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


118th Congress      }                           
                            COMMITTEE PRINT
 2d Session         }                           
_______________________________________________________________________


                             FULL COMMITTEE

                           BUSINESS MEETING:

                        MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS

                           AND POSTAL-NAMING

                                MEASURES


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

                                FOR THE

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

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                             APRIL 10, 2024
                               __________

                          Serial No. CP:118-10
                               __________

  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
                    
55-451 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 April 10, 2024...................................     1

                            BILLS CONSIDERED

                              ----------                              

  * MARKUP OF H.R. 7109, THE EQUAL REPRESENTATION ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................     1

  * H.R. 7868, THE FEHB PROTECTION ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................    17

  * H.R. 7524, THE GSA TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................    21

  * H.R. 7887, THE ALLOWING CONTRACTORS TO CHOOSE EMPLOYEES FOR 
  SELECT SKILLS (ACCESS) ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................    23

  * H.R. 7867, THE RENEWING EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT BY BUDGETING 
  ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................    28

  * H.R. 272, THE ASTRONAUT SAFE TEMPORARY RIDE OPTIONS (ASTRO) 
  ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................    31

  * H.R. 3019, THE FEDERAL PRISON OVERSIGHT ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................    33

  * H.R. 7869, THE U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICER 
  RETIREMENT TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT
Bill Discussed...................................................    37

  * Several Postal-Naming Measures
Measures Discussed...............................................    43

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

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

  * Statement regarding votes; submitted by Rep. Porter.

  * Statement for the Record, on H.R. 7109, by the Association 
  Groups; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Article, The Heritage Foundation, ``Apportionment and the 
  Census''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, Center for Immigration Studies, ``Foreign-Born Share 
  Was the Highest in History''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, The Heritage Foundation, ``Including Noncitizens in 
  Census Devalues Votes of Citizens''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Article, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 
  ``Regulatory Budgeting in the Federal Government; submitted by 
  Chairman Comer.

  * Statement for the Record, on H.R. 3019, by CPAC & Faith and 
  Freedom; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Statement for the Record, on H.R, 3019, by joint groups; 
  submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Statement for the Record, on H.R. 3019, by Right on Crime; 
  submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Statement for the Record, on H.R. 7867, by the Coalition for 
  Sensible Safeguards; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Statement for the Record. on H.R. 7109, by the Leadership 
  Conference; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

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

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, April 10, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability,

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Gosar, Foxx, 
Grothman, Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, 
LaTurner, Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, 
McClain, Boebert, Fry, Luna, Langworthy, Burlison, Waltz, 
Raskin, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, 
Ocasio-Cortez, Porter, Bush, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, 
Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, Moskowitz, Tlaib, and Pressley.
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A 
quorum is present.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(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 are 
ordered.
    The Committee will continue to use the electronic system 
for recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills 
before the Committee. Of course, should any technical issues 
arrive, which I do not anticipate, we will immediately 
transition to traditional roll call votes. Any procedural or 
motion-related votes during today's markup will be dispensed 
with by a traditional roll call vote.
    Our first item for consideration is H.R. 7109, the Equal 
Representation Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, a bill 
to require a citizenship question on the decennial census, to 
require reporting on certain census statistics, and to modify 
apportionment of representatives to be based on United States 
citizens instead of all persons.
    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 
offered to H.R. 7109, 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.
    H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, does two simple 
things. First, the bill requires the Census Bureau to include a 
citizenship question on the decennial census questionnaire. 
Second, the bill directs that this information be used to 
ensure a fair representation by requiring only citizens be 
included in the apportionment base. My amendment in the nature 
of a substitute simplifies the citizenship question that would 
be asked on the census questionnaire: ``Are you a citizen of 
the United States? Yes or no.'' That is it. By requiring this 
question, the U.S. Government will be able to collect accurate 
data on the makeup of our population.
    The Census Bureau currently estimates the non-citizen 
population using survey data from the Census-administered 
American Community Survey, but that data is not based on the 
entire population. It is only an estimate and suffers from 
large margins of error. In the past, opponents of the 
citizenship question have raised concerns that such a question 
will discourage participation in the census, the theory being 
that some individuals will be reluctant to respond to the 
census, especially if they do not have a lawful immigration 
status. My amendment in the nature of a substitute does not 
require respondents to indicate what immigration status they 
have or any other related demographic information. We just want 
to know, very simply, are you a citizen or are you a non-
citizen. It is an easy question. It is not confusing, and it 
does not reveal anything about an individual's specific 
immigration status.
    Although the census will count and enumerate all 
individuals residing in the United States, H.R. 7109 would then 
ensure that only citizens are included in the apportionment 
base by which representation in Congress is allocated. 
According to American Community Survey estimates, there are 
over 22 million non-citizens residing in the United States and 
the District of Columbia. These are foreign nationals who have 
not naturalized and cannot vote in Federal elections. Non-
citizens comprise nearly seven percent of the total population 
of the United States--seven percent--but non-citizens are not 
evenly distributed among the states, and some states end up 
with greater representation in Congress based on a higher 
concentration of non-citizens. This dilutes the one-person, 
one-vote principle for citizens in states with fewer non-
citizens. It is clear that Congress can and should ensure a 
fair apportionment based on equal representation of citizens.
    I want to thank Representative Edwards, a former Member of 
this Committee, for his leadership on this issue. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation. And I now recognize the 
Ranking Member for his opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, kindly, Mr. Chairman. The solar 
eclipse showed us this week the breathtaking marvels of our 
solar system, but this hearing brings us crashing back down to 
earth with definitive proof that when it comes to Congress, 
there is really nothing new under the sun. Ex-President Trump 
already tried to include a citizenship question on the 
decennial census in 2020, and the effort failed both 
administratively and legislatively, and for obvious reasons.
    Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that the 
apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives is based 
on account of ``the whole number of persons in each state,'' 
``persons'' being the all-encompassing category larger than 
that of voters or citizens, a point that was made clearly and 
emphatically by the unanimous Supreme Court in its 2016 
decision in Evenwel v. Abbott.
    Like this legislation itself, Evenwel involved a challenge 
to congressional apportionment based on a total count of the 
entire population instead of a total count of the voter 
population. But Justice Ginsburg held for the unanimous Court 
that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment ``retained total 
population as the congressional apportionment base.'' She cited 
the speech made by Senator Jacob Howard upon introduction of 
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868: ``The basis of 
representation is numbers.''
    The Committee adopted numbers as the most just and 
satisfactory basis, and this is the principle upon which the 
Constitution itself was originally framed, that the basis of 
representation should depend upon numbers. And such, I think, 
after all, is the safest and most secure principle upon which 
the government can rest--numbers, not voters; numbers, not 
property. This is the theory of the Constitution. Justice 
Ginsburg cited lots of decisive legislative authority like 
this, including the Floor statement of Representative James 
Blaine, who stated that ``No one will deny that population is 
the true basis of representation, for women, children, and 
other non-voting classes may have as vital an interest in the 
legislation of the country as those who actually deposit the 
ballot.''
    So, for all of you textualists out there, the plain reading 
of the text of the Constitution is clear. For all of the 
constitutional originalists out there, the original purposes 
have been carefully articulated and never rebutted. For all of 
you Members who like to follow precedent, well, every 
apportionment in the United States since 1990 has included 
every single person residing in the United States, not just 
those lucky enough to have been given the right to vote at 
different points. As the Evenwel Court noted, the Fourteenth 
Amendment contemplates that ``Representatives serve all 
residents, not just those eligible to vote.''
    Just yesterday, the Census Bureau released a report that 
estimated the number of foreign-born residents in United States 
is 46 million. Fifty-three percent of those residents are 
naturalized. That means this bill would leave more than 20 
million U.S. residents potentially uncounted and ignored, a 
population that has a higher labor force participation rate 
than the native-born population. These people are paying taxes. 
They are contributing to the economic well-being of the Nation.
    The constitutional meaning is indisputable, a point which 
settles this for those who want to follow the Constitution. We 
should recess and go get some real work done rather than waste 
time on another bill that will never pass the Senate or get 
signed by the President and is an affront to the great radical 
Republicans who wrote the Constitution. Their party, they wrote 
the Fourteenth Amendment. Their party was a pro-freedom, pro-
union, pro-immigrant, and anti-Know-Nothing party.
    The census is essential to democracy. Just as the framers 
endorsed Tom Paine's ``Common Sense,'' they also endorsed a 
common census. But this bill would undermine the accuracy of 
the census, which may not be accidental. In the 2010 census, 
the undercount of Hispanics was 1.4 percent. In 2020, that 
number grew to five percent. Many observers credit that 
increase just to the Trump Administration's effort to add a 
citizenship question to the census and all of the intense 
publicity and rumors surrounding that effort.
    The addition of a question about citizenship will deter 
many immigrants, not only undocumented, but persons with green 
cards and other forms of lawful status, from completing the 
census. Many non-citizen immigrants who are seeking asylum or 
are refugees will avoid responding because of uncertainty over 
their status and fear of arbitrary law enforcement action. 
Extensive research shows that many residents wrongly believe 
the Census Bureau shares personal responses with other Federal 
agencies. To be clear, it does not. The Federal law prohibits 
it, but that pervasive worry has prevented some individuals 
from answering questions about immigration status or responding 
at all.
    Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation, which dishonors 
the Constitution and the values of our Nation, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. I thank the Chair. And let me respond to the 
Ranking Member's very eloquent writ, carefully read and 
prepared to be a part of the historical record as we debate 
this important bill. Let me say that the preservation of our 
representative republic is certainly not a waste of time. So 
please, allow me to respond unscripted from the heart of 
America to the very well and carefully scripted agenda speak of 
my colleagues and the Democrat Minority.
    The census, as determined by this body, has efforted to 
avoid accurate definition of the population densities of 
illegal men and women, illegal persons that are present in 
United States. Yes, the census has to count every person. The 
problem is the level of illegal persons that now live within 
the continental borders of the United States has reached such a 
point that it thwarts the intended service of our 
representative republic in the House of Representatives, in the 
People's House.
    Prior to the Biden Administration, it was well considered 
and well estimated that there were about 30 million illegals 
living within the United States. It took 240 years to get 
there. By the time President Biden leaves office, an 
additional, say, 15 million will have entered our country. 
Talking about 45 million people--America, pay attention to 
this--45 million illegals, that is 60 congressional seats. And 
where do you think those illegals are being drawn to live? In 
sanctuary states and sanctuary cities, densities of populations 
which have advertised and welcomed and brought these illegal 
citizens there.
    Why? Why do you think this has been one of the core tenets 
of agenda of the Democrat Party? It is to thwart the very 
essence of our representative republic by stacking the deck 
during the census, whereby apportionment for congressional 
representation will be permanently shifted to sanctuary states 
and cities. Forty-five million illegals. That is 60 seats, 
America. When have you ever seen a 60-seat majority in this 
body? This is the game plan, man. It is a decades-long agenda 
to permanently transform this body into an extension of the 
Democrat Party's policies and liberal agenda.
    We must respond to this by using our congressional 
authority and mandating by law that, yes, we shall count every 
person during our census endeavors every 10 years. We shall 
fulfill our constitutional obligations as envisioned by the 
founders to count and document every person that lives within 
the United States of America, but we shall do so with accuracy 
and transparency and identify which of those persons living in 
our country are illegal. And we will adjust our apportionment 
laws to reflect the true intention of what apportionment was 
envisioned to be when our founders wrote the constitution. That 
would be that apportionment was reflective of American citizens 
living within the United States. Our representative republic is 
at risk, and I fully support this bill. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. The Chair recognizes Mr. Casar 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chairman. I am not a constitutional 
law professor like the Ranking Member is, but just reading the 
Fourteenth Amendment text, it says that, ``Representatives 
shall be apportioned amongst the states according to their 
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state.'' 
That is what the Constitution says. So, Ranking Member, I would 
be interested in your continued thoughts. We could talk about 
precedent, we could talk about whether you are originalist, a 
textualist, but just reading the Fourteenth Amendment, it says 
the opposite of what this bill seems to say. It clearly says 
that apportionment shall be on the whole number of persons in 
the state. And my sense, from hearing you, is that in order 
for, for example, Confederate states that were rejoining the 
Union to not ignore women or those that were recently 
emancipated or children or immigrants, that the radical 
Republicans put in place this amendment to say, no, you have to 
count everyone. You have to count everyone for representation. 
Everyone deserves representation.
    Mr. Raskin. You have got that right. And, in fact, when the 
Constitution was first written, it was the Southern states 
themselves who were insisting upon a total count of everybody, 
regardless of whether or not they were a citizen or a voter. 
And very specifically, with respect to the population of 
enslaved people because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, they 
wanted to make sure that all of those people would count. The 
Three-Fifths Compromise said that basically 60 percent of the 
slave population would be counted for the purposes of inflating 
the population bases in the Southern states. So, after the 
first census and reapportionment took place in 1800, there were 
a dozen new Members who could be attributed in the South to the 
enslaved population.
    Now, the northerners were saying, well, you cannot count 
them or we should not count them if they are not going to be 
given the right to vote and to run for office, but for these 
purposes, and these purposes only. The Southern states were 
saying, no, they should count, so we can, you know, arrive at 
this Three-Fifths Compromise, which of course was an infamous 
concession to slave power and one of the things that led to the 
Civil War.
    Mr. Casar. But at the end of the day, the Constitution 
clearly states the opposite of what this bill states. The 
Constitution already lays out how apportionment works and says 
you count the whole number of persons in each state.
    Mr. Raskin. The Supreme Court was unanimous on that point.
    Mr. Casar. And I do not know if and why they would have to 
rule on it. I mean, it just says that plainly there. Could we 
see any justification, any reason, any way that the Congress 
could legislate something that is directly opposite of what is 
in the Constitution?
    Mr. Raskin. Well, as I understand their bill, it might not 
directly contradict what the Supreme Court said because they 
are asking for a question, ``Are you a citizen?'' My good 
friend from Louisiana makes an eloquent pitch for the idea that 
we should want to know who is an illegal, but you know what? 
There is nothing even in their bill that would allow us to 
determine who is an illegal because it is just asking the 
question, ``Are you a citizen?'' It is not asking, you know, 
what your status is.
    Mr. Casar. Well, this might be a question then for the 
authors or its proponents. My understanding is the bill not 
only adds the citizenship question to the census, but actually 
does aim to change apportionment.
    Mr. Raskin. It does. Yes, and that part does violate 
directly the Constitution itself and everything the Supreme 
Court has said about it, you know, to the extent that it would 
change apportionment in addition to adding this question. It 
really violates the Constitution. And I would hope, at least 
that part of it, my friends would withdraw because the Supreme 
Court has been very clear, and I have always thought that both 
sides of the aisle want to try to adhere to what the 
Constitution clearly says.
    Mr. Casar. I am befuddled by this part because I do not 
even know how much the Supreme Court would even have to weigh 
in when it seems to be a sentence that a fourth grader could 
read in the Constitution.
    Mr. Raskin. You know, the reason why the founders of the 
Constitution were so adamant about it is that when the country 
started, of course, the franchise was left up to the states, 
but the vast majority of people could not vote. Not just 
enslaved people, but women could not vote, people without 
property could not vote, most people could not vote. And still, 
they felt that what counted--bless you, Mr. Chairman--I mean, 
what counted was who would be represented, so there would be 
equal numbers of people represented, even if not all of them 
could vote.
    Mr. Casar. Right. In each congressional district, you have 
to take care of a similar number of people. And I think what 
seems to be at the core of this, which Mr. Higgins laid out, 
was the idea that Democrats, for some reason, are trying to 
``import voters or import people'' to increase numbers, when 
the much more simple explanation is that we are all trying to 
manage the complexity of foreign policy, local policy, and 
immigration, and we are all trying to work on that. And I would 
hope that we actually, in good faith, try to talk about the 
fact that how do we deal with the fact that people are being 
displaced in massive numbers in the Western Hemisphere. How do 
we make sure that folks can migrate legally?
    Those are the real questions we should be engaging in 
rather than putting up these grossly inflated numbers that I 
found absolutely no evidence behind that number of folks being 
present in the United States. And as those numbers continue to 
grow, it is really on Congress to deal with reducing those 
numbers by giving folks actually a pathway to citizenship and 
legal residency as President Reagan once did. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona for 5 minutes, and then we 
will go to Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. So, just a 
brief discussion on Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 
which was so discussed just a moment ago by my friends across 
the aisle. ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the 
several states according to their respective numbers, counting 
the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians 
not taxed.'' That is the provision, and I was told just a 
minute ago that every fourth grader could understand that.
    So, my question would be, and it is just rhetorical here, 
so is every tourist that happens to be in your state, is every 
college student that happens to be in your state, do they go to 
the census so they could be apportioned? Does every business 
traveler who happens to pass through your state during that 
time of the decennial census, do they get counted? Because, I 
mean, it says the respective number, counting the whole number. 
So, how many times, if you are a business traveler and you are 
traveling during the decennial census taking time, like I do, 
like most of you do, how many states are you going to get 
counted in because you are in a plethora of states? So, the 
point is, you need to actually take a look at Section 5 of the 
Fourteenth Amendment as well, which talks about Congress' duty 
to enforce by appropriate legislation. And I would suggest that 
this bill is appropriate legislation in trying to help us get a 
better grasp on the census.
    And to that end, Mr. Chairman, I have three articles I 
would like to submit for the record: ``Apportionment and the 
Census: Fundamental Fairness to U.S. Citizens and Democratic 
Process;'' another one called, ``Including Non-Citizens in 
Census;'' and another one called, ``The Foreign-Born Share 
Highest in History.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. So, when we consider this--also we 
heard this discussion, oh no, nobody ever would suggest that 
you are OK with the open border because you are trying to 
recruit, you know, new voters. I cannot help but remember that 
during the 2010 decennial census period, I had a good friend--I 
use that loosely like we always do--my Latino friend, Democrat. 
I was in Senate leadership on my side, he was in Senate 
leadership on the other side, and we were talking about the 
coming election. He said, Andy, enjoy it while you can because 
within 4 years, demographically, we will take over because of 
the Latino population coming from south of the border. We will 
take over. Everything is going to start getting reapportioned 
as well. Now, maybe that was a point of candor. That is the 
reason that I am not revealing his name, although I wrote his 
name down here, but that statement was made, and I never forgot 
that statement. When I hear people say, oh no, no, nobody makes 
that calculation, sure they do. Sure they do. At least in 
Arizona, they did.
    So, what I would tell you is that I think this bill is so 
important, and if you live in a state like mine that sits on 
the border, and we have a real transitory populace as well, so 
that would be the interesting thing, too. The city of Yuma, for 
instance, it doubles in size for about 5 months out of the 
year. You know why? Very pleasant weather in the winter versus 
very harsh weather in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota because 
that is where most of those people are coming down from. In my 
community, we pick up at least 100,000 plus, maybe 200,000 
sometimes, of winter visitors coming down. So, when you say, 
well, we have to count the whole number? Yes, you have to count 
the whole number, but are you suggesting that they should be 
included in apportionment? Is that what you are suggesting 
because that is what it seems like you are suggesting.
    But the reality is, it is much more complicated than just 
counting somebody and saying, yes, you know, they are going to 
be counted and we are going to include them in the 
apportionment in Arizona. I actually have friends that do 
nothing but travel around. I would not do it. I do not dig 
that, but that is what they like doing. Multiple states. Are 
you going to count them? No. So, what I would suggest to you 
is, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment also allows us to 
regulate, and that is what this bill is getting at. It is a 
meaningful, thoughtful way to regulate the counting of persons 
in your respective states, which is essential because the very 
purpose of the census was reapportionment every 10 years. With 
that, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Palmer for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always appreciate 
intelligent debate and think that this is an opportunity to 
have intelligent debate. First of all, the founders never 
anticipated admitting mass numbers of people in the United 
States illegally. As a matter of fact, it is a crime to enter 
the country illegally under Section 1325 in Chapter 8 of the 
U.S. Code. It is a misdemeanor to enter the country illegally. 
But the interesting part is that Section 1326, reentry after 
having been picked up and sent back, is a second-degree felony 
with imprisonment up to 2 to 20 years. And I want to go back to 
the Fourteenth Amendment and the fact that the compromise that 
was reached with our founders included not counting untaxed 
Indians as part of the census, but that was before the 
Fourteenth Amendment.
    But in the Fourteenth Amendment, it says that anyone 
participating in a rebellion, which was clearly directed at 
those who fought for the South, or other crime, ``The basis of 
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion to 
which the number of such male citizens shall have been 
involved, shall bear to the number.'' So, my question is, 
should we count people who have committed a second-degree 
felony by reentering the country illegally for purposes of 
representation because, clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment 
prohibits that. They committed a crime.
    And, again, I want to emphasize that our founders never 
anticipated bringing in mass numbers of illegals to improve a 
state's representation in Congress. That would never have been 
considered a legal proposition by our founders. So, there are a 
number of issues here that I think are seriously not being 
considered. In the Compromise of 1787, the reason that we have 
two senators was because the smaller states were at a 
disadvantage in representation in government to the larger 
states. So, that is how we wound up with two senators for each 
state, to offset that. So, when you are admitting millions of 
people into the country illegally, some of whom who have 
committed and many of them who have committed second-degree 
felonies, and allowing states to declare themselves sanctuary 
states in violation of Federal law, by the way, that gives them 
a distinct advantage in representational opportunities.
    So, I support this bill. I hate that it has come down to 
this, but I think that we are in a situation, like I said, 
unanticipated by our founders that we, as Members of Congress, 
for the long-term benefit of the Nation, need to address 
intelligently. And I think that recognizing the fact that we 
cannot allow people to continue to enter the country illegally 
is, long term, not the way we want to handle immigration. It is 
certainly not the way we want to consider how many Members of 
Congress each state can get by counting people who, as I said, 
millions of whom have committed second-degree felonies. I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is, in my 
opinion, a horrific bill and effort. We know that a complete 
and accurate count of the census is incredibly important for 
our function of government and to support every single person 
in this country. We are hearing all sorts of, in my opinion, 
just backward arguments, arguments that are nearing talking 
about the Great Replacement Theory, and really, I think, 
undermining the value that immigrants and every person make in 
this country.
    I just want to just make an important note. I served as 
mayor of my community for 8 years before coming to Congress, 
and having an accurate count of every single person that is in 
your community is critical to the services you provide all of 
those individuals. And we know that changing the census in this 
way would lead to massive undercounts in states like 
California, but in every state across the country. Census 
counts impact the healthcare and how you are able to provide 
it, it impacts funding for public schools, and just recently, 
it impacted how much support we got during the pandemic.
    A census count basically impacts Federal dollars and how 
many dollars we get to take on Federal emergencies, how we 
respond to people that need healthcare during a pandemic. And 
so much of our public services are dependent on an accurate 
count from how kids learn, from how seniors access healthcare, 
from how many emergency trucks come in and respond to a crisis, 
to how many shots and vaccines a community will get during a 
pandemic is all dependent on an accurate count from the census.
    And so, this effort is nothing but a way to separate out 
people that need services, and really will lead to not counting 
every single person in this country, which we know is also 
unconstitutional. And so, I think it is really shameful that we 
have this effort. I think this moves our country backward. It 
certainly, in my opinion, is a direct attack, especially on 
undocumented people in this country. And I think this is all 
because, unfortunately, of the rhetoric that Donald Trump has 
really grown and infected across this country.
    I also want to note just a couple of points. The Brookings 
Institute found that undercounting Latinos by just three 
percent could result in almost a billion dollar loss for 
Medicaid. This is real dollars for people that need our support 
across the country. A two-percent undercount of Latinos would 
result in $20.5 million for SNAP and with more than 3,000 fewer 
households receiving SNAP benefits, which we know are 
incredibly important for people across this community. So, it 
is important to set the record straight. All people in this 
country should be counted, and this idea that somehow this is 
not going to impact the count is completely ridiculous. We also 
know that mixed families in this country would also have 
concerns about the way they are counted in the census, which 
would lead to an additional undercount of all people in this 
country.
    And so, I strongly oppose this effort, as do groups across 
this country, and certainly, as would mayors and Governors in 
states across America that depend on an accurate count of all 
people to receive the services that they need for their 
community. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, I will yield.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for your strong statement. A 
congressional hearing, at the very least, should not be the 
source of confusion and misinformation. So, I want to clarify a 
few things based on questions or doubts that were raised by 
some of my colleagues.
    First of all, college students who live in student housing 
are counted as being residents there rather than at their 
domicile. So, yes, if a student comes from Alabama but goes to 
Arizona State University----
    Mr. Biggs. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. You are counted at college if that 
is where they are domiciled.
    Mr. Biggs. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. Well, sure.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. That is if they are living on campus.
    Mr. Raskin. Correct.
    Mr. Biggs. And what about those who temporarily live off 
campus, such as at the University of Arizona, where more than 
half the students live off campus, or at Northern Arizona 
University, where more than half the students are not----
    Mr. Raskin. The rules of the census are that they are 
counted where they live and sleep most of the year. So, if they 
are living there 9 months, they would be counted at the private 
apartment they are renting.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Jamie, can I----
    Mr. Raskin. That is the rule. So, yes.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. May I ask you a question?
    Mr. Raskin. Sure.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So is your point, Ranking Member 
Raskin, that a person can only be counted once, namely in the 
place of their domicile?
    Mr. Raskin. Correct, and their answers to the various 
questions were raised. Someone who is a foreign business 
traveler is not counted as part of our census. Someone who is 
in prison is counted at the prison that they are in, which 
actually there is a study that showed that this inflates and 
increases----
    Mr. Biggs. Would the gentleman yield for just one more 
second?
    Mr. Raskin. Sure.
    Mr. Biggs. That kind of gets around the point I was making, 
which is that the gentleman was quoting the Fourteenth 
Amendment talks about every person is counted. And you are 
basically saying, now there are rules that prevent some people 
from being counted and that provide for others to be counted. 
That is what this bill is doing. I yield back.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Garcia. That makes, I mean, no offense, that makes no 
sense. I mean, you could count one time. So, you are not 
getting double counted to be----
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes Mr. Donalds from Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Chairman. This is actually a pretty 
interesting debate. First of all, this is a good bill. We 
should support this measure for a number of reasons. No. 1, I 
am glad that the Members are bringing up the Fourteenth 
Amendment. This is actually quite critical because at the 
writing of the Fourteenth Amendment, even though its thought 
has been expanded to encapsulate many things in American 
society, the original premise of the Fourteenth Amendment was 
for black slaves who were no longer slaves and now are dual 
citizens of the United States. So, then, if you are going to 
now go toward the act of apportionment, yes, they have to be 
counted because now they are citizens of the United States 
because slavery was at an end. That is the purpose of the 
Fourteenth.
    The issue we are facing in America today is not that you 
have people who have come to the United States, either, A) 
illegally or, B) through what I would call abuses of Federal 
law by President Biden, coming into the United States in 
massive amounts. If you count them for the apportionment base, 
they are not citizens of the United States. They do not have 
the legal authority to vote in our elections in the United 
States. Yet, we are going to count them for the purposes of 
setting congressional districts in the United States? That 
makes no sense. The bill is clear. People are still counted if 
they are not citizens, but they are not used in the calculation 
for setting apportionment, and that is a key distinction.
    To my colleague on the other side who mentioned that 
inaccurate counts lead to things--they impact schools, they 
impact hospitals, they impact benefits in local communities and 
states all through the country--that is correct. Which is why 
we should not go down the pathway of importing millions of 
people into our country, either ignoring Federal law, flouting 
Federal law. We should not do that because it does impact the 
communities in our country in negative ways. There are young 
kids in the United States who are not getting the education 
they deserve because now you have other children in these 
classrooms, who have less education or no education, and do not 
even speak English, or in a lot of respects, even Spanish. They 
speak other languages. And so now, resources are having to be 
moved around from those kids who are United States citizens. 
These are major implications.
    Mr. Garcia. Sir, would you yield for a question?
    Mr. Donalds. Hold on. I got a couple of points to make, and 
I will yield to a question. You have Denver, Colorado. Five 
percent of Denver's population is now made up of illegal 
immigrants. They are overwhelming the hospital system in 
Denver, Colorado.
    So, yes, when you have these actions from a chief executive 
who is not faithfully executing immigration and border security 
law--he is not. When that happens, there has to be a response 
from Congress, which is where Section 5 of the Fourteenth 
Amendment does come into play. This is a good piece of 
legislation because what we cannot have now is the precedent 
where you just have massive flows of people being brought to us 
by the drug cartels and by the coyotes--let us be honest about 
what is happening--and then we say we are now going to use that 
to be the basis for accounting and allowing for apportionment 
of congressional districts when the same people cannot vote. 
They cannot. So, this is a good bill. We should support this 
bill.
    And what we should not do is, frankly, gaslight the 
American people into thinking that we are now somehow changing 
apportionment because even the framers of the Constitution or 
the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment would have never 
allowed for non-citizens to this massive amount to be counted 
for the purposes of setting congressional districts. And I 
would say the Ranking Member spoke to that when he did talk 
about the history of the Three-Fifths Compromise at the onset 
of the United States Constitution. I will yield to a question.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Look, I think we can have a debate 
about immigration and what proposals are, and I agree, nobody 
wants just endless flows of folks that we cannot actually 
manage and control. Nobody is arguing for that. But we have to 
understand that, in this country, the counting of every single 
person impacts every single type of government service that is 
provided through the states and through cities. So, what you 
are really arguing about is that young kids in classrooms or 
seniors that are in hospital beds or people that are trying to 
recover from massive pandemics and emergencies would not get 
support because they would not be counted through the one 
system that our government uses to provide public services to 
all people in this country.
    Mr. Donalds. So, Mr. Garcia----
    Mr. Garcia. So, regardless of how a child may have----
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Garcia, I got to reclaim my time because I 
got 15 seconds to respond. The bill allows for the count. You 
are just not counted in the base for apportionment.
    Mr. Garcia. Except that----
    Mr. Donalds. Hold on. And that is a clear delineation from 
the argument that you are making. We cannot make people fill 
out the census. We do not have the police power to do so.
    Mr. Garcia. And this would make less people feel that the 
census----
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Garcia, I yielded to you, but----
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. You are right, you are right.
    Mr. Donalds. We do not have police powers to make people 
fill out the census. We have American citizens who do not fill 
out the census. We have to do the right thing when it comes to 
apportioning congressional districts because that does impact 
the representation of the American people, the voting 
population, the citizens of the United States. And frankly, 
people who are in our country illegally or do not have 
citizenship status do not also have the ability to impact the 
political nature of the United States. That flies in the face 
of the very basis of a representative republic and a 
representative democracy. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes Mr. Krishnamoorthi from Illinois for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, I just have a question of Ranking 
Member Raskin. So, does this bill basically say that 
apportionment would not happen even based on the number of non-
citizens who might be here legally, such as green card holders 
or H1-B visa holders or others who contribute mightily to our 
country?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, it does.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, my problem with this is, we are 
basically using this as a tool to prevent representation given 
to anyone, even if they are here legally, even if they are on 
the path to citizenship, even if they are contributing to our 
country, and even if they are Americans.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. I mean, our colleagues, I am afraid to 
say, are evincing no familiarity with any of the relevant 
materials in this field. The Supreme Court has been very clear 
about this, and the founders were very clear. There are lots of 
people who are not voters, who get counted in the census. Start 
with children. Do we think children should not be counted in 
the census because they are not voters? That makes no sense. 
One of our colleagues said that the founders never anticipated 
that you would have huge numbers of people who could not vote 
or being counted. Of course, they did. The vast majority of 
Americans could not vote when the country started. In slave----
    Mr. Higgins. That is not what my colleague said.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, then I stand corrected. What did he say?
    Mr. Higgins. He said the founders never anticipated this 
volume of illegals.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, I will take on----
    Mr. Higgins. He did not say--do not twist my colleague's 
words.
    Mr. Raskin. Fair enough, that you are very valiant to rise 
to his defense. I will answer that misnomer on his part then. 
If what he said, they never anticipated that number of illegal 
people, there was no immigration law when the Constitution was 
adopted at all. In fact, the only illegals in the country, at 
least according to the native population, were the people 
writing the Constitution.
    Mr. Higgins. There was no Federal law at all.
    Mr. Raskin. Exactly.
    Mr. Higgins. And the Ranking Member knows this. He is being 
cute.
    Mr. Raskin. No, no.
    Mr. Higgins. There was no Federal law when the Constitution 
was passed.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Higgins, can I reclaim my time? I 
am sorry.
    Mr. Higgins. Yes.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The baton got passed a few times here. 
I want to reclaim my time. So, I cannot wait to introduce my 
bill with Congresswoman Mace. But I just want to close with one 
thing, which is, we have to remember that there are people here 
in our districts who may not be able to vote, but who matter.
    Mr. Raskin. Well----
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. They do not get counted, but they 
count.
    Mr. Raskin. They count not only to us, but they certainly 
count in the eyes of the founders. And look, every period of 
American history, there have been different periods of 
xenophobia and anti-immigrant fervor toward Germans, toward 
Irish, toward Mexicans, you name it, OK? So, there is nothing 
unusual about what we are going through where people want to 
whip up hysteria about the foreign born. And, in fact, you can 
find lots of periods in American history where there was a 
greater percentage of foreign-born people in the country than 
there are today. And it also stimulated the same kinds of 
political movements that some of our colleagues identify with--
--
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I am one of those people. I was born 
abroad. I am one of the few naturalized citizens in Congress. 
And so this is a personal issue to me when you say, or not you, 
but others say that my family would not have counted for 
purposes of political representation, even though we are fully 
part of the fabric of this country.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. And I would add to that only that some of 
my colleagues would probably be stunned to find that the 
founder of their party, Abraham Lincoln, and lots of 
Republicans in the 19th century, believed in giving non-
citizens the right to vote as a way to train them for complete 
citizenship. In fact, Lincoln was roundly denounced for 
defending non-citizen voting by Democrats in the 19th century. 
But the idea was basically give non-citizens the right to vote 
in local elections as a training ground for them to become 
citizens of the United States. So, they are just demonstrating 
their unfamiliarity with the actual history of their own party 
and the history of our country.
    This is a Nation that was founded by people who are open to 
immigration. And Tom Paine said that America would become an 
asylum to humanity, not an insane asylum, but a place of refuge 
for people fleeing from political and religious and economic 
oppression, seeking greater opportunity. And that is what 
America is.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, what do you think is really going 
on with this bill?
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I know that they have not read the 
relevant Supreme Court authorities. But basically, what they 
want to say is that non-citizens, I do not know where they are 
on children and other people who cannot vote, but they want to 
say that non-citizens, including lawful non-citizens, permanent 
residents, green card holders, should not be counted, which 
creates, as our colleague was saying, tremendous problems for 
understanding where the population is and how to serve 
programmatically the population.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Sessions from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Interesting 
dialog here. The bottom line is, is that we are trying to get 
to the point where we understand legality and who is going to 
be a citizen.
    I would hope that the gentleman from California would not 
think that we were against his family voting if they were 
citizens, to be counted if they were citizens. But I would be 
less than candor if I did not say I believe that what is 
happening today comes a lot from taking advantage of this, 
politically, to bring 10 or 20 million people into this country 
to move them to areas that American citizens have moved away 
from because of their onerous way in which they legislate and 
tax and diminish those boundaries in political divisions, such 
as New York and other places, and to crowd 20 million people 
into these areas, just for the purpose of politics as opposed 
to the rule of law is, I think, really what this point is 
about. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the remaining time I 
have to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds.
    Mr. Donalds. I want to thank my colleague from Texas. I 
think that this debate is moving into an area typically where 
congressional debate goes into. Let us be very clear about what 
the bill does for the fifth time. The count of people in the 
country would still occur, whether you are on a green card 
status or whatever the status are, or even if you have no 
status. But for the purposes of apportioning congressional 
districts, non-citizens would not apply to forming 
congressional districts. Not the count, not getting the numbers 
in various jurisdictions that deal with grant programs, funding 
programs, et cetera, that come from the Federal Government or 
to help states plan accordingly for state budgets, or 
localities planning for local budgets. That would not change.
    In the United States, we have no ability to force people to 
fill out the census. Like I said earlier, we do not have that 
ability. People fill it out because they choose to. Now, of 
course, we do ads during the Super Bowl and sporting events 
every single 10 years because we want people to fill out the 
census, but there are citizens who do not fill it out. It is 
unwise to count people for the purposes of setting 
representative districts in the House of Representatives, who 
do not have the capability to vote because they are not 
citizens of the country. That does not mean you do not count 
them for all the various things.
    To a secondary point, it is actually the Republican Party 
that has always wanted to have legal immigration. What we do 
not want--and I find it interesting I have to make this comment 
constantly, but I will, and that is fine--what we do not want 
is what the President of the United States has foisted on the 
American people during his presidency, right now, Joe Biden. 
This is what we do not want because it is damaging, frankly, 
inner city communities more than any other portion of the 
country. And based upon the current makeup of Congress, most 
inner cities are not represented by Republicans. They are 
represented by Democrats. And that is where the vast majority 
of the issue set around funding not being able to now meet the 
need because of massive illegal immigration by ignorance of the 
law of the President of the United States.
    Last thing I will say, with respect to what President 
Lincoln might have wanted, with respect to allowing non-
citizens to vote in local elections, it is OK to disagree with 
a former Republican President. I disagree with that, with 
President Lincoln. I do not think that is wise. I think that 
the only people who should be able to make political decisions 
within the framework of a representative government are the 
citizens of that government of that Nation.
    Mr. Casar. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Donalds. I do not vote in Mexico if I was going to be 
in Mexico. I do not vote in Spain if I was going to be in 
Spain. And they would not want me to vote there because I am 
not a citizen of those countries. That is not xenophobia. That 
is common sense.
    Mr. Casar. May I ask a question with the remaining time?
    Mr. Donalds. No, I yielded before. I am not yielding now, 
but thank you. What has happened to the debate around 
immigration, border security, around now apportionment and the 
census is that, if you have a legitimate point about how the 
business of the United States should run that is different from 
the current Democratic party's vote, you are now xenophobic and 
do not care about immigrants. That is a lie.
    Let me also say, I would add that my current colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, they have forgotten what their 
Party actually used to stand for when it came to illegal 
immigration and immigration writ large because they actually 
did believe in secure borders and only a legal process and not 
massive amounts of illegal immigration, and that has changed 
fundamentally from where the Democratic party was even 2 
decades ago.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Donalds. Well, my time is up. I cannot yield anymore. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Mace from 
South Carolina for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really cannot believe 
this is the debate that we are having today, that all simply 
that we want to do is, when we are doing the census, find out 
if we are polling citizens or non-citizens. We even watered it 
down not to offend the left and say, ``are you illegal?'' That 
is not what we are asking here. And when our districts are 
drawn at the Federal level for congressional districts, you all 
know that it is based on population. You all know, handily, 
that you get an advantage when you are including illegal 
aliens, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens in the population 
census.
    We also know that the left wants illegals to vote in our 
elections. We have seen legislation drafted as such at the 
Federal and state level. We have seen court rulings that would 
allow illegals to vote in our elections. That is what this is 
about, and you guys just want to sit here and, you know, not 
put our citizens first. I mean, the fact that this is the 
debate we are having today and you guys are going to vote 
against this bill overwhelmingly is just so shocking to me.
    I think when we are doing the census, we should absolutely 
know and count citizens versus non-citizens. We should only be 
drawing district maps based on who are citizens in our country. 
That is the fairest way to move forward, and I think it should 
be truly nonpartisan. With that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to 
yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to be heard?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    [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 is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R.----
    Mr. Raskin. I would like to ask for a recorded vote, if I 
could, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Yes. OK. That was the ANS. We will do the 
bill now.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 7109, 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 bill is favorably reported, as amended.
    Mr. Raskin. I would like to request a recorded vote, 
please.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman from Maryland requests 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. 7868, the FEHB 
Protection Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7868, the FEHB Protection Act, a bill to 
require the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to 
take certain actions with respect to the health insurance 
program carried out under Chapter 89 of Title 5, 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. 7868, 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 statement on the 
bill and the amendment.
    The Federal Employee Health Benefits program provides 
quality health insurance coverage for nearly 8 million Federal 
employees, retirees, and their family members. With nearly $60 
billion in combined annual premiums paid by the government and 
enrollees, this Committee has a vested interest in ensuring the 
program is free of waste, fraud, and abuse.
    In 2022, the GAO released a report that found ineligible 
family members enrolled in Federal health plans. According to 
the Office of Personnel Management's Inspector General, the 
enrollment of ineligible family members may cost as much as $3 
billion dollars in improper or fraudulent payments annually. 
This bill incorporates solutions from GAO's report to better 
prevent, identify, and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse resulting 
from enrolling ineligible family members in the Federal health 
plan.
    First, this bill requires employing offices to verify the 
eligibility of family members receiving coverage to better 
ensure those who are added to the rolls are legally eligible. 
Second, the bill requires OPM to audit the documentation and 
ranks of the enrollees to identify those who may have slipped 
through the cracks. Further, the bill requires disenrollment or 
removal of ineligible individuals from coverage. And finally, 
the bill requires OPM to incorporate a review of ineligible 
family members in their fraud risk assessment of the plan to 
better inform the scope of the problem and identify additional 
solutions.
    I want to thank the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Waltz, for his 
leadership on this issue, and I now yield the remainder of my 
time to Mr. Waltz from Florida.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this markup today and allowing me to speak in support 
of my bill.
    As you mentioned, the Office of Personnel Management 
administers the largest employer-sponsored healthcare program 
in the country known as the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
program, the FEHB. Among others, FEHB Program provides health 
insurance benefits to Federal employees, retired Federal 
employees, and their family members. In Fiscal Year 2021, the 
FEHB program provided benefits to over 8.2 million individuals 
at the cost of approximately $59 billion. And given the 
magnitude of the program cost to the American taxpayer 
annually, one would expect--I think you would expect, Mr. 
Chairman, I certainly would--that OPM would conduct regular 
oversight to minimize fraud within this program. However, and 
here is the headline, Mr. Chairman, since its implementation in 
1960, OPM has never, I repeat, never, conducted a comprehensive 
audit of the FEHB Program.
    Further, only in 2021 did OPM begin even requiring Federal 
employing offices across the whole Federal Government to review 
the supporting documentation during new hire enrollment, things 
like qualifying life events to verify family member 
eligibility. Unfortunately, OPM is still unable to ensure 
employing offices are executing basic verification 
requirements, and it is unacceptable.
    The American people deserve to know that their tax dollars 
that they earned are being spent appropriately, free from fraud 
or waste. And in its current form, this program is susceptible 
to fraud and abuse, as demonstrated by the numerous cases of 
individuals enrolled in and receiving coverage through the 
program, even though being ineligible for that coverage. This 
is why I have introduced the FEHB Protection Act to combat 
fraud and abuse within the program. It implements, Mr. 
Chairman, a couple of common-sense changes.
    One, it requires the Federal agencies to verify that when 
an employee adds a family member to their health plan, the 
family member is legally eligible to receive those benefits. 
These are common-sense changes, Mr. Chairman. I do not think we 
should have to legislate that OPM should do it, but apparently 
we need to. Second, it would require OPM to review the risk of 
ineligible individuals receiving benefits when conducting risk 
assessments. Third, it requires a comprehensive audit and 
review of verification documents. And finally, it will require 
OPM to disenroll individuals currently enrolled in the program 
if they are determined to be ineligible.
    Comprehensive auditing and enrollment verification for 
benefit programs is not new. In fact, at least 25 states have 
conducted audits of their state-run benefit programs. In my 
home state of Florida, a 2018 audit of the State Health 
Benefits found that a large number of enrollees in the program, 
three percent of the overall program, were ineligible to 
receive coverage resulting in over $20 million in savings. One 
can only imagine, with the magnitude of the Federal program, 
what we would save the taxpayers. The OPM's Inspector General 
estimates the annual cost associated with ineligible enrollees 
in this program to be about $250 million to $3 billion. With 
the potential to save the American taxpayers $3 billion, I 
think passing this bill is a no-brainer.
    I want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Rick 
Scott, for working with me on this companion bill in the 
Senate. I thank the Chairman and your staff to bring this 
critical legislation to the Committee for markup, and I urge my 
colleagues' support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Raskin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for bringing 
this bill to markup, and thank you, Mr. Waltz, for your hard 
work on it.
    FEHBP is the largest employer sponsored healthcare program 
in the country with 8 million employees participating. In 
December 2022, the GAO issued a report that estimated that 
ineligible family members could be costing FEHBP approximately 
a billion dollars a year. The OPM Inspector General has 
estimated the cost of ineligibles at somewhere between $250 
million to $3 billion a year. While OPM is responsible for 
administering this program, it relies on over 160 different 
employing offices to enroll and then verify the eligibility of 
members.
    In recent years, OPM has put in place certain procedures to 
verify the eligibility of family members for qualifying life 
events, like marriage, divorce, birth of a child, and so on. 
OPM does not have and does not plan to have a monitoring 
process for verifying the eligibility of family members of 
existing FEHBP members. So this act would require Federal 
agencies to verify that an employee is eligible to add a family 
member to their health coverage plan. The bill also requires 
OPM to consider coverage of ineligible individuals while 
conducting fraud risk assessments of the FEHBP system. The bill 
further requires OPM to conduct a comprehensive audit of 
employee family members currently enrolled, including a review 
of eligibility verification documentation, like marriage 
certificates and birth certificates. Finally, the bill requires 
OPM to disenroll or remove from enrollment any ineligible 
person found to be receiving coverage.
    Several states conduct similar audits, like California, 
Florida, and Kansas. California requires re-verification of 
enrollees every 3 years. Its audit saved the state in 2015 
nearly $122 million. In 2018, Florida's audit avoided more than 
$20 million in costs. These states made upfront investments in 
oversight that reaped a lot of savings downstream. This bill is 
well meaning and would improve our bipartisan goal of combating 
improper payments and fraud, but I do believe it should include 
funding to conduct the required audit. This audit will include 
examining every FEHBP participant to determine eligibility 
across the whole enterprise of the government, and I plan to 
offer an amendment on this point at the appropriate point 
today, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to speak on the Waltz bill?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the gentleman from Maryland 
has an amendment.
    Mr. Raskin. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report?
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 7868, as offered by Mr. Raskin of Maryland.
    Mr. Raskin. So, my amendment addresses----
    Chairman Comer. Hold on. Without----
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, sorry.
    Chairman Comer. I am sorry. Without objection, the 
amendment is considered as read.
    I reserve a point of order. The Ranking Member is now 
recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Raskin. It will not take that long, Mr. Chairman. It is 
very simple. It addresses the only real shortcoming in this 
bill that I identified in my opening remarks. There is no 
funding to conduct the audit that is mandated by the bill that 
will actually make the bill a meaningful cost saving for the 
people, and I have heard different estimates about what the 
audit could cost. OPM's estimate is $150 million, which is 
almost 3 times the budget for the entire Health Insurance 
Office here. It is clear that some additional resources will be 
required for the audit, and that should not be a concern 
because OPM estimates that the savings will be more than a 
billion dollars. So, my amendment would create a great return 
on investment value.
    And so, with that, I hope all of my colleagues will embrace 
this amendment to make the bill fully effective and I urge 
everyone to support it, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
myself. I thank the Ranking Member for his amendment, but I, 
unfortunately, must oppose it. While I agree with the 
underlying purpose of the amendment to ensure that the Office 
of Personnel Management has the resources necessary to audit 
the eligibility of Federal employee family members enrolled in 
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, this amendment 
conflicts with the Majority Leader's Floor protocols for the 
118th Congress. The Floor protocols rightly explicitly prohibit 
the use of such sums as necessary appropriations authorization 
language.
    And I do want to reiterate that the audit this bill 
requires, which will certainly require an investment, has the 
potential, according to the Government Accountability Office 
and the OPM Inspector General, to save the Federal Government 
over $1 billion a year. I rarely have the opportunity to say 
this with confidence, but this is a worthy investment.
    With that said, this bill should contain a specific figure 
rather than an open-ended spending authorization, and the 
Committee is still in the process of determining what the 
actual cost of the required OPM audit would be. Once we have 
secured a complete CBO score of the bill's cost and potential 
savings, we will be in a better position as a Committee to 
determine the best way to address the cost of this necessary 
audit before consideration by the full House. But for now, I 
oppose this well-intentioned amendment and recommend Committee 
Members do the same so we can advance the important provisions 
in the underlying bill to address waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.
    Do any other Members wish to speak on the Raskin amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the 
amendment offered by Mr. Raskin.
    All those in favor of the Raskin amendment, signify by 
saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it and the amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. Could I request a recorded vote on that?
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman from Maryland has requested 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. 7524, the GSA 
Technology Accountability Act. The clerk will please designate 
the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7524, the GSA Technology Accountability 
Act, a bill to require the submission of reports on certain 
information technology services funds to Congress before 
expenditures may be made, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please 
designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
to H.R. 7524, 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 happy to support H.R. 7524, the GSA Technology 
Accountability Act. The General Services Administration 
Technology for Transformation Services, or TTS, manages several 
government technology projects and initiatives. These projects 
and initiatives are mostly funded through two funds, the 
Citizens Services Fund and the Acquisition Services Fund. There 
is little transparency, however, into how money from these 
funds is allocated and what TTS is doing with its resources.
    This bill requires the Administrator of GSA to submit an 
annual report to Congress regarding each program funded by the 
Citizen Services Fund and some programs funded by the 
Acquisition Services Fund. This annual report will include 
information about funded programs, projects, and initiatives 
and reimbursements associated with each program. This bill 
provides much needed transparency into TTS programs and 
technology-related projects. I want to thank Mr. Sessions, our 
Chairman of the Subcommittee of Government Operations and the 
Federal Workforce, for his outstanding work on this 
legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
commonsense bill. It will increase transparency and provide 
additional oversight of taxpayer dollars. I now yield to the 
Ranking Member for his opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, and I thank 
our friend Chairman Sessions and your staffs for your 
partnership and collaboration on the bill. I am very pleased to 
support it in this updated form. The bill would bring increased 
transparency to some of the GSA's leading programs. As GSA 
continues to make the technological advances that allow the 
American people to securely access public services, this bill 
will allow Congress to fulfill its vital oversight 
responsibilities. I thank my colleagues for working with us to 
address GSA's concerns about the original bill and ensure that 
this one allows for increased transparency without creating 
unnecessary and duplicative administrative burdens. I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, 
the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, Mr. 
Sessions from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I want 
to, with a genuine friendship, also acknowledge that the 
gentleman, Mr. Raskin, and I believe at least one or two other 
Members of the Democratic Party on this Committee will be 
supporting this. That comes directly from a GSA report, the 
Inspector General at GSA, about what they see in the operation 
and the need for this.
    Mr. Chairman, this is straightforward legislation that 
would bring basic transparency to technology projects from the 
General Services Administration. As it stands now, the 
government's internal technology consultancy is mostly opaque 
in its operation, resulting in a lack of competition and a few 
instances of serious failures of GSA projects and products. 
Last year, the GSA Inspector General reported that Login.gov, a 
GSA product that was intended to be a sign-on solution for the 
Federal Government, intentionally misled Federal agencies about 
its technical capabilities and ability to authenticate users. 
So, this is what internally they have recognized.
    I think we held hearings last year that were, on a 
bipartisan basis, very productive. This is legislation that 
follows from that, and I want to thank my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle for not only recognizing this, but 
trying to correct things that is seen by everyone as a problem. 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to speak on the bill?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [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. 7524, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Sessions.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested by Mr. 
Sessions. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, 
further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7887, the Allowing 
Contractors to Choose Employees for Select Skills Act. The 
clerk will please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7887, the Allowing Contractors to Choose 
Employees for Select Skills Act, a bill to amend Title 41 to 
prohibit experience or educational requirements for proposed 
contractor personnel in certain contracts solicitations, 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. 7887, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to discuss the bill.
    The Federal Government relies heavily on contract 
employees. Unfortunately, Federal solicitations sometimes 
include unnecessary degree requirements mandating that 
individuals who perform the work hold certain education 
credentials. Training for many jobs in fields like IT and 
building construction is available through non-degree pathways, 
such as apprenticeships and bootcamps. That is why private 
sector employers have pared back degree requirements in hiring 
in recent years. We should not prohibit those with the right 
technical skills from performing Federal contract work just 
because they lack a traditional degree. And the companies who 
employ them, those that offer apprenticeships and engage in 
skills-based hiring, should be encouraged to compete for 
government contracts, not be excluded from competition.
    This bill helps ensure that Federal contractors are 
eligible to hire qualified professionals in the necessary 
knowledge, skills, and drive, even if they lack a traditional 
4-year degree. The bill does this by prohibiting contract 
officers from stipulating education and experience requirements 
for contract employees unless the contracting officer can 
justify in writing that they are necessary to meet the needs of 
the agency. I urge my colleagues to support this timely, 
necessary, and bipartisan bill. I want to thank Ms. Mace, 
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information 
Technology, and Government Innovation, for her great work on 
this very important reform.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The ACCESS Act is 
intended to address degree inflation or the growing trend of 
college grads filling jobs that actually do not require college 
degrees. This practice leads to reduced earnings for college 
degree holders, reduced employment opportunities for non-degree 
holders, and an overall drag on the economy. Committee 
Democrats are supportive of efforts to eliminate minimum 
education and experience requirements for jobs that do not 
actually require such associated skills for successful 
performance, expanding opportunity for the more than 62 percent 
of the population age 25 and older who do not hold a bachelor's 
degree.
    However, the ACCESS Act would create a blanket reporting 
requirement that could be unnecessarily burdensome for Federal 
agencies in the many instances in which minimum educational or 
experience requirements are commonly understood to be 
necessary. This bill would prohibit Federal agencies from 
specifying any minimum experience or educational requirements 
for contractor personnel in solicitations unless the 
solicitation also includes a written justification explaining 
why such requirements are necessary. Moreover, contracting 
officers would be required to determine, justify, and review 
each education or experience requirement separately.
    There certainly are jobs for which some minimum education 
or experience requirements are necessary. For example, 
approximately 39 percent of postings for construction managers 
require a college degree, as do 52 percent of web developer 
postings and 34 percent of distribution manager postings. This 
suggests that these roles are frequently performed successfully 
without a degree and that the requirement is more about the 
preference of the employer than the demands of the job. So, it 
would make sense for agency contracting officers to have to 
provide a written justification for choosing to require that 
contractors hire only college degree holders for such jobs, as 
this bill would require.
    However, there are also an array of jobs for which some 
minimum education or experience requirements are always 
necessary. For example, in 2022, the Federal Government spent 
almost $30 billion on medical services contracts and another 
$29 billion on engineering and technical support service 
contracts. Do we really want our contracting officers to have 
to provide a written explanation every time they put out a 
solicitation that requires healthcare and engineering 
professionals to have advanced degrees? That, to me, seems 
unduly burdensome.
    I will vote for this bill today, but I would ask the 
Chairman and Chairwoman Mace, my friend, to work with us before 
this bill goes to the Floor to find a more tailored approach 
that creates accountability when warranted without imposing an 
impractical hurdle in the already complex contracting process. 
Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
the gentlelady from South Carolina and a very prolific bill 
passer on the Oversight Committee, Ms. Mace, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Hopefully, we are doing one per markup or we haze 
the staff. Just kidding. Just jokes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
want to thank the Ranking Member as well. I also want to thank 
Congressman Krishnamoorthi for joining me on this piece of 
legislation.
    When I was in college, I taught myself to code. I did not 
get a degree in computer programming. And my first job was as a 
computer programmer for Anderson Consulting--and I am dating 
myself--which is now Accenture. This is back in the late 90s, 
Y2K, et cetera. I learned like six programming languages, not 
at school, but on the job. And it is not just computer 
programming, but there are so many opportunities for contracts 
with Federal agencies where a 4-year degree is just completely 
unnecessary. And so, I see this as a great opportunity for a 
lot of different agencies, a lot of different departments, a 
lot of different people who do not need those burdensome and 
expensive 4-year degree requirements when they can do those 
jobs without them and they can do them very, very well. In 
fact, I have got a member of my family who makes more than we 
all do in this room, again, in technology. I would love to see 
a person like that in the Federal work force. Never stepped 
foot on college campus, I mean, just an amazing talent. We want 
that talent in the Federal work force with these contractors. 
So, I want to ensure that the government is not denying work 
opportunities to skilled, qualified Americans just because they 
lack a 4-year degree.
    It is the same reason that I sponsored the MACE Act, the 
Modernizing the Acquisition of Cybersecurity Experts Act, last 
fall, which was adopted by the full House last year. While the 
MACE Act removes unneeded degree hurdles to Federal IT jobs, 
the ACCESS Act now takes down similar barriers, similar burdens 
that keep people from performing Federal contract work. We have 
many Americans, about half the country almost, that do not have 
4-year degrees. They have alternative training. They have 
certificates. They go to apprenticeships, bootcamps, et cetera. 
And these alternatives are becoming more attractive as college 
tuition, because of government subsidies, becomes much more 
difficult to afford.
    That is why many of our Nation's largest employers, 
including Walmart, IBM, Google, have dramatically reduced 
degree requirements in their job postings. These companies are 
now hiring individuals for many occupations based on their 
relevant job skills, not on 4-year degrees. But when these 
companies do contract work for the Federal Government, they 
sometimes find their skilled and successful non-degreed 
employees simply are not allowed to take part. Ironically, 
these are often IT and cybersecurity contracts, as I mentioned 
earlier, areas where the government struggles to hire 
internally and relies heavily on outside help. In fact, there 
are a combined 700,000 unfilled cybersecurity positions within 
the Federal Government today and across the private and public 
sector.
    Too few degreed cyber professionals exist to fill the 
shortage, yet at a Cybersecurity, IT and Government Innovation 
Subcommittee hearing that I held in this room in January, an 
IBM witness testified the, ``Federal contractors are rarely 
able to place an individual without a 4-year degree on a 
technology services contract regardless of their 
qualifications.'' This hearing was the impetus for this bill 
because that is where I learned that this was a huge problem. 
And here we are today in a bipartisan way, Democrats and 
Republicans coming together. It is not perfect, but it is 
better than it was, and it is something that we should be 
working on together in a nonpartisan fashion.
    So this, of course, makes no sense. We want to make sure 
that required educational credentials are fully justifiable. We 
want a doctor to have a medical degree, for instance, but only 
a fraction of Federal contract work is performed by licensed 
professionals. So, the bottom line is it should be a high bar 
for Federal officials to deny individuals the opportunity to 
compete to do work for the government. That is why we need this 
bill, and under this bill, OMB will ensure agencies follow this 
new protocol and it will provide them guidance on how 
alternative certifications, industry-recognized credentials, 
and work-based learning programs, such as apprenticeships, may 
satisfy educational requirements. And finally, the bill 
provides additional accountability and transparency with the 
GAO. The GAO will review and report to Congress on agency 
compliance under this law.
    So, I want to thank Congressman Krishnamoorthi for joining 
me in this effort today. I want to thank the Chairman and the 
Ranking Member for their support during this bill today during 
markup, and I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to 
support this desperately needed legislation. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Krishnamoorthi from Illinois for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Ranking Member Raskin. Thank you, Congresswoman Mace for 
highlighting this very important issue. And we have talked 
about it many times, which is, you know, two-thirds of 
Americans do not have a 4-year college degree, as the Ranking 
Member mentioned, but, unfortunately, they are often barred 
from opportunities for which they possess the skills and the 
qualifications to do the work. And when you bar them from doing 
those jobs or prevent them from doing those jobs, guess what? 
You have higher costs and lower access. And so this aptly named 
bill, the ACCESS Act, Allowing Contractors to Choose Employees 
for Select Skills Act, allows our tax dollars to create the 
most expansive opportunities possible for the American work 
force.
    Overreliance on educational requirements does not enhance 
the quality of services we receive. On the contrary, as I 
mentioned, those limits likely lead to less competition and 
higher costs. Ensuring that we tear the so-called ``paper 
ceiling'' and end hiring discrimination has long been a 
priority of mine. In 2018, working with Republican G.T. 
Thompson, I helped, with him, author the landmark bill called 
the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st 
Century Act, which revolutionizes career and technical 
education and skills-based education by prioritizing skills 
based in non 4-year college career tracks for additional 
resources. This Congress, I introduced the bipartisan 
Opportunity to Compete Act, which would fight discrimination by 
large employers against hiring those without 4-year college 
degrees.
    Blanket degree filters and rigid formulas do not work. I am 
very pleased to join with my Republican colleague Nancy Mace in 
a bipartisan manner, who, by the way, I did not know knows how 
to code in so many languages. I hope that comes in handy in 
this Congress. I am pleased to work with her in helping to 
break the barriers that, unfortunately, hold too many people 
back in this country, which are minimum education and minimum 
experience requirements, which do not adequately allow people 
to gain access to the opportunities to participate in Federal 
contracting. Again, I want to thank the Ranking Member. I want 
to thank Chairman Comer for allowing us to pass this bill on a 
bipartisan basis, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to be recognized?
    [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 and the amendment is agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 7887, 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.
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, may I request a recorded vote?
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested by 
Representative Mace. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 7867, the Renewing 
Efficiency in Government by Budgeting Act. The clerk will 
please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7867, the Renewing Efficiency in Government 
by Budgeting Act, a bill to amend the Unfunded Mandate Reform 
Act of 1995 to require the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget to establish a limit for the total amount of 
additional unfunded regulatory costs that may be imposed in a 
fiscal year, 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. 7867, 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.
    Over the past several decades and through changing 
administrations, the total cost of Federal regulations has 
ballooned to over $3 trillion dollars, trillion with a ``T.'' 
For context, that is larger than the gross domestic product of 
all but five of the largest national economies in the world. 
The burden of these costs is shouldered by businesses of all 
sizes, which ultimately pass along these costs to consumers in 
the form of higher prices. Small businesses are often the most 
directly impacted and frequently do not have the resources at 
their disposal to fund regulatory compliance teams.
    H.R. 7867, the REG Budgeting Act, addresses this growing 
issue by requiring the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget to set governmentwide limits as well as agency-specific 
limits on the total amount of additional unfunded regulatory 
costs new agency rules can impose each fiscal year. Originally 
pioneered by the Trump Administration, the use of budgeting to 
rein in excessive regulatory cost is proven to work. That 
includes the bill's net zero approach, which precludes OMB from 
allowing growth in overall cost unless Congress approves it.
    This will hold the line on growth in total cost or even 
help reduce costs by incentivizing agencies to offset the cost 
of new regulations by rescinding old ones. Using this approach, 
the Trump Administration produced an overall reduction of 
nearly $280 billion in regulatory costs, a win for both 
businesses and consumers across the country. As families and 
businesses continue to experience ongoing economic hardships, 
Congress has the responsibility to reevaluate how the existing 
regulatory system can work better for the American people.
    A report by the National Association of Manufacturers found 
that in 2022, Federal regulations cost businesses approximately 
$12,800 per employee and even higher amounts for small 
businesses. Under the Biden Administration, the total number of 
pages of regulations totaled over 90,000 by the end of 2023. 
Furthermore, the American Action Forum found that the Biden 
Administration, by the start of February this year, had added 
$451 billion in costs and over 286 million paperwork hours. 
Congress should alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens and 
ensure the U.S. maintains a competitive economic advantage 
globally.
    I thank my colleague, Mr. Fallon, Chairman of the Economic 
Growth and Energy Policy and Regulatory Subcommittee for 
diligent work on this necessary bill, and urge my colleagues to 
support this bill. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I cannot 
support this bill in its current form. Ironically, in the name 
of opposing bureaucracy, the bill imposes an onerous and 
duplicative process that would severely restrict Federal rule-
making with wholly arbitrary bureaucratic directives. The 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act already requires Federal agencies 
to publish detailed statements and cost-benefit analyses prior 
to issuing a notice of proposed rule-making that would cost 
state, tribal, or local governments more than $100 million 
annually. This bill follows the GOP Majority's continued 
efforts to undermine meaningful regulatory authority and roll 
back rules carried out by the Biden-Harris Administration to 
make our cars and roads safer, our workplaces free from toxic 
hazards, our bank accounts safe from fraud and manipulation, 
and our environment free from poisoning and contamination. This 
bill only focuses on the costs of rules without considering the 
corresponding benefits of the rules. It also creates 
duplicative and onerous new administrative hurdles in the rule-
making process.
    The Federal rule-making process has profound effects on 
American life, and I agree that that regulatory process should 
be continually modernized and revised. I am proud of President 
Biden's efforts to direct the OMB to evaluate and reform the 
regulatory review process. Then President Obama's Executive 
Order 13563 is also still in place, directing agencies to 
conduct periodic retrospective reviews of their rules so they 
can consider more effective alternatives. I believe that 
greater transparency and modernization within the rule-making 
process could help ensure that executive actions are made with 
fairness and democratic values in mind, but this bill is 
totally the wrong way to go about doing that.
    The REG Budgeting Act would establish an extremely 
burdensome cost limit on new regs promulgated by the Federal 
Government to state, tribal, and local governments as well as 
the private sector, and would prohibit a swath of new regs from 
going into effect unless Congress approves it. This bill would 
tie the hands of Federal agencies from carrying out programs 
and policies pursuing statutory purposes. I encourage my GOP 
colleagues to work with the Administration on finding effective 
and productive ways to modernize the rule-making process 
without stymieing agency activities in the interim. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back to you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Fallon.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is about 
really, philosophically, do you support more government or 
less? Do you want limited government, low taxes, reasonable 
regulation? Because I certainly do. And I think the American 
people have been crying for this for quite some time where, at 
the end of the day, do you support more rules and regulations 
at the Federal level or do you want less? Do you want a more 
powerful bureaucracy, or do you want more power given to the 
actual American people? Because as regulatory costs continue to 
grow at an alarming rate, bipartisan action is needed by 
Congress to rein in costs that are imposed by agencies during 
the rule-making process. A powerful way to do this is with 
regulatory budgeting.
    Under Executive Order 13771, the Trump Administration put 
into place regulatory budgeting measures, setting an annual 
regulatory cost cap of net zero increases. Agencies complied 
with this cap by rescinding old regulations to offset the cost 
of new ones. One in, two out was how it was referred to. The 
result was absolutely powerful, a reduction of almost $280 
billion, with a ``B,'' $280 billion in regulatory costs. That 
lifted a significant Federal regulatory burden from the backs 
of the American people and in particular small business. 
Building on this proven success, our bill, the Renewing 
Efficiency in Government by Budgeting Act, or REG Budgeting 
Act, makes regulatory budgeting a permanent feature of the 
regulatory system, finally placing a statutory--you know, 
putting some brakes on these runaway regulatory costs. And I 
believe this bill is truly commonsense, and I would hope it 
would get bipartisan support.
    If we are to succeed in creating a more competitive 
economy, we must reform our regulatory system so that the 
United States and our businesses are not exhausting time and 
resources to comply with inefficient, duplicative, and 
unnecessarily burdensome regulations. It is tough to be an 
entrepreneur, particularly in a global economy, and we need to 
take the shackles off the folks that are taking risks to create 
jobs and opportunity and prosperity for our country.
    In Texas, you know, oftentimes people say, Mr. Chairman, 
people vote with their feet. That is why I do not think it is a 
coincidence that the state of Texas, their population is 
growing, that the state of Florida's population is growing, and 
you can see states like California losing an electoral vote for 
the first time and Illinois bleeding opportunity in jobs. New 
York, New Jersey, et cetera. So, allowing folks to come and 
relocate current compliance funds toward employee compensation 
and hiring and investment in R&D and sales and marketing is the 
way to go. And enhancing competitiveness and improving a return 
on investment is, again, commonsense. The bottom line here is 
Congress needs to stop the way we have been doing business and 
step up and be accountable for any increases in total 
regulatory costs
    I would like to thank my colleagues, Chairman Comer and Dr. 
Foxx, for co-leading this legislation with our office, and I 
urge all Members of our Committee to support the bill. With 
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members wish to be recognized to speak on the bill?
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I have a UC request.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly. I have got a letter from the 
Leadership Conference on H.R. 7109 and a letter from the 
Coalition for Sensible Safeguards on H.R. 7867.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    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.
    [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. 7867, as 
amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it and the bill is ordered favorably, as amended.
    Mr. Raskin. I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member requests 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. 272, the Astronauts 
Safe Temporary Ride Options Act. The clerk will please 
designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 272, the Astronaut Safe Temporary Ride Act, 
a bill to authorize the expenditure of Federal funds for 
transportation of government astronauts returning from space 
for the performance of medical research, monitoring diagnosis, 
or treatment, or other official duties prior to receiving post-
flight medical clearance to operate a motor vehicle.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please 
designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 272, 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.
    H.R. 272, the ASTRO Act, will streamline a burdensome 
administrative process regarding governmentwide transportation 
for astronauts returning from space flight. When astronauts 
return from space flight, NASA provides them with home-to-work 
transportation so that the Agency can monitor, evaluate, 
diagnose, and provide these brave men and women with medical 
treatment until they are medically cleared to drive. Under 
existing statute, NASA's authorization of this transportation 
for the astronauts must include a contemporaneous report to 
Congress with details about the transportation, including the 
name and title of the employee. Reporting in this manner can be 
challenging to NASA as it can make it difficult to maintain up-
to-date authorizations as crew members are replaced or 
reassigned to different missions.
    The ASTRO Act will amend current law to enable NASA to 
authorize the use of official transportation between residence 
and worksite without the contemporaneous reporting requirement. 
The bill also provides transparency by requiring NASA to 
provide Congress with an annual report on its use of this new 
authorization. While it may sound like a mundane problem, the 
underlying need for this bill is anything but that. We owe it 
to these courageous women and men, who leave behind families 
and friends to spend months in space, to cut through the red 
tape and take care of them upon their return.
    I thank the sponsor of the bill, Congressman Babin, for his 
work. I also thank the Science Committee for its work to 
favorably report the bill out during last month's markup by a 
35 to zero vote. I urge my colleagues to do the same and 
support this bill. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his 
statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I support this bill. I 
figure if we can get our astronauts back from the moon for 
free, we can also afford to drop them off at their house, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [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. 272, 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 recognizes Mr. 
Grothman.
    Mr. Grothman. Request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested. A 
recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further 
proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 3019, the Federal 
Prison Oversight Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 3019, the Federal Prison Oversight Act, a 
bill to establish an inspections regime for the Bureau of 
Prisons, and for other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will please 
designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 3019, 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 Federal Bureau of Prisons operates 122 facilities 
nationwide. Conducting meaningful oversight with an 
organization of this size can be challenging. The Department of 
Justice's Office of the Inspector General handles criminal 
complaints on behalf of incarcerated people and Bureau staff. 
However, this office is overwhelmed with non-criminal 
complaints from incarcerated people, their friends and family, 
and the Bureau of Prisons staff. Examples of common complaints 
include poor prison conditions and civil rights violation. 
While these complaints often do not rise to the level of 
criminal misconduct, they are still very important and warrant 
investigation to determine if reforms are necessary.
    The Federal Prison Oversight Act addresses this issue by 
ensuring that the incarcerated people, their families, and 
Bureau staff have a reliable mechanism to file complaints. 
First, the bill requires the Office of Inspector General to 
conduct inspections of Bureau prison facilities and provide 
recommendations to address each facility's shortcoming. The 
Office of the Inspector General will assign each facility a 
risk score, and high-risk facilities will receive more frequent 
inspections. Additionally, the bill creates an independent 
ombudsman within the Department of Justice to investigate 
issues that impact the health and safety of incarcerated 
individuals and staff. The ombudsman can initiate an 
investigation after receiving a complaint from an incarcerated 
person, their family, Bureau of Prisons staff, or others. If 
the investigation of these complaints finds significant harm, 
the ombudsman must report their findings to the Attorney 
General and Congress. The bill also ensures that both the 
inspector general and the ombudsman have access to all the 
Bureau-operating facilities and are authorized to conduct 
unannounced inspection visits. The bill encourages the Bureau 
to fund these investigations with between 0.2 and 0.5 percent 
of their annual appropriations.
    The bill is endorsed by the Council of Prison Locals, 
representing nearly 30,000 correctional officers, along with 
public safety and civil rights organizations. The following 
organizations also endorsed the bill: the Council of Prison 
Locals, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the American Civil 
Liberties Union, the Conservative Political Action Coalition, 
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Americans for 
Prosperity, Justice Action Network, Due Process Institute, 
Right On Crime, and the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
    I would like to thank Senators Jon Ossoff, Mike Braun, and 
Richard Durbin for their work drafting this bill. I would also 
like to acknowledge Representatives Lucy McBath and Kelly 
Armstrong, a former Member of this Committee, for introducing 
this companion bill in the House. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bipartisan bill to increase transparency of the 
Federal prison system and provide much needed recourse for 
incarcerated persons experiencing abuse. I now recognize the 
Ranking Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly support the 
Federal Prison Oversight Act, which would strengthen oversight 
of our prisons and improve conditions for people who reside and 
work in them. I congratulate the bill's House leaders, 
Representatives Lucy McBath and Kelly Armstrong, as well as 
Senators Ossoff and Braun and Senate Majority Whip, Dick 
Durbin, for their bipartisan work on this legislation. The bill 
has won the support of a wide array of advocacy groups, 
including the ACLU, Americans for Prosperity, the Conservative 
Political Action Committee, Families Against Mandatory 
Minimums, and many more, including the Council of Prison 
Locals, which represents 30,000 correctional officers.
    Federal prisons have long experienced systemic problems 
that threaten the health, the safety, and the civil rights of 
incarcerated people and the people who work with them. For 
example, last year, NPR reported that more than 4,950 
incarcerated people died in facilities operated by the Bureau 
of Prisons in the last 10 years, and many either experienced 
delayed care or postponed care for serious medical problems. 
This February, the DOJ IG issued a scathing report of BOP-
operated prisons, which found that systemic policy violations 
and failures contributed significantly to the problem of inmate 
suicide.
    Bureau of Prisons facilities are responsible for more than 
158,000 incarcerated people and more than 34,000 correctional 
officers and staff. As documented by GAO in congressional 
hearings, the Bureau of Prisons has consistently struggled with 
staffing shortages. According to the Council of Prison Locals, 
BOP has lost 20 percent of its employees since 2016 and only 
employs around 13,000 correctional officers today, despite 
receiving appropriations to fund more than 20,000. As of 2023, 
staffing levels for healthcare workers at BOP facilities was at 
only 69 percent capacity, and nearly 20 percent of the 
facilities do not have a healthcare program onsite at all to 
provide for routine and preventative healthcare services. 
Staffing shortages have contributed to disturbing and, at 
times, fatal delays in healthcare services for the 
incarcerated, and facilities are still recovering from the 
COVID-19 pandemic, which exacerbated disruptions to patient 
care.
    GAO has also reported on BOP's challenges in upholding its 
responsibilities to help inmates prepare for successful release 
and reintegration, including full implementation of the First 
Step Act of 2018 to lower the risk of recidivism. Additionally, 
BOP has systemically struggled to make prudent use of resources 
due to a failure to effectively monitor and then evaluate its 
programs. Taken together, all these challenges led GAO to add 
the management of the Federal prison system to its 2023 high 
risk list, indicating the severity of the problem.
    H.R. 3019 would take important steps by requiring the 
Department of Justice OIG to periodically inspect, evaluate, 
and report on policies and activities at BOP-operated 
facilities, with higher-risk facilities required to go through 
more frequent inspection. Such inspections may include reviews 
of confinement conditions, working conditions, policies and 
procedures related to housing confinement and other restrictive 
housing, healthcare programs, and complaints of violence and 
abuse against the incarcerated. The bill would also establish 
an ombudsman within DOJ that would be charged with receiving 
complaints related to issues at facilities that threaten the 
health, safety, welfare, or rights of inmates or staff. 
Misconduct, mismanagement, abuse, and negligence have no place 
in Federal Government operations, especially those dealing with 
people who are at their most vulnerable point and are most in 
need of a pathway back to society.
    To make our community safer, uphold our values, and reduce 
recidivism, it is imperative that we bring increased 
transparency, accountability, and humanity to our prisons. The 
Federal Prison Oversight Act is an important step forward, and 
I urge my colleagues to support it today. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
Members seek recognition?
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins from Louisiana.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report?
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 3019, as offered by Mr. Higgins of 
Louisiana.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I reserve a point of order.
    The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized 
for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I offer an 
amendment to H.R. 3019. The Federal Prison Oversight Act is a 
bipartisan piece of legislation that will enhance the safety 
and security of our Nation's Federal correctional facilities. 
This amendment, grounded in the principles of operational 
integrity and the well-being of our dedicated prison staff and 
the inmate population, seeks to direct the Bureau of Prisons to 
implement hiring requirements outlined in past years 
appropriations laws. By requiring the implementation of these 
hiring requirements, we are taking steps toward ensuring that 
our correctional facilities are properly staffed at the levels 
necessary to handle the complexities of the prison environment. 
This is not merely a policy adjustment. It is a measure to 
protect those who work within the walls of our prisons and 
those who reside there during their sentences.
    By voting in favor of this amendment, we reaffirm our 
commitment to the safety of correctional officers and inmates 
alike, ensuring that the overarching goal of H.R. 3019, to 
improve security and safety conditions in our prisons, is met 
with clear and actionable steps in line with conditions found 
in current law. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 
It is a step forward in our ongoing efforts to reform our 
correctional system and reflects our dedication to the safety 
of those who serve our communities and those within the walls 
of our Federal prisons. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes himself to speak on the Higgins Amendment. I want to 
thank Mr. Higgins for his amendment. I appreciate your concern 
for the Bureau of Prisons staffing levels. Adequately staffing 
prisons is essential for the safety of both incarcerated 
individuals and the Bureau staff. However, as we discussed last 
night, that due to the subject matter of the underlying bill, 
there is an issue of germaneness to make this amendment to H.R. 
3019, but I do concur with your goal of ensuring that Federal 
prisons are adequately staffed. I will say this publicly--if 
the gentleman is willing to withdraw his amendment, I will 
commit to working with you to find a path forward for this 
language either before House Floor action or in the Senate.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your commitment 
to getting this important provision added to the bill in some 
manner. I appreciate your commitment, and I withdraw my 
amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I want to thank the gentleman for 
withdrawing his amendment and look forward to working with you 
on this bill before it goes to the Floor to make it better and 
to address your rightful concern.
    Do any other Members seek recognition to speak on the bill 
or to offer amendments?
    Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please designate the 
amendment?
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 3019, as offered by Mr. Cloud of Texas.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. I reserve a point of order.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is recognized for 5 
minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not need 5 
minutes. I just wanted to clarify and to firm up the term 
``gender-appropriate healthcare'' in the bill to ``sex-specific 
healthcare.'' Lately, there has been a lot of discussion to 
redefine the word ``gender'' to refer to self-declared gender 
identity rather than to the biological reality of being a male 
or female. I understand this language is intended to ensure 
that female inmates receive the needed healthcare, but given 
the radical actions lately to promote gender ideology in 
Federal prisons, it is important that we define this term very 
clearly.
    Recent data from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections 
found that over half of males in the prison system who identify 
as transgender have been convicted of at least one count of 
sexual assault or sexual abuse. We should not have any 
ambiguity in this bill when it comes to protecting the women 
who are in our prison system. This amendment would move any 
ability for any administration to reinterpret this provision to 
push the idea that inmates have the right to taxpayer-funded 
gender transition procedures on the taxpayers' dime. Thank you. 
I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Cloud. I have already yielded to the Chairman.
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, OK. I would like to ask the gentleman if he 
would yield to a question on my time.
    Mr. Cloud. Sure.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. To understand the genesis of this 
amendment, you are reading something in the bill that would 
provide for gender surgery or medical procedures?
    Mr. Cloud. I want to make sure that this does not get 
interpreted by anyone in the Bureau of Prisons or an agency to 
mean that otherwise. I tried to get it in report language, but 
I have been told there will be no report language for this 
bill, and so all that is left to me is the amendment process, 
so.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. And will you just read to me the passage 
that you think could be misinterpreted in that way?
    Mr. Cloud. The amendment--and I think I have the page 
numbers wrong here, but it simply strikes ``gender-
appropriate'' and inserts ``sex-specific'' before 
``healthcare.''
    Mr. Raskin. OK. All right. Thank you for yielding for the 
question. I am afraid I do not see the problem that this 
amendment is attempting to address, and I think we should stick 
with the original language that is in the bill, and I yield 
back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the 
amendment offered by Mr. Cloud from Texas.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it and the amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. I would like to ask for a recorded vote on 
that.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek 
recognition? Do you have any other amendments?
    Mr. Cloud. No, sir. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. OK. All right. Our next item for 
consideration is H.R. 7869, the CBPO Retirement Technical 
Corrections Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 7869, the CBPO Retirement Technical 
Corrections Act, a bill to correct the inequitable denial of 
enhanced retirement and annuity benefits to certain U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection Officers.
    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. 7869, 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.
    In 2007, Congress authorized enhanced retirement benefits 
for Customs and Border Protection officers to align with 
benefits provided to other Federal law enforcement agencies. As 
a condition of receiving the enhanced benefits, officers hired 
on or after July 6, 2008 effective date were subjected to a 
maximum start and end of service age 36 and 57, respectively, 
and minimum service requirement of 20 years. Existing officers 
received the enhanced benefits without the maximum age and 
minimum service requirements for service time after the 
effective date. A small group of officers who had received 
tentative offers of employment before the effective date but 
had not yet begun service were incorrectly told by CBP that 
they would be treated like existing officers, meaning they were 
told they would receive enhanced retirement benefits without 
age and service requirements for service time after the July 6, 
2008 effective date. Unfortunately, the guidance provided to 
this small group of officers at the time was ultimately 
incorrect. It was not until 2021 when CBP discovered their 
mistake that those officers were notified that they were 
actually subject to the maximum age and minimum service 
requirements.
    Since this small group of officers had planned their 
retirements and their lives and careers around the incorrect 
guidance given to them by CBP, this bill corrects the 
misunderstanding by providing enhanced benefit to this small 
group in the same way as existing officers, as they were told 
at the time. This bill also directs a GAO report to ensure 
proper management of this benefit at CBP to prevent any similar 
mistakes from occurring. I am pleased this bill provides an 
opportunity to right a wrong for American CBP officers while 
providing accountability measures to protect against similar 
mistakes from happening again. I urge my colleagues to support 
this commonsense bill, which is identical to the Senate-passed 
bill and I recognize the Ranking Member for his statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend 
Representative Fitzpatrick for introducing the bill. I am a 
proud co-sponsor along with our colleague, Mr. Lynch.
    In 2008, the CBP told approximately 1,200 applicants that 
they would be eligible for an enhanced retirement benefit 
package. They received a job offer before the enhanced benefit 
took effect on July 6, 2008, but they started their jobs after 
July 6. Over a decade later, CBP finally realized its 
retirement policy toward this group of officers did not align 
with the law. It rescinded these officers' eligibility for the 
enhanced benefits in 2021. This bill directs CBP to reinstate 
those benefits. A decades-long error should not mean that 1,200 
Customs and Border Patrol officers are denied the retirement 
benefits that they were promised. The bill would ensure that 
these officers receive the benefits that they actually deserve. 
Recognizing mistakes and working to correct them, as this 
legislation aims to do, is clearly the right thing, and I yield 
back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. 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. 7869, 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.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins.
    Mr. Higgins. A recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested by Mr. 
Higgins. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, 
further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I had requested a vote on Mr. 
Cloud's amendment, and I want to withdraw my request for that 
vote.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The request for a recorded vote on the 
Cloud Amendment has been withdrawn.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair declares the 
Committee in recess subject to the call of the Chair. We will 
plan to reconvene at 3 p.m. sharp.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will come to order.
    While everyone is waiting to get seated, I have a couple of 
things I would like to enter into the record. I ask unanimous 
consent to enter into the record an article from the Harvard 
Journal of Law and Public Policy, which offers perspective on 
E.O. 13771 and the U.S. Federal regulatory budget.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. I also ask unanimous consent to enter the 
following letters of support into the record: a joint letter of 
support from Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the National 
District Attorneys Association, Prison Fellowship, Justice 
Action Network, Due Process Institute, and Arnold Ventures, a 
joint letter of support from the Conservative Political Action 
Coalition and the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and a letter of 
support from Right On Crime.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The question now is on favorably reporting H.R. 7109. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 7109.
    [Voting.]
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, a parliamentary 
inquiry. I am curious to know if it was brought out earlier 
that the state of Texas was able to gain two new seats in Texas 
because of the number of Latinos they had----
    Chairman Comer. What is your parliamentary inquiry?
    Ms. Crockett. That was my inquiry.
    Chairman Comer. Sorry. Out of order.
    Mr. Sessions. I will be glad to answer that.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Chairman Comer. State your----
    Mr. Raskin. Would it be appropriate to suggest that because 
this is one divided vote among many, where we are agreed, that 
we could proceed to do the other votes and return to this vote 
in the event that there are too many Members of the Majority 
who are missing right now? Just----
    Chairman Comer. We have two Members on the way. It should 
be handled within a matter of seconds.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    Chairman Comer. I apologize for the inconvenience. For the 
record, I was waiting for Mr. Mfume, but----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    Chairman Comer. Does any other Member wish to vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 22. The 
nays are 20.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The Committee will now resume consideration of H.R 7868, 
the FEHB Protection Act. The question is now on the previously 
postponed amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by 
the gentleman from Maryland. This is the Raskin Amendment. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment of 
H.R. 7868, on the Raskin Amendment.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 20. The 
nays are 23.
    Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the Raskin Amendment 
is not agreed to.
    The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 7868.
    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 in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7868 is 
agreed to.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 7868. Members 
will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The 
clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 7868.
    [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 37. The 
nays are 6.
    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. 7524. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 7524.
    [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 43. 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. 7887. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
7887.
    [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 43. 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 on favorably reporting H.R. 7867. Members 
will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The 
clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 7867.
    [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 24. 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 now on favorably reporting H.R. 272. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 272.
    [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 now close the vote and 
report the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 42. The 
nays are zero.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 3019.
    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 in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3019 is 
agreed to.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 3019. 
Members will record their vote using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 3019.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 41. The 
nays are 1.
    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. 7869. 
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting 
H.R. 7869.
    [Voting.]
    Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to 
be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report 
the vote total.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 41. The 
nays are 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.
    OK. Before moving on to the next matter, I want to discuss 
an update to the Committee's markup process. Today, the en bloc 
postal namings will be dispensed with by a traditional voice 
vote and, if requested, a recorded vote.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up the following en bloc 
postal-naming bills, which were distributed in advance on this 
markup: H.R.s 1555, 3354, 5867, 7180, 7199, 7385, 7423, 7417, 
6633, 1823, 7606, and 7607.
    Without objection, the bills are considered read.
    If any Member would like to speak on any of the measures, 
they may do so now.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins from 
Louisiana.
    Mr. Higgins. Today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak 
briefly in support of H.R. 7423, a bill that honors the memory 
of Luke Letlow, 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.
    Luke's journey was one of dedication, service, and an 
unwavering commitment to the people of Louisiana's 5th 
congressional District. Although he was tragically taken from 
us before he could serve in this House, his legacy endorsed 
through the impactful work he accomplished through his family 
and the lives he touched. It is also 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 his dedication to public 
service.
    By naming the post office in Rayville after Luke, we not 
only honor his memory and contributions, but we also reaffirm 
our own commitment to the values he stood for: community 
service, God, and family. I urge my colleagues to support 7423 
to 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. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Any 
other Members seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is now on favorably reporting 
the en bloc package.
    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.
    OK. A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record 
their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will 
now open the vote on favorably reporting the en bloc package.
    [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. Have all Members been recorded?
    [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 37. The 
nays are 1.
    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 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 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 3:39 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]