[House Prints 118-10]
[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]