[House Prints 118-CP]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress }
2nd Session } COMMITTEE PRINT
======================================================================
FULL COMMITTEE
BUSINESS MEETING:
MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS
AND POSTAL-NAMING
MEASURES
=======================================================================
FOR THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2024
__________
Serial No. CP:118-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-968 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
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 September 18, 2024............................... 1
BILLS CONSIDERED
----------
* H.R. 3642, the Executive Branch Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2023
Bill Discussed................................................... 1
* H.R. 9598, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 2024
Bill Discussed................................................... 6
* H.R. 9592, the Federal Register Modernization Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 13
* H.R. 5300, the GAO Inspector General Parity Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 16
* H.R. 9597, the Federal Acquisition Security Council
Improvement Act of 2024
Bill Discussed................................................... 18
* H.R. 9595, the Federal Improvement in Technology Procurement
Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 20
* H.R. 9566, the Source code Harmonization And Reuse in
Information Technology Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 23
* H.R. 9596, the Value Over Cost Act of 2024
Bill Discussed................................................... 25
* H.R. 5536, the Grant Transparency Act of 2023
Bill Discussed................................................... 27
* H.R. 9593, the Manager Attitudes and Notions According to
Government Employee Responses Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 30
* H.R. 8784, the Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement
Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 34
* H.R. 9594, the Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 37
* H.R. 825, the Banning Operations and Leases with the
Illegitimate Venezuelan Authoritarian Regime Act
Bill Discussed................................................... 43
* H.R. 7507, a bill to designate the Bill Barrett Post Office
Building in Nebraska
Bill Discussed................................................... 50
* Several Postal-Naming Measures
Measures Discussed............................................... 50&53
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Article, DHS HSI, ``Lead Defendant in Long Running Drug
Trafficking Conspiracy Extradited''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Statement, for the Record on FREE Act, by Rep. Celeste;
submitted by Chairman Comer.
* Coalition Letter, Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act;
submitted by Rep. Perry.
* Coalition Letter, AFGE, Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act;
submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Coalition Letter, NTEU, Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act,
MANAGER Act; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Coalition Letter, NATCA, Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act;
submitted by Rep. Raskin.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
MARK-UP OF SEVERAL BILLS AND
POSTAL-NAMING MEASURES
----------
Wednesday, September 18, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Grothman, Cloud,
Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner, Fallon,
Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, McClain, Boebert,
Fry, Luna, Langworthy, Burlison, Waltz, Raskin, Norton, Lynch,
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Porter, Brown,
Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman,
Moskowitz, and Pressley.
Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A
quorum is present.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(b) and House Rule XI, Clause
2, the Chair may postpone further proceedings today on the
question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an
amendment on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are
ordered.
The Committee will continue to use the electronic system
for recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills
before the Committee. Of course, should any technical issues
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 next item for consideration is H.R. 3642, the executive
branch Accountability and Transparency Act of 2023. The clerk
will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 3642, the executive branch Accountability
and Transparency Act of 2023, a bill to require the Office of
Government Ethics to establish and maintain a centralized data
base for executive branch ethics records of non-career
appointees.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 3642, 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.
It has been said that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
That is why preventing conflicts of interest in the Federal
work force requires public access to and scrutiny of financial
and ethics disclosure. Such legal requirements are the basis of
the U.S. Government's anti-corruption and enforcement efforts.
The executive branch Accountability and Transparency Act
represents an opportunity to continue to update the Federal
ethics disclosures regime in a way that eases the public's
access to non-career Federal employee filings.
Specifically, the bill modernizes the Federal financial and
ethics disclosure system to improve timely access to records
that are otherwise required to be publicly accessible. It does
so by directing Federal agencies to create and maintain common
data bases, housing covered employee filings in a way that
eases public access and scrutiny. This bill resembles recent
laws providing similar changes to financial and ethics
disclosure processes for Members of Congress and Federal
judges, such as the STOCK Act and the Courthouse Ethics and
Transparency Act.
Simply put, this bipartisan legislation improves the
transparency and accessibility of the established Federal
ethics disclosure system in order to better prevent executive
branch employee conflicts of interest. I thank my colleague,
Mr. Langworthy, for introducing this legislation and urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. The
executive branch Accountability and Transparency Act would
promote transparency and trust in government by improving the
people's access to the ethics records of political appointees
in the executive branch. Ethics records, like public financial
disclosures, waivers, and recusals, are already available to
the public under FOIA, but this bill would eliminate existing
hurdles by proactively making them accessible to the public
without compelling people to submit a FOIA request. Federal
agencies would be required to make certain ethics records
available in a publicly accessible data base where they would
remain available for 6 years in accordance with the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978. Transparency is of central importance
to a well-functioning executive branch ethics program, and
creating a streamlined mechanism for the public to access
ethics records will help us all to ensure public trust and
accountability.
I thank my colleagues, Representatives Nick Langworthy and
Jill Tokuda, for introducing this commonsense legislation in
the House; and Senators Grassley, Peters, Padilla, and Lankford
for introducing the Senate companion. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Langworthy, from New York.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very proud to
have introduced H.R. 3642, the executive branch Accountability
and Transparency Act, which would require executive branch
agencies to create publicly accessible data bases for the
ethics records and financial disclosures of their non-career
employees.
While our current ethics system, based on disclosure,
disqualification, and divestiture, aims to regulate conflicts
of interest, accessing ethics records on executive branch
officials by the public so that they can see it themselves
whether conflicts of interest exist remains a challenge. These
individuals are public servants, and their financial
disclosures and ethics records should be readily available for
public scrutiny, not scattered across the obscure corners of a
government website. My bill, H.R. 3642, would ensure that this
information is consolidated in a publicly accessible data base
so that any American citizen can see for themselves that non-
career employees in our Federal Government are in full
compliance with ethics rules and are held to the strict
standard of transparency as required by law.
H.R. 3642 would further require the Office of Government
Ethics to guide agencies in creating accessible websites for
these records, ensuring that the data bases are developed in a
manner that does not continue to obscure these documents from
the outside world. And finally, my bill allows for bulk
downloads of documents, streamlines public access to ethics
disclosures, and ensures that all of these records are kept
online for a period of 6 years. H.R. 3642 will accomplish this
while only ensuring that a sensitive request for ethics
guidance and any other private or sensitive information is not
publicized. My bill today builds on efforts like the STOCK Act
and the Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act to improve
transparency within our government.
I am proud to share that H.R. 3642 enjoys support from a
bipartisan coalition of Members, many of whom are Members of
this Committee. I encourage my colleagues to support this
important step toward greater transparency in the government
and accountability, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members seek recognition? The Chair will recognize Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 3642, as offered by Ms. Norton of the
District of Columbia.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentlelady from Washington, D.C. is recognized for 5
minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Norton. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read.
Mr. Chairman, while I support the goal of this bill, I
oppose the application of this bill to employees of the
District of Columbia. My amendment would strike this
application. This bill applies to, among others, ``a special
government employee as defined in Section 202(a) of Title 18 of
the U.S. Code,'' who is employed in the Executive Office of the
President. Section 202(a) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code defines
a special government employee to include D.C. employees. As a
matter of law, the D.C. Government is not part of the Federal
Government, and D.C. employees are not Federal employees.
Section 202(a) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code was first
enacted in 1962 before the District had Home Rule. In 1962,
D.C. employees were part of the Federal personnel system. After
enactment of the Home Rule Act in 1973, D.C. developed its own
personnel system. D.C. employees are now part of the D.C.
personnel system and are no longer part of the Federal
personnel system. Unfortunately, Congress did not update all
the definitions of the U.S. Code to account for the removal of
D.C. employees from the Federal personnel system. The term,
``special government employee,'' is one of those instances.
D.C. employees should be treated the same as state and local
employees. This bill does not apply to any state or local
government employees and, therefore, it should not apply to any
D.C. employees. While there are almost certainly no D.C., state
or local government employees in the Executive Office of the
President, as a matter of principle, I am offering this
amendment so that D.C. employees are treated the same as
employees of state and local governments.
I also note the applicability of this bill to D.C. may not
administrable [sic]. Because D.C. employees are employed by
D.C. and not the Federal Government, they file their financial
disclosure statements with the D.C. Government, not the Federal
Government. I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. I want to thank
Ms. Norton for offering this amendment aimed at ensuring that
employees of the Washington, D.C. Government are not
unintentionally captured in the provisions of the underlying
bill. I am glad to assure Ms. Norton that the special employees
in the bill only include those who are employed in the
Executive Office of the President.
Since the bill's definition of an agency distinguishes
between each executive agency and each component of the
Executive Office of the President, any Washington, D.C.
employees who are not employed in the Executive Office of the
President would not be covered by this bill. Therefore, special
exclusion for D.C. officials is unnecessary. I, therefore,
oppose this amendment's inclusion in the underlying bill.
Do any other Members seek recognition? The Chair recognizes
Mr. Langworthy from New York.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the underlying
bill is aimed at easing access to otherwise publicly available
financial and ethics disclosure records, such filings for
employees of Washington, D.C. Government that may 1 day exist
should not be exempted. Notably, we are unaware of any D.C.
Government employees employed in the Executive Office of the
President, so the underlying bill already would not actually
apply to anyone, making this amendment unnecessary.
However, if for some reason, under an unknown future
circumstance, a D.C. Government employee were to become
employed in the Executive Office of the President and be
subject to the Federal financial and ethics disclosure laws,
the gentlelady's amendment would specifically exempt their
records from being included in the respective publicly
accessible data base. There is no good reason for the filings
for a Federal employee that are otherwise required to be
included in the data base should not be exposed to the same
public scrutiny as others by the sheer virtue of their being a
D.C. employee. That is why I oppose this amendment, and I
encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Does any other
Member seek recognition? I recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just heard Mr.
Langworthy's explanation. The problem is that other state and
local government employees who also conceivably could end up in
the White House are not covered here, and I think the
gentlelady from the District of Columbia is just asking for a
uniformity and symmetry of treatment among people who are in
local and state governments, which seems to make sense to me.
So, I do not see any problem with cleaning it up in this way. I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members wish to speak on the amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment, offered by Ms. Norton.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 3642, 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, the ayes have
it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair, I ask for a roll call vote.
Chairman Comer. A roll call has been requested by Mr.
Biggs. As previously announced, further proceedings on the bill
will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9598, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2024.
The clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 9598, the Office of National Drug Control
Policy Reauthorization Act of 2024, a bill to amend the Office
of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act to
reauthorize such office, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 9598, 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.
We have a drug overdose crisis in this country. It is
unacceptable and intolerable. In 2019, roughly 70,000 people in
the United States died of an overdose. In 2021, that number
rose to over 106,000 and in 2022, over 111,000. In 2023,
overdose deaths remained over 100,000 with over 107,000
Americans dying of an overdose. Overdose deaths remain near
record highs. This is an ongoing, deadly national emergency
that affects every community in our Nation.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy, or ONDCP, was
established in the Executive Office of the President with a
specific mission to coordinate the governmentwide resources to
combat the loss of life and human misery caused by illicit
narcotics and overdoses. This bill, the Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2024, will reauthorize
ONDCP and two critical grant programs the office administers at
current spending levels for the next 7 years. Specifically, the
bill will reauthorize the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program, which helps local law enforcement coordinate efforts
to take down drug traffickers, and the Drug-Free Community
Program, which works in communities across the country to
prevent young people from ever trying drugs in the first place.
I commend the great Americans who work hard to get results
through the Drug-Free Communities Coalitions. We listened to
these coalitions and ensured that the grant limitation for
local communities was increased from $125,000 to $150,000 and
gave the ONDCP Director the ability to award up to two
additional grants to eligible coalitions rather than the
previous limit of one.
I want to thank Congressman John Duarte of California and
Elissa Slotkin of Michigan for their efforts to reauthorize
HIDTA. Key elements of this bipartisan bill, H.R. 7185, have
been incorporated into the reauthorization bill to ensure that
HIDTA resources are used to combat fentanyl, including granting
the Attorney General the authority to temporarily reassign U.S.
attorneys to prioritize fentanyl trafficking. I am sure that
every single Member of this Committee knows constituents and
their families who have been tragically impacted by illicit
narcotics, especially synthetic opioids like fentanyl.
No drug has affected our communities more in recent years
than fentanyl. The DEA has assessed that virtually all of the
deadly fentanyl found in the United States is mass produced by
transnational criminal organizations in Mexico using precursor
chemicals sourced from China and then smuggled into the United
States across the southwest border. This bill requires the
Secretary of Homeland Security to assess how an increase in
encounters at the Southwest border affects DHS' ability to
prevent the unlawful entry of fentanyl and other illicit drugs
into the United States. It also directs the ONDCP Director to
coordinate with the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice,
and State to ensure that the appropriate agencies are properly
resourced to ensure that traffickers of illicit drugs are held
accountable under Title 8 immigration authorities.
I want to also thank Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto
Rico and Stacey Plaskett, my friend from the U.S. Virgin
Islands, for their work on H.R. 920 in ensuring that the
Caribbean Counternarcotics Strategy is codified in this
reauthorization package, ensuring that ONDCP will properly
assess the threat of drug trafficking into the United States
through the Caribbean. Ranking Member Raskin, I want to thank
you and your staff for working with us to make this important
bill a reality over the past year. H.R. 9598 represents an
important reauthorization effort in the House Oversight
Committee's legislative jurisdiction. I also want to thank the
Chairs and Ranking Members of the Energy and Commerce and House
Judiciary Committee and their professional staff for closely
coordinating our shared jurisdiction within this bill. I urge
all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, so we can
keep the U.S. Government's collective resources and the next
administration properly focused on addressing the national drug
crisis in our great country.
I now yield to the Ranking Member for his statement.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for advancing this
important bipartisan legislation to reauthorize ONDCP. The
Office of National Drug Control Policy coordinates the whole-
of-government response to the Nation's addiction and substance
abuse crisis. We know that we are struggling with a profound
epidemic, but new data shows that opioid overdose deaths have
decreased as of November 2022, due in no small part to the
actions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to
address the addiction-overdose crisis.
The Administration understands the need to address the
problem at both the supply and demand levels. ONDCP has already
taken decisive action to intercept the flow of fentanyl and
other illicit substances into America. This reauthorization
will help to tackle the problems of supply, including by
funding the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program,
providing more than $275 million in grant-making to law
enforcement entities to help keep harmful drugs off the
streets. The reauthorization also helps to confront problems of
demand. The Drug-Free Communities Program, for example, brings
together 35,000 people across the country to help prevent and
combat youth substance use. I am proud the authorization would
make sure this grant program continues.
Research shows that harm reduction strategies work. Under
the Biden-Harris Administration, ONDCP has adopted harm
reduction strategies as part of the national campaign to
address the addiction crisis and save lives. The Office has
supported communities' access to naloxone, syringe service
programs, and fentanyl test strip distribution. The legislation
will allow the Office to continue its harm reduction efforts
and will direct an evidence-based examination of opioid
reversal medications like naloxone. During last year's hearing
examining reauthorization, I raised my concerns about the need
to identify and respond to emerging illicit drug threats,
including xylazine, a street drug used by veterinarians as a
tranquilizer for large animals. I am glad to see this
legislation will allow the Office to continue this work to
address new threats as they come to market and plague our
communities.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your staff for working on
this bipartisan legislation, and I am happy to support
reauthorization through 2031. I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means. I yield to the gentleman
from Virginia.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Ranking Member for yielding. May
I ask him a question? Is the Ranking Member in possession of a
letter I sent him and the Chairman on September 16 with respect
to Schedule F?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, I am very much in possession of the letter
addressed to Chairman Comer and to myself on September 16 by
you.
Mr. Connolly. And in that letter, is it not the case that I
request and have requested that the bill, H.R. 1002, Saving the
Civil Service Act, should be marked up and should be added to a
markup before we break for the election?
Mr. Raskin. Very much so.
Mr. Connolly. And can I inquire of the Ranking Member, does
he share that view?
Mr. Raskin. Yes. The letter advances the proposal to put
into the markup session, H.R. 1002, your legislation, Save the
Civil Service Act, and to defend the professional civil service
against efforts to replace it and trash it, and I think this is
a matter of some urgency.
Mr. Connolly. And would it not be true, Mr. Ranking Member,
that, in fact, this is bipartisan legislation that passed the
previous Congress on the Floor of the House and was passed out
of this Committee?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, it passed in the last Congress, and it
deals with proposals, like from the Project 2025, to replace
more than 50,000 Federal employees with people who are party
loyalists appointed directly by the President.
Mr. Connolly. And would the Ranking Member find it striking
to know that prominent Republican officials from Republican
administrations, including, inter alia, the Central
Intelligence Agency Director, Mike Hayden; the former Deputy
Homeland Security Secretary, James Loy; the former Director of
National Intelligence, Mike McConnell; the former Deputy
Secretary of State and Director of National Intelligence, John
Negroponte; and former Navy Secretary and NASA Administrator,
Sean O'Keefe, have, in fact, endorsed this legislation and
registered their disapproval of the proposed Schedule F in
Project 2025?
Mr. Raskin. Well, those are serious professional civil
servants, current and former, who want to defend the idea of
merit in the Federal work force.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the Ranking Member for yielding.
Mr. Raskin. You bet.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs from
Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to
all Members.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 9598, as offered by Mr. Biggs of Arizona.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes to
explain his amendment.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the
Ranking Member for your work on this bill. The Biden-Harris
Administration has facilitated the worst border crisis in
history. Since January 2021, more than 10 million aliens have
entered the country illegally and encountered Border Patrol,
have been paroled into the country under the Administration's
abusive authorities under the INA, or are got-aways who evaded
Border Patrol entirely when illegally crossing between ports of
entry. And, in fact, in the last 16 months, just reported this
morning, the CBP One app has allowed 813,000 individuals to
come in and be distributed into the country. And also, under
the Haiti, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela Program, 530,000-plus
illegal aliens have come in that way and been released into the
country.
This legislation ensures that the ONDCP, which leads and
coordinates the Nation's drug policy and administers drug
control programs, is properly focused on mitigating the
deadliest part of the border crisis: the fentanyl overdose
epidemic. Overdose deaths remain at record highs. In 2019,
roughly 70,000 people in the U.S. died of an overdose. In 2021,
that number rose to over 106,000; in 2022, over 111,000 deaths;
and in 2023, overdose deaths remained over 100,000, with over
107,000 Americans dying of an overdose in that year.
One of the major programs administered by ONDCP is the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, or HIDTA Program. Arizona's
HIDTA was established in 1990 and works to facilitate and
enhance drug control efforts across 83 Federal, state, local,
and tribal law enforcement agencies, working in 9 of 15 Arizona
counties. This coordinating work is indispensable as law
enforcement seek to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the
country at and between ports of entry and to make seizures
before drug traffickers reach major metro areas and highways in
the interior of the country. The Arizona HIDTA Task Force plays
a crucial role in not only drug interdiction, but in building
cases against drug traffickers.
In fact, earlier this year, the Homeland Security
Investigations announced the extradition indictment of Rodrigo
Paez-Quintero, a Mexican national who faces charges related to
at least nine drug trafficking events from the Lukeville Port
of Entry through Oaxaca and up to Phoenix. And I have got the
release here, and I would ask that be admitted to the record.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and that release
specifically credits support from the Arizona HIDTA. It is
critically important that law enforcement properly use tools at
their disposal when conducting investigations and building
cases against drug traffickers. Failure to do so jeopardizes
the government's ability to successfully prosecute defendants,
allowing drug offenders to go free, and may violate the
constitutional rights of Americans.
My amendment adds language to the base text of the bill to
remind ONDCP and its grant recipients of their obligations
under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2018,
the Supreme Court held that the government's acquisition of
cell site location information constituted a Fourth Amendment
search. And last year, Senator Ron Wyden, who I work with
occasionally on these issues, and he is, I remind people, sits
across the aisle from me, but we work on these issues, he
revealed the existence of an ONDCP-funded program whose 2014
promotional materials claimed the ability to obtain cell site
location data and allowed information to be obtained by law
enforcement without a warrant or a court order.
As a result of this Committee's investigation into the
program, I am satisfied that the program is currently in
compliance with the Supreme Court's finding in the Carpenter
decision. However, I believe that this amendment and the
reporting requirements included in base text of the bill are
necessary to ensure that America's Fourth Amendment rights are
protected and that the government is able to successfully
prosecute drug traffickers, thus, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of
the bill. And I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members seek recognition? The Chair recognizes Ranking Member
Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple
of questions about this, and perhaps the gentleman from Arizona
would be willing to just indulge me a couple of inquiries about
it.
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. I mean, it seems commonsensical and intuitive
that any program that gets money under this section shall be
conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment. I
am just wondering about the negative implication for all of the
other programs that we have adopted where we do not have
language like that. And it seems a little bit curious to me
that we would say this program shall be conditioned on
compliance with the Fourth Amendment, but none others. And
similarly, you know, what about the Second Amendment, the First
Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the due process and equal
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment? I mean, wouldn't we
say that it is implied in everything we do that it must be
consistent with the Constitution?
Mr. Biggs. Well, thanks for the question, and I agree with
you that we certainly would hope that every government agency,
from local on up to the feds, would always adhere to the
constitutional constraints that it has, but I will just point
out a couple of things.
First of all, the language that we have here is language we
have taken from other surveillance programs as well, and so it
is not entirely unique. But second, I would remind the
gentleman of the FISA Program where we sought to invoke the
warrant requirement, and it failed on a 212-212 vote. And that
was largely not the vote itself, but the move to have a warrant
requirement in FISA, which, by the way, we would just assume--I
mean, just naturally you would say, of course they are going to
follow the Fourth Amendment, but they were not. They were not
following it, and so that is why we wanted to specifically
throw that warrant requirement into FISA. And I think that
whenever we have surveillance programs, that we probably want
to remind our actors who we are delegating authority to and
funding, that we expect them to adhere to the Fourth Amendment
and other constitutional provisions.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that. I remember the debate
about the warrant requirement in FISA because that was a case
dealing with evidence that was already within the property and
possession of the Federal Government, and so there was
ambiguity about whether the warrant requirement needed to be
observed in that case. And so, there was an effort to impose it
when the courts had said a warrant requirement was not
necessary. I mean, here, I think it is stating the truism that
the Constitution shall apply against what the government does.
I agree with it completely.
I am just worried about, you know, pasting it onto one
piece of legislation and not every piece of legislation, and I
do not know whether we want to get into the habit of saying
everything that the government does should be consistent with
the Constitution or whether that is unnecessary. So, I
appreciate very much the gentleman's response and I will think
about it some more.
Mr. Higgins. Will the Ranking Member yield?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
Mr. Higgins. I thank the Ranking Member. I would be
supportive of a continuous endeavor by this Committee as we
consider legislation that would affect law enforcement
operations across the country by grant provision. I would
encourage and be willing to participate in ongoing endeavors by
this Committee to remind our law enforcement agencies that the
modern phenomena of violation of Fourth Amendment rights is
real, that we have noticed, the injury has been significant,
and we insist that if you draw money from this legislation that
is born of this legislation or born of that legislation or born
of the next, we will be watching very closely that your agency
complies with Fourth Amendment guidelines. So, the Ranking
Member's question was why would we put it on this legislation
and not many others? I might suggest that moving forward, we do
indeed add Fourth Amendment language to many bills that we
consider, and I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Great. I would submit for the gentleman from
Arizona's consideration the possibility of adding the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments to include due process, and I
suppose, you know, I mean, it improves the point, but consider
that, and I am happy to yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize
myself. I want to thank Mr. Biggs for offering this amendment
to ensure the privacy rights of Americans are protected. The
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Grant Program, as
reauthorized by the bill, funds strategies developed and
implemented by coalitions of Federal, state, local, and tribal
law enforcement agencies to counter illicit drug trafficking.
This amendment will require any such program or activity that
receives funds made available through HIDTA Program to be
conducted in a manner consistent with the requirements of the
Fourth Amendment, the Constitution of the United States, which
protects Americans from unwarranted search and seizure. I
support my colleague's well intentioned and its inclusion in
the underlying bill.
Do any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment, offered by Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Raskin. I have another amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. OK. For what purpose does Mr. Raskin seek
recognition?
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to offer an
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute on
behalf of----
Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment to
the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 9598, as offered by Mr. Raskin of Maryland
on behalf of Ms. Stansbury of New Mexico.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
I reserve a point of order.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The intent of the
gentlelady's amendment is plain to get the Director of the
Office of Drug Control Policy to render a report, within 4
months, analyzing and describing strategies to regulate the
shipment of pill press machines and their parts using reports
previously prepared by the office. And this goes to the problem
of pill machines and the production of illegal and illicit
drugs that way, and so I think it supports the overall thrust
of the legislation as something that every Member could
support. And I am happy to yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I want to thank
Ms. Stansbury for offering this amendment to ensure the Office
of National Drug Control Policy has a strategy to address the
illicit use of pill press machines. Cartels trafficking illicit
drugs, including fentanyl, use pill presses to produce pills
that look like prescription medications but actually contain
deadly drugs, such as fentanyl. I support this targeted
amendment's inclusion in the underlying bill.
Do any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the
amendment, offered by the gentlelady from New Mexico.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 9598, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been called. A recorded
vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings
on the question will be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9592, the Federal
Register Modernization Act. The clerk will please designate the
bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 9592, the Federal Register Modernization
Act, a bill to amend Title 44 to modernize the Federal
Register, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 9592, 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.
Our government must be both transparent and accountable to
the American people. Laws requiring proper record keeping are
vital to both. In 1935, the Federal Register Act established
the Federal Register, a daily publication of the Federal
Government's activities, including Presidential documents,
proposed and final rules, and public notices. In other words,
the Federal Register provides official notice to the public and
Congress that an executive branch document exists. The Federal
Register also provides the building blocks for the Code of
Federal Regulations, which makes it easier for the American
public to find and understand the Federal Regulations governing
our Nation.
In 1994, the Government Publishing Office began publishing
the Federal Register online with modern search tools and
downloadable content. Congress has recently taken steps to make
the Federal Register more efficient by passing the Federal
Register Printing Savings Act in 2017. However, additional
reforms are still needed to alleviate the Government Publishing
Office of the 1935 law's requirement to print and distribute
paper copies of the Federal Register each day.
H.R. 9592 allows the Government Publishing Office to stop
wasting paper and money and instead publish the Federal
Register and Code of Federal Regulations online and streamlines
the process for Federal agencies to transmit official documents
to the National Archives. And the bill provides safeguards so
that backup physical copies are properly stored, and alternate
publication systems can be established in cases of a continuity
of governmental national crisis. Taken together, these reforms
will bring the Federal Register into the 21st century and save
taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this commonsense legislation. I thank my colleagues,
Congressmen Higgins and Connolly, for their work together
seeing these overdue reforms get done. I now yield to the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Register
Modernization Act represents a step forward in streamlining how
the government retains public records and how we communicate
with the public. The Federal Register Act of 1935 was designed
to ensure government transparency by requiring publication of
Federal laws, Presidential proclamations, agency rules, and
public notices in the Federal Register. With increasing use of
digital devices to conduct government operations, an electronic
edition of the Federal Register is published each day. The
duplication of agency document submissions to the Office of the
Federal Register creates unnecessary redundancy and
administrative burdens.
In 1936, the Office of the Federal Register published 2,620
pages. By 2023, the Federal Register had expanded to more than
90,000 pages. The volume of Federal documentation has grown
exponentially over the last century, so the need for a more
efficient process is understandable. The Federal Register
Modernization Act would align with current digital practices of
Federal agencies and eliminate the need for multiple print
submissions. The bill allows for the electronic-only
publication of the Federal Register, except for two hard copies
maintained by the office.
By maintaining and improving the digital format of the
Federal Register, the office will operate more efficiently,
ultimately benefiting both Federal agencies and the public. I
support this commonsense legislation and I am happy to yield
back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition? I now
recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Higgins from Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
and I thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Connolly, for
his support and co-lead on this bill. He and I have had many
friendly debates during our time together on this Committee,
and I am honored to be able to lead a bill with him. Today, I
offer the Federal Register Modernization Act, which originally,
I think it is of note, was introduced by our former colleague,
Representative Mark Meadows. I offer the Modernization Act,
which updates critical pieces of our Federal infrastructure,
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulation, to
align with the technological realities of today's world.
For decades, the Government Publishing Office, the GPO, has
been required to actually print physical copies of the Federal
Register, which has acted as our government's newspaper,
informing Americans of government actions. But as technology
has advanced, our laws and practices have not kept up. These
old practices force agencies to produce and store hard copies
of new rules and regulations, wasting taxpayer money and
government resources. The Federal Register Modernization Act is
a commonsense, good governance bill that updates archaic
practices to reflect our times and technological advances. This
simple solution eliminates the requirement to print physical
copies of the Federal Register and replaces that requirement
with a fully electronic publication.
May I add that this bill does not remove the original
publication of written historical record for our government.
That is maintained. It is the duplicity and the layers and
layers of reproduction that are removed. This bill requires two
hard copies of the Federal Register to be kept in separate
locations to ensure continuity of government in case of
national emergency. Further, during emergencies, it allows the
Office of the Federal Register to establish a temporary website
ensuring the American people have access to essential
information while safeguarding transparency.
This bill is not about anything other than increasing
government efficiency, saving taxpayer dollars, reducing agency
burdens, and ensuring the American people can access government
information. This is a straightforward effort to bring our
government's record keeping into the 21st century. Again, I
want to thank Congressman Connolly for his bipartisan efforts
to increase efficiencies in our government, and I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the
legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do 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.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 9592, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been ordered. As
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 5300, the GAO
Inspector General Parity Act. The clerk will please designate
the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5300, the GAO Inspector General Parity Act,
a bill to amend provisions relating to the Office of the
Inspector General of the Government Accountability Office, and
for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 5300, 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 a statement on the bill and
amendment.
Two years ago, this Committee helped pass, in bipartisan
fashion, sweeping reforms for the inspector general community.
Those reforms passed in the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense
Authorization Act provided critical reforms to enable both the
independence of Federal agency inspectors general and proper
congressional oversight over their activities. As a legislative
branch entity, the Government Accountability Office's Inspector
General was not included in those reforms. H.R. 5300 fixes that
by providing the GAO Inspector General the same resources and
oversight now provided to other IGs across the government.
Those reforms include requiring the head of GAO to notify
the Congress if the GAO Inspector General is to be removed or
transferred, providing Congress the knowledge it needs to weigh
in on such decisions if necessary. The bill also provides a
passthrough budget for the Office of Inspector General,
providing an additional layer of independence for the IG from
the agency it oversees. Finally, the bill requires the GAO
Inspector General to have its own legal counsel separate from
the GAO, thus ensuring proper independence. This will allow the
GAO Inspector General to continue working to keep GAO
accountable to the American people and Congress.
I want to thank Congressman Garcia and Congresswoman
McClain for introducing this commonsense bipartisan
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support, and I now
recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
thank Representatives Garcia and McClain for introducing the
GAO Inspector General Parity Act, which I strongly support. It
would provide the GAO Office of Inspector General the same
protections granted to other Federal IGs in recent reforms. The
lack of such protections gives the appearance that the GAO IG
is somehow less independent than other IGs. These include
allowing the IG to hire their own independent counsel for legal
advice and the 30-day notification requirement prior to the IG
being removed from office. It is a good bill, I fully support
it, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members seek recognition?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill,
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Proud to be here to
see our Committee advance our bipartisan Government
Accountability Office Inspector General Parity Act. The GAO, of
course, is an independent nonpartisan Agency responsible for
monitoring government operations to detect waste, fraud, and
abuse in government, and we all know that they are a critical
partner for our entire Committee. Like every agency, the GAO
has an inspector general to watch over their operations and to
ensure that the Agency follows the law. Now, it may seem odd
that the government watchdog agency has their own internal
watchdog, but it is important that every agency have an
independent inspector general.
Congress has, in the past several years, passed numerous
reforms to strengthen the inspector general system for all of
our agencies, to guarantee their independence and to make sure
that they have the tools and resources to accomplish their
mission. Those reforms, regrettably, have not applied to the
GAO. This bill is a simple and bipartisan fix to correct these
omissions. Among other reforms, we will ensure that the GAO
Inspector General has an independent general counsel, and that
they can communicate budget requests directly with Congress
without any interference. These are smart, bipartisan policies
which will make sure that a critical agency is strengthened.
This bill passed the Senate unanimously, thanks to the
Senate sponsors, and in this House, I am grateful for the
support of Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Raskin especially,
and our co-lead, Congresswoman McClain. I urge adoption of this
overdue bill, and I thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Any other Members wish to be heard?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 5300, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burlison.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote has been requested by the
gentleman from Missouri. A recorded vote is ordered. As
previously announced, further proceedings on the question will
be postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9597, the Federal
Acquisition Security Council Improvement Act of 2024. The clerk
will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 9597, the Federal Acquisition Security
Council Improvement Act of 2024, a bill to amend Title 41 to
make changes with respect to the Federal Acquisition Security
Council, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 9597, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill and the amendment.
Our foreign adversaries have been using information
technology and telecommunications equipment to infiltrate and
exploit the systems of the U.S. Government's Federal agencies.
Congress has worked to address this threat by passing numerous
bills to prohibit Federal agencies from purchasing or using
technology from sources of concern. This includes legislation
to prohibit Federal agencies from using telecommunications and
video surveillance equipment provided by certain Chinese
companies, legislation to prohibit Federal agencies from
procuring electronic products or services that include
semiconductors produced by certain Chinese companies, and
legislation to prohibit Federal agencies from buying or using
drones manufactured or assembled by certain Chinese companies.
In addition to these outright prohibitions, Congress also
established the Federal Acquisition Security Council, or the
FASC. The FASC has the authority to recommend that agencies
exclude certain sources from Federal procurement processes or
remove certain technologies from Federal information systems.
However, Congress must have a more active role in directing the
FASC to consider the exclusion or removal of certain sources of
concern from Federal systems.
This bill, the FASC Improvement Act, authorizes FASC to
issue binding removal and exclusion orders when directed by
Congress. Such new binding removal and exclusion orders would
complement the existing authorities of the FASC to issue
recommendations. However, this new authority provides Congress
a streamlined and standardized process for prohibiting Federal
agencies from buying or using a source of concern in the
future. To carry out this responsibility, the FASC needs to
have adequate support and be appropriately resourced. H.R. 9597
provides this support by strengthening the governing structure
of the FASC by moving it into the Executive Office of the
President and elevating the FASC Agency membership
requirements.
This bill expands the FASC's focus to include acquisition
security more broadly beyond its current narrower focus on
supply chain risk and requires the FASC to proactively monitor
and evaluate certain sources for ongoing risk. This bill also
relocates currently authorized appropriations to establish a
FASC program office within the Office of National Cyber
Director. This FASC program office is authorized to provide the
FASC critical operational, legal, and policy support it needs
to draft and issue removal and exclusion orders, such support
it currently lacks.
Importantly, this bill incorporates best practices for the
recent governmentwide procurement prohibitions I mentioned
earlier, including necessary due process considerations,
national security exemptions, case-by-case waiver processes,
and second-order prohibitions. In other words, the FASC
Improvement Act consolidates the past 6 years of congressional
legislation addressing national security procurement risks by
reforming established processes and expanding authorities.
We need to ensure the executive branch can properly act to
protect the Federal supply chain and agency information systems
from nefarious technology influenced by a foreign adversary.
This bill will help prevent American taxpayer dollars from
supporting companies owned or controlled by foreign enemies and
hostile actors. This bipartisan bill provides the FASC with the
teeth and resources it needs to protect the Federal supply
chain.
I want to thank the Ranking Member and his staff for
partnering on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support
this necessary and timely national security reform legislation.
I now yield to Ranking Member Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to have
worked on the Federal Acquisition Security Improvement Act with
you. This bill has benefited from extensive input from OMB and
the National Cyber Director.
The Federal Acquisition Security Council was established in
2018. The bill would strengthen it by moving it into the
Executive Office of the President, increasing its membership
requirements, and requiring the President to name a Chair. The
bill would expand the Council's authorities beyond supply chain
security to include acquisition security more broadly, and
grants it the authority to issue removal or exclusion orders of
specific companies when necessary or when directed to do so by
Congress. Finally, the bill would create a streamlined process
for Congress to designate sources of concern and requires the
Council to initiate an investigation into these congressionally
designated sources with appropriate due process, governmentwide
input, and potential subcontractor prohibitions.
I commend the staffs on both sides of the aisle, Mr.
Chairman, for their hard work on this measure, and I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members seek recognition on the bill?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All opposed, say no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now in favorably reporting H.R. 9597, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed----
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Burlison. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9595, the FIT
Procurement Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 9595, the FIT Procurement Act, a bill to
require the Office of Government Ethics to improve Federal
technology procurement, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 9595, 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 FIT Procurement Act streamlines the procurement process
for small businesses and small transactions and will enable the
government to take full advantage of commercial best practices.
This legislation achieves this in three ways: first, by
increasing the Macro Purchase Threshold, or the MPT, from
$10,000 to $25,000; second, by increasing the Simplified
Acquisition Threshold, or the SAT, from $250,000 to $500,000;
and third, by authorizing advance payments for certain types of
software and cloud computing.
On the first, I would note that purchases under the MPT,
which currently account for a tiny fraction of overall
government contract spending, do not require the involvement of
a Federal contracting officer. For this reason, raising the MPT
from $10,000 to $25,000 is estimated by George Mason's Center
for Government Contracting to save more than $40 million
annually in Federal administrative costs. This allows
contracting officers to spend more time on larger acquisitions
where the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse is far greater.
Further, purchases under the MPT and below the SAT are
subject to simplified procedures in order to reduce
administrative costs and promote opportunities for small
businesses. By increasing the SAT from $250,000 to $500,000,
this bill provides opportunities for small businesses and
reduces administrative burden for smaller government contracts.
Finally, by allowing for advance payments for software
services, this bill saves taxpayer dollars by allowing Federal
agencies to access discounts that are only available through
upfront payments.
I want to thank Representative Burlison for his leadership
on the House companion of this important legislation. I urge my
colleagues to support this important government efficiency
reform legislation. I now yield to Ranking Member Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The FIT Procurement Act
will streamline and simplify Federal procurement to help
agencies acquire commercial technology in a more timely way and
make it easier for businesses to compete for contracts. It
would require the Federal Acquisition Institute to create a
cross-functional information and communications technology
acquisition training program for people tasked with acquiring
information and communications technology. It would also
increase the simplified acquisition threshold from $250,000 to
$500,000, and also increase the micro-purchase threshold from
$10,000 to $25,000. These changes would save money by
decreasing the amount of time contracting officials spend on
these contracts.
The bill would also require the Chief Acquisition Officers
Council to identify and eliminate specific unnecessary
procedural barriers that disproportionately affect the ability
of small businesses to compete for Federal contracts with a
focus on streamlining documentation and qualification
requirements unrelated to the protection of privacy and civil
liberties and related matters. I support the bill. I yield
back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members seek recognition? The Chair recognizes the sponsor of
the bill, Mr. Burlison from Missouri.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, H.R.
9595, the FIT Procurement Act, would improve Federal
procurement by deploying a number of reforms aimed at reducing
administrative burden and training the acquisition work force.
The reforms in this bill would streamline and simplify the
Federal procurement process and ultimately save taxpayer
dollars by reducing Agency acquisition costs.
This bill requires the director of the Federal Acquisition
Institute to develop and implement cross-functional information
and communications technology training for the acquisition work
force, which is key. Having worked in the private sector in
software procurement, the software is only as good as the folks
are that are trained to use it. This training will support
those responsible for purchasing ICT for the Federal Government
and ensure that they have the latest information about how to
best select and purchase this technology.
This bill significantly increases the number of purchases
by the Federal Government that use commercial best practices.
Specifically, the bill increases the simplified acquisition
threshold from $250,000 to $500,000 and the micro-purchase
threshold from $10,000 to $25,000. Purchases under the micro-
purchase threshold are the closest the Federal Government gets
to following commercial buying practices because they do not
require the involvement of a Federal contracting officer.
Raising the MPT to $25,000 is estimated to save $40 million
annually in administrative costs. Twenty-three percent of the
Federal Government's open market transactions occur between
$10,000 and $25,000, but these transactions actually only
account for about 1 percent of the total spend. So, increasing
the MPT to $25,000 allows contracting officers to spend more
time on larger acquisitions where the potential is greater for
waste, fraud, and abuse. Purchases above the MPT and below the
SAT are subject to simplified procedures in order to reduce
administrative costs and promote opportunities for small
businesses. By increasing the SAT to $500,000, this bill
improves the economic efficiency for small businesses and
reduces administrative burden for smaller government contracts.
This bill also requires the Administrator for Federal
Procurement Policy to issue guidance on how agencies can
increase competition by broadening the way they consider past
performance. This bill will save taxpayer dollars by reducing
administrative purchasing costs and allowing contracting
officers to spend more time focused on the larger projects. The
bill also authorizes advanced payments for cloud computing
services. For the private sector, cloud computing providers
often provide discounts for upfront payment, and this bill will
allow that. This bill saves taxpayer dollars by allowing the
Federal agencies to access the same discounts by paying
upfront.
I would like to thank Senator Gary Peters and Senator Ted
Cruz for championing this bill in the Senate, and I thank the
Chairman and his staff for working with me on this bill and
bringing it to the Committee for markup, and I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do 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.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 9595, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed----
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Burlison. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9566, the Source
Code Harmonization and Reuse in Information Technology, or
SHARE IT Act. The clerk will please designate.
The Clerk. H.R. 9566, the Source Code Harmonization and
Reuse in Information Technology Act, a bill to require
governmentwide source code sharing, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 9566, 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 on the amendment.
Each year, the Federal Government spends about $6 billion
on software. Much of this spending goes toward developing
custom code to support specific agency programs and service
delivery. The SHARE IT Act would require agencies to share
their custom code with other Federal agencies. Without a
requirement to share this custom code, agencies may hire
contractors to reproduce the same solution that the government
has already paid for at another agency. To reduce redundant and
unnecessary costs, once one agency invests in developing custom
code, that code should be made available to other agencies
looking to solve a similar problem. This bill mandates that
agencies publicly list the custom code they make or buy and
share this code with the rest of the government. Further, this
bill appropriately exempts from disclosure code for national
security systems, classified code, or code whose disclosure
would create an identifiable risk to individual privacy.
I encourage my colleagues to support this straightforward,
good government bill, and I want to thank Representative
Langworthy for his leadership on this smart, forward-thinking
technology legislation. I now yield to the Ranking Member for
his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Every year, Federal
agencies spend billions purchasing software, including custom-
developed code for websites, public data bases, and mobile
apps, to improve the public's experience using government
services. But too often, agencies keep custom-developed code
for internal use rather than sharing it across the Federal
Government. This undermines interoperability, security,
efficiency, and certainly cost effectiveness in the Federal
Government's acquisition and use of software. The bill seeks to
address these problems.
In 2016, President Obama released a Federal source code
policy requiring that custom source code developed specifically
by or for the Federal Government be made available for reuse by
all Federal agencies. Among other things, the policy required
the GSA to create Code.gov to facilitate code sharing among
agencies. As of 2019, Code.gov featured more than 6,000 code
bases from 26 different Federal agencies. Despite this success,
many of the 24 largest agencies required to post their custom-
developed code inventory to Code.gov under the policy have not
yet done so, and the policy lacks an effective enforcement
mechanism to establish compliance.
To improve compliance and further unlock the benefits of
sharing custom-built code, the SHARE IT Act would require
agencies to publicly list the custom code they purchase or
produce and to share such code, along with the key technical
components, either publicly or governmentwide. Among other
things, it assigns agency chief information officers the
responsibility of overseeing compliance.
I support the purpose of this bill, which is to promote
innovation, collaboration, efficiency, and better value for the
American people. However, as the Administration has pointed
out, it will require several key improvements before it can
truly live up to its promise. Most importantly, Federal
entities will need additional funding to effectively meet the
requirements of the bill. I implore my colleagues to continue
soliciting and addressing feedback from Federal agencies to
ensure that the bill is fully implementable, and I do look
forward to our continued work together toward that goal. I
yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill,
Mr. Langworthy, from New York.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very proud to
have introduced the Source Code Harmonization and Reuse in
Information Technology Act, also known as the SHARE IT Act.
This is a straightforward, commonsense measure that would
require Federal agencies to share custom-developed software
code with one another. Each year, the Federal Government spends
around $6 billion on software, a portion of which goes toward
developing custom code. These investments are often necessary
for managing complex government programs. But without code
sharing, we see redundancy as agencies pay contractors to
recreate solutions the government has already funded elsewhere.
This siloing of information by government agencies for no good
reason is a clear waste of taxpayer dollars and a waste of time
as innovative solutions are not shared across the Federal
Government.
In 2016, the Office of Management and Budget introduced a
Federal source code policy that led to the creation of
Code.gov, which provides access to more than $1 billion worth
of custom code. But this policy lacked proper accountability or
enforcement mechanism to realize the potential of this new
policy. Today, 13 agencies still do not share their code,
resulting in duplicative acquisitions, millions in taxpayer
dollars wasted on solutions that have already been arrived at
but are ultimately siloed away. The SHARE IT Act fixes this
problem. My bill would mandate that agencies publicly list and
share their custom code, ending this siloing and saving
taxpayer dollars. Additionally, my bill includes reasonable
safeguards exempting sensitive or classified information from
these new requirements. Finally, the SHARE IT Act would also
hold the chief information officers accountable for ensuring
code is listed and shared across agencies and requires the
Federal CIO to report to Congress on compliance.
I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Timmons,
for his support of this bill, and I urge the rest of my
colleagues to support this straightforward legislation to
improve efficiency, encourage innovation, and save taxpayers'
precious resources. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members wish to speak on the amendment?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, say no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 9566, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those--the Chair recognizes Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9596, the Value
Over Cost Act. The clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 9596, the Value Over Cost Act, a bill to
amend Title 41 and Title 10 to provide best value through the
Multiple Award Schedule Program, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 9596, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill and the amendment.
I support the Value Over Cost Act, which modernizes the
General Services Administration's governmentwide Multiple Award
Schedule Program. GSA's Multiple Award Schedule Program is the
Federal Government's most used contracting procedure for
commercial products and services. Federal agencies rely on the
Multiple Award Schedule to purchase the best commercial
products, services, and solutions at the best price.
Currently, GSA is required to evaluate the lowest overall
cost alternative when determining what will be available on the
Multiple Award Schedule. This requires a burdensome process
which can actually lead to higher prices as contractors pass
the administrative costs along to the Federal Government.
Sometimes the lowest overall cost alternative process leads to
some contractors not wanting to do business with the government
at all. This bill allows GSA to consider awarding contracts
based on best value in addition to the lowest overall cost
alternative. By allowing GSA to choose to award contracts based
on best value, this bill puts the Multiple Award Schedule
Program on a level playing field with the other acquisition
procedures. This choice maximizes the Federal Government's
ability to procure modern technology and helps empower the
small business community.
I want to thank Representative Donalds for his leadership
on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this targeted
government efficiency bill. I now yield to Ranking Member
Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The GSA keeps a list
of goods and services available to Federal agencies from
multiple GSA selected vendors at different prices. This
schedule is known as the Federal Supply Schedule. Agencies may
order commercial goods and services listed in the schedule in
different quantities at the prices stated on the schedule. This
provides a simplified process for agencies to get goods and
services while also obtaining volume discounts.
Current law is ambiguous about whether the contracts and
orders under the Schedule Program must be the lowest price or
the best value. Best-value contracts consider price but also
things like the quality of a product or the expertise of the
service provider. The bill would clarify that both the lowest
price and the best value are acceptable outcomes for contracts
under the Schedule Program.
I thank Congressman Donalds and Congressman Connolly for
their work on the legislation. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the sponsor of the
bill, Mr. Donalds from Florida.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you,
Mr. Chairman, and also the Ranking Member for their support of
the Values Over Cost Act. I also want to thank my colleague on
the Democrat side of the aisle, Mr. Connolly, for working on
this measure. This is a simple, much-needed, and commonsense
piece of legislation.
Overall, my bill seeks to modernize the Federal procurement
process by providing GSA with additional contracting
flexibility, specifically by allowing for the consideration of
best value in addition to the lowest overall cost alternative.
Instead of just looking at the initial price tag, the Federal
Government should be fiscally responsible and also consider the
contractual value of products and services over time if it is
in the best interest of the Federal Government. My bill
provides this necessary flexibility to do just that. This is a
measure that I am glad that we are moving in this Committee. My
hope is that we obviously get it out of the House and that the
Senate agrees with us, and then we can put these commonsense
pieces of reform to the Federal process in place. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
Members seek recognition? The Chair recognizes Mr. Moskowitz.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my
colleague from Florida for bringing this bill. I have always
considered Representative Donalds from Florida a deep thinker,
and the length of the bill took me days to read, but in all
seriousness, this bill is actually excellent policy.
As someone who awarded billions of dollars of goods and
services as the former Director of Emergency Management in the
state of Florida, I can tell you, doing it only as the lowest
price--in the industry it is called bid it to win it, where
companies come out and just put a low bid on something to win
it. That then leads to change orders, which then drives up the
long-term cost. So, what is interesting is that for the longest
time, having this idea that we are awarding it to the lowest
bidder means we are actually saving the Federal Government
money does not necessarily wind up being true. Best value,
which takes into account experience and qualifications and
price, allows the Government to get the best deal with the best
vendor.
And so, to me, this is something that states are doing, all
states are doing. In fact, there is not a single state right
now that awards contracts only on lowest price. They all
consider best value. So do cities, so do counties, and so this
is definitely keeping up with the times, and I want to thank my
colleague from Florida for bringing this bill.
Chairman Comer. Do 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.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 9596, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those--for what purpose does the
gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Fry. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 5536, the Grant
Transparency Act of 2023. The clerk will please designate the
bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 5536, the Grant Transparency Act of 2023, a
bill to require transparency and notices of funding
opportunity, and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 5536, 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.
Countless state and local governments and nonprofits rely
on Federal grants to improve their communities and accomplish
their missions. Each year, hundreds of billions of dollars in
Federal grants are awarded to improve education, community
development, job training, transportation, and other
initiatives across the country. Despite this, applying for
Federal grants can be a complicated process, especially for
smaller organizations or new grant applicants which may be
unaware of how selection criteria are weighted. And after an
entity concludes its application process, they are often left
wondering why they were or were not chosen for Federal
financial assistance.
The Grant Transparency Act of 2023 requires agencies to
clarify the award selection criteria within their grant
application process. The bill requires agencies to clarify the
selection criteria and evaluation methods for making
competitive grant program awards. If an applicant does not
receive an award, they deserve to know how that decision was
made in order to improve future applications.
I want to thank Committee Members Russell Fry and Jasmine
Crockett for leading this bill in the House of Representatives.
This simple bill has the potential to make a meaningful impact
on countless communities and nonprofits nationwide. I encourage
all my colleagues to support this straightforward bipartisan
bill. I now yield to Ranking Member Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also support 5536
and commend Mr. Fry and Ms. Crockett for their bipartisan
leadership.
The bill seeks to increase transparency in the Federal
grant making review and award process. It does so by
strengthening agency compliance with Title 2 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, which describes the contents that notices
of funding opportunities must include. It requires each notice
of funding opportunity for a competitive Federal grant to
include specific information about how applications will be
assessed, ensuring that all applicants have greater access to
the information they need to submit competitive applications.
The Biden-Harris Administration has taken important steps
to strengthen transparency and to improve the accessibility and
inclusivity of the Federal grant-making process. For example,
in April of this year, the OMB announced significant updates to
the Uniform Grants Guidance, which governs how agencies make
grants and provides other forms of financial assistance. The
updates focused on reducing compliance costs, removing barriers
to entry and accessibility, and making Federal funding easier
to track. H.R. 5536 is completely aligned with these goals.
I urge all of our colleagues to support it, and I yield
back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my time in office, my
staff and I have heard from countless small, rural, local
governments that they do not understand often why they are not
awarded Federal grants, especially if they meet all the listed
criteria when applying. The Grant Transparency Act, along with
my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Ms. Crockett,
would ensure that these applicants can better understand that
criteria being evaluated in the application process for Federal
grants.
Many times, grant applicants feel as though the decisions
are being made behind closed doors and they just do not
understand. This bill would require government agencies to
shine a light on their decisionmaking processes. With this
legislation, Federal Government agencies would be required to
disclose their selection methods for awarding competitive
grants. Our local governments back home deserve that
transparency.
State and local governments across South Carolina's 7th
congressional District, and really nationwide, compete for
Federal grant money on a continual basis. Federal grant money
allows investment to come to our communities and improve the
daily lives of our constituents ranging from sewer and
wastewater systems, airports, fire stations, and recreational
facilities. These are all things that we rely on and utilize in
our daily lives. But applying for Federal grants can be a
complicated process, especially if you do not have the staff in
which to do it. Grant writers and applicant staff may even
sometimes be unaware of which selection criteria are weighted
more heavily. And so, after a grant applicant concludes the
process, they are often left wondering why they were or were
not chosen for a particular award. But if they knew ahead of
time what to focus on, they would be set up for success.
While Federal regulations include a detailed description of
the required contents for notice of funding opportunities, we
have found that many Federal Government agencies are
inconsistent with transparency in the selection criteria. For
example, a DOT grant could be way different than an EPA grant
notice in terms of what is included upfront. Grant writers
really have to navigate the bureaucratic labyrinth when working
on applications, and so that is what prompted this legislation.
The Grant Transparency Act of 2023 addresses these
uncertainties by clarifying the award selection criteria within
the grant application process. Specifically, the bill requires
in law that the grant-making agency notice of funding
opportunity for competitive grants have three things: one, a
description of any rating system, evaluation, and selection
criteria the agency uses to assess applicants for competitive
grants; two, a statement on whether the agency uses a weighted
scoring method and a description of that method; and three, any
other qualitative or quantitative merit-based approach the
agency uses to evaluate applications for competitive grants.
I think we all can agree that applicants deserve to be able
to give it their best shot when they are applying for Federal
funds. Grants should be awarded based on merit and not any type
of political favoritism. With this legislation, grant
applicants for Federal grants would have access to the proper
information on an agency's criteria and methodology when
submitting the application, and if an applicant does not
receive a grant, they should know how that decision was made.
Grant applicants put in many hours fixing up their
applications, gaining local support, and dotting their I's and
crossing their T's. I am proud to have supported this
bipartisan legislation that would give the tools in the toolbox
to our grant applicants in South Carolina and across the
country.
At the end of the day, my constituents sent me to
Washington to represent them and make Washington actually work
for them and not against them. The Grant Transparency Act makes
Washington work better for my constituents back home and across
the country. It is these small changes that can actually make a
real difference. So today, I urge my colleagues to vote in
support of the Grant Transparency Act and to get this one step
closer across the finish line, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. 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.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 5536, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed--for what purpose does
the gentleman from Missouri seek recognition?
Mr. Burlison. I request a recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 9593, the Manager
Attitudes and Notions According to Government Employee
Response, or MANAGER Act. The clerk will please designate the
bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 9593, the Manager Attitudes and Notions
According to Government Employee Responses, or MANAGER Act, a
bill to require annual surveys of Federal employee managers,
and for other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 9593, 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 will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement
on the bill and the amendment.
Each year, the Office of Personnel Management administers a
governmentwide survey of Federal agency employees. This survey,
called the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, assesses how
employees perceive their policies and leadership of their
agencies. While the survey is completed by all Federal
employees, there are no specific questions asked of employees
in a supervisory position. This gap means the unique
experiences and views of Federal managers are unaccounted for.
Such insights would be valuable for understanding how the
performance of the Federal civil service can be improved and
agency leadership can be empowered to effectively lead.
The MANAGER Act requires the existing survey to include
manager-specific questions for every supervisory Federal
employee. For example, Federal managers will be asked whether
they have confidence in their agency's leadership and whether
they feel supported when attempting to discipline poor
performers. Survey recipients will have the option to provide
narrative responses to each question to add critical and
informed context for policymakers. The bill also requires the
survey questions to be formatted in a way that allows for
comparison across agencies and requires the survey results to
be made publicly available on each agency's website.
Federal managers are vital to the programmatic and mission
success of Federal agencies. Their voices should be heard.
Congress needs to learn from the experiences of Federal
managers and learn about the challenges they face in their
jobs. I want to thank the Government Operations Subcommittee
Chairman, Pete Sessions, for bringing this forward-thinking
legislation before the House Oversight Committee, which has
explicit jurisdiction over the Federal civil service. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense
legislation. I now yield to Ranking Member Raskin for his
statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 9593, the MANAGER
Act, sponsored by our distinguished colleague, Pete Sessions,
would add survey questions to the Office of Personnel
Management's annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, also
known as FEVS. These questions would specifically survey
Federal agency managers, which the bill defines as a Federal
worker at the GS-13 level or higher who serves in a supervisory
position.
We agree with Mr. Sessions that we need to get more input
and feedback from all levels of our work force, including
managers and supervisors. We know that serving as a manager in
the Federal Government is difficult, critical, and often
overlooked work, but the Office of Personnel Management has
registered serious concerns about the specific way this bill is
written. According to OPM, roughly 264,000 Federal employees
would now qualify as managers under the bill. That number
includes approximately 8,000 senior executive leaders who serve
as the liaison between political appointees in the career civil
service. In the past, the Merit Systems Protection Board and
nongovernmental Senior Executives Association have led on
surveys of senior executives, but these surveys are not annual
or conducted in a predictably timely way.
While we agree that surveys specific to the concerns of
Federal work force managers should be conducted on a more
consistent basis, it is unclear whether the intent of the
proposed legislation is to add a new managerial section to the
existing Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey or to require a
standalone annual survey of managers. This basic ambiguity
suggests that the survey was not designed with practical
application in mind. Moreover, the bill prescribes specific
questions that are hyper focused on the punitive
responsibilities of senior managers. As OPM noted in its
comments to the Committee on the bill, ``The proposed questions
focus on only one facet of being a manager, and they reflect
the assumption that exacting punitive reprisals against poor-
performing employees is the central part of the manager's
job.'' A comprehensive management survey would obviously
include questions about motivating, inspiring, and retaining
employees, training and retraining workers, building team
morale, and creating innovation and change to improve program
effectiveness.
Senior managers do more than punish poor performers. They
coach and grow talent. They lead teams to help in disaster
recovery. They help new administrations communicate new
priorities. They motivate, teach, and learn. It is puzzling why
the questions in the MANAGER Act do not reflect the full
breadth of senior manager responsibilities. I know that my
friends claim that these survey questions also ask about
manager morale, but even those questions are focused on how
managers feel about disciplining employees. For example, one
morale question is, ``I have confidence my agency leadership
will support me if I discipline an employee.''
We oppose this bill as drafted because of its punitive
focus as if the Federal Government operates on the principles
of a reality TV show like ``you are fired'' instead of
acknowledging the millions of exceptional performers across the
Federal Government, the legislation is all about discipline and
punishment.
We also oppose the bill because the Majority did not work
with OPM and its methodologists to ensure that the questions
are designed and asked in ways that would generate feedback and
information needed to make good policy decisions. OPM noted
that the ``Proposed specific questions and legislative text
would lead to confusing and misleading data, and to obtain
useful data, the entire set of proposed questions would need
survey professionals to rework and rewrite them.''
We would be happy to work with you, Mr. Sessions, to engage
OPM and create a survey of Federal managers that would be
effective, one that would capture the full range of
responsibilities of our talented Federal managers and employees
and methodologies that will produce meaningful data for
improving management. So, we do oppose the bill as drafted,
regrettably, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the sponsor of the
bill, the Chairman of the Government Operations Subcommittee,
Mr. Sessions from Texas.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I
appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for his
comments as the Ranking Member. I speak today in support of
H.R. 9593, the Manager Attitudes and Notions According to
Government Employee Responses, the MANAGER Act.
Mr. Chairman, we are bringing this forth because we have
held now for a year and a half or more a number of not only
open investigations that was done on a bipartisan basis, but
also hearings that we held. We have taken time on a bipartisan
basis to look at the government performance, to look at how
government does its job. I am pleased to report that many of
these items that we took on were corrected because of, I think,
feedback that was done on a bipartisan basis. I could point to
a number of issues, but I will point, first of all, to the work
that we accomplished on passports. It was a working
relationship that we had not only with Mr. Mfume, but we also
had with the Administration. But, however, it is important to
note the American people got it a long time before we engaged
in this issue.
But the managers of the business saw that their day-to-day
operations, not just in passport operations, but across the
government are being not just challenged, but really changed as
a result of this Administration. And while I do not disagree on
the surface with the Administration, I will say that they gave
confusing signals, signals that the management of the
organization felt like they were at a disadvantage because they
did not receive clarification. We, in fact, did not go for the
most negative parts of this addition of words to be added,
questions to be asked. We went to the ones that managers
themselves have provided us, managers across the government who
say they want to make sure that as they put forth the issues of
managing a work force, of listing employees, of trying to make
their business work, that they did not put themselves in
jeopardy.
So, as we all know, there are a number of facts and factors
that happened with this Administration that decided to change
and then not follow with respect to employees reporting to
their work locations. It might be called a COVID type of
response, but the bottom line is the day-to-day
responsibilities of getting results on behalf of the American
people, making sure that they represent not just the taxpayer
but the grandmother, the veteran, the people who are there who
seek the government. Whether it is a government agency that
provides necessary information or simply information, the
government has a responsibility, and that falls upon the
managers to make sure that what they do works.
So, I would like to ask that the gentleman from Maryland
really look into this rather than looking through it. And that
is, that we believe that managers at all levels of the
government should be included and that the questions which we
are adding to this bill, which I am very open to try and
change, that they would be allowed to ask questions that put
themselves in a predicament, and one of those might be it is
time to come back to work. Will they be supported by their
secretary or their management? Will they be in a position where
they know that if they follow the procedures that are written,
they will follow? And so, we are trying to hear feedback about
their ability to effectively mature, get in and manage, and
make sure the culture of the Federal Government employee is
protected.
So, I would ask that the gentleman please look at this, of
the importance of what it is. And we ask employees, tens of
thousands of employees. We should also ask their managers what
are those things that you think you deal with where you might
be at odds with not only employee, but perhaps the management
of the organization. This is something that I think is normal.
In my 16 years at AT&T, we asked these same questions of
managers, and I would ask that they allow this, an opportunity
to filter in and us work on this. But I am willing to work with
them to change the bill to accommodate the right things. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do 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.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 9593, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, no--the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a
recorded vote.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 8784, the Full
Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement, FREE Act. The clerk
will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8784, the Full Responsibility and Expedited
Enforcement, FREE Act, a bill to require each agency to
evaluate the permitting system of the agency to consider
whether a permit by rule could replace that system, and for
other purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 8784, 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 a statement on the bill.
H.R. 8784, the Full Responsibility and Expedited
Enforcement Act, or FREE Act, provides desperately needed
reform in Federal permitting. Federal permitting has been far
too slow for far too long. Just ask former President Obama, who
learned that many projects during his presidency were not
shovel-ready, or look to projects that were supposed to be
permitted in the wake of COVID-19, but have been bogged down
with bureaucratic review.
The FREE Act promises relief for all permit applicants,
whether for infrastructure, home construction, critical
minerals mining, farming, ranching, or a host of other worthy
activities. The bill takes a proven permit streamlining
concept, permitting-by-rule, and pushes its adoption
governmentwide across all types of permitting. Permitting-by-
rule is a process in which the government establishes the
conditions an applicant needs to meet to qualify for a permit,
and then allows the applicants to obtain a permit by certifying
that they meet these conditions. This process saves time and
reduces administrative burden.
This bill allows agencies to provide permits for common
activities using the permitting-by-rule process. Further, H.R.
8784 stipulates that an application for a permit under the
permitting-by-rule process shall be automatically granted
within 180 days if the application contains an adequate
certification of the requirements and the application has not
otherwise been approved or disapproved by the agency. This
legislation also requires agencies to advise permit applicants
of any deficiencies in their applications for coverage under a
permit by rule, affording applicants an opportunity to supply
corrections to avoid denial of coverage. This legislation
creates powerful incentives for agencies to do their jobs, to
review permit applications within the required time period and
issue decisions, up or down, on why their applicants get their
permits.
I thank Representative Celeste Maloy, Representative Lori
Chavez-DeRemer, and Representative Mary Peltola for their
bipartisan leadership on this issue. Both Congresswoman Maloy
and Chavez-DeRemer serve on the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, where they are very aware of the
currently burdensome Federal permitting process, especially on
critical infrastructure projects. I urge my colleagues to
support this important and sensible legislation.
I also ask unanimous consent to enter a letter of support
from Representative Maloy into the record. Representative Maloy
has shown incredible leadership on the FREE Act as the bill's
sponsor. I commend her for using her background in Federal
permitting in Utah to advance this legislation. This bill is an
important step to reduce tape, encourage innovation, and
improve the permitting process.
The letter, without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. I now yield to Ranking Member Raskin for
his statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Federal agencies
review applications for permits that are required for a lot of
different kinds of projects, including infrastructure,
transportation, energy and mining. Agencies consider factors
under the rules, such as whether a project is in public
interest, whether it would pollute our air and water, and, when
relevant, whether it would be a good use of our public lands.
The Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act, or FREE
Act, is the latest attempt, dressed up in the language of
permitting reform, to simply open the floodgates on corporate
development of waters and lands for sweetheart oil, gas, and
mining projects.
The permit reform embodied in the FREE Act would strip
agencies of the ability to do a proper, individualized review
of essentially any permit applications that come across their
desks. Rather than carefully reviewing permit applications on a
case-by-case basis, the agencies would have to create processes
that would lead to categorical approval of permits if
applicants meet certain limited threshold standards. This
attack on public regulatory review includes additional
provisions that favor applicants over the expertise of the
civil servants who work to protect our lands and access to
clean air and water. For example, the bill allows permit
holders to immediately sue the Federal Government in U.S.
District Court if a permit is denied or if a permit holder's
action is restricted due to noncompliance with permit
requirements rather than going through an administrative
appeals process through the agency first.
Amazingly, the bill flips the burden of proof onto the
agency to show that an applicant did not meet the already
limited standards rather than requiring an applicant to prove
that it did meet the standards. Completely reversing the
American rule on attorneys' fees, the bill further empowers
polluters and discourages Federal enforcement actions by
requiring Federal agencies to pay for the attorney fees of a
permit holder or applicant that prevails under the completely
tilted legal conditions provided under the bill.
Perhaps most alarmingly, this permit-by-rule system would
eliminate any opportunity for the public to weigh in on permit
applications through the notice and comment period as is
currently standard for most, if not all, permits. This would
prevent the communities that would be directly affected by
permitted projects from having their voices heard even when
their land could be taken or their water polluted.
I strongly encourage our colleagues to vote no on this
lopsided bill and to maintain Federal agencies' ability to
thoroughly review permit applications to ensure that all proper
measures are taken to protect our lands, air and water under
the rule of law. And I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Do any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 8784, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, say no--for what purpose
does the gentleman from Arizona seek recognition?
Mr. Biggs. A recorded vote, please.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration 9594, the Protecting
Taxpayers' Wallets Act. The clerk will please designate the
bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 9594, the Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets
Act, a bill to amend Chapter 71 of Title 5, United States Code,
to charge labor organizations for the agency resources and
employee time used by such labor organizations, and for other
purposes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 9594, 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 purposes of further amendment.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill and the amendment.
H.R. 9594, the Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act, would
charge Federal employee unions a fee to compensate Federal
agencies and the Nation's taxpayers for resources used to
support union activities. Under Federal law, certain Federal
employees are authorized official time for collective
bargaining purposes and during the time the employee otherwise
would be in a duty status. In other words, Federal agency
employees who also serve as employees of a Federal employee
union, may conduct, and be paid to conduct, official union
activities when they would otherwise be performing their
regular job duties. This bill would shift the financial burden
of supporting such official time away from the taxpayers to the
Federal employee union organizations.
It would shock American taxpayers that Federal employees
are being paid to work substantial hours in support of public
sector unions instead of the agency operations, missions, and
programs they were hired for in the first place. In some
notable cases, Federal employees dedicate all their working
hours to union activities. This bill would discourage overuse
and abuse of official time by Federal employees and help
restore a healthy balance to employees' time.
I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Scott Perry from
Pennsylvania, for his attention to this matter and for leading
the Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act. I urge my colleagues to
support this sensible reform. I now yield to Ranking Member
Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I see this
bill as union busting. The bill's deceptive title masks its
true purpose to attack and eliminate unions that represent
Federal Government workers, and there are hundreds of thousands
of them. In the process, the Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act
accomplishes the opposite of its explicitly stated policy goal.
The bill would redefine what is known as official time or
time spent representing employees in grievance hearings and
negotiating collective bargaining agreements as personal time.
It would require Federal agencies to charge public sector
unions a fee when they use office space and parking spaces or
incur other expenses for what the authors are calling non-
agency business. Even more egregiously, the bill would allow an
agency to unilaterally decertify a legally formed public sector
union if it refused to pay fees imposed by this bill. This, to
me, is standard issue anti-union, anti-worker propaganda, which
flies in the face of 46 years of Federal law in practice.
In an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, Congress passed the
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which specifically codified
the concept of official time. The Senate report that
accompanied the law stated that official time is of ``mutual
interest to both the agency and the labor organization.'' Part
of that law's original purpose was that a recognized Federal
employee union was required to represent both all union members
and all non-union employees who benefit from the union. So,
Federal unions represent all Federal employees at their
designated agencies, playing an essential role in the
governance of a successful workplace. This bill would deprive
all Federal employees of representation before their agency on
the terms that have governed for the last half century.
The law is clear about when a union leader's duties qualify
for official time and when they do not, ensuring the use of
official time is indeed official, necessary, and in the public
interest. Official time can be used only for representational
activities like creating fair promotion procedures,
establishing efficient and flexible work hours, setting
procedures that protect employees from on-the-job injuries and
risks, enforcing protections against unlawful discrimination,
developing telework practices, providing workers with a voice
in determining work conditions, and representing employees in
grievance and disciplinary actions. It cannot be used for
internal union business.
Contrary to what the Majority argues today, official time
actually saves taxpayers money because it provides agency
officials and union leaders with a far less expensive and
formal way to negotiate agreements outside of time-consuming
administrative processes or expensive legal engagement and
court appearances. It is preposterous to authorize an agency to
terminate the certification of a labor organization. It is the
workers, not the agency, who get to choose who represents them
and how. No agency should have unilateral authority to
decertify the unions that represent the workers.
Again, this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is
wasteful public sector union busting disguised as fiscal
restraint. I oppose it in the strongest of terms, and I
encourage all my colleagues who support unions and working
people to do the same. Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back to you.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished
sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start comments
on the bill, I ask unanimous consent to enter a letter of
support for the Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act into the
record. The following organizations have signed onto the
letter: Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform,
Club for Growth, Institute for the American Worker, National
Taxpayers Union, and Open Competition Center.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to you and
your staff for working with us to include this bill in today's
markup.
This bill remedies a longstanding injustice: taxpayers
bearing the financial burden of Federal employees being paid to
conduct union activities when they would otherwise be
performing their job responsibilities as public servants, what
they were hired to do. Put another way, when we pay VA
employees to care for our veterans or Social Security
caseworkers to process claims, we expect them to be doing that
work. We expect a nurse at the VA to be doing a job of a nurse
and dealing with the VA patients there, not spending 100
percent of their time working on behalf of their bargaining
unit. And we are not saying that bargaining unit activities
should not occur, but we are saying that that time should be
compensated because you are not doing the work that you were
actually hired for.
Now, instead, as reports going back years have shown,
Federal agencies have shown a disturbing pattern of abusing or
overusing official time. According to a January 2017 GAO
report, 346 Veterans Affairs employees spent 100 percent of
their time doing union activities while being paid by the
Federal Government to do VA activities. It is not Perry saying
that. It is certainly not Chairman Comer saying that. That is
the Government Accountability Office report. I do not know if
my friends on the other side of the aisle dispute that, but
that is what they say.
Now, while the Biden Administration has unfortunately
ceased regular reporting on governmentwide use of taxpayer-
funded union time, information that agencies have provided
paints a bleak picture. So, we do not have everything, because
the Biden Administration has stopped the reporting, but in
Fiscal Year 2023, the Social Security Administration paid 14
employees over $1.4 million not to process claims or do work
for our Nation's seniors, but for union activity, this at a
time when the vast majority of the buildings that we surveyed
in town here on another committee I sit on, the headquarters of
those buildings have occupancy rates in the single digits.
These people are not even, many times, present for work at the
location where we are paying for the building, and, at best,
some of them in the low teens. It is unacceptable to the
American taxpayer.
Meanwhile, my friends say, well, it saves us money. Well, I
do not know how much money it is saving us. The last count that
I saw, we are about ready to go over the threshold of $36
trillion in debt; every hundred days, another trillion dollars.
We are not saving much money here. The bill would not only
require labor organizations to consistently and accurately
record the use of union time and agency resources provided for
union use, but it requires the head of each agency to charge
for the value of said time and resources.
The American taxpayers, look, who is their advocate? I get
that the union is there to advocate for the employees. But in
the negotiation, the person on the other side of the table has
nothing to lose because the taxpayers are the ones that foot
the bill. They are not at the table. Their voice is not heard.
Again, this bill does not disallow the use of official
time. Official time can still be used for the expressed purpose
that it is currently used for. It merely requires labor unions
to compensate the taxpayers for the work that they are not
getting. The job description does not say--when you get hired
at the VA or the Social Security Administration, the job
description does not say ``official union representative.'' It
says ``caseworker.'' It says ``nurse.'' It says ``doctor.'' It
says whatever, but that is not the job that is being performed,
and after all, it is the taxpayers who are losing out on the
services and resources that they are paying for, for other
purposes.
And to my good friend, I will just close with this. Just
because that is the way it has always been done for the last 50
years does not mean we should not take a look, and it does not
mean that it could not be done better. I think it can be done
better, which is the purpose of this legislation. I urge
adoption. I yield the balance. I thank the Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any other
Members seek recognition?
Mr. Raskin. I seek recognition, Mr. Chairman, to introduce
a statement from the American Federation of Government
Employees and the AFL-CIO.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Seeing no other Members seeking--the Chair
recognizes Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word, and I ask Mr. Perry if he would engage in just a
brief colloquy with me.
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Because I just want to clarify. Did you say 346
individuals in the Veterans Administration spent their entire
year, their entire work period, working for the union?
Mr. Perry. I did not say that. That is what the 2017 GAO
report said.
Mr. Biggs. They came into work and they did not do anything
on casework or anything like that? So, if a----
Mr. Perry. That is according to the report. That is
correct.
Mr. Biggs. They just advocated for union positions?
Mr. Perry. That is correct.
Mr. Biggs. So, for the past 3 fiscal years at the National
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, my understanding is that there
was two employees that also used just 100 percent of their
official time doing union work. Do you know about that?
Mr. Perry. I am unfamiliar, but I will take your word for
it.
Mr. Biggs. Well, did you know that they were paid their
full salaries to do absolutely no work that they were hired to
do at NRC?
Mr. Perry. That is consistent with the rest of the reports
that we have gotten from agencies and organizations like the
GAO.
Mr. Biggs. And that the government, in other words, the
taxpayer--in Fiscal Year 2023, those employees earned between
$165,000 and $169,000 a year. Did you know that?
Mr. Perry. Well, I assume that is the salary for those
positions, right? So, they would receive the salary for the
position they were hired for and then conduct none of the
activities for which they were hired because they were
conducting these other activities.
Mr. Biggs. It is astounding to me that that is going on. If
they are going to do union activities, they should be paid by
the union dues perhaps, perchance. Just thinking. Further, 36
NRC employees also used some amount of official time doing
union work getting paid by the taxpayer. You know, Mr.
Chairman, I am astonished that there is any opposition to this
bill at all, and thank you for bringing it, Mr. Perry. And I
will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Stansbury from New Mexico.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually want to
just say on the note of discussing unions that we are union
strong in my office and so many offices across the Democratic
Caucus because our unions protect the rights of our workers,
they ensure fair pay, safe working conditions, and ensure that
the workers, whether they are Federal workers or in any other
industry, have every opportunity to make a fair living wage and
to care for their families.
But I do want to take this opportunity to say thank you to
the Chairman and to the Ranking Member to help advance the
amendment that passed earlier in this Committee this morning on
a bipartisan basis to help address the fentanyl supply chain,
which we know is just devastating our communities. I especially
am so grateful for the bipartisan support that this amendment
garnered here in the Committee and just want to say that when
we work together, we can and we will tackle the biggest
challenges that are impacting our communities.
And on a personal note, I have shared here in this
Committee previously that the issue of the fentanyl crisis is
deeply personal for me. I will never forget the morning several
years ago when I received my first phone call that a loved one
had died suddenly of a fentanyl overdose. I was actually
sitting on the House Floor in the New Mexico State House of
Representatives shortly after I had been elected, and since
that time, there have been other calls.
In New Mexico and all across this country, whether it is in
Albuquerque or rural communities across New Mexico, countless
families are experiencing the devastating losses from the
opioid and fentanyl crisis. And far too many examples we have
of loved ones who have been lost because of tablets and
counterfeit pills that they are buying on the street for just a
few pennies, a few dollars from drug traffickers and suppliers,
who are adapting rapidly to an economy that is killing our
communities. They are pouring fentanyl into the streets of our
communities. And that is why we have to fight back on a
bipartisan basis to focus on the global criminal networks and
suppliers of illicit drugs, who are bringing these drugs into
our communities and who are counterfeiting pill manufacturing
across the country. And today, we did just that by coming
together on a bipartisan basis to empower the ONDCP to target
the fentanyl supply chain and to stop the prevalence of
fentanyl coming into our communities.
So, I say thank you to my colleagues for supporting this
amendment, and with that, I yield back.
Mr. Raskin. Yes. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Stansbury. I yield to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. I want to commend the gentlelady from New
Mexico for her excellent leadership on the fentanyl crisis and
on cracking down on these pill-making operations.
I did want to respond to my colleagues about H.R. 9594, the
so-called Protecting Taxpayers' Wallets Act. They are really
challenging a central premise of labor management law that goes
back more than a half century in America, both in the public
and the private sector. The way that private collective
bargaining agreements work is that if there are shop stewards
who work to pursue grievances or collective bargaining
agreements or to help manage the workplace, they continue to be
paid under their previous salaries.
There is nothing remotely extraordinary or strange about
that at all. And so, what they are really attacking, of course,
is the whole idea of having labor unions. And we understand
labor unions are under attack at a time when labor unions are
more popular than they have been in decades because of the
tremendous economic inequality in the country, where you get
people at the top of the income and wealth ladder who are
taking vastly disproportionate shares of economic gains. And it
is employees and workers who need unions to try to claim a
place in the middle class, and so this really is an assault on
unions and on middle class economics. And I am happy to yield
back to the gentlelady.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you to the Ranking Member. You know,
as a former Federal employee and as a former Federal employee
that was in an exempted class that had tried to previously
unionize, I want to talk about just for a moment and to
emphasize what the Ranking Member just said, that protections
for all Federal workers are critical because, otherwise, they
get exploited just like all workers. They get expected to work
nights, weekends, to do dangerous things and compromising
things that they would not otherwise find within their values
or the requirements of their job to do. And so, protection of
Federal workers is just as important as it is for all workers,
and I appreciate the Ranking Member pointing that out. Thank
you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The time has expired. Does any other Member
seek recognition on the Perry bill?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 9594, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Arizona seek
recognition?
Mr. Biggs. I request a roll call, please.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Our next item for consideration is H.R. 825, the Banning
Operations and Leases with the Illegitimate Venezuelan Act. The
clerk will please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 825, the Banning Operations and Leases with
the Illegitimate Venezuelan Act, a bill to prohibit contracting
with persons that have business operations with the Maduro
regime, 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. 825, as offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the
bill and the amendment.
The people of Venezuela have faced years of repression.
Political persecution, human rights abuses, and press
censorship are all commonplace under the brutal, illegitimate,
anti-American regime of Maduro, a regime closely allied with
Russia, Iran, Cuba, and the People's Republic of China. The
American Government should always stand in solidarity with the
long-suffering people of Venezuela and against this
dictatorship. Part of that solidarity should be to ensure that
the current regime is denied any resources that will allow it
to continue the oppression of its citizenry.
This past July, Maduro and his representatives falsely
claimed victory in Venezuela's Presidential election. As usual,
he has been accused of intimidating and repressing his
opposition in order to cling to power. Just last week, on
September 12, the U.S. sanctioned 16 of his allies in response
to accusations they engaged in human rights abuses and election
obstruction. While not all of his allies will be subject to
sanctions, the money of hardworking U.S. taxpayers should not
ultimately find its way to those who support the regime of a
ruthless dictator.
H.R. 825 is straightforward. It requires Federal agencies
to ensure that they are not contracting with any entity that
conducts business with his allies. That said, it also includes
appropriate exceptions, such as situations of national security
for the purposes of providing humanitarian assistance, disaster
relief, and other urgent lifesaving measures, or to carry out
noncombatant evacuations.
This is not a new concept to the U.S. Congress. The Fiscal
Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act contained a
provision, Section 890, that prohibited the Pentagon from
entering into contracts with companies that also have contracts
with any Venezuelan Government entity under his control. As
with H.R. 825, there are waivers for contracts related to
providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, among
other exemptions.
The BOLIVAR Act would extend the prohibitions under Section
890 to the rest of the Federal Government. I support this Act.
And I want to thank my colleagues on the Committee,
Representative Mike Waltz and Representative Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, for leading this bill. I ask my colleagues to support
H.R. 825, a measured response and a most timely piece of
legislation. I now yield to Ranking Member Raskin for his
statement.
Mr. Raskin. I thank the Chairman. The BOLIVAR Act would
temporarily prohibit executive agencies from entering into
contracts for the procurement of goods or services with anybody
that they determine, with the concurrence of the Department of
State, who knowingly engages in significant business operations
with the Maduro regime in Venezuela. The bill goes on to list
certain exceptions, including contracts vital to U.S. national
security or necessary for purposes of providing humanitarian
assistance, disaster relief, and other urgent lifesaving
measures, or to carry out noncombatant evacuations.
I certainly understand the motivation behind this bill. The
Maduro regime's blatant disregard of the recent election
results in Venezuela is a violation of international law and
has left this undemocratic regime more isolated than ever. I
know that the State Department believes the bill could
exacerbate tensions with Venezuela, and contracting experts at
OMB believe that the complexities and uncertainties involved in
trying to implement a bill this far reaching in an expedited
timeframe could cause more cost to the procurement system than
the benefits that would be achieved. However, the Department of
Defense, which conducts almost two-thirds of Federal
procurement, has had a policy in place just like the BOLIVAR
Act for 2 years now.
So, I will support the bill today, but I do ask the
Chairman to work with us to try to address some of the
Administration's specific concerns before the bill goes to the
Floor. But I will support it, and I yield back to you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the sponsor of the
bill, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
bringing this legislation to the markup. Just a couple of
points to add to your opening statement there.
You know, Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the
world, and despite this, the regime's mismanagement, their
human rights violations, their repression, the massive
corruption has created an economic contraction of over 80
percent of the Venezuelan economy. With shortages in food,
water, and fuel, 8 million Venezuelans have fled their country,
more than the refugee crisis from places like Syria. And if we
want to get to the root causes of the migration crisis and the
illegal immigration crisis that is facing the United States,
this gets at it.
Thank you for noting that Maduro has been charged by the
U.S. Department of Justice for narcoterrorism and drug
trafficking. Thank you for noting that the NDAA in 2020 put
these restrictions on companies seeking to do business with the
Defense Department. We are simply looking to expand that. It is
bipartisan. It has been introduced by Representative Wasserman
Schultz. I appreciate the Ranking Member's support for it as
well, and similar legislation passed the U.S. Senate
unanimously in the 117th Congress.
And just in terms of the concerns, a couple of things. One,
the concern that the bill would have any practical effect other
than to make U.S. Government contracting more difficult or to
unnecessarily raise tensions with the regime at this time,
look, I think we need to send a very strong message to any
foreign company that wants to work with the U.S. Government, it
needs to think twice about working with the Maduro regime. But
I think the firms that will be most affected--I mean, you have
a number of foreign entities that are saying one thing, and
then they turn a blind eye and are doing business with a brutal
socialist dictatorship with extrajudicial killings that have
the opposition either in exile or under some type of arrest or
in hiding. And I firmly believe we need to take a stronger
stand, and I think this is a bipartisan approach.
The other concern that this Act may be observed as an
escalation of policy, look, the prohibition is only in place
for 3 years or when the U.S. Government recognizes a legitimate
government of Venezuela. Recognition is still the
Administration's prerogative. The other claim that the
Administration's targeted sanctions approach seeks to promote
accountability for antidemocratic actors and not punish the
Venezuelan people. I will just remind my colleagues that the
legislation explicitly exempts humanitarian assistance and
provides exemptions if it is in the national security interest
of the United States. So, I think that is ample flexibility,
but we need to take a much stronger stand.
Enough is enough in terms of the brutality of the Maduro
regime, the impacts on the United States both from an energy
standpoint and with a migration crisis, and I appreciate both
the Chairman and Ranking Member's support. I yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Do 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.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 825, as
amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed--the Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. I request a roll call vote, please.
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously
announced, further proceedings on the question will be
postponed.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Could I be recognized for a unanimous consent
request?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. There are two letters I would like to be
submitted for the record, one from the National Treasury
Employees Union and the other from the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association opposing H.R. 9594.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Any other Members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the Chair declares the
Committee in recess until 3 p.m. We will return promptly at 3
p.m.
I will remind all Members that we will use electronic
voting, so votes will move very quickly.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will come back to order. I
appreciate everybody coming back.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 3642, as
amended. Members will record their votes using the electronic
voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably
reporting H.R. 3642.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. All right. 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 yeas are 36, the
nays are zero, and the present is 1.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 9598.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 9598.
[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.
One second, if that is all right. Does anybody object?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does anyone else wish to vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Now the clerk will close the vote and
report the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 38. The
nays are 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. 9592.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 9592.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
Mr. Grothman. Yes. Hold on.
Chairman Comer. All right, Glenn. We will wait for you,
Glenn.
[Pause.]
Chairman Comer. All right. Does anyone else wish to change
their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 38. The
nays are 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. 5300.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 5300.
[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 39. 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. 9597.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 9597.
[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 39. 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. 9596.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 9596.
[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?
Voice. Mr. Frost.
Voice. Mr. Frost.
Chairman Comer. Got it.
Voice. And Mr. Timmons.
Chairman Comer. Has everyone voted that wishes to vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 39. 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. 9595.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 9595.
[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 39, 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. 9566.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 9566.
[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 39. 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. 5536.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 5536.
[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 39. 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. 9594.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 9594.
[Voting.]
Chairman Comer. Have all Members been recorded who wish to
be recorded?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to change their vote?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The clerk will close the vote and report
the vote total.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 21. The
nays are 18.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 9593. Members
will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The
clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting H.R. 9593.
[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 22. The
nays are 18.
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. 8784.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 8784.
[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 22. The
nays are 18.
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. 825.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting
system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting
H.R. 825.
[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 34. The
nays are 6.
Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered
favorably reported.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
I now call up H.R. 7507 for consideration. The clerk will
please designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 7507, to designate the facility of the
United States Postal Service located at 203 East 6th Street in
Lexington, Nebraska as the Bill Barrett Post Office Building.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please designate the
amendment.
The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 7507 is 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.
Does any Member wish to speak on the bill? The Chair
recognizes the lady from Florida.
Mrs. Luna. I just want to speak in support of this bill. I
realize last time we had Post Office cold war. I do not think
we have Post Office cold war this time, so hopefully everyone
can support it. It was a cold war last time, but we are good.
Chairman Comer. All right. The gentlelady yields back. The
Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we are delighted
to support this, and we are also delighted to support Ms.
Luna's legislation for naming of the bill despite the fact that
there was not complete unanimity within the state. We have a
similar situation now in the state of Maryland with Congressman
Mfume's wonderful bill to designate a post office in the name
of Elijah Cummings, the great former Chairman of this
Committee. Unfortunately, we do not have complete unanimity in
Maryland on this, and I would hope that we would be able to
move today to include that with the package that we are moving
forward.
I do not know if my distinguished colleague from Baltimore
might be interested in saying a word about it as well.
Mr. Mfume. I would. On a point of personal privilege, I
want to thank the Chairman, Chairman Comer, and yourself,
Ranking Member Raskin, as well as other Members of this
Committee on both sides of the aisle for their bipartisan
support of this. We are trying to find a way to bring it
forward, and it is my hope that we will do that at our next
meeting. As you know and as you said, Representative Cummings
chaired this Committee with distinction. His portrait hangs on
the wall in front of us, and he was the friend of many Members
of this Committee.
I would urge, Mr. Chairman, in whatever way we can that we
move forward, and I will be guided by your direction on this.
Chairman Comer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Raskin. If I could just reclaim my time for 1 second,
Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that former Chairman Cummings
was also the Ranking Member of this Committee for 7 years. He
served in the House of Representatives for 23 years and is a
beloved and revered figure in our state, and I hope we can just
move with dispatch to make this happen, and I thank Mr. Mfume
for his leadership on this bill. I am happy to yield back to
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And I
will state publicly, we will be having a markup in November.
Your post office bill, naming the post office after Chairman
Cummings, will be one of the postal bills.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. And we have had two similar situations. We
have taken several months to get Representative Luna's postal
bill through because of the rule that everyone in the state has
to sign on. We got the same situation. You have my word,
publicly, we will get that on the en bloc----
Mr. Mfume. Yes, and I----
Chairman Comer. And I am a cosponsor of your bill.
Mr. Mfume. You are, and I thank you very much for that. I
should point out that the one Member of our state who did not
sign on was not because that person had any problem with the
late Member Elijah Cummings. It is because that person does not
sign on to any bill to name anything after anybody. So, in this
instance, I will be followed by your direction. I want to thank
you. I want to thank Ranking Member Raskin for his remarks.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. Any other Members seek
recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Hearing none, the question is now on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7507.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7507 is
agreed to.
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 7507, as amended, 6116, 7158, 7508, 8057, 8405,
8516, 8717, 8841, 8868, 8909, 8919, 8976, 9174, 9285, 9322,
9421, 9580, 9549, 9600, and 8641.
Without objection, the bills are considered read.
Chairman Comer. If any Member would like to speak on any of
the measures, they may do so now.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. Does any Member seek recognition?
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. The question is now on favorably reporting
the en bloc package.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[No response.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it. The en bloc measures are favorably reported.
The motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
So, 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. Thank you,
everybody, for being here today.
[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]