their hands off D.C., including 
its regulations. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    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. 7526, 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.
    Mrs. Luna. Can I get 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. 7527, Mail Traffic 
Deaths Reporting Act. The Clerk will please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7527, the Mail Traffic Deaths Reporting 
Act, a bill to direct the United States Postal Service to issue 
regulations requiring Postal Service employees and contractors 
to report to the Postal Service traffic crashes involving 
vehicles carrying mail that result in injury or death, and for 
other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered is read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of substitute. The Clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 7527, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    The House Oversight Committee is responsible for overseeing 
the U.S. Postal Service, an organization tasked with delivering 
mail across the Nation. Last year, the Wall Street Journal 
published an article alleging that the Postal Service 
contracted with low-cost trucking companies that did not follow 
highway safety regulation. They also reported that postal 
contractors have been involved in car crashes that have killed 
79 people in the last 3 years. To conduct oversight of this 
important topic, Congress needs to be informed.
    The Mail Traffic Deaths Reporting Act requires the Postal 
Service to report to Congress any traffic crashes that result 
in injury or death. Under the bill, Postal Service employees 
and contractors will have 3 days to report a traffic accident 
to the Postal Service. These reports will include, at a 
minimum, the date, time, location, nature of crash, information 
identifying the contractor, and number of injuries and 
fatalities. The Postal Service will maintain a comprehensive 
internal digital data base of this information. The Postal 
Service is also required to compile a publicly available report 
summarizing annual stats related to injuries and deaths from 
traffic accidents.
    The Postal Service is tasked with the challenging job of 
providing fast, reliable mail service nationwide. While they do 
so, it is imperative that safety is also prioritized. As the 
Postal Service shifts from air to ground transportation under 
the Postmaster General's Delivering for America Plan, oversight 
of trucking contractors is especially important. I am proud to 
sponsor this bill with my Democratic colleague, Representative 
Connolly. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this 
commonsense bill that increases transparency into the Postal 
Service's safety record and prioritizes public safety 
throughout our Nation. I now recognize the Ranking Member for 
his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to salute Mr. 
Connolly for his great leadership on mail transport safety at 
the Postal Service, and I am pleased to support this 
legislation advanced by him and by you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Wall Street Journal recently reported that between 2021 
and 2023, truck drivers contracted by the Postal Service were 
involved in 68 traffic accidents, with 79 fatalities while 
delivering the mail. The OIG found that the Postal Service 
failed to record all mail transport accidents, including those 
involving private contractors, in a central data base. As a 
result of these oversight deficiencies, the Postal Service did 
not have a complete understanding of the full scope of traffic 
accidents and the safety performance of its mail transport 
drivers or the patterns that might be discernible from keeping 
real data.
    The Mail Traffic Deaths Reporting Act would establish 
reporting, tracking, and accountability measures among all mail 
transport drivers, including the 4,600 postal trucking 
contractors within the Service. This legislation would increase 
transparency and improve the Postal Service's visibility into 
the full scale of mail transport accidents and increase public 
safety. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Connolly's bill, 
and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes the sponsor of the 
bill, Mr. Connolly from Virginia.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
you and the Ranking Member for your gracious remarks and for 
your commitment to saving lives. You both mentioned the Wall 
Street Journal article. I want to ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record a report from the Inspector General of 
the Postal Service confirming all aspects of that Wall Street 
Journal just issued last week.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair, and I am so glad we can 
partner on a bipartisan basis and introduce the Mail Traffic 
Deaths Reporting Act, which would require USPS to collect, 
track, and report on serious crashes and fatalities involving 
vehicles transporting U.S. Postal mail.
    The Chairman and I have met with families of truck crash 
victims. We have heard their painful stories, and we are 
committed to prevent tragedies involving mail transport. These 
families-turned-advocates welcome this legislation, which is 
endorsed by the Truck Safety Coalition.
    Let me tell a story. In June 2022, the Godine family was 
traveling to their home in Gillette, Wyoming. Traveling behind 
the family on I-25 as they passed Greeley, Colorado, was a 
freight truck carrying U.S. mail on a contract with the U.S. 
Postal Service. The truck's brakes were out of alignment. The 
truck was uninsured. The driver did not have a commercial 
driver's license. When that truck carrying U.S. Postal products 
slammed into the back of the Godine's family vehicle, in one 
instant, three generations of that family lost their lives, 
including a 3-month-old baby girl.
    Safety concerns about the freight contract trucking 
practices of the Postal Service have been increasing ever 
since. Between 2020 and 2023, at least 79 people have been 
killed in crashes involving trucks contracted by the Postal 
Service. The true number could be even higher because just last 
year, if you can believe it, we learned the USPS does not even 
report serious crashes involving trucking contractors because 
they are not required to. That revelation raised further 
serious questions about safety oversight of Postal Service-
contracted vehicles, including troubling allegations that the 
Postal Service is managing truck freight operations which do 
not adhere to commonsense safety standards.
    The USPS, for example, set delivery schedules that require 
drivers to exceed hours--exceed hours--of service requirements 
and have selected carriers with extensive records of safety 
violations knowingly. Between December 2020 and December 2022, 
the Department of Transportation identified a frightening 466 
Postal Service trucking contractors that had very high rates of 
violations related to driving hours. In 2021 and 2022, 39 
percent of trucking companies that carried U.S. mail violated 
rules meant to prevent driver exhaustion and did so repeatedly. 
Between 2017 and 2022, one single trucking group with a USPS 
contract broke those rules 200 times.
    When I asked the Postal Service for the number of deaths 
involved in contracted transport of mail, they said they did 
not have that information because they did not collect, 
monitor, or report such information, cold comfort to the 
families who have lost loved ones as a result. This approach to 
this information was clearly an out-of-sight/out-of-mind 
management technique. That was until May 2023 when I urged the 
Inspector General of the Postal Service to investigate the 
safety of freight contract trucking practices at USPS.
    The USPS responded suddenly by establishing an ad hoc, 
centralized reporting mechanism for serious and deadly crashes 
involving their trucking contractors. As the USPS OIG stated in 
a report released just last Friday, that is a welcome step, but 
the Postal Service still does not have a single written policy 
requiring the tracking of trucking contractor accidents and 
fatalities. The OIG's No. 1 recommendation was that the Postal 
Service fix this serious safety oversight immediately, and that 
is what we are doing here today.
    Our legislation, the Mail Traffic Death Reporting Act, 
codifies the No. 1 recommendation. To begin to improve USPS 
freight's safety, the Mail Traffic Death Reporting Act requires 
employees and contractors to provide a detailed report to the 
Postal Service of any mail transport related to traffic crash 
that resulted in serious injury or death. This bill requires 
the Postal Service to maintain an internal data base of such 
reports and to publish an annual report summarizing information 
related to crash reports. Finally, the legislation requires 
USPS to take action against contractors who repeatedly fail to 
submit the required crash reports. It is our hope that by doing 
this today, we can create a virtuous feedback loop in which 
crash data enforces strict adherence to safety, compliance, 
best practices, and, Mr. Chairman, saves lives.
    I want to thank you so much for your willingness to allow 
this bill to come up today, and, as an original cosponsor, Mr. 
Raskin, thank you for your support as well. I truly believe, 
once in a while, our Committee has a chance to save lives. Here 
is that opportunity. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. The question is now in 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.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for a recorded 
vote?
    Chairman Comer. On the, yes, next one. That was the----
    Mr. Connolly. OK. Sorry.
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on favorably reporting 
H.R. 7527, 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. And Mr. Connolly requests a recorded vote, 
so a recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further 
proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 5301, Eliminate 
Useless Reports Act of 2023. The Clerk will please designate 
the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 5301, Eliminate Useless Reports Act of 
2023, a bill to require agencies to include a list of outdated 
or duplicative reporting requirements in annual budget 
justifications, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The Clerk will please designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 5301, 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 purpose of further amendment.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    Every year, Federal agencies are required by various laws 
to produce thousands of reports, with a single report costing 
tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars. While many reports help 
inform Congress and the public, some are outdated and 
duplicative. With nearly 100 agencies issuing annual reports as 
required under law, there is a great opportunity for cost 
savings and improving government efficiency by addressing 
outdated reports. Agencies are already required to compile 
lists of the reports they generate, but this information is not 
included in an agency's annual budget documents, which Congress 
scrutinizes on an annual basis.
    The Eliminate the Useless Reports Act requires each agency 
to identify and reduce the frequency of duplicative or outdated 
reports in its regular budget justification documents. This 
bill provides a clear and comprehensive mechanism for the 
regular review of outdated or duplicative reports. This bill 
would increase government efficiency and save taxpayer dollars 
by eliminating unnecessary reports. I would like to thank 
Representatives Garcia and Grothman for their leadership on 
this issue and Budget Committee Chairman Arrington for his 
collaboration. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
bipartisan commonsense bill. I now recognize the Ranking Member 
for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
Mr. Garcia for this legislation. I am proud to support it.
    We have to strike the balance right. On the one hand, if we 
had no reports, then we would not know whether or not our 
legislative enactments were actually translating. On the other 
hand, if we overload various agencies with reporting 
requirements, they spend all their time doing that, and they 
are not spending their time actually fulfilling their statutory 
duties. And so, I admire what Mr. Garcia has done here, which 
is to set up a procedure for agencies to request the 
elimination or modification of obsolete reporting requirements. 
And I do not know exactly how we are going to get a report back 
on how it is going, but I hope that we will see progress there, 
and maybe we could get a very short report on the increase in 
eliminations of reports and the reduction of onerous 
responsibilities on agencies.
    I urge everybody to support this well-conceived 
legislation, and I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of 
the bill, Mr. Garcia, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you, 
Mr. Chair, also, of course, our Ranking Member, for your 
support. And this is a bipartisan bill, it is a commonsense 
bill, and I want to also thank my co-lead, Congressman 
Grothman, for all his work and support, who also happens to be 
the Subcommittee Chair of the Subcommittee that we both lead as 
part of the Oversight Committee. I want to thank our bipartisan 
Senate co-lead, Senator John Ossoff of Georgia and Senator 
James Langford of Oklahoma.
    Now, our bill is very simple. We know that Congress 
requires Federal agencies to provide numerous reports on 
numerous topics, analysis, operations. These reports, of 
course, provide Congress with important information, and we 
could not do our jobs, especially on Oversight, without them. 
However, drafting reports oftentimes takes enormous resources 
and responsibilities. Our bill, essentially, is a commonsense 
overhaul to the process to get rid of reports when they are no 
longer needed, thus saving civil servants time and really 
saving the government money. These reports required by Congress 
are oftentimes no longer needed because they may be outdated. 
The topic has moved on, or it could be duplicative. And so 
oftentimes, because we demand these reports, these reports 
continue to be produced year after year after year without any 
sort of assessment if the report is actually necessary.
    Under our bill, every year, when an agency reports their 
budget, they would also send a summary of any congressional 
reports that they believe are outdated and/or duplicative, and 
they could recommend that we can sunset, modify, consolidate, 
or reduce the frequency of the report. So, at the end of the 
day, we still get to make a judgment on what reports are 
needed, but this is just a commonsense way of ensuring that our 
civil servants spend their time doing their jobs.
    I will say that I served as Mayor of Long Beach, my city, 
for the last 8 years before I got to Congress, and this is 
exactly the type of measures that we would try to implement to 
make government run more efficient and, really, at the end of 
the day, ensure that our work force are actually able to focus 
on doing their actual jobs. Endless and endless reports really 
oftentimes waste time if they are not producing information 
that we, in Congress, need. This bill reduces paperwork, 
streamlines many processes, and makes the legislative process 
more organized.
    To conclude, I just want to just say one brief example. We 
ask, for example, tons and tons of reports, oftentimes on very 
technical issues. There is one report here which I think is 
interesting. It is the ``National Strategic Germ Plasm and 
Cultivar Collection Assessment and Utilization Plan: Technical 
Details, Analysis, and Approaches.'' And we produce this 
report, and some could say might it be outdated and perhaps we 
do not need it anymore, but there is no mechanism to actually 
stop this report from continuously being produced, and so a 
commonsense measure. Thank you for the bipartisan support, and 
I yield back. And I would also ask, Mr. Chair, when the time 
comes, if we can actually get this report, if we can get an 
actual public vote on it, that will be great. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none.
    Mrs. Luna. I am objecting.
    Chairman Comer. Objecting to?
    Mrs. Luna. The next thing we are doing on postal.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Yes, yes, we will get to that.
    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.
    Mr. Garcia. A recorded----
    Chairman Comer. This is not the one you want to record, I 
believe, on this. The next one is on the bill. That was on the 
nature of a substitute, OK?
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 5301, your 
bill, as amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed by saying no.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of Chair, the ayes have it, 
but a recorded vote has been ordered by Mr. Garcia. As 
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will 
be postponed.
    So, I just want to clarify something. We do the postal 
votes when we vote on all the bills, and it is always the last 
one. So, I am going to make this announcement, but this is how 
we always do it. We are going to recess until votes conclude. 
We are going to come back in here. That plans to be around 
2:45. We will vote on all the bills and Ms. Mace's amendment, 
and then the last vote will be on the postal bills, and if 
anyone objects, then that----
    Mrs. Luna. Will I have a couple minutes to kind of explain 
to everyone the nature of why I am objecting and why I think 
Representative Perry is going to object as well?
    Chairman Comer. Yes, yes, because Mr. Higgins, I think, 
would like to speak on the bills, too, but if one person 
objects, then it is over.
    Mrs. Luna. So, 5 minutes?
    Chairman Comer. It is over. It is over, yes.
    Mrs. Luna. OK.
    Chairman Comer. All right. Pursuant to the previous order, 
the Chair declares the Committee in recess, subject to the call 
of the Chair. We plan to reconvene after votes or 2:45.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will reconvene.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 4552, as 
amended. Members will record their votes using the electronic 
voting system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably 
reporting H.R. 4552.
    [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----
    Chairman Comer. OK. Mr. Frost. Can we open up or let him 
vote by voice? OK. We may have had a couple of issues. Can we 
reopen it? You want to try it again or what?
    The Clerk. Sir, you cannot reopen it to allow people to 
vote. It is closed.
    Chairman Comer. You cannot----
    The Clerk. You have to recreate a whole new vote.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, point of inquiry. Just for the 
future, if they arrive late, can we take their vote by voice at 
that point?
    Chairman Comer. Yes, we can.
    Mr. Raskin. Could Mr. Frost and Mr. Cloud be recorded by 
voice now?
    Chairman Comer. Is there any objection to letting that 
happen? Does anyone on either side object? I think there were 
three that walked in.
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, point of order. I do not have an 
objection. Pat.
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Is that just this one time, or are we going to 
do this every single----
    Chairman Comer. Yes, that is a very good point.
    Mr. Fallon. If it is just this one time, no objection, but 
it is time to be an adult. And we are here, let us vote.
    Chairman Comer. All right. We will do it one time and allow 
the ones that walked in late voice. It does not affect the 
outcome of the vote anyway, but how is Mr. Frost recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost is not yet recorded.
    Mr. Frost. This adult votes yea.
    [Laughter.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. Is Mr. Perry recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry is not recorded.
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Chairman Comer. And is Mr. Palmer recorded? You are? OK.
    Mr. Raskin. And I think Mr. Cloud----
    Chairman Comer. Oh, Mr. Cloud. Yes, Mr. Cloud.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cloud is not yet recorded.
    Mr. Cloud. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Does any other Member wish to be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the Clerk will tally the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 32. The 
nays are 7.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably, as amended.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Now, we are going to do this from here on out with the 
electronic device, and I will make sure that everyone is 
recorded that wants to be recorded.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 7523. Members 
will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The 
Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 7523.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded? No?
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Now all Members have been recorded. 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 40. The 
nays are 0.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported, as amended.
    Without objection, the motion reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 7532. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 7532.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. OK. Have all Members recorded their vote 
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 36. The 
nays are 3.
    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. 7528. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 7528.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded? No? Yes. All right.
    Does any Member wish to change their vote? 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 31. The 
nays are 9.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it. 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. 7533. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 7533.
    [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 question is on favorably reporting H.R. 7525. Members 
will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The 
Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 7525.
    [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 38. The 
nays are 2.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The Committee will now resume consideration of H.R. 7530, 
the D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safer 
Act.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the 
gentlelady from South Carolina, Ms. Mace. Members will record 
their votes using the electronic voting system. The Clerk will 
now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of H.R. 
7530.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members voted?
    [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 19, with one Member voting ``present.''
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the amendment is 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 7530, 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. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7530 is 
agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. OK. You withdraw your----
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The question is on favorably reporting 
H.R. 7530, as amended. Members will record their votes using 
the electronic voting system. The Clerk will now open the vote 
on favorably reporting H.R. 7530.
    [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, as amended.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 7526. Members 
will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The 
Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 7526.
    [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 question now is on favorably reporting H.R. 7527. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 7527.
    [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 40. The 
nays are zero.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 5301. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The Clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 5301.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to be recorded who has 
not been recorded? Everybody good?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does anyone wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The Clerk will now close the vote and 
report the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 40. The 
nays are zero.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Pursuant to notice, I will now call up the following postal 
naming bills, which were distributed in advance on this markup: 
H.R.s 1555, 3354, 5867, 7180, 7199, 7385, 7423, and 7417.
    Without objection, the bills are considered read.
    Chairman Comer. If any Member would like to speak on any of 
the measures----
    Mr. Donalds. Object.
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. They may do so now. Mr. 
Higgins?
    Mrs. Luna. After Higgins speaks, then we----
    Chairman Comer. Yes. Right. And then Mr. Higgins, and then 
Mr. Perry and Mrs. Luna and Mr. Raskin. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Higgins to speak.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in support of 
H.R. 7423. This bill honors the memory of Luke Letlow. Many of 
my colleagues may remember Luke worked very closely with our 
former colleague, Dr. Ralph Abraham. Luke was a gentleman of 
distinguished accomplishment, a devoted public servant, and a 
true son of Louisiana. By designating the post office in 
Rayville, Louisiana as the Luke Letlow Post Office Building, we 
pay respectful honor to Luke's journey in life, which was one 
of dedication, service, and an unwavering commitment to the 
people of Louisiana's 5th congressional District.
    Luke was tragically taken from us before he could serve in 
the House after his election, but before he could be sworn in. 
His legacy endures through the impactful work he accomplished 
through his family and the lives he touched. It is a testament 
to the strength and resilience of his family that his wife, 
Congresswoman Julia Letlow, now serves the very constituents 
Luke was elected to represent. Her presence in Congress is a 
daily reminder of Luke's vision and dedication to public 
service. By naming the post office in Rayville after Luke, we 
not only honor his memory and contributions, but also reaffirm 
our commitment to the values he stood for: community, service, 
God, and family.
    I urge my colleagues to support 7423 and ensure Luke 
Letlow's legacy is appropriately honored and remembered for 
generations to come. Let us pay tribute to a life well lived 
and a mission carried forward by those he loved. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Perry--I will go first.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Luna.
    Mrs. Luna. It brings me no joy to object to this en bloc of 
post office naming measures, and it seems like, you know, even 
in today's day and age, this might be the only thing that we 
could do, but I stand corrected. I have been trying for the 
last year or so to name a post office after Ryan Christian 
Knauss, who was one of the 13 killed in Afghanistan. He 
actually lived growing up in Representative Burchett's 
district, and his mother is from my district. And what I can 
tell you is I am being met with fierce opposition from one 
Member, specifically, Debbie Wasserman Schultz out of Florida, 
who not just tried to block my bill, but also tried to block 
Representative Franklin's bill. So, if we cannot get a post 
office named because of whatever personal differences there 
are.
    You know, she said that it is either because I did not say 
``hi'' to her at a picnic, in which I did not see her, which is 
completely absurd and stupid, in my opinion. Or whether the 
fact that she thinks that it is somehow going to make Biden 
look bad, which is also stupid because it is not about that. It 
is about honoring Ryan's service. It is about honoring Ryan, 
who was an amazing servicemember. I am not going to play those 
games, so if you guys want to do that, that is on you. And 
again, it does not bring me joy to do this, but I am going to 
object to this, and until that gets resolved, there will be no 
post office namings in the House of Representatives.
    Chairman Comer. I guess we have to go to Mr. Raskin, and 
then we will go to Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just start by 
making a practical point about how this process works, OK? The 
postal namings all follow a very specific process. All the 
bills follow the same format. It is an act to designate a 
facility located at X address in X-town after Lauren Boebert or 
whomever. And once that is done--the Committee will not 
consider post office namings for living persons under our 
rules, or for non-citizens, except for military servicemembers 
or veterans. And now here is the key part: you get the 
delegation of your state behind you.
    Now, traditionally, there has been deference in the state, 
I think, because, obviously, you can have mutually assured 
destruction where no Democrat ever gets a post office naming 
and no Republican ever gets a post office naming. I know one of 
the ones on this list is for Madeleine Albright. I know 
Jennifer Wexton, our colleague who is suffering from a terrible 
degenerative disease, has introduced a postal renaming for 
Madeleine Albright. She has gotten all six Democrats in 
Virginia, all five Republicans in Virginia, to unanimously get 
behind it. I think that all of the bills, Mr. Chairman, that 
are on this particular package that you have advanced have the 
consent of everybody in their delegation. I assume that is true 
with Mr. Higgins in Louisiana, he has been able to get both 
Republicans and Democrats behind it.
    I am sorry to hear about your situation in Florida. I know 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This is the very first time I am hearing 
of it. I am very happy to go and talk to her with you, Mrs. 
Luna, but I do not think that we should escalate the fight to 
the full House of Representatives at this point. I think that--
really, I mean this sincerely. I will go with you to her to 
talk to her about the situation. It sounds like you have got a 
wonderful, you know, potential postal designee, but I would 
hate to see all these other post offices held up.
    Mrs. Luna. Would you yield for----
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
    Mrs. Luna. So, I actually tried to get help, and I got help 
from Representative Moskowitz, Lois Frankel, and Soto, and they 
still even agree, and you can talk to them, but they think that 
this is absurd and stupid, and it is immature. You know, you 
are a male, and I hate to say this, but I have seen this happen 
before with women. And I hate to say it, but there is zero 
excuse or reasoning for this to be happening in the House of 
Representatives or reasoning for why she would not want to do 
this. I have personally reached out to try to approach her, and 
the fact is that I am not going to bend on this. I have the 
family in my district and, frankly, unfortunately, it is going 
to escalate to the entire House of Representatives.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, if the gentlelady allows me just to 
respond to that. You remember a little bit earlier today, I 
moved to introduce a document by unanimous consent, and one of 
our colleagues objected to it, which is something I had never 
seen happen before. We waited a little while, tempers cooled, 
he accepted it, and in the meantime, I had objected to yours 
simply to show people that it will shut down business, and what 
you are suggesting now will shut down business. I am sure I 
could get some of my other colleagues on this side to go and 
talk to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, but it interferes with people 
like Mr. Higgins, like Ms. Wexton, who have jumped through 
every hoop in order to make this happen, and----
    Mrs. Luna. I would be comfortable considering that after 
you guys confirm that she is on my post office, but until that 
happens, I am not doing this because what it does is it allows 
for the unfair targeting, for whatever personal differences 
exist, to be taken out on the Member. But aside from that, this 
individual was killed. It was a servicemember who has a family, 
and it is wrong that this should be the one point that this 
person is trying to use ego, for whatever reason it is. I would 
appreciate your support and help on it, but, again, I am not 
going to rescind my objection.
    Mr. Raskin. Can you just explain to me, you made it a 
gender point a moment ago, and I did not quite follow the 
argument there.
    Mrs. Luna. Because in talking with other colleagues, to 
include Democrat colleagues, the way that this has unfolded is 
it feels that there is a woman in a position of power and 
authority who has been there a lot longer--I am a new Member--
and she is bullying me. She is bullying me as a young female 
Member, and I know that sounds weird to say, but it is not 
uncommon to happen in the workplace. Whether it is in normal 
jobs or whether it is in the House of Representatives, what she 
is doing is wrong. Like, it does not make me feel good to say 
that, but that is what is happening, and, frankly, I would urge 
you to talk to your other colleagues----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Raskin. I just wanted to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. 
If we do not vote on this package today, when is our next 
available time to get these post office bills passed and on the 
Floor?
    Chairman Comer. To answer your question, we usually have a 
markup roughly every month, every 6 weeks. This is a very 
prolific bill-passing Committee. Most bills that we pass are 
bipartisan. I have to throw that in there. So, this bill, it 
appears there are going to be two objections, so the postal 
bills, they will not happen today. Hopefully, you can work with 
Mrs. Luna in meeting with Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and maybe we 
can hopefully get this resolved at our next markup, but we will 
attempt to have postal naming bills again at the next markup.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. So, but procedurally, where do we stand 
now? In other words, her objection stops the whole----
    Chairman Comer. I have not made the motion for unanimous 
consent yet.
    Mr. Raskin. I see.
    Chairman Comer. When I do that, if she or Mr. Perry object, 
then the bill is dead.
    Mr. Raskin. I see.
    Chairman Comer. And we will return----
    Mr. Raskin. There is another objection coming?
    Chairman Comer. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Raskin. I did not realize. OK. All right. I will yield 
back. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. I will go to Mr. Perry, then Mr. Mfume. Mr. 
Perry and then Mr. Mfume.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to be clear, I 
am not objecting to all of these post office naming bills. I am 
actually a cosponsor of at least one of the bills, Edwin Drake, 
the first American to successfully drill for oil. I am 
objecting to one, the bill naming a post office after former 
Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright.
    Now, in my opinion, during her tenures at both the United 
Nations and the State Department, she advocated for 
unscientific, illogical climate policies on both the world 
stage and in the State Department, setting the stage for the 
Obama-and Biden-era policies today that are championing and 
steering our foreign policy, which is dangerous, to say the 
least. But these policies are actually already changing our way 
of life here at home, from the cars and trucks that we drive, 
the appliances in our home, and the stability of our electric 
grid, all in some vain hope of reaching the emission standard 
championed by Secretary Albright and others during the Kyoto 
Protocol negotiations, which most Americans object to. She also 
pressured the U.N. to withdraw peacekeepers from Rwanda and 
ignored the warnings from the State Department and CIA about 
security risks to embassies in Africa, which were later 
attacked.
    Now, folks on the other side of the aisle may disagree with 
my interpretation of her career, and that is fine. I respect 
that. That is why I wanted to separate this single bill out of 
the en bloc and vote separately on it. They could vote for it. 
I can vote against it. We can all register our opinions and 
move on, but we were told that that would not be possible, so, 
unfortunately, I will be objecting to the entire en bloc. And, 
Mr. Chairman, I hope in the future, if we are indeed unable to 
strip out individual bills from en bloc packages, you allow 
Members of the Committee time to weigh in on measures before 
putting them into one entire package. So, I do intend to 
object, and I yield the balance.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Well, he yielded back. I recognize, Mr. 
Mfume.
    Mr. Raskin. Got you.
    Mr. Mfume. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not admire 
the position you are in, and if the Ranking Member were in that 
position, I would not admire it either. I mean, there is a 
certain way that this House has operated since the beginning of 
the House, and this notion of congressional courtesy or the 
expectation that on certain matters, such as a postal naming, 
regardless of how I feel or someone else feels, once you jump 
through all of the hoops, and there are many to jump through, 
as Mr. Raskin mentioned, the courtesy is that due diligence has 
been done, and we, by acclamation, go along with the 
recommendations.
    You know, I have done that with a number of individuals who 
are Republican, who I may or may not have gotten along with, 
and many on that side have done it in terms of Democrats. If we 
break that tradition, we are creating a fire that is only going 
to escalate. So that, the next time around, I am objecting for 
the sake of objecting because I did not like the objection that 
came about today, it is tit for tat. And it concerns me, and it 
should concern all of us, that if we do not have basic 
operational standards that have served this body so long 
through so many Congresses and so many administrations, then we 
are headed for ruin in many respects because we will not get 
anything done, even the most simple things such as this.
    So, it is disturbing to me, and I hope that in some sort of 
way it will be disturbing to all of us, particularly in this 
case, as it affects Representative Letlow and the gentleman 
from Louisiana's effort to try to make sure that her late 
husband, our former colleague, is recognized. I would yield to 
the gentleman from Maryland if I have any time left.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Baltimore for those really trenchant remarks. I 
want to say about this situation that I can understand Mrs. 
Luna's situation a little bit better because what she is 
encountering, according to her telling--I know nothing else 
about it--but what she is encountering is a failure of courtesy 
or deference within the delegation. And so, she is escalating 
it to register, kind of, her displeasure here at the Committee 
level, and I am hoping we can work that out as quickly as 
possible.
    Mr. Perry, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
takes us into a completely bold new world, because now, 
although the entire state of Virginia, five Republicans and six 
Democrats, has unanimously endorsed the post office that our 
beloved colleague, Ms. Wexton, wants to designate after 
Secretary of State Albright, he has a substantive objection, 
basically saying he would not have nominated Madeleine Albright 
for his post office. Well, that is fine. He does not have to, 
but the moment that we start treating a post office naming like 
a Supreme Court nomination, where everybody is going to review 
each one on the merits, then we are really in the quicksand, as 
my colleague from Baltimore says here.
    I mean, somebody else might want to say, well, you do not 
like Madeleine Albright. I do not like Henry Kissinger when you 
want to name it after Henry Kissinger. For some people, Henry 
Kissinger might be like Otto von Bismarck or Thomas Jefferson, 
the greatest statesman there ever was. Someone else might think 
he is a war criminal. But up until now, we have not had to make 
that substantive judgment because we have had a series of 
procedural requirements and tests: can you get everybody in 
your state to sign off on it? And now you want us to enter into 
a substantive debate and examination of every postal naming in 
the country.
    And as Mr. Mfume rightly points out, the minute, you know, 
someone attacks someone's cat, someone is going to attack 
someone's dog, and we are off to the races. And the message to 
the country is this Congress, which has been mired in a lot of 
chaos and confusion, cannot even do postal namings anymore, and 
I hope that is not the message that my colleagues want to send. 
I will yield back.
    Mr. Mfume. I yield back to the Chair.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
    Mr. Higgins. And I thank the gentleman. I would just like 
to clarify, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I do believe, 
if I understand this process correctly, we will have the 
opportunity to vote yea or nay on the House Floor on individual 
postal namings. I, myself, have voted ``no,'' reflective of my 
own deep core principles if I believe a particular naming is 
outside the parameters of what should be accepted in our 
country. And I am generally, you know, certainly not in the 
majority in those votes, but I have the right to express that 
vote.
    Mr. Raskin. I totally accept that.
    Mr. Higgins. Would this en bloc be any different? Would not 
my colleagues, Mrs. Luna and Mr. Perry and then myself have a 
right to vote ``no?''
    Mr. Raskin. Absolutely. In other words, the point to 
register a symbolic or emotional protest vote, or if you could 
get everybody behind you, you could stop it on the Floor, is on 
the Floor. But I think as Members of the Oversight Committee, 
we cannot get into this business of blockading unanimous 
consent because none of us will get a post office named at that 
point.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The time has expired. I think we are 
going to get this resolved within the next 6 weeks. I am 
hopeful. I will do everything in my power. Mr. Burchett, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take 5 
minutes, but Staff Sergeant Ryan Knauss was a constituent of 
mine. His dad still lives there. The road I live on has 
actually been named after him at my urging to our state 
legislature. He was the very last American killed over there, 
and as needless as it was, he was a real hero. He was a young 
man. He was just a country boy like a lot of them guys that 
grew up in the Gibbs community, and he wanted to serve his 
country. And dadgummit, this is all this is about, and it is 
disgraceful that this hero gets caught up in all this because 
he is the real deal. He was the real deal. He was what we used 
to call heroes in this country, and we have kind of lost our 
way.
    And, you know, my mama lost a brother in the Second World 
War fighting the Nazis, and she never, ever got over that to 
the day she died. They would play the National Anthem, and she 
would tear up and just never got over it. And I cannot imagine 
her parents, the grief that they felt and the grief that this 
young man's family has felt, and how much it has impacted our 
community and just the needlessness of it.
    So, I would hope we could work this out on behalf of these 
families. I think it is a fitting tribute to a young man that 
gave his life. I mean, you just cannot say enough about these 
young people, Mr. Chairman, and he is one of them. He did not 
dribble a basketball, and he did not throw a football and 
everything we call heroes today, but dadgummit, in East 
Tennessee, people that wear our country's uniform, especially 
those that laid down their life, are true heroes. And I think 
we need to honor it, and we need to put our differences aside 
and get this worked out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify on 
process, make sure I understand it.
    Chairman Comer. Right.
    Mr. Biggs. If I understand right, you did not block it here 
in Committee, but it goes by suspension unless somebody 
actually requests a yea or nay on the Floor. Is that not 
correct? Am I wrong on that?
    Chairman Comer. I think that is right. Is that right? That 
is right.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, it is a suspension.
    Mr. Biggs. So, it is a suspension vote, and I guess you 
cannot make sure of that ahead of time, I mean, because 
apparently----
    Voice. A Member can call----
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, any Member can for a roll call, but they 
have got to be on the Floor when it is called for suspension.
    Chairman Comer. Right. That is right.
    Mr. Biggs. Is that right? OK. OK. That is what I wanted to 
just clarify. Thank you.
    Mr. Higgins. And, Mr. Chairman, pardon my lack of knowledge 
here regarding the parliamentary procedure and the----
    Mr. Biggs. I yield to Mr. Higgins.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Rules of this Committee, but is 
there no privileged motion that the Chairman can offer to the 
Committee that the Ranking Member would support to withdraw? 
Perhaps it would not address Mrs. Luna, who I deeply respect 
her position. It is a little bit different. But is there no way 
to withdraw from the en bloc a particular naming that a Member 
may have an objection to if that removal was agreed to by the 
Ranking Member and the Chairman? Is there no privileged motion 
procedure?
    Chairman Comer. There probably could be. In discussions 
with Luna and the frustration with the Florida delegation, I 
think, honestly, it would be best to let Mr. Raskin, since he 
has volunteered, and Moskowitz, and whomever, Soto from 
Florida, try to get with Wasserman Schultz and get their 
difference ironed out. The criticism of Perry was exactly what 
is happening with Mrs. Luna, right? I mean, it is the same 
thing. It is a lack of courtesy or whatever.
    Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir, I respect that, and I feel confident 
that that will be resolved with the help of the Members that 
have spoken, stated a willingness to help that get resolved. I 
was just wondering if there is some parliamentary procedural 
rule that we could follow when, if there is in the future, some 
particular objection to a singular bill----
    Chairman Comer. I think in the future, what we will do is 
if someone objects to a particular single bill, we will try and 
work that out.
    Mr. Higgins. Work that out.
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. And we will try to put all these same bills 
on the next markup in the next Committee, and hopefully we can 
get the Florida situation resolved. And if a Member objects to 
a certain bill, whether it be a Madeleine Albright bill or a 
Donald Trump bill or whatever, then we will pull that bill and 
vote on the rest. Is that----
    Mr. Raskin. But, Mr. Chairman, could I just follow up on a 
question with that----
    Chairman Comer. Go ahead.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Because I am very hopeful that we 
can work out the Luna situation. But I do not know how Mr. 
Perry feels about this because he could continue to block the 
whole package over one bill, and I do not know whether we could 
convince him that it is a dangerous road to go down. I hope we 
could, because----
    Chairman Comer. So, you are going to----
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. If he pulls a bill, then you all are going 
to start pulling bills, and----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I mean, the bill that he is talking 
about, I think, is Jennifer Wexton's bill. As you know, she is 
very ill. This means a lot to her. I do not know if it is the 
last bill she has put in. And we are talking about the first 
woman Secretary of State of the United States whose family fled 
Nazism and communism, and, you know, do we really want to see 
this Committee fall apart over that because that is not a very 
good look for us either. So, I hope that Mr. Perry would 
rethink it.
    Again, he does not have to vote for it, as Mr. Higgins 
pointed out, and he does not have to adopt her for a post 
office in his state, but the Members in Virginia have embraced 
it. And so, I would be in a tough position letting all those 
other bills go and saying we will sacrifice this one. It does 
not look good. It is not a good reflection on the Committee or 
the Congress if we cannot accomplish that, so I----
    Chairman Comer. And, you know, it appears, Mr. Raskin, this 
unfortunately started in Florida, and I would like to resolve 
it, believe me.
    Mr. Raskin. I tell you what. If we can resolve----
    Chairman Comer. The postal bill is out.
    Mr. Raskin. If we can resolve Florida, can you resolve 
Pennsylvania? I am not sure I have ever convinced Mr. Perry of 
anything, but perhaps you could do it.
    Chairman Comer. I guess we will have to negotiate on that 
over the next few weeks.
    Mr. Raskin. Because I think Florida and Pennsylvania will 
rise or fall together, and so will this Committee, essentially.
    Chairman Comer. Do you yield back?
    Mr. Raskin. I am happy to yield back.
    Chairman Comer. All right. So, hearing no more discussion, 
I ask unanimous consent to favorably report the package, but 
there is an objection. All right.
    Since there is an objection, then there is no further 
business before the Committee.
    Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2, I ask that Committee 
Members have the right to file with the Clerk of the committee 
supplemental, additional, Minority and dissenting views.
    Without objection.
    Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary 
technical and conforming changes to the bills ordered reported 
today, subject to the approval of the Minority.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    If there is no further business before the Committee, 
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]