[House Prints 118-11]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress }
2nd Session } COMMITTEE PRINT
_______________________________________________________________________
FULL COMMITTEE
BUSINESS MEETING:
MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS
AND POSTAL-NAMING
MEASURES
=======================================================================
for the
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2024
__________
Serial No. CP:118-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-711 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 May 15, 2024..................................... 1
BILLS CONSIDERED
----------
* H.R. 8333, THE BIOSECURE ACT
Bill Discussed................................................... 1
* H.R. 5255, THE FEDERAL CYBERSECURITY VULNERABILITY REDUCTION
ACT OF 2023
Bill Discussed................................................... 5
* H.R. 8276, THE REUSE EXCESS PROPERTY ACT
Bill Discussed................................................... 8
* H.R. 8335, THE BILLION DOLLAR BOONDOGGLE ACT OF 2024
Bill Discussed................................................... 10
* H.R. 8334, THE GRANT INTEGRITY AND BORDER SECURITY ACT
Bill Discussed................................................... 11
* H.R. 6462, THE RESILIENT EMPLOYMENT AND AUTHORIZATION
DETERMINATION TO INCREASE THE NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT OF SERVING
SPOUSES (READINESS) ACT
Bill Discussed................................................... 17
* SEVERAL POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES
Measures Discussed............................................... 36
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Article, ``Nonprofits Are Making Billions Off the Border
Crisis - The Free Press''; submitted by Rep. Foxx.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS AND
POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES
----------
Wednesday, May 15, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Grothman,
Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner,
Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, Boebert,
Fry, Luna, Langworthy, Burlison, Waltz, Raskin, Norton, Lynch,
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, 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(g) 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 on 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
arise, 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. 8333, the
BIOSECURE Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8333, the BIOSECURE Act, a bill to prohibit
contracting with certain biotechnology providers, and for other
purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered to H.R. 8333, 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. 8333, the BIOSECURE Act. This
bipartisan bicameral bill prevents U.S. taxpayer dollars from
flowing to biotechnology companies that are owned, operated, or
controlled by China or other foreign adversaries. Specifically,
this bill names five genomic companies with direct ties to the
Chinese Communist Party as biotechnology companies of concern.
The bill prohibits a Federal agency from procuring any
biotechnology equipment or service from such companies. The
bill also prohibits Federal loan or grant dollars from being
used to procure, obtain, or use biotechnology equipment or
services from such companies.
The companies named in this legislation create significant
risks to U.S. national security. BGI, one of the named
entities, is a CCP biotechnology company and is the world's
largest collector of genetic data. BGI, alongside its
subsidiaries, which are also named in the bill, have been found
to conduct research alongside the Chinese military. WuXi,
through its two subsidiaries named in the bill, operates
genetic testing centers, established in coordination with the
CCP; helps carry out research to promote the Chinese military;
and has reportedly stolen U.S. firms' intellectual property.
This bill addresses these national security risks without
disrupting medical supply chains.
Existing contracts are exempt from prohibitions in the bill
until January 2032, and the bill includes a targeted waiver and
exception process. The bill also exempts biotechnology
equipment and services from the bill's prohibitions that were,
but are no longer, produced or provided by a company of
concern. This bill is a necessary step toward protecting
America's sensitive healthcare data from the CCP before these
companies become more embedded in the U.S. economy, university
systems, and Federal contracting base.
I want to thank the Select Committee on the Chinese
Communist Party Chairman, John Moolenaar; and Ranking Member
Raja Krishnamoorthi; Senate Homeland Security Chairman, Gary
Peters; and the bill's new House sponsor, Representative Brad
Wenstrup, Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the
Coronavirus Pandemic; and their staffs for the continued work
on this important national security bill. I urge all my House
Oversight colleagues to support this necessary legislation.
I now recognize Ranking Member Raskin for his opening
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bipartisan
legislation, introduced by Representatives Wenstrup and
Krishnamoorthi, is a response to concerns about certain biotech
companies' relationships with the People's Republic of China,
and how these relationships might compromise Americans'
sensitive health data. The intent is to prevent the PRC from
acquiring Americans' sensitive health information, including
our personal genomic data and DNA, through its relationship
with certain companies that collect, test, and stored genomic
data.
According to a February 2021 fact sheet, available on the
DNI website, the PRC is investing heavily in biotech, and has
prioritized policies that facilitate the collection of large
genomic data sets. The DNI reports that Chinese companies have
gained greater access to sensitive U.S. healthcare data by
developing strategic partnerships with U.S. researchers,
hospitals, universities, and firms in providing them extremely
low-cost services, like genomic sequencing, subsidized by the
PRC. Collecting vast amounts of genetic data from a large pool
of diverse patients could allow Chinese companies to develop
and control new medical products and services and also poses
significant privacy and national security risks for Americans.
According to the intelligence community, the PRC's mass
collection of DNA in China has helped to carry out human rights
abuses against domestic minority groups like the Uyghurs and
other Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang. This legislation
would prohibit the Federal Government from purchasing biotech
equipment and services from five companies of concern and
establishes an interagency process for identifying additional
companies in the future if it is ever needed. The bill would
bar Federal agencies from contracting with or making loans to
the companies of concern.
I understand that the Select Committee on Strategic
Competition Between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party
drafted this bill in a bipartisan manner and worked closely
with our Committee staffs and our Senate colleagues to
carefully craft it. The bill before us includes several
provisions that were designed to address concerns raised in the
drafting process, particularly about potential supply chain
disruptions and drug shortages. The bill includes an extended
phase-in period for existing contracts with these companies,
which could be extended until 2032. It also provides a process
for obtaining a waiver and contains limited exceptions for
national security activities and for the provision of necessary
healthcare services to Americans overseas.
The bill is an effort to strike a balance between
recognizing the very real national security threat posed by
efforts to embed the PRC in the U.S. healthcare system while
also ensuring the stability and continuity of our healthcare
supply chain. The bill seeks to address a truly complex problem
in a complex industry. I certainly am in favor of the intent of
this legislation, and I am inclined to support the bill today
in our Committee. I would like to respectfully ask the Chairman
and the bill sponsors to commit to continuing to work in good
faith together to resolve any potential technical issues and
address any unintended consequences of the bill that might
affect the American people or our Nation's drug supply before
it goes to the Floor. I thank Chairman Comer and the sponsors
of the legislation. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any Members seek
recognition on the bill? The Chair recognizes Mr.
Krishnamoorthi.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Mr.
Ranking Member for the opportunity to mark up the BIOSECURE Act
today, H.R. 8333.
Simply put, the BIOSECURE Act prohibits U.S. taxpayer
dollars from flowing to foreign adversary-controlled biotech
companies engaging in nefarious activities. Mr. Brad Wenstrup
and I are proud to have reintroduced this bill last Friday. As
the Ranking Member of the Select Committee on the Strategic
Competition with the Chinese Communist Party, I cannot
overstate the importance of this particular bill. U.S. taxpayer
dollars should not be funding PRC biotech companies that are
actively working with the CCP and the People's Liberation Army
to potentially collect Americans' genomic data and intellectual
property, and use that data to further their authoritarian
objectives.
Our bill requires the executive branch to develop a list of
foreign adversary-controlled biotech companies. It also names
five entities of concern. All are part of either the BGI group
or the WuXi group. Many of you may be wondering, why are we
specifically naming these companies? First, BGI and WuXi had
been found by the U.S. Government and others to be involved in
the perpetration of human rights abuses, specifically the
Uyghur genocide. The Select Committee has found evidence of BGI
and WuXi operating the PRC's 27 pregnancy genetic testing
centers with the PLA, which allows the CCP to help identify and
separate Uyghurs from other residents, a key pillar of the
CCP's genocide. Second, BGI not only worked with the PLA to
develop its technology, but they also now collect data and send
it back to China that is used for continued research with the
PLA. In 2021, a Reuters investigation uncovered that BGI took
DNA using pregnancy tests from 8 million women from 52
different countries and sent that data back to China to be used
in research studies with the PLA. Third, WuXi not only engages
in human rights abuses, but there are reports that WuXi AppTec
has stolen intellectual property from American companies and
sent it back to China to be replicated.
For these reasons and others, these companies and their
affiliates should not be receiving U.S. taxpayer dollars,
period. We should not be working with these companies as a U.S.
Government. This is a bipartisan and a bicameral issue. Our
constituents demand that we not continue with these practices.
I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle
and in the Senate to protect Americans' health and their data.
I urge all my colleagues here today to vote yes on this
critical bill. Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back, and I just want
to publicly thank you for your leadership on this bill and this
issue, Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8333, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, may we have a recorded vote?
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered by the
lady from South Carolina. As previously announced, further
proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item
for consideration is H.R. 5255, the Federal Cybersecurity
Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2023. The clerk will please
designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5255, the Federal Cybersecurity
Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2023, a bill to require covered
contractors implement a vulnerability disclosure policy
consistent with NIST guidelines, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The clerk will please designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 5255 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.
Now I recognize myself to speak on the bill.
I am happy to support H.R. 5255, the Federal Cybersecurity
Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2023. The bill will require
Federal contractors to have a vulnerability disclosure policy,
or a VDP. This would help contractors more quickly alert
Federal agencies about vulnerabilities, which could avoid a
future cybersecurity breach. Federal agencies must act quickly
when dealing with a cyberattack. The sooner a Federal agency
knows it may have a problem, the sooner it can take steps to
protect systems and data, including the personal data of
millions of Americans. It is reasonable to require Federal
contractors to play a proactive role in addressing information
system vulnerabilities. The bill complements the Committee's
ongoing work aimed at helping Federal agencies protect their
data and information systems. I thank Subcommittee Chairwoman
Mace for introducing this important legislation. I encourage my
colleagues to support it.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate today's
consideration of the Federal Contractors Cybersecurity
Vulnerability Reduction Act, as well as the work of our
colleague, Ms. Mace, in leading on this legislation. The bill
would ensure that covered Federal contractors implement
vulnerability disclosure policies, consistent with the
guidelines of NIST, industry best practices, and international
standards.
Each year, software developers, security researchers, and
others discover tens of thousands of security vulnerabilities
in computer software and systems. For example, in 2023, more
than 29,000 common vulnerabilities and exposures were logged
into NIST's widely used National Vulnerability Data base. If
companies establish a process for accepting, assessing, and
managing reports of these vulnerabilities, otherwise known as a
vulnerability disclosure policy, they can make use of such
discoveries to fix problems before they are ever exploited by
nefarious actors. Vulnerability disclosure policies are an
effective tool for improving cybersecurity. Most agencies
already have such policies, as do Federal contractors and subs
that provide information systems, and the internet of things,
and devices to Federal agencies. By requiring all Federal
contractors to follow suit, the bill shores up another front in
the never-ending battle to protect the government's information
systems and our data. Happy to support the bill today, and I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition? The
Chair recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Chairwoman Mace.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2020, the Office of
Management and Budget directed Federal agencies to implement
cybersecurity vulnerability disclosure policies. White hat
hackers and researchers work with the Federal Government to
identify and address vulnerabilities. Ethical hackers are
crucial to improving the Nation's cybersecurity posture. These
vulnerability policies require these third parties to stop
testing and properly notify the Federal Agency of any sensitive
data they encounter, like personally identifiable information,
financial information, or proprietary information or trade
secrets. This allows the vulnerability to be patched and the
information to be secured before they are exploited by
malicious actors, including our adversaries. This was an
important step in Federal cybersecurity. But as we have talked
about in this Committee many times, just a fraction of the
Federal workforce are Federal employees. The Federal Government
awards over 11 million contracts annually, with many of these
contractors having access to sensitive information, including
personal information of U.S. citizens.
This bill, the Federal Cybersecurity Vulnerability
Reduction Act, will require Federal contractors who work with
government data or have access to government networks to adopt
these vulnerability disclosure policies. This bill specifically
requires the Department of Defense to supplement the Federal
acquisition regulations to require the same strong
cybersecurity vulnerability reduction policies also,
safeguarding the personal information of our service members
and information vital to our national security. Contractors
with access to government data and systems should, at the very
least, have the same safeguards and lines of defense in place
as our government. Adoption of vulnerability disclosure
policies by government and defense contractors will help
protect the sensitive data of American citizens and our
national security. Until these vulnerability disclosure
policies are adopted across the entire Federal digital
ecosystem, our Nation is at risk. This bill would close a
crucial vulnerability and protect our Nation from malicious
actors who seek to steal our data and do us harm.
I would like to thank the Chairman for his support in
bringing this critical bill to markup today and look forward to
its passage on a bipartisan basis, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. I thank the Chairwoman for this bill. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Ms. Mace
for bringing this bill. My question, though, is with regard to
the importance of this report. In multiple places, we allow the
VDP to be actually waived by the CIO, Chief Information
Officer. I guess my question--what I think might make this a
little better bill is, is the CIO would never be required to
justify the waiver because this thing in here says that they
are going to find that there is necessarily the interest of
national security or research purposes to go ahead and waive
the report. And my question would be, who is reviewing what
they are doing? And maybe we as the Oversight Committee or some
other committee should receive that as a portion of the report
when they choose to waive the report.
I would just suggest that because I do not see anything,
accountability to the CIO in here, and maybe there is and I am
just missing it, but I would suggest maybe we want the CIO to
be accountable rather than to just subjectively make the
determination. That is my suggestion. And, Ms. Mace, I do not
know if you want to respond or Mr. Comer, or anyone.
Chairman Comer. You do not have to. I can comment on it
while Mace is looking at it, but we will certainly take that
into consideration as the bill moves forward.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Mace. We are happy to work on it.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition on
the bill? You want to talk 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.]
All those opposed by saying no.
[No response.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 5255, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair----
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. I would like to request a recorded vote, please.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by Ms. Mace from
South Carolina. As previously announced, further proceedings on
the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8276, the Reuse
Excess Property Act.
The clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8276, the Reuse Excess Property Act, a bill
to make data and internal guidance on excess personal property
publicly available, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 8276 as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill and amendment.
As the largest single purchaser of goods and services in
the world, Federal agencies require billions of dollars of
personal property ranging from office supplies to automobiles
each year. Unfortunately, agencies routinely and wastefully
dispose of excess personal property that could otherwise be
repurposed for continued Federal Agency use. Agencies are
already required to consider the availability of excess
personal property before buying new products. This excess
personal property is available to agencies at no cost apart
from any necessary transportation expenses. In June 2022, the
GAO found that agencies are continuing to acquire new property
while not using available excess personal property. GAO's
findings indicate that the guidance in the existing Federal
Management Regulation alone may not be sufficient. With better
direction from Congress, agencies can be more efficient in
leveraging excess personal property to meet their needs, saving
taxpayer dollars.
The Reuse Excess Property Act would hold agencies more
accountable toward efficiently using and reusing personal
property by introducing transparency and accountability
mechanisms. This bill would reform existing statutory reporting
requirements to the General Services Administration on excess
personal property and require GSA to make this information
publicly available. This will help decisionmakers and taxpayers
better understand the extent to which agencies are working to
cut wasteful spending through the use of excess property,
informing future policy. Because GAO found that agencies have
varied guidance on the use of excess personal property that
often neglects essential FMR components, H.R. 8276 would
require agencies to publicly report their guidance. Such
guidance must include essential FMR components outlined by GAO.
Agencies must also designate employees responsible for
searching through available excess personal property for items
that meet agency needs.
In response to GAO's report, in February 2023, GSO convened
the first meeting of an interagency working group to assess how
agencies acquire personal property, uncover obstacles, and
recommend improvements to policies for acquisition
professionals. The bill would require GSA to make the findings
of the working group, including a general summary, publicly
available to provide full transparency into efforts to promote
the maximum use of excess personal property. This bill shines a
light on agency practices and could incentivize more efficient
use of excess personal property, saving untold taxpayer dollars
in the future.
I want to thank Representative McClain for her leadership
on this issue, and I think most people have heard that
Representative McClain has had to have emergency appendix
surgery and she will be out for a few days. I want to urge my
colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. I recognize
the Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support the
Reuse Excess Property Act, which would increase transparency
across the government by strengthening reporting requirements
around excess personal property. I commend Chairwoman McClain,
and I wish her well, and Ranking Member Porter for introducing
the House version of the act, which has already passed in the
Senate unanimously.
As of 2022, the government amassed roughly $2 trillion in
personal property, including furniture, like chairs and desks;
vehicles; office supplies; even medical equipment. The agencies
are required to survey and index their inventories of personal
property on an annual basis and identify items that they no
longer need so that agencies can better account for their
assets and get a better understanding of excess items that
could be considered for use in other agencies. The GAO
identified $3.9 billion in excess personal property between
fiscal years 2016 and 2020, and found an additional $28.9
billion in excess personal property items that were reported
but not obtained by the agencies. These excess items could be
transferred to another agency, distributed to state or local
governments that need it, or even sold to the public.
This act would increase Federal reporting requirements and
provide greater transparency to the public of acquisition,
monitoring, reuse, and disposal of personal property across the
terrain of Federal Government. It directs the GSA and agencies
to annually report data it collects related to excess personal
property and would also make the data available to the whole
public. With greater transparency in Federal uses of personal
property, agencies can better optimize the use of these items,
reducing the need for Federal expenditures in the future. I
support this commonsense, good government legislation. I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. The question is now on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8276, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair----
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered by the
gentlelady from South Carolina. As previously announced,
further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8335, the Billion
Dollar Boondoggle Act. The clerk will please designate the
bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8335, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act, a
bill to require the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget to submit to Congress an annual report on projects that
are over budget and behind schedule, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 8335 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.
Congress must ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent
efficiently. Every year, the Government Accountability Office
reports government projects that are above cost projections or
behind schedule, from Federal IT programs to projects at the
National Nuclear Security Administration. However, there are
likely additional government projects that fly under the radar,
falling years behind schedule or are billions of dollars over
budget. The Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act would address this by
informing policymakers of government-funded projects that are
behind schedule or above initial cost projection. The bill
directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance
requiring Federal agencies to report annually to Congress
regarding certain federally funded projects. Under the bill,
agencies must report on projects that are more than 5 years
behind schedule or have expenditures that are at least $1
billion more than the original cost estimate for the project.
Agencies must provide an explanation if there is a delay in
completion or an increase of cost for the project.
Congress has a duty to oversee the Federal Government for
inefficiency and waste. This bill informs policymakers and
allows Congress to address failing government projects before
further taxpayer dollars are misused. The identical S. 1258
passed the Senate on March 23, 2024, sponsored by Senator Joni
Ernst and Senator Hassan. I want to thank Representative
Miller-Meeks for introducing the House companion bill. I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation.
I recognize the Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The legislation would
require additional reporting on certain Federal projects over
budget by a billion dollars or 5 years behind schedule.
Congress has a duty to make sure that the taxpayers' dollars
are well spent, and additional oversight of projects that are
vastly over budget or behind schedule makes perfect sense. I
support this bill. I appreciate the fact that this version
takes into consideration some technical comments that were
offered by OMB, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members wish to speak? The Chair
recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This is a good bill, but
good grief. We are not going to report until you are 5 years
behind schedule? I mean, that seems to me----
Chairman Comer. We got projects in Kentucky on the
Mississippi and Ohio River with the Corps of Engineers that are
10 years behind.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. I mean, I think we should have known. Yes,
if they are 10 years behind, we should have known when they
were 6 months behind so we could get a handle on it and
encourage them to get caught up or something. That is my only
problem with this. It seems a little loosey-goosey, and I think
we should be having a little bit more oomph in our oversight,
Mr. Chairman. But with that, I am going to support this bill,
obviously, but I am hoping that maybe we can tighten this up as
we go forward.
Chairman Comer. Well said.
Mr. Biggs. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
[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.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8335, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed say no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair--the Chair
recognizes Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered by Mr.
Biggs of Arizona. As previously announced, further proceedings
on the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8334, the Grant
Integrity and Border Security Act. The clerk will please
designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8334, the Grant Integrity and Border
Security Act, a bill to require any applicant for a Federal
grant to submit a certification that such applicant is not in
violation of Section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The clerk will please designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 8334 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. congressional Republicans are committed
to securing our Southern border. It has been brought to this
Committee's attention that some nongovernmental organizations,
also known as NGO's, are using taxpayer dollars to subvert
immigration law. NGO's receive hundreds of billions of dollars
in Federal financial assistance to reimburse travel, shelter,
and food provided to illegal aliens after they are released
from the Department of Homeland Security custody. While these
grant funds are lawfully provided for such purposes, some grant
recipients may be engaging in inappropriate and potentially
criminal conduct.
The DHS Inspector General found last year that NGO's had
received reimbursements through FEMA's Emergency Food and
Shelter Program for services provided to illegal aliens who had
evaded detection and apprehension by DHS personnel. This means
that DHS had no record that these individuals had been released
from custody and were, therefore, ineligible to receive
services under the law. This is unacceptable. Groups that
criminally aid illegal aliens should not be eligible to receive
Federal grants.
The bill requires applicants for Federal grants to certify
that they will not violate Section 274(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, which prohibits alien smuggling, domestic
transportation of unauthorized aliens, encouraging unauthorized
aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy
to take any of these actions. Applicants must certify that they
and their employees have not violated in the last 10 years, are
not in violation of, and will not violate the Act. Under the
bill, the Office of Management and Budget is then authorized to
withhold funds from any grantee in violation of this
requirement. Additionally, if a grant recipient agrees not to
violate the requirement and is later found to have criminally
aided illegal immigrants, they can be held accountable to a
civil suit. Such civil suits can be filed under the False
Claims Act, which provides any person who knowingly submits or
causes to submit false claims to the government is liable for
three times the government damages.
Congress expects NGO's to abide by Federal law, including
immigration law, when providing charitable assistance to
immigrants. Congress must ensure that NGO's that break
immigration law by criminally aiding illegal immigrants are not
funding their activities with taxpayer dollars.
I want to thank Representative Foxx for introducing this
very necessary bill. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Alas, time and again,
Republicans have walked away from meaningful bipartisan efforts
to improve our immigration system and strengthen border
security. A few months ago, at the behest of Donald Trump,
Republicans rejected a bipartisan Senate border bill that Mitch
McConnell called the most substantial border security policy in
30 years. In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted
against the Bipartisan Infrastructure deal, which provided
additional funding to combat smuggling of people and drugs into
our country, and all but two of them voted against robust
funding for border security operations in the Fiscal Year 2023
appropriations package.
Now, instead of engaging in meaningful robust bipartisan
action, our colleagues have brought forth the H.R. 8334, a bill
that would ask Federal grant applicants to certify that they
are not in violation of one provision of one Federal
immigration law that they are already legally obligated to
follow. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of any real or serious
policy solution that would actually repair the country's
decades-long broken immigration system, H.R. 8334 is just one
more frivolous attempt by Republicans to further demonize
immigrants and stoke fears about migrants without actually
doing anything.
The bill would require applicants for Federal grants to
certify that they are not in violation of Section 274(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, which imposes criminal
penalties for knowingly taking a number of actions related to
an immigrant, who is in the United States in violation of law.
In targeting one specific section of one specific Federal law
for an additional bureaucratic check-the-box step, this bill
suggests it would somehow be less troubling for Federal
grantees to violate any other Federal law. To be clear, Federal
grantees are already expected and obligated to follow all
Federal laws, and they are subject to penalties and
consequences when they do not follow Federal laws. This bill is
not necessary, and it is a painfully obvious attempt to score
political points in the ceaseless crusade to demonize
immigrants and try to claim that the Biden Administration is
not already upholding the Nation's existing immigration laws.
H.R. 8334 is further evidence that when it comes to
immigration and border security, our colleagues are offering no
solutions, but rather gimmicks. They would rather stoke fear
and cause chaos for political gain rather than work with us to
pass bipartisan solutions. I oppose H.R. 8334. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this
commonsense bill, introduced by Chairwoman Foxx. So, let us
think about this. My colleagues across the aisle always say, oh
man, the Republicans do not want to solve the border crisis.
Over a year ago, we passed out the best border security bill
that has come out in a generation, but the Senate refuses to
take it up. The Democrats refused to take it up because it
actually would secure the border. But let us consider the plan
that they put forward that they always tout and say, oh man,
this is a great plan.
It guaranteed 1,500 people could illegally enter the
country every day. Even if the 7,500 limit mandatory-close-the-
border was actually triggered, 1,500 a day. Well, you could do
the math yourself. It is over 500,000 people a year, which, by
the way, until the Biden Administration, that would have been a
record number of illegal aliens coming across. They were cool
with that, but you did not even trigger an option to actually
secure the border until you hit the number of 5,000 illegal
aliens coming across the border in a day, 5,000 a day. Do the
math. That is about 1.8 million.
It did not become mandatory for the executive to actually
close the border for security purposes, in that legislation
that the Democrats support, until when? Seventy-five hundred a
day came in. That is about 2.5 million people. And here is the
other kicker. They could not get that bill out of the Senate.
So, it is not a demonization. Because we have over a million
legal immigrants every year. We support that. What we do not
support is mass illegal migration.
So, I will give you an example of NGO's. In Yuma, there is
only one NGO. I served in the state legislature with the lady
who runs it, Amanda Aguirre. She is great, does a great job,
but she herself is overwhelmed because Yuma, which actually
averaged fewer than 25 per day illegal aliens apprehended, in
this Administration, they are happy to be down to 350 day
because there have been times that they have had 2,000 a day.
So, this is a good bill.
Let me tell you about the Tucson Sector. You know, it
cracks me up, folks who live far from the border say there is
no border crisis. Well, so, I was down in the Tucson Sector
again last week. We actually had a hearing down there. You need
to understand, and I just want to put this in a big picture
perspective for you: 2018, 2019, and 2020, average was 60,000
apprehensions or encounters per year in the Tucson Sector. When
President Biden came in and he emasculated it within 24 hours,
something like 70-plus executive orders dealing with border
security, the number rose to more than 3 times that in the
first year, 2021. And then it was over 250,000 in 2022. In
2023, last year, it was about 360,000. And this year, they are
on pace already to exceed 700,000 encounters in the Tucson
Sector, which also is the corridor for something like 50
percent of all fentanyl and drug trafficking and human
trafficking.
So, this is a bill that is actually necessary because one
thing that we have found is that NGO's are actually
facilitating illegal immigration, both south of the border and
on our side of the border. So, let us have them declare that
they are in compliance specifically with this immigration law.
That will help, I think. I hope it does. And so, with that, Mr.
Chairman, I support Ms. Foxx's bill, and I yield back.
Ms. Foxx. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Biggs. Yes, I will.
Chairman Comer. Make sure your mic is on.
Ms. Foxx. I am not sure if the gentleman has seen this, but
I was just given to me yesterday, it came out. It is today's
paper, the Free Press, has put out an article called,
``Nonprofits are Making Billions Off the Border Crisis.'' And,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this into the record.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the sponsor of the
bill, Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I make my
prepared remarks, I would like to say to the Ranking Member, he
knows I do not do frivolous things. I do not spend my time
doing frivolous things. And he said that we are implying that
the Biden Administration is not upholding the law. No, Mr.
Chairman. We know the Biden Administration is not upholding the
law. My bill, H.R. 8334, the Grant Integrity and Border
Security Act, would prohibit Federal grant recipients from
engaging in unlawful acts related to the smuggling and
transportation of illegal aliens into the United States. We
just hold lawbreakers accountable to secure our border and stop
the abuse of taxpayer funds.
President Biden and Department of Homeland Security, DHS,
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, have overseen the most chaotic,
lawless, and open border in recent memory. Taxpayers have been
bearing the brunt of the massive wave of illegal aliens that
have entered the United States, and the Biden Administration
has seemingly declared hardworking taxpayers collateral damage
in their pursuit to subvert the meaning of ``citizenship.''
Agents of Customs and Border Patrol have been outspoken in
their opposition to both Biden Administration policies and the
assistance illegal immigrants receive from nongovernmental
organizations, NGO's, that work to aid in subversion of law and
order. When asked if NGO's are working at cross purposes to the
mission of border control agents, Chief of the National Border
Control Council said, ``Most definitely, and they should not be
allowed, but our government allows it.''
NGO's receiving taxpayer funding through grants pay for
everything from food, shelter, and transportation, to legal
services that help the migrants traverse Mexico. According to
the Office of Management and Budget, each year, the taxpayers
provide more than $1.2 trillion in funding for thousands of
programs through grants and other forms of financial
assistance. $1.2 trillion dollars was 4.8 percent of our
country's GDP in 2022. For such a large sum, taxpayers need
assurance that their money is not being spent to undermine law
and order. However, today, taxpayers have no such assurance.
In 2023, DHS Office of Inspector General published a report
on the failure of the Administration to provide adequate
oversight of Federal grant funding. Organizations that receive
funding are required to maintain documents related to cost,
migrants served each day, expenses incurred, and proof of
payment for purchases. In one sample of NGO books, the
Inspector General report states that 58 percent of the reviewed
amount was missing documentation. Additionally, the report
determined a shocking number of migrants who received
assistance from these NGO's were missing documentation and did
not have a DHS encounter record. Of the 824 names that were
tested as a sample, 197 were ineligible to receive humanitarian
services, and 154 did not have an encounter record. Despite
this, President Biden and DHS have made no effort to hold NGO's
who received millions in taxpayer dollars accountable.
H.R. 8334 will finally do so. My bill requires that all
applicants certify when filling out their applications that
they have not violated, will not violate, and are not currently
in violation of Section 274(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. This section of Federal law imposes criminal
penalties on any person who assist aliens in illegally crossing
in the United States. Accountability is ultimately guaranteed
by requiring Federal agencies to withhold any funds from a
grantee determined by the head of an agency to be in violation
of their application certification.
It is time to rein in lax enforcement of our immigration
laws, implement integrity in the Federal grant process, and
finally secure the southern border. And with that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. Do any other
Members seek recognition? The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. I would yield to the Ranking Leader.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Ms. Crockett, and I wanted
to apologize to Ms. Foxx, if she thought that I was calling her
frivolous and that nothing could be less frivolous than you. I
know how seriously you undertake your responsibilities. I find
it frivolous that our colleagues across the aisle rejected the
best bipartisan package we ever had, at least since I have been
in Congress, on immigration. It was backed by Senator Lankford,
by Senator McConnell. It was flying through the Senate,
hundreds of new Border Patrol agents, hundreds of new border
judges, new fentanyl detection, technology, all of it. And as I
understand it, at least as the press reported it, Donald Trump
did not want a border solution. He wanted a border crisis to
run on. And so, you know, whatever the merits of this
legislation is, it pales by comparison to what might actually
have been done with that multibillion dollar investment in
strengthening the border.
Just on this question, if my friend from North Carolina
would yield for a second, but I am curious about the structure
of this legislation. It seems like what it says is that there
is a criminal law that already applies to everybody. And this
then says we want people to sign something saying they are not
violating the criminal law. And I am not familiar with that
structure of legislation before, and I wonder are there any
other examples of that existing in Federal grant compliance. I
mean, I want Federal grantees to be complying with every
Federal criminal and civil law there is. And this almost seems
to imply you have got to comply with this particular law, but
we do not care if you are violating the other ones. If you
could just explain that to me.
Ms. Foxx. I am not familiar, obviously, with every granting
agency and how they are structured. But I think it is important
that we have received reports on what these NGO's are doing and
that it appears they are not abiding by the law, and this is a
sort of a backstop or a double-check to make sure that they
will be doing that. And as I said earlier, we know that these
NGO's are making billions off of the border crisis in terms of
how they are handling this.
Mr. Raskin. And I guess I would just say I am afraid that
this sends a message of weak enforcement of our laws. If I
knew, for example, that we had Federal grantees that were
assaulting people, sexually abusing people, committing surgery
against them against their will, I would not ask for a
certification that they are not committing crimes. I would call
the police, or I would try to have the law enforced against
them rather than, you know, picking out one provision in law
and say please give me an annual certification that you are not
in violation of the criminal law. But I can see there have been
honest difference of opinion about doing this, and I want to
thank the gentlelady for yielding. I yield back to Ms.
Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield.
Chairman Comer. All right. Any further Members seek
recognition?
[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.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8334, as
amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered by Mr.
Biggs from Arizona. As previously announced, further
proceedings on the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 6462, the Resilient
Employment and Authorization Determination to Increase the
National Employment of Serving Spouses Act, or the READINESS
Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 6462, the Resilient Employment and
Authorization Determination to Increase the National Employment
of Serving Spouses Act, a bill to retain Federal employees who
are spouses of a member of the armed forces or the foreign
service when relocating due to an involuntary transfer, and for
other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 6462 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 commitment demonstrated by American military and
Foreign Service members who volunteer to serve our country is
often accompanied by challenges for their own spouses
maintaining gainful employment. Some of the burdens are
shouldered by the service members' families who must relocate
along with their family member when duty calls for
redeployment. That is why it is important for Congress to
accommodate these families who sacrificed so much supporting
their loved ones and help ease these transitions.
The READINESS Act presents an opportunity for this
Committee to provide reasonable accommodations for service
members' spouses who are current Federal employees to continue
their Federal employment during these redeployments. The bill
directs employing agencies to provide service members' spouses
with remote work accommodations, transfer them into another
position near the new duty location, or into another remote
work position altogether. For instance, if it is determined
that none of these options are feasible, agencies can place the
spouse into leave without pay status, specially designated as
separate due to covered relocation. Additionally, the bill
provides for annual reports to OPM and Congress detailing
agencies' use of these authorities.
I want to thank Ms. Crockett and Mr. Bacon for their
bipartisan work on this bill and urge my colleagues to support
this important measure to better support the families of those
who sacrificed so much in service to our country. I now
recognize the Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Resilient
Employment and Authorization Determination to Increase the
National Employment of Serving Spouses, or READINESS Act,
sponsored by my colleague from Texas, Representative Crockett,
would require Federal agencies to offer, when possible,
employment flexibilities like telework, remote work, or leave-
without-pay status to Federal employees were the spouses of a
military or Foreign Service member who undergo a permanent
change of duty station. I am a proud co-sponsor.
Military-connected families face unique demands. For
example, active-duty military families face permanent change-
of-station moves every 2 to 3 years on average, often with
little or no control over their assignments. Each move may
require the spouse to leave their job, which limits their own
professional growth and development and makes it difficult to
maintain steady work. The military spouse population, 90
percent of which are women, has a 21 percent unemployment rate,
which is nearly 6 times the national average. As a result,
nearly 1 in 5 military families point to spousal employment as
a reason for leaving military service and for struggling to
make ends meet.
The READINESS Act, a bipartisan bill, would ensure that all
Federal employees who are married to a service member or a
Foreign Service employee who relocates because of a permanent
change of station, has access to certain workforce
flexibilities that allow them to continue their Federal
careers. The following groups have endorsed the Act: the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Officers Association of
America, With Honor Action, Military Family Advisory Network,
National Military Family Association, American Federation of
Government Employees, American Foreign Service Association,
Blue Star Families, and American Legion.
Congress must prioritize the needs of our military
families, and this bill will do that. I commend Ms. Crockett
and her staff for their great hard work in getting this bill to
markup today, as well as our Majority counterparts who worked
tirelessly with Ms. Crockett and her staff to get feedback from
the Office of Personnel Management and OMB to ensure that this
legislation works to actually help our military and foreign
service families in our districts. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Do any Members wish to speak on the bill?
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. I have some concerns about this particular bill.
Chairman Comer. OK. You are going to offer an amendment
or----
Mr. Cloud. I will, but right now I am speaking to the bill.
Chairman Comer. You are what?
Mr. Cloud. Speaking to the bill.
Chairman Comer. OK.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Proceed.
Mr. Cloud. I have learned in my time here that anytime
there is a bill that basically is apple pie and puppy dogs and
everything that we should really look into what is going on
into this bill. Now, we all want our service members paid well.
They should be paid more. We honor our military. We want them
taken care of while they are in their service. When we send
them overseas, they should go only with a clear mission. They
should go with everything and every tool they need for clear
and quick victory, and then we should bring them home, and then
we should take care of them following their service. That is
something I think we all agree with.
When I began to look at this bill, I noticed a couple
things began to bother me right off the bat, and that is that
it begins to make this false equivalency. And indeed, the
Chairman and Ranking Members comments focused on our military,
but this bill gives the same benefits to our Foreign Service,
our State Department, as our military. I think that is a false
equivalency that we should not assume. And indeed, when you
begin to look at the numbers of who would actually be affected
by this bill, it is less than one percent of our military
people serving in military that have a spouse serving in the
Federal bureaucracy.
On the other hand, when you look at our State Department,
it is estimated, best numbers available, that 15 percent of our
State Department has a spouse serving in the State Department.
That does not account for the other agencies, so we could guess
maybe it is 20 percent or more. So, this is really--when we
talk about it being about the military, this is really more
about our State Department having guaranteed work wherever they
go.
I think it is important that in everything that we are
doing, we remember that every public service job exists to
serve the American people. And I think we are going down a
dangerous precedent when we begin to say that Federal
bureaucrats' jobs are guaranteed for life, and it kind of flips
the coin to where the American people then exist to serve and
create jobs for the bureaucrats. I do not think that is where
we want to go. We do want to make sure, and I am going to
reiterate, if this is really about our military, which this
claims to be, this is called the READINESS Act. And so, we are
talking about having military ready, having an equipped force.
We all know that there are major recruiting problems that are
going on right now, but again, this addresses less than 1
percent of our military. It is 0.8 percent of our military. If
this is really about readiness, we have major recruiting
problems that we can deal with and that we should address, but
I do not believe--this is a very roundabout way of addressing
those issues. One of the biggest issues that has led to our
recruitment goals not being met is the woke turn our military
has taken, the DEI initiatives that we have put in, all the
things that we are trying to do in our military to make it a
social engineering experiment instead of the world's elite,
premier fighting force that is ready to go blow things up when
necessary.
This is a well-intended act, but it does not accomplish the
goals it seeks out to accomplishes, and for that, I have some
serious concerns about it. And I would recommend that we
withhold this bill and bring it up at a later date when we have
had a chance to really address these issues.
Mr. Raskin. But will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Cloud. Sure.
Mr. Raskin. I just was not familiar with the statistics you
were citing. You said that 15 percent of State Department
spouses work in the Federal Government?
Mr. Cloud. That is not available. The State Department does
not track it. The best numbers available we could find since
this came----
Mr. Raskin. OK. And then you said 1 percent of military
spouses working in the Federal----
Mr. Cloud. It is 0.8 percent of military spouses.
Mr. Raskin. OK. And can you just share that information?
Mr. Cloud. Sixteen thousand of 2 million.
Mr. Raskin. So, 16,000 spouses are working in the Federal
Government?
Mr. Cloud. Of the 2 million.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. And so, even though----
Mr. Cloud. And by the way, it is not usually your
infantryman whose spouse is working somewhere in the State
Department or somewhere else in another agency. It is usually a
higher level. And I am not saying that we should not give
attention to that, but the greatest benefactors in this bill,
that we are calling a READINESS Act for our military, are State
Department employees, and I have a concern with us placing that
on equal footing.
Mr. Raskin. If I can just pursue the question for 1 second
since I have not seen the statistics. In hard numbers, are
there more military spouses or more State Department spouses
who are affected? There are obviously a lot more people in the
military.
Mr. Cloud. Well, I have an amendment to remove the State
Department aspects of it and----
Mr. Raskin. Right. I was just interested in the statistics.
You said there were 16,000 spouses of people in the Army or the
Marines or the Navy, you know, but do you know how many spouses
are in the State Department who would be affected by it?
Mr. Cloud. It is a lesser number.
Mr. Raskin. OK. So, it is a smaller number, but a bigger
percentage. OK. All right. So, we are talking about thousands
of people.
Mr. Cloud. Which is why I am not saying can the bill, I am
saying I think we should readdress it.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Mr. Cloud. And then bring it back.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you for yielding.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Crockett, the
sponsor of the bill.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. While we are calling
this the READINESS Act, I do want to remind my colleagues that
what this essentially does is it keeps families connected. And
thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for your support of this
bipartisan bill to support the retention of some of the most
patriotic Federal employees, spouses of our armed forces
members and the Foreign Service personnel. These dedicated men
and women are not only an asset to our workforce, but to our
country as well. Given all they do, Congress should be doing
everything in our power to retain these military and foreign
service spouses in our Federal workforce.
Unfortunately, as I have stated before in this Committee,
too often these outstanding Federal employees are not retained
when their spouses get a change of duty station order. As a
result, a military spouse is facing unemployment rate several
times higher than the national average. Not only does this hurt
their career development, but it needlessly deprives the
government of well-qualified workers. It is also a threat to
our national security and military readiness. We all have seen
various military branches have struggled to meet their target
recruitment goals. That is why retaining the current members of
our armed forces is more important than ever. Unfortunately,
over 20 percent of military families who leave active duty cite
issues finding spousal employment as a factor for their
separation. That is why Congressman Don Bacon and I built this
bipartisan consensus on the need to use every tool available to
support these Federal employees through the READINESS Act.
This bill gives due process assurance to military and
Foreign Service spouses, no matter what agency they are in. If
their spouse is serving in the military and Foreign Service
gets a permanent change of station order, the spouse working in
Federal Government will also get an individual determination
about the agency's ability to retain them, either through
remote work, reassignment, or a combination of the two. Right
now, while there is significant positive movement from the
executive branch on retaining military spouses overseas, thanks
to First Lady Jill Biden's Joining Forces Initiative, more
still needs to be done to ensure every federally employed
military and Foreign Service spouse, regardless of agency,
knows that the Federal Government values their contribution and
wants to continue to retain them. In the event that retention
is not a viable option, based on the family's permanent change
of station, my bill will provide spouses time to find a new job
within the government by providing up to 6 months of leave
without pay.
We also know that moving across the country and around the
world in service to our country is not an easy task. That is
why my READINESS Act gives military and Foreign Service spouses
additional tools to help them reenter the Federal Government.
Once we pass this bill, spouses will no longer have to worry
about their security clearances expiring for the duration of
the permanent change of station. This bill also ensures that
these spouses do not lose reinstatement eligibility just
because they were on a long series of permanent change of
station.
Now, we know in this Committee, we have had our fair share
of fireworks, and that is putting it gently. But, I must say
that I genuinely want to say thank you to Chairman Comer for
putting my bill on the agenda today and for working with my
staff on this ANS. I want to thank Ranking Member Raskin, not
just for co-sponsoring the bill, but all the work that his
amazing team has done with ours on this ANS. Thank you,
Congressman Bacon, who has not only co-led this bill with me,
but is also currently working with me and another co-sponsor,
Congresswoman Houlahan, to address issues for military and
Foreign Service spouses in the upcoming NDAA as well. And
finally, I want to extend a special thanks to the individual
military and Foreign Service spouses who reached out to my team
to raise these issues over a year ago, and who have worked
tirelessly to come up with commonsense solutions.
As a freshman, I will be honest that, from what I have
seen, it often takes big names and deep pockets to make things
move around here, but this is a story of individuals seeking
redress from their government and Congress actually taking
action. I am proud to have authored the READINESS Act and look
forward to working with everyone in this building and getting
this to the President's desk. With that, I will yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, like the
gentleman from Texas, have some concerns about this piece of
legislation, and so I am going to be looking very keenly at the
amendments. But in a general sense, I think there are ways, and
I appreciate the gentlelady's effort to try to address the
concerns that military and State Department spouses may have
when PCS moves occur regarding their security clearances or
regarding further employment during that dwell time.
But I also am concerned about this. We just recently had
what we call Academy Night in the district that I am proud and
privileged to represent where we have aspiring young people,
young citizens that want to attend a military academy. They
come in and receive information about the process and about the
force they think that they might be interested in joining. And
as a person who was honored to wear the military uniform of the
United States for over 3 decades, I have a conversation with
them where I tell them, you are agreeing to serve, you are
asking to serve. There is no draft, and no one is requiring you
to do this. You are doing this because you want to, and so you
have to decide if you want to serve. And you might want to be
an F-35 pilot, or you might want to be a submarine commander,
or fly F-18s off of an aircraft carrier. And it is great when
your requirements, when your wishes, when your demands, when
your hopes meet with the Federal Government's requirements,
with the needs of the U.S. military, in this case, or in the
case of this bill, the State Department. When the needs of the
individual marry up perfectly with the needs of the United
States of America, that is a great circumstance, but sometimes
and oftentimes, they do not, but you wanted to serve. That is
why you are here. You want to serve.
And so, the question is, are you going to serve or not? And
if you are going to serve, service is about sacrifice. That is
what service is, and the sacrifice that comes along with that
is probably a PCS move. It is likely. You are going to have to
move, and you might not get what we call an MOS, the skillset
that you desire. You might not be the infantry person that is
out there, the infantryman that is out there, you know, low
crawling through the jungle and eating snakes. Maybe that is
what you want to do, but maybe the U.S. Army thinks that you
need to be a chemical officer because that is what we need at
the time. Well, you said you wanted to serve, so you are going
to serve.
And so, my point is this. There are people that I
represent, and I imagine the sponsor of the bill represents,
that have to make decisions every day. They work in the private
sector, and they get a job opportunity. I just happened to know
one of my constituents is leaving the area that I represent to
go to Atlanta. He has got a job opportunity. He is going to
take his family and leave, and his wife is employed, and she is
going to have to get a job, or if she wants to continue work, I
guess she is either going to have to decide to stay in
Pennsylvania or she is going to have to decide to go to
Atlanta. I guess the point is, is that we all make decisions.
And I am concerned when there is a circumstance where the
Federal Government is saying we are going to guarantee, the
taxpayer and the United States is going to guarantee, you a job
if you work for the Federal Government. That is not the way it
works in the rest of the marketplace anywhere.
We all make decisions. If you want to have a family, and
being in the military or in the State Department no longer
works for you as a person who wants to start a family or have a
family, you have a family and your PCS move does not work for
you, I get it.
Ms. Crockett. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Perry. We all get it. Hold on, ma'am. I want to
complete my thought here. We all get it, but that is a decision
that you have to make. Life changes. Things change. It is not
the job or the role, nor should it be, of the Federal
Government to make sure that decisions it needs to make on
behalf of the American people, on behalf of national security,
on behalf of international or foreign affairs, to make sure
that it works for you. That is a decision that we cannot be
making. We need to make the decision that is best for America,
whether it is in uniform or whether it is at the State
Department, and if that works out for you, that is awesome. But
if it does not work out for you, then you have got a decision
that you have got to make.
We cannot fashion our decisions on national security based
on the individual needs of people that signed up of their own
volition for a job that they wanted to pursue, and God bless
them. We are happy they want to do it. We are happy that they
want to serve. We are happy that they want to sacrifice, but
that is what comes with the territory. If that is not for you,
we need insurance salesmen and we need people to clean pools,
and we need all kinds of things in America. That is OK. With
that my time has expired.
Mr. Biggs. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Porter.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much. My brother was in the Navy
and went to the Naval Academy, and one of the reasons that he
left after his years of service was his concern about being
able to have a family and for his spouse to be able to have a
career. And the military spent lots of money trying to entice
him to stay, and so it is not a choice between doing nothing
and doing something. The question is, what do we want to do.
That said, I take Mr. Cloud's point about needing to do more to
help the spouses and partners of younger and newer
servicemembers who maybe are not qualified yet to work for the
Federal Government, and how can we educate and train them so
that they are able to get Federal jobs, and I would be happy to
partner with you on that.
I want to speak briefly about my bill that was considered
earlier. We have all seen kids do big school projects, you
know, the ones that require every possible kind of glue, tape,
paper, scissors to even get close to meeting the class
requirements. And every parent who has helped their kid with
one of these projects knows the feeling of rummaging through
closets and drawers to try to see how many of the required
supplies can you find before deciding whether you really have
to go to Target at 8 p.m. I mean, how many sets of colored
pencils, markers, and crayons ended up flying around? Like
sure, it is easier to find the red crayon in a new box, but it
would also be easy to find if you organize your existing
crayons by color because sure enough, there will be three red
ones there. Whether it is to save money or to save a trip out
of the house, I cannot think of any parent who would not at
least see what their kid can make of the supplies they have
before agreeing to buy more.
We need to know what the Federal Government has, that they
are taking the same commonsense approach as parents to their
own projects. What do we already have before we go and buy
more? After all, the government is the biggest purchaser of
goods in the world. And it is almost inconceivable that there
is not a closet, drawer, warehouse, room full of supplies
somewhere in the Federal Government that meets at least some of
the needs of any project that any agency could want to do. Just
like a parent, the Federal Government should have to assess how
it can use the supplies it has, look for that red crayon,
before it goes to the store to get more. And that is exactly
what the bipartisan bill I introduced with my friend
Congresswoman McClain would accomplish.
Our Reuse Access Property Act would require agencies to
issue public reports about their excess property, like
supplies, furniture, or machinery and report how they tell
their employees to use that excess property. The bill would
then task an agency employee with searching through existing
property for supplies that meet Agency needs before we buy
more. By making agencies better use their existing supplies and
tell the public how they are doing it, we can save taxpayers'
money, and we can use our resources more efficiently.
As a mom, I know kids always want new colored pencils
rather than sharpening the ones that they have. I will tell the
same thing to Federal agencies that I will tell my kids. I am
not saying you cannot buy new supplies, but you better be sure,
first, that you do not have those supplies lying around. I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation.
I also just want to speak briefly on the Billion Dollar
Boondoggle Act. I have been replacing a few appliances in my
house, and whenever I get a new appliance, I have a basic
expectation--the installation will be done as promised and I
will not have to pay more than the quote--and I have been lucky
so far, that is the case. But the installers have been lucky,
too, because if they did not meet those basic conditions, I
demand a full accounting of what went wrong. Nobody would want
a boondoggle for their home repair project, paying extra and
waiting longer. And homeowners certainly would not keep writing
checks and keep paying bills on a boondoggle unless they were
getting answers and improvements. We should not tolerate
boondoggles as consumers, but we also should not tolerate them
as taxpayers. Like an appliance in the home, government-funded
projects are designed to serve the real needs of the people. If
those projects run behind schedule and over budget, taxpayers
deserve an accounting of why we are not getting what we paid
for as promised.
I introduced the bipartisan Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act
with Congresswoman Miller-Meeks to make that happen. Our bill
would require Federal agencies to disclose to Congress the
reasons for delays and excess costs when a government-funded
project runs more than 5 years behind schedule or costs more
than $1 billion than its budget. It would also identify the
contractors responsible for that boondoggle. That is the
information we can use to conduct oversight and determine how
to get projects back on track or when it might be necessary to
pull the plug. By shining an example on some of the worst
examples of waste in government funded projects, this bill
would give taxpayers that chance.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Biggs. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. Higgins. To speak on Ms. Crockett's bill.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a unique
moment in Congress when there is a joining of the minds that
are this far apart, and so let us embrace them all.
I support the bill from a conservative perspective. Let me
say that I believe, and most conservatives across the country
believe, that the disintegration of the very fabric of our
Nation began as we stepped away from the traditional American
family. And the core principles that served our country so well
for 200 years has been gradually eroded over the last 5
decades, as we have lost that traditional American family
structure. So, I see this as a family unity bill. Yes, there
are not that that many military members that would fall in this
category, but it is thousands and thousands of military
members, and I think that those thousands and thousands of
American families are important.
And if there is an involuntary, you know, transfer, then
yes, that is part of service. I am an Army veteran. You know,
you swear your oath. You follow the orders: ``yes, sir, ``yes,
ma'am.'' However, the family impact is real, and if we can
mitigate against it without spending a bunch of money, I think
that the bill should be considered across the spectrum
politically, as to whether or not it is a benefit to our
republic. And maintaining families, I would argue from a
conservative perspective is most certainly a benefit to our
republic. The expense of hiring and training up a replacement
employee is far greater than maintaining an experienced
employee.
And let me say that I would oppose this bill had it been
written in a manner that guaranteed pay for a spouse that was
maintained,--and you are maintaining their position so that
this family has a solid choice, man, to say, OK, we are going
to accept this transfer and I am not going to be able to work
remotely. However, I have a window where I can maintain my
security clearance and maintain my status, and I can seek other
employ on a lateral level. So, I just think it is a family
friendly bill. And it is a moment where--you know, I consider
myself one of the most conservative Members of Congress, and I
join some of the most liberal Members of Congress in support of
this bill.
Ms. Crockett. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Higgins. I did. I yield to the young lady and briefly,
ma'am, so that I can recognize----
Ms. Crockett. Absolutely.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Mr. Cloud as well.
Ms. Crockett. I just want to say that that was the response
that I expected. I expected that the one thing that we could
agree on in this particular Committee, or in this Congress, was
the idea of supporting families, especially military families.
And it is absolutely right, we are not at a 100-percent
capacity for any Federal agency right now. We are down 30
percent when it comes to air traffic control and so many
others. We do not have the workforce that we need, and this
solves two issues. No. 1, we are lacking in recruitment when it
comes to military service, and No. 2, this makes sure that we
do not have to go out and get somebody else to come back in to
replace these spouses, and hopefully, this will allow us to
maintain our armed forces. So, thank you so much, and I will
yield back.
Mr. Higgins. Reclaiming my time right now to Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, gentleman, and you know my fondness
for you, and you are certainly a conservative stalwart on the
Hill. I would ask, and one of the concerns I had, was that it
creates a disparity between, what about the service members
whose spouses are in the private sector? What about those who
are, you know, a law enforcement officer in their community, or
a teacher, or those kind of things----
Mr. Higgins. We do not have jurisdictional authority.
Mr. Cloud. No, I understand that, but it troubles me. And
then the idea that our Federal workforce is down 30 percent is
largely because of the massive expanse of our Federal
Government over the last 3 years.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Higgins. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Cloud. I am sorry. I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Are you going to offer your amendment, Mr.
Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Are we done debating this?
Mr. Biggs. Yes. Well, I do not think there is anybody else
that wants to be recognized. I think everybody has----
Mr. Cloud. Yes, I have an amendment.
Mr. Biggs. Looks like almost everybody in the room has
spoken, doggone it.
Mr. Cloud. Burchett.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Burchett? Oh yes, sure. You seek
recognition, Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I do not.
Mr. Biggs. OK. So, Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Most popular speech in Congress.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. But, Mr. Cloud, what purpose do you seek
recognition?
Mr. Cloud. I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Biggs. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all
Members, and the clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 6462 as offered by Mr. Cloud of Texas.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection, the amendment is considered
as read.
I reserve a point of order? You reserve a point? Mr. Cloud
reserves a point of order. I do? OK. I am reserving a point of
order. OK. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes to explain
his amendment.
Mr. Cloud. My amendment is pretty simple. This would exempt
from the bill any employees in a DEI office capacity, I think
over the G-5. And so, you know, we talked about a workforce
that is understaffed, and this is an area where DEI
implementation into our military has hurt recruiting
dramatically. And I do not think we need to be transporting
these jobs certainly across different agencies, and so it would
exempt DEI from this bill. And I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Do any other Members wish to speak on this
amendment? The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, but we would
oppose, respectfully, the gentleman's amendment. The people
working in DEI, and obviously it is a tiny fraction of people
in the Federal workforce, are conducting a legitimate and
essential function. The military actually has really led the
way in American history in terms of overcoming segregation, and
Jim Crow, and the barriers to integration and diversity. And
so, I understand that this amendment seems to be mostly
symbolic, but to the extent that it would actually affect
anybody, I just do not see the logic of it. And it undercuts
the general principle that the gentlelady from Texas is trying
to advance, and I do not know if she has got any thoughts on
it, but I will yield back at this point.
Mr. Biggs. Who seeks recognition? The gentlelady from
Texas.
Ms. Crockett. Yes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, briefly.
So long as a position exists in our government and until the
law changes, if it changes, then I think that then we are
starting to impart disparities and say you can have your job so
long as your job does not do this, even though you have that
job and that job was authorized, and it still means that that
job will still have to be filled. Not to mention, I honestly do
not do things to message and go home. I will be clear that I
have essentially won my reelection. Anything that I am doing
has nothing to do with politicking. I actually want to get
something done for the American people.
And I was at a signing ceremony at the White House, and I
did speak to women who have been communicating with our office
for months. And the reality is that we know that we have had
poison pills that have come through this Congress, and every
time there is a poison pill, it literally kills the bill. And I
just do not think that is worth it to kill the bill when there
is so many people that are absolutely seeking to stay. All they
want to do is stay with their families or allow their spouses
to stay in their military service. And this is one of those
things that takes it from being a bipartisan bill and takes it
down to partisan messaging. And I honestly just want to make
sure that of the few things that we do get accomplish this
cycle, that we make sure that we do something that will address
our military readiness as we have seen unrest throughout this
world. And I am so concerned about what may happen if what is
going on overseas continues to escalate. It may mean that we
are going to call servicemembers up.
Right now, this may not be affecting too many folks, but I
am telling you right now, if things continue to explode in this
world, we are going to have a problem, and we are looked at as
the model of the world. We need to do everything that we can
for the best military that we have, and that means supporting
them in whatever capacity we can, and it starts with this bill.
With that, I will yield.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields back. Who seeks
recognition?
[No response.]
Mr. Biggs. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas.
All those in favor, say aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Opposed, no.
[Chorus of noes.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Mr. Raskin. I would like to request a recorded vote.
Mr. Biggs. A recorded vote is recorded, excuse me, is
ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the
question will be postponed.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Biggs. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all
Members, and the clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. The second amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 6462 as offered by Mr. Cloud of
Texas.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection, the amendment is considered
as read.
I reserve a point of order. The gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman. I do not know that I will
need 5 minutes. We have covered a lot of this. But we keep
referring to this as a military readiness bill, and as has
already been discussed, this affects less than 1 percent of our
military. There are a whole lot of things we can do that would
better help our military and certainly our recruiting. For
example, I have been trying to get barracks built at the Naval
Air Station in Corpus Christi so that we can have our incoming
pilots have a place to stay. Their barracks have been
condemned, but I cannot, because of HASC rules, get that done
because of our House Armed Services Committee.
So, you know, there are a lot of ways that we can address
recruiting. This affects 1 percent, and certainly not those who
are entering the military as much as those who have been in for
quite some time. And so, furthermore, while this affects 1
percent of our military, it is estimated 15 to 20 percent of
our State Department is the true beneficiary of this bill. And
so, I am concerned with the sense that we need to put on parity
our State Department with those serving in harm's way in our
military. And so, my amendment would simply exclude the Foreign
Services from this bill, and I will yield back to the Chairman.
Chairman Comer. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. Do
you want to speak?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, please.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make
a couple of points in opposition to the distinguished
gentleman's amendment. The first is, this legislation would
actually affect a hundred percent of the people in the military
and a hundred percent of people in Foreign Service. Just
because you are not using a particular benefit at a particular
time does not mean that the benefit is not available to you,
right? So, most of the people in this room are not on Social
Security, but Social Security affects all of us because at some
point, presumably, it would be activated for us, and that is
true in general for any program that works like this.
So, I have not seen those exact statistics yet, and the
fact that it may apply to a small number of people in the
military and an even smaller number of people by the
gentleman's representation in the Foreign Service, to me is an
argument for it. It is not really going to be affecting that
many people, but it is an important statement of principle that
we want to make military service and Foreign Service function
for our people in this time of labor shortages. And in general,
I will just say, everybody knows from at least the memory of
the Iran hostage crisis, if you were around then--I think I was
in 4th or 5th grade--but the Foreign Service officers are
putting their lives and bodies on the line when they go into
dangerous countries, dangerous stations, and deployments. I
just pulled up an article saying that the State Department
added recently 71 historical names to a plaque honoring people
who lost their lives in Foreign Service.
But of course, this is not just about physical risk. We are
talking about people who engage in a lot of family and personal
life disruption in order to serve the government. And, you
know, I will let Ms. Crockett defend the inclusion of people in
the Foreign Service who are deployed all over the world, but it
seems to me that the logic of the legislation is airtight. It
is for people who are being suddenly and often involuntarily
deployed or redeployed around the world who, you know, make the
decision to serve the country in this way, to allow their
spouses to continue to pursue their employment, their
livelihood, and support their families. And with that, I will
yield back to Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
Ms. Crockett. I was just going to echo the sentiments.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. The sentiments
raised by the Ranking Member, this is about people that are
serving our government and the fact that we are debating
whether or not we will support people that are supporting and
serving the United States and told that they need to go
overseas. It is kind of bewildering to me right now. I just do
not know why.
I see why we have recruitment issues. If this is what you
get when you sign up to serve the greatest Nation in this
world, we should be respecting and supporting people that are
in service to us. Not everybody gets the ability to sit at home
and serve the Federal Government. Sometimes they have to leave.
In fact, if I could expand it more, I would actually talk about
our Border Patrol agents because unfortunately, they have
complained to me as well about having to go to the border and
leave their families. But at least when they are going--I am
just being real, like literally. See, I know you want to talk
about it.
But I am being real when I tell you that I am not doing
this to be partisan. I am doing this because it really needs to
be done, and I am hoping that you can understand that this is
something that we need to get done in service to all people
that are serving. And the only reason I did not include them,
since you hit your button, is because we are talking about
people that are sent overseas because they are not necessarily
leaving their home and going a hundred miles. They are going so
much further for a longer amount of time, and with that, I will
yield.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. I was not going to say anything, but you know,
the gentlelady from Texas has imputed political motives in her
last two speeches. I get it. We work in an environment where
politics is always on the line, and so you might view people
with dubious intent and motive. You are trying to demean Mr.
Cloud's motives, which I think is really unfortunate. If you
want to know what drives partisanship, that is what drives
partisanship. He has made two motions in good faith, and yet
you have imputed bad faith. That is what you did. When you
started talking about partisanship, that is what you did.
Because the reality is, I am not going to talk
partisanship. I am going to talk about the logic of the
argument you just made. The logic of the argument you just made
was, OK, we are going to go to military because they provide a
service to the country. We are going to go to State Department
because they provide service to the country. I would do it for
the Border Patrol because they provide service to the country.
Capitol Police, they provide service to the country. Virtually,
every bureaucrat, they provide service to the country. We
ostensibly assume we would make that argument, right? So, what
Federal Government employee then would be excluded from the
benefits that you are posting here? That is what I would
suggest.
And I am not saying that this is not necessarily a good
bill. I am just saying I have a real trouble with people taking
the self-imposed high road saying I am above politics. I am
above it. Doggone it, I wish you were. Your amendment is not
pure. My bill is pure. Your amendment is not. That is what
drives the approach of politics here, which makes it
unworkable, and that leads to the disputes.
By the way, I sit on Judiciary, and Mr. Raskin has sat on
Judiciary with us before. I happen to sit on the two most
probably contentious committees in Congress, so I see it. But I
am just suggesting that sometimes people are actually trying to
get to certain place where they can support a bill, and their
motives are just as pure as anybody else's motives. They think
they can make the bill better. They have an objection, and we
start talking past each other by imputing motives. That is how
we have so much difficulty. That is my own opinion on that.
And that is why I said, logically, you could make a
slippery slope argument here. That is all I am saying. And I am
not saying that the bill is not good, the underlying bill is
not good. I am just saying maybe some people have legitimate
questions and they want to resolve it, but when motives are
impugned, it stultifies debate. It really does.
Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Biggs. Yes, I yield.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you for those thoughtful comments, and I
think your point demonstrates why partisanship is such a
difficult issue because I listened carefully to our colleague
from Texas, and I did not hear the impugning of motives. I
heard her disclaiming partisan motives, which may have been an
implicit confession that sometimes she has partisan motives in
legislation as I assume we all do.
Mr. Biggs. I reclaim just for a second, sir.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. I did not take it that that she was saying that.
I took it the other way, so.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, in any event, as to the substantive
point you make, which I think is an excellent one, the point
about the slippery slope, the gentlelady could be offering a
far more sweeping proposition here, which is that anytime
anyone in the Federal Government is relocated for service out
of the country or in the country, then they would get the
benefits of this. And obviously, she has made the judgment,
which seems commonsensical to me, that the two forms of service
where people are most often and most extremely deployed to
places where maybe their family was not expecting to go, are in
the military service and in the State Department in the foreign
service. And we could see how this looks out. I do not know how
I feel about extending it to lots of other----
Mr. Biggs. If I can just reclaim, because I just----
Mr. Raskin. Please.
Mr. Biggs [continuing]. I am almost out of time, I just
want to make sure I can address that. I look at a place like
CIA--a lot of transfers out of CIA. ATF, DEA, foreign transfers
implicit with what they do. So, I am suggesting that there are
so many other things, and that is where I say the logic lead to
a slippery slope and let you pass this year. Somebody said,
well, gee, you know, CIA next year, that is the point, and
sometimes these things take a little bit of time to get to the
bottom of the slippery slope. So, with that, Mr. Chairman,
thanks for the time. Thanks, Mr. Raskin. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment offered by Mr. Cloud.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Raskin. I would like to request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested by Mr.
Raskin. As previously announced, further proceedings on the
question will be postponed.
Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair declares the
Committee in recess subject to the call of the Chair. We plan
to reconvene 10 minutes after Floor votes.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will reconvene.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 8333, The
BIOSECURE Act. Members will record their votes using the
electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on
favorably reporting H.R. 8333.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members----
Mr. Goldman. One more.
Chairman Comer. Yes. Go ahead.
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
OK, we have one in route.
I think we are ready to go now. OK. The clerk will close
the vote and report the vote total.
Chairman Comer. OK. I will make the exception. Let Ms.
Pressley get recorded.
OK. I apologize, Ms. Pressley. We have already closed the
vote. I apologize. I am sorry, we cannot. I apologize.
Mr. Raskin. We can make a statement publicly.
Chairman Comer. If you want to publicly say your vote, and
we will get----
Ms. Pressley. Yes.
Chairman Comer. Let the record note she voted ``yes.''
Will the clerk now report the vote total? I am sorry. What
now?
I am sorry. I know. Look, I want the vote. Sorry. We cannot
reopen it.
We had a Member miss the first vote, too. We had a Member
miss the first vote, and we are not trying to do anything to
you.
Mr. Raskin. Can we do a one-time deal where she can
manually record it for Burchett and Pressley?
Chairman Comer. OK. We are going to make an exception here
and manually add a couple of votes. So, Ms. Pressley, you wish
to be recorded?
Ms. Pressley. As a ``yes.''
Chairman Comer. Ms. Pressley is ``yes.'' Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. Aye.
Chairman Comer. He says, ``yes.'' Glenn?
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
Chairman Comer. Glenn says ``yes.'' Does any other Member
wish to be recorded?
Who?
Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush would like to change her vote from ``no'' to
``yes.''
This is it. We are not going to do this again, if everybody
is OK with that. I am trying to be fair here. Everybody good?
Mr. Raskin. Everybody is good.
Chairman Comer. OK. All right. Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. Yes.
Chairman Comer. Mr. LaTurner votes yes. Is everybody happy?
This is the Oversight Committee. Everybody is supposed to
be happy in here. Are you happy, Mr. Perry? All right.
Mr. Raskin. What about Mr. Burchett? Did he show up?
Chairman Comer. All right. That is it. Now, will the clerk
please tally the vote?
OK. All right. Wait a minute. We got Connolly and Burchett.
We are going to get two more. How you want to vote? Mr.
Connolly, do you wish to be recorded, despite your excessive
tardiness?
Mr. Connolly. I vote yes.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Burchett, would you like to be
recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes yes.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Burchett and Mr. Connolly, both vote
yes. And guys, we are not doing this again. I do not care who
else walks in.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, can the record reflect that I
held it open for Mr. Burchett because I want to make sure we
got his votes?
Mrs. Luna. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Since we are all green,
can we do something on Boeing now?
Chairman Comer. I am sorry?
Mrs. Luna. On Boeing.
Chairman Comer. Boeing?
Mrs. Luna. Yes, you know, Boeing.
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mrs. Luna. Can we do a hearing on Boeing since we are all
green?
Chairman Comer. We will talk about that after this. Will
the clerk please report the tally?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 40. The
nays are 1.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is reported
favorably.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
All right. Everybody set and ready to go now?
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 5255, the
Federal Cybersecurity Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2023.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 5255.
[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 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 favorably reporting H.R. 8334, the
Grant Integrity and Border Security Act. Members will record
their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will
now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 8334.
[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 23. 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 question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8276, the
Reuse Excess Property Act. Members will record the vote using
the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote
on favorably reporting H.R. 8276.
[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 44. 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. 8335, the
Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act. Members will record the vote
using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the
vote on favorably reporting H.R. 8335.
[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 44. 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 Committee will now resume consideration of H.R. 6462,
the READINESS Act. The question is now on the previously
postponed amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to
the amendment of H.R. 6462. This is the Cloud Amendment Number
1.
[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 23. The
nays are 21.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the amendment is
agreed to.
The question is now on the previously postponed amendment
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud. Members will record the vote
using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the
vote on the Cloud Amendment Number 2 to the amendment of H.R.
6462.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members voted who wish to vote?
[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 20. The
nays are 24.
Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 6462, as amended.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6462, is agreed
to.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 6462, as
amended. Members will record their vote using the electronic
voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably
reporting H.R. 6462.
[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 30, the
nays are 13.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up the following en bloc
postal naming bills, which were distributed in advance on this
markup: H.R.s 5985, 6810, and 7893.
Without objection, the bills are considered read.
If any Member would like to speak on any of the measures,
they may do so now. Any Member wish to speak?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on
favorably reporting the en bloc package.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
All those opposed signify by saying no.
[No response.]
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The en bloc
measures are favorably reported. 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 ordered reported
today, subject to the approval of the Minority.
Without objection, so ordered.
If there is no further business before the Committee,
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]